TIER 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Prepared Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 

(42 USC 4332) and 64 FR 28545

May 2016

 
This page intentionally left blank
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-1 May 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES. 1 INTRODUCTION

The Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI) is a feasibility and planning 

study (NNEIRI Study) that examines the opportunities and impacts of adding more frequent 

and higher speed intercity passenger rail service on two major rail routes, the Inland Route and 

the Boston-to-Montreal Route. The Inland Route runs between Boston, Massachusetts and New 

Haven, Connecticut via Springfield, Massachusetts. The Boston-to-Montreal Route runs 

between Boston and Montreal, Quebec via Springfield. The two routes share the common 

trackage between Boston and Springfield, MA. The combination of these two rail routes 

defines the total trackage included in the study area that is collectively identified as the

NNEIRI Corridor (Corridor). 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

(MassDOT), and the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans), in coordination with the 

Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) prepared this Tier 1 Environmental 

Assessment (EA) for passenger rail improvements in the NNEIRI Corridor. FRA is providing

grant funding for the NNEIRI Study under its Next Generation High Speed Rail Program.

This EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et. seq.; its implementing regulations, 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508; and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental 

Impacts, 64 Federal Register (FR) 28545 (May 26, 1999) and Update to NEPA Implementing 

Procedures, 78 FR 2713 (January 14, 2013). This EA follows FRA’s High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) NEPA guidance, 74 FR 29900 (June 23, 2009), for compliance with 

NEPA at the service or corridor level.1 The EA identifies resources present in the NNEIRI 

Study Area (the geographic limits of the analysis for each of the resources) that the NNEIRI 

Build Alternative could potentially affect if advanced to the project-level; however, no findings

or determinations under related environmental planning requirements are made at the Tier 1 

level.

If the NNEIRI Study advances to the project level and federal funding were provided for 

implementation of rail improvements, future Tier 2 project proponent(s) would follow this Tier 

1 EA with a Tier 2 NEPA analysis, or analyses. Tier 2 analyses may determine a project to fall 

into one of three categories, including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EA, or 

Categorical Exclusion (CE), depending on the details of the project, site-specific conditions and 

resources present, and the significance of potential impacts to the human environment. The 

Tier 2 analysis would identify specific environmental impacts resulting from the analyzed 

alternative(s).

 

1 High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) NEPA Guidance and Table. 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0262
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-2 May 2016

ES. 1.1 NNEIRI Corridor

The Corridor is 470 miles long and is comprised of two major rail routes known as the Inland 

Route and the Boston-to-Montreal Route (see Figure ES-1). The Inland Route of the Corridor 

runs west from South Station in Boston to Springfield, Massachusetts via Worcester. From 

Springfield, the Route continues south to New Haven, Connecticut where it connects to 

Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. 

The Boston-to-Montreal Route shares the segment of the Inland Route between Boston and

Springfield. It then extends north through Holyoke, Northampton and Greenfield, 

Massachusetts. In Vermont, the Route continues north to White River Junction, northwest to 

Montpelier and Essex Junction, north to St. Albans, crosses the Canadian border at Alburgh,

Vermont, and terminates at Central Station in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 

Ownership of the 470- mile long NNEIRI Corridor varies by segment:

 Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 44 miles between Boston and Worcester

 CSX Transportation Corporation (CSX): 55 Miles between Worcester and Springfield

 Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 49 miles between Springfield and East Northfield, 

Massachusetts

 New England Central Railroad (NECR): 207 miles from East Northfield, Massachusetts 

to three miles south of the U.S./Canada border

 Canadian National (CN) Railroad: 53 miles from three miles south of the U.S./Canada 

border to Montreal

 Amtrak: 62 miles from Springfield to New Haven

NNEIRI Study

The NNEIRI Study defined and evaluated alternatives that identified infrastructure and service 

improvements required to support train speed and frequency increases. The study efforts 

included consideration of ridership, revenue, capital, and operating costs. This EA evaluated 

the environmental effects of full implementation of potential service on the Inland Route and 

the Boston-to-Montreal Route as identified within the Alternative Analysis process. The Study 

Team also created two Service Development Plans (SDPs) - one for the Inland Route Service 

and one for the Boston-to-Montreal Route – to support independent implementation of each 

Route. Because the NNEIRI Corridor encompasses the combined area of the two SDPs, the 

Study Team developed one Tier 1 EA to evaluate potential environmental effects of 

implementation of intercity passenger rail service on the Inland Route and the Boston-toMontreal Route.

For segments of the Corridor previously the subject of NEPA review, such as Knowledge 

Corridor/Restore the Vermonter project (Springfield to East Northfield, Massachusetts) and the 

New Haven-Hartford-Springfield (NHHS) Project (Springfield, Massachusetts to New Haven, 

Connecticut), the NNEIRI Study incorporates the results of those reviews by reference. 

This EA does not address potential environmental impacts in Canada; such impacts will be 

evaluated and determined in accordance with applicable Canadian laws should the study 

advance to Tier 2 and projects proposed having potential environmental impacts within Canada
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-3 May 2016

The NNEIRI Study Area refers to the geographic limits of the analysis conducted for each of 

the environmental impact areas examined in the Tier 1 EA. Figure ES-1 shows the Inland 

Route and Boston-to-Montreal Route and the geographic extent of each route. Table ES-3 lists 

the environmental impact areas examined in the Tier 1 EA.

Figure ES-1: NNEIRI Corridor 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-4 May 2016

ES. 1.2 Background

Corridor History

The original federally designed alignment for a Boston-to-Montreal passenger rail service

consisted of a route from Boston-to-Montreal via Concord, New Hampshire, with service 

continuing northwest via the current NNEIRI Corridor at White River Junction, Vermont to 

Montreal. In 2003, the VTrans, through a cooperative agreement with the FRA, the New 

Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT), and the Massachusetts Executive Office 

of Transportation and Construction (EOTC) developed the Boston to Montreal High-Speed 

Rail (BMHSR) Planning and Feasibility Study

2

, which performed an initial assessment of 

existing operations, infrastructure, and institutional issues and concluded that no fatal flaws 

exist for implementation of a high speed rail service in the BMHSR Corridor and that the 

ridership forecasts warrant a study for evaluation of operational, engineering and cost/revenue 

factors. At the conclusion of the 2003 study, the NHDOT withdrew from continued planning 

efforts to develop a Boston-to-Montreal service. 

Subsequently, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447, December 8, 

2004) expanded the Northern New England High Speed Rail Corridor from Boston to 

Springfield, Massachusetts. As a result of the expanded Northern New England High Speed 

Rail Corridor, MassDOT and VTrans obtained FRA approval to modify the route for potential 

Boston-to-Montreal passenger rail service by using a connection from Boston-to-Montreal via 

Springfield to continue north of White River Junction. Thus, from White River Junction to 

Montreal, the corridor remains the same as proposed in the previous 2003 Boston-to-Montreal 

study.

Regional Framework

In 2009, a framework known as the New England Vision for High Speed and Intercity 

Passenger Rail3 was collectively developed by the Maine Department of Transportation 

(MaineDOT), NHDOT, VTrans, MassDOT, RIDOT and CTDOT for improving high speed 

and intercity rail in New England. Currently, significant infrastructure improvements consistent 

with the framework are completed or underway. These improvements include the Knowledge 

Corridor/Restore the Vermonter project in western Massachusetts, the NHHS project in 

Connecticut, the improvement in Vermont that support Amtrak Vermonter service, and the 

Boston South Station Expansion (SSX) Project.

Additionally, FRA is leading a comprehensive planning process to define, evaluate, and 

prioritize future investments in the Northeast Corridor (NEC), from Washington, D.C. to 

Boston, called NEC FUTURE. The FRA launched NEC FUTURE in February 2012 to 

consider the role of rail passenger service in the context of current and future transportation 

 

2

Boston to Montreal High-Speed Rail Planning and Feasibility Study Phase I. Final Report. April 2003. 

https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailtransit/railandtransit/documents/BostonMontrealHSR.pdf

3 Vision for the New England High-Speed and Intercity Rail Network. 2009. 

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/20/docs/NewEngland_HSR_Vision.pdf
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-5 May 2016

demand. FRA published the NEC FUTURE Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement in 

November 2015.

The NNEIRI Study evaluated options for improving intercity passenger rail travel in the 

Corridor. The study scope is consistent with the New England Vision for High Speed and 

Intercity Passenger Rail, which includes improved regional connectivity. Any future passenger

rail service within the Corridor would leverage previous or planned regional rail investments. 

ES. 2 PURPOSE AND NEED

ES. 2.1 Purpose

The purpose of the NNEIRI Study is to address the lack of intercity transportation choices in 

New England, particularly between major cities and the smaller cities and rural areas of the 

Corridor. The NNEIRI Study analyzes intercity passenger rail service on two major rail routes,

the Inland Route and the Boston-to-Montreal Route, that comprise the study Corridor. The 

analysis within the study seeks to capitalize on the use of the considerable existing and pending 

public and private investments in the Corridor. FRA, MassDOT, and VTrans thus developed

alternatives to consider options of creating a competitive rail transportation alternative to 

existing automobile, bus, and air travel service through more frequent and higher speed 

intercity passenger rail service. 

ES. 2.2 Need

The need for the NNEIRI Study stems from recognizing benefits to the region’s economy and 

livability from improved connections across and between the New England states. Many small 

and medium size cities and economic centers geographically dispersed across New England

could be served by passenger rail service along the Corridor. Improved transportation 

connections between these centers would be of great benefit to its residents and employees, as 

well as visitors traveling within and through the region. Additionally, strong sustained 

increases in Amtrak ridership in New England show that demand for intercity transportation in 

the Corridor is trending towards alternative transportation modes, including intercity passenger 

rail. Between 1997 and 2012, ridership on Amtrak lines serving New England increased by 

71%, with even greater increases in specific metropolitan areas.

4 Many highways along the 

Corridor experience periodic congestion and capacity issues making rail travel a more 

attractive alternative. According to the 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard5report, yearly delay 

per auto commuter6in the Boston metropolitan area was 64 hours. Hartford and New Haven 

commuters experienced 45 and 40 hours of yearly delay per auto commuter, respectively. 

Improvements and expansion of intercity rail services would enhance options for the mobility 

and connectivity needed in the Corridor for the region to grow and prosper. 

 

4

Brookings Institution, 2013.

5

2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard. The Texas A&M Transportation Institute and INRIX. August 2015.

6 Yearly delay per auto commuter is the extra travel time during the year divided by the number of people who 

commute in private vehicles in the urban area.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-6 May 2016

ES. 3 ALTERNATIVES

ES. 3.1 Alternatives Development and Screening

At the beginning of the alternatives development process, the NNEIRI Study Team (comprised 

of transportation and environmental planners from MassDOT, VTrans, CTDOT, FRA, and a 

consultant team) defined 18 initial alternatives with ranges of speed, frequency, and equipment. 

The Study Team analyzed these alternatives to assess impacts on ridership and train 

performance. Data from the analysis was used to develop the three possible build alternatives 

and one No-Build Alternative that the Study Team further analyzed in the alternatives analysis 

process.

ES. 3.2 Preliminary Alternatives

Based on the results of the analysis of the 18 initial alternatives and the input provided by 

stakeholders and the public (see Chapter 5 for more information), the initial alternatives were 

screened down to three preliminary build alternatives. The three preliminary build alternatives, 

which are summarized below, represent the range of potential service and speed options that 

appeared to be the most feasible and efficient based on the analysis of the 18 initial 

alternatives. Each of the preliminary build alternatives would add to the physical and 

operational improvements of the No-Build alternative, and are intended to meet the Project 

Purpose and Need in a cost effective manner.

Preliminary Alternative 1 - Corridor Service: This alternative would provide local service

(stopping at all stations) between Boston, Montreal and New Haven. In addition to the 

passenger rail services identified in the No-Build Alternative, Preliminary Alternative 1 would 

provide four daily round trip trains between Boston and New Haven, two daily round trip trains

between Boston and Montreal, and one daily round trip train between New Haven and 

Montreal. Speeds on the Corridor would be improved to at least 60 mph and use standard train 

equipment. Infrastructure upgrades would include adding sidings and making track and bridge 

improvements. Preliminary Alternative 1 is the least expensive of the three alternatives, 

estimated between $615-785 million, and would result in the least ridership, with an estimated

681,500 passengers annually. 

Preliminary Alternative 2 - Corridor Service with Speed Improvements: This alternative 

would provide the passenger rail services identified in the No-Build Alternative plus eight

daily round trip trains from Boston to New Haven (four express and four local), three daily 

round trip trains from Boston-to-Montreal (two local and one express), and two daily round 

trip trains from New Haven to Montreal (one express and one local). Additionally, speeds 

would be improved to at least 79 mph and use standard operations and train equipment. 

Infrastructure upgrades would include the improvements described in Preliminary Alternative 

1 and a second track for all single-track segments in the Worcester to Springfield Corridor as 

well as additional passing sidings in Vermont. Capital costs are expected to be $1,065-1,350 

million. Estimated ridership would increase by 76% over Preliminary Alternative 1 to 

1,201,200 passengers annually. Stations for non-express trains would be the same as in 

Preliminary Alternative 1. Preliminary Alternative 2 would include the addition of express

service for certain routes. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-7 May 2016

Preliminary Alternative 3 - Corridor Service with Speed and Equipment 

Improvements: This Alternative would provide the passenger rail services identified in the 

No-Build Alternative plus eight daily round trip trains from Boston to New Haven (four 

express and four local), three daily round trip trains from Boston to Montreal (two local and 

one express), two daily round trip trains from New Haven to Montreal (one express and one

local). Preliminary Alternative 3 would also provide five additional round trip shuttle trains

(local service) between Boston and Springfield to provide increased connectivity between 

city pairs in the Boston to Springfield segment. Additionally, speeds would be improved to at 

least 90 mph utilizing new tilting train sets. Capital costs for Preliminary Alternative 3 are 

estimated to be between $1,255-1,590 million and ridership is expected to be 1,334,800 

annual riders, approximately 96% more annual riders than Preliminary Alternative 1. 

Necessary infrastructure upgrades for Preliminary Alternative 3 would include improvements

to the existing railroad ROW, full train signalization, and additional sidings/double tracking.

Under Preliminary Alternative 3, stations for non-express trains would be the same as in 

Preliminary Alternative 1 and would include the addition of express service for certain routes

as in Preliminary Alternative 2. Preliminary Alternative 3 would include all of the capital

improvements and services indicated in Preliminary Alternative 2 with the additional

infrastructure and operations changes.

There are limited locations on the NNEIRI Corridor that enable trains to operate at 90 mph due 

to track geometry. This significantly limits travel time savings provided by Preliminary

Alternative 3 compared to Preliminary Alternative 2 and does not justify the higher cost. 

Additionally, ridership would be significantly less under the Preliminary Alternative 1 with a 

maximum speed of 60 mph as compared to Preliminary Alternative 2 with a maximum speed 

of 79 mph. For these reasons, the Study Team considered Preliminary Alternative 2 to be the 

most promising of the three preliminary alternatives due to a combination of infrastructure 

constraints, ridership, and costs. With some modifications described in the following section, 

Preliminary Alternative 2 was carried forward for further analysis in this Tier 1 EA.

A high-level, Corridor-wide environmental screening was completed during the alternatives 

analysis to identify any known significant impacts that would result from the proposed 

preliminary alternatives. The Study Team’s analysis found that impacts along the Corridor are 

anticipated to be generally minor and moderate with some minor impacts in specific locations 

due to operations and infrastructure needs, however no impacts are anticipated to be 

significant.

Table ES-1 provides a comparison of the three preliminary build alternatives and No-Build 

Alternative based on preliminary capital costs, operations and maintenance costs (O&M), and 

ridership forecasts. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-8 May 2016

Table ES-1. Alternatives Comparison 

Alternative Capital Costs Operating Support Annual Riders (2035)

No-Build No additional capital 

costs

No additional operating 

costs

79,900 riders

Preliminary Alternative 1 $615-785 million $24 million 681,500 riders

Preliminary Alternative 2 $1,065-1,350 million $39 million 1,201,200 riders

Preliminary Alternative 3 $1,255-1,590 million $48 million 1,334,800 riders

ES. 3.3 No-Build

This alternative assumes no NNEIRI service on the Corridor. This Alternative is the baseline 

against which each of the preliminary build alternatives was measured. The No-Build 

Alternative includes recently completed, underway, and planned transportation improvements 

in the NNEIRI Corridor area, including improved New Haven-Hartford-Springfield rail 

service, Springfield Union Station improvements, South Station – Boston expansion, extension 

of the Amtrak Vermonter to Montreal, and improvements to the Montreal-area rail network.

Train sets on the Corridor would be accommodated at layover facilities near terminal stations, 

which either exist today or are planned as part of other projects included in the No-Build. 

ES. 3.4 Build Alternative Evaluated in this EA

The Study Team developed a single Build Alternative based on the results of the alternatives 

analysis, stakeholder input, public meetings, and technical review by FRA and state and local

agencies (see Chapter 5, Section 5.3). The three primary factors used to determine the Build 

Alternative were infrastructure constraints, ridership, and cost. The Build Alternative is most 

similar to Preliminary Alternative 2 in terms of infrastructure with changes to the proposed 

service plan. Capacity constraints near Montreal as well as limited ridership on the Boston-toMontreal Service warranted reducing the proposed service in that segment. Express Service 

was also eliminated from the Build Alternative due to minimal travel time savings and effect 

on ridership. 

Service Plan: Under the Build Alternative, one new daily round trip train with local service

would operate between Boston and Montreal, with trains operating to all existing stations 

and a new station in Palmer, Massachusetts. The Build Alternative would provide one 

additional local round trip service between New Haven and Montreal for a total of two round 

trip trains per day. Eight new daily round trips would operate daily between Boston, 

Massachusetts and New Haven, Connecticut, which are extensions of existing services on 

the Corridor between Boston, Massachusetts and New Haven, Connecticut. See Section 3.4 

for the list of the stations that would be served.

Table ES-2 summarizes Build Alternative passenger rail services in comparison to existing and 

No-Build services. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-9 May 2016

Table ES-2. Summary of Weekday Revenue Passenger Service

Segment Operator(s)

Existing 

Revenue Daily 

Round Trips

No-Build 2035 

Revenue Daily 

Round Trips

Build Alternative 

2035 Revenue 

Daily Round

Trips

Boston to Worcester MBTA 23 23 23

Amtrak Lake Shore Limited 1 1 1

NNEIRI Service - - 9*

Worcester to Springfield Amtrak Lake Shore Limited 1 1 1

NNEIRI Service - - 9*

Springfield to New Haven Amtrak (Northeast Regional Shuttle, 

Northeast Regional & Vermonter) 6-8 25 25

NNEIRI Service - - 9*

Springfield to St. Albans Amtrak Vermonter 1 1 1

NNEIRI Service - - 2

Note: 

* Of the total 9 daily round trip trains, 8 are extensions of the existing shuttle services that operate on the 

Corridor between New Haven and Springfield.

Infrastructure Program: Under the Build Alternative, track upgrades would support a 

maximum speed of 79 mph where possible. A second track or passing siding would be added in 

certain locations to support increased passenger and freight service. Full signalization would be 

installed in locations where it does not currently exist. No additional layover facility is 

proposed under the Build Alternative. The estimated infrastructure costs (excluding trainsets)

for the Build Alternative is $648 - $721 million.

Station improvements under the Build Alternative include the construction of an additional 

passenger platform at Worcester Union Station and a potential new station in Palmer, 

Massachusetts to accommodate new service. The exact location of the new station would be

determined upon further refinement in later phase of the NNEIRI Study. No other major 

improvements to existing stations on the Corridor are planned as part of this project.

Ridership Forecasts: Based on the 2035 annual ridership forecasts, the Build Alternative 

would result in 875,000 annual riders and an annual diversion of 113,847,700 vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT).

ES. 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES

The affected environment and the environmental consequences associated with the Build 

Alternative, potential mitigation measures and anticipated future Tier 2 project-level analysis 

for each of the environmental resources are summarized in Table ES-3. No significant 

environmental impacts were identified at the Tier 1 level.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-10 May 2016

Table ES-3. Summary of Potential Environmental Consequences and Next Steps

Environmental Resources Build Alternative Consequences

Next Steps

Potential Mitigation Measures Tier 2 NEPA Analysis

4.1.1 Air Quality

A shift to passenger rail expected to 

reduce vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) and improve regional air 

quality.

Mitigation measures not anticipated. General Conformity analysis would

be conducted by FRA or other lead 

federal agency during Tier 2.

4.1.2 Noise and Vibration

Potential for a total of 435 severe 

noise impacts, 11,827 moderate 

noise impacts, and 2,234 vibration 

annoyance impacts.

*

*

Impacts based on worst case scenario, 

estimates would likely decrease when a more 

detailed analysis is performed.

Potential mitigation measures may 

include noise barriers, operational 

changes, stationary wayside horns at 

grade crossings, horn shrouds on 

locomotives, and resilient rail fasteners 

and ties. 

Tier 2 project level analysis by FRA 

or another lead federal agency would

more precisely determine the number 

of potential noise and vibration 

impacts that may require mitigation. 

4.1.3 Flood Hazards and 

Floodplain Management

Minor impacts possible.

Additional track construction would

take place within or adjacent to 

mapped floodplain for 

approximately 28 miles. Impacts 

expected to be minor due to 

restoration of historically double 

tracked corridor. 

If impacts are unavoidable, 

compensatory mitigation can be 

provided by constructing a 

detention/retention basin to handle 

runoff and any lost flood storage 

capacity.

Tier 2 project proponent(s) would

attempt to avoid and minimize loss 

of flood storage capacity. Potential 

impacts to floodplains would require 

further assessment and agency 

coordination to determine whether 

mitigation measures are necessary.

4.1.4 Coastal Zone Management No impacts anticipated. Mitigation measures not anticipated. Further analysis not anticipated.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-11 May 2016

Environmental Resources Build Alternative Consequences

Next Steps

Potential Mitigation Measures Tier 2 NEPA Analysis

4.2.1 Water Quality

Minor impacts possible.

Additional track construction would

take place within or adjacent to 

water resources in MA and VT.

Impacts expected to be minor due to 

restoration of historically double 

tracked corridor.

All construction activities would

comply with the applicable state’s 

storm water quality manual. BMPs for 

erosion and sedimentation control 

would be followed.

During Tier 2, design details would

be developed to avoid or reduce 

potential water quality impacts 

associated with the Build Alternative. 

The Tier 2 project proponent(s) 

would coordinate with VTDEC and 

Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection 

(MassDEP) for final designs and 

permits.

4.2.2 Wetlands

Minor impacts possible.

Additional track construction would

take place within respective state’s 

mapped wetland buffer area for 

approximately 13 miles. Impacts 

expected to be minor due to 

restoration of historically double 

tracked corridor.

If wetland impacts cannot be avoided, 

compensatory mitigation measures 

include restoration, creation, 

enhancement, and preservation of

impacted wetlands.

Tier 2 project proponent(s) would

attempt to avoid and minimize 

wetland impacts. Potential impacts to 

wetlands would require further 

assessment, and any compensatory 

mitigation measures would be 

subject to state and federal permitting 

requirements. 

4.2.3

Ecological Systems, 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species

(T&E), and Wildlife

Minor impacts possible.

Additional track construction would

take place within or adjacent to 

mapped endangered species habitat 

for approximately 16 miles. Impacts 

expected to be minor due to 

utilization of historically double 

tracked corridor.

If impacts cannot be avoided mitigation 

measures include but are not limited to: 

pre- and/or post-construction 

monitoring of populations, and 

restoration, enhancement, and 

conservation of impacted habitats.

During Tier 2 project level analysis 

the project proponent(s) would 

confirm records of federal- or statelisted species with the appropriate 

resource agencies and seek to avoid 

and minimize impacts. FRA or 

another lead federal agency would 

informally or formally consult, as 

necessary, with the US Fish and 

Wildlife Service in accordance with 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-12 May 2016

Environmental Resources Build Alternative Consequences

Next Steps

Potential Mitigation Measures Tier 2 NEPA Analysis

4.3.1 Land Use, Existing and 

Planned

No impacts anticipated due to use of 

existing rail corridor.

Palmer Station likely to have 

beneficial impact on economic 

development. 

Mitigation measures not anticipated. During Tier 2, more details relating 

to the location and design of a new 

Palmer Station would be determined. 

Project proponent(s) would

coordinate with the affected 

municipalities to ensure 

compatibility with present and future 

land uses.

4.3.2 Socioeconomic and 

Environmental Justice

Potential beneficial impact on 

economic development and EJ 

populations near existing and 

proposed stations is anticipated.

Any potential mitigation measures, if 

required, would be determined during 

the Tier 2 project level analysis. 

Upon completion of engineering 

plans, additional EJ analysis would

be conducted by the project 

proponent(s).

4.3.3 Possible Barriers to the 

Elderly and Handicapped

Positive impacts to elderly and 

handicapped since people who 

cannot drive can use rail service.

Does not create any additional 

barriers to elderly and handicapped. 

Mitigation measures not anticipated. Further analysis not anticipated.

4.3.4 Public Health and Safety

Positive impacts by diverting 113 

million vehicle miles travelled per 

year (analysis year 2035) to rail 

mode, which has a low fatality rate 

compared to motor vehicles. 

Includes improvements to some 

signals and grade crossings 

resulting in a benefit to public 

health and safety.

Mitigation measures not anticipated. Further analysis not anticipated.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-13 May 2016

Environmental Resources Build Alternative Consequences

Next Steps

Potential Mitigation Measures Tier 2 NEPA Analysis

4.3.5 Hazardous Materials

No impacts anticipated. No active 

hazardous waste sites were 

identified in locations where 

construction would take place. 

If required, mitigation measures may 

include soil samples to determine the 

nature of contaminated soil, storage 

techniques that contain run-off, use of 

material within ROW, and 

requirements for transporting and 

disposing of unused contaminated 

materials.

If hazardous materials are 

encountered during construction, the 

project proponent(s) would

coordinate with the MassDEP and 

the VTDEC to comply with all 

applicable regulations.

4.3.6 Solid Waste Disposal No impacts anticipated. Mitigation measures not anticipated. Further analysis not anticipated.

4.3.7 Aesthetic and Design 

Quality Impacts

No impacts anticipated.

There may be potential visual 

impacts at Palmer due to 

construction of a new station.

Palmer Station design to be 

addressed during Tier 2.

No impacts anticipated at Worcester 

Union Station since the platform 

would be located within the ROW 

in an area historically used for 

station platforms and the elevator 

and stair would be connected from 

tunnel below the tracks therefore, 

no visual effects to Worcester

Union Station are anticipated.

If necessary, mitigation strategies such 

as landscaping to screen views of 

adverse impacts or use of building 

materials consistent with the 

surrounding area. 

During Tier 2, more details relating 

to the design of a new Palmer Station 

and a platform at Worcester Union 

Station would be developed. At that 

time, further analysis would be 

conducted to determine any adverse

visual impacts.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-14 May 2016

Environmental Resources Build Alternative Consequences

Next Steps

Potential Mitigation Measures Tier 2 NEPA Analysis

4.3.8 Cultural Resources and 

Historic Properties

Based on the nature of the 

improvements that would be 

necessary to implement NNEIRI 

service, direct and indirect effects to 

historic properties are likely. 

However, at the Tier 1 level, there is 

not enough information to be able to 

assess and determine effects to 

historic properties.

If adverse effects to NRHP eligible or 

listed properties are determined, 

measures to avoid, minimize or 

mitigate the effects would be developed 

through consultation with the 

appropriate State Historic Preservation 

Officer(s) and other consulting parties.

The Section 106 process would be 

followed if construction of the Build 

Alternative receives federal funding 

or permits. This would involve 

defining the project Area of Potential 

Effects (APE), further identification 

of historic properties, assessment of 

effects, and resolution of adverse 

effects by FRA or another lead 

federal agency in consultation with 

the MA, NH and/or VT SHPOs and 

other consulting parties as 

appropriate.

4.3.9 Use of 4(f) Protected 

Properties

Based on the type of improvements 

that would be necessary to 

implement NNEIRI service, there is 

the potential for the use of 4(f) 

historic properties. However, at the 

Tier 1 level, there is not enough 

information to be able to assess and 

determine the use of these 

properties.

If there is both the use of a 4(f) 

property and no prudent and feasible 

alternative, the project would include 

all possible planning to minimize harm.

Full Section 4(f) analysis would 

occur during Tier 2 project level 

analysis to determine impacts to 

publicly owned parks, recreation 

areas, wildlife and waterfowl 

refuges, public or private historic 

sites, historic bridges and culverts 

and possible archaeological sites. A 

4(f) determination would be made at 

Tier 2.

4.3.10 Use of Section 6(f) Lands

Improvements would be limited to 

the existing ROW and therefore 

impacts to 6(f) properties are 

unlikely. 

If a conversion of 6(f) property is 

required a request must be submitted to 

the NPS including proposal to 

substitute the property with another of 

equal or better usefulness and value.

During Tier 2, once the design has 

advanced, additional data may be 

collected regarding 6(f) properties to 

determine impacts.

4.3.11 Recreational Opportunities No impacts anticipated. Mitigation measures not anticipated. Further analysis not anticipated.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-15 May 2016

Environmental Resources Build Alternative Consequences

Next Steps

Potential Mitigation Measures Tier 2 NEPA Analysis

4.3.12 Transportation

Given the low numbers of traffic 

movements anticipated at each 

station, significant impacts are 

unlikely.

Mitigation measures not anticipated. As the design develops and more 

data can be collected, further traffic 

impact analysis around stations

would be conducted during Tier 2 

project level analysis.

4.3.13 Use of Energy Resources

Beneficial impact to energy 

resources due to overall energy 

reduction from diverting passenger 

car trips.

Mitigation measures not anticipated. Construction impact analysis would

be conducted during Tier 2 project 

level analysis.

4.3.14

Use of Other Natural 

Resources, such as Water, 

Minerals, or Timber

No impacts anticipated. Mitigation measures not anticipated. Further analysis not anticipated.

4.4 Construction Period 

Impacts

Construction-related impacts would 

be temporary at any given location 

along the Corridor. Track work 

would largely be sited within the 

existing rail ROW using railmounted equipment, and should not 

involve large quantities of 

earthwork.

Construction-phasing plans that avoid, 

minimize or mitigate temporary 

impacts would be developed in 

coordination with appropriate agencies. 

Temporarily impacted natural resources 

would be restored to their preconstruction conditions.

During Tier 2, the duration of 

construction would be better defined 

and appropriate mitigation measures 

identified. The sequence and extent 

of construction would be determined

and staging plans developed.

4.5 Indirect and Cumulative 

Impacts

Indirect and cumulative impacts 

generally beneficial due to induced 

development and additional 

transportation mode choice.

Mitigation measures not anticipated. During Tier 2, once the design has 

advanced, further evaluation of 

indirect and cumulative impacts 

would be conducted.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-16 May 2016

ES. 4.1 Coordination

The lead state agencies, MassDOT and VTrans, would need to work in tandem to ensure 

successful implementation of the NNEIRI service. Coordination during the planning process is

essential because of the necessary involvement of five state governments and numerous local 

governments along the Corridor. These entities would need to coordinate and work together to 

define the future service in mutually agreeable terms. Agreement would be needed between 

Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and the Province of Quebec, Canada as 

well as with the major cities where there are station stops on the key aspects of governance, 

funding, and management of the proposed system and services. MassDOT and VTrans have been 

working together throughout development of the NNEIRI Study and the SDPs, so the additional 

entities would need to coordinate through these two organizations to decide on a final plan.

ES. 5 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

ES. 5.1 Agency Outreach

An interagency scoping meeting was conducted by MassDOT, VTrans and FRA in Cambridge, 

Massachusetts in March 2014. Federal, state and regional agencies were invited to participate 

early in the development of the NNEIRI Study, prior to initiating the scoping process. The Study 

Team developed an overall strategy for Agency and Public Scoping in collaboration with FRA.

Agency input was solicited on Purpose and Need, alternatives development, alternatives to be 

carried forward for environmental and operations analysis, and identification of the Build 

Alternative.

ES. 5.2 Stakeholder Outreach

Five Stakeholder Committee meetings were conducted by MassDOT and VTrans in Springfield, 

Massachusetts between December 2013 and June 2015. The Committee is comprised of key 

members including MassDOT, Connecticut Department of Transportation, the Vermont Agency 

of Transportation, Québec Ministry of Transportation, New Hampshire Department of 

Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration, Amtrak, the Massachusetts Bay 

Transportation Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro-North Railroad (MetroNorth), CSX, New England Central Railroad, Pan Am Southern, LLC (PAS), Canadian National 

Railway and thirteen regional planning commissions located in the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, State of Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire. The Committee supported 

the goals and objectives of the study and provided feedback through open discussion during the 

Committee meetings on all study documents produced, including the Existing Conditions 

Assessment, Purpose and Need, Station Site Assessment and Guidelines, Alternatives Analysis 

Report and draft SDPs. The Study Team used feedback from the Committee to develop the Build 

Alternative. Consensus on the Build Alternative to carry forward for analysis in the Tier 1 EA 

was reached in February 2015.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ES-17 May 2016

ES. 5.3 Public Information Meetings

Three rounds of public information meetings were held for the NNEIRI Study to discuss the 

alternatives screening process and receive comments from the interested public. There were two 

(2) meetings in each round, except for the third and final round in which there were three (3) 

public meetings. The public meetings were organized in two formats: (1) in-person open house 

meetings held in a physical location in the Corridor and (2) on-line open house meetings where 

interested persons could view a presentation and submit comments to the NNEIRI Study Team. 

The meetings were conducted by MassDOT and VTrans in January and November of 2014 and

in September of 2015. In each round, one meeting was held in the northern section of the 

Corridor (Vermont) and the other meeting in the southern section of the Corridor 

(Worcester/Springfield in Massachusetts and as well as in Boston, Massachusetts for September 

2015 public meeting).

ES. 5.4 Public Comments

Twenty-seven (27) written comments have been received since the initiation of the NNEIRI 

Study. Several were submitted by members of the Stakeholder Committee or by attendees of the 

public meetings. Many of the comments reiterated themes expressed at previously held meetings 

such as advocacy for station stops, especially the Claremont, New Hampshire station and at 

Palmer, Massachusetts, and for better connections between Brattleboro, Vermont to Boston and 

to New York City. Several people supported the re-connection of service to Montreal.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA i May 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 NNEIRI Corridor ........................................................................................................ 1-2

1.2 Background ............................................................................................................... 1-3

1.2.1 Corridor History........................................................................................... 1-3

1.2.2 Regional Framework ................................................................................... 1-4

2 PURPOSE AND NEED .......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Need.......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Economic Opportunity................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.2 Job Access.................................................................................................. 2-2

2.2.3 Education .................................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.4 Tourism....................................................................................................... 2-4

2.2.5 Population and Demographics .................................................................... 2-5

2.2.6 Changing Transportation Preferences ........................................................ 2-5

2.2.7 Accommodate Populations with High Reliance on Non-Auto/Public Transit 2-6

2.2.8 Accommodate Population and Demographics Changes ............................. 2-6

2.2.9 Travel Demand............................................................................................ 2-7

3 ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Alternatives Development and Screening.................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Preliminary Alternatives............................................................................................. 3-3

3.2.1 Preliminary Alternative 1 – Corridor Service................................................ 3-3

3.2.2 Preliminary Alternative 2 – Corridor Service with Speed Improvements ..... 3-4

3.2.3 Preliminary Alternative 3 – Corridor Service with Speed and Equipment 

Improvements............................................................................................................ 3-6

3.2.4 Alternatives Comparison ............................................................................. 3-7

3.3 No-Build Alternative................................................................................................... 3-8

3.4 Build Alternative Evaluated in this EA...................................................................... 3-10

3.4.1 Service Plan.............................................................................................. 3-12

3.4.2 Infrastructure Program.............................................................................. 3-15

3.4.3 Ridership Forecasts .................................................................................. 3-17

4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES......................................................... 4-1

4.1 Physical Environment ................................................................................................ 4-2

4.1.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2 Noise and Vibration..................................................................................... 4-8

4.1.3 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management............................................. 4-15
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA ii May 2016

4.1.4 Coastal Zone Management....................................................................... 4-23

4.2 Biological Environment ............................................................................................ 4-25

4.2.1 Water Quality ............................................................................................ 4-25

4.2.2 Wetlands ................................................................................................... 4-30

4.2.3 Ecological Systems, Threatened and Endangered Species, and Wildlife . 4-38

4.3 Human Environment................................................................................................ 4-48

4.3.1 Land Use, Existing and Planned ............................................................... 4-48

4.3.2 Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice............................................... 4-52

4.3.3 Possible Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped .................................... 4-60

4.3.4 Public Health and Safety........................................................................... 4-65

4.3.5 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................. 4-69

4.3.6 Solid Waste Disposal ................................................................................ 4-73

4.3.7 Aesthetic and Design Quality Impacts....................................................... 4-76

4.3.8 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties............................................... 4-80

4.3.9 Use of 4(f) Protected Properties................................................................ 4-88

4.3.10 Use of Section 6(f) Lands.......................................................................... 4-96

4.3.11 Recreational Opportunities...................................................................... 4-101

4.3.12 Transportation......................................................................................... 4-104

4.3.13 Use of Energy Resources ....................................................................... 4-116

4.3.14 Use of Other Natural Resources, Such as Water, Minerals, or Timber ... 4-119

4.4 Construction Period Impacts.................................................................................. 4-121

4.5 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 4-124

4.6 Next Steps............................................................................................................. 4-135

4.6.1 Avoidance, Minimization and Potential Mitigation Measures................... 4-135

4.6.2 NEPA Tier 2 Analysis.............................................................................. 4-142

4.6.3 Coordination............................................................................................ 4-144

5 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION..................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Agency Outreach....................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Scoping ....................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 Milestones................................................................................................... 5-2

5.2 Tribal Outreach.......................................................................................................... 5-2

5.3 Stakeholder Outreach................................................................................................ 5-2

5.3.1 Outreach Tools............................................................................................ 5-3

5.3.2 Stakeholder Committee............................................................................... 5-3

5.3.3 Public Information Meetings........................................................................ 5-4

5.3.4 Public Comments........................................................................................ 5-6

5.4 Future Opportunities for Input.................................................................................... 5-6
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA iii May 2016

6 REFERENCES AND ACRONYMS......................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 References ................................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 Acronyms .................................................................................................................. 6-4

6.3 Glossary of Terms ................................................................................................... 6-10

6.4 List of Preparers ...................................................................................................... 6-17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.2-1. Number of College Students and Colleges by Metropolitan Area.................................... 2-4

Table 2.2-2. Expenditure and Jobs from Tourism in Each State* ........................................................ 2-5

Table 2.2-3. Change in Amtrak Ridership in New England Metropolitan Areas*.................................. 2-6

Table 3.2-1. Alternatives Comparison.................................................................................................. 3-7

Table 3.4-1. Preliminary Alternative 2 vs. Build Alternative ................................................................3-11

Table 3.4-2. Summary of Weekday Revenue Passenger Service ......................................................3-14

Table 3.4-3. 2035 Annual Forecast Results........................................................................................3-17

Table 4.1-1. General Conformity Threshold Levels ............................................................................. 4-3

Table 4.1-2. Potential Air Quality Benefits / CO2 Reductions .............................................................. 4-7

Table 4.1-3. Potential severe noise impacts .......................................................................................4-13

Table 4.1-4. Potential moderate noise impacts...................................................................................4-14

Table 4.1-5. Potential Vibration Annoyance Impacts ..........................................................................4-14

Table 4.1-6. Floodplain Impacts along Second Track – Boston to Springfield....................................4-19

Table 4.1-7. Floodplain Impacts along Second Track – Springfield to Canadian Border....................4-21

Table 4.2-1. Potential Wetland Impacts along Second Track – Boston to Springfield ........................4-35

Table 4.2-2. Potential Wetland Impacts along Second Track – Springfield to Canadian Border.........4-37

Table 4.2-3. Common Wildlife Species Likely to Occur in Habitats along the Corridor.......................4-42

Table 4.2-4. Endangered Species Habitat along Second Track – Boston to Springfield ....................4-46

Table 4.2-5. Endangered Species Habitat along Second Track – Springfield to Canadian Border.....4-47

Table 4.3-1. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics in the NNEIRI Study Area ................4-55

Table 4.3-2. Environmental Justice Populations in the NNEIRI Study Area .......................................4-56

Table 4.3-3. Demographic Characteristics - Boston-to-Springfield Segment......................................4-56

Table 4.3-4. Socioeconomic Characteristics - Boston-to-Springfield Segment...................................4-57

Table 4.3-5. Environmental Justice Populations - Boston to Springfield Corridor...............................4-57

Table 4.3-6. Demographic Characteristics - Springfield to Canadian Border Segment ......................4-58

Table 4.3-7. Socioeconomic Characteristics - Springfield to Canadian Border Segment ...................4-58

Table 4.3-8. Environmental Justice Populations - Springfield to Canadian Border Segment..............4-59

Table 4.3-9. Existing Station Site Assessment ...................................................................................4-63

Table 4.3-10. Railroad Crossing .........................................................................................................4-67
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA iv May 2016

Table 4.3-11. Summary of Release Sites, Springfield-to-Montreal .....................................................4-72

Table 4.3-12. Solid Waste Landfills - Boston to Springfield ................................................................4-74

Table 4.3-13. Solid Waste Landfills - Springfield to Canadian Border ................................................4-75

Table 4.3-14: National Register (NR) Properties - Boston to Springfield ............................................4-83

Table 4.3-15: National Register (NR) Properties - East Northfield, Massachusetts to Alburgh, Vermont4-

84

Table 4.3-16. Section 4(f) Parks, Recreation Areas and Wildlife Refuges – Boston to Springfield.....4-91

Table 4.3-17. Section 4(f) Parks, Recreation Areas and Wildlife Refuges – Springfield to Canadian Border 

Corridor...............................................................................................................................................4-93

Table 4.3-18. Parking Spaces at Existing Stations - Boston to Springfield .......................................4-108

Table 4.3-19. Airports, Springfield-to-Canadian Border....................................................................4-110

Table 4.3-20. Parking Spaces at Existing Stations - Springfield to Canadian Border .......................4-111

Table 4.3-21. Projected NNEIRI Traffic Movements .........................................................................4-112

Table 4.3-22. Projected NNEIRI Parking Requirements ...................................................................4-114

Table 4.3-23. Diverted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Reduction in Energy Use .......................4-119

Table 4.5-1. Other Transportation Plans and Projects in the Corridor ..............................................4-126

Table 4.5-2. Cumulative Impacts from NNEIRI and Other Projects ..................................................4-132

Table 5.3-1. Stakeholder Meetings...................................................................................................... 5-4

Table 5.3-2. Public Information Meetings ............................................................................................ 5-5

Table 6.2-1. Acronyms......................................................................................................................... 6-4

Table 6.4-1. List of Preparers and Their Study Role...........................................................................6-17

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3-1: Build Alternative Services.................................................................................................3-12

Figure 4-1. Conceptual Cross Section of Second Track ...................................................................4-107

APPENDICES

Appendix A Conceptual Rail Sections

Appendix B Noise and Vibration Technical Report 

Appendix C Flood Zone Maps

Appendix D Impaired Water Bodies in the Rail Corridor

Appendix E Massachusetts and Vermont Resource Area Maps

Appendix F Cultural Resources Technical Report 

Appendix G Section 4(f) Properties Technical Report

Appendix H Section 6(f) Properties Technical Report
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 1-1 May 2016

1 INTRODUCTION

The Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI) is a feasibility and planning

study (NNEIRI Study, see Section 1.1) that examines the opportunities and impacts of adding 

more frequent and higher speed intercity passenger rail service on two major rail corridors. 

These corridors are known as the Inland Route and the Boston-to-Montreal Route and are 

collectively referred to herein as the NNEIRI Corridor or the Corridor. The Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), and the 

Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) (collectively, the Study Team), in coordination 

with the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT), prepared this Tier 1 

Environmental Assessment (EA). FRA is providing grant funding for the NNEIRI Study under 

its Next Generation High Speed Rail Program.

This EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et. seq.; its implementing regulations, 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508; and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental 

Impacts, 64 Federal Register (FR) 28545 (May 26, 1999) and Update to NEPA Implementing 

Procedures, 78 FR 2713 (January 14, 2013). This EA follows FRA’s High-Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) NEPA guidance, 74 FR 29900 (June 23, 2009), for compliance with 

NEPA at the service- or corridor-level. Service-level NEPA “...typically addresses the broader 

questions relating to the type of service(s) being proposed, including cities and stations served, 

route alternatives, service levels, types of operations (speed, electric, or diesel powered, etc.), 

ridership projections, and major infrastructure components. For a major rail corridor 

improvement program, this type of environmental review must be completed before any 

substantial investments in the corridor can be made.”7 This Tier 1 EA identifies resources 

present in the NNEIRI Study Area (the geographic limits of the analysis for each of the 

resources) that the NNEIRI Build Alternative could potentially affect if advanced to the 

project-level; however, no findings or determinations under related environmental planning 

requirements are made at the Tier 1 level.

If the NNEIRI Study advances to the project level and federal funding were provided for 

implementation of rail improvements, future Tier 2 project proponent(s) would follow this Tier 

1 EA with a Tier 2 NEPA analysis, or analyses. Tier 2 analyses may determine a project to fall 

into one of three categories, including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), EA, or 

Categorical Exclusion (CE), depending on the details of the project, site-specific conditions and 

resources present, and the significance of potential impacts to the human environment. The 

Tier 2 analysis would identify specific resource impacts of the analyzed alternative(s).

 

7 High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) NEPA Guidance and Table. https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0262
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 1-2 May 2016

1.1 NNEIRI CORRIDOR

The NNEIRI Corridor is 470 miles long and is comprised of two major rail corridors known as 

the Inland Route and the Boston-to-Montreal Route (see Figure ES-1). The Inland Route of the 

NNEIRI Corridor runs west from South Station in Boston to Springfield, Massachusetts via 

Worcester. From Springfield, the Route continues south to New Haven, Connecticut where it 

connects to Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. 

The Boston-to-Montreal Route follows the Inland Route to Springfield then runs north through 

Holyoke, Northampton and Greenfield, Massachusetts. In Vermont, the Route continues north 

to White River Junction, northwest to Montpelier and Essex Junction, north to St. Albans, 

crosses the Canadian border at Alburgh, Vermont, and terminates at Central Station in 

Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Ownership of the 470- mile long NNEIRI Corridor varies by segment:

 Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 44 miles between Boston and Worcester

 CSX Transportation Corporation (CSX): 55 Miles between Worcester and Springfield

 Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 49 miles between Springfield and East Northfield, 

Massachusetts

 New England Central Railroad (NECR): 207 miles from East Northfield, Massachusetts 

to three miles south of the U.S./Canada border

 Canadian National (CN) Railroad: 53 miles from three miles south of the U.S./Canada 

border to Montreal

 Amtrak: 62 miles from Springfield to New Haven

NNEIRI Study

The Study Team developed and evaluated alternatives that include infrastructure and service 

improvements necessary to support train speed and frequency increases in the NNEIRI 

Corridor. The study efforts included consideration of ridership, revenue, capital, and operating 

costs. The Study Team, in coordination with the CTDOT, also developed two Service 

Development Plans (SDPs) - one for the Inland Route Service and one for the Boston-toMontreal Route – to support independent implementation of each Route. The SDPs provide

detailed plans for infrastructure investments needed to improve service along the Inland Route

and the Boston-to-Montreal Route, and evaluate the operational, network and financial impacts 

of the service changes and infrastructure investment. Because the NNEIRI Corridor 

encompasses the combined area of the two SDPs, the Study Team developed one Tier 1 EA to 

evaluate potential environmental effects of implementation of intercity passenger rail service 

on the Inland Route and the Boston-to-Montreal Route.

For segments of the Corridor that have previously been the subject of NEPA review, such as 

Knowledge Corridor/Restore the Vermonter project (Springfield to East Northfield, 

Massachusetts) and the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield (NHHS) Project (which runs from 

Springfield, Massachusetts to New Haven, Connecticut), the NNEIRI Tier 1 EA Study 

incorporates the results of those reviews by reference. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 1-3 May 2016

This EA does not address potential environmental impacts in Canada; such impacts will be 

determined in accordance with applicable Canadian laws should the study advance to Tier 2 

and projects proposed having potential environmental impacts within Canada.

The NNEIRI Study Area refers to the geographic limits of the analysis conducted for each of 

the environmental impact areas examined in the Tier 1 EA.

1.2 BACKGROUND

The Northern New England Corridor is one of ten federally designated high-speed rail 

corridors in the United States. The Boston-to-Montreal Route was designated by U.S. 

Transportation Secretary Rodney E. Slater on October 11, 2000 as part of the “Northern New 

England Corridor,” which included a hub at Boston, Massachusetts (MA) and two spokes: one 

to Montreal, Quebec, Canada, via Concord, New Hampshire (NH), and the other to 

Portland/Lewiston-Auburn, Maine (ME). The Inland Route Service (the rail line connecting 

Boston-Springfield, Massachusetts to New Haven, Connecticut) was added to the Northern 

New England Corridor designation along with the rail line between Springfield, Massachusetts

and Albany, New York (NY) in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-

447) on December 8, 2004. 

1.2.1 Corridor History

The original federally designated alignment for the Boston-to-Montreal Route consisted of a 

route from Boston to Concord, New Hampshire, through to White River Junction, Vermont,

continuing northwest across Vermont to the Canadian border, and then to Montreal. In April 

2003, the VTrans, through a cooperative agreement with the FRA, the New Hampshire 

Department of Transportation (NHDOT), and the Massachusetts Executive Office of 

Transportation and Construction (EOTC) developed the Boston to Montreal High-Speed Rail

(BMHSR) Planning and Feasibility Study

8

, which conducted an initial assessment of existing 

operations, infrastructure, and institutional issues and concluded that no fatal flaws exist for 

implementation of a high speed rail service in the BMHSR Corridor and that the ridership 

forecasts warrant a study for evaluation of operational, engineering and cost/revenue factors. 

FRA approved a grant for a subsequent, more detailed study effort for this alignment on 

September 10, 2003. However, at the conclusion of the 2003 study the NHDOT withdrew from

continued planning efforts to develop a Boston-to-Montreal Route. NHDOT’s withdrawal 

halted further consideration of the Boston-to-Montreal Route along the originally proposed 

route. 

Despite NHDOT’s withdrawal from planning efforts, MassDOT and VTrans remained 

interested in considering other alternatives to provide intercity passenger train service between 

Boston and Montreal. Subsequently, when the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public 

Law 108-447, December 8, 2004) expanded the Northern New England Corridor from Boston 

 

8

Boston to Montreal High-Speed Rail Planning and Feasibility Study Phase I. Final Report. April 2003. 

https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailtransit/railandtransit/documents/BostonMontrealHSR.pdf
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 1-4 May 2016

to Springfield, Massachusetts, MassDOT and VTrans suggested to FRA that a logical 

alternative route for Boston-to-Montreal passenger rail service could be made by using a 

connection from Springfield to White River Junction northward along existing rail lines. The 

remainder of the rail route to Montreal is as proposed in the previous 2003 Boston-to-Montreal 

study.9

With this revised alignment for a potential Boston-to-Montreal Route, both the Inland Route 

Service and Boston-to-Montreal passenger rail service could use the existing rail lines of the 

Northern New England Corridor between Boston and Springfield. The NNEIRI Study

evaluates the options for passenger rail service along these routes, treating them as a 

consolidated Corridor. The NNEIRI environmental analysis does not include impacts that 

might occur in Canada. NEPA applies to major federal actions of the U.S. government. Any 

environmental impacts in Canada would be evaluated through applicable Canadian laws should 

the Study advance to Tier 2. The NNEIRI service would use the same border crossing as the 

existing New England Central Railroad, and is the same border crossing that the legacy Amtrak 

Montrealer service used from the 1970s to 1995.

1.2.2 Regional Framework

In 2009, the New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island and Connecticut) created a framework for improving high speed and intercity rail in 

New England, known as the New England Vision for High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail

(New England Vision).

10 The New England Vision’s goals for all the states were to improve the 

railroad network connectivity within the region, develop a safe and efficient passenger rail 

system seamlessly linking every major city in New England with smaller cities and rural areas, 

and create an international connection to Montreal to provide a foundation for economic 

competitiveness and promote livable communities. It includes faster and more frequent rail 

service that promotes energy efficiency and environmental quality by providing alternative 

transportation choices while also enhancing the movement of rail freight throughout the region. 

Currently, significant infrastructure improvements consistent with the New England Vision are 

completed or underway. The total expenditures as of July 2015 are nearly a half billion dollars 

and are a combination of both public and private investments. 

In western Massachusetts, the Knowledge Corridor/Restore the Vermonter project improved

passenger service on Amtrak’s Vermonter service by restoring the route to the Connecticut 

River line, which is shorter and more direct. The inaugural run of the Vermonter service on the 

Knowledge Corridor occurred on December 22, 2014.

In Connecticut, the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Project, headed by the CTDOT with grant 

funding from FRA’s HSIPR Program, began construction in July 2013 and is still ongoing. The 

proposed capacity, reliability, and safety improvements along the NHHS corridor would

 

9

Boston to Montreal High-Speed Rail Planning and Feasibility Study Phase I. Final Report. April 2003. 

https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailtransit/railandtransit/documents/BostonMontrealHSR.pdf

10 Vision for the New England High-Speed and Intercity Rail Network. 2009. 

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/20/docs/NewEngland_HSR_Vision.pdf
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 1-5 May 2016

facilitate an increase in the maximum train speed to 110 miles per hour (mph), reduce 

scheduled travel times, and reduce conflicts with freight trains that share the tracks. 

Additionally, infrastructure improvements in Vermont that support Amtrak Vermonter service 

were completed by Amtrak and the State of Vermont in October 2012 through a program of 

track upgrades funded through FRA’s HSIPR program.11 The combination of rail investments

made in Vermont and Massachusetts along with those of the NHHS program would enhance 

operation of the current Vermonter throughout its route from New Haven, Connecticut to St. 

Albans, Vermont.

In eastern Massachusetts, the Boston South Station Expansion and Layover Facility Project

(SSX project) would expand terminal rail capacity and related layover capacity in order to meet 

current and future high-speed, intercity, and commuter rail service needs. MassDOT prepared a

state-level Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Boston SSX project and submitted

it to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs on October 31, 

2014. That office issued a Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Certificate on 

December 31, 2014. MassDOT received an FRA HSIPR grant to perform preliminary 

engineering and environmental analysis for the SSX project, and MassDOT is currently 

preparing a NEPA Environmental Assessment in coordination with FRA. Preparation of the 

EA is occurring in parallel with preparation of the Final EIR under MEPA. MassDOT has not 

received additional sources of federal or state funding for final engineering or construction of 

the SSX project.

Additionally, FRA is leading a comprehensive planning process to define, evaluate, and 

prioritize future investments in the Northeast Corridor (NEC), from Washington, D.C. to

Boston, called NEC FUTURE. The FRA launched NEC FUTURE in February 2012 to 

consider the role of rail passenger service in the context of current and future transportation 

demand. NEC FUTURE would create a framework for the future investments needed to 

improve passenger rail capacity and service through 2040. Through the NEC FUTURE 

program, the FRA intends to determine a long-term vision and investment program for the 

NEC. FRA published a Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for NEC FUTURE

in November 2015, and is scheduled to publish a Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) in 

2016 and Service Development Plan (SDP) in 2017 in support of that vision.

The NNEIRI Study evaluated options to advance the vision of improved regional connectivity 

by maximizing use of regional rail investments for improvements that have been recently 

completed or are underway and utilizing existing rail infrastructure in the Corridor. The 

potential NNEIRI passenger rail service assumes much of the existing infrastructure will have 

already been upgraded through a series of separate improvement projects.

 

11

 VTrans. Vermont Rail Plan. Bulletin #2, March 2015. 

http://rail.vermont.gov/sites/railroads/files/VTRailPlan_Bulletin2_062815.pdf
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 2-1 May 2016

2 PURPOSE AND NEED

2.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of the NNEIRI Study is to address the lack of intercity transportation choices in 

New England, particularly between major cities and the smaller cities and rural areas of the 

northern region. A potential increase in the use of passenger rail is not being considered as a 

replacement for other transportation alternatives such as automobile, bus, and air. Rather,

enhancing passenger rail service is being considered as a means to increase available choices 

for travelers in the identified travel markets, and to do so in a manner that is supportive of the 

environmental and economic development goals of the region. As noted in Section 1.2 above, 

the existing rail routes that comprise the NNEIRI Corridor are the result of stipulations 

contained in Congressional legislation of Public Law 108-447 in Section 15412 and previous 

regional planning activities. Thus, the NNEIRI Study analyzes the additional passenger rail 

options in two segments of the NNEIRI Corridor (Boston to Springfield, Massachusetts 

segment and the Springfield, Massachusetts to Canada border segment) in a manner that seeks 

to capitalize on the use of the considerable existing and pending public and private investments 

in the NNEIRI Corridor. The alternatives developed through the Study are intended to be 

capable of creating a competitive rail transportation alternative to existing automobile, bus, and 

air travel service through more frequent and higher speed intercity passenger rail service. 

2.2 NEED

The need for the NNEIRI Study stems from recognizing benefits to the region’s economy and 

livability from improved connections across and between the New England states. Many small 

and medium size cities and economic centers geographically dispersed across New England

could be served by passenger rail service along the Corridor. Improved transportation 

connections between these centers would be of great benefit to its residents and employees, as 

well as visitors traveling within and through the region. Additionally, strong sustained 

increases in Amtrak New England ridership13 show that demand for intercity transportation in 

the Corridor is trending towards alternative modes, including intercity passenger rail. Many 

highways along the Corridor experience periodic congestion and capacity issues making rail 

travel a more attractive alternative. Improvements and expansion of intercity rail services 

would enhance options for the mobility and connectivity needed in the Corridor for the region 

to grow and prosper. 

 

12 Public Law 108-447, Section 154 passed into law December 8, 2004 states in part that “The Northern New 

England High Speed Rail Corridor is expanded to include the train routes from Boston, Massachusetts, to 

Albany, New York, and from Springfield, Massachusetts, to New Haven Connecticut.”

13 Szabo, Joseph. “Amtrak ridership breaks 10th record in 11 years.” United States Department of Transportation, 

October 22, 2013, http://www.dot.gov/fastlane/amtrak-ridership-breaks-10th-record-11-years
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 2-2 May 2016

2.2.1 Economic Opportunity

In the global economy, regions across the country and the world are continually searching for 

ways to become or remain economically strong. The New England region has many attributes 

that support its strong economic position that include a rich social and cultural history, many 

prestigious academic and research institutions, a well-educated and diverse workforce and a 

mix of urban, suburban and rural population centers all located in fairly close proximity to the 

region’s major economic centers. Ensuring ready connectivity between the region’s population 

bases and its economic centers is a critical factor in maintaining its economic strength. 

The following section identifies key attributes of the Corridor that would be enhanced by 

improved connectivity from expanded intercity passenger rail service. These include the varied 

rate of employment and skill level of employees, the size and impact of the tourism sector, and 

the size and location of colleges and universities in the Corridor, a population that has shown a 

preference to travel by rail. 

2.2.2 Job Access

Connectivity between job centers and specialized employment clusters is a key consideration of 

the NNEIRI Study. Through connectivity improvements provided by services envisioned for

the NNEIRI Corridor, residents would have easy, convenient and affordable access to major 

job centers, which is attractive to today’s workforce that often uses a combination of 

telecommuting with periodic travel to an office hub via intercity passenger rail.

Access to wider employment markets is especially important in New England, where 

unemployment rates may vary considerably between metropolitan regions. Despite six-plus 

years of recovery after the 2007-2009 Recession, the unemployment rate remains high in 

several of the metropolitan areas along the Corridor; this is especially true in New Haven,

Connecticut and in Montreal, Quebec.

Highly skilled and educated employees are more likely to travel further for work for which 

they are already trained. In terms of educational attainment, Massachusetts, Connecticut, 

Vermont and New Hampshire are all ranked within the top 10 states for percentage of 

population 25 years or older with a bachelor’s degree or higher.

14 All US metropolitan areas 

and cities along the Corridor have higher percentage of people 25 years or older with a 

postsecondary degree. Boston, Massachusetts and Burlington, Vermont have the highest 

percent (approximately 50%) of people with a postsecondary degree while, Greenfield, 

Massachusetts has the lowest percent (only 38%) of people with a postsecondary degree.15

Montréal, Quebec is even lower, at 36 percent.

16

 

14 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.

15 American Community Survey (ACS), 2010-2012; American Community Survey 2007-2011; National 

Household Survey, 2011, Statistics Canada

16 National Household Survey, 2011, Statistics, Canada. Due to variances in educational standards, some 

Canadians listed as having a high school diploma or equivalent actually have more years of education than US 

students who fall into the same category.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 2-3 May 2016

Improved rail service would also expand the talent pool for potential employers. For example, 

Amtrak’s successful Downeaster service (located along a separate branch of the Northern New 

England Corridor) provides mobility options for residents throughout eastern New Hampshire 

and southern Maine to job centers in the metro-Boston area. The service is especially attractive 

for employment positions that require periodic but not daily travel to an office. 

Additionally, the NNEIRI Corridor would provide connectivity to specialized employment 

clusters in New England, which include strong financial, academic, consulting, medical, and 

scientific communities, where collaboration and personal connections are instrumental. Boston, 

Worcester, Springfield, and New Haven all have large and diverse medical research and 

education centers. The proposed NNEIRI services would enable individuals from these 

institutions to physically connect at conferences, research, and employment events in a timely 

and cost-effective way, even during the challenging winter season when rail travel is typically 

less impacted by harsh weather compared to other modes. Similarly, it provides another avenue 

of access between those of similar professions from beyond the region to enhance productive 

collaboration. 

2.2.3 Education

The NNEIRI Corridor is proximate to dozens of colleges and universities attended by almost 1 

million students, as shown in Table 2.2-1. The majority of these students are based in the 

Boston, Montreal, and Hartford metropolitan areas, making travel by rail a viable, cost-efficient 

and timesaving option over driving or flying. Universities are also major destinations for 

performing arts, sporting events, conferences, research, and other events they host. Table 2.2-1

shows the number of colleges and universities within each Metropolitan area along the 

Corridor. Over 190 schools exist in metropolitan areas along the Corridor. Improvements to the 

intercity rail service would increase faculty, staff, and students’ ability to travel to/from

campuses.

According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA)/Transportation 

Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) report, the Millennial Generation (those born between 

1982 and 2003) are multimodal and they choose the best transportation mode (driving, transit, 

bike or walk) based on the trip they are planning to take. Millennials consider public 

transportation options as the best options for digital socializing and among the most likely to 

connect the user with their communities. 40 percent of the 1,000 Millennials who were 

surveyed stated that public transit allows them to work while traveling. Millennials stated cost, 

convenience, exercise, living in a community with public transit, and environment as the top 

five reasons or motivations for preferring public transportation.

17

 

17 American Public Transportation Association (APTA)/ Transportation Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). 

Millennials & Mobility: Understanding the Millennial Mindset. 

http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Millennials-and-Mobility.pdf
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 2-4 May 2016

Table 2.2-1. Number of College Students and Colleges by Metropolitan Area

Metro Area Number of College Students Number of Colleges

Boston, MA 432,706 78

Worcester, MA 61,425 15

Springfield, MA 74,174 20

Greenfield, MA* 819 2

Brattleboro, VT* 374 6

Lebanon, NH 14,965 4

Barre, VT 4,572 5

Burlington, VT 24,659 8

Montréal, QC** >196,076 >7

Hartford, CT 103,335 26

New Haven, CT 68,669 19

Total >981,774 190

Sources: 2010-2012 American Community Survey (ACS)3-Year Estimates, 2007-2011 American Community 

Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates; National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education

*Corridor cities not in metropolitan areas are identified separately. 

**Sum of total students reported at seven major schools identified in the metropolitan area. No source on the 

number of colleges was found. A Google search was utilized to identify major colleges/universities.

2.2.4 Tourism

Tourism is an important driver of the regional economy within the NNEIRI Corridor. Tourists 

spend billions of dollars on tourism-related activities every year in Massachusetts, Vermont,

New Hampshire, Quebec, and Connecticut as shown in Table 2.2-2. Improvements to the 

intercity rail service would make it easier for leisure travel within the region, particularly for 

senior or disabled travelers, as well as for international tourists who may be unfamiliar with 

American roadways but comfortable with passenger rail because it is a common travel 

alternative in their home countries (for example United Kingdom, China, Germany, France and 

Japan, which were the top five countries with the largest number of visitors to New England 

states in 201218).

Tourism also supports tens of thousands of jobs in each state and the province. Tourism-related 

jobs along the Corridor are also important. The number of tourism-related jobs ranges from a 

high in Quebec of 134,600 to a low of 37,910 in Vermont. With eight to eleven percent of all 

 

18 Discover New England. International Travel & Tourism. DNE Summit 101. 2012. 

http://discovernewengland.org/sites/default/files/Learn-to-Summit.pdf
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 2-5 May 2016

jobs in the region’s metropolitan areas directly or indirectly linked to this industry, encouraging 

more people to travel within the region is vital to maintaining and increasing these jobs.

Table 2.2-2. Expenditure and Jobs from Tourism in Each State* 

State/ Province Expenditure (billions) Tourism Jobs

Massachusetts 15.5 121,700

Vermont 1.7 37,910

New Hampshire 4.2 61,821

Quebec 6.6 134,600

Connecticut 8.0 110,000

Source: Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism; Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism 2011 

Annual Report; Vermont Tourism Industry Fact Sheet – 2011; Economic Impact, Tourism, Portrait of 

Québec

* Connecticut data is from FY2008, Quebec data is from CY2009, Massachusetts data is from CY2010 and 

New Hampshire and Vermont data are from FY2011.

2.2.5 Population and Demographics

In the 2000s, the population of the New England region increased at a rate significantly slower 

than the rest of the United States, increasing 3.8% between 2000 and 2010. However, in a 

similar timeframe, 1997 to 2012, ridership on Amtrak lines serving New England increased by 

71%, with even greater increases in specific metropolitan areas. Metropolitan Boston, for 

example, saw a 211% increase in Amtrak ridership from 1997 to 2012. Amtrak’s robust growth 

in New England is largely the result of changing transportation preferences coupled with 

significant service improvements and expansion in the region. 

2.2.6 Changing Transportation Preferences 

Nationally, Amtrak ridership increased from 20.5 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 to 31.6 

million in FY 2013, a growth rate of 50% and a faster rate than any other travel mode during 

the same period.19 In New England, rail ridership outpaced national averages. For example, 

ridership on the Downeaster service between Boston, Massachusetts and Portland, Maine, grew 

123% between 2005 and 2013.20 Despite relatively slow population growth, New Englanders 

have increasingly utilized intercity rail transportation. Table 2.2-3 details the change in Amtrak

ridership between 1997 and 2012 in New England’s largest metropolitan areas. 

 

19 Szabo, Joseph. “Amtrak ridership breaks 10th record in 11 years.” United States Department of 

Transportation, October 22, 2013, http://www.dot.gov/fastlane/amtrak-ridership-breaks-10th-record-11-years

20 Ibid. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 2-6 May 2016

Table 2.2-3. Change in Amtrak Ridership in New England Metropolitan Areas*

Census Defined Metropolitan Area 1997 Ridership 2012 Ridership Percent Change

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 232,447 478,149 +106%

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 1,018,297 3,167,716 +211%

Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, 

CT

236,047 299,163 +27%

New Haven-Milford, CT 276,021 808,300 +193%

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, 

RI-MA

368,117 874,436 +138%

Springfield, MA 134,766 156,550 +16%

Worcester, MA** 15,667 8,900 - 43%

Total Ridership 2,281,362 5,793,214 +154%

Source: Brookings Institution, 2013

*Data for Ridership in other New England Metro Areas not available 

**Worcester ridership decline is likely due to the introduction and improvement of the MBTA Commuter Rail 

Service between Worcester and Boston

2.2.7 Accommodate Populations with High Reliance on Non-Auto/Public Transit 

Communities on or in close proximity to the NNEIRI Corridor have significant populations 

that do not own personal vehicles. Households without personal vehicles are likely to be reliant 

on transit, intercity rail and bus, walking, and biking for transportation. Thus, in communities 

with high-percentages of households without personal vehicles, improved rail is imperative for 

mobility and economic competitiveness. 

2.2.8 Accommodate Population and Demographics Changes

Despite being a slow growing region generally, New England has certain regions and 

demographic segments that are changing quickly. Demographic groups that are seeing 

significant change include fast growing urban populations and the elderly, both of whom are 

more likely to need alternatives to cars. 

Key cities and urban centers in the Corridor are rapidly growing, as preferences for urban 

living increases. The City of Boston, for example, grew by an estimated 3% between 2010 and 

2012, or a 15% ten-year growth rate.21 Similarly, Cambridge, Newton, Worcester, Springfield, 

Hartford, and New Haven saw positive growth rates during this period. With housing and 

employment location preferences changing to favor cities and urban living, growth in areas

with existing public transit, walkable streets, and density is likely to continue. Thus, reliance on 

public transit would also necessitate better intercity rail connections between cities. 

 

21 U.S. Census 2012 Estimate.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 2-7 May 2016

By 2030, the Census Bureau projects that the New England states would see a dramatic change 

in the general age of its population with the percent of residents over 65 rising significantly. 

While population aging is occurring across the country and around the world, New England’s

average population is older than, and aging more rapidly than, the U.S. average. An older 

population would experience a decrease in mobility and have a higher reliance on alternative 

means of transportation.

Between 2000 and 2030, the population of individuals aged 65 years and over in 

Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut is projected to increase by 79 

percent during the 30-year period.22 

2.2.9 Travel Demand

The New England region has a relatively diverse intercity transportation network, with 

extensive rail, expressway, bus, and air connections between major cities. However, most 

modes are already at or near capacity at critical points, with congestion projected to steadily 

increase.23

Historically, robust passenger rail options existed throughout New England; however, with the 

exception of the Springfield to New Haven segment, only one train per day provides intercity 

service on the NNEIRI Corridor. The decline in passenger rail began in the 1920s with the 

arrival of the automobile and was exacerbated by the construction of the Interstate Highway 

System in the mid-20th Century. In the early 21st Century, intercity rail ridership is seeing a 

resurgence, as changing travel preferences among large segments of the population redefine 

travel in the United States and Amtrak, in partnership with States, expands and improves 

regional passenger rail services. 

Introducing additional intercity passenger rail service that connects major urban centers with 

smaller cities and towns in the region would provide a competitive modal option for travel in 

the Corridor. The travelling public selects travel modes based on a combination of trip time, 

cost, and convenience, and travelers are opting for rail where reliable and frequent rail service 

is available, as opposed to facing the increased congestion and delays of the New England 

region’s highways and airports. 

Travel modes available to the public along the Corridor include automobile, air, bus, and 

relatively low-speed, low frequency, long-distance passenger rail. The predominant mode of 

travel in the region remains the automobile. Intercity highway access in the region is provided 

through Interstates 84, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, and Canadian AutoRoute 35, as well as a number of 

state highways. Interstate 90 in Massachusetts and segments of Interstate 93 in New Hampshire 

are toll roads.

In addition to the costs and travel time of automobiles, Interstates in metropolitan Boston, 

Hartford, New Haven, and Montreal have peak-period congestion and capacity issues.

 

22 Population Pyramids and Demographic Summary Indicators for States, retrieved on Nov. 11, 2013.

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/statepyramid.html

23 New England Futures: New Century, New Game. Road, Rail, Air, Water: Separate Worlds or One System? 

http://newenglandfutures.org/issues/connections/article/. Originally published in February 2006. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 2-8 May 2016

According to the 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard24 report, yearly delay per auto commuter25 in 

the Boston metropolitan area was 64 hours. Hartford and New Haven commuters experienced 

45 and 40 hours of yearly delay per auto commuter, respectively. The remainder of the 

Corridor experiences intermittent traffic congestion. Due to environmental concerns, cost, and 

community resistance, it is highly unlikely that significant roadway capacity would be added in 

the New England region in the foreseeable future. 

Air service is currently available between certain major city pairs in the NNEIRI Corridor. 

Extensive commercial air service is provided in Boston (Logan International Airport), Hartford 

(Bradley International), Burlington, and Montreal (Dorval International). Air Canada provides 

direct flights between Boston and Montreal and Hartford and Montreal. Scheduled flight times 

range from 72-82 minutes; however, most airlines require passengers to arrive two hours early 

for international flights. Tickets purchased with two weeks advance notice typically cost over 

$600 for direct flights; however, indirect flights were cheaper, costing $361 if purchased in 

advance, but also increase the journey up to four hours due to layover time. Major airports in 

the region are experiencing ground transportation related congestion, with anticipated 

passenger demand expected to further strain capacity. Logan International Airport, for 

example, is anticipated to grow from 29 million passengers per year in 2012 to 40 million in 

2030.

Intercity bus service is available between a majority of mid-to-large sized cities, with 

intermittent service in smaller towns. Numerous public and private bus companies operate 

along the Corridor. Greyhound provides service through much of the Boston-to-Montreal 

segment of the Corridor with service as frequent as four trips per day between White River 

Junction and Montreal. Megabus.com, a subsidiary of Coach USA, is a low-fare express bus 

service with stops in Boston, Burlington, Montpelier, Hartford, and New Haven. In addition, 

Peter Pan Bus Lines, Concord Coach, Dartmouth Coach and others provide intercity bus 

service to and between cities on the Corridor. Megbus.com provides one round trip per day 

between Boston and Hartford, for example, at 9:15 PM, which has a scheduled time of 110 

minutes and costs $22 if purchased in advance. In addition to low fares, Megabus.com offers 

competitive amenities including Wi-Fi service, power ports at each seat, and on-board 

restrooms. However, Megabus and similar companies such as Bolt Bus and Greyhound are 

subject to the same delays as automobiles on New England’s congested Interstates and have 

travel times that are typically incompatible with business traveler’s demands. 

Intercity rail service from Boston to Springfield and from New Haven to St. Albans is part of 

Amtrak’s existing network. There is one round trip per day east-west via the Lakeshore 

Limited and one round trip per day north and south on the Vermonter. Travel time from 

Boston to Springfield on the current Amtrak service is approximately two hours and 28 minutes 

and travel time from New Haven to St. Albans is approximately 7 hours and 32 minutes.26 The 

 

24 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard. The Texas A&M Transportation Institute and INRIX. August 2015.

25 Yearly delay per auto commuter is the extra travel time during the year divided by the number of people who 

commute in private vehicles in the urban area.

26 Amtrak Timetable, April 6, 2015 for the Lake Shore Limited and December 29, 2014 for the Vermonter (this 

will be reduced with re-routing of service slated to begin in late 2014/early 2015)
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 2-9 May 2016

typical ticket price for travel from Boston to Springfield is $21, and from New Haven to St. 

Albans is $56. There is currently no service between St. Albans and Montreal, which was 

largely due to the challenges associated with cross-border security clearances. However, in 

March 2015 the United States and Canada signed a pre-clearance agreement (as part of the two 

countries’ Beyond the Border Initiative) to allow screening of travelers away from the border 

and ease congestion at ports of entry, thereby significantly reducing the time required to cross 

the border and making international travel easier and more desirable.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-1 May 2016

3 ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter summarizes the NNEIRI Study’s alternatives development and analysis process 

and describes the Build Alternative and No-Build Alternative for increased intercity passenger 

rail service the NNEIRI Corridor. Early on, the NNEIRI Study Team developed three 

preliminary build alternatives from a range of 18 initial alternatives. The Study Team then 

conducted an alternatives analysis to define a single Build Alternative to carry forward for 

analysis in the Tier 1 EA, based on a combination of elements from the three preliminary 

alternatives that best addresses the Project Purpose and Need while balancing feasibility and 

cost effectiveness. A more detailed description of the alternatives screening and evaluation 

process is included in the NNEIRI Alternatives Analysis Report.

27

3.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING

At the beginning of the alternatives development process, the Study Team defined 18 initial 

alternatives with ranges of speed, frequency, and equipment. The Study Team analyzed these 

alternatives to assess impacts on ridership and train performance. Data from the analysis was

used to develop the three preliminary build alternatives and one No-Build Alternative that the 

Study Team further analyzed in the alternatives analysis process. 

Preliminary Service Options

The Study Team developed 18 initial alternatives for consideration and analysis by identifying

train operating characteristics potentially feasible along the NNEIRI Corridor. NNEIRI Service 

in the segment between Springfield and New Haven would utilize the CTDOT plan for the

NHHS service, and therefore was not modeled by the Study Team to determine speed, 

equipment, and engineering parameters. The Study Team developed the 18 initial alternatives 

based on consideration of the following criteria:

 Speed: Top speeds of 60, 79, 90, 110, 125 mph

 Equipment: Tilt and non-tilt train equipment

 Engineering Specifications: Track engineering specification modifications that

include:

o Super-elevation

o Unbalance

 Number of Locomotives: Use of more than one locomotive for each trainset

 Station Stops: Local Service (14 intermediate stations) and express service (5 

intermediate stations)

 

27 Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative. Alternatives Analysis Report. January 2015.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-2 May 2016

Performance Results

The Study Team estimated travel time for the 18 initial alternatives using the Train

Performance Calculator (TPC) train simulation model within the Berkeley Simulation 

Software, LLC’s Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) software package. The TPC model calculates

the best possible train running time over a given route using specific route characteristics.

The Study Team drew the following conclusions from the analysis:

 Eliminate use of more than one locomotive from further evaluation due to limited 

travel time savings;

 Eliminate top speeds of 110 or 125 mph due to the limited areas of feasibility and

significantly higher capital and operating and maintenance costs; and

 Use of tilt equipment in conjunction with a 90 mph maximum allowable speed

provides largest estimated time savings.

Preliminary Service Plans

Based on the results of the TPC developed travel time estimates, a number of service plans

were advanced into the preliminary ridership-estimating phase to develop the three 

preliminary build alternatives. The information required to develop preliminary ridership 

estimates included:

 Train service times;

 Daily frequencies; and

 Station stops.

The Study Team developed a set of daily train frequencies options for preliminary ridership 

analysis. The Study Team analyzed alternatives with 8, 12, and 16 daily round trip trains for

the Boston-to-Springfield segment, and alternatives with 4, 7, and 12 daily round trip trains 

for the Springfield-to-Montreal segment. The Study Team utilized the schedule developed

for the NHHS program for NNEIRI services operating between Springfield and New

Haven. The preliminary service plans include a mixture of local and express service.

Preliminary Ridership Results

The Study Team developed ridership estimates for the preliminary service plans to further 

develop the alternatives. The initial ridership analysis evaluated speed, number of station

stops, frequency of service, and other factors that affect ridership for the Corridor. The 

Study Team reached the following conclusions based on the preliminary ridership results:

 Ridership on the Boston to Springfield segment of the Corridor is more influenced

by travel time; and

 The Springfield to Montreal segment is more influenced by alternatives that 

maximize station stops.

The conclusions of the analysis were factored into development of the three preliminary build 

alternatives. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-3 May 2016

3.2 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES 

The Study Team cut the 18 initial alternatives down to three possible build alternatives based 

on the consideration of the screening criteria, which included speed, equipment, engineering 

specifications, number of locomotives, and station stops, and the input provided by

stakeholders and the public (see Chapter 5 for more information). The three preliminary 

build alternatives, which are detailed in the following sections, represent the range of 

potential service and speed options that appeared to be the most feasible and efficient based

on the analysis of the initial alternatives. Each of the preliminary build alternatives would 

add to the physical and operational improvements of the No-Build alternative, and are 

intended to meet the Project Purpose and Need in a cost effective manner.

3.2.1 Preliminary Alternative 1 – Corridor Service

Preliminary Alternative 1 would provide improved passenger rail service on the Corridor with 

infrastructure upgrades to improve speeds to 60 mph where possible and accommodate the

Preliminary Alternative 1 Service Plan, described below. Infrastructure upgrades would

include additional sidings, and track and bridge improvements. The Preliminary Alternative 

1 service would provide local service between Boston, Montreal, and New Haven. 

Alternative 1 would include the improvements and operational changes identified in the NoBuild Alternative and infrastructure and operations improvements noted below.

Preliminary Alternative 1 Service Plan

Preliminary Alternative 1 would provide new passenger service (local service stopping at all 

stations) with four daily round trip trains between Boston and New Haven, two daily round 

trip trains between Boston and Montreal, and one daily round trip train between New Haven 

and Montreal. 

In addition to the passenger rail services in the Corridor identified in the No-Build

Alternative, Preliminary Alternative 1 would include six additional daily round trips 

between Boston and Springfield. Four of the six additional trains would be extensions of 

existing services that currently operate between New Haven and Springfield. Under

Preliminary Alternative 1, these four existing services would be extended to Boston to

operate between New Haven, Springfield and Boston. Two of the six additional round trip

trains proposed to operate between Boston and Springfield would be through trains that

would continue north from Springfield to Montreal. In addition to the Amtrak Vermonter 

service that currently operates one round trip train between New Haven and Montreal,

Preliminary Alternative 1 would provide one additional round trip train that would operate

between New Haven and Montreal via Springfield. 

Preliminary Alternative 1 Infrastructure Program

Preliminary Alternative 1 would require infrastructure upgrades at some locations on the

Corridor to accommodate the additional passenger rail service. Speeds on the Corridor 

would be increased to at least 60 mph where possible and infrastructure would be 

upgraded to serve proposed train operations. Maximum operating speeds would be 79 

mph where it currently exists.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-4 May 2016

Layover Facilities

Train sets on the Corridor would access at layover facilities near terminal stations. No

additional layover facilities from those identified in the No-Build Alternative are

anticipated as part of Preliminary Alternative 1.

Right-of-Way (ROW)

Preliminary Alternative 1 does not propose any alignment changes to the ROW and all track

work would take place within the existing ROW. However, potential improvements for 

certain segments of the ROW are anticipated. 

In multiple segments of the Corridor, only a single track exists or is currently in operation.

Single-track segments constrain the number of trains that can operate on a segment for both

freight and passenger railroads. Preliminary Alternative 1 includes adding a second track

for switching between Spencer and Brimfield, Massachusetts on CSX and additional sidings

between East Northfield and St. Albans on NECR to enable freight and passenger rail to

operate more efficiently.

Signal Systems

The Corridor currently has train control signal systems between Boston and Springfield,

Springfield and New Haven, Springfield to East Northfield, sections of the NECR in

Vermont, near Montreal, and other select locations on the ROW. Due to the additional trains

proposed in Preliminary Alternative 1, an extensive train control signal system and positive

train control (PTC) systems would be needed in certain parts of the Corridor. Signal systems

would include improvements to warning devices at highway-rail grade crossings.

Consideration would be given to needed improvements based on increased train frequency,

higher operating speeds, or both.

Station Infrastructure

No major improvements to existing stations on the Corridor are planned as part of this

project. However, upon further review minor station improvements may be necessary to

provide key passenger amenities and meet operational requirements.

Worcester Union Sstation requires additional platform and track capacity to accommodate 

any additional intercity services. Preliminary Alternative 1 service would be accommodated 

through the addition of a center island platform within the existing ROW envelope. 

Additionally, for a station stop in Palmer, Massachusetts it is assumed that new station

facilities would be necessary. Despite the existence of a historic headhouse and station 

platforms in Palmer, the configuration of the historic station precludes the installation of high 

level platforms and double main tracks. Reuse of the existing station may be possible for

Alternative 1, but it would not support service projected in Alternatives 2 and 3.

3.2.2 Preliminary Alternative 2 – Corridor Service with Speed Improvements 

Preliminary Alternative 2 Service Plan would provide passenger rail services identified in the

No-Build Alternative plus eight round trip trains from Boston to New Haven (four express

and four local), three round trip trains from Boston-to-Montreal (two local and one express),

and two round trip trains from New Haven to Montreal (one express and one local).
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-5 May 2016

Stations for non-express trains would be the same as in Preliminary Alternative 1. 

Preliminary Alternative 2 would include the addition of express service for certain routes. 

Ridership data was utilized to determine the stations with the highest ridership potential for 

express service. Generally, express trains would stop at larger metropolitan centers and other

strategic station locations.

Preliminary Alternative 2 Service Plan

Preliminary Alternative 2 Service Plan would provide passenger rail services of the No-Build

Alternative plus eight round trip trains from Boston to New Haven (four express and four

local), three round trip trains from Boston-to-Montreal (two local and one express), and two 

round trip trains from New Haven to Montreal (one express and one local).

Stations for non-express trains would be the same as in Preliminary Alternative 1. 

Preliminary Alternative 2 would include the addition of express service for certain routes. 

Ridership data was utilized to determine the stations with the highest ridership potential for 

express service. Generally, express trains would stop at larger metropolitan centers and other

strategic station locations.

Preliminary Alternative 2 Infrastructure Program

Preliminary Alternative 2 would utilize existing infrastructure and improved infrastructure

that increases capacity and speeds to meet demands of the Preliminary Alternative 2

Service Plan and would improve speeds to 79 mph where possible.

Layover Facilities

Train sets on the Corridor would be accommodated at layover facilities near terminal

stations. No additional layover facilities from those identified in the No-Build Alternative 

are anticipated to be needed as part of Preliminary Alternative 2.

Right-of-Way (ROW)

Preliminary Alternative 2 does not propose any alignment changes to the ROW and all

track work would take place within the existing ROW. Speed improvement areas are the 

same as identified in the Preliminary Alternative 1 ROW analysis.

Preliminary Alternative 2 would include infrastructure to provide additional capacity on the

Corridor with the goal to enable freight and passenger rail to operate efficiently. In addition 

to capacity improvements identified in Preliminary Alternative 1, Preliminary Alternative 2

proposes second track for all single track segments in the Worcester to Springfield Corridor 

as well as additional passing sidings in Vermont. 

Signal Systems

The Corridor currently has train control signal systems between Boston and Springfield,

Springfield and New Haven, sections of Vermont in the vicinity of Montreal, and other select

locations on the ROW, such as the approach to Springfield from the east. Due to the

additional level of service (LOS), a full train control signal system is included in Alternative 

2 on the full length of the ROW.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-6 May 2016

Signal systems improvements would include upgrades to warning devices at highway-rail

grade crossings. Specific improvements at individual crossings would be based on increased

train frequency, higher operating speeds, or both.

Station Infrastructure

Station improvements on the Corridor would be the same as outlined in Preliminary Alternative 

1.

3.2.3 Preliminary Alternative 3 – Corridor Service with Speed and Equipment Improvements

Preliminary Alternative 3 would provide service with a maximum operating speed of 90 mph 

and would use tilt train equipment. Necessary infrastructure upgrades would include 

improvements to the existing railroad ROW, full train signalization, and additional

sidings/double tracking. Preliminary Alternative 3 would include all of the capital

improvements and services indicated in Preliminary Alternative 2 with the additional

infrastructure and operations changes noted in the following sections.

Preliminary Alternative 3 Service Plan

Preliminary Alternative 3 Service Plan would provide service above the No-Build condition

consisting of the following: eight round trip trains from Boston to New Haven (four express 

and four local), three round trip trains from Boston-to-Montreal (two local and one express), 

two round trip trains from New Haven to Montreal (one express and one local), and five round 

trip shuttle trains (local service) from Boston to Springfield. Stations for non-express trains 

would be the same as identified in Preliminary Alternative 1 and the stations for express 

service trains would be the same as identified in Preliminary Alternative 2.

Preliminary Alternative 3 Infrastructure Program

Layover Facilities

Train sets on the Corridor would be accommodated at layover facilities near terminal stations.

No additional layover facilities from those identified in the No-Build Alternative are

anticipated as part of Preliminary Alternative 3.

Right-of-Way (ROW)

Preliminary Alternative 3 does not propose any alignment changes to the ROW and all track

work would take place within the existing ROW. However, certain segments of the ROW

would be improved to support operations and speed. Areas where improvements are proposed

are the same as in Preliminary Alternative 2.

Signal Systems

As in Preliminary Alternative 2, Preliminary Alternative 3 would add significantly more

trains to the Corridor, necessitating full signalization and positive train control. Signal 

systems would include improvements to warning devices at highway-rail grade crossings.

Stations
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-7 May 2016

Station improvements on the Corridor would be the same as outlined in Preliminary Alternative 

1.

3.2.4 Alternatives Comparison

The Study Team prepared a separate Alternative Analysis report that provides a detailed 

comparison of the three preliminary build alternatives and No-Build Alternative based on 

preliminary service plans, ridership forecasts, capital costs, and operations and maintenance 

costs (O&M). Table 3-2.1 summarizes the capital costs, operating costs and annual ridership 

for each of the preliminary alternatives and the No-Build Alternative. 

A high-level, Corridor-wide environmental screening was completed during the alternatives 

analysis to identify any known significant impacts that would result from the proposed 

alternatives. The analysis found that impacts along the Corridor are anticipated to be generally

minor and moderate with some minor impacts in specific locations due to operations and

infrastructure needs, however no impacts are anticipated to be significant.

Table 3.2-1. Alternatives Comparison

Alternative Capital Costs Operating Support Annual Riders (2035)

No-Build No additional capital 

costs

No additional operating 

costs

79,900 riders

Preliminary Alternative 1 $615-785 million $24 million 681,500 riders

Preliminary Alternative 2 $1,065-1,350 million $39 million 1,201,200 riders

Preliminary Alternative 3 $1,255-1,590 million $48 million 1,334,800 riders

No-Build Alternative: This alternative assumes no NNEIRI service on the Corridor. This 

alternative is the baseline against which each of the preliminary build alternatives was

measured. The No-Build Alternative includes recently completed, underway, and planned 

transportation improvements in the NNEIRI Corridor area, including improved New HavenHartford-Springfield rail service, Springfield Union Station improvements, South Station –

Boston expansion, extension of the Amtrak Vermonter to Montreal, and improvements to the 

Montreal-area rail network. 

Preliminary Alternative 1 - Corridor Service: This alternative would provide local service

(stopping at all stations) on the Corridor. In addition to the passenger rail services identified in 

the No-Build Alternative, Preliminary Alternative 1 would provide four round trip trains 

between Boston and New Haven, two round trip trains from Boston to Montreal, and one 

round trip train between New Haven and Montreal. Speeds on the Corridor would be 

improved to at least 60 mph and standard train equipment would be used. Infrastructure

upgrades would include adding sidings and making track and bridge improvements. 

Preliminary Alternative 1 is the least expensive of the three alternatives, estimated between 

$615-785 million, and would have the least ridership, with an estimated 681,500 passengers 

annually. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-8 May 2016

Preliminary Alternative 2 - Corridor Service with Speed Improvements: This alternative 

would build on Preliminary Alternative 1 with the addition of four round trip express trains 

between Boston and New Haven, one round trip express train from Boston to Montreal, and 

one round trip express train from New Haven to Montreal. Additionally, speeds would be 

improved to at least 79 mph and operations and standard train equipment would be used.

Infrastructure upgrades would include the improvements described in Preliminary Alternative 

1 and a second track for all single track segments in the Worcester to Springfield Corridor as 

well as additional passing sidings in Vermont. Capital costs are expected to be $1,065-1,350 

million. Estimated ridership would increase by 76% over Preliminary Alternative 1 to 

1,201,200 annually. 

Preliminary Alternative 3 - Corridor Service with Speed and Equipment Improvements:

In addition to service in Preliminary Alternatives 1 and 2, Preliminary Alternative 3 would 

add five local round trip trains between Boston and Springfield. Additionally, speeds would 

be improved to at least 90 mph and tilting train sets would be utilized. Necessary

infrastructure upgrades for Preliminary Alternative 3 would include improvements to the 

existing railroad right-of-way (ROW), full train signalization, and additional sidings/double 

tracking. Under Preliminary Alternative 3, stations for non-express trains would be the same as

in Preliminary Alternative 1 and would include the addition of express service for certain

routes as in Preliminary Alternative 2. Preliminary Alternative 3 would include all of the

capital improvements and services indicated in Preliminary Alternative 2 with the additional

infrastructure and operations changes. Capital costs for Alternative 3 are estimated to be 

between $1,255-1,590 million and ridership is expected to be 1,334,800 annual riders,

approximately 96% more annual riders than Preliminary Alternative 1. 

There are limited locations on the NNEIRI Corridor that enable trains to operate at 90 mph due 

to track geometry. This significantly limits travel time savings provided by Preliminary 

Alternative 3 compared to Preliminary Alternative 2 and does not justify the higher cost. 

Additionally, ridership would be significantly less for the Preliminary Alternative 1 with a 

maximum speed of 60 mph as compared to Preliminary Alternative 2 with a maximum speed 

of 79 mph. For these reasons, the Study Team considered Preliminary Alternative 2 to be the 

most promising of three preliminary alternatives due to a combination of infrastructure 

constraints, ridership, and costs. With some modifications described in the following section, 

Preliminary Alternative 2 was carried forward for analysis in this Tier 1 EA.

3.3 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE

Inclusion of the No-Build Alternative is required under NEPA as the benchmark against which 

the impacts of the Build Alternative are compared. The No-Build Alternative includes all 

recently completed, ongoing, and planned improvements to the Corridor through future year 

2035. The Study Team chose an analysis year of 2035 to assess the full impacts of NNEIRI 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-9 May 2016

service implementation. Additionally, the 20-year time horizon is a standard FRA requirement 

for long-range rail planning.28

Existing and Proposed Passenger Service

The No-Build Alternative assumes the continuation of the passenger rail services that currently

operate on the Corridor, including:

 MBTA Southside Commuter Rail Services (Boston South Station – Back Bay Station);

 MBTA Worcester Line Service (Boston to Worcester);

 Amtrak Lakeshore Limited Service (Boston to Chicago via Springfield and Albany);

 Amtrak Vermonter Service (Washington, D.C to St. Albans via New Haven, 

Springfield, and White River Junction); and

 Amtrak Northeast Regional Shuttle and Northeast Regional Service (New Haven to 

Springfield).

In addition, new and improved passenger rail operations are anticipated for:

 MassDOT Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter Project service changes between 

Springfield and East Northfield, Massachusetts;

 CTDOT New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Service between New Haven,

Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts; and

 Amtrak Vermonter extension from St. Albans, Vermont to Montreal, Quebec on the 

NECR and CN Lines.

Existing passenger rail service along the Corridor varies significantly by segment, ranging 

from 24 daily round trips between Boston and Worcester segment to one round trip each 

between Springfield and St. Albans, and Springfield and Worcester segments. 

Current and Planned Infrastructure Upgrades

The No-Build Alternative assumes known capacity and speed upgrades to the ROW that are

currently in progress or planned to occur. These completed or underway improvements

include:

 As part of the Knowledge Corridor/Restoration of the Vermonter project, Amtrak 

Vermonter service has been reestablished along the Connecticut River Line between 

Springfield and East Northfield, Massachusetts. The service on this track segment 

begun in December 2014 and all related project work will be completed in fall 2016.

 CTDOT infrastructure improvements on the NHHS rail line are underway, including

double tracking and station improvements between New Haven, Hartford, and 

Springfield;

 Construction is underway for restoration of Springfield Union Station that includes 

installation of a high level station platform.

 

28 “State Rail Plan Guidance,” Federal Register, September 2013, 

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/09/18/2013-22679/state-rail-plan-guidance
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-10 May 2016

Planned improvements include:

 Expansion of Boston South Station to accommodate additional track capacity, train 

storage space, and provide additional station platforms;

 Construction of a new U.S. Customs and Immigration Services and Canada Border

Services Agency station at Montreal Central Station Customs Checkpoint to allow 

faster travel in and out of Canada for passenger trains; and

 Improvements to infrastructure between the U.S. border and Montreal, Quebec

identified in the Quebec Ministry of Transportation study, Study Of CN And CP’s Rail 

Networks Between Montréal And The U.S. Border released in 2014.

The NNEIRI service would use the same border crossing as the existing New England Central 

Railroad, and is the same border crossing that was used by the legacy Amtrak Montrealer 

service.

Layover Facilities

Adequate layover facilities for trains are a significant element of infrastructure that is needed to 

support railroad operations. Train sets on the Corridor would be accommodated at layover 

facilities near terminal stations that either exist today or are planned as part of other projects 

included in the No-Build. Layover facilities would primarily serve as points to store, restock, 

and perform light maintenance on rail equipment. Additionally, layover facilities would

provide crew quarters, including briefing rooms, locker rooms, and break rooms.

Locations of existing or proposed layover facilities include:

 Southampton Street Yard, Boston, Massachusetts (Amtrak);

 Additional layover facility to be included in South Station Expansion Project;

 Proposed Springfield Union Station Layover and Maintenance Facility, Springfield, 

Massachusetts;

 Springfield Station Sweeny Yard (Amtrak);

 New Haven Yard, New Haven, Connecticut (Amtrak);

 St. Albans Yard, St. Albans, Vermont (NECR); and

 Montreal Area – Assumed to be included in improvements to infrastructure between the 

U.S. border and Montreal, Quebec identified in the Quebec Ministry of Transportation 

study released in 2014. The existing VIA Rail Canada Montreal Maintenance Center 

(MMC) facility would be used. 

3.4 BUILD ALTERNATIVE EVALUATED IN THIS EA

Based on the results of the alternatives analysis, stakeholder input, public meetings, and 

technical review by public agencies (see Chapter 5, Section 5.3), the Study Team developed a 

single Build Alternative. The Study Team developed the Build Alternative based on a 

combination of elements from the three preliminary alternatives that best addressed the 

NNEIRI Study purpose and need while balancing feasibility and cost effectiveness. The three 

primary factors used to determine the Build Alternative were infrastructure constraints, 

ridership, and cost. The Build Alternative is most similar to Preliminary Alternative 2 in terms 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-11 May 2016

of infrastructure with changes to the proposed service plan. Capacity constraints near Montreal 

as well as anticipated limited ridership based on ridership forecasting on the Boston-toMontreal Service warranted reducing the proposed service in that segment. Express Service 

was also eliminated from the Build Alternative due to it resulting in only minimal travel time

savings and effect on ridership. Table 3.4-1 compares the Build Alternative to Preliminary 

Alternative 2 in terms of infrastructure upgrades and proposed service. 

Table 3.4-1. Preliminary Alternative 2 vs. Build Alternative 

Preliminary Alternative 2 Build Alternative

Top Speed 79 MPH 79 MPH

Express Service Yes No

BOS to NHV Roundtrips 8 8

BOS to MTL Roundtrips 3 1

NHV to MTL Roundtrips (Including Vermonter) 3 2

Worcester to Springfield Double Track Yes Yes

Additional Vermont Sidings Yes Yes

Infrastructure Costs (Excluding Trainsets) $610-760M $648-721M

Annual Ridership (2035) 1,201,200 875,000
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-12 May 2016

Figure 3-1: Build Alternative Services 

3.4.1 Service Plan

Boston to Montreal

Under the Build Alternative, one new round trip local service train would operate daily 

between Boston and Montreal, with trains serving all existing stations and a new station in 

Palmer, Massachusetts. The frequency of service is considered optimal due to the level of 

demand anticipated in the Study Team’s ridership forecasting. Station stops would include:

 Boston (South Station and Back Bay)

 Framingham

 Worcester

 Palmer

 Springfield*

 Holyoke*

 Northampton*

 Greenfield*

 Brattleboro

 Bellows Falls

 Claremont

 Windsor (Vermont)
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-13 May 2016

 White River Junction

 Randolph

 Montpelier

 Waterbury

 Burlington (Essex Junction)

 St. Albans

 Montreal (Central Station)

Note: (*) impacts previously reviewed in NHHS and Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EAs.

New Haven to Montreal

The Build Alternative would provide one additional local round trip service between New 

Haven and Montreal, for a total of two round trip trains per day, with similar characteristics to 

Amtrak Vermonter service. The additional service would complement the Vermonter and 

provide additional services to meet demand anticipated by ridership studies. Station stops 

would include:

 New Haven*

 Wallingford*

 Meriden*

 Berlin*

 Hartford*

 Windsor (Connecticut)*

 Windsor Locks*

 Springfield*

 Holyoke*

 Northampton*

 Greenfield*

 Brattleboro

 Bellows Falls

 Claremont

 Windsor (Vermont)

 White River Junction

 Randolph

 Montpelier

 Waterbury

 Burlington (Essex Junction)

 St. Albans

 Montreal (Central Station)

Note: (*) impacts previously reviewed in NHHS and Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EAs.

Boston to New Haven

Under the Build Alternative, eight new round trip trains would operate daily between Boston, 

Massachusetts and New Haven, Connecticut. These services would be extensions of existing 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-14 May 2016

services operating on the Corridor between New Haven, Connecticut and Springfield, 

Massachusetts. The ultimate destination of each train (i.e. New Haven, New York, or 

Washington, DC) would be determined through discussions with Amtrak and coordination 

with other services operating along the Northeast Corridor at the time of service 

implementation. The service would make station stops at:

 Boston (South Station and Back Bay)

 Framingham

 Worcester

 Palmer

 Springfield*

 Windsor Locks*

 Windsor (Connecticut)*

 Hartford*

 Berlin*

 Meriden*

 Wallingford*

 New Haven*

Note: (*) impacts previously reviewed in NHHS EA.

A comparison of the Build Alternative passenger rail service with the existing weekday 

passenger rail service and No-Build planned service that is committed for implementation 

through other initiatives is summarized by segment in Table 3.4-2.

Table 3.4-2. Summary of Weekday Revenue Passenger Service

Segment Operator(s)

Existing 

Revenue 

Daily Round 

trips

No-Build 2035 

Revenue Daily 

Round Trips

Build

Alternative 2035 

Revenue Daily 

Round Trips

Boston to Worcester MBTA 23 23 23

Amtrak Lake Shore Limited 1 1 1

NNEIRI Service - - 9*

Worcester to Springfield Amtrak Lake Shore Limited 1 1 1

NNEIRI Service - - 9*

Springfield to New Haven Amtrak (Northeast Regional Shuttle, 

Northeast Regional & Vermonter) 6-8 25 25

NNEIRI Service - - 9*

Springfield to St. Albans Amtrak Vermonter 1 1 1

NNEIRI Service - - 2

Note: 

* Of the total 9 daily round trip trains, 8 are extensions of the existing shuttle services that operate on the 

Corridor between New Haven and Springfield. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-15 May 2016

3.4.2 Infrastructure Program

The Build Alternative would require infrastructure upgrades at some locations on the Corridor 

to provide additional capacity and support increased speed. Track upgrades would support a 

maximum speed of 79 mph where possible. A second track or passing siding would be added 

in certain locations to support increased passenger and freight service. Full signalization would 

be installed in locations where it does not currently exist.

Layover Facilities

The Build Alternative does not propose additional layover facilities from those identified in the 

No-Build Alternative. Train sets on the Corridor would access layover facilities near terminal 

stations. Layover facilities would primarily serve as points to store, restock, and perform light 

maintenance on rail equipment. Additionally, layover facilities would provide crew quarters, 

including briefing rooms, locker rooms, and break rooms.

Right-of-Way (ROW)

The Build Alternative does not propose any changes to the track alignment and all track work 

would take place within the existing ROW. However, certain segments of the right- of-way 

would require improvements to accommodate increased speed and capacity. The following 

describes these improvements by segment.

Boston to Springfield Segment

NNEIRI services would not necessitate significant changes on the line between Boston and 

Worcester. Beginning in Worcester, the following upgrades would be necessary to 

accommodate passenger operations and existing freight traffic. 

• Track Improvements: Tracks upgrades would allow for FRA Class 4 train operations 

between Worcester and Springfield, allowing passenger trains to operate up to 79 mph 

where track geometry allows. The Build Alternative includes two miles of new track, 

three new turnouts, and one railroad crossing upgrade.

• Track Capacity Upgrades: The ROW between Worcester and Springfield was historically 

a double track corridor. However, most of the second track was removed in the mid- 20th 

century. The additional NNEIRI services would require the reconstruction of the second 

track between Worcester and Springfield in all locations where it existed historically, but 

is currently single tracked. These locations are: 

o Auburn to Charlton (Mileposts 48.3-57.7);

o East Brookfield to Brimfield (Mileposts 64.0-79.4); and

o Palmer to Wilbraham (Mileposts 83.6-92.0).

In addition, one double track location in this segment would require an additional siding 

to accommodate NNEIRI services. The location is Spencer to East Brookfield (Milepost 

59.3-63.3).

• Bridge Work: Existing bridges would be used in the Build Alternative and improvements 

would be made where necessary in order to accommodate the proposed service. Bridge 

work includes approximately 2,135 feet of bridge rehabilitation as well as 1,805 feet of 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-16 May 2016

bridge redecking. Bridge work is necessary for the restoration of the second track 

between Boston and Springfield and would take place on the CSX-owned track sections.

Springfield to the Canadian Border Segment

The following upgrades would be necessary to accommodate passenger operations and existing 

freight traffic.

• Track Improvements: Track upgrades would allow for Class 4 train operations between 

Springfield and the Canadian Border, allowing passenger trains to operate up to 79 mph 

where track geometry allows. The Build Alternative includes 40 miles of new track, 45 

new turnouts, and 18 railroad crossing upgrades.

• Track Capacity Upgrades: To accommodate increased passenger service in this segment, 

a second track or passing siding would be added at:

o East Northfield, Massachusetts to Vernon, Vermont (Mileposts 110.5-111.8);

o Downtown Brattleboro, Vermont (Mileposts 120.5-122.0);

o Brattleboro to Bellows Falls, Vermont (Mileposts 123.5-144.0);

o Randolph, Vermont (Mileposts 44.5-45.5);

o Roxbury, Vermont (Mileposts 61.2-61.7); and

o St. Albans to Swanton, Vermont (Mileposts 1.5-8.5).

• Bridge Work: The Build Alternative would utilize existing bridges and improve them, 

where necessary, in order to accommodate the proposed service. This includes 

approximately 350 feet of bridge replacement. The bridge replacements would occur in

Walpole, New Hampshire and East Alburgh, Vermont.

Signal Systems

The Corridor currently has train control signal systems between Boston and Springfield. Due to 

the additional level of service, a full train control signal system is proposed along the full 

length of the ROW. Modernization of signals and grade crossings in this segment would be 

provided as part of the Build Alternative.

Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) would be added over the areas of the NECR that are 

currently under Track Warrant Control (TWC) and compatible with PTC regulatory 

requirements. This includes the section from East Northfield, Massachusetts to West River 

(located in Brattleboro, Vermont), and from White River Junction, Vermont to the Canadian 

border at Alburgh, Vermont. To upgrade to CTC in these Vermont areas, 57 intermediate 

signals would be installed approximately every two miles along the line and interlocking 

signals would be added at both ends of key existing passing sidings intended for use in this 

area. These sidings are located at St. Albans, Oakland (Georgia), Berlin, Roxbury, Bethel, S. 

Royalton, Hartland, Swanton, Fonda Junction (Swanton), Bolton, Randolph, and Brattleboro.

Station Infrastructure

Station improvements under the Build Alternative include the construction of an additional 

passenger platform at Worcester Union Station to accommodate NNEIRI services and a 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 3-17 May 2016

potential new station in Palmer, Massachusetts. The new Worcester Union Station platform

would be provided in the center of the existing ROW. Connection to Worcester Union Station 

would be provided via new vertical access to an existing pedestrian tunnel that was historically 

used to connect passengers to center island platforms. Tracks would be re-configured to 

accommodate the new platform, including the addition of new interlockings. Additionally, a 

controlled siding in Worcester would be taken out of service to accommodate the new platform 

and track configuration.

Potential service to Palmer, Massachusetts would require construction of a new station in the 

town. Despite the existence of a historic headhouse and station platforms, the configuration of 

the historic station in Palmer precludes the installation of high level platforms and double main 

tracks that are included in the Build Alternative. The exact location of the new station would be

determined upon further refinement in a later phase of the NNEIRI Study.

3.4.3 Ridership Forecasts

Based on the 2035 annual ridership forecasts, the Build Alternative would result in a total of 

875,000 annual riders (an increase of 795,100 riders over Baseline condition) and an annual 

diversion of 113,847,700 vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Table 3.4-3 summarizes the 2035 

annual forecast results.

Table 3.4-3. 2035 Annual Forecast Results 

Service Point of Origin Point of Destination Annual 

Ridership

Inland Route Service Station along BostonSpringfield Segment Station in Connecticut 201,000

Inland Route Service Station along BostonSpringfield Segment New York Penn Station 183,000

Inland Route Service Station along BostonSpringfield Segment Station along Boston-Springfield Segment 44,000

Boston-to-Montreal 

Route Service

Station along BostonSpringfield Segment Station along Boston-Springfield Segment 6,000

Boston-to-Montreal 

Route Service

Station along MontrealSpringfield Segment Station in Connecticut or points south 268,000

Boston-to-Montreal 

Route Service

Station along MontrealSpringfield SegmentStation along the Boston-Springfield 

Segment 24,000

Boston-to-Montreal 

Route Service

Station along Montreal -

Springfield Segment* Station along Montreal -Springfield Segment* 149,000

Total Ridership on Boston-to-Montreal 

Route Service 447,000

Total Ridership on Inland Route Service 428,000

Total Ridership on NNEIRI Services 875,000

Note: Ridership is based on boardings with origins and/or destinations in the NNEIRI Corridor. Ridership 

does not include trips in the NHHS Corridor, including between Springfield, New Haven, and New York/NEC.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-1 May 2016

4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES

The environmental impacts of the Build Alternative are primarily the result of increased train 

traffic and speeds in the Corridor and potential impacts in the locations where second track 

would be installed and where the new Palmer station would be constructed. The objective 

during the Tier 1 evaluation is to inventory or identify the locations of each environmental 

resource from readily available federal and state Geographic Information System (GIS data), 

and to assess the potential for impacts based on conceptual plans for the Build Alternative. 

Because NNEIRI is a program rather than a specific project, this analysis is limited to 

identifying the potential for effects. As the design of the alternative is advanced and more 

detailed information becomes available, the Study Team would determine the nature or extent 

of the effects on each resource as part of a Tier 2 analysis.

The NNEIRI service would add eight new daily round trip trains between Boston to New 

Haven, one new daily round trip between Boston to Montreal, and one additional daily round 

trip (for a total of two round trip trains per day) between Montreal and New Haven. The 

Boston to New Haven services would be extensions of existing services operating on the 

Corridor between New Haven and Springfield. The ultimate destination of each train (i.e., New 

Haven, New York City, or Washington, D.C.) would be determined through discussions with 

Amtrak and coordination with other services operating along the NEC at the time of service 

implementation. The Montreal to New Haven service would operate with similar 

characteristics to Amtrak’s Vermonter service. 

The NNEIRI Build Alternative utilizes existing rail corridor and existing stations except at 

Palmer, Massachusetts, where a new station is proposed, and at Worcester Station where an 

additional passenger platform is proposed. The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a 

second track in all locations between Springfield and Worcester in Massachusetts where 

second track existed historically, but is currently single tracked and between Brattleboro and 

Bellows Falls, and St. Albans and Swanton in Vermont where single track currently exists. A

new third track is proposed between Spencer and East Brookfield in Massachusetts where 

double tracks currently exist. The Build Alternative proposes to extend passing sidings at East 

Northfield, Massachusetts to Vernon, Vermont and at Randolph and Roxbury, Vermont. Since 

the proposed second track would be provided in the existing track alignment within the 

existing ROW in areas that were historically double tracked, and the passing sidings would be 

provided within the existing rail ROW, it does not require the acquisition of new ROW

therefore major impacts on environmental resources are not anticipated.

The Build Alternative consequences do not include sections of the NNEIRI Corridor that have 

been the subject of previous environmental analysis. FRA evaluated the Knowledge Corridor 

Project in an EA and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Knowledge 

Corridor Project covers all areas between Springfield and Northfield, Massachusetts. The 

NHHS project includes all areas between New Haven and Springfield including the proposed 

layover facility adjacent to Springfield Union Station. As outlined in the NHHS FONSI, Phases 

1, 2 and 3A of the project, which address improvements between New Haven and Windsor 

underwent Tier 2 level analysis. A Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement was executed and 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-2 May 2016

a Section 4(f) determination was made for this portion of the corridor. Tier 2 NEPA evaluation, 

documentation, and required determinations for the portion of the NHHS corridor between 

Windsor and Springfield (Phase 3B) will be completed before construction begins in this 

segment of the corridor. Similarly, site-specific documentation and compliance will be 

undertaken for four planned stations along the corridor.

Additionally, FRA is leading a comprehensive planning process to define, evaluate, and 

prioritize future investments in the Northeast Corridor (NEC), from Washington, D.C. to 

Boston, called NEC FUTURE. The NEC FUTURE would create a framework for the future 

investments needed to improve passenger rail capacity and service through 2040. According to 

the NEC FUTURE Tier 1 Draft EIS29, proposed Action Alternatives 2 and 3 (which provide 

direct service to Hartford, CT) of the NEC FUTURE provide the opportunity for improved 

intercity service connections from Hartford to Massachusetts (Springfield and the Knowledge 

Corridor) and Vermont. Additional services on the NHHS as well as the proposed Springfield 

to Vermont segment of NNEIRI would allow travelers from Massachusetts and Vermont to 

connect at Hartford for service to Boston along a new NEC spine proposed in Alternatives 2 

and 3. A Preferred Alternative for NEC FUTURE will be selected in the Tier 1 Final EIS.

The following sections describe the methodology and relevant regulatory requirements for the 

affected environment resources, existing conditions of each segment of the Corridor, and the 

environmental consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternatives. A more 

detailed description of the existing environmental resources is included on the Existing 

Conditions Assessment Report (dated January 2014).

30

4.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

4.1.1 Air Quality

This section discusses the affected environment for air quality and the environmental 

consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternative. 

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential impacts to air quality and 

the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six commonly found air pollutants (criteria pollutants) in the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). These pollutants are 

carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and lead (Pb). The CAA defines nonattainment areas as geographic regions that EPA has

 

29 NEC FUTURE. Tier 1 Draft EIS. Chapter 4. November 2015. 

http://www.necfuture.com/pdfs/tier1_deis/c04.pdf

30 Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative. Existing Conditions Assessment Report. January 2014. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-3 May 2016

designated as not meeting one or more of the NAAQS; it requires that a state prepare a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for each nonattainment area and a maintenance plan for each former 

nonattainment area that for which the state subsequently demonstrated compliance with the 

standards. 

EPA’s Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93 Subpart A) requires the lead federal agency to make 

a “conformity determination” for transportation plans, programs, and projects – that is, a 

determination that the proposed transportation plan, program, or project conforms with the 

relevant SIP - before the lead federal agency approves or adopts the proposed project. The 

Conformity Rule also establishes the process by which federal agencies determine the 

conformance of proposed projects. Federal activities may not cause or contribute to new 

violations of air quality standards, exacerbate existing violations or interfere with timely

attainment or required interim emissions reductions toward attainment.

EPA’s General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93 Subpart B) ensures that federal actions 

comply with the NAAQS and requires the lead federal agency to demonstrate that every action 

it undertakes, approves, permits or supports conforms to the appropriate SIP. Under the 

General Conformity Rule, determinations are made on a project-by-project basis. Table 4.1-1 

below presents the General Conformity de minimis threshold levels for criteria pollutants for 

nonattainment areas and maintenance areas. 40 CFR 93 § 153 defines de minimis levels as the 

minimum threshold for which a conformity determination must be performed, for various 

criteria pollutants in various areas.31

Table 4.1-1. General Conformity Threshold Levels

The General Conformity Rule applies to all federal actions that are taken in designated 

nonattainment or maintenance areas, except for the following:

 Actions where the total of direct and indirect emissions are below the de minimis

emission levels shown above;

 Actions which occur in an attainment area;

 

31 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). General Conformity. 

https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/genconform/deminimis.html; 40 CFR Part 93 § 153 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?SID=1f7cb5e67642afd848cc9f144f3ad9ee&pitd=20160129&node=se40.20.93_1153&rgn=div8
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-4 May 2016

 Actions that are covered by transportation conformity – that is, actions that are related to 

transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded, or approved under Title 

23 of the U.S. Code or the Federal Transit Act (49 U.S.C. § 1601); or

 Actions that qualify for exemptions established at 40 CFR Part 93.153.

Principal applicable state laws are as follows:

Massachusetts

 Massachusetts Clean Air Act (Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.) Chapter 111, 

Sections 142A-142J: Massachusetts Clean Air Act)

New Hampshire

 New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSAs), Title 10: Public Health, Chapter 

125-C: Air Pollution Control)

 New Hampshire Air Program Rules (Env-A 100-4800 Rules Governing the Control of 

Air Pollution) 

Vermont

 Vermont Air Pollution Control Laws (Title 10 Conservation and Development, Chapter 

23. Air Pollution Control) 

Methodology

The Study Team screened the Corridor for compliance with NAAQS. All Corridor counties in 

Massachusetts and Vermont and Cheshire County in New Hampshire are currently classified as 

in attainment for the 2008 (8-hour) Ozone Standard. The Corridor is also in attainment for all 

other air quality standards. Because the NNEIRI Study Area is in attainment areas, the general 

conformity requirements do not apply to this project.

On a local scale, the potential effect of the Build Alternative on air quality is limited to 

increases in locomotive emissions associated with the increased frequency of passenger train 

service, and both increases and decreases in on-road emissions associated with station access 

and mode shift, respectively. Decreases in on-road emissions could have a beneficial impact on 

local air quality if large numbers of vehicle trips are shifted to passenger rail, occurring along 

highway corridors where those trips would otherwise occur. 

The Study Team estimated change in regional vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) for the Build and 

No-Build Alternatives and compared at the segment (Boston-Springfield and SpringfieldMontreal) using best available outputs from the Corridor travel demand forecasting model that

the Study Team used for forecasting ridership. Using change in VMT as a surrogate for 

specific air quality modeling enabled potential air quality issues to be identified to determine 

whether further data collection and analysis would be required in a Tier 2 analysis. 

At a local level, the Study Team reviewed ridership increases by station to qualitatively 

determine the extent to which passenger-vehicle trips could create increased congestion on 

roadways adjacent to station areas. The Study Team used the results of this review to 

determine whether further data collection and analysis would be required in a Tier 2 analysis.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-5 May 2016

Similarly, the Study Team identified potential railroad siding or idling areas for passenger 

trains and compared with mapping of sensitive receptors (hospitals, schools, recreation areas) 

conducted during existing conditions / screening analysis activities to determine whether 

further data collection and analysis would be required in a Tier 2 analysis.

Existing Conditions

The section discusses attainment status for each of the areas within the NNEIRI Study Area 

relative to general conformity as required by FRA. 

Boston to Springfield 

The analysis of existing air quality of the NNEIRI Study Area focused on regulated air 

pollutants contained in the NAAQS including SO2, CO, NO2, O3, PM10 and PM2.5 and on 

monitoring data and stations within or near the NNEIRI Study Area. 

The NNEIRI Study Area in the Boston to Springfield segment is in Hampden, Middlesex, 

Norfolk, Suffolk, and Worcester Counties. All the Corridor counties in this segment are in 

attainment for SO2, NO2 (2010 1-hour standard), CO, PM2.5, Pb and 2008 O3 standard. 

Springfield to Canadian Border

The NNEIRI Study Area in the Springfield to Canadian Border segment is in Hampden and 

Hampshire Counties in Massachusetts, Sullivan and Cheshire Counties in New Hampshire, and 

Addison, Chittenden, Franklin, Grand Isle, Orange, Washington, Windham, and Windsor 

Counties in Vermont. All Corridor counties in Massachusetts and Vermont and Cheshire 

County in New Hampshire are currently classified as in attainment for the 2008 (8-hour)

Ozone Standard. The Corridor segment is also in attainment for all other air quality standards. 

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, intercity passenger rail travel options in the Corridor would 

remain very limited, with low frequency, low speeds, and multiple transfers needed in the 

Boston-Montreal, New Haven-Montreal, and Boston-New Haven markets. Therefore, travelers 

would continue to have no realistic alternative to automobile and airplane modes and the 

benefits of reduced VMT and associated emissions resulting from the mode shift to passenger 

rail would not be realized. 

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter EA identified no adverse air quality impacts 

resulting from that project. The Knowledge Corridor project would have beneficial effects on 

air quality as it would result in a decrease in air emissions due to the shorter distance of the 

proposed rail line (as compared to the existing rail line) and the increased train speed. The 

combination of the shorter distance of the proposed rail line and increased speed of the train 

would result in a significantly shorter time that the locomotives would be in use, resulting in a 

decrease in air emissions. According to the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter EA, 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-6 May 2016

overall emissions from air pollutants (NOx, CO and other air pollutants) are expected to 

decrease approximately 28% due to the changes in train speed and railroad distance. 

The NHHS EA identified no short-term or long-term adverse air quality impacts as a result of 

the proposed project, therefore no air quality mitigation measures are proposed. With the shift 

to public transportation, the project anticipates to reduce vehicle miles traveled and improve air 

quality. At the time of this writing, the NHHS project was in final permitting and construction.

Air quality impacts of the SSX project are associated with emissions generated by locomotives 

entering and leaving the Boston South Station terminal and layover facilities, intercity buses 

from Boston South Station terminal, and vehicular traffic. According to the DEIR, the SSX 

project would result in very small increases in pollutant emissions, which would not lead to the

exceedances of the NAAQS.

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

The ridership summary in Table 3.4-3 includes the total annual VMT diverted from passenger 

vehicle use as a result of mode shift to NNEIRI service. This information is the basis for 

characterization of potential air quality benefits through reduction in fuel use and associated 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The Study Team used conversion factors from the May 2014, 

EPA fact sheet “Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle”

32 to 

determine the annual metric tons of CO2 reduced as a result of the projected reduction in 

VMT. Table 4.1-2 summarizes the calculations based upon an emissions factor of 411 grams

CO2/mile. The reduction of CO2 in annual metric ton was then obtained by dividing the total 

reduction in grams with one million. 

Implementation of the Build Alternative would result in an annual reduction of nearly 46,800

metric tons of CO2 associated with projected reductions in passenger vehicle VMT. This value 

includes VMT reductions associated with NNEIRI services from Boston and Montreal that 

continue via Springfield to New Haven and that previous environmental documents for the 

New Haven to Springfield segment acknowledged (but did not quantify).

The Study Team also calculated CO2 emissions from additional train miles for NNEIRI 

services (8 daily round trip trains from Boston to New Haven, 1 daily round trip train from 

Boston to Montreal, and 1 daily round trip train from New Haven to Montreal) based on EPA 

guidelines.

33 The Build Alternative would result in an emission of 101 annual metric tons of 

CO2 due to additional train operations in comparison to the annual reduction of nearly 46,800 

 

32 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. Office of Transportation and Air Quality EPA 

-420-F-14-040a. May 2014. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f14040a.pdf

33 EPA Publication EPA420-R-08-001, March 2008
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-7 May 2016

metric tons of CO2 associated with projected reductions in passenger vehicle VMT. While there 

would be increased emissions from additional train operations and idling, the reductions 

associated with passenger vehicle VMT are expected to more than offset the additional train 

emissions. 

Table 4.1-2. Potential Air Quality Benefits / CO2 Reductions 

Segment Annual VMT Diverted

(2035 Build Alternative)

Annual Metric Tons of 

CO2 

Boston to Springfield

Within Boston-Springfield Segment 2,543,477 1,045 tons/year

Between Boston-Springfield Segment and 

Springfield-New Haven/NEC Segment (thru, not 

including SPG)

42,901,399 

17,632 tons/year

Springfield to Montreal

Within Montreal-Springfield Segment 18,634,543 7,659 tons/year

Between Springfield-Montreal Segment and BostonSPG Segment (thru, not including SPG)2,376,380 977 tons/year

Between Springfield-Montreal Segment and 

Springfield-New Haven/NEC Segment (thru, not 

including SPG)

47,391,902

19,478 tons/year

Corridor Total 113,847,700 46,791 tons/year

Projected warming and increased precipitation trends for the region due to climate change, 

resulting in greater frequency of extreme heat and flooding events, have the potential to impact 

the reliability and design life of transportation infrastructure. Evaluation of climate change 

resiliency for NNEIRI service is consistent with key transportation infrastructure strategies 

outlined in policies, guidance, and orders that have been issued by USDOT, CEQ, MassDOT, 

VTrans and NHDOT.

As design proceeds, it would be important to establish hazard information related to 

temperature and precipitation. With respect to precipitation, the current 100-year (1%-annualchance) flood elevation for the project site would be evaluated. Additionally, to comply with 

Executive Order (EO) 13690,

34 “The Federal Flood Risk Management Standard”, it would be 

necessary to coordinate with Federal and State agencies to select the preferred approach for 

establishing the flood elevation and hazard area to be used for siting, design, and construction 

considerations. Per E.O. 13690, the three approaches to be considered include:

 

34 Executive Order 13690, “Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further 

Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input”, President of the United States, January 30, 2015.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-8 May 2016

 Use data and methods informed by best-available, actionable climate science;

 Build two feet above the 100-year (1%-annual-chance) flood elevation for standard 

projects, and three feet above for critical buildings like hospitals and evacuation centers; 

or

 Build to the 500-year (0.2%-annual-chance) flood elevation.

4.1.2 Noise and Vibration

The Study Team performed noise and vibration analyses for the Boston to Springfield and East 

Northfield to Canadian border segments of the NNEIRI Corridor. FRA performed noise and 

vibration analyses for the New Haven to East Northfield segment as part of the EA for the 

NHHS project and the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EA. FRA based the 

Knowledge Corridor noise and vibration analyses on a proposed service with fewer trains and 

lower speeds than the NNEIRI, so this segment of the NNEIRI Corridor will need to be 

evaluated further during Tier 2 analysis. The NNEIRI Study Area for noise and vibration 

covers 309 miles of existing rail line traversing urban, suburban, and rural areas of 

Massachusetts and Vermont. The Study Team evaluated potential noise and vibration impacts 

based on relevant methodologies and criteria as summarized below.

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Regulatory Requirements

Local regulations typically defer to federal regulations and criteria for interstate rail projects. 

Criteria relevant to this project are those published by FRA and Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA). FRA published its latest noise and vibration guidelines in 2012 (entitled High-Speed 

Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Report Number 

DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15) and FTA published its latest noise and vibration guidelines in 2006 

(entitled Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Report Number FTA-VA-90-1003-

06). The FRA guidelines are intended only for high-speed rail lines, where trains are traveling 

at speeds greater than 90 miles per hour. Because the maximum speeds associated with 

NNEIRI Build Alternative operations would be 79 miles per hour, the Study Team followed 

the FTA guidelines for this analysis.

The noise and vibration impact criteria are the same in the FRA and FTA guidelines. Each 

guideline addresses the same three categories of noise- and vibration-sensitive uses: highly 

sensitive, residential, and institutional. The noise impact categories for both guidelines are no 

impact, moderate impact, and severe impact, and the noise limits associated with these are on a 

sliding scale (changing with existing background levels). Moderate impacts are normally 

designated as warranting the consideration of noise mitigation and severe impacts are normally 

designated as requiring noise mitigation. The vibration impacts are based on absolute limits 

(independent of existing levels) that are identical for FRA and FTA. It is therefore important to 

define existing background levels at noise-sensitive locations that may be affected by the 

project but existing vibration levels do not need to be determined.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-9 May 2016

Methodology

There are three levels of noise and vibration analyses discussed in the guidelines (screening 

analysis, general assessment, and detailed analysis) based on three categories of sensitive 

receptors. Category 1 receptors are locations requiring exceptional quiet (such as outdoor 

theaters, recording studios, concert halls, or national historic landmarks), Category 2 receptors 

are residences and buildings in which people would be sleeping, and Category 3 receptors are 

institutional buildings with primarily daytime use (such as houses of worship and educational 

facilities). 

The Study Team assessed the noise and vibration impacts of the Build Alternative using a mix 

of screening and general assessment analyses to determine if a more detailed assessment of 

noise and vibration impacts would be required. Category 1 receptors were not analyzed 

because these receptor sites would be addressed in a Tier 2 project level study, for which the 

level of detail necessary to identify Category 1 receptors would be more appropriate. Since this 

is a Tier 1 service-level EA, a detailed analysis is not required for this Tier 1 noise and 

vibration assessment. The more detailed analyses would be part of a Tier 2 project level 

review.

Screening Analysis

The noise and vibration screening analyses are based on determining whether a significant 

number of noise- and vibration-sensitive locations are located within specified distances of the 

rail centerline.

For noise, these screening distances are 750 feet for passenger rail operations and 1,600 feet for 

horns, each assuming an unobstructed view between the rail line and the sensitive locations. 

These values are shorter for locations having their views obstructed by intervening buildings 

however, since there are thousands of potential sensitive receptors along hundreds of miles in 

this Corridor, the Study Team assumed unobstructed views throughout the Corridor – the most 

conservative assumption -- to determine the potential impacts.

For vibration, the screening distances are 600 feet for highly vibration-sensitive buildings, 200 

feet for residential buildings, and 120 feet for institutional buildings.

The FTA guidelines assume that if any noise- or vibration-sensitive locations are within the 

screening distances, impacts are likely to occur and a minimum of a general assessment is 

required. This is the case for both noise and vibration for the Build Alternative and the Study 

Team used the relevant screening distances to define the NNEIRI Study Area for noise and 

vibration.

General Assessment

For a general noise assessment, the Study Team estimated Build Alternative noise levels and 

existing noise conditions to determine the location of a noise impact contour, which defines the 

outer limit of an impact area. These estimates are based on calculations prescribed in the FTA 

guidelines. An inventory of noise impacts within the area then identifies locations where 

mitigation of noise impacts is likely to be needed.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-10 May 2016

The purpose of a general assessment for vibration is to develop estimates of the existing overall 

levels of ground-borne vibration (GBV) that can be compared to the acceptability criteria in the 

FTA guidelines. The general vibration assessment defines a curve that is used to predict the 

overall ground-surface vibration as a function of distance from the source. Adjustments to this

curve are used to account for factors such as vehicle speed, building type, and receiver 

locations. Given the size and complexity of the NNEIRI Study Area, along with the lesser level 

of analysis typically performed for a Tier 1 study, building types were not included by the 

Study Team in this assessment. 

Vibration impacts are generally considered in terms of annoyance potential. Typical rail 

operations are not capable of generating vibration levels that could cause structural damage; 

those kinds of levels are usually limited to heavy construction activities such as pile driving 

and blasting. With the possible exception of activities related to new station/platform 

construction in Worcester and Palmer, Massachusetts, the Study Team does not anticipate pile 

driving and blasting to occur in implementation of the Build Alternative.

For this Tier 1 analysis, a mixture of screening and general assessment analyses was performed 

by the Study Team to determine the potential extent of severe impacts throughout the Corridor. 

Category 1 receptors were not analyzed because these receptor sites would be addressed in a 

Tier 2 project level study, for which the level of detail necessary to identify Category 1 

receptors would be more appropriate.

Existing Conditions

The 99-mile Boston to Springfield NNEIRI segment traverses the urban areas of Boston, 

Worcester, and Springfield, Massachusetts, and suburban and rural areas in between. The 210-

mile NNEIRI segment from Northfield, Massachusetts to the Canadian border travels through 

Brattleboro, Bellows Falls, White River Junction, St. Albans, and Burlington, Vermont and 

rural areas in between. The rail line serves freight operations from CSX, Pan Am Southern

(PAS), and NECR, along with Amtrak passenger service between Boston and Springfield and 

between Springfield, Massachusetts and St. Albans, Vermont, and MBTA passenger service 

between Boston and Worcester, Massachusetts. 

The Study Team determined the existing noise levels throughout the Corridor by a combination 

of regional population density calculations and regional freight operations noise calculations, 

as prescribed in the FTA guidelines. The Study Team derived population densities and noiseand vibration-sensitive locations throughout the Corridor from existing GIS information and 

aerial photography. For Vermont, the Study Team selected residences from the E911 Site 

Location data. For Massachusetts, the Study Team used the latest town parcel data and selected 

parcels tagged with a residential land use. For New Hampshire, GIS data were not available 

and residential buildings were identified from recent (2011 or newer) aerial photographs. 

Maximum speeds were assumed by the Study Team to be 59 miles per hour for all freight 

trains and 79 miles per hour for all passenger trains. The existing noise levels for each region 

of similar rail operations were considered by the Study Team to be the higher of these two 

calculated values, and these were used as the basis for the noise criteria established for the 

Build Alternative, since the noise criteria are based on the existing levels.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-11 May 2016

No-Build Alternative Consequences

No increase in passenger operations is anticipated by the Study Team along the Corridor in the 

No-Build scenario except along the New Haven, Connecticut to Springfield, Massachusetts

segment, which would experience increase in passenger operations due to the NHHS service.

Other anticipated increase would be in terms of the number of cars in each freight train, 

assumed at a growth rate of 2.2% per year through 2035. An exception to this would be in the 

CSX section between Worcester and Springfield, where four additional trains (3 daytime/1 

nighttime) would be added due to the anticipated service growth. Therefore, no increase in 

noise or vibration exposures would result from the No-Build Alternative except for a slight 

increase between Worcester and Springfield.

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EA identified moderate train-horn noise impacts 

to 203 receptors (mainly residential) and severe horn noise impacts to two residential receptors. 

Based on the linear extent of the project and the number of the dense urban areas it passes 

through, the number of severe noise impacts is not significant. According to the EA, the project 

would have potential vibration impacts on residential and institutional land uses. However, the 

vibration impacts are not considered significant because of the limited number of train passing 

under the proposed alternative. As stated in the EA, the project would have two potential noise 

and vibration benefits through the use of mitigation measures: the designation of Quiet Zones 

and installation of resilient track fasteners or ballast mats.

The NHHS EA identified severe noise impacts at 1,847 noise-sensitive receptors and moderate 

noise impacts at 2,767 noise-sensitive receptors caused by train-horn noise at grade crossings 

and existing and new rail stations. Wallingford, Meriden, and Windsor are anticipated to have 

the most train-horn noise impacts. The project would also have severe wayside noise impacts 

to seven residential receptors and moderate wayside noise impacts to 214 residential receptors. 

The EA proposes designation of Quiet Zones to mitigate severe horn noise and provide 

increased noise insulation and home-specific improvements to mitigate wayside noise impacts. 

According to the EA, the project would have low to moderate noise impact to Springfield 

layover and maintenance facility, given the existing urban nature of the proposed site’s 

vicinity, and therefore, no mitigation would be required. The EA notes that nearby receptors 

would be reviewed during the future Tier 2 to confirm that there are no impacts. The EA 

identified no adverse impacts due to project-related vibration as there are no vibration-sensitive 

receptors located within 60 feet of the tracks. Subsequent to the EA, some segments of the 

NHHS corridor were in final permitting and construction phase.

The SSX DEIR identified noise impacts at South Station, Widett Circle, and the Readville 

Yard layover facility in Alternative 1. According to the DEIR, because of the slow speeds at 

which trains operate when entering and leaving South Station, typical vibration levels are 

below the FTA impact criterion.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-12 May 2016

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

In addition to the FTA screening analysis, which consisted of determining the number of noiseand vibration-sensitive receptors within the specified screening distances, the Study Team 

determined refined screening distances based on FTA general assessment noise and vibration 

calculations in regions where common operational conditions are anticipated to occur. These 

calculations are described in detail in the Noise and Vibration Technical Report (Appendix B) 

and the results of these calculations are summarized in Tables 4.1-3 and 4.1-4 for noise, and in 

Table 4.1-5 for vibration. The results are divided by residential (Category 2) and institutional 

(Category 3) properties.

These analysis performed by the Study Team indicates that there is the potential for a total of 

435 severe noise impacts, 11,827 moderate noise impacts, and 2,234 vibration annoyance 

impacts due to the project. Most of the impacts are in the highly populated and heavily traveled 

Boston to Springfield segment. This is due to the nature of the FTA criteria, which become 

more stringent as existing noise levels increase (since background noise levels are higher in the 

Boston to Springfield segment than in other areas along the project Corridor). All potential 

noise impacts would be caused by horn soundings within the FRA-mandated 1⁄4-mile distance 

of grade crossings. Vibration impacts would not result from horn soundings.

As is mentioned above, these calculations are based on the worst-case scenario of all trains 

travelling at maximum speeds throughout the Corridor and no natural or man-made noise 

buffers between the trains and sensitive locations. As these worst-case conditions would not be 

present everywhere along the Corridor, these estimates would decrease when a more detailed 

analysis (taking these factors into account) is performed in Tier 2.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-13 May 2016

Table 4.1-3. Potential severe noise impacts

Corridor segment Number of residential 

(Category 2) receptors

Number of institutional 

(Category 3) receptors

Boston to 

Springfield

Boston to Route 128 68 0

Route 128 to Framingham 130 0

Framingham to Worcester 46 0

Worcester area 79 0

Worcester to Springfield 85 0

Springfield area 26 0

East 

Northfield 

to 

Canadian 

Border

East Northfield to Brattleboro 0 0

Brattleboro to Bellows Falls 0 0

Bellows Falls to White River Junction 0 0

White River Junction to Essex Junction (Burlington) 1 0

Essex Junction to St. Albans 0 0

St. Albans to Canadian border 0 0

Totals 435 0
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-14 May 2016

Table 4.1-4. Potential moderate noise impacts

Corridor segment Number of residential 

(Category 2) receptors

Number of institutional 

(Category 3) receptors

Boston to 

Springfield

Boston to Route 128 3,558 0

Route 128 to Framingham 2,194 0

Framingham to Worcester 1,185 1

Worcester area 2,018 3

Worcester to Springfield 1,850 1

Springfield area 981 0

East 

Northfield 

to 

Canadian 

Border

East Northfield to Brattleboro 1 0

Brattleboro to Bellows Falls 4 0

Bellows Falls to White River Junction 6 0

White River Junction to Essex Junction (Burlington) 22 0

Essex Junction to St. Albans 0 0

St. Albans to Canadian border 3 0

Totals 11,822 5

Table 4.1-5. Potential Vibration Annoyance Impacts 

Corridor segment Number of Residential 

(Category 2) receptors

Number of Institutional 

(Category 2) receptors

Boston to 

Springfield

Boston to Route 128 415 0

Route 128 to Framingham 395 4

Framingham to Worcester 199 5

Worcester area 195 4

Worcester to Springfield 208 1

Springfield area 61 0

Northfield 

to 

Canadian 

Border

Northfield to Brattleboro 26 0

Brattleboro to Bellows Falls 51 0

Bellows Falls to White River Junction 134 0

White River Junction to Essex Junction (Burlington) 399 0

Essex Junction to St. Albans 78 0

St. Albans to Canadian border 59 0

Totals 2,220 14
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-15 May 2016

4.1.3 Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

This section discusses the affected environment for floodplains and the environmental 

consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternative. 

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential impacts to and from 

floodplains and the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

Floodplains include the lands on either side of a stream or river that are inundated when the 

capacity of the stream or river channel is exceeded. The National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP) was established pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (amended)35 and 

the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) of 1973 (as amended)36, to encourage sound 

floodplain management programs at the state and local levels. To provide a national standard 

without regional discrimination, the 100-year flood has been adopted by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the base flood for floodplain management and 

flood insurance purposes.

Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management37 (1977) directs federal agencies to 

"provide leadership and take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impacts of 

floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains." In addition, the USDOT Order 5650.2 describes 

policies and procedures for “ensuring that proper consideration is given to avoidance and 

mitigation of adverse floodplain impacts in agency actions, planning programs and budget 

requests.”

38

On January 30, 2015, President Obama issued Executive Order 1369039 that revises Executive 

Order 11988 and proposes a new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). The 

FFRMS gives agencies the flexibility to select one of three approaches for establishing the 

flood elevation and hazard area they use in siting, design, and construction. They can:

 Use data and methods informed by best-available, actionable climate science; 

 Build two feet above the 100-year (1% annual-chance) flood elevation for standard 

projects, and three feet above for critical buildings like hospitals and evacuation centers; 

or

 Build to the 500-year (0.2% annual-chance) flood elevation.

 

35 National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. 42 U.S.C.4001 et seq. (1968).

36 Flood Disaster Act of 1973 [42 U.S.C.4001 et seq.] (amended).

37 Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” President of the United States, 1977.

38 US Department of Transportation Order 5650.2, "Floodplain Management and Protection," April 23, 1979.

39 Executive Order 13690, “Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further 

Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input”, President of the United States, January 30, 2015.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-16 May 2016

The Executive Orders and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts requires 

FRA to determine whether any project alternatives would affect a base floodplain. If one or 

more alternatives would affect a base floodplain further analysis should be conducted on any 

risk associated with each such alternative; the impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain 

values; the degree to which the alternative supports incompatible development in the base 

floodplain; and the adequacy of the methods proposed to minimize harm. 

At the state level, the following legislation applies:

Massachusetts

 Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.) Chapter 183 section 69, as added by Session 

Laws: Chapter 177 of the Acts of 2014, An Act Further Regulating Flood Insurance, 

effective November 20, 2014 prohibits creditors from requiring residential flood 

insurance in excess of the outstanding mortgage balance, or with a deductible of less than 

$5,000.

New Hampshire

In 2012 and 2104, Congress passed the following Acts, which made changes to flood insurance 

rates under the NFIP.

 July 6, 2012 - Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012

 March 21, 2014 - Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 

Vermont

 Environmental Protection Rule. Chapter 29: Vermont Flood Hazard Area and River 

Corridor Rule. Effective March 1, 2015

 Title 10 V.S.A. Chapter 32: Flood Hazard Areas, Chapter 39: Watershed Protection and 

Flood Prevention

Methodology

The Study Team determined floodplain limits (NNEIRI Study Area for floodplains) within the 

NNEIRI Corridor using FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) databases. These floodprone areas are most often delineated based upon the 100-year storm event. As would be 

expected, areas subject to flooding within the NNEIRI Study Area generally coincide with 

rivers, streams, wetlands, and nearby low-lying valley areas.

For both the Boston to Springfield and Springfield to Canadian border segments, the Study 

Team created 500 scale maps of areas where a second track is proposed, in order to closely 

examine possible floodplain impacts within or adjacent to 100-year or 500-year floodplains.

A floodplain is the area that is inundated with water during a flood. A 100-year flood, also 

referred to as base flood, is calculated to be the level of floodwater that has a one percent (%) 

chance of being equaled or exceeded in any single year. A floodplain is composed of two parts: 

the floodway and the floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream, plus any 

adjacent floodplain areas, that must be kept free of encroachment in order that the 100-year 

flood is carried without increasing the water surface elevation by more than one foot. The 

floodway fringe area is the outer portion of the floodplain beyond the floodway. Changes in the 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-17 May 2016

floodway such as adding fill material, constructing buildings or bridges, or limiting the natural 

conveyance of floodwaters can cause a rise in the 100-year water surface and can subsequently 

impact properties not previously affected by a 100-year storm event.

500-year flood areas are moderate flood hazard areas between the limits of the base flood and 

the 0.2 percent (%) annual chance flood. 

Existing Conditions

This section summarizes existing conditions of floodplain areas within the NNEIRI Study 

Area. Floodplains can pose significant constraints to the development of alternatives. 

Information on the nature and extent of floodplains within each segment is provided in the 

following sections.

Boston to Springfield 

FEMA-designated floodplains comprise approximately 9,012 acres in the Boston to Springfield 

segment of the Corridor. Major river floodplains along this segment include the Charles, 

Sudbury, Quaboag, Chicopee, and the Connecticut Rivers. Floodplains also are mapped along 

numerous smaller tributaries and larger lakes along the Corridor.

Springfield to Canadian Border

FEMA-designated floodplains comprise approximately 25,036 acres in the Springfield to 

Canadian Border segment of the Corridor. Major river floodplains along this segment include 

the Connecticut River, Deerfield River, West River, White River (and its branches), Dog 

River, Winooski River, and Lamoille River. Floodplains also are mapped along numerous 

smaller tributaries and larger lakes along the Corridor.

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in direct or indirect impacts to floodways, 100-year and 500-

year floodplains.

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS, and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EA identified no potential impacts to the 100-

year floodplains because the project would not require any additional fill material within 

waterways or floodplains. The proposed station improvements at Northampton and Greenfield

are not within the 100-year floodplain (both Northampton and Greenfield are not located in a 

flood zone). 

The NHHS EA identified potential impacts to floodplains (10.7 acres), floodways (1.0 acre)

and stream channel encroachment lines (SCELs) (2.1 acres) and additional impacts to bridges 

and culverts in the Connecticut segment of the NHHS rail corridor. The NHHS rail program 

would have no impacts to floodplains in Massachusetts because there are no floodways or 100-

year floodplains located within the vicinity of the Massachusetts improvements (e.g., 

Springfield Layover site), and SCELs are only applicable to Connecticut. The NHHS EA 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-18 May 2016

proposed mitigation includes developing mitigation measures in coordination with Connecticut 

Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) and USACE during the State 

Flood Management Certification (FMC) application and the SCEL permitting processes and/or

providing compensatory mitigation if required. At the time of this writing, the NHHS project 

was in final permitting and construction.

To assess the SSX project’s vulnerability to climate change, floodplains in the study area were 

identified using the 2016 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance 

Rate Maps (FIRM); the newly-developed Boston Harbor – Flood Risk Model (BH-FRM); and 

the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model as well as a two-foot sea 

level rise added to the base flood elevations (BFEs). Results of the analysis were used to 

determine the amount of the project area that would be within the 1% chance flood event, the 

impact to the project area caused by different categories of hurricanes, and the inundation 

levels that could occur throughout the area from these events. Based upon 2016 FIRMs, 

approximately 3 acres of the South Station project footprint would be inundated by the 1% 

annual chance flood. Adding two feet to the flood elevation to reflect a future sea level rise 

scenario would amplify the risk at South Station and increase flood elevation to approximately 

12 feet. In the absence of mitigation, the 1% annual chance floodplain would encompass 

approximately 28 acres of the South Station project footprint. To mitigate flooding on the 

project site, the Fort Point Channel seawall and the adjacent portion of Dorchester Avenue 

would be raised from their current elevation of 10.5 feet to 12.0 feet to match the elevation of 

the existing seawall to the north and south. Raising the seawall and adjacent roadway in this 

manner would help protect the South Station site in the area along Dorchester Ave where the 

USPS facility is currently located from future coastal storm flooding.

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

The Build Alternative is unlikely to have any impacts to floodplains in areas where no second 

track construction would take place due to the utilization of existing rail corridor. In locations 

where a second track is proposed, any floodplain impacts are anticipated to be minor because 

the Corridor was historically double tracked, which would be rehabilitated within the existing 

rail ROW. This limits the amount of fill required within the floodplain areas and are not likely 

to alter the flood plain elevations. 

For both Boston to Springfield and Springfield to Canadian border segments, the Study Team 

created 500 scale maps of areas where a second track is proposed, in order to closely examine 

possible floodplain impacts. The most recent FEMA flood data was used to determine which 

areas were within or adjacent to 100-year or 500-year floodplains. These maps are included in 

Appendix C- Flood Zone Maps. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-19 May 2016

Boston to Springfield

Between Worcester and Springfield, an additional track is proposed within or adjacent to 100-

year or 500-year floodplains for approximately 11.5 miles. The locations within the floodplain 

are summarized below by segment of added track. Table 4.1-6 summarizes the locations by 

milepost, town, and floodplain type. 

Auburn to Charlton (Mileposts 48.3-57.7): This segment includes a few small sections within 

the floodplain totaling approximately 0.3 miles.

Charlton to East Brookfield (Mileposts 59.3-63.3): This segment includes a few small sections 

within the floodplain totaling approximately 0.1 miles.

East Brookfield to Brimfield (Mileposts 64.0-79.4): This segment of proposed second track is 

within the floodplain for approximately 10 miles. It is adjacent to the Quaboag River. 

Palmer to Wilbraham (Mileposts 83.6-92.0): This segment of proposed second track is within 

the floodplain for approximately 1.1 miles. It is adjacent to the Quaboag River, Calkins Brook,

and the Chicopee River.

Worcester Station: No mapped floodplains have been identified in the vicinity of Worcester 

Station; therefore, impacts due to the construction of a new passenger platform are not 

anticipated.

Palmer Station: The location for the proposed station at Palmer would be determined during 

Tier 2. Floodplains would be considered when determining potential sites to minimize any 

possible impacts. If potential impacts resulting from the construction or operation of the new 

station are identified, the project proponent would consult with the relevant federal and state 

resource agencies. 

Table 4.1-6. Floodplain Impacts along Second Track – Boston to Springfield

Mile Post Town Types of Floodplain Adjacent/Through the 

Floodplain

Mileposts 48.3 to 57.7

50.0 Auburn 100-Year Through (Bridge/Culvert)

50.6-50.7 Auburn 100-Year Adjacent

55.1 Charlton Floodway Through (Bridge/Culvert)

55.9 Charlton 100-Year Adjacent

Mileposts 59.3-63.3

63.0 East Brookfield 100-Year Through (Bridge/Culvert)

63.2-63.3 East Brookfield 100-Year Through

Mileposts 64 to 79.4

64.1 East Brookfield 100-Year Through

65.0-65.1 East Brookfield 500-Year Through
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-20 May 2016

Mile Post Town Types of Floodplain Adjacent/Through the 

Floodplain

65.1-65.9 East Brookfield/ 

Brookfield

100-Year Through

66.0-66.1 Brookfield 500-Year Adjacent

66.1-66.9 Brookfield 100-Year Through

67.0-67.8 Brookfield 100-Year Through

67.9 Brookfield 100-Year Adjacent

68.2-68.8 West Brookfield 100-Year Adjacent

68.8-69.4 West Brookfield 100-Year Through

69.4-69.8 West Brookfield 500-Year Through

69.8-69.9 West Brookfield 500-Year Adjacent

69.9-70.2 West Brookfield 100-Year Adjacent

70.2 West Brookfield 100-Year Through

70.3-70.5 West Brookfield 100-Year Adjacent

71.0-71.5 Warren 100-Year Adjacent

71.7-71.9 Warren 100-Year Adjacent

72.0-72.2 Warren 100-Year Adjacent

72.8-73.1 Warren 100-Year Adjacent

73.1 Warren 100-Year Through (Bridge/Culvert)

73.4-73.5 Warren 100-Year Through (Bridge/Culvert)

73.6-74.9 Warren 100-Year Adjacent/Through

75.1-75.7 Warren 100-Year Adjacent/Through

75.9-76.0 Warren 100-Year Through

77.3-78.0 Warren/Brimfield 100-Year Through

78.0-78.2 Brimfield 500-Year Through

78.2-78.4 Brimfield 100-Year Through

78.5-79.0 Brimfield 100-Year Through

79.4-79.5 Brimfield 100-Year Through

Mileposts 83.6 to 92.0

83.6-84.6 Palmer/Monson 100-Year Adjacent/Through

88.1 Monson 500-Year Through

90.1 Monson 500-Year Adjacent
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-21 May 2016

Springfield to Canadian Border 

Between Springfield and Canadian border, a second track is proposed within or adjacent to 

100-year or 500-year floodplains for approximately 16.5 miles. The locations within the

floodplain are summarized below by segment of added track. Table 4.1-7 summarizes the 

locations by milepost, town, and floodplain type. 

East Northfield (Mileposts 110.5-111.8): This segment does not pass through any mapped 

floodplains.

Downtown Brattleboro (Mileposts 120.5-122.0): This segment runs through mapped 100-year 

or 500-year floodplain for its entire length (1.5 miles). It is adjacent to the Connecticut River.

Brattleboro to Bellows Falls (Mileposts 123.5-144.0): This segment runs parallel to the 

Connecticut River with the majority of its length within or adjacent to mapped 100-year or 

500-year floodplain. It runs through or adjacent to the floodplain for approximately 14.4 miles.

The segment crosses a mapped floodway in one location in Westminster.

Randolph (Mileposts 44.5-45.5): This segment does not pass through any mapped floodplains.

Roxbury (Mileposts 61.2-61.7): This segment runs adjacent to mapped 100-year floodplain for 

its entire length (0.5 miles).

St. Albans to Swanton (Mileposts 1.5-8.5): This segment runs through mapped 100-year 

floodplain for approximately 0.1 miles. It runs parallel to the Missisquoi River for 

approximately 2 miles but is outside any associated floodplains.

Table 4.1-7. Floodplain Impacts along Second Track – Springfield to Canadian Border

Mile Post Town Types of Floodplain Adjacent/Through the 

Floodplain

Mileposts 120.5 to 122.0

120.5-120.6 Brattleboro 100-year Through

120.6-121.2 Brattleboro 500-year Through

121.2-122.0 Brattleboro 100-year Adjacent

Mileposts 123.5 to 144.0

125.7-127.2 Dummerston 100-year Adjacent

127.5-127.8 Dummerston 100-year Through

127.8-128.4 Dummerston 100-year Adjacent

128.4-130.0 Dummerston 100-year Through

130.2-130.5 Dummerston/Putney 100-year Adjacent

130.7-130.8 Putney 100-year Adjacent

130.9-131.1 Putney 100-year Adjacent

132.0-132.2 Putney 100-year Adjacent

132.5 Putney 100-year Adjacent
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-22 May 2016

Mile Post Town Types of Floodplain Adjacent/Through the 

Floodplain

133.3-133.4 Putney 100-year Adjacent

134.0-134.5 Putney 100-year Adjacent

134.5-135.6 Putney 100-year Through

135.7-136.7 Putney/ Westminster 100-year Adjacent

136.7-136.8 Westminster 500-year Through

136.8-137.1 Westminster 100-year Adjacent

137.1-137.3 Westminster 500-year Through

137.4-137.6 Westminster 500-year Through

137.7-138.4 Westminster 100-year Adjacent

138.4-139.2 Westminster 100-year Through

139.2-139.6 Westminster 500-year Through

139.6-140.4 Westminster 100-year Through

140.4-140.6 Westminster Floodway Through

140.6-140.9 Westminster 100-year Through

141.5-141.7 Westminster 100-year Adjacent

141.7-142.5 Westminster 500-year Through

142.7-143.5 Westminster 500-year Through

143.5-144.1 Westminster 100-year Adjacent

144.1-144.2 Westminster 100-year Through

144.3-144.7 Rockingham 100-year Adjacent

Mileposts 61.2 to 61.7

61.2-61.7 Roxbury 100-year Adjacent

Mileposts 1.5 to 8.5

2.5 St. Albans 100-year Through

3.1 St. Albans 100-year Through
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-23 May 2016

4.1.4 Coastal Zone Management 

This section discusses the affected environment for coastal areas and the environmental 

consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternatives.

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential impacts to coastal areas 

and the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

According to Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, as 

amended, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) regulations (15 

CFR part 930), federal actions occurring within or with the likelihood of affecting any land or 

water use, or natural resource of a state’s coastal zone, including cumulative and secondary 

effects, must be consistent with a state’s federally approved Coastal Zone Management Plan 

(CZMP).

The following regulations are applicable to the consideration of coastal zone management in 

the NNEIRI Corridor. 

Massachusetts

 Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (MACZM) Policy Guide – October 

2011 

New Hampshire

 New Hampshire Coastal Zone Management Program

Vermont

 No Coastal Zone Management Program

Methodology

The Study Team used available GIS data40 to depict the Coastal Zone Management Areas 

within one-half mile of the Corridor centerline for each segment of the NNEIRI Corridor. The 

NNEIRI Corridor is located outside of designated coastal zones with the exception of Boston 

and New Haven. FRA previously assessed the New Haven area as part of the NHHS EA. In the 

Boston area, the NNEIRI service utilizes a rail corridor that is already heavily used for MBTA 

commuter rail and Amtrak operations, therefore additional impacts to coastal zones are 

unlikely because improvements are not likely to alter the flood plain elevations.

 

40 MassGIS Data – The Massachusetts Coastal Zone. 

http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/cstzone.html
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-24 May 2016

Existing Conditions

This section summarizes existing conditions of Coastal Zone Management Areas along the 

Corridor.

Boston to Springfield 

According to the MACZM Policy Guide41, the official Massachusetts coastal zone includes the 

lands and waters within the seaward limit of the state’s territorial sea to generally 100 feet 

beyond (landward of) the first major land transportation route encountered (a road, highway, 

rail line, etc.). The coastal zone in the state is divided into five distinct regions encompassing 

78 coastal communities, including Boston. The Boston-to-Springfield segment of the Corridor

transects the Massachusetts ocean management planning area boundary in Boston.

Springfield to Canadian Border

There are no coastal zones within the Springfield to Canadian Border segment of the Corridor. 

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in any additional direct or indirect impacts to coastal resources 

along the existing Corridor. 

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter EA did not evaluate impacts to coastal zone 

resources as the proposed project is not within the coastal zone. 

The NHHS EA identified no impacts to the coastal resources however, it suggests reviewing 

Coastal Consistency Review per the Coastal Area Management Act (CCMA) for North Haven 

Station because of the location of the project within Connecticut’s designated coastal 

boundary. The EA further proposes coordination with CTDEEP to identify possible 

avoidance/minimization measures. At the time of this writing, the NHHS project was in final 

permitting and construction.

Based on the SSX DEIR, the project elements located in the Massachusetts Coastal Zone (i.e. 

Boston South Station terminal and Widett Circle) comply with the Massachusetts Coastal Zone 

Policy for the purposes of Federal Consistency Review.

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

 

41 Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (MACZM) Policy Guide – October 2011.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-25 May 2016

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

The NNEIRI Corridor is located outside of designated coastal zones with the exception of 

Boston and New Haven. The New Haven area has previously been assessed as part of the 

NHHS EA. The NHHS study concluded that the proposed project is not anticipated to impact 

coastal resources but since the proposed project is located within Connecticut’s designated 

coastal boundary, the Connecticut DEEP would undertake a Coastal Area Management review 

during the permitting process. Subsequent to the NHHS EA, permitting for the southern

segments of the NHHS corridor was completed and the construction has started. In the Boston 

area, the NNEIRI service utilizes a rail corridor that is already heavily used for MBTA 

commuter rail and Amtrak operations, and improvements due to NNEIRI service are not likely 

to alter the flood plain elevations, therefore additional impacts to coastal zones are unlikely. No 

coastal zones are impacted in the Springfield to Canadian border segment of the NNEIRI

Corridor.

4.2 BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

4.2.1 Water Quality

This section discusses the affected environment for water quality in relation to the surface and 

ground water resources, and the environmental consequences associated with the No-Build and 

Build Alternative. 

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential impacts to water quality 

and the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

The U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) (1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act) provides surface water quality protection in the United States and provides for the 

regulation of the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the U.S.42

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states, as part of required periodic assessment and 

reporting, to identify Impaired Waters, where specific designated uses are not fully supported. 

For these Impaired Waters, states must consider the development of a Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) or other strategy to reduce the input of the specific pollutant(s). The 

Massachusetts Section 303(d) List of Impaired TMDL Waters identifies those waters that do 

not support appropriate uses and details the type, cause/pollutant, source, and class of 

impairment.43

 

42 Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (2002). Retrieved from <http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf>

43 Massachusetts 303(d) Listed Waters for Reporting Year 2012 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_impaired_waters.impaired_waters_list?p_state=MA&p_cycle=2012
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-26 May 2016

Section 402 of the CWA also established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit program. Under this program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) has regulatory authority over point source discharges on a sector-wide basis to protect 

water quality of the receiving waters and can designate permitting authority to the states. Point 

sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches.

Principal applicable state laws and regulations are as follows:

Massachusetts

 Massachusetts Clean Waters Act (M.G.L. Chapter 21, Sections 26-53) 

New Hampshire

 New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated (RSAs), Title 10: Public Health, Chapters 

146-A: Oil Discharge or Spillage in Surface Water or Groundwater)

 New Hampshire Water Quality/Quantity Rules (Env-Wq 300 Surface Water Protection 

and Env-Wq 400 Groundwater Protection)

Vermont

 Title 10 Vermont Statutes Annotated (V.S.A). Chapter 47 Water Pollution Control Act, 

Sections 1250-1386

Methodology

The Study Team compiled Geographic Information System (GIS) data and other available

information from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps, aerial photos, 

and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) to identify existing 

and/or impaired surface water resources that either are crossed or are located within half-mile 

buffer zone (NNEIRI Study Area for water resources) of the NNEIRI Corridor.

For groundwater resources, the Study Team used statewide GIS data, as well as the USGS 

Hydrologic Atlas produced by the USGS Water Resources Discipline (WRD), to obtain 

information regarding the existing groundwater quality within the NNEIRI Study Area. 

Aquifer protection areas (APA) and wellhead protection areas (WPA) are regulated by 

MassDEP, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), Vermont 

Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC) and by state and local health 

departments. APAs and WPAs generally indicate a high potential for drinking water use of 

high quality groundwater. Therefore, the location of these areas within the NNEIRI Study Area

was identified.

The Study Team identified surface water crossings under the Build Alternative using GIS 

databases collected from federal and state agencies.

Existing Conditions

This section summarizes the existing conditions of surface and ground water resources and 

quality of water bodies along the Corridor.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-27 May 2016

Surface Water and Ground Water Resources

There are 23 major drainage basins within the NNEIRI Study Area. The Study Team evaluated 

publicly available data for all basins within the Study Area to assess public drinking water 

resource watersheds and community groundwater and surface wells. The assessment of 

existing conditions includes sole source aquifers, defined by EPA as those that supply at least 

50% of the drinking water supply for the area. The Study Team also compiled public water 

resources for areas within one-half mile of each of the two corridor segments and three miles 

of key rail stations, which are summarized by segment, below. The protection of these 

resources during construction or project related activities could create constraints for 

alternatives that include potential impacts. 

Boston to Springfield

There are seven major drainage basins located within the NNEIRI Study Area in the Boston to 

Springfield segment. The Study Team identified no sole source aquifers as designated by the 

EPA within the Boston to Springfield segment, however there are groundwater and surface 

water supply protection areas and public surface water and groundwater wells within this

segment. 

Springfield to Canadian Border

There are twelve major drainage basins located within the NNEIRI Study Area in the 

Springfield to Canadian border segment. No sole source aquifers are present within this

segment. The NNEIRI Study Area is located within groundwater and surface water supply 

protection areas, and includes public surface water and groundwater wells. 

Water Quality

Boston to Springfield

The Boston-to-Springfield segment of the Corridor crosses or is adjacent to 17 impaired water 

bodies within the state of Massachusetts. Appendix D lists the impaired water bodies, impaired 

use, reason for impairment, and location relative to the Corridor. For the water bodies in this 

segment, the primary potential causes of impairment, based on number of miles affected, are 

fecal coliform bacteria impairing recreational use, low dissolved oxygen, high nutrients, and 

high suspended solids which impair aquatic habitat, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in 

fish tissue impairing fish consumption.

Springfield to Canadian Border

The Springfield to Canadian Border segment of the Corridor includes water bodies from three 

US states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont). Appendix D lists the impaired water 

bodies, impaired use, reason for impairment, and location relative to the Corridor. The 

Springfield to Canadian segment crosses or is adjacent to 25 impaired water bodies, including 

two public water supply areas in New Hampshire (Connecticut River and Partridge Brook). 

The major causes of impairment for water bodies in this segment, based on number of miles 

affected, are fecal coliform bacteria impairing recreational use, pH, high nutrients, and high 

suspended solids, which impair aquatic habitat, and PCBs and mercury in fish tissue impairing 

fish consumption.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-28 May 2016

No-Build Alternative Consequences

The No-Build Alternative would not result in additional direct or indirect water quality impacts

to surface or groundwater resources within the Corridor from the NNEIRI specific 

improvements because those improvements would not occur under No-Build condition.

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter EA identified no potential impacts to water 

resources, as the project would not include any in-water work, additional clearing, additional 

fill, or alteration of any drainage structure or waterway. The project anticipates less than oneacre of ground disturbance as part of the proposed construction activities. If more than one-acre 

of ground disturbance occurs, the project would develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention 

Plan (SWPPP) and file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the EPA. Other mitigation measures 

include preparing temporary erosion and sediment control plan and a spill prevention control 

and countermeasure plan (SPCC) prior to initiating construction.

The NHHS EA identified no potential impacts to ground water resources. The NHHS EA 

identified some potential adverse impacts to surface waters from changes in storm water flows 

from impervious surfaces and erosion and sedimentation during the period of active 

construction. The NHHS EA proposed mitigation measures include developing drainage design 

details in coordination with CTDEEP and MADEP and other resource agencies and complying 

all construction activities with the storm water quality manuals and erosion and sedimentation 

control guidelines. 

The SSX DEIR identified no impacts to surface water quality. No negative impacts to the 

water quality of Fort Point Channel, Charles River, and Neponset River are anticipated. 

According to the SSX DEIR, the project would have some potential impacts associated with 

storm water. The proposed project mitigation measures include both non-structural and 

structural BMPs, practices and procedures to mitigate direct and indirect adverse impacts to 

surface water quality. 

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

The Build Alternative is not anticipated to have impacts to any surface or groundwater 

resources in areas along the existing Corridor where no second track construction would take 

place. In locations where a second track or passing siding is proposed, any impacts to surface 

and groundwater resources are anticipated to be minor because the Corridor was historically 

double tracked. All work related to the second track and passing sidings would occur adjacent 

to the existing rail tracks within the existing rail ROW. There may be temporary impacts to 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-29 May 2016

some surface waters during construction because of the work performed on the railroad track 

bed. Best management practices for erosion and sedimentation control would be followed 

during the period of active construction to reduce the impacts. 

A specific location for a proposed station at Palmer would be determined in a future phase of 

the program. Water quality impacts resulting from construction of a new station at Palmer 

would be considered when determining potential sites to minimize any possible impact to 

water quality and surface and ground water resources.

A summary of water quality and water resources within half-mile buffer zone of the NNEIRI

Corridor areas where the second tracks are proposed is provided below by corridor segment. 

 Worcester to Springfield Double Tracking (Mileposts 48.3–57.7): Groundwater 

supply protection areas are located to the south of the Corridor in Auburn. The Corridor

runs through the groundwater supply protection area in Leister and Oxford. There are 2 

and 3 community groundwater wells on the south side of the Corridor in Auburn and 

Oxford, respectively. In addition, the Corridor crosses the French River in Leister. Some 

public water supply resources are located to the south of the Corridor. 

 Worcester to Springfield Double Tracking (Mileposts 59.3-63.3): The Corridor runs 

through groundwater supply in Spencer for approximately 1 mile. There is one 

community groundwater well to the north of the Corridor in Spencer.

 Worcester to Springfield Double Tracking (Mileposts 64.0–79.4): In East Brookfield 

and West Brookfield, the Corridor run through groundwater supply protection areas. The 

Corridor is adjacent to the groundwater supply protection areas just to the south. In 

Warren and Brimfield, the Corridor crosses the Quaboag River. There is one community 

groundwater well within the buffer zone to the south of the Corridor in Brookfield, two 

community groundwater well and one proposed well to the north of the Corridor in West 

Brookfield and one community well to the south of the Corridor in Warren. 

 Worcester to Springfield Double Tracking (Mileposts 83.6–92.0): The Corridor runs 

across the Quaboag River in Palmer and Monson and adjacent to Chicopee River in 

Wilbraham. There are some public water supplies within the buffer zone to the north of 

the Corridor in Palmer, Monson and Wilbraham.

 East Northfield Passing Siding (Mileposts 110.5-111.8): There are no water resources 

within the buffer zone of the proposed passing siding however; the passing siding is 

located to the north of the impaired river (Connecticut River), within the buffer zone.

 Downtown Brattleboro (Mileposts 120.5-122.0): There are no mapped public water 

supplies in this segment. The Corridor crosses Whetstone Brook and West River in 

Brattleboro and runs parallel to Connecticut River along the entire segment.

 Brattleboro to Bellows Falls (Mileposts 123.5–144.0): Groundwater supply protection 

areas within the 100-foot buffer zone are identified at three locations in Vermont: north 

of the Corridor at approximately milepost (MP) 130 at Dummerston and Putney 

boundary line, north of the Corridor at approximately MP 139 and between MP 141 and 

142 in Westminster. In New Hampshire, one groundwater supply protection area and a 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-30 May 2016

community groundwater well are identified south of the Corridor at approximately MP 

142 in Walpole. According to the GIS mapping, there is a surface water supply protection 

area from approximately MP 135.6 in Walpole, New Hampshire to 144.66 in Bellows 

Falls. The Corridor crosses Whetstone Brook and West River in Brattleboro and runs 

parallel to Connecticut River along the entire segment from Brattleboro and Bellows 

Falls. It crosses the Connecticut River just before reaching Bellows Falls Station. 

 Randolph Lengthening of Existing Passing Siding (Mileposts 44.5–45.5): Randolph 

Station is within a surface water supply protection area. 

 Roxbury Passing Siding (Mileposts 61.2–61.7): There are no mapped water quality 

resources at this location.

 St. Albans to Swanton Double Tracking (Mileposts 1.5–8.5): There is one small 

groundwater supply protection area south of the Corridor between MP 4 and 5 in

Swanton. The Corridor crosses Stevens Brook at approximately MP 3.2 in St. Albans.

A summary of bridge work proposed under the Build Alternative is provided below by corridor 

segment. 

Boston to Springfield: The Build Alternative would utilize existing bridges and seeks to improve 

them, where necessary, in order to accommodate the proposed service. Approximately 2,135 feet 

of bridge rehabilitation as well as 1,805 feet of bridge redecking is anticipated. This bridge work 

is necessary for the restoration of the second track between Boston and Springfield and would

take place on the CSX track sections.

Springfield to Canadian Border: The Build Alternative would utilize existing bridges and seeks 

to improve them, where necessary, in order to accommodate the proposed service. 

Approximately 350 feet of bridge replacement is anticipated. The bridge replacement is 

anticipated for Walpole, New Hampshire and East Alburgh, Vermont.

4.2.2 Wetlands 

This section discusses the affected environment for wetlands and the environmental 

consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternative. 

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential impacts to wetlands and 

the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

Federal agencies are required to avoid and minimize wetland impacts to the extent possible per 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has 

jurisdictional responsibilities under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Many 

wetlands and other aquatic features are considered “waters of the U.S.,” and these 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-31 May 2016

“jurisdictional” areas are protected under Section 404. Wetlands are defined under the CWA44

as, "Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include 

swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas."45

The national standard for wetland classification is the USFWS Classification System, which is 

used in the mapping of wetlands and Deepwater habitats performed for the National Wetlands 

Inventory (NWI).46 The five major wetland and Deepwater systems are marine, estuarine, 

riverine, palustrine (non-tidal freshwater or salinities less than 0.5 parts per thousand), and 

lacustrine.

Wetlands in Vermont are classified as Class I, Class II, or Class III wetlands, as defined at 10 

V.S.A. § 902 and Section 2 of the Vermont Wetland Rules.

47 All wetlands shown on the 

Vermont Significant Wetland Inventory maps are Class I or Class II wetlands, unless 

determined otherwise by the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) or the

Water Resources Panel of the Natural Resources Board. The Panel may designate a buffer zone 

contiguous to any Class I wetland and the Secretary may designate a buffer zone contiguous to 

any Class II wetland. Until otherwise designated by the Panel, a one hundred (100) foot buffer 

zone is established contiguous to the boundaries of a Class I wetland. Until otherwise 

designated by the Secretary, a fifty (50) foot buffer zone is established contiguous to the 

boundaries of a Class II wetland.

All wetlands contiguous to wetlands shown on the Vermont Significant Wetland Inventory 

maps are presumed to be Class II wetlands, unless identified as Class I or III wetlands, or 

unless determined otherwise by the Secretary or Panel pursuant to Section 8.48

Principal applicable state law is as follows:

Massachusetts

 The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. Chapter 13 Section 40).

New Hampshire

 New Hampshire Statutes. Title 50 Chapter 482-A: Fill and Dredge in Wetlands

 New Hampshire Wetland Rules (Chapter Env-Wt 100 – 900 Wetlands Rules) 

http://des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/legal/rules/index.htm

 

44 As defined by the U.S. ACE (Title 33 CFR 328.3, 1986) and the U.S. EPA (40 CFR 230.3, 1980).

45 Environmental Laboratory. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Technical Report Y-87-1. 

Prepared for the U.S. ACE, Washington, D.C. Final Report. January, 1987.

46 Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats 

of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological 

Services. Washington D.C. 1979.

http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wetlands/documents/cowardin.pdf

47 Vermont Wetland Rules. Vermont. Code R. 12 004 056. Amendments adopted July 16, 2010, Effective 

August 1, 2010. http://www.nrb.statevt.us/wrp/rules.htm

48 Ibid
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-32 May 2016

Vermont

 Title 10 V.S.A. Chapter 37: Wetlands Protection and Water Resources Management Act, 

Sections 901-921

Methodology

The Study Team mapped and characterized federal and state tidal and freshwater wetlands 

within the Corridor segments by using information from the NWI, as well as the USGS 

National Hydrography Dataset. NWI mapping classifies wetlands into five major systems: 

marine, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine, and then further distinguishes wetland 

types within these systems by subsystem, class, and subclass based upon various criteria such 

as type of vegetative cover. Marine and Estuarine wetlands and waters are limited to tidal areas 

in the vicinity of Boston. The Riverine system encompasses all fresh water rivers and their 

tributaries. Lacustrine wetlands include lakes that are greater than 20 acres in area and more 

than 6.6 feet in depth. Palustrine wetlands are non-tidal freshwater wetlands dominated by 

trees, shrubs, and persistent emergent herbaceous plants. Freshwater ponds less than 20 acres 

fall within the palustrine system. 

A one hundred (100) foot buffer zone around the boundaries of wetlands was defined as the 

NNEIRI Study Area in Massachusetts and a fifty (50) foot buffer zone around the boundaries 

of the wetlands in Vermont.

Existing Conditions

This section summarizes existing conditions of wetland resources as well as lakes, ponds and 

rivers within the Corridor segments. This section also identifies wetland types located in the 

NNEIRI Study Area. Wetlands can pose significant constraints to the development of 

alternatives. Information on the nature and extent of wetlands within each segment is provided 

in the following sections.

Boston to Springfield 

NWI-mapped wetlands comprise approximately 7,760 acres in the Boston to Springfield 

segment of the Corridor. Freshwater (Palustrine) forested and shrub wetlands are the most 

abundant wetland type mapped in this segment, with lakes (Lacustrine) and freshwater 

emergent wetlands also relatively prevalent. Regionally significant wetlands occur in the 

headwaters region of the Sudbury River (Cedar Swamp) and along the Quaboag River valley. 

Springfield to Canadian Border

NWI-mapped wetlands comprise approximately 19,175 acres in the Springfield to Canadian

segment of the Corridor. Riverine and Freshwater (Palustrine) forested and shrub wetlands are 

the most abundant wetland type mapped in this segment. The presence of the Connecticut 

River, White River (and its branches), Winooski River, and the Richelieu River along much of 

the Corridor contributes substantially to the extensive area of Riverine wetland.

There are a number of regionally significant wetlands and/or aquatic systems along the 

segment, many associated with the Connecticut River, White River (and its branches) and the 

Lake Champlain area waterways, as indicated Wetland and aquatic resources form the 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-33 May 2016

foundation of two national wildlife refuges along the Corridor: Silvio Conte and Missisquoi 

National Wildlife Refuges. 

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in any additional impacts to wetlands along the existing 

Corridor. 

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EA would not result in any temporary or 

permanent impacts to wetlands as it would not involve placing any fill in wetlands or 

waterways, nor does it involve in-water work. Some areas of the project would likely be 

located within the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Area buffer zone to wetland resource 

areas and within previously disturbed Riverfront Areas and would require filing of a Notice of 

Intent (NOI) with the applicable Conservation Commissions (Northfield, Bernardston, 

Greenfield, Deerfield, Whately, Hatfield, Northampton, Easthampton, Holyoke, Chicopee and 

Springfield). Mitigation measures include erosion control measures and other BMPs to 

minimize disturbance of applicable buffer zones.

The NHHS EA identified that approximately 3.9 acres of wetlands along the NHHS rail 

corridor would be impacted from the restoration of double-tracking and construction of rail 

sidings. No wetland impacts are anticipated in Massachusetts. The NHHS EA potential 

mitigation include reducing impacts by minimizing expansion of railroad ROW, and 

coordinating with CTDEEP and USACE during permitting process and identifying appropriate 

compensatory mitigation measures. Subsequent to the EA, permits for wetlands were received

and construction has started in some segments of the NHHS corridor.

The SSX DEIR identified wetland resource impacts of approximately 7.9 acres of 100-foot 

jurisdictional buffer to coastal bank at South Station site. There would be no impacts at Widett 

Circle. According to the SSX DEIR, wetland resource impacts at Readville Yard 2 layover 

facility site include approximately 0.05 acres of Riverfront Area, approximately 0.3 acres of 

the 100-foot buffer associated with the Neponset River bank and 0.2 acre of potential isolated 

wetland areas. Based on the SSX DEIR, each project element would be designed and 

constructed in a manner consistent with relevant performance standards established in the 

WPA regulations. 

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-34 May 2016

The Build Alternative is unlikely to impact wetland areas outside of locations where a second 

track is proposed due to the utilization of existing rail corridor. Since the proposed rail corridor 

follows an existing railroad embankment, wetland and stream crossings are currently bridged 

or culverted. As a result, the wetland systems that are crossed by the rail embankment have 

already been impacted by the placement of fill and culverts.

In locations where a second track is proposed, direct wetland impacts would be avoided or 

limited to the buffer zone due to the work occurring within the historically double tracked rail 

ROW. Since the Corridor accommodated a second track in the past, it would be rehabilitated as 

opposed to being built on previously undisturbed land. All existing bridges and culverts have 

the ability to accommodate a second track.

Boston to Springfield 

In the Boston to Springfield segment, the Study Team created 500 scale maps for areas where a 

second track is proposed in order to closely examine possible wetland impacts in these areas. 

MassDEP designated wetlands as well as a 100-foot buffer were mapped by the Study Team in 

accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. These maps are provided in 

Appendix E - Massachusetts and Vermont Resource Areas Map. 

Between Worcester and Springfield, an additional track is proposed in the buffer zone for a 

total of approximately 11.3 miles. The locations within the buffer zone are summarized below 

by segment of added track. Table 4.2-1 summarizes the locations by milepost, town, and 

wetland type. There are no direct impacts to mapped wetland areas.

Auburn to Charlton (Mileposts 48.3-57.7): This segment has a relatively low density of 

wetlands with approximately 1.6 miles located within the 100’ buffer zone. There are a few 

small wetlands located adjacent to the proposed second track as well as locations where the 

proposed second track is on the very edge of the buffer.

Spencer to East Brookfield (Mileposts 59.3-63.3): This segment has a moderate density of 

wetlands with approximately 1.1 miles located within the 100’ buffer zone.

East Brookfield to Brimfield (Mileposts 64.0-79.4): This segment of proposed second track has 

a particularly high density of wetlands due to its proximity to Quaboag Pond and the Quaboag 

River and their associated wetlands. Approximately 6.8 miles of this segment are located 

within the 100’ buffer zone. 

Palmer to Wilbraham (Mileposts 83.6-92.0): This segment of proposed second track has some 

areas with a high density of wetlands, particularly in the vicinity of Calkins Brook in Monson. 

There are other small areas of wetland along the segment. Approximately 1.8 miles of this 

segment are located within the 100’ buffer zone.

Worcester Station: No wetland areas have been identified in the vicinity of Worcester Station, 

therefore impacts due to the construction of a new passenger platform are not anticipated.

Palmer Station: A specific location for a proposed station at Palmer would be determined in a

future phase of the program. Wetlands would be considered when determining potential sites to 

minimize any possible impact to wetland areas. If necessary, the project proponent would be 

responsible for coordinating with the USACE New England District Regulatory Branch and 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-35 May 2016

obtaining any required permits during Tier 2. The project proponent would also follow

construction BMPs, if appropriate, to minimize wetlands impacts.

Table 4.2-1. Potential Wetland Impacts along Second Track – Boston to Springfield

Mile Post Town Types of Wetlanda

Adjacent/Through the 

Wetland Buffer Zone

Mileposts 48.3 to 57.7

48.3-48.4 Worcester M Adjacent

48.9 Auburn Unidentified Through

49.4-49.5 Auburn WS1 Through

50.1 Auburn SS Adjacent

51.1 Auburn WS1 Adjacent

51.3 Auburn WS1 Through

51.9-52.0 Auburn/Oxford line DM Through

52.3-52.4 Oxford WS1 Through

52.5 Oxford WS1 Adjacent

53.0-53.1 Oxford/Leicester line SS Adjacent

53.6-53.7 Charlton/Oxford line WS1 Through

53.7-53.8 Charlton WS1 Through

53.9-54.0 Charlton WS1 Through

54.1 Charlton Unidentified Through

54.6 Charlton SS Adjacent

55.1 Charlton Unidentified Adjacent

55.7-55.8 Charlton DM Through

56.6-56.7 Charlton SS Through

57.1-57.2 Charlton SS, WS1 Through

57.4-57.5 Charlton M, WS1 Through

Mileposts 59.3 to 63.3

59.2-59.3 Spencer WS1 Adjacent

59.8-59.9 Spencer WS1 Adjacent

61.9-62.1 Spencer SS Through

62.3-62.7 Spencer/East Brookfield WS1, SS Through

62.8-62.9 East Brookfield DM Through

63.0-63.1 East Brookfield DM Through

63.2-63.3 East Brookfield WS1 Through
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-36 May 2016

Mile Post Town Types of Wetlanda

Adjacent/Through the 

Wetland Buffer Zone

Mileposts 64 to 79.4

64.0-64.2 Brookfield SS Through

64.3-64-4 Brookfield SS, DM Through

64.4-64.5 Brookfield WS1 Through

64.7-64.8 Brookfield WS1, WS3, DM Through

64.9-65.8 Brookfield SS, M, WS1, WS3 Through

66.1-66.6 Brookfield SS, DM Through

66.7-66.8 Brookfield WS1, DM Through

67.0-67.8 Brookfield WS1, M, DM Through

68.2-69.5 West Brookfield WS1, M, DM Through

69.9 West Brookfield DM Through

Mileposts 83.6 to 92

70.1-70.5 West Brookfield SS, DM Through

70.7-70.8 West Brookfield BG Adjacent

70.9-71.5 Warren SS, DM, WS1 Through

71.7- 72.2 Warren SS, DM Through

72.8-73.2 Warren SS Through

73.3-73.5 Warren SS Through

74.6-74.8 Warren WS1, DM Through

75.4 Warren SS Through

75.5-75.6 Warren SS Through

75.8-75.9 Warren SS Through

82.8-83.0 Monson SS Through

84.1-84.5 Monson SS, WS1, DM Adjacent

84.8 Monson DM Adjacent

85.4-85.9 Monson SS, M Through

86.1 Monson Unidentified Adjacent

86.2-86.4 Monson WS1 Through

86.7 Monson WS1 Through

87.8-87.9 Wilbraham DM Through

91.1-91.2 Wilbraham M Through

91.7-91.8 Wilbraham WS1 Through
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-37 May 2016

Notes:

a BG- Bog

DM- Deep Marsh

M- Shallow March, Meadow, or Fen

SS- Shrub Swamp

WS1- Wooded Swamp Deciduous

WS2- Wooded Swamp Coniferous

WS3- Wooded Swamp Mixed Trees

Springfield to Canadian Border

In areas where a second track is proposed, the Study Team created 500 scale maps to closely 

examine possible wetland impacts in these areas. NWI designated wetlands were mapped as 

well as a 50-foot buffer in accordance with Vermont wetlands regulations (see Appendix E

Massachusetts and Vermont Resource Areas maps). Between Springfield and Canadian border,

a second track is proposed in the 50-foot buffer zone for a total of approximately 1.7 miles. 

The locations within the buffer zone are summarized below by segment of added track. Table 

4.2-2 summarizes the locations by milepost, town, and wetland type.

East Northfield (Mileposts 110.5-111.8): This segment does not pass through mapped wetlands 

buffer area.

Downtown Brattleboro (Mileposts 120.5-122.0): This segment does not pass through mapped 

wetlands buffer area.

Brattleboro to Bellows Falls (Mileposts 123.5-144.0): This segment parallels the Connecticut 

River for much of its length and is near many of its associated wetlands. The segment passes 

through the 50’ buffer for a total of approximately 1.2 miles.

Randolph (Mileposts 44.5-45.5): This segment does not pass through mapped wetlands buffer 

area.

Roxbury (Mileposts 61.2-61.7): This segment is within the 50’ buffer area for approximately 

0.1 miles.

St. Albans to Swanton (Mileposts 1.5-8.5): This segment passes through the 50’ buffer for a 

total of approximately 1.2 miles.

Table 4.2-2. Potential Wetland Impacts along Second Track – Springfield to Canadian Border

Mile Post Town Adjacent/Through the Wetland 

Buffer Zone

Mileposts 123.5 to 144.0

127.2-127.8 Dummerston Through

129.4-129.5 Dummerston Adjacent

129.5-129.6 Dummerston Through

130.4-130.5 Putney Adjacent
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-38 May 2016

Mile Post Town Adjacent/Through the Wetland 

Buffer Zone

130.7 Putney Adjacent

134.6 Putney Through

134.9-135.0 Putney Adjacent

138.5 Westminster Adjacent

Mileposts 61.2-61.7

61.6-61.7 Roxbury Through

Mileposts 1.5 to 8.5

1.9-2.0 St. Albans Adjacent

2.6 St. Albans Adjacent

5.1-5.2 Swanton Through

6.1-6.2 Swanton Adjacent

4.2.3 Ecological Systems, Threatened and Endangered Species, and Wildlife

This section discusses the affected environment for ecological systems and the environmental 

consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternative. 

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential impacts to ecological 

systems, including threatened and endangered species and critical habitat, and the relevant 

regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

Threatened and endangered species and critical habitat are protected on both the federal and 

state level. The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) prohibits 

the “take” of any plant or animal species listed as endangered or threatened under this act, or 

their designated critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act requires consultation for actions that may 

affect listed species or their designated habitats with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) (for freshwater and wildlife) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (for 

marine and anadromous species).49 

The United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS) designates certain 

privately- and publicly-held lands across the country as National Natural Landmarks (NNL). 

This designation is based on the lands’ unique or rare ecological characteristics. Although there 

are no specific federal or state regulations for NNLs, governing regulations for the NNL 

Program state that any federal project that is subject to NEPA, “...should consider the 

 

49 United States Endangered Species Act (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1531-1543).
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-39 May 2016

existence and location of designated national natural landmarks...in assessing the effects of 

their activities on the environment under section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 

Policy Act.” (16 U.S.C. 1a–5, 461 et seq., 463, 1908).50

Protection of migratory birds is also provided under Executive Order (EO) 13186, 

Responsibilities of Federal Agencies To Protect Migratory Birds, and the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, which prohibits, unless permitted by regulations, the “take” of 

any migratory bird. The Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) 

provides for the protection of bald and golden eagles. Birds are also protected under state 

legislation. 

Principal applicable state laws and regulations are as follows:

Massachusetts

 Inland Fisheries and Game and Other Natural Resources (M.G.L. Chapter 131)

 Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) (M.G.L. Chapter 131A) provides for the 

protection of threatened and endangered species and associated habitat, among other 

provisions.

New Hampshire

 New Hampshire Endangered Species Conservation Act (Title XVIII Fish and Game, 

Chapter 212-A: Endangered species Conservation Act)

Vermont

 Title 10 V.S.A. Chapter 123, Protection of Endangered Species

Vermont Fish and Wildlife Regulations (10 V.S.A. Appendix Section 121. Rule 

establishing a list for prohibited, restricted and unrestricted fish species)

Methodology

The Study Team identified ecologically sensitive areas, endangered and threatened species, and 

critical habitat within a half-mile of the Corridor centerline (NNEIRI Study Area) through 

available GIS data layers and from the USFWS and state agency websites. The Study Team 

obtained federal listing status and occurrences from the USFWS website and used GIS 

information for mapping ecological zones, occurrences of listed species and significant natural 

communities.

Increased train frequency and speed could create a barrier to wildlife along the Corridor, 

particularly in the Green Mountains of Vermont. Trains could potentially inhibit wildlife from 

crossing the Corridor to access valuable habitat. High speed trains could also increase the 

danger of crossing and wildlife mortality due to train strikes. GIS mapping was therefore used 

for further analysis of the potential barrier impacts to wildlife.

The Study Team would consult the USFWS, Massachusetts Natural Heritage and endangered 

Species Program (Massachusetts NHESP), New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, and 

 

50 “National Natural Landmarks (NNL) Program.” Federal Register 64 (May 12, 1999) p. 25717.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-40 May 2016

Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (VFWD) about the specific species and habitats 

associated with the Natural Diversity Database (NDDB) and NHESP records, as necessary 

based on review of potential impacts. The Study Team would use the responses from agencies 

as a basis for evaluating whether the proposed project would affect the type of habitats 

indicated by the records. The Study Team would consult agencies for any recommended 

protection actions (i.e., avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures) that may require 

further study as part of Tier 2 activities. 

Existing Conditions

This section summarizes existing conditions of ecological systems, including threatened and 

endangered species and critical habitat along the Corridor. 

Overall, the Study Team noted ecological areas, indicated by the prominent wetland/aquatic 

habitats, in the NNEIRI Study Area along various segments of the Corridor. Many of these are 

associated with river valleys and associated wetlands and floodplains, along which the rail 

lines were previously developed due to the flat terrain in these areas. Specific areas noted 

within each segment are described below.

Increasing concern has been developing in recent years over the presence and expansion of 

plant invasive species, due to their potential for out-competing native vegetation and adversely 

affecting the suitability of habitats to support native wildlife species. Transportation corridors 

such as railways are prone to invasive species proliferation and expansion due to disturbance 

factors and ease of distribution. Invasive species of note in the northeast region that may be 

prone to occur along railways include common reed (Phragmites australis), purple loosestrife 

(Lythrum salicaria), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), autumn olive (Elaeagnus 

umbellata), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and several species of honeysuckle (Lonicera

spp.). No specific documentation or mapping of such species presence is available for review 

on the scale of this assessment. 

There are no NNLs located in the Corridor.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Boston to Springfield 

Areas within the Corridor between Boston and Springfield that are designated as habitat for 

state-listed species (Priority Habitat and Estimated Habitat) by the Massachusetts NHESP

comprise approximately 5,914 acres (9.4% of the Corridor); a total of 28 discrete areas mapped 

as habitat for state-listed species occur within the Boston to Springfield segment of the 

Corridor. Notable areas of these habitat zones include Cedar Swamp (Westborough, 

Massachusetts), Lake Quinsigamond area (Worcester, Massachusetts), the Quaboag River 

valley, and Chicopee River and adjacent floodplain. Species-specific details of these Priority 

and Estimated Habitat areas have not been determined for this assessment.

Springfield to Canadian Border

Areas within the Corridor between Springfield and Canadian Border that are designated as 

habitat for state-listed species comprise 25,384 acres, or 15.3% of the Corridor. A total of 

3,459 discrete areas mapped as habitat for state-listed species occur within the segment, with 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-41 May 2016

more than 50% of these occurrences attributed to state-listed plant species. Notable areas 

within the segment that are mapped as state-listed species habitats include several areas along 

the Connecticut River north of Springfield and north of the Vermont state line; the Connecticut 

River and its floodplain just north of Bellows Falls, Vermont; an extend stretch of the 

Connecticut River below White River Junction, Vermont; a stretch of the Third Branch White 

River through Randolph, Vermont; the Lamoille River at Arrowhead Mountain Lake, 

Vermont; and the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge.

The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) has recently been added to the federal threatened list. The 

range is statewide. Typical concerns would be clearing trees in the pup rearing season. A “no 

effect” determination would require tree clearing activities to occur between August 15 to 

April 15 at a minimum.

Wildlife

Boston to Springfield 

Based upon the habitat cover types and considering the regional landscape factors that 

influence habitat suitability and wildlife use, a wide variety of wildlife species are expected to 

occur along the Corridor. Table 4.2-3 provides a listing of common reptiles, amphibians, birds, 

and mammals that are likely to occur along the Boston to Springfield segment of the Corridor.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-42 May 2016

Table 4.2-3. Common Wildlife Species Likely to Occur in Habitats along the Corridor

Species Type Common Name Scientific Name

Amphibian Redback salamander Plethodon cinereus

Amphibian Eastern American toad Bufo a. americanus

Amphibian Green frog Rana clamitans melanota

Amphibian Pickerel frog Rana palustris

Amphibian Bull frog Rana catesbeiana

Reptile Eastern garter snake Thamnophis s. sirtalis

Reptile Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta

Reptile Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentine

Bird Turkey vulture Cathartes aura

Bird Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus

Bird Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Bird Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo

Bird American woodcock Scolopax minor

Bird Mourning dove Zenaida macroura

Bird Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Bird Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

Bird Northern flicker Colaptes auratus

Bird Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe

Bird Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tryannus

Bird Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata

Bird American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

Bird Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus

Bird Tufted titmouse Parus bicolor

Bird Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta Canadensis

Bird White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

Bird House wren Troglodytes aedon

Bird American robin Turdus migratorius

Bird Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis

Bird Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos

Bird Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus

Bird Yellow warbler Dendroica petechial

Bird Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-43 May 2016

Species Type Common Name Scientific Name

Bird Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus

Bird Chipping sparrow Spizella passerine

Bird Song sparrow Melospiza melodia

Bird White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis

Bird Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis

Bird Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Bird Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus

Bird House finch Carpodacus mexicanus

Bird American goldfinch Carduelis tristis

Mammal Northern short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda

Mammal Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus

Mammal Star-nosed mole Condylura cristata

Mammal Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus

Mammal Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Mammal Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus

Mammal Woodchuck Marmota monax

Mammal Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Mammal Red squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

Mammal Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans

Mammal White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus

Mammal Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Mammal Coyote Canis latrans

Mammal Red fox Vulpes vulpes

Mammal Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Mammal Raccoon Procyon lotor

Mammal Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis

Mammal Norway rat Rattus norvegicus

Mammal Virginia opossum Didelphis virginiana

Mammal White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

Springfield to Canadian Border

Wildlife species anticipated to occur within the habitats along the Springfield to Canadian 

Border segment are more diverse than that of the Boston to Springfield segment due to the 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-44 May 2016

larger area, more varied terrain, and more rural setting. In addition to the species listed in Table 

4.2-3, species that may occur in the northern part of this segment include those requiring 

larger, undisturbed tracts of land.

Habitat

Boston to Springfield 

The most abundant habitats in the Boston to Springfield segment include deciduous, evergreen, 

mixed, and wetland forests. Forested habitats are dispersed along this rail segment between the 

urban centers of Boston, Worcester, and Springfield, and include numerous small forest stands 

in suburban areas. Collectively, these forest cover types comprise approximately 40% of the 

Corridor between Boston and Springfield. Notable habitat blocks in this rail segment include 

those along major rivers such as the Charles, Sudbury, Quaboag, and Chicopee Rivers. 

Roughly, 50% of the Corridor is classified as developed land uses.

Springfield to Canadian Border

The most abundant habitats within the Springfield to Canadian Border segment include 

deciduous forest and woody wetland. Forested cover types comprised roughly 48% of the 

Corridor. A much reduced proportion (23%) of this segment of the Corridor consists of 

developed land uses than along either of the other segments. 

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in any additional impacts to ecologically sensitive areas, 

threatened and endangered species, or wildlife along the existing Corridor. 

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EA does not anticipate new impacts to the 

threatened or endangered species or their habitats and vegetated areas as the project would 

occur within the existing disturbed areas of the MassDOT Connecticut River Line ROW.

The NHHS EA does not anticipate any impacts to threatened and endangered species and 

habitats in Massachusetts as no species or habitats of concern were identified in Massachusetts. 

In Connecticut, the EA identified as many as 18 Connecticut-listed species in the vicinity of 

several regional rail station sites and double-tracking segments. The NHHS EA proposed 

mitigation includes working within the existing railroad ROW and coordinating with CTDEEP 

to determine whether the species and habitats of interest actually occur at the specific 

improvement sites. At the time of this writing, some segments of the NHHS corridor were in

permitting and construction phase. Subsequent to the EA, detailed surveys have been done as 

part of the permitting. Some species identified in the EA were not found, while other species 

that were not anticipated were found. 

The SSX DEIR does not anticipate any impacts to the threatened or endangered species or their 

habitats.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-45 May 2016

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trip trains).

The Build Alternative is unlikely to have any impacts to ecologically sensitive areas, 

threatened and endangered species habitats, or wildlife in areas where no second track 

construction would take place due to the utilization of existing Corridor. In locations where a 

second track is proposed, any impacts to designated habitats are anticipated to be minor or 

temporary because the Corridor is historically double tracked and all the track construction 

would be limited to the existing ROW.

In areas where a second track is proposed, the Study Team created 500 scale maps in order to 

closely examine possible endangered species impacts in these areas. Massachusetts NHESP 

designated habitats were mapped by the Study Team in GIS to determine where the proposed 

second track coincides with potential endangered species habitats (see Appendix E, 

Massachusetts and Vermont Resource Areas Map). Construction within Priority Habitat must 

be reviewed according to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Protection Act (MESA) 

guidelines; this would occur at the Tier 2 stage. 

Boston to Springfield

Between Worcester and Springfield, a second track is proposed within or adjacent to Priority 

Habitat of Rare Species for 12.7 miles. The locations within the Priority Habitat are 

summarized below by segment of added track. Table 4.2-4 summarizes the locations by 

milepost, town, and classification. 

Auburn to Charlton (Mileposts 48.3-57.7): There are no mapped Priority Habitats in this 

segment.

Spencer to East Brookfield (Mileposts 59.3-63.3): This segment of proposed second track is 

within designated Priority Habitat for approximately 0.5 miles. The segment is adjacent to the 

Seven Mile River.

East Brookfield to Brimfield (Mileposts 64.0-79.4): This segment of proposed second track is 

within designated Priority Habitat for approximately 8.8 miles. The segment is adjacent to the 

Quaboag River and the Quaboag Wildlife Management Area. 

Palmer to Wilbraham (Mileposts 83.6-92.0): This segment of proposed second track is within 

designated Priority Habitat for approximately 3.4 miles. The segment is adjacent to the 

Quaboag River, Calkins Brook, and the Chicopee River.

Worcester Station: The desktop review conducted by the Study Team did not indicate any 

protected species or habitat present in the vicinity of Worcester Station; therefore, impacts due 

to the construction of a new passenger platform are not anticipated.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-46 May 2016

Palmer Station: The location for the proposed station at Palmer would be determined during

Tier 2. Protected species and habitat would be considered when determining potential sites in 

order to minimize potential impacts. If potential impacts resulting from the construction or 

operation of the new station are identified, the project proponent would consult with the 

relevant federal and state resource agencies. 

Table 4.2-4. Endangered Species Habitat along Second Track – Boston to Springfield 

Mile Post Town Classificationa

Adjacent/Through the 

Habitat

Mileposts 59.3 to 63.3

63.1-63.6 East Brookfield E, P Through

Mileposts 64.0 to79.4

64.0-64.2 East Brookfield E, P Through

65.7-65.8 Brookfield E, P Adjacent

66.1-69.5 Brookfield/ West 

Brookfield

E, P Through

69.8-70.5 West Brookfield E, P Through

71.0-71.4 Warren E, P Through

71.9-72.0 Warren E, P Through

74.9-75.1 Warren E, P Adjacent

75.1-76.6 Warren E ,P Through

76.6-77.1 Warren P Through

77.1-78.3 Warren/Brimfield E ,P Through

78.5-79.0 Brimfield E, P Adjacent

Mileposts 83.6 to 92.0

83.7-83.9 Monson E, P Through

83.9-84.6 Monson E, P Adjacent

85.6-87.2 Monson/Wilbraham E, P Through

87.7-87.9 Wilbraham E, P Through

89.8-90.1 Wilbraham E, P Through

90.7-91.1 Wilbraham E, P Through

Note: 

a E - NHESP Estimated Habitats for Rare Wildlife; P-NHESP Priority Habitats for Rare Species.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-47 May 2016

Springfield to Canadian Border

Between Springfield and Montreal, a second track is proposed within or adjacent to mapped 

endangered or threatened species habitat for approximately 3.3 miles. The locations within the 

Priority Habitat are summarized below by segment of added track. Table 4.2-5 summarizes the 

locations by milepost, town, and classification. 

East Northfield (Mileposts 110.5-111.8): This segment runs through mapped endangered

species habitat for approximately 0.4 miles.

Downtown Brattleboro (Mileposts 120.5-122.0): This segment runs through mapped state 

endangered or threatened species habitat for approximately 1.5 miles. This includes both 

animal and plant habitats. Many of the habitats in this segment are located along the banks of 

the Connecticut River.

Brattleboro to Bellows Falls (Mileposts 123.5-144.0): This segment runs through mapped state 

endangered or threatened species habitat for approximately 1.4 miles. This includes both 

animal and plant habitats. Many of the habitats in this segment are located along the banks of 

the Connecticut River.

Randolph (Mileposts 44.5-45.5): This segment does not pass through any mapped habits.

Roxbury (Mileposts 61.2-61.7): This segment does not pass through any mapped habits.

St. Albans to Swanton (Mileposts 1.5-8.5): This segment does not pass through any mapped 

habitats.

Table 4.2-5. Endangered Species Habitat along Second Track – Springfield to Canadian Border

Mile Post Town Classificationa

Adjacent/Through the 

Habitat

Mileposts 110.5-111.8

110.7-110.9 Vernon, VT Other-Plant Through

111.5-111.7 Vernon, VT Other-Plant Through

Mileposts 120.5 to 122.0

120.5-120.8 Brattleboro SE-Animal Adjacent

120.8-121.3 Brattleboro SC-Plant Through

121.3-121.8 Brattleboro SE-Animal Adjacent

121.8-122.4 Brattleboro SE-Animal Through

Mileposts 123.5 to 144.0

123.7 Brattleboro SE Animal Through

128.3-128.5 Dummerston Other-Natural Community Through

129.3-129.4 Dummerston SC-Plant Through

134.3-134.5 Putney ST-Plant Through

135.9-136.0 Putney SC-Plant Adjacent
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-48 May 2016

Mile Post Town Classificationa

Adjacent/Through the 

Habitat

142.0-142.5 Westminster SC-Plant Adjacent

143.8-144.0 Westminster SC-Plant Adjacent

Note: 

a

SE - State Endangered Species; ST - State Threated Species; SC - Special Concern

4.3 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

4.3.1 Land Use, Existing and Planned

This section summarizes discusses the affected environment and planned land use and the 

environmental consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternatives.

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential land use impacts and the 

relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the land use and zoning impacts of federal actions. 

Principle applicable state laws are listed below:

Massachusetts

 M.G.L. Chapter 40A: The Zoning Enabling Act enacted by Chapters 368 and 551 of the 

Acts of 1954 and became effective on August 1, 1954. Revised on August 2010.

 The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Smart Growth & 

Smart Energy policy

New Hampshire

 New Hampshire Statutes. Title 64: Planning and Zoning, Chapter 674: Local Land Use 

Planning and Regulatory Powers

Vermont

 Title 10 V.S.A Chapter 151: State Land Use and Development Plans (Act 250 Statute)

Methodology

The Study Team compiled the land use classifications for areas within one-half mile (NNEIRI 

Study Area for land uses) of each of the two route segments and identified land use constraints, 

by segment, for any construction or new land use outside the existing ROW. 

The Study Team characterized existing land use conditions within the NNEIRI Study Area

using the 2006 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) set. The NLCD set was created through 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-49 May 2016

a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) 

Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of federal agencies consisting of the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

Unlike local, regional, and state land use mapping, which varies among entities by land use 

type and specificity, the NLCD is based upon general use, intensity, and cover type. The 

applicable NLCD classifications reported for the NNEIRI Study Area are:

 Barren Land. Barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic 

material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits and other accumulations of 

earthen material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15% of total cover.

 Cultivated Crops. Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, 

soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and perennial woody crops such as orchards 

and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. 

This class also includes all land being actively tilled.

 Deciduous Forest. Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and 

greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species shed 

foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change.

 Developed, High Intensity. Includes highly developed areas where people reside or 

work in high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses, and 

commercial/industrial. Impervious surfaces account for 80 -100 percent of the total cover.

 Developed, Low Intensity. Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and 

vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20-49 percent of total cover. These areas 

most commonly include single-family housing units.

 Developed, Medium Intensity. Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials 

and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50-79 percent of the total cover. These 

areas most commonly include single-family housing units.

 Developed, Open Space. Includes areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, 

but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less 

than 20 percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include large-lot singlefamily housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for 

recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes.

 Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands. Areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts 

for greater than 20 percent of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically 

saturated with or covered with water.

 Evergreen Forest. Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and 

greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species 

maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-50 May 2016

 Grassland/Herbaceous. Areas dominated by grammanoid or herbaceous vegetation, 

generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive 

management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing.

 Mixed Forest. Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater 

than 20% of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are greater 

than 75 percent of total tree cover. 

 Open Water. All areas of open water, generally with less than 25% cover of vegetation 

or soil.

 Pasture/Hay. Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock 

grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle. Pasture/hay 

vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation.

 Shrub/Scrub. Areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy 

typically greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees 

in an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions. 

 Woody Wetlands. Areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for greater than 

20 percent of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or 

covered with water.

The Build Alternative follows an existing rail corridor and does not involve construction 

outside the existing ROW, including construction of new support facilities or stations, other 

than the new station at Palmer, Massachusetts. Therefore, the Study Team’s analysis of the 

potential impacts to existing or future land use was focused on the new Palmer station and the 

new station platform at Worcester Union Station.

Existing Conditions

This section identifies the general land uses within the NNEIRI Study Area (within one-half 

mile of each of the two route segments). Land use classifications and constraints, by segment,

are summarized below.

Boston to Springfield 

Boston to Springfield is a highly developed segment, with development accounting for nearly 

50 percent of the land area within one-half mile of the Corridor. These heavily concentrated 

population centers could pose constraints for any construction outside the existing ROW. In 

addition, approximately one-third of the classified land use within the Boston to Springfield 

segment exhibits a combination of deciduous forest and woody wetlands. This segment is 

dominated by forest, pasture, low, medium and high intensity developed land, and developed 

open spaces, along with wetlands and water bodies. These resource areas can also pose 

constraints for permitting and construction activities.

Springfield to Canadian Border

Springfield to Canadian Border segment is mostly rural and less developed with development 

accounting for less than 25 percent of the land area within one-half a mile of the Corridor

segment. It is dominated by forest, pasture, cropland, medium and low intensity developed 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-51 May 2016

land, and developed open space, along with wetlands and water bodies. These wet and woody 

areas, along with croplands and other resource areas could pose constraints to the development 

of some alternatives. 

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in any change to compatibility with land uses within the 

Corridor.

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EA identified no impacts to land use or zoning 

within the Knowledge Corridor project study area. The project is consistent with regional and 

local transportation land use plans and the proposed stations would not negatively affect land 

use or require significant changes to zoning in the Knowledge Corridor project study area. The 

project supports transit-oriented development (TOD) and is consistent with local and regional 

land use plans. 

The NHHS EA identified no direct or indirect impacts to land use impacts associated with nonstation area improvements. According to the EA, at six of the 12 station locations, the project 

would either have beneficial impact as these station areas would complement TOD plans and 

other planned improvements or would have adverse impacts because of the increased activity 

at the stations resulting in direct impacts to access surrounding land uses. The mitigation 

measures include maintaining ongoing coordination with affected communities during final 

design. 

The SSX DEIR anticipates limited direct land use impacts due to the project. The South Station 

and proposed layover facility sites are all characterized by existing urban and industrial land 

uses, which are predominantly altered areas. The project would require demolition of the USPS 

General Mail Facility. The relocation of this facility would be part of a separate MEPA review. 

Based on the DEIR, two of the proposed layover facilities would require property acquisitions; 

however, acquisitions would be limited to the minimum footprints required to support each 

function.

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips).

The Corridor is a currently active railroad and additional train operations of NNEIRI service 

are unlikely to have any impacts on the land uses. The Build Alternative service would not 

result in any change to compatibility with land uses, land use patterns, character of existing 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-52 May 2016

adjacent development, access to land or compatibility with existing zoning because no property 

acquisition would be necessary for adding second track. The second track and passing sidings

would be added to the adjacent existing tracks within the railroad ROW. The railroad ROW is 

wide enough to accommodate both tracks where double-tracking is proposed, with no other 

land required to be used. Re-installation of the double-track would occur primarily where two 

tracks existed historically. 

Since no new layover and maintenance sites are proposed for the Build Alternative, there 

would be no potential impact to land use.

Palmer Station: Three potentially suitable sites, including the Historic Palmer Station, are 

under consideration for a new Palmer Station. None of these sites are anticipated to have 

impacts on land use because any new improvements would be limited to the existing railroad 

ROW and would be consistent with the existing local land use and zoning. The railroad was 

historically double-track but most of the track was removed in the mid-20th century. The exact 

location of the station would be determined upon further refinement in later phase of the 

NNEIRI Study. 

New platform at Worcester Union Station: A new platform would be provided at Worcester 

Union Station in the center of the existing ROW. Connection to Worcester Union Station 

would be provided via new vertical access to an existing pedestrian tunnel that was historically 

used to connect passengers to center island platforms. Tracks would be re-configured to 

accommodate the new platform, including the addition of new interlockings. Additionally, a 

controlled siding in Worcester would be taken out of service to accommodate the new platform 

and track configuration. 

4.3.2 Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice

This section discusses the affected environment for socioeconomic and environmental justice 

(EJ) communities and environmental consequences associated with the No-Build and Build

Alternatives. 

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to evaluate impacts to socioeconomic resources

and environmental justice communities and the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts requires consideration of both 

beneficial and adverse impacts of program alternatives on the socioeconomic environment, 

including demographic shifts and impacts on commerce, metropolitan areas, and business 

districts. 

Environmental justice (EJ) refers to social equity in sharing the benefits and burdens of a 

project or program. Title VI, enacted as part of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C 

2000d) prohibits discrimination on the bases of race, color, or national origin in federally 

assisted programs or activities. In addition, Title II of the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-53 May 2016

(42 U.S.C. 12101) and Section 504 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) 

prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in all public transportation. EO 12898, 

"Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations," requires each federal agency to identify and address, as appropriate, 

"disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations."51

The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued Order 5610.2(a) to address 

environmental justice for minority and low-income populations.52 The Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides policy guidance in implementing NEPA53 that defines 

minority and low-income populations as either:

 The minority or low-income population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent.

 The population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority

population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographical 

analysis.

The USDOT has a policy to insure nondiscrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964. The specifics of Title VI are that "no person in the United States shall, on the ground of 

race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or 

be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial 

assistance."

The Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs’ (EEA) Environmental Justice 

Policy54 refers minority to individuals who identify themselves on federal census forms as nonwhite or Hispanic.

The EEA defines Environmental Justice Populations as a neighborhood whose annual median 

household income is equal to or less than 65 percent of the statewide median or whose 

population is made up of 25 percent Minority, Foreign Born, or Lacking English Language 

Proficiency.

At the state level, the following legislation applies:

Massachusetts

 Environmental Justice Policy of the EEA

New Hampshire and Vermont

 Use federal standards

 

51 Executive Order 12898. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register, Volume 59, No. 32, February 11, 1994.

52 U.S. Department of Transportation, 2012. USDOT Order 5610.2(a), “Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority”. 

Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register, Volume 77, No. 99, May 10, 2012.

53 National Environmental Policy Act, 1969. “Title II, Council on Environmental Quality.” Amended, January 

1, 1970, July 3, 1975, August 9, 1975 and September 13, 1982.

54 Environmental Justice Policy of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. 

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/ej/ej-policy-english.pdf
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-54 May 2016

Methodology

Demographic and Socioeconomic

The Study Team used the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year 

estimates for 2007-2011 by census block group for demographic and socioeconomic analysis. 

For employment figures, the U.S. Census uses total population ages 16 and over. For the 

demographic and socioeconomic analysis, the NNEIRI Study Area includes all U.S. census 

block groups within the Corridor buffer boundary (one half mile along the Corridor, 3 miles 

around the stations), as well as all block groups that are partially located within the buffer 

boundary regardless of how much of the geographic unit is located within the buffer. In other 

words, block groups were not clipped or divided at the NNEIRI Study Area buffer, but rather 

kept whole and counted in their entirety as part of the analysis. The same is true of census 

tracts used for the employment calculation.

For the economic overview, the Study Team used gross domestic product (GDP) as an 

indicator of economic production. The Study Team obtained the Bureau of Economic Analysis 

(BEA) 2012 statistics on gross domestic product (GDP) for each metropolitan area along the 

Corridor and for the states that comprise the New England region. 

The analysis provides a general discussion of the potential effects of the Build Alternative on 

the socioeconomic environment within the more populated and urban areas in the Corridor.

Environmental Justice

The Study Team used federal thresholds of minority and low income populations to identify 

and quantify environmental justice populations within the NNEIRI Study Area. Census block 

groups with at least 50% minorities or 50% or more residents living below the poverty level 

were identified as areas with potential environmental justice populations. In order to account 

for regional variation in economic intensity, the Study Team used a regional indicator. Thus, 

block groups with percentages of minorities or low income populations higher than 10% above 

the county average in which the block group is located are also identified as potential 

environmental justice populations. In the few cases where the county average was more than 

50% minorities or low income, the 50% threshold was used. 

The methodology utilizes GIS to compare the Build and No-Build Alternative infrastructure 

and services against the mapped location of environmental justice populations to identify and 

describe the relative benefits and burdens of the project, such as proximity to stations and 

proximity to potential noise and air quality impacts.

Existing Conditions

The NNEIRI Corridor spans diverse socioeconomic and economic environments through New 

England. The vast majority of the population and employment are located in the metropolitan 

areas in the region that anchor the Corridor segments – Boston and Springfield, and the other 

metropolitan regions in between – Worcester and Burlington. The high population and 

employment densities of these metropolitan areas were also the location of the highest 

concentrations of minorities and low-income households. Outside of the metropolitan areas 

along the Corridor, there are rural areas with low population and employment densities. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-55 May 2016

This section provides an overview of the economic landscape of the region and the 

demographic, socioeconomic, and environmental justice characteristics of the people living 

and working within the NNEIRI Study Area along with their interaction with the 

comprehensive transportation network and community facilities. The transportation network in 

a region is vital to its economic vitality through its movement of goods and people within and 

beyond the region. Connectivity and capacity that allow free movement of goods and people 

increase economic vitality and improve access to employment opportunities and services. 

NNEIRI Study Area Overview

Demographic and Socioeconomic

Within the NNEIRI Study Area of the two segments, the population is estimated to be 

1,492,786 and households number 606,036. Minorities comprise 31% of the NNEIRI Study 

Area population. One fifth of the households in the NNEIRI Study Area do not have vehicles 

available. 

Approximately 62% of the population above working age is employed with the unemployment 

rate at an average of 8% within the NNEIRI Study Area. Average median household income in 

the NNEIRI Study Area is $58,801 with approximately 16% of the population living below the 

poverty/low income threshold. Details on the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics 

of the NNEIRI Study Area are provided in Table 4.3-1 below.

Table 4.3-1. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics in the NNEIRI Study Area

Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics Count %

Total Population 1,492,786

Total Households 606,036

Minority Population 464,873 31.1%

Households without Vehicles Available 130,354 21.5%

Population Living Below Poverty Level 229,136 16.3%

Median Household Income $58,801

Employed Population 759,408 61.5%

Unemployment 66,426 8.1%

Environmental Justice

Potential environmental justice populations are identified by block group by minority status 

and household income. Table 4.3-2 describes potential environmental justice populations by 

block group for the NNEIRI Study Area as a whole. The table shows that within the Study 

Area, approximately 35% of block groups have higher than average concentrations of 

minorities and approximately 25% have higher than average concentrations of low income 

populations. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-56 May 2016

Table 4.3-2. Environmental Justice Populations in the NNEIRI Study Area

Environmental Justice Characteristic Block Groups Percentage of Total

NNEIRI Study Area 1209

Minority 420 34.7%

Low Income 297 24.6%

Economic Overview

For the economic overview, the Study Team used Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an 

indicator of economic production. The New England region has a regional GDP of $829,745 

and within the region, the metropolitan areas in the Corridor produce 49% of the regional GDP. 

Boston to Springfield 

The Boston to Springfield segment includes the Boston, Worcester, and Springfield 

metropolitan areas. The discussion on Springfield’s social and economic resources is split 

between the two sections as it is common to both segments.

Demographic and Socioeconomic

The population in the Boston to Springfield segment is estimated to be 1,042,505

(approximately 70% of the total population in the NNEIRI Study Area) from 2011 Census 

block groups. Within this segment, there are 419,124 households, which represent 69% of all 

households in the NNEIRI Study Area. The minority population in this segment comprises 

38% of the total population. Table 4.3-3 describes the demographic characteristics of this 

segment.

Table 4.3-3. Demographic Characteristics - Boston-to-Springfield Segment

Demographic Characteristic Count Percentage of Total

Total Population 1,042,505 69.8%

Total Households 419,124 69.2%

Minority Population 393,524 37.7%

The Boston to Springfield segment has employment of 534,848. The unemployment rate in this 

segment is approximately 8%. Median household income in this segment is $64,557. Table 

4.3-4 provides detailed socioeconomic characteristics of the segment.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-57 May 2016

Table 4.3-4. Socioeconomic Characteristics - Boston-to-Springfield Segment

Socioeconomic Characteristic Count Percentage of 

Total

Population Living Below Poverty Level 171,481 17.6%

Median Household Income $64,557

Households without Vehicles Available 112,569 26.9%

Employed Population 534,848 61.5%

Unemployment 47,601 8.2%

Environmental Justice

The Study Team identified potential environmental justice populations by block group by 

minority status and household income. Table 4.3-5 shows that within the Boston to Springfield 

segment, 42% of block groups have higher than average concentrations of minorities and 28% 

have higher than average concentrations of low income populations. 

Table 4.3-5. Environmental Justice Populations - Boston to Springfield Corridor

Environmental Justice Characteristic Block Groups Percentage of Total

NNEIRI Study Area 846

Minority 357 42.2%

Low Income 237 28.0%

Springfield to Canadian Border

The Springfield to Canadian border segment includes the Springfield and Burlington 

metropolitan areas. The discussion on Springfield’s social and economic resources is split 

between the two sections as it is common to both segments. 

Demographic and Socioeconomic

The population in this segment is estimated to be 450,281 (approximately 30% of the total 

population in the NNEIRI Study Area). Within this segment, there are 186,912 households, 

which represent approximately 31% of all households in the NNEIRI Study Area. The 

Springfield to Canadian border segment has the lowest percentage of minority population of 

the two segments at approximately 16%. Details on the demographic characteristics of the 

segment are provided in Table 4.3-6. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-58 May 2016

Table 4.3-6. Demographic Characteristics - Springfield to Canadian Border Segment

Demographic Characteristic Count Percentage of Total

Total Population 450,281 30.2%

Total Households 186,912 30.8%

Minority Population 71,349 15.8%

Along the Springfield to Canadian border segment of the Corridor, the percentage of residents 

living below the poverty level as defined by US Census Bureau threshold is the lower of the 

two segments. In Urban Areas with substantial transit options, the absence of an automobile 

does not in itself signify any economic condition. However in areas with limited transit 

options, a characteristic of this segment, the absence of a vehicle is an indicator of poverty. 

Slightly less than 10% of the households within this segment do not have a vehicle available. 

Table 4.3-7 describes the socioeconomic characteristics of this segment.

Table 4.3-7. Socioeconomic Characteristics - Springfield to Canadian Border Segment

Socioeconomic Characteristic Count Percentage of Total

Population Living Below Poverty Level 57,655 13.2%

Median Household Income $53,046 -

Households without Vehicles Available 17,785 9.5%

Employed Population 224,560 61.4%

Unemployment 18,825 7.8%

Environmental Justice

Within the Springfield to Canadian border segment, the Study Team identified very few block 

groups as having potential environmental justice populations (Table 4.3-8). The majority of the 

block groups with potential environmental justice populations are in Massachusetts, and more 

specifically in Springfield, Holyoke, and Northampton. However within the cities of 

Brattleboro, Vermont; Greenfield, Northampton, Holyoke and Springfield, Massachusetts, 

there may be some individual Census Block Groups that have higher levels of minority, 

poverty or Persons with Limited English proficiency. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-59 May 2016

Table 4.3-8. Environmental Justice Populations - Springfield to Canadian Border Segment

Environmental Justice 

Characteristic

Block Groups Percentage of 

Total

NNEIRI Study Area 363 -

Minority 63 17.4%

Low Income 60 16.5%

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in direct or indirect impacts to socioeconomic resources and 

environmental justice communities within the Corridor.

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EA identified potential beneficial economic 

development impacts along the corridor as a result of passenger rail improvements. The EA 

identified overall benefit to EJ populations in Greenfield and Northampton as a result of 

improved access. Residents of Amherst would have to travel to Northampton to access the 

Vermonter. Existing and planned public transportation services between Amherst and 

Northampton would provide adequate access to the Northampton station for residents of 

Amherst. According to the EA, the project would experience an increase in train traffic 

however, overall, there would be no disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income 

or minority populations. 

The NHHS EA identified no adverse impacts to socioeconomic conditions. The project would 

have beneficial regional and national economic impacts due to job creation. The project would 

have beneficial impact on EJ populations in the vicinity of improved existing stations and 

relocated and proposed new stations as the project provides new or improved access to regional 

rail service thus improving mobility options. The EA identified adverse impacts to EJ 

populations due to increased traffic congestion at several intersections and increased noise 

levels. The NHHS EA mitigation measures include improving traffic signals and intersections, 

establishing Quiet Zones and using noise insulation of some homes. 

According to the SSX DEIR, the project would displace approximately 1,000 USPS jobs, 

which are anticipated to be relocated within South Boston. The project does not anticipate a net 

loss of USPS employment within the Boston area as MassDOT intends to include retail 

functions of the USPS facility in the terminal expansion. The SSX project is expected to 

benefit EJ populations by improving accessibility to public transportation and public access 

within the station and would not provide a burden to the EJ populations greater than any nonEJ populations. MassDOT would provide acquisition and relocation assistance, if required, for 

affected properties at the Widett Circle and Readville – Yard 2 layover facility sites.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-60 May 2016

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips).

The Build Alternative’s service enhancements would have a beneficial impact on economic 

development and EJ populations in the vicinity of the existing stations and the proposed new 

station. The Build Alternative would provide improved mobility options for those who are 

transit-dependent as the additional trains provided under NNEIRI service would improve 

access to regional passenger rail services. 

The NNEIRI service would lead to jobs related to the construction of the proposed 

improvements, suppliers of materials and equipment and related professional services. 

Additionally the proposed developments would improve access to jobs via wider access to 

employment and commercial centers, especially for persons without access to cars and the 

mobility impaired. Other potential economic benefits from a passenger rail project include

increased property values around station areas. Indirect benefits include economic 

opportunities for redevelopment of communities in proximity to rail, mixed-use development,

which creates a more livable community that improves public health by providing 

transportation options within walking or bicycling distances. 

Proposed double-tracking and new or extended passing sidings would be provided within the 

existing railroad ROW, resulting in no substantive physical changes or disproportionate 

impacts to areas with EJ populations. Additionally, the Build Alternative does not include 

construction of any new layover facility or maintenance site thus resulting in no impact to the 

areas with EJ populations. It is anticipated that EJ populations near Framingham, Worcester, 

Springfield, Holyoke and Northampton stations would be most beneficially impacted because 

of high percentage of minority and low income population. Other stations that would have 

beneficial impacts on EJ population include Northampton and Greenfield in Massachusetts, 

Brattleboro, Bellows Falls, White River Junction, Randolph, and Essex Junction in Vermont 

and Claremont in New Hampshire. 

4.3.3 Possible Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped

This section discusses the affected environment for the elderly and people with disabilities and 

the environmental consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternatives. 

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Regulatory Requirements

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures 

equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment, State and local government 

services, public accommodations, commercial facilities, and transportation. The current text of 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-61 May 2016

the ADA includes changes made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-325), which 

became effective on January 1, 2009. The ADA was originally enacted in public law format 

and later rearranged and published in the United States Code (U.S.C.). 

At the federal level, laws relating to pedestrian access routes and parking spaces for persons 

with disabilities also include the 2006 USDOT’s Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

(ADA) Standards for Transportation Facilities.55 DOT’s ADA standards apply to facilities used 

by state and local governments to provide designated public transportation services, including 

bus stops and stations, and rail stations. They apply to new construction and alterations.

U.S. Department of Justice 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design (ADAAG): The new 

Title II (State and Local Government) and Title III (Places of Public Accommodations) 

regulations are now in effect. The 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design are in effect as 

of March 15, 2012.All state, county and municipally owned and leased building must satisfy 

the requirement of equal access under Title II of the ADA.

At the state level, the following legislation applies:

Massachusetts

 521Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR), the Rules and Regulations of the 

Massachusetts Architectural Access Board (AAB)

New Hampshire

 New Hampshire Statutes. Title 23: Labor, Chapter 275-C: Governor’s Commission on 

Disability. Sections 275-C:10 to 275-C:18

 The Architectural Barrier-Free Design Code for the State of New Hampshire (Abfd 300 -

AB Code)

Vermont

 2012 Vermont Access Rules - (accepted) - (Effective November 15, 2013)

 Vermont Accessibility Standards Statute -- 20 VSA Chapter 174

Methodology

All stations except Palmer are existing stations and the Build Alternative would utilize the 

existing platforms except for the new station platform at Worcester Union Station. No 

modifications to the existing stations would be made with the exception of the Palmer Station, 

which would be designed to be ADA compliant. Any newly constructed stations in 

Connecticut and Massachusetts, with the exception of the new passenger platform at 

Worcester, Massachusetts and new station at Palmer, Massachusetts, would be built as part of 

New-Haven Hartford Springfield and Knowledge Corridor / Restore the Vermonter projects. 

No new stations would be built in Vermont. 

 

55 U.S. Department of Transportation. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Transportation 

Facilities. 2006. http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/transportation/facilities/about-theada-standards-for-transportation-facilities/ada-standards-for-transportation-facilities-single-file
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-62 May 2016

Existing Conditions

Boston to Springfield

All the existing stations in the Boston to Springfield segment meet ADA accessibility 

guidelines. All the stations have on-site parking spaces and dedicated accessible parking spaces 

except for Back Bay. Below is a brief discussion of each station in Boston to Springfield 

Corridor segment. 

South Station: South Station is considered an ADA accessible station. The Station has seven 

high-level platforms and public safety facilities. Back Bay Station: is ADA accessible. The 

station has no on-site parking but private parking garages are proximate to the station, which 

have accessible parking spaces.

Framingham: The Framingham Station meets ADA accessibility guidelines. The station has a 

166-space parking lot, with four spaces designated for disabled passengers.

Worcester Union Station: The Worcester Union Station features a single high-level platform, 

five tracks and public safety facilities. The station facilities meet ADA accessibility 

requirements. The station has a 500 car garage with nine designated as ADA accessible. 

Springfield: The existing Springfield Union Station currently meets ADA accessibility 

standards and includes public safety facilities. Parking is available adjacent to the station and 

some parking spaces are designated for ADA accessibility. 

Springfield to Canadian Border

All the existing stations in the Springfield to Canadian Border meet ADA accessibility 

guidelines except for Windsor and Montpelier Stations in Vermont. Windsor, Essex Junction, 

St. Albans, Brattleboro and Montpelier Stations do not have accessible parking spaces. 

Brattleboro: The station, located near Brattleboro town center, has no dedicated vehicular 

parking.

Bellows Falls: The station is located in an industrial area in eastern Bellows Falls. Ten shortterm parking spaces are provided at the station along with the accessible parking spaces.

Claremont, New Hampshire: The station is located in a rural area west of central Claremont but 

has nearby accessible and general parking spaces. 

Windsor: The station is located in Windsor town center. However, the station does not meet 

ADA accessibility guidelines and does not have accessible parking spaces. 

White River Junction: The station is located near in the White River Junction Historic District

and meets ADA accessible guidelines. 

Randolph: The station facilities meet ADA accessibility requirements. ADA accessible parking 

spaces are available. The station is located near historic Randolph town center. 

Montpelier Station in Vermont does not meet ADA requirements. The station is located in a 

rural area west of central Montpelier.

Waterbury: Parking is provided at the station at a Revitalizing Waterbury owned lot; the lot 

includes ADA accessible spaces. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-63 May 2016

Essex Junction – Burlington, Vermont: The station does not meet ADA accessibility 

requirements according to Amtrak’s ADA standards. The station has an eight space vehicle 

parking lot owned and managed NECR; none of the spaces are designated ADA accessible. 

Through Amtrak’s Accessible Stations Development Plan, steps have been proposed to address 

and rectify any non-ADA compliance issues, such as level boarding of disabled persons. 

St. Albans: The station offers 14 parking spaces, with no dedicated accessible spaces. 

According to Amtrak’s website, the station platform and access to trains meet ADA 

accessibility requirements but enclosed passenger waiting areas do not.

Table 4.3-9 summarizes the stations that meet ADA accessible requirement and the availability 

of accessible parking spaces in the stations.

Table 4.3-9. Existing Station Site Assessment 

Station ADA Accessible 

Station 

Vehicle Parking 

Available/Accessible Parking

No of Parking Spaces/ No. of 

Accessible Parking

South Station Yes Yes/Yes 223/8

Back Bay Yes Off-site/Off-site 0 

Framingham Yes Yes/ Yes 166/ 4

Worcester Yes Yes/ Yes 500/ 9

Springfield Yes Yes/ NA NA

Brattleboro Yes No/ No 0

Bellows Falls Yes Yes/ Yes 10/ NA

Claremont Yes Yes/ Yes 15/ NA

Windsor No Yes/ No NA/ 0

White River Jct. Yes Yes/ Yes 16/ NA

Randolph Yes Yes/ Yes NA

Montpelier No Yes/NA NA

Waterbury Yes Yes/ Yes NA

Essex Junction Yes Yes/ No 8/ 0

St. Albans Yes Yes/ No 14/ 0

Source: NNEIRI, April 2014, Station Site Assessment & Guidelines.

Note: NA: Not Available

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in possible barriers to the elderly and handicapped persons. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-64 May 2016

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EA and the SSX DEIR did not include evaluation 

of this environmental resource.

The NHHS EA identified no possible barriers to the elderly and handicapped persons. All 

stations that are reconstructed, relocated, or new would provide ADA accessibility to trains and 

services. High-level platforms, connected by aerial pedestrian overpass with stairs and an 

elevator, would provide safe access to trains, the station and parking. Springfield Union Station 

does not have high-level platforms, accessibility improvements to this station would be part of 

a future project. At the time of this writing, the NHHS project was in final permitting and 

construction.

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips).

The Build Alternative is not anticipated to create any additional barriers to elderly and 

handicapped since it utilizes the existing track alignment and existing stations and platforms. 

Additionally, it would have positive impacts to elderly and handicapped since people who 

cannot drive can use rail service. 

All the track improvement work, restoration of second tracks and addition of passing siding

under the Build Alternative would take place within the existing rail ROW. The Build 

Alternative proposes a new station in Palmer, which would be designed to be ADA compliant. 

Three feasible sites are currently under consideration for a new Palmer Station. Additionally, a 

new ADA compliant high-level platform at Worcester Union Station would be provided in the 

station. Connection to Worcester Union Station would be provided via new vertical access to 

an existing pedestrian tunnel that was historically used to connect passengers to center island 

platforms.

The Build Alternative would not result in any change to the accessible parking spaces available 

at the existing stations. Since there would be no modifications to the existing stations and 

accessible parking areas, it would not create any additional possible barriers to the elderly and 

handicapped persons. 

There might be an indirect impact due to the additional trains along the Corridor, where closure 

of at-grade crossings may become more frequent and opportunities to cross the tracks may be 

reduced. However, the frequency of trains under the NNEIRI Build Alternative is relatively 

low so that potential indirect impact due to the additional trains along the Corridor is not 

anticipated.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-65 May 2016

4.3.4 Public Health and Safety

This section discusses the affected environment for health and safety and the environmental 

consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternatives. Refer to Section 4.3.12 for 

existing transportation characteristics on these routes in terms of type of service (i.e. freight, 

commuter, etc.), speeds, and existing safety infrastructure. 

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential impacts to public health 

and safety and the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

NEPA and FRA’s Procedures require federal agencies to consider the impact of federal actions 

on public health and safety. The following laws are applicable for public safety: 

 Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-432): One aim of the statute is to 

improve conditions of rail bridges and tunnels. The Rail Safety Improvement Act also 

requires that railroads implement Positive Train Control (PTC) systems to prevent trainto-train collisions on certain rail lines by the end of 2015. 

 Federal Railroad Administration (49 CFR Volume 4, Chapter II, Part 200 to 299): FRA 

regulations for railroad transportation safety, including standards, rules, and practices, are 

listed in 49 CFR Parts 200 to 299.

 U.S. Code on Railroad Safety (49 U.S.C. §§ 20101 et seq.): Part A of Subtitle V of Title 

49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. §§ 20101 et seq.) contains a series of statutory 

provisions affecting the safety of railroad operations. In particular, Section 20109 protects 

the reporting of safety concerns and injuries and prohibits railroads from disciplining, 

discharging, or retaliating in any form against employees who engage in protected 

activities. 

At the state level, the following legislation applies:

Massachusetts

 M.G.L. Title 10 Chapter 17: Department of Public Health 

New Hampshire

 New Hampshire Statutes. Title 10: Public Health

Vermont

 V.S.A Title 18: Health

Methodology

The Study Team identified facilities and services related to the provision and protection of 

safety in the NNEIRI Corridor through data provided by municipal planning staff/offices, 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-66 May 2016

limited field review, and review of current aerial maps of the Corridor. Increases of train traffic 

at higher speeds could create a potential hazard to vehicles and pedestrians in the vicinity of atgrade crossings. At-grade crossings were evaluated based on the FRA diagnostic to determine 

necessary improvements.

The Study Team mapped improvements in and around stations (NNEIRI Study Area) 

throughout the Corridor in order to demonstrate increased connectivity to the surrounding 

community, and used mapping to identify existing and planned sidewalk and bike lane 

infrastructure. 

Existing Conditions

This section summarizes station accessibility and rail operations safety and security within the 

NNEIRI Study Area.

Station Accessibility 

Boston to Springfield

The existing stations at South Station, Back Bay, Framingham, Worcester and Springfield are 

pedestrian friendly and are easily accessible to pedestrians. At the Worcester Union Station, 

wayfinding can be difficult, with signs incomplete in certain areas. The Worcester Union 

Station is reasonably accessible to pedestrians through sidewalks and passageways from the 

bus station and garage; however, Interstate 290 and adjacent elevated railroad tracks create a 

barrier for pedestrians accessing the station. Bicycle parking spaces are available in South 

Station, Back Bay and Framingham. 

Springfield to Canadian Border

In the Springfield to Canadian border segment, all the existing stations are pedestrian friendly 

and accessible to pedestrians except for Claremont, New Hampshire, which is located in a rural 

area west of central Claremont and is not easily accessible to pedestrians. Bicycle parking is 

available at Essex Junction Station. Brattleboro, Bellows Falls and Montpelier do not have 

dedicated bicycle parking. Information about bicycle parking at other stations is not available. 

Rail Operations Safety and Security

Train Operations

Amtrak service within the Corridor includes the Northeast Regional, Springfield Shuttle, Acela 

Express, Lake Shore Limited, and Vermonter services. 

Passenger Areas

Passenger waiting areas/facilities/platforms are sources of a range of safety and security 

concerns. There are 19 stations in the Boston to Springfield (5 stations) and Springfield to 

Canadian border segments (14 stations). All of these stations are existing or planned Amtrak 

station (Holyoke) and as such, are already subject to safety and security regulations. Amtrak 

and the Amtrak Police Department handle safety and security at the stations. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-67 May 2016

Yard/Service Areas

Within the NNEIRI Study Area, there are two Amtrak yard and maintenance facilities 

(Southampton Yard in Boston and a rail yard in New Haven). Amtrak is responsible for safety 

and security at these facilities. 

Crossing Safety

Rail-Rail Crossings: Control of interlockings/priorities is determined by the controlling 

railroad at each intersection. The movement of passenger and freight trains on the same track is 

controlled by a dispatcher. On such tracks, redundant safeguards are in place to avoid 

movements that could result in collisions. 

Highway-Rail and Pedestrian-Rail Crossings: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and 

FRA have regulatory jurisdiction for safety at crossings56 and the states have jurisdiction over 

highway-rail grade crossings57. Other federal and state agencies also have assigned safetyrelated responsibilities for highway-rail crossings. Responsibility for grade crossing 

consolidations and closures falls to the following entity in each NNEIRI Study Area state:

 Massachusetts: Department of Telecommunications and Energy, Department of 

Highways

 New Hampshire: Department of Transportation

 Vermont: Vermont Transportation Board58

In each state in the NNEIRI Study Area, overall authority for highway-rail grade crossing 

safety is conferred upon the state agency that regulates and oversees transportation. Table 4.3-

10 summarizes the railroad crossing type by segment. Public grade crossings are roadways that 

are under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority. Private grade crossings are 

on privately owned roadways such as those leading into an apartment complex, housing estate, 

or commercial/industrial development. A private crossing is not intended for public use and is 

not maintained by a public road authority.

Table 4.3-10. Railroad Crossing

Corridor Segment

Pedestrian

Crossing

Private At 

Grade

Crossing

Public At 

Grade

Crossing

Boston-Springfield 3 32 12

Springfield Canada Border 3 30 51

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis

 

56 Highway Safety Act of 1966, Title 23, Chapter 4. Highway Safety Act of 1966

57 Federal Highway Administration. Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook 2007. Federal Highway 

Administration

58 Federal Railroad Administration. Compilation of State Laws and Regulations Affecting Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. 5th Edition, 2009. Federal Railroad Administration
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-68 May 2016

Emergency Access during Grade Crossing Closures or Blockages

Throughout the NNEIRI Study Area, the Corridor passes through numerous jurisdictions, all 

of which have at least one emergency service provider (i.e. police, fire, ambulance). The 

various jurisdictions individually coordinate with the local railroad owner to implement a plan 

for dealing with unplanned grade crossing closures, crash reduction or blockages. 

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in additional direct or indirect impacts to public health and 

safety within the Corridor.

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EA identified no significant adverse effect on 

public health and safety because the project would only add one train daily north and 

southbound on an active rail line. The project anticipates improving public health and safety by 

upgrading 37 grade-crossings with active warning devices and reducing congestion and 

improving safety on the roads and highways by diverting some traffic from I-91 to Route 9 and 

other local roads within the Knowledge Corridor project study area.

The NHHS EA identified no adverse impacts to public health, safety and security in the rail 

corridor because the rail line is currently active and operational with safety measures such as 

crossing gates in place. For increased passenger train frequency and speed in the rail corridor, 

the project proposes grade crossings improvements with supplemental safety devices and 

conforming the project to all applicable FRA, FTA, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Amtrak and state safety and security requirements, standards and 

certifications.

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

The Build Alternative would not have a significant impact to public health and safety because 

the NNEIRI service would be running on the currently active and operational rail line with 

safety measures, such as grade crossing warning devices already in place and there would be 

no change to the existing sidewalks and bike lanes in the Corridor. Further grade crossing 

safety improvements are planned as part of the Build Alternative. The rehabilitation or addition 

of new double-tracking and addition of new passing sidings would take place within the 

existing railroad ROW adjacent to the existing track, resulting in no substantive physical 

changes to the areas. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-69 May 2016

Though the NNEIRI Build Alternative proposes to increase or provide new service levels in 

the Corridor, the frequency of trains under the Build Alternative is relatively low so that 

potential public safety impact at grade crossings due to the additional trains along the Corridor 

is not anticipated. Additionally, the Corridor is a currently active railroad and has safety 

measures in place and the Build Alternative also includes improvements to some signals and 

grade crossings resulting in a benefit to public health and safety.

The Build Alternative would have positive impacts by diverting 113 million VMT (analysis 

year 2035) to rail mode, which has a low fatality rate compared to motor vehicles. Diverted 

VMT is the calculated reduction in miles traveled by passenger vehicle as a direct result of 

mode shift to the proposed train service. According to the FTA’s 2009 Rail Safety Statistics

Report59, rail transit modes (heavy rail and light rail) rank among the safest modes of 

transportation as it had the lowest occurrence of passenger fatalities (0.02 deaths per 100 

million passenger miles) from 2003 to 2008 compared to 1.42 deaths for motor vehicles. 

Amtrak and commuter rail also had low fatality rates of 0.03 and 0.06 per 100 million 

passenger miles, respectively. As such, the Build Alternative is anticipated to have benefits of 

public safety to people travelling by rail.

Three station sites are under consideration for a new Palmer Station. The surrounding district 

in Palmer is pedestrian friendly. Safe pedestrian access to the new station site would be 

considered during the site selection and station design process. Additionally, the Build 

Alternative would provide increased passenger connectivity due to improved access to the new

platform at Worcester Union Station. Access to the platform from the station building would be 

provided through an existing tunnel that links the station with an adjacent parking garage.

4.3.5 Hazardous Materials

This section discusses the affected environment for hazardous waste and the environmental 

consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternatives.

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential impacts due to hazardous 

materials and the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

Federal agencies are required to consider the impact of federal actions on hazardous material 

sites. The use, storage, transportation and disposal of contaminated and hazardous materials are 

regulated at the federal level by the EPA. At the state level, many of the environmental 

regulations are enforced by MassDEP, Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation 

(VTDEC) and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). The U.S. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 gives the U.S. EPA the authority to 

 

59 Federal Transit Administration. 2009 Rail Safety Statistics Report. http://transitsafety.volpe.dot.gov/publications/RailSafety/Rail_Safety_Statistics_Report_2009-FINAL.pdf
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-70 May 2016

regulate hazardous waste from the “cradle-to-grave.” This includes the generation, 

transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also sets forth a 

framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. 

The Comprehensive Environmental Resource Conservation and Liability Act of 1980 

(CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, created a tax on the chemical and petroleum 

industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. The law 

authorized the EPA to identify parties responsible for contamination of sites and compel the 

parties to clean up the sites.

In 1984, Congress added Subtitle 1 to RCRA requiring the U.S. EPA to regulate underground 

storage tanks (USTs). The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled the U.S. EPA to address 

environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other 

hazardous substances.

In 1988, the U.S. EPA issued federal UST regulations laying out a comprehensive program for 

the monitoring and upgrading of USTs in the nation. 

At the state level, the following legislation applies:

Massachusetts

 M.G.L. Title 2 Chapters 21C, 21D and 21E 

New Hampshire

 New Hampshire Statute, Title 10: Public Health, Chapters 147-A to 147-D

Vermont

 V.S.A. Title 10 Chapter 159: Waste Management

 Vermont Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, Effective October 15, 2006

Methodology

Federal hazardous material release sites are identified under the USEPA National Priorities

List (NPL) of sites of known or potential release sites and the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) list. 

VTDEC Waste Management and Prevention Division oversee the use, treatment, and handling 

of hazardous waste. The Division performs emergency response for hazardous materials spills, 

issues permits for federal and state programs regulating hazardous wastes, and underground 

storage tanks, and manages cleanup at hazardous sites under state and federal authorities. 

The NHDES Waste Management Division manages oil and/or hazardous material releases 

under Env-Or 600 Contaminated Site Management, RSA 146 –A Oil Discharge or Spillage in 

Surface Water or Groundwater, and RSA 485-C Groundwater Protection Act.

MassDEP Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup manages oil and/or hazardous material releases under 

the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). MassDEP oversees cleanup of spills and 

situations presenting "imminent hazards" when appropriate. In order to streamline cleanup of 

disposal sites, MassDEP relies on Licensed Site Professionals (LSPs), experts in assessment 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-71 May 2016

and cleanup who are licensed by the Commonwealth and can be hired by the private sector to 

manage/oversee cleanups, allowing assessments and cleanups to proceed at most sites without 

delays due to the need to get MassDEP approvals. 

The Study Team reviewed available online databases, including the Vermont Natural 

Resources Atlas (NRA) mapping database, NHDES One Stop sites list, MassGIS and 

MassDEP sites list, and available USEPA’s online databases in order to identify areas of 

known releases and potential hazardous material sites within the existing railroad ROW for 

those towns located in the NNEIRI Corridor in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. 

Existing Conditions

This section reviews the existing hazardous materials release sites within the NNEIRI Study 

Area. The NNEIRI Study Area for hazardous materials consists of a one-half mile buffer on 

either side of the railroad ROW centerline. However, due to the limited anticipated ground 

disturbance, the NNEIRI Study Area for the regulatory record search radius of one mile was 

scaled back to include only the railroad ROW. 

Boston to Springfield 

Based on a review of available databases for Massachusetts, the Study Team identified 13 

release sites within the railroad ROW. All of these release sites have been closed with a Class 

A1, A2 or B1 Response Action Outcome (RAO). A Class A1 RAO is achieved when a 

Permanent Solution has been achieved and the level of oil and/or hazardous material in the 

environment has been reduced to background; or response actions have eliminated all threats of 

release and no release of oil and/or hazardous material to the environment has occurred. A 

Class A2 RAO is achieved when a Permanent Solution has been achieved, the level of oil 

and/or hazardous material in the environment has not been reduced to background; and one or 

more activity and use limitation (AUL) is required to maintain a level of no significant risk. A 

Class B1 RAO is achieved when it has been determined as a result of an assessment that a level 

of No Significant Risk exists and no remedial actions are required. 

Springfield to Canadian Border

The release sites for Springfield are discussed in the Boston to Springfield segment. The Study 

Team did not identify any release sites in Massachusetts within the railroad ROW north of 

Springfield to the border of the U.S. and Canada. However, one CERCLIS/release site in 

Hatfield, Massachusetts, which is classified as Tier ID, was identified abutting the railroad 

ROW, and is discussed here due to its potential to impact the ROW (see Table 4.3-11). A Tier 

ID classification is a default MassDEP classification for a property when responsible parties 

fail to meet regulatory deadlines. In reviewing information pertaining to this facility, it appears 

the property owners are elderly and unable to pay for any investigations and/or remedial 

actions. 

The Study Team did not identify any sites on the NHDES One Stop database and on the 

Vermont GIS database within the railroad ROW based on site names (Amtrak was not listed). 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-72 May 2016

Table 4.3-11. Summary of Release Sites, Springfield-to-Montreal

Site Name Address/ 

Location Status Comments

Tremblay Barrel Bridge Street, 

Hatfield, MA, 

Abuts RR ROW 

to East

CERCLIS, 

Tier ID

RTN 1-00087: Release notification July 1988. Impacts 

to soil from barrel reconditioning include PCBs, 

thallium, chlordane and volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs) are present in groundwater. Property owner 

purchased property without knowledge of impacts and 

unable to afford remedial investigations/cleanup. 

Property owner applied for financial inability Status in 

2005. No further information available. 

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in direct or indirect impacts to hazardous material release sites 

within the Corridor.

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor/ Restore Vermonter EA identified no impact to known contaminated 

sites or hazardous waste as the project would occur within the existing MassDOT-owned 

Connecticut River Line ROW. For the construction activity, the project would conform with 

the applicable U.S. EPA and MassDEP regulations and permit regulations. The contractor 

would prepare spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plan that provides specific 

guidance for managing contaminated media that may be encountered in the ROW. 

The NHHS EA identified some potential impacts to environmental risk sites. The project 

would have a high risk for encountering contaminated soils or debris in the existing railroad 

track, including the vicinity of the Springfield Layover site, during project construction. The 

EA identified two potential hazardous waste source sites, which include the site proposed for 

North Haven and a property in Hartford. The EA identified no CERLIS-listed sites within 250 

feet of the rail line. The proposed mitigation measures include developing and complying with 

Waste Management Plan and following State of Connecticut’s regulatory requirements. 

According to the EA, all Massachusetts work involving potential hazardous materials or sites 

would be addressed in future Tier 2 environment documents. 

The SSX DEIR anticipates some form of contamination as part of project construction because 

of the historic uses within the project area. The DEIR identified some historic release or threat 

of release into the environment at the South Station site, Widett Circle site and Readville Yard 

2 site. Construction activities at Beacon Park Yard and Readville Yard 2 could require 

remediation in compliance with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP).
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-73 May 2016

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

All the hazardous release sites identified within railroad ROW in Massachusetts have been 

closed except for the one CERCLIS/release site in Hatfield, Massachusetts that was identified 

abutting the railroad ROW. It is classified as Tier ID, which is a default MassDEP 

classification when responsible parties fail to meet regulatory deadlines. No second track or 

passing siding is proposed in Hatfield and this part of the Corridor has already been covered as 

part of the Knowledge Corridor study, which did not identify any impact to hazardous or 

contaminated sites at this location. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated under the Build 

Alternative and hence no mitigation measures would be required. 

4.3.6 Solid Waste Disposal

This section discusses the affected environment for solid waste and the environmental 

consequences associated with No-Build and Build Alternatives. 

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential impacts to solid waste and 

the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

The US EPA does not regulate non-hazardous wastes at the federal level; these are regulated at 

the state and local level. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted in 

1976, is the principal federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste.60 

State agencies, including the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VTDEC), 

the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES), and the Commonwealth 

of MassDEP manage solid waste landfills (SWLs) under the solid waste programs. The Solid 

Waste Program, under RCRA Subtitle D, encourages states to develop comprehensive plans to 

manage non-hazardous industrial solid waste and municipal solid waste (MSW), sets criteria 

for municipal solid waste landfills and other solid waste disposal facilities, and prohibits the 

open dumping of solid waste.61 This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, 

and disposal of solid waste.

 

60 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 1976, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Parts 239 through 259. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/laws-regs/regs-non-haz.htm

61 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Non-hazardous waste/solid waste. 

http://www2.epa.gov/regulatory-information-topic/waste#solid
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-74 May 2016

Massachusetts

 Solid Waste Facilities/Management Acts (M.G.L. Chapter 21H and M.G.L. Chapter 111, 

Sections 150-150A1/2)

New Hampshire

 Solid Waste Management Act, Chapter 149-M

 Solid Waste rules (Env-Sw 100-2100 Solid Waste Rules)

Vermont

 Title 10 V.S.A Chapter 159 Waste Management Act 

Methodology

The Study Team used the Vermont Natural Resources Atlas (NRA) mapping program, 

Massachusetts Geographic Information System (MassGIS) mapping programs, and NHDES 

One Stop database to locate mapped SWLs along the railroad ROW. Unpermitted solid waste 

dumps may be present along the ROW, but are not depicted on these mapping applications. 

Existing Conditions

This section summarizes existing conditions of SWLs along the Corridor.

Boston to Springfield

Based on the review of the MassGIS solid waste landfills (SWL) mapping, no SWLs were 

identified by the Study Team within the railroad ROW. The Study Team identified four SWLs 

abutting the railroad ROW, which are summarized below. 

Table 4.3-12. Solid Waste Landfills - Boston to Springfield

Name Direction Status Type

Auburn Landfill, Auburn, 

MA

Abuts to west Inactive Municipal solid waste

East Brookfield Landfill, 

East Brookfield, MA

Abuts to north Inactive Municipal solid waste

Wilbraham Lindsay 

Landfill and Wilbraham 

Grassy Hollow Landfill, 

Wilbraham, MA

Abuts to south Inactive Municipal solid waste

Cottage Street Landfill, 

Springfield, MA

Abuts to east and west Inactive Municipal solid waste

Springfield to Canadian Border

Based on review of the Vermont NRA mapping, the NHDES SWL information obtained from 

the One Stop database, and the Vermont NRA SWL mapping, the Study Team identified one 

SWL within the railroad ROW and four landfills abutting the railroad ROW.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-75 May 2016

Table 4.3-13. Solid Waste Landfills - Springfield to Canadian Border

Name Direction Status Type

Mt. Tom Generating 

Company, LLC, Mt. Tom, 

Massachusetts 

in ROW and to east Inactive Ash

Bernardston Landfill, 

Bernardston, 

Massachusetts

Abuts to south Inactive Municipal solid waste

Not specified, Randolph, 

Vermont

Abuts to the west off 

Landfill Road, and one 

abuts to East off Landfill 

Road

Inactive Not Specified

Not Specified, Lower 

Newton Road, St. Albans, 

Vermont

Abuts to east at Lower 

Newton Road

Inactive Not Specified

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in the generation of any additional solid waste along the 

Corridor. 

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. The Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter EA, the 

NHHS EA and the SSX DEIR did not evaluate solid waste impacts.

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

The Build Alternative would not directly or indirectly impact landfill areas in the Corridor. It is 

not anticipated that any materials would be removed from the ROW other than some rail 

components and rail tracks. During the construction phase, solid wastes would be disposed 

appropriately in accordance with the approved disposal plans of each state agency. Nonhazardous solid waste requirements vary from state to state. 

States have differing requirements for handling and disposing of these wastes. Disposal of nonhazardous construction waste would be done in a construction waste-specific landfill. Before 

any construction begins, the project proponent (e.g., MassDOT, VTrans) would determine any 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-76 May 2016

state requirements (e.g., recycling standards and proper disposal of solid wastes) and would be 

responsible for compliance.

4.3.7 Aesthetic and Design Quality Impacts

This section discusses the affected environment for visual and aesthetic quality and the 

environmental consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternatives. 

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential impacts to aesthetics and 

design quality and the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

NEPA requires federal agencies to examine the impacts of federal actions on visual resources. 

Evaluation of aesthetics and design quality includes identification of any changes likely to 

occur in the natural landscape and in the developed environment.

 There are no governing state statutes in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, or Vermont.

Methodology

In the absence of specific rail-related guidance, the Study Team used the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1988)62 as 

guidance for this evaluation. Visual resources are significant built features such as public 

parks, landmark structures or districts, otherwise distinct buildings or groups of buildings, and 

natural resources such as vegetation, wetlands and geologic, topographic and aquatic features 

within the NNEIRI Study Area.

The visual assessment was developed through the use of readily available Geographic 

Information System (GIS) data sets and aerial imagery.63 The visual analysis considers views 

of and from the railroad. The Study Team grouped the existing locations where visual and 

aesthetic quality are most evident into three broad categories: the communities where stations 

are located, protected natural areas (i.e., open space, conservation areas, local/state/national 

parks and forests), cultural and historic resources where the user experience may be interrupted 

by the presence of rail use and viewer groups. Protected natural areas, including federal, state, 

municipal/county open spaces, parks and recreational facilities and cultural and historic 

resources within 300 feet of the rail centerline were identified for visual resources assessment. 

Detailed methodology for cultural resources and Sections 4(f) and 6(f) properties is addressed 

in Sections 4.3.8 through 4.3.10. While a subjective category, this section does not intend to 

determine whether rail use and railroad features are positive or negative, but rather identify 

sensitive locations where interaction between the railroad and the public occur.

 

62 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. 1988. 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/visual/FHWAVisualImpactAssmt.pdf

63 GIS layers include: Massachusetts “Protected and Recreation OpenSpace,” updated 2013; New Hampshire 

“nhrec,” updated 2010; Vermont “Cadastral Conspub,” updated 2009; and ESRI “Schools,” updated 2012.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-77 May 2016

Existing Conditions

This section summarizes the existing visual setting and scenic resources in the NNEIRI Study 

Area. 

Station communities

Issues of visual and aesthetic quality are intertwined with other resource areas discussed as part 

of the entire Affected Environment and Consequences chapter (Chapter 4). Historically, station 

communities may have developed because of the existence of the railroad, and the stations seen 

as symbols of community identity. Visual and aesthetic quality is likely to be an issue if the 

following factors are present:

 The existence of an historic depot, station, or other railroad infrastructure;

 Local zoning protection via design review;

 Local, state or federal protection as a designated historic site or district.

The following sections summarize whether the existing stations have historic designation or 

have potential for such designation, and whether the community has additional design review 

criteria because of such designation or potential. 

Boston to Springfield 

The Boston to Springfield segment has five (5) station communities. Three of the station 

communities, located in Palmer (Union Station), Worcester and Boston (South Station), have 

historic designation or have potential for such designation. Worcester Union Station and 

Boston South Station have additional design review criteria. Intercity passenger rail service is 

currently not provided to Palmer, Massachusetts. 

Springfield to Canadian Border

The Springfield to Canadian Border segment has nine (9) station communities. Five of them 

(Springfield and Northampton in Massachusetts and Saint Albans, White River Junction and 

Bellow Falls in Vermont) have historic designation or have potential for such designation. All 

of these communities have additional design review criteria except for Bellow Falls. 

Protected Natural Areas, Cultural and Historic Resources

Visual and scenic resources along the Corridor include historic buildings, structures and 

districts and parks, recreational areas, natural areas and wildlife refuges within the 300-foot 

buffer. The NNEIRI Corridor’s visual characteristic is defined by a variety of landscapes, 

including low, medium and high intensity developed areas, industrial properties, historic 

properties, forests, parks and open space, wetlands, pasture, crop lands, and surface waters and 

the NNEIRI Corridor and stations.

Boston, Framingham, Worcester, Springfield are the most urbanized areas and therefore offer 

predominant views of many buildings, roadways, bridges, parking/pavement, while the smaller 

municipalities along the corridor offer predominant views of wetlands, forests and crop lands.

Cultural resources, Sections 4(f) and 6(f) and other parks and recreational areas along the 

Corridor are summarized below and addressed in more detail in Sections 4.3.8 through 4.3.11. 

Boston to Springfield 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-78 May 2016

Boston to Springfield is a highly developed segment, with development accounting for nearly 

50 percent of the land area within one-half mile of the Corridor segment. In addition, 

approximately one-third of the classified land use within the Boston to Springfield segment 

exhibits a combination of deciduous forest and woody wetlands. This segment is dominated by 

forest, low, medium and high intensity developed land, developed open spaces, along with 

wetlands and water bodies. 

According to the National Register (NR) GIS, there are 59 National Register-listed buildings, 

structures, objects and districts within the NNEIRI Study Area in the segment between Boston 

and Springfield. There are 48 Section 4(f) public parks, recreation areas and wildlife or 

waterfowl refuges and six Section 6(f) properties within the NNEIRI Study Area in the Boston

to Springfield segment. Additionally, there are other parks, recreational areas and open spaces 

in this segment, which do not meet the criteria for Sections 4(f) and 6(f) (see Section 4.3.11).

Springfield to Canadian Border

Springfield to Canadian Border segment is mostly rural and less developed with development 

accounting for less than 25 percent of the land area within one-half a mile of the Corridor

segment. It is dominated by forest, pasture, cropland, medium and low intensity developed 

land, and developed open space, along with wetlands and water bodies. 

The National Register GIS identified 39 National Register-listed buildings, structures, objects 

and districts within the segment of the Corridor between East Northfield, Massachusetts and 

Alburgh, Vermont. There are 24 Section 4(f) public parks, recreation areas and wildlife or 

waterfowl refuges and four Section 6(f) properties within the NNEIRI Study Area in the 

segment between East Northfield, Massachusetts and Alburgh, Vermont. Additionally, there 

are other parks, recreational areas and open spaces in this segment, which do not meet the 

criteria for Sections 4(f) and 6(f) (see Section 4.3.11).

Viewer Groups 

The FHWA’s Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1988), differentiates major 

viewer groups into two categories based on physical factors: view from the road and view of 

the road. For the NNEIRI Study, the viewer groups include the railroad users who get the view 

from the railroad (drivers and passengers of the trains) and the railroad neighbors who get the 

view of the railroad and trains (residents, people with commercial/industrial interests, 

recreational users and other special interest groups, including civic, cultural, environmental, 

educational and economic). Residents located in the cities, suburbs and towns adjacent to the 

railroad ROW who would have the potential for undesirable views of the railroad facilities are 

considered to be sensitive visual receptors. 

While the sidings and track are at the ground-level and are low-profile visual elements, the 

trains are vertical elements that are periodically seen by sensitive viewers. Currently, the 

Boston to Springfield segment experiences views of 2-3 daily roundtrips of freight service

between Boston and Worcester Intermodal Terminal and 25 weekday freight roundtrip trains 

per week from Worcester to Springfield and view of one roundtrip Amtrak Lake Shore Limited 

passenger service between Boston and Springfield Union Station. Additionally, the segment 

experiences view of commuter rail service operated by MBTA (24 local and express round trip 

trains each day) between Boston and Worcester. Similarly, the Springfield to Canada Border 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-79 May 2016

segment currently experiences views of seven freight trains per day (TPD) (three between 

Springfield and East Northfield, Massachusetts, two between East Northfield, Massachusetts 

and St. Albans, Vermont and two between St. Albans, Vermont to Canada Border) and one 

round trip Amtrak Vermonter passenger service. Existing train stations and depots are also 

visible to residents in adjacent neighborhoods. 

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in direct or indirect impacts to aesthetic and design quality of 

the Corridor.

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter EA did not evaluate impacts to aesthetic and 

design quality. 

The NHHS EA identified no impacts to visual resources and quality in the NHHS project study 

area except for the potential adverse impacts to the visual environment in the vicinity of the 

existing and proposed NHHS rail stations at Wallingford, Berlin, Newington and Windsor, 

Connecticut. The mitigation measures include coordination and design reviews with the 

communities so that landscaping and use of building construction materials, colors and 

architectural styles would be consistent with station sites’ surroundings. 

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

The Build Alternative utilizes the existing railroad embankment, which was historically 

double-tracked; however, most of the double-track was removed in the mid-20th century. As 

part of the Build Alternative, additional trains would be added between Boston and Springfield, 

and New Haven and Montreal. Proposed track improvements and addition of second track 

would take place within the existing ROW. No layover facilities are proposed for the Build 

Alternative. The restoration of a second track is planned between Worcester and Springfield in 

Massachusetts and between Brattleboro and Bellows Falls and between St. Albans and 

Swanton in Vermont. One double track location between Spencer and East Brookfield would

require an additional siding to accommodate NNEIRI services. Other locations where 

additional sidings would be provided are East Northfield, Massachusetts extending to Vernon, 

Vermont and Roxbury and Randolph, Vermont. 

These improvements would occur in the vicinity of the following historic properties: Union 

Station in Brattleboro, the Brattleboro Downtown Historic District, the Brooks House, the East 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-80 May 2016

Putney Brook Stone Arch Bridge, the Westminster Village Historic District and the Vernon 

District Schoolhouse No. 4. Additionally, these improvements would occur adjacent to the 

following Section 4(f) properties: Quaboag Wildlife Management Area in East Brookfield, 

Massachusetts, and to Cutter Park, the Warren Common in Warren, Massachusetts, and the 

Spencer Forest.

Since the proposed track improvements, restoration of second tracks and addition of the 

passing sidings are at the ground-level and would not change the existing views of the railroad 

sidings and track substantially along the Corridor, the Study Team does not anticipate any 

adverse impacts to the aesthetic and design quality in the Corridor.

Under the Build Alternative, additional trains would be added between Boston and Springfield, 

and New Haven and Montreal. Although trains are vertical elements that are periodically seen 

by sensitive viewers, the frequency of additional trains is relatively low and therefore the Study 

Team does not anticipate any potential visual impacts due to increase in service levels along 

the Corridor.

The Build Alternative utilizes the existing train stations except for Palmer, where three 

potential locations are currently under consideration. At least one of the sites considered for 

Palmer lies in close proximity to the historic Palmer Station. As such, there is the potential for 

indirect visual effects; however, direct effects to the aesthetic and design quality are not 

anticipated. In addition, a new passenger platform would be constructed at Union Station in 

Worcester. The platform would be an island location between tracks and would be located 

within the ROW in an area historically used for station platforms. The platform would connect 

to Worcester Union Station via an elevator and stair beneath the platform to the existing 

pedestrian tunnel. The pedestrian tunnel originally connected passengers from the Worcester 

Union Station headhouse to island platforms. Although the elevator and stair would be vertical 

elements, they would connect from tunnel below the tracks vertically to the platform surface 

therefore, no visual effects to Worcester Union Station are anticipated.

During Tier 2, more details relating to the design of a new Palmer Station and a platform at 

Worcester Union Station would likely be developed. At that time, further analysis would be 

conducted to determine any adverse visual impacts.

4.3.8 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

This section discusses the affected environment for cultural resources and the environmental 

consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternatives.

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Regulatory Requirements

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 requires that federal

agencies take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. A historic 

property is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included on, or 

eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Section 106
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-81 May 2016

review process is outlined in regulations promulgated by the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP), "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800). Effects to historic 

properties are further regulated under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 (49 U.S.C. 303). Under Section 4(f), a federal transportation agency may not approve the 

use of a Section 4(f) property (which includes historic sites) unless it determines that there is 

no feasible and prudent alternative to avoid the use of the property and the action includes all 

possible planning to minimize harm resulting from such use, or the project has a de minimis

impact. Section 4(f) is further discussed in Section 4.3.9.

The following state legislation addresses historic preservation:

Massachusetts

 M.G.L. Title 2 Chapter 9, Sections 26 to 27C: Sections 26 to 27C calls for the 

establishment of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). The Commission 

advises the State Secretary on matters relating to the historical and archeological assets of 

the Commonwealth and assists the Secretary in compiling and maintaining an inventory 

of the assets. The Commission encourages all governmental bodies and persons 

considering actions that may affect a historical or archeological asset of the 

Commonwealth to consult with the Commission to avoid any adverse effect.

New Hampshire

 New Hampshire Statutes Title 19 Chapter 227-C: Historic Preservation: Chapter 227-C 

calls for the establishment of the Division of Historical Resources, which serves as the 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The regulations also establish a review 

process, which is administered by the Director of the Division of Historical Resources, to 

ensure the protection of designated New Hampshire heritage landmarks. 

Vermont

 Vermont Historic Preservation Act (V.S.A. Title 22 Chapter 14: Historic Preservation): 

The Act requires that state agencies take measures to preserve the historic resources 

under its ownership. A state agency, department, division or commission must consult the 

Vermont Advisory Council on Historic Preservation before demolishing, altering or 

transferring any property that is potentially of historical, architectural, archeological or 

cultural significance.

 Act 250 (Title 10 V.S.A Chapter 151: State Land Use and Development Plans): Act 

250’s broad objective is to prevent Vermont land from being used in a manner 

detrimental to the environment. The Act requires that permits be issued for certain 

developments to ensure that the development would not have an adverse effect on key 

resource areas, including historic sites.

Methodology

To identify historic properties along the Corridor, the Study Team reviewed the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Geographic Information System (GIS) database in March 

and April 2015. A combination of spatial data and tabular data contributed to the derivation of

the full list of National Register-listed properties. The Study Team further identified historic 

properties by reviewing a NRHP GIS data layer for properties determined eligible for the 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-82 May 2016

National Register and through the State of Massachusetts GIS.64 Comparable state GIS data 

documenting historic properties is currently not available in New Hampshire or Vermont. No 

additional data collection efforts were undertaken for the Corridor segment between New 

Haven, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts or for the segment between Springfield and 

East Northfield, Massachusetts, as both segments were the subject of prior NEPA 

documentation and Section 106 review by the FRA. No online data was available on historic 

properties within the Canadian segment of the Corridor. 

For the purposes of this Tier 1 analysis, the Study Team defined a preliminary Area of 

Potential Effect (APE) that extends 300 feet from the rail centerline (NNEIRI Study Area for 

cultural resources). Based on the NRHP and Massachusetts GIS data, properties that lie within 

the preliminary APE were identified. FRA sent information packages describing the NNEIRI 

Build Alternative and the preliminary APE to the Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, 

and Connecticut State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs). FRA’s correspondence with 

SHPOs emphasized that this is a Tier 1 service-level EA, which itself does not have the

potential to affect historic properties. Should the study advance to Tier 2, the lead federal 

agency (FRA or otherwise) would be responsible for Section 106 compliance at the project 

level.

The Study Team inventoried existing bridges located between Boston to Springfield and north 

of East Northfield, Massachusetts into New Hampshire and Vermont using existing sources 

such as track charts and other available databases. Structures that are likely to be modified or 

replaced under the Build Alternative have been identified at the conceptual level.

The objective of this Tier 1 evaluation was to identify the locations of known historic 

properties within the preliminary APE from readily available federal and state GIS data, and to 

assess the potential for effects to these properties based on conceptual plans for the Build 

Alternative. As the design of the Build Alternative is advanced and more detailed information 

becomes available in Tier 2, the APE would be formally determined by FRA, or another lead 

federal agency, in consultation with the appropriate SHPOs. The lead federal agency’s Tier 2 

Section 106 efforts would also include, in consultation with the appropriate SHPOs and 

consulting parties, the identification of additional historic properties, determinations of effect, 

and resolution of any adverse effects. 

The following analysis identifies National Register-listed properties by segment, 

concentrations of such properties, and properties that, due to their proximity to planned 

passenger rail-related improvements, may be the most likely to be affected. In addition, 

National Register-eligible properties as identified with the NRHP GIS data were also

identified. Due to irregularities within the National Register GIS and to access issues along the 

Corridor, additional analysis would be required in Tier 2 to precisely identify and determine 

impacts to historic properties. Any additional consideration of bridges, culverts, and other 

railway infrastructure in the segments between Boston, Massachusetts and Springfield, 

Massachusetts and East Northfield, Massachusetts and Alburgh, Vermont required under 

 

64 Massachusetts GIS data was sourced from http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-andsupport/application-serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/srhp.html; National Register 

GIS data was sourced from http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data_downloads.htm.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-83 May 2016

Section 106 will occur during Tier 2. Section 11504 of the Fixing America's Surface 

Transportation (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 114-94) enacted on December 4, 2015 mandates the 

development of a Section 106 exemption for railroad rights-of-way; it is possible that certain 

railroad-related resources along the NNEIRI corridor will be exempt from the requirements of 

Section 106 in the future. 

Existing Conditions

This section describes the known historic properties in the NNEIRI Study Area based on 

readily available information in the NRHP and SHPO databases.

Boston, Massachusetts to Springfield, Massachusetts

According to the Massachusetts and National Register GIS data, there are 59 National 

Register-listed properties within the Corridor in the segment between Boston and Springfield. 

Many of these properties are clustered in Springfield, Worcester, and Newton, Massachusetts. 

Of these properties, four are historic railroad stations: Union Station in Palmer, Union Station 

in Worcester, the Framingham Railroad Station, and the Wellesley Farms Railroad Station. An 

additional eight properties are documented as eligible within the National Register GIS. A 

summary of the National Register-listed and eligible properties is provided below in Table 4.3-

14.

Table 4.3-14: National Register (NR) Properties - Boston to Springfield

Property Type Number of Properties

NR Building 39

NR Structure 0

NR District 18

NR Object 1

NR Site 1

Total NR-Listed Properties 59

NRDOE* 7

Source: Natural Register Information System (NRIS) GIS 2015 and Massachusetts GIS 2015

Note:

* Properties identified as Determined Eligible are those listed as such in NRIS GIS data; 

additional eligible properties may be identified in Tier 2 in consultation with the Massachusetts SHPO

According to track charts, there are 186 bridges in the Corridor between Boston and 

Springfield. Of these, 77 are undergrade bridges and 109 are overhead bridges. Information 

such as date, materials, and methods of construction is not currently available, and thus FRA 

has not made any determinations of National Register eligibility at this time. In addition, a 

comprehensive list of culverts and other railway infrastructure along the Corridor is not 

available, nor is data on archaeological resources within the Corridor. Consequently, additional 

data needs may be identified in Tier 2 in consultation with the Massachusetts Historical 

Commission (MHC).
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-84 May 2016

Springfield, Massachusetts to New Haven, Connecticut

Historic properties within the Corridor between New Haven, Connecticut and Springfield, 

Massachusetts are addressed in the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Line High Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail Project Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Evaluation (NHHS 

EA/EIE). FRA prepared the NEPA document in cooperation with the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) and the Connecticut Department of Transportation (CTDOT) in May 

2012 and made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on August 9, 2012. In addition, 

FRA, FTA, CTDOT, Connecticut SHPO, and MHC executed a Section 106 Programmatic 

Agreement for the NHHS High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Project on August 9, 2012; 

FRA, CTDOT, and Connecticut SHPO executed a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement on 

April 23, 2015 addressing adverse effects to bridges and culverts within the NHHS rail corridor

between New Haven and Windsor; and FRA made a final Section 4(f) determination on May 

12, 2015 regarding these bridges and culverts. For a detailed discussion of historic properties 

within this segment of the Corridor, refer to the NEPA, Section 106, and Section 4(f) 

documentation for the NHHS project. 

Springfield, Massachusetts to Canada Border 

Historic properties within the Corridor between Springfield and East Northfield, Massachusetts

are addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Knowledge Corridor – Restore 

Vermonter, Springfield to East Northfield, Massachusetts prepared by FRA and the 

Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) in 2009. Section 106 consultation 

occurred between FRA and MHC in September 2010 regarding effects to 16 historic bridges 

requiring in-kind repair or replacement of components, effects of station and platform 

improvements to the nearby Northampton Downtown Historic District and the Greenfield Main 

Street Historic District, and effects to Northampton Railroad Station (Union Station). FRA 

determined, and MHC concurred, that the Knowledge Corridor project would not result in 

adverse effects to these historic properties. FRA issued a FONSI for this project on February 5, 

2011. For a detailed discussion of historic properties within this segment of the Corridor, refer 

to the Knowledge Corridor NEPA documentation. 

The National Register GIS identified 39 National Register-listed properties within the segment 

of the Corridor between East Northfield, Massachusetts and Alburgh, Vermont. The majority 

of these are historic districts in small village centers in Vermont. Two additional properties are 

documented as eligible within the National Register GIS. A summary of the National Registerlisted and eligible properties is provided below in Table 4.3-15.

Table 4.3-15: National Register (NR) Properties - East Northfield, Massachusetts to Alburgh, 

Vermont 

Property Type Number of Properties

NR Building 12

NR Structures 6

NR District 21
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-85 May 2016

Property Type Number of Properties

NR Object 0

Total NR-Listed Properties 39

NRDOE* 1

Source: Natural Register Information System (NRIS) GIS 2015 and Massachusetts GIS 2015

* Properties identified as Determined Eligible are those listed as such in NRIS GIS data;

additional eligible properties may be identified in Tier 2 in consultation with SHPOs.

According to track charts, there are 141 bridges in the Corridor between East Northfield, 

Massachusetts and Alburgh, Vermont. Of these, 103 are undergrade bridges and 38 are 

overhead bridges. Information such as date, materials and methods of construction is not 

currently available, and thus FRA has not made any determinations of National Register 

eligibility at this time. In addition, a comprehensive list of culverts and other railway 

infrastructure along the Corridor is not available, nor is data on archaeological resources within 

the Corridor. Additional data needs may be identified in Tier 2 in consultation with the 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont SHPOs.

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the CTDOT infrastructure improvements to the NHHS rail 

line have been completed or are underway, including double-tracking, station improvements, 

and repair and replacement of numerous bridges and culverts. The NHHS improvements 

affecting historic properties in the segment of the corridor between New Haven and Windsor 

are already covered by Section 106 agreement documents and adverse effects have been 

resolved through consultation among FRA, CTDOT, CTSHPO, and other consulting parties. 

Tier 2 NEPA analysis, a Memorandum of Agreement, and a 4(f) Evaluation for the portion of 

the corridor between Windsor and Springfield (Phase 3B) will be completed prior to the release 

of construction funding for these improvements. Similarly, site-specific compliance and 

documentation will be undertaken for four planned stations along the NHHS corridor. In

addition, Section 106 consultation between FRA and MHC for the Knowledge Corridor project 

between Springfield and East Northfield, Massachusetts also occurred, which resulted in a No

Adverse Effect determination for the Northampton Railroad Station (Union Station), the 

Northampton Downtown Historic District, and the Greenfield Main Street Historic District. 

Other planned passenger rail-related projects, including Springfield Union Station 

improvements and the expansion of Boston’s South Station (SSX), and associated layover 

facilities, improvements to the rail infrastructure between the U.S. border and Montreal, and 

improvements to the Montreal Central Station Customs Checkpoint would also be completed 

under the NNEIRI No-Build Alternative. 

In accordance with the MEPA, MassDOT prepared a state-level DEIR for the SSX project on 

October 31, 2014, and received a MEPA Certificate from the Massachusetts Secretary of 

Energy and Environmental Affairs on December 31, 2014. MassDOT also received grant 

funding from FRA to conduct preliminary engineering and NEPA analysis for the SSX project. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-86 May 2016

As of the writing of this EA, MassDOT, in coordination with FRA, is preparing an EA for the 

SSX project. Section 106 consultation between FRA, MassDOT, MHC and other consulting 

parties is being coordinated with the NEPA process, and will be completed before FRA makes 

a NEPA determination. This Section 106 review will consider effects to the National Registerlisted station building, as well as any other historic properties in the APE.

No additional impacts to cultural resources beyond those resulting from, and already 

documented elsewhere for, the above projects are anticipated from the No-Build Alternative.

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

Under the Build Alternative, railroad tracks and alignment would be upgraded so that speeds 

up to 79 mph would be possible throughout the Corridor. Although track improvements would 

be undertaken, including minor realignments and double tracking, all work would take place 

within the existing ROW. Improvements to some passenger stations and bridges and the 

installation of signal systems would also occur. No new layover facilities are proposed beyond 

those identified under the No-Build Alternative. 

ROW improvements are planned in the segment of the Corridor between Worcester, 

Massachusetts and Springfield, Massachusetts. This segment of the ROW was historically a 

double-track corridor; however, most of the track was removed in the mid-20th century. The 

additional service within the Corridor would require the reconstruction of the second track and 

minor track realignments. In addition, one double track location between Spencer, 

Massachusetts and East Brookfield, Massachusetts would require an additional siding to 

accommodate NNEIRI services. These improvements would occur in the vicinity of the

following National Register-listed properties: West Brookfield Center Historic District, the 

Warren Town Hall, the Warren Public Library, the 1767 Milepost, the Warren First 

Congregational – Federated Church, and Union Station in Palmer, Massachusetts. However, 

the improvements would be limited to the existing ROW and therefore adverse effects to 

adjacent historic properties are not anticipated. In addition, seventeen bridges and overpasses 

located in the segment of the Corridor between Worcester and Springfield would need to be 

modified to accommodate the double track. Any additional consideration of bridges, culverts, 

and other railway infrastructure required under Section 106 will occur during Tier 2.

The restoration of a second track is also planned along the Corridor between Brattleboro, 

Vermont and Bellows Falls, Vermont and between St. Albans, Vermont and Swanton, 

Vermont. These improvements would occur in the vicinity of the following National Registerlisted properties: Union Station in Brattleboro, the Brattleboro Downtown Historic District, the 

Brooks House, the East Putney Brook Stone Arch Bridge, and the Westminster Village 

Historic District. However, the improvements would be limited to the existing ROW and 

therefore an adverse effect to the adjacent historic properties is not anticipated. The double-
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-87 May 2016

track between Brattleboro and Bellows Falls would require improvements to five bridges and 

overpasses along the Corridor. Any additional consideration of bridges, culverts, and other 

railway infrastructure required under Section 106 will occur during Tier 2. No known historic 

properties are located in the area of planned double tracking between St. Albans and Swanton.

Additional passing sidings would be provided in East Northfield, Massachusetts, extending 

into Vernon, Vermont, and Roxbury, Vermont and Randolph, Vermont. Although the Vernon 

District Schoolhouse No. 4 is adjacent to one of these track-work areas, the work would be 

limited to the existing ROW and thus adverse effects are not anticipated.

The NNEIRI program includes improvements at two stations along the Corridor between 

Boston and Springfield. Three locations are currently under consideration for construction of a 

new station in Palmer, Massachusetts. At least one of these sites lies in close proximity to the 

historic Palmer Union Station. As such, there is the potential for visual effects; however, direct 

effects to this resource are not anticipated. In addition, a new 1,000-foot long platform would 

be constructed at Union Station in Worcester. The platform would be an island location 

between tracks and would be located within the existing ROW in an area historically used for 

station platforms. The platform would connect to Worcester Union Station via an elevator and 

stair beneath the platform to the existing pedestrian tunnel. The pedestrian tunnel originally 

connected passengers from the Worcester Union Station headhouse to island platforms. 

Although the elevator and stair would be vertical elements, they would connect from tunnel 

below the tracks vertically to the platform surface; therefore, no visual effects to Worcester 

Union Station are anticipated.

Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) would be added along those segments of the Corridor that 

are currently under Track Warrant Control (TWC); specifically in the section between from 

East Northfield, Massachusetts to West River, Vermont, and from White River Junction, 

Vermont to Alburgh, Vermont. Intermediate signals would be installed every two miles and 

interlocking signals would be added at the ends of the planned passing sidings in St. Albans, 

Oakland, Berlin, Roxbury, Bethel, South Royalton, Hartland, Swanton, Fonda Junction, Bolton 

Valley, Randolph and Brattleboro, Vermont. Signal systems would be located entirely within 

the existing ROW and generally not visible to the public. Where elements are visible, they 

would be compatible with existing railway infrastructure. Thus, adverse effects to historic 

properties resulting from the signal systems are unlikely.

As part of the NEPA and Section 106 processes for the NHHS project, the entire rail corridor 

between New Haven and the Connecticut/Massachusetts state line was determined eligible for 

the National Register. Contributing elements include passenger stations, bridges, culverts, 

freight houses, signal towers, historic archaeological sites, and wayside railroad features. The 

segment of the rail line from the Connecticut/Massachusetts state line to Springfield was not 

determined eligible for the National Register. Any additional consideration of bridges, culverts, 

and other railway infrastructure required under Section 106 will occur during Tier 2. In 

addition, efforts to identify areas of potential archaeological sensitivity along the Corridor, 

should any exist, would occur in Tier 2.

Based on the nature of the improvements that would be necessary to implement NNEIRI 

service, direct and indirect effects to historic properties are likely. However, at the Tier 1 level, 

there is not enough information to be able to assess and determine effects to historic properties. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-88 May 2016

FRA, or another lead federal agency, would be responsible for Section 106 compliance for any 

Tier 2 projects affecting historic properties.

4.3.9 Use of 4(f) Protected Properties 

This section discusses the affected environment for Section 4(f) properties and potential 

Section 4(f) uses associated with the No-Build and Build Alternatives. It discusses the historic 

properties, public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges in the NNEIRI Study Area. A 

full Section 4(f) analysis and determination would occur during Tier 2 project level analysis.

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to evaluate potential impacts to Section 4(f) 

properties and the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

Section 4(f) refers to the original section within the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 

1966, which provided for consideration of park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl 

refuges, and historic sites during transportation project development. The law, now codified in 

49 U.S.C. §303 and 23 U.S.C. §138, applies only to the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) and is implemented by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the 

Federal Transit Administration through the regulation 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

774. 

In accordance with Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, the Secretary 

of Transportation must make every effort to “preserve the natural beauty of the countryside, 

publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or any historic sites of 

national, state, or local significance.” As such, Section 4(f) prohibits federal transportation 

agencies from approving a project that uses land from a significant public park, recreation area, 

wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP, 

unless the agency determined that there is no feasible or prudent avoidance alternative to the 

use of that property and that the proposed project includes all feasible planning to minimize 

harm to the property resulting from its use; or the agency determines that the use, including any 

measures to minimize harm, would ultimately have a minimal and insignificant adverse effect 

on the property. The use of a Section 4(f) property occurs when the property is permanently 

incorporated into the transportation project through a taking of the land; when it is temporarily 

occupied; or when its significant features are substantially impaired such that its value as a 4(f) 

resource would be meaningfully diminished or lost.

The following is a summary of defining characteristics that properties must possess in order to 

qualify for protection under Section 4(f):

Parks, Recreation Areas and Refuges 

 It must be publicly owned, meaning it is owned by a local, state or federal government 

agency;

 It must be open to the public (except in certain cases for refuges). Open to the public 

means access is permitted to the entire public during normal hours of operation;
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-89 May 2016

 Its major purpose (or primary function) must be for park, recreation, or refuge activities;

and 

 It must be significant as a park, recreation area or refuge. A determination of significance 

is made during consultation with the official with jurisdiction over the property.

Historic Sites

In order to qualify for protection under Section 4(f), a historic site must meet the following 

criteria:

 It must be of national, state or local significance; and 

 It must be on or eligible for listing on the NRHP.

Unlike the other Section 4(f) property categories—parks, recreation areas, and refuges—

historic sites do not require public ownership in order to qualify for protection under Section 

4(f).

Archaeological Sites

In order for archaeological resources to be eligible for protection under Section 4(f):

 It must be listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP; and

 It must warrant “preservation in place”

Additional coordination with the appropriate (SHPOs would need to be undertaken as the 

project development process advances in order to determine if archaeological resources exist 

within the Corridor, and if so, the applicability of Section 4(f) to archaeological resources 

within the Corridor.

Since Section 4(f) is strictly a federal regulation applicable only to federal transportation 

agencies, there is no state regulatory equivalent.

Methodology

The Study Team identified public parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges and waterfowl 

refuges from GIS data from the states of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. In 

addition, the Study Team obtained schools data from Environmental Systems Research 

Institute (ESRI), since some school grounds include publicly-used playgrounds and 

recreational fields. GIS data layers reviewed included:

 Massachusetts “Protected and Recreation Open Space” updated 2013

 New Hampshire “nhrec” updated 2010

 Vermont “Cadastral Conspub” updated 2009

 ESRI “Schools” updated 2012

The Study Team then compiled the GIS data and queried out parks that are privately-owned or 

are the property of organizations of land trusts. In addition, private schools, public schools 

without known or visible outdoor recreational areas, and publicly owned lands that do not 

serve primarily recreational purpose were removed. The Study Team then plotted the 

remaining properties on base mapping overlaid on the NNEIRI Study Area. For the purposes of 

this Tier 1 analysis, the NNEIRI Study Area for Section 4(f) properties encompasses an 

envelope that extends 300 feet from the rail centerline. An analyst then progressively examined 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-90 May 2016

the Corridor from Boston to Springfield, Massachusetts, and from East Northfield, 

Massachusetts to Alburgh, Vermont to identify and annotate locations where public parks, 

recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges encroach into the NNEIRI Study Area envelope. 

Encroachments were qualified into three categories in order to assess the potential for impacts:

1 Property is within 300 feet of the rail centerline; 

2 Property is within 300 feet of the rail centerline and actually abuts the ROW; and

3 Property is bisected by the ROW.

For each GIS data polygon/point that fell within the NNEIRI Study Area, the Study Team 

conducted internet research to obtain additional information about the property to help confirm 

or refute its status as a Section 4(f) resource. Also, when progressively viewing the NNEIRI 

Study Area on aerial base mapping, the analyst noted recreational facilities in the NNEIRI 

Study Area envelope that were not included in the GIS data. The analyst subsequently 

conducted internet queries for each of those suspect properties, namely reviewing specific town 

plans including conservation and development plans and/or parks and recreation plans, to 

determine whether those facilities or properties qualify as Section 4(f) resources. The Study 

Team did not undertake additional data collection efforts for the segment between New Haven, 

Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts or for the segment between Springfield and East 

Northfield, Massachusetts, as both segments were the subject of prior NEPA documentation. In 

addition, no data was available within Canada. The results of the parks, recreation areas, and 

refuge analysis were reported in tables for each segment of the Corridor. These tables are 

included as Tables 4.3-16 and 4.3-17 below. 

The Study Team proceeded the identification of Section 4(f) historic properties along the 

NNEIRI Study Area in a similar manner using different data sources. That analysis involved 

reviewing the NRHP GIS database in March and April 2015. A combination of spatial data and 

tabular data contributed to the derivation of the full list of National Register-listed properties. 

To address irregularities in the spatial data, the Study Team confirmed historic district 

boundaries based on maps or boundary descriptions provided within the National Register 

nominations, where feasible. The Study Team further identified the properties through the 

State of Massachusetts GIS. Then the Study Team cross-referenced the National Register-listed 

properties within the Massachusetts GIS against the NRHP data. Comparable state GIS data 

documenting historic properties is not currently available in New Hampshire and Vermont. A 

NRHP GIS data layer for properties determined eligible for the National Register was also 

consulted. As mentioned above, the Study Team did not undertake additional data collection 

efforts for the segment between New Haven, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts or for 

the segment between Springfield and East Northfield, Massachusetts. In addition, no data was 

available on Section 4(f) historic properties within Canada. Refer to Appendix F - Cultural 

Resources and Historic Properties Technical Memorandum for historic properties within the 

Corridor.

The objective of this Tier 1 evaluation was to identify locations of known Section 4(f) 

properties within the NNEIRI Study Area from readily available federal and state GIS data, 

and to assess the potential for effects to these 4(f) properties based on conceptual plans for the 

proposed Build Alternative. As the design of the Build Alternative is advanced and more 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-91 May 2016

detailed information becomes available in Tier 2, the nature and extent of impacts to Section 

4(f) resources can be more formally evaluated. 

The following analysis identifies Section 4(f) properties by segment, concentrations of such 

properties, and properties that, due to their proximity to planned passenger rail-related 

improvements, may be the most likely to be affected.

Existing Conditions

Boston to Springfield

According to the Massachusetts GIS data and information identified while screening the 

NNEIRI Study Area, there are 48 public parks, recreation areas and wildlife or waterfowl 

refuges within the Corridor in the segment between Boston and Springfield. Of these 48

Section 4(f) properties, five are bisected by the ROW, 23 properties abut the ROW, and the 

remainder are within 300 feet of the rail centerline. Larger concentrations of Section 4(f) 

recreational resources are found in the urban centers of Boston, Worcester and Springfield as 

well in the Boston suburbs of Newton and Wellesley. 

Table 4.3-16 below summarizes these Section 4(f) parks, recreation areas and wildlife refuges. 

Detailed description, including their location, formal name, and their relationship to the 

NNEIRI Study Area is provided in Appendix G.

Table 4.3-16. Section 4(f) Parks, Recreation Areas and Wildlife Refuges – Boston to Springfield

Property Type Number of Properties

Properties within 300 feet of the rail centerline 20

Properties that abut the ROW 23

Properties that are bisected by the ROW 5

Total 48

Source: MassGIS “Protected and Recreation OpenSpace” updated 2013; New Hampshire GRANIT “nhrec,” 

updated 2010; Vermont Center for Geographic Information “Cadastral Conspub,” updated 2009; and 

ESRI “Schools” updated 2012.

According to the Massachusetts and National Register GIS data, there are 59 National 

Register-listed buildings, sites, structures, objects and districts within the Corridor in the 

segment between Boston and Springfield. These include 39 buildings, 18 districts, one object 

and one site. Many of these properties are clustered in Springfield, Worcester, and Newton, 

Massachusetts. An additional seven properties are documented as eligible within the National 

Register GIS, including five buildings, one district and one structure. Based on the GIS data, of 

the 19 historic districts, three appear to abut the ROW and another three are bisected by it. 

Refer to the Cultural Resources and Historic Properties Technical Memorandum included 

herein as Appendix F for a full list of historic properties. Additional properties may be 

identified as part of the Tier 2 analysis.

Data on National Register archaeological resources warranting preservation in place, which 

qualifies them for protection under Section 4(f) is not available for the Corridor at this Tier 1 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-92 May 2016

stage. Additional data needs may be identified in Tier 2 in consultation with the Massachusetts 

SHPO.

New Haven to Springfield

Section 4(f) properties within the Corridor between New Haven, Connecticut and Springfield, 

Massachusetts are addressed in the NHHS EA/EIE. FRA prepared the NEPA document in 

cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the CTDOT in May 2012 and 

made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on August 9, 2012. In addition, FRA, FTA, 

CTDOT, Connecticut SHPO, and MHC executed a Section 106 Programmatic Agreement for 

the NHHS High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Project on August 9, 2012; FRA, CTDOT, and 

Connecticut SHPO executed a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement on April 23, 2015 

addressing adverse effects to bridges and culverts along the NHHS rail corridor between 

Windsor and Springfield; and FRA made a final Section 4(f) determination on May 12, 2015 

regarding these bridges and culverts. A 4(f) Evaluation for the portion of the corridor between 

Windsor and Springfield (Phase 3B) will be completed before the release of construction 

funding for these improvements. For a detailed discussion of Section 4(f) properties within this 

segment of the Corridor, refer to the NEPA, Section 106, and Section 4(f) documentation for 

the NHHS project.

Springfield to Canadian Border

Section 4(f) properties within the Corridor between Springfield and East Northfield, 

Massachusetts are addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Knowledge Corridor –

Restore Vermonter, Springfield to East Northfield, Massachusetts prepared by FRA and the 

MassDOT in 2009. FRA made a FONSI for this project on February 5, 2011. For a detailed 

discussion of Section 4(f) properties within this segment of the Corridor, refer to the 

Knowledge Corridor EA. 

According to the Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont GIS data and information 

identified by the analyst while screening the NNEIRI Study Area, there are 24 public parks, 

recreation areas and wildlife or waterfowl refuges within the Corridor in the segment between 

East Northfield, Massachusetts and Alburgh, Vermont. Of these 24 Section 4(f) properties, 

three are bisected by the ROW, eight properties abut the ROW, and the remainder are within 

300-feet of the rail centerline. Two of the three properties that are bisected by the ROW are 

expansive wildlife management areas (the White River Wildlife Management Area and the 

Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge). Due to the less urbanized character of the Corridor

through Vermont as compared to the segment from Boston to Springfield, there are no areas 

with large concentrations of Section 4(f) recreational resources. Towns with several Section 

4(f) resources include Hartford/White River Junction, South Royalton, Bethel, and Waterbury. 

Table 4.3-17 summarizes these Section 4(f) parks, recreation areas and wildlife refuges. 

Detailed description, including their location, formal name, and their relationship to the 

NNEIRI Study Area is provided in Appendix G. There are no Section 4(f) resources within the 

NNEIRI Study Area in the State of New Hampshire.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-93 May 2016

Table 4.3-17. Section 4(f) Parks, Recreation Areas and Wildlife Refuges – Springfield to Canadian 

Border Corridor

Property Type Number of Properties

Properties within 300 feet of the rail centerline 13

Properties that abut the ROW 8

Properties that are bisected by the ROW 3

Total 24

Source: MassGIS “Protected and Recreation OpenSpace” updated 2013; New Hampshire GRANIT “nhrec,” 

updated 2010; Vermont Center for Geographic Information “Cadastral Conspub,” updated 2009; and 

ESRI “Schools”, updated 2012.

The National Register GIS identified 39 National Register-listed buildings, sites, structures, 

objects and districts within the segment of the Corridor between East Northfield, 

Massachusetts and Alburgh, Vermont. This includes 12 buildings, 21 districts, and six 

structures. The majority of the properties are historic districts in small village centers in 

Vermont. One additional property, a historic bridge in Northfield, Vermont, is documented as 

eligible within the National Register GIS. Of the 21 historic districts, five abut the ROW and 

an additional 10 are bisected by the ROW. Refer to the Cultural Resources and Historic 

Properties Technical Memorandum included herein as Appendix F for a full list of historic 

properties. Additional properties may be identified as part of the Tier 2 analysis.

Data on National Register archaeological resources warranting preservation in place which 

qualifies them for protection under Section 4(f) is not available for the Corridor at this Tier 1 

stage. Additional data needs may be identified in Tier 2 in consultation with the Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire and Vermont SHPOs.

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in direct or indirect impacts to Section 4(f) properties within the 

Corridor.

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS, and the SSX projects. 

FRA determined that the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter project would affect, but 

not adversely affect, historic properties (Northampton Railroad Station (Union Station), the 

Northampton Downtown Historic District, and the Greenfield Main Street Historic District) 

that are protected under Section 4(f). Because FRA made a No Adverse Effect determination 

pursuant to Section 106, and MHC concurred, FRA was able to make a de minimis impact 

determination under Section 4(f). 

For the segment of the NHHS corridor between New Haven and Windsor (Phase 1, Phase 2 

and Phase 3A of the NHHS Project), FRA submitted a draft Section 4(f) Evaluation to the U.S. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-94 May 2016

Department of the Interior (DOI) for review and comment pursuant to Section 4(f) of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966. FRA received DOI’s concurrence with its finding 

on April 1, 2015, and FRA made its final Section 4(f) determination regarding the use of 

historic properties in this portion of the corridor on May 12, 2015. FRA determined that the 

NHHS improvements between New Haven and Windsor would not require the use of any 

publicly owned parks, recreational areas, or wildlife or waterfowl refuges. In this same 

segment of corridor, FRA determined that there was no prudent and feasible alternative to the 

proposed use of 4(f) historic properties, which consist of 14 bridges, 15 culverts, and one 

tunnel that are contributing resources to the National Register-eligible NHHS Rail Corridor 

Historic District. The improvements include rehabilitation and replacement of these 30 historic 

properties. All possible planning to minimize harm was incorporated into the project design 

and project mitigation commitments; this includes execution in April 2015 of an MOA 

between FRA, CTSHPO, and CTDOT pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA. Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis, a Memorandum of Agreement, and a 4(f) Evaluation for the portion of the corridor 

between Windsor and Springfield (Phase 3B) will be completed before the release of 

construction funding for improvements in this segment of the corridor. Similarly, site-specific 

compliance and documentation will be undertaken for four planned stations along the NHHS 

corridor.

Other planned passenger rail-related projects, including Springfield Union Station and the 

expansion of Boston’s South Station (SSX), and associated layover facilities, improvements to 

the rail infrastructure between the U.S. border and Montreal, and improvements to the 

Montreal Central Station Customs Checkpoint would also be completed under the NNEIRI NoBuild Alternative. No additional impacts to cultural resources beyond those resulting from, and 

already documented elsewhere for, the above projects are anticipated from the No-Build 

Alternative.

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

Under the Build Alternative, the railroad tracks and alignment would be upgraded so that 

speeds up to 79 mph would be possible throughout the Corridor. Although tracks would be 

upgraded, including minor realignments and double-tracking, all work would take place within 

the existing ROW. Improvements to some passenger stations and bridges and the installation of 

signal systems would also occur. No new layover facilities are proposed beyond those 

identified under the No-Build Alternative. 

ROW improvements are planned in the segment of the Corridor between Worcester and 

Springfield, Massachusetts. This segment of the ROW was historically a double-track corridor, 

however most of the track was removed in the mid-20th century. The additional service within 

the Corridor would require the reconstruction of the second track and minor track 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-95 May 2016

realignments. These improvements would occur adjacent to the Quaboag Wildlife Management 

Area in East Brookfield, Massachusetts, and to Cutter Park and the Warren Common in 

Warren, Massachusetts. In addition, one double track location between Spencer and East 

Brookfield would require an additional siding to accommodate NNEIRI services. This would 

occur in the vicinity of the Spencer State Forest. However, it is unlikely that they would 

diminish significant features or the use of the wildlife management area, forest or parks, and 

thus adverse impacts to these 4(f) resources are unlikely. In addition, the ROW improvements 

would occur in the vicinity of several 4(f) historic properties including the West Brookfield 

Center Historic District (Boundary Increase) in West Brookfield, Massachusetts; the Warren 

Town Hall, Warren Public Library, 1767 Milepost, and the Warren First Congregational –

Federated Church in Warren, Massachusetts; and Union Station in Palmer, Massachusetts. 

However, the improvements would be limited to the existing ROW and therefore the use of 

these 4(f) historic properties is not anticipated. 

The restoration of a second track is also planned along the Corridor between Brattleboro and 

Bellows Falls, Vermont and between St. Albans and Swanton, Vermont. There are no 4(f) 

parks, recreation areas and wildlife refuges in the immediate vicinity of the improvements. 

There are several 4(f) historic properties adjacent to these segments of the Corridor, including 

Union Station in Brattleboro, the Brattleboro Downtown Historic District, and the Brooks 

House in Brattleboro, Vermont; the East Putney Brook Stone Arch Bridge, in East Putney, 

Vermont; and the Westminster Village Historic District in Westminster, Vermont. However, 

the improvements would be limited to the existing ROW and therefore the use of adjacent 4(f)

properties is not anticipated. Additional passing sidings would be provided in East Northfield, 

Massachusetts, extending into Vernon, Vermont, and Roxbury and Randolph, Vermont.

Although the Vernon District Schoolhouse No. 4 is adjacent to one of these track-work areas, 

the work would be limited to the ROW and thus adverse effects are not anticipated.

Seventeen bridges and overpasses located in the segment of the Corridor between Worcester 

and Springfield, Massachusetts would be modified to accommodate the double track. An 

additional five bridges and overpasses would require improvements due to double-tracking 

between Brattleboro and Bellows Falls, Vermont. Any additional consideration of bridges, 

culverts, and other railway infrastructure required under Section 106 will occur during Tier 2. 

Consistent with 49 USC 303, as amended by the FAST Act, improvements to these rail bridges 

and overpasses may not be considered a use of a historic site subject to Section 4(f), regardless 

of whether they are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP.

The NNEIRI program includes improvements at two stations along the Corridor between 

Boston and Springfield. Three locations are currently under consideration for construction of a 

new station in Palmer, Massachusetts. At least one of these sites lies in close proximity to the 

historic Palmer Union Station, a 4(f) historic property. In addition, a new platform would be 

constructed at Union Station in Worcester. The platform would be an island location between 

tracks and would be located within the existing ROW in an area historically used for station 

platforms. The platform would connect to Worcester Union Station via an elevator and stair

beneath the platform to the existing pedestrian tunnel. The pedestrian tunnel originally 

connected passengers from the Worcester Union Station headhouse to island platforms. 

Although the elevator and stair would be vertical elements, they would connect from a tunnel 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-96 May 2016

below the tracks vertically to the platform surface therefore, no visual effects to Worcester

Union Station are anticipated.

Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) would be added along those segments of the Corridor that 

are currently under Track Warrant Control (TWC); specifically, in the section between East 

Northfield, Massachusetts and West River, Vermont, and in the section between White River 

Junction and Alburgh, Vermont. Intermediate signals would be installed every two miles and 

interlocking signals would be added at the ends of the planned passing sidings in St. Albans, 

Oakland, Berlin, Roxbury, Bethel, South Royalton, Hartland, Swanton, Fonda Junction, Bolton 

Valley, Randolph and Brattleboro, Vermont. Signal systems would be located entirely within 

the existing ROW and generally not visible to the public. Thus, these improvements would not 

require the use of 4(f) properties.

Based on the type of improvements that would be necessary to implement NNEIRI service, 

there is the potential for the use of 4(f) historic properties. However, FRA does not generally 

make 4(f) determinations in Tier 1 NEPA documents. The use of 4(f) properties resulting from 

the NNEIRI program will be thoroughly evaluated in Tier 2 upon completion of the Section 

106 process.

4.3.10 Use of Section 6(f) Lands

This section discusses the affected environment for special lands and Section 6(f) properties.

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential impacts to Section 6(f) 

properties and the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 (16 USC 460 1-4) (Section 6(f)) 

was enacted to preserve, develop and assure accessibility to outdoor recreation resources by:

1 Providing funds for and authorizing federal assistance to states for the planning, 

acquisition, and development of needed land and water areas and facilities; and

2 Providing funds for the federal acquisition and development of certain land areas.

The actual LWCF is funded by the revenue from fees paid to the federal government from 

offshore drilling, surplus property taxes, motorboat fuel tax, and other revenue streams. 

Administration of the LWCF program is the responsibility of the National Park Service (NPS) 

as codified in 36 CFR 59.

Properties acquired (either wholly or partially), developed, or redeveloped with LWCF funds 

are identified as Section 6(f) properties and are afforded protection under the Act. As such, any 

project that proposes to convert property that was purchased or improved with Section 6(f) 

funds must receive approval from the NPS. Although there is no formal permit process with 

the NPS for Section 6(f) approval, the project proponent must make a formal request to the 

NPS for authorization of the Section 6(f) property conversion. Requests are made through the 

state agency with Section 6(f) oversight; in this case The Massachusetts Department of 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-97 May 2016

Conservation and Recreation (DCR) for properties located in Massachusetts; the Vermont 

Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation for properties located in Vermont; and the New 

Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED) for properties 

located in New Hampshire. Requests must include details of the proposal to substitute the 

converted Section 6(f) land with other property of equivalent usefulness and location and with 

equal or better fair market value. Securing Section 6(f) conversion approval typically occurs 

during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation process.

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, which regulates public parks, 

recreation areas, wildlife refuges and National Register historic sites affected by US DOT

projects, is a regulatory program that has some overlapping jurisdiction with Section 6(f) 

because of the protection it affords to public recreational properties. A separate Section 4(f) 

Technical Memorandum has been prepared and is included herein as Appendix G.

Section 6(f) is strictly federal legislation. There is no state equivalent legislation for the 

protection of Section 6(f) properties.

Methodology

The Study Team identified the Section 6(f) properties through a three-step process that first 

involved collecting and reviewing public recreation and open space GIS data from the states of 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. GIS data layers reviewed included:

 Massachusetts “Protected and Recreation Open Space” updated 201365

 New Hampshire “nhrec” updated 201066

 Vermont “Cadastral Conspub” updated 200967

As part of this first step, the Study Team queried the compiled GIS data to identify privatelyowned recreation and open space properties as well as those properties owned by organizations 

or land trusts. The Study Team removed those properties and plotted the remaining properties 

on base mapping overlaid on the NNEIRI Study Area. For the purposes of this analysis, the 

NNEIRI Study Area encompasses an envelope that extends 300 feet from the rail centerline. In 

the second step, an analyst progressively examined the Corridor from Boston to Springfield, 

Massachusetts, and from East Northfield, Massachusetts to Alburgh, Vermont to identify and 

annotate locations where public parks and recreation areas (potential Section 6(f) properties) 

encroach into the NNEIRI Study Area envelope. Encroachments were qualified into three 

categories in order to assess the potential for impacts:

1 Property is within 300 feet of the proposed NNEIRI Study Area; 

2 Property is within 300 feet of the proposed NNEIRI Study Area and actually abuts the 

ROW; and 

 

65 MassGIS, “Protected and Recreation Open Space” data layer updated 2013. Available at 

http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/srhp.html.

66 New Hampshire GRANIT, “nhrec” data layer updated 2010. Available at 

http://www.granit.unh.edu/data/downloadfreedata/downloaddata.html.

67 Vermont Center for Geographic Information, “Cadastral Conspub” updated 2009. Available at 

http://vcgi.vermont.gov.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-98 May 2016

3 Property is bisected by the ROW.

Step three involved comparing properties that fell within the NNEIRI Study Area envelope 

with a list of properties that were either acquired, developed or redeveloped with LWCF funds 

(i.e., Section 6(f) properties). The Study Team consulted the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund State Assistance Program website (http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm)

68 to 

acquire a list of Section 6(f) properties for each state: Massachusetts, Vermont, and New 

Hampshire. Section 6(f) properties identified as lying partially or wholly within the NNEIRI 

Study Area were then tabulated (refer to Appendix H, Section 6(f) Technical Memorandum) 

and the potential for impacts assessed.

The objective of this Tier 1 evaluation was to identify locations of known Section 6(f) 

properties within the NNEIRI Study Area from readily available federal and state GIS data, 

and to assess the potential for effects to these properties based on conceptual plans for the 

proposed Build Alternative. As the design of the alternative is advanced and more detailed 

information becomes available in Tier 2, the nature and extent of impacts to Section 6(f) 

properties can be more formally evaluated. 

The following analysis identifies Section 6(f) properties by segment that, due to their proximity 

to planned rail-related improvements, may be the most likely to be affected. 

Existing Conditions

Boston to Springfield 

According to the Massachusetts GIS database “Protected and Recreation Open Space”69 and 

the Section 6(f) properties listing obtained from the Land and Water Conservation Fund State 

Assistance Program website (identified above), there are six Section 6(f) properties within the 

Corridor in the segment between Boston and Springfield. These include one park in Natick, 

three parks in Worcester, and two parks in Springfield. Of the six Section 6(f) properties, one is 

bisected by the ROW, two abuts the ROW and three are within 300 feet of the rail centerline. 

Refer to Appendix H for detailed information about the city or town where each Section 6(f) 

property is located, the formal name of the parks, and a general description of each property, 

and an explanation of the spatial relationship between each Section 6(f) property and the 

Corridor ROW.

New Haven to Springfield

Section 6(f) properties within the Corridor between New Haven, Connecticut and Springfield, 

Massachusetts are addressed in the NHHS EA/EIE. FRA prepared the NEPA document in 

cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Connecticut Department of 

Transportation (CTDOT) in May 2012 and made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

 

68 The Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program website. Available at http://wasolwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm.

69 MassGIS, “Protected and Recreation Open Space” data layer updated 2013. Available at 

http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-geographicinformation-massgis/datalayers/srhp.html.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-99 May 2016

on August 9, 2012. For a detailed discussion of Section 6(f) properties within this segment of 

the Corridor, refer to the NEPA documentation for the NHHS project. 

Springfield to Canada Border

Section 6(f) properties within the Corridor between Springfield and East Northfield, 

Massachusetts are addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Knowledge Corridor –

Restore Vermonter, Springfield to East Northfield, Massachusetts prepared by FRA and the 

MassDOT in 2009. FRA made a FONSI for this project on February 5, 2011. For a detailed 

discussion of Section 6(f) properties within this segment of the Corridor, refer to the 

Knowledge Corridor EA. 

According to the Vermont GIS database “Cadastral Conspub” (2009) and the Section 6(f) 

properties listing obtained from the Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance 

Program website (identified above), there are four Section 6(f) properties within the Corridor

between East Northfield, Massachusetts and Alburgh, Vermont. No Section 6(f) properties are 

located within 300 feet of the rail centerline in New Hampshire; all four Section 6(f) properties 

are located in Vermont. Of the Section 6(f) properties in Vermont, two are parks (Camels 

Hump State Park and Maple Street Park and Pool), one is a boat access (Old Ferry Road Boat 

Access), and the other is a wildlife management area (White River Wildlife Management 

Area). Refer to Appendix H for detailed information about the city or town where each Section 

6(f) property is located, the formal name of the parks, and a general description of each 

property, and an explanation of the spatial relationship between each Section 6(f) property and 

the Corridor ROW.

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in direct or indirect impacts to Section 6(f) properties within the 

Corridor.

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor – Restore Vermonter EA identified no impact to Section 6(f) 

resources.

According to the NHHS EA, the NHHS project is immediately adjacent to the west of the 

Bushnell Park located in Downtown Harford, Connecticut. This is the only Section 6(f) 

property within the NHHS corridor and the NHHS EA identified no impact to the park as a 

result of the proposed project. 

Other planned passenger rail-related projects, including Springfield Union Station 

improvements and the expansion of Boston’s South Station (SSX), and associated layover 

facilities, improvements to the rail infrastructure between the U.S. border and Montreal, and 

improvements to the Montreal Central Station Customs Checkpoint would also be completed 

under the NNEIRI No-Build Alternative. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-100 May 2016

No additional impacts to Section 6(f) properties beyond those resulting from, and already 

documented elsewhere for, the above projects are anticipated from the No-Build Alternative.

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

Under the Build Alternative, the following improvements are proposed:

 Additional train service & upgrade of railroad tracks 

 ROW improvements

 Restoration of second track and sidings

 Modifications to bridges and overpasses

 Station Improvements

 Addition of Centralized Traffic Control

Additional Train Service and Upgrades to Railroad Tracks

Under the Build Alternative, additional trains would be added between Boston and Springfield, 

and New Haven and Montreal. Railroad tracks and alignment would be upgraded so that 

speeds up to 79 mph would be possible throughout the Corridor. Although track improvements 

would be undertaken, including minor realignments and double-tracking, all work would take 

place within the existing ROW. Improvements to some passenger stations and bridges and the 

installation of signal systems would also occur. No new layover facilities are proposed beyond 

those identified under the No-Build Alternative. The additional train service and track 

improvements would not require the conversion of Section 6(f) protected properties to uses

other than public outdoor recreational uses, and as such permanent impacts to Section 6(f) 

properties are not anticipated. The potential for the temporary (less than 6-months in duration) 

non-conforming use of Section 6(f) properties during construction is also unlikely as it is not 

expected that any project activities will occur within the physical limits of a Section 6(f) 

protected property. This presumption will be evaluated and verified in Tier 2 when specific 

projects have been identified. 

Right-of-way (ROW) Improvements

ROW improvements are planned in the section of the Corridor between Worcester,

Massachusetts and Springfield, Massachusetts. This segment of the ROW was historically a 

double-track Corridor; however, most of track was removed in the mid-20th century. The 

additional service within the Corridor would require the reconstruction of the second track and 

minor track realignments. However, the realignments would not occur in the immediate 

vicinity of any identified 6(f) properties and thus there would be no impacts.

Restoration of Second Track and Sidings
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-101 May 2016

The restoration of a second track is also planned along the Corridor between Brattleboro, 

Vermont and Bellows Falls, Vermont and between St. Albans, Vermont and Swanton, 

Vermont. In addition, one double track location between Spencer and East Brookfield would 

require an additional siding to accommodate NNEIRI services. However, no Section 6(f) 

properties have been identified in the areas of planned double-tracking. Additional passing 

sidings would be provided in East Northfield, Massachusetts, extending into Vernon, Vermont, 

and Roxbury and Randolph, Vermont however, no Section 6(f) properties have been identified 

within these proposed track-work areas. Thus, there would be no impacts.

Modifications to Bridges & Overpasses

Seventeen bridges and overpasses located in the segment of the Corridor between Worcester, 

Massachusetts and Springfield, Massachusetts would be modified to accommodate the double 

track. An additional five bridges and overpasses would require improvements due to doubletracking between Brattleboro, Vermont and Bellows Falls, Vermont. None of these bridge and 

overpass improvements would have an impact on Section 6(f) properties identified along the 

Corridor. 

Station Improvements

The NNEIRI program includes improvements at two stations along the Corridor between 

Boston and Springfield. Three locations are currently under consideration for a new station in 

Palmer, Massachusetts. There are no Section 6(f) properties located along the Corridor in 

Palmer that would be impacted by new station work. In addition, a new platform would be

constructed at Union Station in Worcester. There are no Section 6(f) properties in the vicinity 

of the Union Station in Worcester so no impacts would occur from work associated with these 

station improvements.

Centralized Traffic Control

Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) would be added along those segments of the Corridor that 

are currently under Track Warrant Control (TWC); specifically, in the section between East 

Northfield, Massachusetts and West River, Vermont, and in the section between White River 

Junction and Alburgh, Vermont. Intermediate signals would be installed every two miles and 

interlocking signals would be added at the ends of the planned passing sidings in St. Albans, 

Oakland, Berlin, Roxbury, Bethel, South Royalton, Hartland, Swanton, Fonda Junction, Bolton 

Valley, Randolph and Brattleboro, Vermont. Signal systems would be located entirely within 

the existing ROW and thus impacts to Section 6(f) properties resulting from the new signal 

systems are unlikely.

4.3.11 Recreational Opportunities

This section discusses the potential impacts to recreational areas associated with the No-Build 

and Build Alternatives.

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Regulatory Requirements
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-102 May 2016

Federal protection of parklands is provided under Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Act (for federally funded transportation projects) and under Section 6(f) of the 

LWCF Act (for LWCF-funded parks). Please see Sections 4.3.9 and 4.3.10 for Sections 4(f) 

and 6(f) regulatory requirements.

At the state level, the following legislation applies:

Massachusetts

 Article 97: Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Article 97 ensures that 

lands acquired for conservation purposes are not converted to other inconsistent uses. 

 Use federal standards

New Hampshire and Vermont: 

 Use federal standards

Methodology

The Study Team located federal, state, county, municipal and private parks, recreational areas, 

open spaces and National Wildlife Refuges within a 300 feet distance from the rail centerline

(NNEIRI Study Area for recreational resources) along the Corridor using GIS data sets, 

including Massachusetts “Protected and Recreation Open Space”, New Hampshire “nhrec” and 

Vermont “Cadastral Conspub and ESRI “School”.70 Only parks, open spaces and recreational 

areas that do not meet the Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) criteria were included for the analysis. 

More information about Section 4(f) and 6(f) properties is provided in Appendices G and H. 

Additionally, there are several parks and recreational areas outside of the 300-foot buffer zone, 

which are not included in this EA.

Existing Conditions

The Study Team conducted an inventory of protected natural areas such as local, state and 

national parks, forests and refuges within a 300-foot buffer zone of the Corridor to identify 

specific areas where train activity could interfere with the visual and aesthetic quality of the 

user experience in those areas. Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont have extensive 

recreational resources however, only a limited number lie in close proximity to the Corridor. In 

addition, many of those resources identified within the NNEIRI Study Area are separated from 

the rail line by buildings or roadways, while others lie a sufficient distance from the rail line as 

to limit any impacts. In each segment, however, there are parks and recreation areas that are 

immediately adjacent to the Corridor, are bisected by the railroad ROW, or that abut active 

stations and railroad line. 

Based on the GIS mapping, the Study Team identified approximately 108 parks, recreational 

areas, national wildlife refuges, forests, playgrounds, cemeteries and open spaces within the

300 feet distance from the rail centerline in the Boston to Springfield segment. This segment

generally includes state and city parks, conservation areas, wildlife management areas, 

 

70 GIS layers include: Massachusetts “Protected and Recreation OpenSpace,” updated 2013; New Hampshire 

“nhrec,” updated 2010; Vermont “Cadastral Conspub,” updated 2009; and ESRI “Schools,” updated 2012.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-103 May 2016

reservoirs and recreational areas. Of these resources, less than half (approximately 43%) are 

Section 4(f) properties and only six (6%) are potential Section 6(f) properties. 

The Study Team identified approximately 28 parks, recreational areas, wildlife refuges, forests

and open spaces within the 300 feet distance from the rail centerline in the East Northfield to 

Canadian segment. This segment generally includes state forests, national wildlife refuges and 

wildlife management areas. Of these resources, eleven (39%) are potential Section 4(f) 

properties and only three (11%) are Section 6(f) properties. In addition to these, there are at 

least 13 potential Section 4(f) and one Section 6(f) property within the 300-foot buffer zone in 

this segment that were not identified on the GIS map but were found during internet search and 

are included in Appendix H. 

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in direct or indirect impacts to recreational opportunities within 

the Corridor.

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

Knowledge Corridor/ Restore Vermonter and the NHHS EAs identified no impact to 

recreational resources as both of these projects would not use land from recreational areas.

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

Under the Build Alternative, railroad tracks and alignment would be upgraded so that speeds 

up to 79 mph would be possible throughout the Corridor. Although track improvements would 

be undertaken, including minor realignments and double-tracking, all work would take place 

within the existing ROW and there would be no change to land use. No layover facilities are 

proposed beyond those outlined under the No-Build Alternative. Therefore, no negative 

impacts to the recreational opportunities are anticipated. Additionally, although there would be 

additional trains under the Build Alternative, the frequency of the trains is relatively low 

therefore, the Study Team does not anticipate any potential indirect impacts along the Corridor

due to increase in service levels. The Study Team anticipates increased recreational 

opportunities due to improved access to recreational facilities in the vicinity of NNEIRI 

stations. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-104 May 2016

4.3.12 Transportation

This section discusses the affected environment in relation to transportation modes and the 

environmental consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternatives.

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to evaluate transportation impacts and the

relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

NEPA requires federal agencies to examine the impacts of federal actions on transportation. 

There are no direct additional applicable laws pertaining to railroad operation capacity 

analysis. The Study Team followed FRA’s “Railroad Corridor Transportation Plans: A 

Guidance Manual (Revised in July 2005)” to assess railroad operating impacts. There also are 

no direct applicable laws pertaining to traffic operation capacity analysis. At the federal level, 

laws relating to pedestrian access routes and parking spaces for persons with disabilities 

(quantity and configuration) include the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 

and associated regulations and guidance, and 2006 USDOT’s Americans with Disabilities Act 

of 1990 (ADA) Standards for Transportation Facilities.71 DOT’s ADA standards apply to 

facilities used by state and local governments to provide designated public transportation 

services, including bus stops and stations, and rail stations. They apply to new construction and 

alterations.

At the state level, the following legislation applies:

 Use federal standards for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont.

Methodology

Passenger rail service is part of the larger transportation network in a region. Within the fourstate, two country NNEIRI Corridor, the transportation network includes interstates and major 

highways, intercity passenger rail service, commuter rail service, airports, and intercity bus 

service along with local roadways and local bus services. 

Railroad Operations Methodology

The Study Team conducted a detailed train operations model performance simulation to 

determine the projected performance of the future freight and passenger service as compared to 

the existing service. The following cases were evaluated:

 Existing No-Build condition: no change in existing track configuration and existing 

service;

 Future No-Build condition: no change in existing track configuration and existing 

passenger service, growth in freight service; and

 

71 U.S. Department of Transportation. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Transportation 

Facilities. 2006. http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/transportation/facilities/adastandards-for-transportation-facilities/single-file-version#a2
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-105 May 2016

 Build condition: based on projected growth in freight service and the NNEIRI SDPs

A description of the modeling assumptions and the details of the findings are included in the 

NNEIRI SDPs. All of the connecting lines affecting the operation on the NNEIRI Corridor are

included in the model as boundary conditions.

All of the passenger and freight railroad operators operating in the Corridor and the boundary 

were included in the simulation. Additional passenger trains would be coordinated with 

existing freight service in order to minimize conflict.

Traffic Analysis

The Study Team qualitatively reviewed traffic impacts at local streets near stations as well as 

selected road/rail at-grade crossings in the following manner. First, the 2035 annual ridership 

estimates (boardings) by station for Build Alternative were converted from annual to daily 

boardings per station. Second, daily boardings were converted to average or peak boardings per 

train, based upon the availability of existing passenger data or temporal distribution standards. 

Finally, engineering judgment was used to determine whether the resulting volume would be 

high enough to noticeably affect traffic operations at intersections adjacent to station locations. 

This review was used to determine if further data collection and analysis would be required as 

a Tier 2 activity to assess the traffic impacts resulting from increased passenger service at 

stations.

Transit Services and Facilities 

The Study Team studied transit schedules and routes for transit services to existing and 

proposed rail stations to compare the arrival and departure of the trains and transit.

Highways, Bridges and Tunnels

The Study Team identified interstates, major highways, bridges and tunnels for each of the 

Corridor segments. The Build Alternative was reviewed to identify any potential significant 

impacts to existing and planned interstates, major highways, bridges, and tunnels for each 

corridor segment.

Airports and Aviation Facilities

The Study Team identified major airports and aviation facilities for each of the Corridor

segments and summarized location, airport type, hub size and passenger enplanements for each 

of the airport. The Build Alternative was reviewed to identify any potential significant impacts 

to existing and planned airports and aviation facilities.

Parking

The Study Team used ridership forecasts for analysis year 2035 to determine the number of 

passenger boardings and modal splits at each station. Engineering judgment, industry standards 

and previously collected data, if available, were used to determine the number of riders 

arriving by automobile and, in turn, the number of parking spaces needed for kiss-n-ride and all 

day parking. 

Freight Corridors
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-106 May 2016

The Study Team identified freight railroads utilizing the Corridor and reviewed the Build 

Alternative to identify any potential significant impacts to existing and planned freight 

corridors.

Existing Conditions

This section describes the existing regional transportation network in the Corridor, highway 

crossings, and freight, commuter, and intercity passenger rail. 

Boston to Springfield

The transportation network in this segment is dense with major roadways, intercity rail 

services, intercity bus services, commuter rail and commuter bus services, as well as local bus 

services. 

Railroad Operations

Infrastructure: The NNEIRI Corridor is about 470 miles. The Boston to Springfield corridor 

segment is about 99 miles. The existing track configuration is illustrated in Figure 4-1 and

consists of primarily double tracks with some segments of single-track operation, potentially 

limiting operation in certain segments. The NNEIRI Corridor is owned by the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts from Boston to Worcester and CSX from Worcester to Springfield and 

beyond.

Freight Service: Freight on the Boston to Springfield segment is operated by CSX on the 

Boston Line. The Boston Line begins in Boston, Massachusetts and continues to West 

Springfield, Massachusetts. In West Springfield, the line connects to the Berkshire Line, which 

continues to the Selkirk Yard, located eight miles south of Albany, New York. CSX operates 

2-3 weekday roundtrips between Boston and Worcester Intermodal Terminal and 25 weekday 

roundtrip trains from Worcester to Springfield. 

Passenger Service: Amtrak Northeast Regional (Springfield) and Amtrak Lake Shore Limited 

(Boston) services provide intercity rail service between Boston and Springfield Union Station 

(with continued service to Albany and Chicago), with one train per-day in each direction. In 

2014, Amtrak stations along the Corridor in Massachusetts served 2,203,800 passengers. 

Boston South Station is the sixth busiest station in the national Amtrak network.

72

Outside of the Corridor, Amtrak Acela Express service connects Boston to major cities in the 

Northeast as far south as Washington DC. Amtrak Downeaster service connects Boston to 

Portland and Brunswick Maine. 

Figure 4-1 illustrates the existing and the conceptual cross section where a second track is 

proposed in areas that were historically double tracked. Additional conceptual cross sections 

are provided in Appendix A.

 

72 Amtrak. Amtrak Fact Sheet, Massachusetts, 2014.

http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/MASSACHUSETTS14.pdf
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-107 May 2016

Figure 4-1. Conceptual Cross Section of Second Track

Transit Services and Facilities

Greyhound, Peter Pan, Megabus and Amtrak Thruway operate intercity bus service in the 

corridor segment. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) operates 

commuter rail and bus as well as local bus and subway services in the Boston metropolitan 

area. MBTA operates commuter rail service between Boston and Worcester with 24 local and 

express roundtrip trains each day. Currently, no commuter rail service exists between 

Worcester and Springfield. Outside of the Boston metropolitan area, other Massachusetts 

regional transportation authorities operate local bus services including the Worcester Regional 

Transit Authority (WRTA), the MetroWest Regional Transit Authority (MWTA) in 

Framingham, and the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) in the Springfield metropolitan 

area.

Highways, Bridges, Tunnels

The Massachusetts Turnpike (I-90) connects Boston and Springfield. Interstate 95 runs through 

Boston north-south. Interstate 93 operates from Boston north. Route 128 bisects the Corridor

west of Boston, as do Interstates 495 and 290/395. Interstate 84 branches off the Massachusetts 

Turnpike in Sturbridge and connects to Hartford. Interstate 91 connects Springfield to Hartford 

and New Haven to the south and to New Hampshire and Vermont to the north. 

Within this corridor segment in Massachusetts there are 964 bridges. Of these, 23 are railroad 

bridges. The remainder carries roadways, bicycle/pedestrian pathways, and other structures. 

Airports, Aviation Facilities

In this segment of the Corridor, the only airport is the General Edward Lawrence Logan

International Airport. In 2012, it had 14,293,69573 passenger enplanements and is the only 

airport in the Corridor listed as having severe congestion74.

 

73 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2012.

74 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems through Esri.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-108 May 2016

Freight Corridors

Massachusetts is served by one Class I carrier, CSX, and 10 other railroads (3 regional, 4 local, 

and 3 switching and terminal). The major freight operations run east-west from Boston to New 

York City via Springfield and from Boston to Providence. Both of these rail lines are shared 

with Amtrak and MBTA passenger rail operations. In 2011, 1.9 million tons of freight 

originated in Massachusetts and 6.7 tons terminated in Massachusetts on 892 miles operated.

75

CSX has terminals in Worcester and Springfield. Boston is also a major seaport. 

Parking at Existing Stations

Parking spaces available at the existing stations are provided below. 

Table 4.3-18. Parking Spaces at Existing Stations - Boston to Springfield

Station

Vehicle Parkinga

Parking Available/Accessible 

Parking

No of Parking Spaces/ No. 

of Accessible Parking

South Station Yes/Yes 223/8

Back Bay Off-site/Off-site 0 

Framingham Yes/ Yes 166/ 4

Worcester Yes/ Yes 500/ 9

Springfield Yes/ NA NA

Source: NNEIRI, April 2014, Station Site Assessment & Guidelines.

Note: 

a NA: Not Available

Springfield to Canadian Border

The transportation network in this segment includes major roadways, intercity bus services, 

regional bus services, as well as local bus services.

Railroad Operations

Infrastructure: The Springfield to Canadian Border corridor segment is about 259 miles. The 

existing track configuration is illustrated in Figure 4-1 and consists of primarily single tracks. 

This segment has numerous sidings and passing tracks. Service on this segment would operate 

utilizing the MassDOT and New England Central Railroad (NECR) rail lines. 

Freight Service: NECR and PAS operate regular freight services along this segment. Several 

other railroads have operating rights in the corridor segment including Canadian National 

(CN), Vermont Railway, Washington County Rail Corporation (Vermont Rail Systems), and 

Claremont Concord Railroad Corporation. Two PAS and one NECR freight trains operate daily 

 

75 Association of American Railroads, 2011.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-109 May 2016

between Springfield and East Northfield. NECR owns and operates along the Palmer and 

Roxbury Subdivisions from East Northfield, Massachusetts north to St. Albans, Vermont. 

Approximately two NECR freights operate daily between East Northfield and St. Albans. CN 

and NECR freight trains operate from St. Albans, Vermont to Montreal, Canada. NECR 

dispatches up to the Canadian border where they interchange with CN into Montreal. 

Approximately two CN freight trains operate daily from St. Albans to Montreal. 

Passenger Service: Amtrak Vermonter service connects Springfield to Saint Albans, Vermont 

via White River Junction, Montpelier, Waterbury and Essex Junction (Burlington). Amtrak

operates a single roundtrip train, daily from Washington, D.C. to St. Albans, Vermont. In New 

Hampshire, the Vermonter serves the Claremont Station and in 2014, had station activity of 

2,117.

76 In Vermont, Amtrak stations within the Corridor served 86,405 passengers.77 With the

reconstruction of the Connecticut River Line completed in December of 2014, the Vermonter 

now makes additional stops at Greenfield and Northampton. A station stop in Holyoke was 

added in August 2015 as part of this project.

Outside the Corridor, Amtrak Adirondack service operates to the west of the Vermonter 

service from New York City through New York State to Montreal. Amtrak Ethan Allen 

Express service connects Rutland Vermont to New York City via Albany New York. 

Transit Services and Facilities

Greyhound and Megabus provide intercity bus service in this corridor segment. Chittenden 

County Transportation and Green Mountain Transit Agency provide local and regional bus 

service between Montpelier and Saint Albans and beyond as well as in Burlington and 

Waterbury Vermont. In the I-91/Connecticut River area, transit service is provided by 

Connecticut River Transit, in White River Junction it is by Advance Transit and in Randolph 

area it is by Stagecoach Transportation Services.

Highways, Bridges, Tunnels

Interstate 91 to Interstate 89 at White River Junction on the Vermont/Canadian border (via 

Route 133 and then A35 in Canada) connect Springfield to Montreal, as do Interstate 90 to 

Interstate 87 in Albany, New York on to the New York/Canadian border (via Route 15 in 

Canada) to Montreal. 

Within this corridor segment, there are 538 bridges in New Hampshire (97) and Vermont 

(441). Of these, 30 carry tracks. The remainder carries roadways, bicycle/pedestrian pathways, 

and other structures. 

Airports, Aviation Facilities

The major airport in this segment of the Corridor is Burlington International Airport. All of the 

aviation facilities in the corridor segment are listed in Table 4.3-19.

 

76 Amtrak. Amtrak Fact Sheet, New Hampshire, 2014

77 Amtrak. Amtrak Fact Sheet, Vermont, 2014
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-110 May 2016

Table 4.3-19. Airports, Springfield-to-Canadian Border

Airport Location Airport Type Hub 

Size

Passenger 

Enplanements 

(2012)

Northampton

Northampton, 

MA general aviation field

not a 

hub 7

Westover Air Reserve Base -

Metropolitan Airport

Springfield, 

MA general aviation field

not a 

hub 1,302

Claremont Municipal Airport

Claremont, 

NH general aviation field

not a 

hub N/A

Lebanon Municipal Airport Lebanon, NH primary commercial 

service

not a 

hub 10,191

Burlington International Airport Burlington, 

VT

primary commercial 

service small 615,026

Source: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2012

Freight Corridors

Eight freight railroads operate in Vermont and nine operate in New Hampshire. In 2011, 0.7 

million tons of freight originated in New Hampshire and Vermont and 2.4 million tons 

terminated in the two states. In New Hampshire, the two regional and seven local railroads 

operated 344 miles in 2011. In Vermont, the three regional and five local railroads operated 

590 miles.

78, 79

Parking at Existing Stations

Parking spaces available at the existing stations are provided below. 

 

78 Amtrak. Amtrak Fact Sheet, New Hampshire, 2012

79 Amtrak. Amtrak Fact Sheet, Vermont, 2012
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-111 May 2016

Table 4.3-20. Parking Spaces at Existing Stations - Springfield to Canadian Border

Station

Vehicle Parkinga

Parking Available/Accessible 

Parking

No of Parking Spaces/ No. of 

Accessible Parking

Brattleboro No/ No 0

Bellows Falls Yes/ Yes 10/ NA

Claremont Yes/ Yes 15/ NA

Windsor Yes/ No NA/ 0

White River Jct. Yes/ Yes 16/ NA

Randolph Yes/ Yes NA

Montpelier Yes/NA NA

Waterbury Yes/ Yes NA

Essex Junction Yes/ No 8/ 0

St. Albans Yes/ No 14/ 0

Source: NNEIRI, April 2014, Station Site Assessment & Guidelines.

Note: a NA: Not Available

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in direct or indirect impacts to transportation within the 

Corridor.

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter EA identified beneficial impact on passenger rail 

transportation with the new service between White River Junction, Vermont and Springfield, 

Massachusetts on the MassDOT Connecticut River Line. Based on the EA, the project would 

also have beneficial impacts on freight movements between Massachusetts and Connecticut 

and on vehicular transportation in the I-91 corridor. The project would require passengers 

currently using the Amherst station to reroute their trip to Northampton station by traveling on 

Route 9 from Amherst to Northampton station however, the EA has identified no adverse 

impact to local traffic patterns. Additionally, both Greenfield and Northampton have identified 

plans to expand bus service in their municipal transportation plans in order to further facilitate 

inter-modal transportation.

The NHHS EA identified beneficial impacts to passenger and freight rail services. The project 

would have increased congestion at nine grade crossings and two intersections, however, the 

major roadways within the NHHS study area would have an overall reduction in VMT.

According to the EA, traffic congestion would be mitigated through roadway and signal 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-112 May 2016

improvements and parking would be increased at the existing stations to support the projected 

ridership.

The SSX DEIR identified potential impacts resulting from congestion, poor pedestrian LOS, 

including projected pedestrian congestion on at-grade rail platforms and within the rail head 

concourse, and increased vehicle trips at the South Station site. The proposed mitigation 

measures include providing improved pedestrian circulation accommodations, consideration of 

elevated intercity and commuter rail concourse level, and improving signals, intersection and 

roadways to address LOS deficiencies, improve traffic flow, reduce queuing and increase 

pedestrian and bicycle mobility. 

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

Traffic Analysis

Table 4.3-21 summarizes anticipated traffic movements based upon the above-mentioned

methodology. The results provided in the table indicate that the number of traffic movements 

associated with the NNEIRI service is unlikely to affect traffic operations in the vicinity of the 

stations. Based upon the assumptions identified in the table notes, the highest peak traffic 

volume of 30 vehicles (Boston-South Station) should be unnoticed (approximately one vehicle 

every two minutes in the peak hour) and able to be accommodated by the local roadway system 

serving the stations.

Table 4.3-21. Projected NNEIRI Traffic Movements

Station Station Type

2035 

Baseline 

Condition 

Projected 

Yearly 

Ridership 

2035 Build Alternative

Projected

Incremental 

Increase in

Yearly 

Ridership

Daily 

Ridership

Daily 

Vehicle 

Trips

Peak 

Hourly 

Vehicle 

Trips*

Boston-South Station, MA Urban Hub** 2,410 117,922 323 121*** 30

Boston - Back Bay Station, MA Urban Hub** 906 23,835 65 24*** 6

Framingham, MA Suburban Hub 262 24,541 67 42 14

Worcester, MA

Urban 

Intermediate** 1,444 50,126 137 86 28

Palmer, MA

Rural 

Intermediate 0 9,627 26 16 5
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-113 May 2016

* Peak hour represents peak boardings representing 25% of total daily boardings

 Automobile occupancy rate of 1.2 persons per vehicle for all assumptions

 Regional Rail (Amtrak)

 75% arrive by auto – 25% arrive by other transit

 Of the auto travelers, 70% private automobile – 30% drop off/pick up

 No walk or bike

 Total private automobile – 52.5%

 Given the dynamics of New England rail travel, an estimated 60% of vehicles would stay overnight for 

an average of two nights. 

** Urban Hub and Urban Intermediate stations will exhibit different vehicle trip characteristics due to central 

city locations, which allow for better accessibility by pedestrians, transit users, high occupancy vehicles, and 

bicyclists. 

*** Vehicle trips for the two Boston stations represent drop off component only.

  Greenfield, Northampton and Holyoke Stations were not yet open at the time ridership forecasting was 

prepared.

Springfield, MA Urban Hub**  6,566 33,469 92 57 19

Holyoke, MA

Urban 

Intermediate** NA  28,067 77 48 16

Northampton, MA

Urban 

Intermediate**  NA**** 42,970 118 74 24

Greenfield, MA

Urban 

Intermediate** NA  17,153 47 29 10

Brattleboro, VT

Urban 

Intermediate**  8,858 16,837 46 29 9

Bellows Falls, VT

Rural 

Intermediate 2,252 3,607 10 6 2

Claremont, NH

Rural 

Intermediate 1,015 1,244 3 2 1

Windsor, VT

Rural 

Intermediate 459 1,203 3 2 1

White River Jct., VT

Urban 

Intermediate** 6,613 10,225 28 18 6

Randolph, VT

Rural 

Intermediate 888 1,771 5 3 1

Montpelier, VT

Rural 

Intermediate 3,219 2,718 7 5 2

Waterbury, VT

Rural 

Intermediate 2,430 2,934 8 5 2

Essex Junction, VT

Urban 

Intermediate** 8,841 10,602 29 18 6

St. Albans, VT

Rural 

Intermediate 1,673 1,727 5 3 1
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-114 May 2016

Parking

The Study Team used ridership forecast for 2035 to determine the number of passenger 

boardings and modal splits at each station. Engineering judgment, industry standards and 

previously collected data, where available, were used to determine the number of riders 

arriving by automobile and, in turn, the number of parking spaces needed for kiss-n-ride and all 

day parking. Table 4.3-22 summarizes the projected parking requirements for NNEIRI service.

Table 4.3-22. Projected NNEIRI Parking Requirements

Station Station Type

2035 

Baseline 

Condition 

Projected 

Yearly 

Ridership

2035 Build Alternative Notes

Projected

Incremental 

Increase in

Yearly 

Ridership

Existin

g 

Spaces

Projected 

Daily 

Parking 

for NNEIRI 

Services*

Projected 

Additional 

Parking 

Required

Boston-South 

Station, MA Urban Hub** 2,410 117,922 223 NA None None 

Boston - Back 

Bay Station, 

MA Urban Hub** 906 23,835 220 NA None None

Framingham, 

MA Suburban Hub 262 24,541 166 66 None

Additional spaces 

not required. 

Currently, the 

average daily 

utilization of 

Framingham is 

120, with an 

additional 46 spots 

needed for NNEIRI 

services, the 

parking lot would 

meet capacity. 

Worcester, MA

Urban 

Intermediate** 1,444 50,126 500 NA None None

Palmer, MA

Rural 

Intermediate 0 9,627 NA 35 35

A new station 

would need to 

include sufficient 

parking to 

accommodate 

NNEIRI services. 

Springfield, 

MA Urban Hub** 6,566 33,469 0 NA None None

Holyoke, MA

Urban 

Intermediate** NA**** 28,067 0 NA None None
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-115 May 2016

* Parking requirements for the NNEIRI were determined based on assumptions outlined for intercity rail service 

in California through the Anaheim Parking Demand Analysis.80 The program includes: 

 Automobile occupancy rate of 1.2 persons per vehicle for all assumptions

 

80 Parsons Brinckerhoff. Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC) Parking Demand 

Analysis. April 11, 2012. 

http://www.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/MG37952/AS37991/AS37996/AS37998/AI39313/DO3933

6/DO_39336.pdf

Northampton, 

MA

Urban 

Intermediate** NA  42,970 0 NA None None

Greenfield, MA

Urban 

Intermediate**  NA**** 17,153 0 NA None None

Brattleboro, VT

Urban 

Intermediate** 8,858 16,837 0 NA None None 

Bellows Falls, 

VT

Rural 

Intermediate 2,252 3,607 6 10 4

Four additional 

spaces are required 

to accommodate 

future intercity rail 

services. The 

existing parking lot 

could be signed to 

increase the 

number of spaces 

for rail users. 

Claremont, NH

Rural 

Intermediate 1,015 1,244 10 5 None None 

Windsor, VT

Rural 

Intermediate 459 1,203 10 5 None None

White River 

Jct., VT

Urban 

Intermediate** 6,613 10,225 8 NA None None 

Randolph, VT

Rural 

Intermediate 888 1,771 0 6 6

A dedicated station 

parking lot would 

need to be built to 

accommodate 

NNEIRI services 

with at least 6

spaces. 

Montpelier, VT

Rural 

Intermediate 3,219 2,718 10 8 None None

Waterbury, VT

Rural 

Intermediate 2,430 2,934 10 8 None None

Essex Junction, 

VT

Urban 

Intermediate** 8,841 10,602 5 NA NA

St. Albans, VT

Rural 

Intermediate 1,673 1,727 7 6 None None
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-116 May 2016

 Regional Rail (Amtrak)

 75% arrive by auto – 25% arrive by other transit

 Of the auto travelers, 70% private automobile – 30% drop off/pick up

 No walk or bike

 Total private automobile – 52.5%

 Given the dynamics of New England rail travel, an estimated 60% of vehicles will stay overnight for an 

average of two nights. 

** Urban Hub and Urban Intermediate stations do not require dedicated station parking due to central city 

locations, which allow for better accessibility by pedestrians, transit users, high occupancy vehicles, and 

bicyclists. 

**** Greenfield, Northampton and Holyoke Stations were not yet open at the time ridership forecasting was 

prepared.

4.3.13 Use of Energy Resources

This section discusses the impacts to energy resources and consequences associated with the 

No-Build and Build Alternatives.

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential impacts to energy 

resources and the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts states that evaluation of 

environmental impacts should include a consideration of use of energy resources. Therefore, 

the Study Team evaluated the proposed NNEIRI transportation improvements to ensure they 

are consistent with federal and state initiatives to reduce energy consumption.

The applicable state requirements are listed below:

Massachusetts

 310 CMR 60.05: Global Warming Solutions Act Requirements for the Transportation 

Sector and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation

New Hampshire

 The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) State Energy Program (SEP). The Policy, 

Planning and Energy Security program

 The Electric Power and Renewable Energy program

Vermont

 Title 30 V.S.A Chapter 5, Section 202a: State Energy Policy and 202 b: State 

Comprehensive Plan.

 Title 30 V.S.A Chapter 89: Renewable Energy Programs

 Vermont’s Energy Future - 2011 Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP)
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-117 May 2016

Methodology

The Study Team estimated diverted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the Build Alternative 

compared to the No-Build service for the analysis year 2035 and used the diverted VMT for 

estimating the associated change in fuel consumption. Additional train sets utilizing the 

Corridor would likely be powered by diesel locomotives resulting in the use of diesel fuels.

The Study Team estimated the increase in fuel usage associated with the additional passenger 

train service and reduction in motor vehicle fuel consumption at magnitude level from mode 

shift information available from the travel demand model.

Existing Conditions

This section summarizes existing conditions along the Corridor. Amtrak’s “Monthly 

Performance Report for February, 2015” (03/31/2015) calculates the latest fuel usage rate at 

2.3 diesel gallons per train mile. Applied to each route segment, the average fuel usage per trip 

yields the following results:

 Boston to Springfield: 98.7 miles x 2.3 diesel gallons per mile = 227 diesel gallons per 

trip

 Springfield to Canadian Border: 258.5 miles x 2.3 diesel gallons per mile = 595 diesel 

gallons per trip

Information contained in the latest edition of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Data on Fuel 

Efficiency – Transportation Energy Data Book (Edition 33, July 2014, Table 2.12)

81 provides 

the following comparative energy data for Amtrak passenger miles and personal vehicle 

(automobile) passenger miles:

 Intercity (Amtrak) British thermal unit (Btu) per passenger-mile: 2,214

 Automobile Btu per passenger mile: 3,193

The implications of this data are that improved and increased Amtrak service would increase 

the number of rail passengers and decrease the number of automobile passengers, resulting in 

future energy savings. The application of these rates to project-specific service improvements, 

passenger increases and automobile vehicle miles traveled decreases would yield a clearer 

picture of potential energy usage and benefits associated with the proposed project.

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in any additional direct or indirect impacts to energy use along 

the existing Corridor. 

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor/ Restore Vermonter EA did not evaluate impacts to energy use.

 

81 Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Transportation Energy Data Book. Edition 33, July 2014, Table 2.12.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-118 May 2016

The NHHS EA identified no adverse impacts to energy use. According to the EA, the project 

would have a positive impact on energy requirements, as increased regional rail ridership 

would result in a reduction in personal automobile usage and reduced fossil fuel consumption 

with increased regional rail ridership, particularly during peak hours of travel. 

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

The proposed NNEIRI service would have a positive impact on energy resources as the 

improved and increased intercity passenger rail service would increase the number of rail 

passengers and decrease the number of automobile passengers, resulting in future energy 

savings. 

The Study Team used the diverted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to estimate the total reduction 

in energy use as a result of NNEIRI service. Diverting trips from vehicles to passenger rail 

would reduce the overall VMT and greenhouse gas emissions. To calculate the energy 

reduction in Btu, the Study Team subtracted the energy used by passenger mile utilizing 

intercity train service by the amount that would be used if all diverted trips were completed by 

vehicle (See Table 4.3-23). The Study Team assumed that the reduction in VMT is equal to the 

increase in intercity rail passenger miles.

NNEIRI service is anticipated to increase ridership on the Corridor by 875,000 passengers per 

year (an increase of 795,100 riders over Baseline condition), resulting in 113,847,700 diverted 

vehicle miles traveled. The Build Alternative would result in an estimated energy reduction 

111,457 million Btu.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-119 May 2016

Table 4.3-23. Diverted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Reduction in Energy Use

Name

Baseline 

(current service)

Build Alternative

Total Annual Ridership* 79,900 875,000

Incremental Ridership** 795,800

Total Annual VMT Diverted* 113,847,700

Annual Energy Use Decrease (Million BTUs) 111,457

Notes:

* Only includes ridership in markets north/east/thru Springfield; trips south of Springfield (including all 

trips within Connecticut and trips between Springfield, Connecticut, and New York/NEC) are NOT 

included.

** Relative to Baseline (current service only).

During construction, the project would consume energy through the processing of materials 

and construction activities. Construction impact analysis would be conducted in Tier 2 project 

level analysis.

4.3.14 Use of Other Natural Resources, Such as Water, Minerals, or Timber

This section discusses the impacts to natural resources, such as water, minerals, or timber and 

consequences associated with the No-Build and Build Alternatives.

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to analyze potential impacts to other natural 

resources, such as water, minerals and timber and the relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts states that evaluation of 

environmental impacts should include a consideration of use of other natural resources, such as 

water, minerals or timber assessing any likely irreversible or irretrievable commitments of 

these resources.

At the state level, the following legislation applies:

Massachusetts

 M.G.L. Title 19 Chapter 132, Section 40

New Hampshire

 New Hampshire Statutes. Title 19-A: Forestry, Chapters 227-G – 227-M

Vermont

 Title 10 V.S.A Chapter 151: State Land Use and Development Plans (Act 250 Statute)
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-120 May 2016

Methodology

Track construction would necessitate the usage of some natural resources including stone 

ballast, and timber ties. The project proposes the addition of double track and passing sidings 

in several locations through the Corridor. The Study Team calculated linear miles of the 

proposed additional track to estimate the usage of natural resources. 

Existing Conditions

The existing Corridor uses natural resources in the form of wooden ties, stone ballast, and 

subgrade materials. 

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore they would not result in any additional direct or indirect impacts to natural resources 

along the existing Corridor. 

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor/ Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor /Restore Vermonter EA did not evaluate impacts to natural resources.

The NHHS EA identified no impacts to irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural 

resources. 

Build Alternative Consequences

The Build Alternative proposes the addition of a second track or passing siding in several 

locations throughout the Corridor in order to increase capacity to accommodate additional 

passenger service. The Build Alternative would provide one new daily round trip between 

Boston and Montreal, eight new daily round trips between Boston and New Haven and one 

additional daily round trip between Montreal and New Haven (for a total of two daily round 

trips). 

New track construction typically requires the use of natural resources in the form of wooden 

ties, stone ballast, and subgrade materials. Use of these resources would be limited to locations 

where a second track would be added; totaling approximately 69 miles of the 470 mile NNEIRI 

Corridor. 

The majority of second track locations were historically double tracked; the second track was 

removed at some point in the 20th Century. This significantly diminishes the amount of fill 

material that would be required for construction since the track is to be restored in its historic 

location. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-121 May 2016

Wooden crossties typically have a center to center spacing of approximately 19.5 inches 

adding up to 3,249 ties per mile.82 Therefore, track construction is anticipated to include 

approximately 225,000 wooden crossties, which are a renewable resource. Stone ballast would

be used along the Corridor for the construction of the track; however, its use is not an 

irreversible or irretrievable commitment of the resource as it is often cleaned and reused in the 

railroad industry

4.4 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD IMPACTS

This section discusses the potential construction impacts associated with the No-Build and 

Build Alternatives.

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to evaluate construction period impacts and the

relevant regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

NEPA and FRA’s procedures require consideration of the construction period impacts. Other 

statutes or guidance applicable to impacts to the various individual environmental resources are 

identified in this EA and are applicable to construction of the proposed project.

Methodology

Construction period impacts will be more thoroughly described in Tier 2 analysis when actual 

locations of construction activities are known and engineering and design information is 

available. The potential construction period impacts of a Tier 2 project following from the Tier 

1 NNEIRI Study include train speed restrictions, temporary increase in noise, air quality, water 

quality, disposal of construction waste, contaminated soils, and utility impacts. These impacts 

would be temporary and limited to areas where track and station construction would occur. 

Potential construction period impacts were assessed for each of the resource categories and 

were based on construction activities, duration, methodology and sequencing of the 

construction activities, and construction equipment and use of on-track construction 

approaches.

No-Build Alternative Consequences

Under the No-Build Alternative, the proposed NNEIRI improvements would not occur, and 

therefore the project would not result in direct or indirect construction period impacts within

the Corridor.

 

82 Railway Tie Association (RTA). Frequently Asked Questions. Webpage accessed in April 2015. 

http://www.rta.org/faqs
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-122 May 2016

Foreseeable improvements in the Corridor under the No-Build Alternative include the 

completion of construction activities to support the Knowledge Corridor/Restore Vermonter, 

the NHHS and the SSX projects. 

The Knowledge Corridor /Restore Vermonter EA identified some short-term construction 

period impacts related to construction phasing, air quality, traffic, noise, utilities, water quality 

and freight rail traffic. These impacts would be minimized or mitigated through complying 

with applicable laws, regulations and standard specifications. 

The NHHS EA identified some temporary construction period impacts, including fugitive- dust 

emissions; light pollution during any nighttime construction activity; erosion and 

sedimentation of wetlands, waterways and reduced quality of surface and ground waters; 

contaminated materials exposure; business disruptions; and localized increases in traffic 

volumes, parking relocation and detours to typical traffic patterns. The construction period 

impacts would be minimized or mitigated through design- and construction-related measures

and controls and implementation of plans developed in compliance with applicable state and 

federal requirements. 

The SSX project would have potential construction period related air quality, noise and 

vibration, site contamination and hazardous material and utility impacts. The demolition and 

construction activity associated with the SSX project would impact 245 Summer Street and the 

South Station headhouse. The project will prepare a Construction Management Plan (CMP) 

that will identify potential BMPs and mitigation measures.

Build Alternative Consequences

Construction-related impacts would be temporary at any given location along the NNEIRI 

Corridor. Construction duration for track and signal work for rail line, bridge and culvert 

repairs and station improvement would depend on project scope. 

Anticipated Scope of Infrastructure Improvements and Stations

The infrastructure improvements are not anticipated to require significant changes on the 

existing line between Boston and Worcester. Beginning in Worcester, upgrades would be 

necessary to accommodate passenger operations and existing freight traffic. Track and other 

rail infrastructure improvements include the following: 

 Ensuring the Corridor includes modern signal and grade crossings systems;

 Track Improvements: Tracks would be upgraded to allow for FRA Class 4 train 

operations between Worcester and Springfield and Springfield and the Canadian Border, 

allowing passenger trains to operate up to 79 mph where track geometry allows. The 

Build Alternative proposes 2 miles of new track, 3 new turnouts, and 1 railroad crossing 

upgrade.

 Track Capacity Upgrades: 

• The ROW between Worcester and Springfield was historically a double track 

corridor. However, most of the second track was removed in the mid-20th century. 

The additional NNEIRI services would require the reconstruction of the second track 

between Worcester and Springfield in all locations currently single tracked. In 

addition, one double track location in this segment (Spencer to East Brookfield, 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-123 May 2016

Milepost 59.3 – 63.3) would require an additional siding to accommodate NNEIRI 

services;

• To accommodate increased passenger service in Vermont, double track would be 

provided from Brattleboro to Bellows Falls and from St. Albans to Swanton. 

• To allow for efficient operations of passenger and freight services, additional passing 

sidings would be provided in Massachusetts in East Northfield, extending into 

Vernon, Vermont, and in Roxbury and Randolph in Vermont. 

 Installation of Signals: Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) would be added over the areas 

of the NECR that are currently under Track Warrant Control (TWC). This includes the 

section from East Northfield, Massachusetts to West River (located in Brattleboro, 

Vermont) and from White River Junction, Vermont to the Canadian border at Alburgh, 

Vermont. 

 Improvements at existing or new stations in the Corridor include the following: 

• Worcester Union Station: An additional platform would be built to accommodate 

NNEIRI services. Access from the station to the platform would occur via new 

vertical access to an existing pedestrian tunnel. New interlockings would be added, 

tracks would be re-configured and a controlled siding in Worcester would be taken 

out of service to accommodate the new platform and track configuration;

• Palmer Station: Potential service to Palmer, Massachusetts would require 

construction of a new station in the town. The exact location of the station would be 

determined upon further refinement subsequent to the NNEIRI evaluation process.

Infrastructure improvements that are part of CTDOT’s plan for NHHS service between 

Springfield and New Haven would be utilized as part of the NNEIRI services.

Construction Phasing, Equipment and Staging

Construction work would be staged during nighttime, weekends, or off-peak hours to minimize 

service outages and disruptions to the traveling public. Transportation agencies, freight 

companies, and users would be coordinated about any interruptions in service. 

Prior to beginning construction, the Contractor would install silt fence along the perimeter of 

the site where the elevation of the site is higher than the adjacent property. Silt sacks would be 

installed in the existing catch basin down gradient from the work area. 

Trackwork (replacement of ties, etc.) would largely be sited within the existing rail ROW using 

rail-mounted equipment, which should not involve large quantities of earthwork. Operation of 

construction vehicles and equipment has the potential to create dust and emit increased levels 

of noise when earth moving or clearing is required. These vehicles and construction activities 

also have the potential to emit increased levels of noise that might disturb any adjoining 

sensitive land uses, such as residential neighborhoods.

Construction work may require temporary use of adjoining parcels of land for staging and 

storage of construction equipment and materials, if the available ROW is not sufficient. 

Permits would be obtained for any temporary construction easements and permanent easements 

on adjoining properties. 

Earth-disturbing construction adjacent to water resources and wetlands has the potential to 

temporarily disturb soils and create siltation in adjoining waterways, which could then 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-124 May 2016

indirectly affect aquatic habitats and water quality. Work in or adjacent to waterways would be 

closely coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other regulatory and resource 

agencies with jurisdiction.

Use of construction equipment in the vicinity of waterways, sensitive water supplies, and 

aquatic/wildlife habitats would include appropriate safeguards. For instance, spill prevention 

measures may include use of buffers around protected resources to minimize the possibility of 

contamination from accidental spills or incidents and appropriate restrictions on locating (or 

use of secondary containment for) storage of fuels and other potential contaminants. In 

protected habitats, worker training and education may be warranted to facilitate sightings and 

protection of rare species.

Though road closures and detours are not anticipated, park officials would be consulted 

regarding construction activities about temporary closures and detours in the vicinity of parks, 

trails, and other types of recreational areas to minimize impacts to accessing these resources. 

Similarly, work affecting agricultural farm fields and uses would be closely coordinated with 

the property owners to minimize the extent of impacts on agricultural operations and yields.

4.5 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This section discusses the potential indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the NoBuild and Build Alternatives. It summarizes other projects, including a summary of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects (transportation and others) in the Corridor, 

the actual or potential direct environmental impacts of those projects, and how those impacts 

combined with potential direct impacts of the NNEIRI Study may contribute to a cumulative 

effect on a particular resource or area of concern.

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the methodology used to evaluate indirect and cumulative impacts 

and the regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Requirements

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the indirect and cumulative impacts of federal

actions. Indirect effects and cumulative impacts are defined in CEQ regulations in, 

respectively, 40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8, as follows: 83 

“Indirect effects, are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, 

but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and 

other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth 

rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.”

 

83 Council of Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA, 40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8, 

December 21, 1984.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-125 May 2016

"Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant 

actions taking place over a period of time.” Thus cumulative impacts include the direct and 

indirect impacts of a project together with the impacts from reasonably foreseeable future 

actions of other projects.

Methodology

The indirect impacts were qualitatively addressed for the program on a generalized basis. The 

baseline for evaluating potential indirect impacts is the existing and reasonably foreseeable 

expected environment, which is described in the No-Build Alternative. The indirect impacts for 

the project were identified for each resource in the corresponding section for the particular 

resource. 

Cumulative impacts need to be analyzed in terms of the specific resource or ecosystem being 

impacted. The Study Team conducted the cumulative impact assessment by identifying the 

environmental resources that are likely to have potential beneficial or adverse direct and indirect 

impacts from NNEIRI Build Alternative. Then the Study Team researched state and federal 

transportation plans and projects in the NNEIRI Corridor. The projects that are recently 

completed or underway under No-Build Alternative were included for cumulative impacts 

analysis. The environmental resources on which the NNEIRI program would have no direct or 

indirect impact are not considered in the analysis as they would not contribute to a cumulative 

impact along the Corridor. 

No-Build Alternative Consequences

The No-Build Alternative would result in a slight secondary impact. The lack of increased 

passenger rail service would reduce the economic competitiveness of the municipalities within 

the Corridor and would not contribute to economic development. Mobility and mode choice 

would not be improved, resulting in a stagnation of transportation options and maintaining the 

need for many to drive single-occupant passenger vehicles that contribute to greater congestion 

and emissions. Potential land use changes designed to encourage transit-oriented development 

or, at a minimum, higher density/less sprawl, would be thwarted. Healthy transportation 

options associated with these measures would not be supported by the No-Build Alternative.

Healthy transportation options as defined by MassDOT’s GreenDOT Policy are walking, 

bicycling and taking public transit.84

Build Alternative Consequences

This section discusses the potential indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the Build 

Alternative. 

 

84 Safer People, Safer Streets: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Initiative. 10.28.15. 

https://www.transportation.gov/safer-people-safer-streets
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-126 May 2016

Indirect Impacts

The Build Alternative would result in beneficial indirect impacts by creating opportunities for 

communities to implement healthy transportation options (walking, bicycling, and taking 

public transit as defined by USDOT’s Safer People, Safer Streets: Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Safety Initiative) associated with transit-oriented development, increased mode choice and 

reduction of dependence on single-occupant passenger vehicle use. Byproducts of these 

opportunities include reduced traffic congestion and reduced vehicle emissions. Increased 

service would provide flexibility for workers with non-traditional schedules, for visitors and 

tourists, and would provide potential economic benefits to businesses serving those 

populations.

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts of the Build Alternative include benefits attributed to a further 

strengthened transportation network. NNEIRI implementation would build on a number of 

improvements (listed below) that together extend mobility improvements and mode choice 

options through a large area of New England. The increased opportunities for communities to 

encourage smart growth land use patterns, transit-oriented development and healthy 

transportation options (walking, bicycling, and taking public transit as defined by MassDOT’s 

GreenDOT Policy) would translate to stronger economic development in locations throughout 

the Corridor. Taken together, these improvements would reduce regional congestion, vehicle 

emissions, and reduce the need for infrastructure improvements associated with singleoccupant vehicle travel and land use sprawl.

The Study Team reviewed state and federal transportation plans and projects to identify those 

with the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts within the NNEIRI Study Area. A 

summary of recent past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable future plans and projects 

(transportation and others) is provided below (Table 4.5-1). They include intercity and 

commuter rail, transit, and freight rail. Several of the projects were the subject of separate 

environmental reviews recently completed or underway at the time of this EA. Many of the 

projects are included in the NNEIRI No-Build Alternative and provide infrastructure and 

services supportive of the NNEIRI Build Alternative. 

Table 4.5-1. Other Transportation Plans and Projects in the Corridor

Project Description Current Status

State Level Transportation Plans and Projects

South Station Expansion 

Project, Boston, MA

Addition of seven new tracks and four new 

platforms, reconfiguration of several existing 

tracks and platforms, interlockings, train 

layover facilities, and passenger waiting 

space.85

DEIR was submitted on October

31, 2014 and MEPA Certificate 

was issued on December 31, 2014.

MassDOT received a FY11 grant 

under FRA’s High Speed Intercity 

Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program 

to complete preliminary 

 

85 South Station Expansion Project, Boston, Massachusetts. DEIR. October 2014.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-127 May 2016

Project Description Current Status

engineering and environmental 

analysis for expansion at South 

Station to address anticipated 

capacity needs for intercity rail 

operations; an EA is currently 

being prepared.

Boston Landing 

Commuter Rail Station, 

Allston, MA

A new commuter rail station associated with 

a 1.4 million square foot development in 

Allston, MA is being constructed along the 

line for use by the MBTA Worcester Line 

service.

Construction is underway with a 

station opening anticipated in late 

2016.

Boston-Worcester 

Commuter Rail Service, 

Massachusetts

Improve frequencies on the line by adding 20 

new weekday commuter rail trips to 

Worcester.86

Framingham/Worcester Commuter Rail Line 

would benefit from MBTA’s plan to acquire 

new commuter rail equipment. The 

acquisitions include 75 new bi-level 

passenger coaches and new locomotives.87

Expanded commuter rail service on 

the line has been implemented in 

coordination with supportive 

projects completed or underway 

such as double tracking the main 

line through the former Beacon 

Park Yard.

New Haven-HartfordSpringfield (NHHS)

Project, Connecticut and 

Massachusetts

Expansion of rail service on the 62-mile New 

Haven-Hartford-Springfield Corridor, 25 

miles of double track, rebuilding and 

improving existing stations.

FRA, in coordination with 

CTDOT, completed a hybrid Tier 

1/Tier 2 EA for the project and 

FRA signed a FONSI on August 9, 

2012. Tier 2 NEPA compliance for 

Phase 3B of the project (between 

Windsor and Springfield) will be 

undertaken prior to the release of 

construction funding for this phase 

of the project. Similarly, sitespecific compliance and 

documentation will be undertaken 

for four planned stations along the 

NHHS corridor.88

The Connecticut Department of 

Transportation is seeking a service 

provider to operate the Hartford 

Line Commuter Service beginning 

in late 2016. 

Knowledge Corridor/ 

Restore the Vermonter

Improve passenger service to Amtrak’s 

Vermonter service by restoring the route to 

FRA, in coordination with 

MassDOT, completed an EA for 

 

86 Massachusetts State Rail Plan, Page 5-6. https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/transit/RailPlan.aspx

87 Ibid.

88 New Haven-Hartford-Springfield High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Program. Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI). https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0433 and NHHS project website: 

http://www.nhhsrail.com/
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-128 May 2016

Project Description Current Status

Improvements, 

Massachusetts 

the Connecticut River line, which is shorter 

and more direct. 

the project and FRA signed a 

FONSI on February 15, 2011.

Inaugural run of the Vermonter 

service on the Knowledge Corridor 

occurred on December 22, 2014.

Program for Mass 

Transportation (PMT) –

MBTA’s long-range 

capital planning 

document

The Program for Mass Transportation (PMT) 

is the Massachusetts Bay Transportation 

Authority’s long-range capital planning 

document; defining a 25-year vision for 

public transportation in eastern 

Massachusetts. In addition to supporting 

regional planning, the PMT provides input 

into to the statewide, multimodal, long-range 

transportation plan developed by the 

Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

Development of the PMT, named 

Focus40, commenced in 2015.

MassDOT Regional Bus 

Buildout Plan

Intercity and commuter bus study, provide 

MassDOT with information related to what 

the future bus network shall be, focusing on 

routes that terminate, focusing on routes that 

terminate, derive from or pass through 

Massachusetts. It evaluates whether all 

Massachusetts municipalities are being 

served adequately with either intercity or 

commuter bus service. The study would

develop a list of alternative routings and 

recommended improvements/changes.

Study commenced in 2015.

Statewide Freight Plan 

(Massachusetts 

Department of 

Transportation Freight 

Plan, September 2010)89

Analysis of the Commonwealth's freight 

transportation system its operations, and 

effect on economic development and quality 

of life. The State Freight Plan is multi-modal 

(includes air, rail, truck and maritime 

transport) and intermodal (transportation by 

more than one mode, e.g. truck and rail) in 

its scope, analysis, and recommendations.

Completed in 2010.

Massachusetts Statewide 

Rail Plan (Massachusetts 

Department of 

Transportation Rail Plan, 

September 2010)90

The plan includes analysis of the 

Commonwealth’s overall rail system and 

guides its rail investments and programs, 

while serving as a vital tool for planners and 

legislators.

Completed in 2010. An update is

expected to commence in 2015.

Union Station, 

Springfield, 

The Springfield Redevelopment Authority 

(SRA) is restoring the main station building 

FTA, in coordination with 

MassDOT, completed an EA for 

 

89 Massachusetts Department of Transportation Freight Plan, September 2010. 

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/planning/Main/StatewidePlans/FreightPlan.aspx

90 Massachusetts Department of Transportation Rail Plan, September 2010. 

https://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/12/docs/RailPlan/MAStateRailPlanSeptember2010v4.pdf
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-129 May 2016

Project Description Current Status

Massachusetts – including its central concourse and 

passenger tunnel – and creating new vertical 

access points between the tunnel and 

platforms. Additionally, a new bus terminal 

with intercity service and a parking garage 

would be integrated into the station.

the project and signed a FONSI on 

June 05, 2000.

The project is now in the

construction phase. Expected to 

open in the Fall of 2016.

Union Station Track and 

Platform Improvements, 

Springfield, MA

Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

is making accessibility improvements to the 

platforms and platform access at Union 

Station. 

The project is in the final design 

stage, with construction anticipated 

in 2016.

VTrans Rail Initiative 

Studies (New England 

Central)

The State of Vermont improved track, 

roadbed, grade crossings, and bridges along a 

190 mile-route in Vermont. The project has 

resulted in travel time savings, increased 

speeds, greater reliability, improved safety

and freight capacity and the potential for 

more frequent trains in the future

Completed

NECR ARRA and 

TIGER improvements, 

Vermont

$52 million American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding grant to 

upgrade the NECR ROW through Vermont 

with approximately 140 miles of new 

continuous welded rail (CWR), new ties, rail 

crossing improvements, bridge 

improvements, and other upgrades between 

the Massachusetts/Vermont border and St. 

Albans, VT. In addition, the NECR received 

a $7.9 million grant under the USDOT’s 

TIGER 2012 Program to rehabilitate the 20 

miles of railroad between St. Albans and the 

U.S./Canada border.

Improvement projects are 

completed or underway.

Federal Level Transportation Projects

Northeast Corridor 

(NEC) Future Study

A comprehensive planning effort to define, 

evaluate and prioritize future investments in 

the Northeast Corridor, a route between 

Boston and Washington, and the most 

heavily traveled rail corridor in the U.S.

Tier 1 Draft EIS was published in 

November 2015. Tier 1 Final EIS

and Record of Decision (ROD) are 

expected to be completed in 2016, 

followed by the SDP in 2017.

The environmental resources that are likely to have potential cumulative impacts due to the 

direct and indirect impacts from NNEIRI Build Alternative include: 

 Air quality 

 Noise and vibration

 Flood hazards and floodplain management

 Water quality 

 Wetlands 

 Land Use
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-130 May 2016

 Ecological Systems, threatened and endangered species, and wildlife

 Socioeconomic and environmental justice 

 Aesthetics and design quality

 Construction period impacts 

Cumulative impacts relative to the NNEIRI Build Alternative associated with rail projects, 

including Knowledge Corridor/ Restore the Vermonter, NHHS and South Station Expansion 

projects are briefly discussed below and summarized in Table 4.5-2. These projects include

improvements that are recently completed, underway or under development at various stages of 

planning. 

The NNEIRI Build Alternative and these rail projects are occurring either in existing ROW or 

adjacent to existing ROW, and in areas that have been previously disturbed. Additionally, the 

impacts due to improvements on the NNEIRI Corridor are expected to be minor because most of 

the work is associated with restoration of the second track in a historically double tracked 

corridor. As a result, the cumulative impacts of the NNEIRI Build Alternative to the resources 

listed above are expected to be relatively small or negligible when considered with impacts from 

other projects in those areas. The study areas of the NNEIRI program, Knowledge Corridor/ 

Restore the Vermonter and the NHHS project are distributed over a very long distance, which 

further reduces the potential for cumulative impacts. 

Collectively, the NNEIRI Build Alternative and the other projects would have beneficial 

cumulative impacts by improving overall air quality and reducing congestion. Additionally, 

there would be a beneficial impact on economic development and EJ population in the vicinity

of the existing and proposed stations by improving mobility. South Station Expansion project 

would displace the USPS General Mail Facility jobs; however, many of those jobs are 

anticipated to be relocated within South Boston. The SSX project does not anticipate a net loss 

of USPS employment within the Boston area as MassDOT intends to include retail functions of 

the USPS facility in the terminal expansion.

Under the NNEIRI Build Alternative, the land use throughout the Corridor is likely to remain 

unchanged since no new layover and maintenance sites are proposed. The only area in the 

NNEIRI Corridor that may experience land use change is Palmer Station; however, the Study 

Team anticipates the location of Palmer Station to be consistent with the existing local land use 

and zoning. The NHHS project would have beneficial cumulative impact at station areas by 

complementing transit oriented development (TOD) and other improvements. South Station 

would have land use impact due to the demolition of the USPS General Mail Facility; however,

some of the businesses are anticipated to be relocated within the expanded South Station facility. 

The NNEIRI Build Alternative and the other projects together are not anticipated to result in 

significant cumulative impacts on aesthetic and design quality along the Corridor. The NNEIRI 

program includes one new station and one improved station along the Corridor between Boston 

and Springfield. The new station location is in Palmer, Massachusetts and all three of the sites 

being considered are unlikely to have significant impacts. The improved station is at Worcester, 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-131 May 2016

Massachusetts where a new platform would be constructed at Worcester Union Station. The 

platform would be an island location between tracks and is not anticipated to have visual effects 

as it would be located in an area historically used for station platforms and would be connected to 

Worcester Union Station via an elevator and stair to the existing pedestrian tunnel beneath the 

platform. The NHHS project would have potential adverse impacts to the visual environment in 

the vicinity of the existing and proposed NHHS rail stations at Wallingford, Berlin, Newington 

and Windsor in Connecticut. The NHHS project anticipates mitigating the impacts through 

coordination and design reviews with the communities.

Cumulative impacts on resources such as floodplains, water quality, wetlands, endangered and 

threatened species, and construction period impacts are likely to be minor. Minimal negative 

cumulative impacts on noise and vibration would likely occur due to increase in the number and 

speed of trains. Most of the impacts are in the highly populated and heavily traveled Boston to 

Springfield segment. 

Collectively, the NNEIRI Study and the other transportation projects are not anticipated to have 

significant cumulative impacts on environmental resources and therefore, the need for Tier 2 

analysis for cumulative impacts is not anticipated. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-132 May 2016

Table 4.5-2. Cumulative Impacts from NNEIRI and Other Projects 

Environmental 

Resources NNEIRI Study

Other Projects 

Knowledge Corridor –

Restore Vermonter

New Haven Hartford 

Springfield Project

South Station Expansion 

Project

4.1.1 Air Quality

A shift to passenger rail 

expected to reduce VMT (nearly 

46,800 metric tons of CO2) and 

improve regional air quality.

Beneficial effects on air 

quality. 28% decrease in 

overall air emissions

from air pollutants.

Reduction in vehicle miles 

traveled and improvement of

air quality with the shift to 

public transportation.

Air quality impacts 

associated with emissions 

generated by locomotives 

and intercity buses entering 

and leaving the Boston

South Station terminal,

layover facilities and 

vehicular traffic.

4.1.2 Noise and 

Vibration

Potential for a total of 435 

severe noise impacts, 11,827 

moderate noise impacts, and 

2,234 vibration annoyance 

impacts.

* Most of the impacts 

are in the highly populated and 

heavily traveled Boston to 

Springfield segment.

*

Impacts based on worst case 

scenario, estimates would likely 

decrease when a more detailed 

analysis is performed.

Moderate train-horn 

noise impacts to 203 

receptors (mainly 

residential) and severe 

horn noise impacts to 

two residential receptors. 

Potential vibration 

impacts are not 

considered significant 

because of the limited 

number of train passing 

under the proposed 

alternative. Two noise 

and vibration benefits.

Severe train-horn noise 

impacts at 1,847 noisesensitive receptors and 

moderate noise impacts at 

2767 noise-sensitive 

receptors at grade crossings 

and existing and new rail 

stations. Severe wayside 

noise impacts to 7 residential 

receptors and moderate noise 

impacts to 214 residential 

receptors. Low to moderate 

noise impact to Springfield 

layover and maintenance 

facility.

Noise impacts at South 

Station site in Alternative 1 

and at Readville Yard 2 

layover facility. Typical 

vibration levels are below 

the FTA impact criterion.

4.1.3

Flood Hazards 

and Floodplain 

Management

Minor impacts possible.

Additional track construction

would take place within or 

adjacent to mapped floodplain 

for approximately 28 miles. 

No potential impacts. Potential impacts to 

floodplains (10.7 acres), 

floodways (1.0 acre) and 

SCELs (2.1 acres) in

Connecticut. No impacts to 

floodplains in Massachusetts. 

No potential impacts. All 

areas of floodplain 

occurring at the site are 

currently developed land. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-133 May 2016

Environmental 

Resources NNEIRI Study

Other Projects 

Knowledge Corridor –

Restore Vermonter

New Haven Hartford 

Springfield Project

South Station Expansion 

Project

4.2.1 Water Quality

Minor impacts possible.

Additional track construction 

would take place within or 

adjacent to water resources in 

MA and VT. 

No potential impacts. No potential impacts to 

ground water resources. 

Some potential adverse 

impacts associated with storm 

water.

No impacts to surface water 

quality. Some potential 

impacts associated with 

storm water.

4.2.2 Wetlands

Minor impacts possible.

Additional track construction 

would take place within 

respective state’s mapped 

wetland buffer area for 

approximately 13 miles. 

Would not result in any 

temporary or permanent 

impacts to wetlands. 

Approximately 3.9 acres of 

wetlands along the NHHS rail 

corridor would be impacted. 

No wetland impacts are 

anticipated in Massachusetts.

Approximately 7.9 acres of 

100-foot jurisdictional 

buffer to coastal bank at 

South Station site.

4.2.3

Ecological 

Systems, 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species, and 

Wildlife

Minor impacts possible.

Additional track construction 

would take place within or 

adjacent to endangered species 

habitat for approximately 16 

miles.

No potential impacts. No potential impacts in 

Massachusetts. In 

Connecticut, as many as 18 

Connecticut-listed species 

were identified

No potential impacts.

4.3.1

Land Use, 

Existing and 

Planned

No impacts anticipated due to 

use of existing rail corridor.

Palmer Station likely to have 

beneficial impact on economic 

development.

No potential impacts. Beneficial impact at station 

areas by complementing 

transit oriented development 

(TOD) and other 

improvements.

Limited direct land use 

impacts due to the project

because of demolition of the 

USPS General Mail Facility.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-134 May 2016

Environmental 

Resources NNEIRI Study

Other Projects 

Knowledge Corridor –

Restore Vermonter

New Haven Hartford 

Springfield Project

South Station Expansion 

Project

4.3.2

Socioeconomic 

and 

Environmental 

Justice

Potential beneficial impact on 

economic development and EJ 

populations in the vicinity of 

existing and proposed stations is 

anticipated.

Potential beneficial 

economic development 

impacts. Overall benefit 

to EJ populations in 

Greenfield and 

Northampton as a result 

of improved access.

Beneficial economic impacts 

due to job creation. Beneficial 

impact on EJ populations as 

the project provides new or 

improved access to regional 

rail service. Adverse impacts 

to EJ populations due to 

increased traffic congestion at 

several intersections and 

increased noise levels.

The project would displace 

approximately 1,000 USPS 

jobs, which are anticipated 

to be relocated within South 

Boston. Benefits to EJ 

populations by improving 

accessibility.

4.3.7 Aesthetic and 

Design Quality 

Impacts

No impacts anticipated. There 

may be potential visual impacts 

at Palmer due to construction of 

a new station.

NA Potential adverse impacts to 

the visual environment at 

Wallingford, Berlin, 

Newington and Windsor in 

CT.

NA

4.4 Construction 

Period Impacts

Potential temporary impacts.

Track work would largely be

sited within the existing rail 

ROW using rail-mounted 

equipment, and should not 

involve large quantities of 

earthwork.

Some short-term 

construction period 

impacts related 

construction phasing, air 

quality, traffic, noise, 

utilities, water quality 

and freight rail traffic.

Some temporary construction 

period impacts.

Potential construction period 

related impacts.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-135 May 2016

4.6 NEXT STEPS

4.6.1 Avoidance, Minimization and Potential Mitigation Measures

The Study Team’s efforts to identify potential avoidance, minimization and mitigation 

measures for impacts of the Build Alternative are summarized below: 

Physical Environment

Air Quality

For air quality analysis at this Tier 1 level, the Study Team estimated change in regional VMT 

as a result of the Build Alternative (section 4.1.1). The analysis predicted that emissions 

associated with an increase in train frequency would be more than offset by a reduction in 

vehicle emissions due to motor vehicle trips diverted to NNEIRI service. Therefore, the Study 

Team anticipates a net benefit to regional air quality. Based on this assessment, mitigation 

requirements are not anticipated. 

If the project advances to Tier 2, design details would be developed by the project proponent 

(i.e., transportation agency such as MassDOT or VTrans) and more detailed air quality analysis 

can be conducted. If federal funding is provided for Tier 2 NNEIRI-related projects, FRA or 

another lead federal agency would be required to comply with the EPA’s Conformity Rule (40 

CFR Part 93). If the Tier 2 project is not included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), an 

applicability analysis would be conducted to determine if a general conformity analysis is 

required and would be undertaken in the future as part of the Tier 2 project analysis.

Additionally, hazard information related to climate change (i.e. temperature and precipitation) 

would be established in Tier 2 project analysis. Based on the results of the climate change 

impact analysis, potential recommendations may include protecting assets by diverting 

stormwater away from the infrastructure, elevating the infrastructure, and modifying the sizing 

of drainage infrastructure.

Noise and Vibration

The noise impact categories for both FRA and FTA guidelines are no impact, moderate impact, 

and severe impact, and the noise limits associated with these are on a sliding scale (changing 

with existing background levels). Moderate impacts are normally designated as warranting the 

consideration of noise mitigation and severe impacts are normally designated as requiring 

noise mitigation. Potential mitigation measures may include noise barriers, operational 

changes, stationary wayside horns at grade crossings, horn shrouds on locomotives, and 

resilient rail fasteners and ties. 

The Study Team’s analysis at the Tier 1 level included a conservative estimate of the Build 

Alternative’s impacts to noise and vibration sensitive receptors along the Corridor based on the 

worst case scenario (section 4.1.2). If the project advances to Tier 2, design details would be 

developed by the project proponent (i.e., transportation agency such as MassDOT or VTrans)

and more detailed noise and vibration analysis can be conducted. If federal funding is provided 

for Tier 2 NNEIRI-related projects, FRA or another lead federal agency would more precisely 

determine the number of potential noise and vibration impacts that may require mitigation. The 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-136 May 2016

Knowledge Corridor noise and vibration analyses were based on a proposed service with fewer 

trains and lower speeds than the NNEIRI, so this segment of the NNEIRI Corridor would need 

to be evaluated further during Tier 2.

Flood Hazards and Floodplain Management

During the Tier 1 analysis, the Study Team identified locations where construction activities 

are proposed within 100-year and 500-year floodplain (section 4.1.3). If the project advances to 

Tier 2, design details would be developed by the project proponent (i.e., transportation agency 

such as MassDOT or VTrans) and every effort would be made to avoid and minimize addition 

of fill material to floodplains that would result in a loss of flood storage capacity. Potential 

impacts to floodplains would require further assessment and agency coordination to determine 

whether mitigation measures are necessary. If federal funding is provided for Tier 2 NNEIRIrelated projects, FRA or another lead federal agency would more precisely determine the 

floodplain impacts that may require mitigation. This would occur at the Tier 2, or project level.

Mitigation measures would follow a hierarchy of avoidance, minimization, and compensatory 

mitigation for impacts to floodways and floodplains. Where adverse impacts cannot be 

avoided, mitigation would be developed in coordination with the MassDEP, VTDEC, and 

USACE during the Floodplain Management Certification (FMC) application. Where new 

structures or fill would result in loss of flood storage volumes, compensatory mitigation can be 

provided by constructing a detention/retention basin that provides enough storage capacity to 

handle runoff and any lost flood storage capacity.

Coastal Zone Management

The Study Team determined the Build Alternative would not result in any direct or indirect 

impacts to Coastal Zone Management Areas. Therefore, mitigation measures are not 

anticipated.

Biological Environment

Water Quality

The Study Team’s Tier 1 analysis identified water quality resources in the vicinity of second 

track locations proposed under the Build Alternative. Potential impacts to groundwater supply 

protection areas and surface water protection areas were identified in Massachusetts and 

Vermont (section 4.2.1). All construction activities in these locations would comply with the 

applicable storm water quality manual and handbooks and erosion and sedimentation control 

guidelines to minimize and avoid potential water quality impacts. Best management practices 

for erosion and sedimentation control would be followed during the period of active 

construction to reduce water quality impacts. 

During Tier 2, design details would be developed to avoid or reduce potential water quality 

impacts associated with the Build Alternative. The Tier 2 project proponent(s) (e.g., MassDOT,

VTrans) would coordinate with VTDEC and MassDEP for final designs and permits. All 

construction activities would comply with the 2002 Vermont Stormwater Management Manual 

and the 2008 Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. If federal funding is provided for Tier 2 

NNEIRI-related projects, FRA or another lead federal agency would more precisely determine
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-137 May 2016

the water quality impacts that may require mitigation. This would occur at the Tier 2, or project 

level.

Wetlands

The Build Alternative may impact wetlands in locations where a second track or passing siding 

is proposed. The Study Team identified locations where construction would take place within 

MassDEP and VTDEC defined wetland buffer areas (section 4.2.2). If the project advances to 

Tier 2, design details would be developed by the project proponent (e.g., MassDOT, VTrans)

and every effort would be made to avoid and minimize wetland impacts. The Tier 2 project 

proponent(s) would coordinate with VTDEC and MassDEP for final designs and permits. A 

future Tier 2 Study Team would conduct wetlands assessment for construction of a new Palmer 

Station. 

If federal funding is provided for Tier 2 NNEIRI-related projects, FRA or another lead federal 

agency would more precisely determine the wetland impacts that may require mitigation. If 

wetland impacts cannot be avoided compensatory mitigation measures would be required. The 

Tier 2 project proponent(s) would develop a wetland mitigation plan in coordination with 

USACE, MassDEP, and VTDEC following guidelines set forth in the USACE New England 

District Compensatory Mitigation Guidance (July 20, 2010). Compensatory mitigation 

measures include restoration, creation, and enhancement, preservation of wetlands and in lieu 

fee (preferred method of mitigation in Vermont) to compensate for the lost acreage, type and 

functions-values of the impacted wetlands. 

Ecological Systems, Threatened and Endangered Species

The Study Team’s Tier 1 analysis included the identification of endangered and threatened 

species and habitat in locations of proposed construction activities under the Build Alternative 

(section 4.2.3). These locations would be the focus areas for Tier 2 project level analysis, at 

which time the project proponent (i.e., transportation agency such as MassDOT or VTrans)

would confirm records of federal- or state-listed species with the appropriate resource agencies 

(i.e., USFWS, NMFS, Massachusetts NHESP, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, 

and VFWD) to determine if protected species or designated critical habitat are actually present 

in areas where NNEIRI project activities are proposed. Field surveys may also be necessary. 

If protected species or habitat is present and impacts are identified, consultation with the 

appropriate agencies would be conducted. If federal funding is provided for Tier 2 NNEIRI 

projects, this would include consultation between FRA or another lead federal agency and 

USFWS and/or NMFS pursuant to ESA Section 7. This consultation may include the 

identification of ways to avoid, reduce, or mitigate impacts. Mitigation measures may include 

but are not limited to the following: pre- and/or post-construction monitoring of wildlife or 

plant populations, restoration or enhancement of habitat and habitat connectivity, and 

conservation of habitat through acquisition of development rights. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-138 May 2016

Human Environment

Land Use, Existing and Planned

Because the proposed improvements under the Build Alternative would occur within the 

existing rail corridor, the Study Team does not anticipate land use impacts. Therefore,

mitigation measures are not anticipated for activities within the rail ROW.

During Tier 2, more details relating to the design of a new Palmer Station and a platform at 

Worcester Union Station would likely be developed by the project proponent (i.e., MassDOT, 

VTrans). Local and regional planning would be considered as the design progresses. The Tier 2 

project proponent(s) would coordinate with the affected municipalities to ensure compatibility 

with present and future land uses.

Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice

The Study Team determined the Build Alternative would result in a positive impact to 

environmental justice communities in the vicinity of stations due to improved mobility option. 

The Study Team did not identify any negative impacts to EJ communities in the Tier 1 level 

analysis. Therefore, mitigations measures are not anticipated.

Upon completion of engineering plans, additional EJ analysis would be conducted by the 

project proponent. If federal funding is provided for Tier 2 NNEIRI-related projects, FRA or 

another lead federal agency would more precisely determine the impacts to EJ communities. 

Any potential mitigation measures if required would be determined during the Tier 2 project

level analysis. Until that time, the NNEIRI Study would continue to ensure that the level and 

quality of planned services would continue in a nondiscriminatory manner, no matter which 

alternative is progressed and promote full and fair participation in decision-making without 

regard to race, color, or national origin.

Possible Barriers to Elderly and Handicapped

The Study Team determined that the Build Alternative would not create any additional possible 

barriers to the elderly and handicapped persons therefore, the Build Alternative would not 

result in any potential direct or indirect negative impacts and that no potential mitigation 

measures are anticipated.

Public Health and Safety

The Study Team did not identify negative impacts to public health and safety as a result of the 

Build Alternative. The Corridor is a currently active railroad and has safety measures in place. 

The Build Alternative also includes improvements to some signals and grade crossings 

resulting in a benefit to public health and safety. Therefore, mitigation measures are not 

anticipated.

Hazardous Materials

The Study Team did not identify any currently active hazardous material waste sites in 

locations along the Corridor. However, if hazardous materials are encountered during 

construction, the project proponent (i.e., MassDOT or VTrans) would coordinate with the 

MassDEP and the VTDEC to comply with all applicable regulations. In Massachusetts, the 

Massachusetts Contingency plan would be followed, and in Vermont, the Vermont 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-139 May 2016

Contingency Plan would be followed. If federal funding is provided for Tier 2 NNEIRI-related 

projects, FRA or another lead federal agency would more precisely determine the impacts that 

may require mitigation. If required, mitigation measures may include soil samples to determine 

the nature and location of contaminated soil, contaminated soil storage techniques that contain 

run-off, use and distribution of material within final ROW that contains run-off, and 

requirements for transporting and disposing of unused contaminated materials.

Solid Waste Disposal

The Study Team determined the Build Alternative would not directly or indirectly impact 

landfill areas. Therefore, mitigation measures are not anticipated.

Aesthetic and Design Quality Impacts

Because the proposed improvements under the Build Alternative would occur within the 

existing rail corridor, the Study Team does not anticipate aesthetic or design quality impacts. 

Therefore, mitigation measures are not anticipated for activities within the rail ROW.

During Tier 2, more details relating to the design of a new Palmer Station and a platform at 

Worcester Union Station would likely be developed by the project proponent (i.e., MassDOT, 

VTrans). At that time, further analysis would be conducted to determine any adverse visual 

impacts. If federal funding is provided for Tier 2 NNEIRI-related projects, FRA or another 

lead federal agency would more precisely determine the impacts that may require mitigation. If 

impacts are identified the FRA or other lead federal agency would determine mitigation 

strategies such as landscaping to screen views of adverse impacts or use of building materials 

consistent with the surrounding area. 

Cultural Resources and Historic Properties

During Tier 2, once the design has advanced, additional data may be collected regarding 

properties that may be eligible for the National Register. These properties may include historic 

buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts not yet evaluated for National Register listing; 

railway infrastructure such as bridges, culverts, bridges, freight houses, signal towers, and 

wayside railroad features; and archaeological sites. A Programmatic Agreement may be 

developed between FRA, the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the Vermont Division for 

Historic Preservation, and the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources, ACHP, and 

other consulting parties to specify the documentation requirements, review procedures, and 

scheduling and sequencing of decisions for compliance under Tier 2. If it is determined during 

Tier 2 that the NNEIRI program would result in adverse effects to National Register-listed or 

eligible properties, measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate the effects would be developed 

through consultation with the Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont SHPOs and other 

consulting parties. 

The Section 106 process would be followed if construction of the Build Alternative receives 

federal funding or permits. This would involve defining the project Area of Potential Effects 

(APE), further identification of historic properties, assessment of effects, and resolution of 

adverse effects by FRA or another lead federal agency in consultation with the MA, NH and/or 

VT SHPOs and other consulting parties as appropriate.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-140 May 2016

Use of 4(f) Protected Properties

During Tier 2, once the design has been advanced by the project proponent(s), additional data 

may be collected regarding 4(f) properties. These properties may include historic buildings, 

structures, sites, objects and districts not yet evaluated for National Register listing; railway 

infrastructure such as bridges, culverts, bridges, freight houses, signal towers, and wayside 

railroad features; and archaeological sites. Information may also be collected on the hours of 

operation, public programs, and use of potential 4(f) parks, recreation areas, and wildlife 

refuges. 

If federal funding is provided for Tier 2 NNEIRI-related projects, FRA or another lead federal 

agency would more precisely determine if a 4(f) use would occur. If it is determined that a 4(f) 

use would occur, a 4(f) Evaluation would be completed. If FRA determines that there is no 

prudent and feasible alternative, the project would include all reasonable measures to minimize 

harm to any 4(f) properties or mitigate impacts. Department of the Interior (DOI) and relevant 

state and local officials, including officials with jurisdiction as defined in the Section 4(f) 

regulations (e.g. SHPOs, refuge managers, park directors) would be coordinated for final 

determination of whether Section 4(f) properties would be affected. This assessment would

occur in Tier 2. 

Use of Section 6(f) Lands

If the project advances to Tier 2, design details would be developed by the project proponent(s)

and additional data may be collected regarding Section 6(f) properties. If federal funding is 

provided for Tier 2 NNEIRI-related projects, FRA or another lead federal agency would more 

precisely determine if a 6(f) conversion would occur. If it is determined during Tier 2 that the 

NNEIRI-related projects would result in the conversion of a Section 6(f) property, a request for 

approval of that conversion would need to be submitted by the project proponent(s) to the 

National Park Service. The request would be made through the state agency with Section 6(f) 

oversight; in this case the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) 

for properties located in Massachusetts; the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and 

Recreation for properties located in Vermont; and the New Hampshire Department of 

Resources and Economic Development (DRED) for properties located in New Hampshire. 

Such request would include details of the proposal to substitute the converted Section 6(f) land 

with other property of equivalent usefulness and location and with equal or better fair market 

value. 

Recreational Opportunities 

Since there would be no impacts to the recreational opportunities, no mitigation measures are 

anticipated.

Transportation

Given the low numbers of traffic movements anticipated at each station, it is unlikely that 

traffic mitigation would be required. If the project advances to Tier 2, design details would be 

developed by the project proponent(s). A future Tier 2 Study Team would collect additional 

data and would conduct further traffic impact analysis around stations. If federal funding is 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-141 May 2016

provided for Tier 2 NNEIRI-related projects, FRA or another lead federal agency would more 

precisely determine the impacts that may require mitigation.

All construction activities would be coordinated with impacted rail operators along the 

Corridor including CSX, NECR, MBTA, and MassDOT to minimize and avoid potential 

impacts.

Use of Energy Resources

Since the Build Alternative would not result in any adverse impacts, no potential mitigation 

measures are anticipated. If the project advances to Tier 2, design details would be developed 

by the project proponent(s) and construction impact analysis would be conducted.

Use of Other Natural Resources Such as Water, Minerals, or Timber

The Study Team determined the Build Alternative would not result in irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of other natural resources. Therefore, mitigation measures are not 

anticipated.

Construction Period Impacts 

If the project advances to Tier 2, design details would be developed by the project proponent(s) 

and the duration, sequence and extent of the construction activities, including the need for 

temporary road closures and detours would be identified and staging plans would be 

developed. If federal funding is provided for Tier 2 NNEIRI-related projects, FRA or another 

lead federal agency would more precisely determine the extent of construction period impacts 

that may require mitigation measures. 

MBTA, Amtrak, CSX and NECR as well as state and local agencies, including MassDOT, 

MassDEP, VTrans, and NHDOT would be coordinated for developing appropriate 

construction-phasing plans to avoid, minimize or mitigate temporary impacts. Following 

construction, temporarily impacted natural resources would be restored to their preconstruction conditions, and construction staging areas would be graded to provide natural 

drainage and would be replanted. 

During final design and construction, the project proponent(s) would follow the Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) for track restoration, construction of rail siding, bridge and 

culvert repair and replacement and station improvements. These BMPs include design features 

to properly manage storm water during and after construction, as well as temporary measures 

to minimize direct and indirect impacts during construction. 

Potential construction related impacts and proposed mitigation measures to be employed are 

summarized in below: 

Noise: Maintain mufflers on construction equipment, limit nighttime construction and keep 

truck idling to a minimum.

Vibration: Piles for structures installed using augered holes in lieu of pile drivers.

Dust and Odor: Dust control measures such as water and calcium chloride applied on a 

periodic basis to control dust and odors.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-142 May 2016

Nuisance: Limit noisy activities near residential neighborhoods to daytime and weekday hours 

to the extent possible. 

Vehicle Emissions: Keep truck idling to a minimum.

Construction Debris: Require discarded material, rubbish or debris removed from the work site 

and disposed.

Construction-related Traffic: Multiple access points to the project site provided. Most of the 

project elements lie within a railroad ROW, apart from local traffic.

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 

Since there are no negative cumulative impacts from the NNEIRI Study along with reasonably 

foreseeable actions, no mitigation measures are anticipated.

4.6.2 NEPA Tier 2 Analysis

The NEPA analysis conducted for the NNEIRI Study is a Tier 1 Service Level EA. It 

concludes that the potential for significant adverse impacts in the Corridor is low, in large part 

due to the use of existing operating rail lines within existing rights of way, and the proposed 

infrastructure improvements being located within alignments that were in the past double or 

triple track. As individual projects are identified and refined, such as restoration of the second 

mainline track between Worcester and Springfield, a NEPA Tier 2 analysis would be necessary 

to identify project specific impacts. Potential project specific impacts are possible in key 

NEPA categories, including: 

Physical Environment

 Air Quality – During Tier 2, additional analysis would be required to determine key air 

quality parameters. The analysis would include increased congestion close to stations, 

change in regional vehicle-miles-traveled, and impact of railroad sidings near sensitive 

receptors. The data collected and analyzed would determine the impacts on the quality of 

the air in the region and surrounding areas and identify if mitigation is required and what 

those measures would be. 

 Noise and Vibration- In Tier 1, this category was evaluated with a mix of screening and 

general assessment analyses that would be further explored in Tier 2. The second analysis 

would include Category 1 receptors and the number of potential noise and vibration 

impacts that would require the consideration of mitigation measures. 

 Flood Hazards- Impacts to floodplains would require further assessment and agency 

coordination to identify possible avoidance/minimization measures during Tier 2.

Biological Environment

 Water Quality - Resource agencies would be coordinated with regarding permits and 

design details about potential impacts that have to be assessed in Tier 2.

 Wetlands - Potential impacts to wetlands require further assessment at Tier 2 when 

precise location and design information is available, including the location of the 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-143 May 2016

proposed station in Palmer. Any compensatory mitigation measures, including 

restoration, creation and enhancement, would be subject to state and federal permitting 

requirements if potential wetland impacts have been minimized. 

 Ecological Systems, Threatened and Endangered Species and Wildlife - In the areas that 

where the addition of a second track, the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and 

Endangered Species Program (NHESP) mapped the potential endangered species habitats 

adjacent to the proposed track. In areas where a second track is proposed, possible 

endangered species in the area were closely examined by the NHESP. The Study 

mapped out where the proposed track coincides with potential endangered species 

habitats, which determined that construction would have to be reviewed under the 

applicable state laws. 

Human Environment

 Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice - The Tier 2 analysis would include a detailed 

evaluation of means to avoid or minimize impacts through design and mitigation 

strategies to offset remaining unavoidable impacts alongside a more detailed examination 

of potential impacts. It is not possible to determine if there would be significant impacts 

on the environmental justice communities until more detailed engineering plans are 

available. Potential mitigation measures, if necessary, would be considered in the Tier 2 

project level analysis.

 Aesthetic and Design Quality Impacts - Potential visual impacts would be temporary and 

limited to the areas where construction would take place. Mitigation measures may 

include staging of work activities and removing waste as soon as the work is completed 

to minimize the visual impacts but would be further analyzed in the Tier 2 assessment at 

the project level. 

 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties - The Section 106 process would be followed 

if construction of the Build Alternative receives federal funding or permits. This would 

involve defining the project Area of Potential Effects (APE), further identification of 

historic properties, assessment of effects, and resolution of adverse effects by FRA or 

another lead federal agency in consultation with the MA, NH and/or VT SHPOs and 

other consulting parties as appropriate.

 Use of Section 4(f) Protected Properties -The full Section 4(f) analysis would occur 

during Tier 2 project level analysis to determine impacts to publicly owned parks, 

recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public or private historic sites. A 

4(f) determination would be made at Tier 2.

 Use of Section 6(f) Lands - The Build Alternative does not anticipate conversion or 

change in the Section 6(f) properties because the railroad tracks were historically doubletracked and the work related to the Corridor would be conducted within the existing 

railroad ROW. Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) would 

occur in Tier 2 and potential mitigation measures would be considered as necessary. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 4-144 May 2016

 Transportation - Traffic impacts at local streets near stations as well as road/rail at-grade 

crossings were reviewed qualitatively based on ridership estimates at each station and 

annually. Given the low numbers of anticipated traffic movements anticipated at each 

station, it is unlikely that traffic mitigation would be required. 

 Construction Period - During Tier 2, the duration of construction would be better defined 

and appropriate mitigation measures would be identified. The sequence and extent of 

construction would be identified and staging plans developed during the final design 

phases. 

If federal funding is involved in specific Tier 2 projects, the lead federal agency would be 

required to conduct any necessary Tier 2 NEPA analysis. 

4.6.3 Coordination

To successfully implement NNEIRI service, close coordination would be essential among the 

lead state agencies, MassDOT and VTrans, as well as other state or federal agencies providing 

funding, permits, or approvals. 

Coordination during the planning process is essential because of the necessary involvement of 

five state governments and numerous local governments along the Corridor. These entities 

would need to coordinate and work together to define the future service in mutually agreeable 

terms. Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and the Province of Quebec, 

Canada as well as the major cities where there are station stops should concur on the key 

aspects of governance, funding, and management of the proposed intercity passenger rail 

system and services. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 5-1 May 2016

5 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 

This section summarizes the three State resource coordination meetings, and the comments 

received from public and other agencies during study development. It discusses how these 

comments influenced development of the Build Alternative carried forward for analysis in this

Tier 1 EA. Public feedback/support and names of local, state and federal agencies and 

organizations that attended meetings or provided comments are included.

5.1 AGENCY OUTREACH

This section discusses agency scoping and meetings held for the NNEIRI Study in Cambridge, 

Massachusetts. It summarizes the agency scoping process conducted by MassDOT, VTrans, 

and FRA.

5.1.1 Scoping

An interagency scoping was conducted by MassDOT, VTrans and FRA in Cambridge, 

Massachusetts on March 20, 2014. Agencies, including Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission (CMRPC), Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG), Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Metropolitan Area Planning 

Council (MAPC), Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), Pioneer Valley 

Planning Commission (PVPC), and Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) along with 

the Study Team participated in the meeting. All agency and Study Team representatives 

provided introductions. A copy of the Scoping Report and a meeting agenda were handed out 

to all in attendance. 

Federal, state and regional agencies were invited to participate early in the development of the 

NNEIRI Study, prior to initiating the scoping process. The Study Team developed an overall 

strategy for Agency and Public Scoping in collaboration with FRA. The strategy included the 

study’s key themes, the Purpose and Need, and the study goals and objectives. Feedback was

solicited from federal and state resource agencies regarding their participation in the study 

process. 

Scoping was conducted by taking into consideration that much work has already been 

completed, including improvements made through the MassDOT Knowledge Corridor -

Restore Vermonter Project, improvements to the NECR line through Vermont, upgrades being 

made to the Springfield-New Haven segment of the Inland Route Service, and improvements 

planned for the MBTA’s Worcester line segment of the Inland Route Service. These plans were

inputs to the broader discussion regarding the best and most reasonable alternatives to the 

problem statement as stated in the Study Initiation Statement.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 5-2 May 2016

5.1.2 Milestones

FRA coordinated project milestones with agencies and stakeholders throughout the 

development of the Tier 1 Service Level EA. Agency input was solicited on Purpose and Need, 

alternatives development, alternatives to be carried forward for environmental and operations 

analysis, identification of the Build Alternative, and draft Tier 1 EA document.

FRA sent correspondence to two Cooperating Agencies (USACE and USEPA) on August 24, 

2015 providing an update on the NEPA process for the NNEIRI Study. 

FRA also sent information packages along with a copy of the cultural resources chapter of the 

draft Tier 1 EA describing the NNEIRI Build Alternative, and the preliminary APE to the 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Connecticut SHPOs on September 14, 2015.

FRA’s correspondence with SHPOs emphasized that this is a Tier 1 service level EA, which 

itself does not have the potential to affect historic properties. Should the study advance to Tier 

2 with project activities having the potential to affect historic properties, the lead federal 

agency (FRA or otherwise) would consult with the appropriate SHPO(s) and other consulting 

parties pursuant to Section 106.

5.2 TRIBAL OUTREACH 

Tribal outreach would be conducted should the study advance to Tier 2 with project activities 

having the potential to impact tribal land or resources or properties of significance to tribes. 

5.3 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH

A Stakeholder Committee was formed to provide oversight, direction and primary product 

review for the study. The committee is comprised of key members including MassDOT, 

Connecticut Department of Transportation, the Vermont Agency of Transportation, Québec 

Ministry of Transportation, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, the Federal 

Railroad Administration, Amtrak, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro-North Railroad (Metro-North), CSX, New 

England Central Railroad, Pan Am Southern, LLC (PAS), Canadian National Railway and 

thirteen regional planning commissions located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State 

of Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire. 

The Study Team used feedback from stakeholder meetings to develop the Build Alternative. 

Public participation was integrated into the study process through a Stakeholder Committee, 

public outreach meetings, a project website, newsletters/bulletins and coordination with other 

rail projects such as the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Project, Vermont Rail Plan and 

Northeast Corridor Future.

Stakeholder outreach to the public was carried out with the following six major objectives: 

 Identify a broad range of stakeholders from all geographic regions of the Corridor.

 Integrate public outreach activities and meetings with key study tasks and key milestones. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 5-3 May 2016

 Engage potentially affected communities, including minority and low-income 

populations, in compliance with the Title VI of the U.S. 1964 Civil Rights Act and 

Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898, requires targeted outreach. 

 Provide written materials and communication to non-English speaking populations. 

Consider public input. Monitor public comments submitted through the NNEIRI Study 

website, emails and letters to staff, comment forms received at public meetings, and 

provide direct responses to questions posed by members of the public. 

 Utilize many communication tools. Provide information in multiple formats to reach a 

broad spectrum of the public. 

5.3.1 Outreach Tools

As public outreach tools, three rounds of public information meetings (with two meetings in 

the first two rounds and three meetings in the final round) were held for the NNEIRI Study to 

discuss the alternatives screening process and receive comments from the interested public.

The public meetings were organized in two formats: (1) in-person open house meetings with 

formal presentations followed by questions and comments from the public and (2) on-line open 

house meetings where interested persons could view a presentation and submit comments to 

the Study Team. In each round, one meeting was held in the northern section of the Corridor

(Vermont) and one or two meetings in the southern section of the Corridor (Massachusetts or 

Connecticut). These meetings were conducted by MassDOT and VTrans. Written 

communication materials (meeting flyers, media releases, paid newspaper advertisements, and 

project bulletins were produced in English and Spanish. A Spanish interpreter was provided at all 

public meetings held in Massachusetts.

Public meetings were planned around these key study milestones and integrated into the 

outreach process.

 Meeting #1: Study Scoping

 Meeting #2: End of Alternatives Analysis; Conclusion of development of the Operating 

and Capital Plans

 Meeting #3: Conclusion of development of SDPs

5.3.2 Stakeholder Committee

Five (5) Stakeholder Committee meetings were conducted by MassDOT and VTrans between 

December 2013 and June 2015 (see Table 5.3-1). Topics included were review of study goals 

and objectives, Agency and Stakeholder Involvement Plan, the Existing Conditions 

Assessment, Purpose and Need, Station Site Assessment and Guidelines, and draft SDPs. In 

addition, the Study Team presented the Preliminary Service Options Performance Report, the 

Alternative Analysis Report as well as the Draft Build Alternative. Format for the Stakeholder 

Committee meetings included a presentation by the Study Team on these key topics in 

conjunction with questions and discussion by the committee. Attendance at Stakeholder 

Committee meetings ranged from 30-40 individuals.

The Stakeholder Committee supported the goals and objectives of the study and provided 

feedback through open discussion during the Committee meetings on all study documents

produced, including the Existing Conditions Assessment, Purpose and Need, Station Site 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 5-4 May 2016

Assessment and Guidelines, Alternative Analysis Report and draft SDPs. The committee was 

eager to learn about the analysis performed. They asked about assumptions used to project 

ridership, proposed speeds and frequencies, capital, operating and maintenance costs, how the 

study coordinated with other projects and studies, how increased passenger service would 

affect freight operations. Some committee members advocated for stops at specific stations 

along the designated route and noted the importance of re-establishing the connection to 

Montreal. Consensus on the Build Alternative was reached in February 2015. Comments 

received during the scoping meetings are summarized below in Section 5.3.4. 

Table 5.3-1. Stakeholder Meetings 

Dates Location Key Issues

December 18, 2013 Pioneer Valley Planning 

Commission, Springfield, MA

 Overview of presentation

 Role of the Stakeholders and Public 

Outreach

 Review of Study Scope

 Discussion of draft Purpose and Need

 Project Schedule and Next Steps

May 7, 2014 Pioneer Valley Planning 

Commission, Springfield, MA

 Public Outreach: public meetings, agency 

meetings, project coordination

 Study Analysis Results: Train 

performance calculations, initial ridership 

analysis, station assessment

 Alternative Development

October 22, 2014 Pioneer Valley Planning 

Commission, Springfield, MA

 Upcoming public meetings

 Overview of initial options

 Alternatives Definition

 Alternative Analysis

February 9, 2015 Pioneer Valley Planning 

Commission, Springfield, MA

 Project Background

 Purpose and Need

 Initial Build Alternatives

 Draft Build Alternative

June 25, 2015 Pioneer Valley Planning 

Commission, Springfield, MA

 Project Development

 SDPs

5.3.3 Public Information Meetings 

Three rounds (3) of public meetings were held. There were two (2) meetings in each round, 

except for the third and final round in which there were three (3) public meetings. In January 

2014, a meeting was held in White River Junction, Vermont and in Springfield, Massachusetts

with approximately 40 and 115 attendees, respectively. In November 2014, a meeting was held 

in White River Junction, Vermont and in Worcester, Massachusetts, with each drawing 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 5-5 May 2016

approximately 35 attendees. The final round of meetings occurred in September 2015, in 

Boston and Springfield, Massachusetts and White River Junction, Vermont. Each drew 

approximately 15, 50 and 30 attendees, respectively. Documents for the public meetings were 

made available through the NNEIRI Study website.91 Table 5.3-2 summarizes the dates, 

location and key issues of public information meetings. 

Table 5.3-2. Public Information Meetings 

Dates Location Key Issues

January 22, 2014 Hotel Coolidge, White River 

Junction, VT

 Overview of presentation 

 Discussion of draft Purpose and Need 

 Project Schedule and Next Steps 

January 23, 2014 Pioneer Valley Planning 

Commission, Springfield, MA

 Overview of presentation 

 Discussion of draft Purpose and Need 

 Project Schedule and Next Steps 

November 17, 2014 Hotel Coolidge, White River 

Junction, VT

 Project Background

 Initial Options Considered

 Alternatives Definition

 Alternative Analysis: service, costs, ridership, 

operations and revenue and environmental

November 19, 2014 Union Station, Worcester, MA  Project Background

 Initial Options Considered

 Alternatives Definition

 Alternative Analysis: service, costs, ridership, 

operations and revenue and environmental

September 16, 2015 Massachusetts Transportation 

Building, Boston, MA

 Project Background

 Project Recommendations

 Costs of NNEIRI service

 Public Benefits and Next Steps

September 17, 2015 Pioneer Valley Planning 

Commission, Springfield, MA

 Project Background

 Project Recommendations

 Costs of NNEIRI service

 Public Benefits and Next Steps

September 24, 2015 Hotel Coolidge, White River 

Junction, VT

 Project Background

 Project Recommendations

 Costs of NNEIRI service

 Public Benefits and Next Steps

 

91 NNEIRI Study website: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/northernnewenglandrail/Home.aspx
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 5-6 May 2016

While there was public input specific to a region, such as advocacy for the preservation of the 

Claremont, New Hampshire train station and disappointment that the NNEIRI Study did not 

focus on increasing passenger service to the Berkshire Region of western Massachusetts, there 

were many common themes. Many attendees cited the need for more frequent trains, not high 

speed trains. Better connections to airports and intercity buses are also a critical need. Several 

people said more trains should be run on existing tracks as soon as possible while plans for 

track and train set upgrades are implemented. Assumptions used to project ridership and costs 

were discussed at the public meetings. Attendees offered the opinion that ridership projections 

were too low. Public views about the cost of establishing new rail service varied. Some thought 

the projected costs were too high while others thought they were too low because they believed 

the need to replace infrastructure such as bridges was underestimated.

5.3.4 Public Comments

Structured formats were provided for submitting comments. All comments were diligently 

logged and reviewed as they were received. Comments were logged in a timely fashion, both 

during and after the scoping meetings and throughout the scoping comment period, including 

all comments received through the various available medium including mail, fax, email website 

or hand deliver.

Twenty-seven (27) written comments have been received since the initiation of the NNEIRI 

Study. Several were submitted by members of the Stakeholder Committee or by attendees of 

the public meetings. Many of the comments reiterated themes expressed at previously held 

meetings such as advocacy for station stops, especially the Claremont, New Hampshire station

and at Palmer, Massachusetts. Throughout the study, the Study Team explained how the 

NNEIRI service would serve these communities as analysis showed that intercity service 

within the Corridor yielded the majority of the ridership, not the longer end-to-end passenger

trip. Members of the public in Southern Vermont advocated for better connections between 

Brattleboro, Vermont to Boston and to New York City. The NNEIRI service would increase 

the number of trains operating between these destinations. Several people supported the reconnection of service to Montreal. The NNEIRI service proposed the reconnection of this 

route. One person recommended extending Amtrak’s Downeaster service from Boston to 

Worcester via the Grand Junction cut off tracks through Cambridge, Massachusetts, a route 

outside the scope of this study. Interstate bus carrier, Peter Pan Bus Lines, wrote a letter stating 

the study’s “single-mode approach” of focusing only on rail ignores potential transportation 

improvements such as HOV lanes, Bus Rapid Transit systems, Bus-on-Shoulder lanes and 

improved park and ride locations.

5.4 FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR INPUT 

Additional opportunities for input would be identified as part of any subsequent Tier 2 NEPA 

review process. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-1 May 2016

6 REFERENCES AND ACRONYMS 

6.1 REFERENCES

References are listed alphabetically below:

Amtrak Timetable, November 15, 2013

Clean Water Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. (2002). Retrieved from 

http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. Washington D.C. 1979.

http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wetlands/documents/cowardin.pdf

Environmental Justice Policy of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. 

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/ej/ej-policy-english.pdf

Environmental Laboratory. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Technical Report 

Y-87-1. Prepared for the U.S. ACE, Washington, D.C. Final Report. January, 1987.

Environmental Laboratory. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual Technical Report 

Y-87-1. Prepared for the U.S. ACE, Washington, D.C. Final Report. January, 1987.

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” President of the United States, 1977.

Executive Order 12898. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register, Volume 59, No. 32, February 11, 

1994.

Federal Highway Administration. Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook 2007. Federal 

Highway Administration

Federal Railroad Administration. Compilation of State Laws and Regulations Affecting 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. 5th Edition, 2009. Federal Railroad Administration

Federal Transit Administration. 2009 Rail Safety Statistics Report. http://transitsafety.volpe.dot.gov/publications/RailSafety/Rail_Safety_Statistics_Report_2009-FINAL.pdf

Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) of 1973 [42 U.S.C.4001 et seq.] (amended).

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle” 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f14040a.pdf

HDR/AECOM. February 2015. Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI) Draft 

Build Alternative Report.

HDR/AECOM. January 2014. Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI) 

Existing Conditions Assessment Report.

HDR/AECOM. January 2015. Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI) 

Alternatives Analysis Report.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-2 May 2016

Highway Safety Act of 1966, Title 23, Chapter 4. Highway Safety Act of 1966.

MassGIS data. Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-andsupport/application-serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/srhp.html.

MassGIS, “Protected and Recreation Open Space” data layer updated 2013. Available at 

http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-ofgeographic-information-massgis/datalayers/srhp.html

Massachusetts 303(d) Listed Waters for Reporting Year 2012. 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_impaired_waters.impaired_waters_list?p_state=MA&p_cycl

e=2012

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (MACZM) Policy Guide – October 2011.

National Environmental Policy Act, 1969. “Title II, Council on Environmental Quality.” 

Amended, January 1, 1970, July 3, 1975, August 9, 1975 and September 13, 1982.

National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. 42 U.S.C.4001 et seq. (1968).

National Natural Landmarks (NNL) Program. Federal Register 64 (May 12, 1999) p. 25717.

National Register GIS data. Source: http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/data_downloads.htm.

New England Futures: New Century, New Game. Road, Rail, Air, Water: Separate Worlds or 

One System? http://newenglandfutures.org/issues/connections/article/. Originally published in 

February 2006.

New Hampshire GRANIT, “nhrec” data layer updated 2010. Available at 

http://www.granit.unh.edu/data/downloadfreedata/downloaddata.html.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Transportation Energy Data Book. Edition 33, July 2014, 

Table 2.12.

Parsons Brinckerhoff. April 11, 2012. Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center 

(ARTIC) Parking Demand Analysis. Prepared for Public Works Department, City of Anaheim, 

CA. 

http://www.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/MG37952/AS37991/AS37996/AS37998/AI3

9313/DO39336/DO_39336.pdf

Populations and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register, Volume 77, No. 99, May 10, 

2012.

Public Law 108-447, Section 154 passed into law December 8, 2004 states in part that “The 

Northern New England High Speed Rail Corridor is expanded to include the train routes from 

Boston, Massachusetts, to Albany, New York, and from Springfield, Massachusetts, to New 

Haven Connecticut.”

Railway Tie Association (RTA). Frequently Asked Questions. Webpage accessed in April 

2015. http://www.rta.org/faqs

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 1976, Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Parts 239 through 259. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/laws-regs/regs-nonhaz.htm
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-3 May 2016

Szabo, Joseph. “Amtrak ridership breaks 10th record in 11 years.” United States Department of 

Transportation, October 22, 2013, http://www.dot.gov/fastlane/amtrak-ridership-breaks-10threcord-11-years

The Land and Water Conservation Fund State Assistance Program website. Available at 

http://waso-lwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm.

U.S. ACE (Title 33 CFR 328.3, 1986) and the U.S. EPA (40 CFR 230.3, 1980).

U.S. Census 2012 Estimate.

U.S. Department of Transportation, 2012. USDOT Order 5610.2(a), “Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority”.

U.S. Department of Transportation. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for 

Transportation Facilities. 2006. http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-andstandards/transportation/facilities/ada-standards-for-transportation-facilities/single-fileversion#a2

United States Endangered Species Act (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1531-1543).

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Non-hazardous waste/solid waste. 

http://www2.epa.gov/regulatory-information-topic/waste#solid

U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5650.2, "Floodplain Management and Protection," 

April 23, 1979.

Vermont Center for Geographic Information, “Cadastral Conspub” updated 2009. Available at 

http://vcgi.vermont.gov.

Vermont Wetland Rules. Vermont. Code R. 12 004 056. Amendments adopted July 16, 2010, 

Effective August 1, 2010. http://www.nrb.statevt.us/wrp/rules.htm
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-4 May 2016

6.2 ACRONYMS

Table 6.2-1. Acronyms

Acronyms Definition

AAB Architectural Access Board

Abfd Architectural Barrier-Free Design

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACS American Community Survey

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

ADAAG U.S. Department of Justice 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design

Amtrak National Railroad Passenger Corporation 

ANR Agency of Natural Resources

APA Aquifer Protection Areas

APE Area of Potential Effect

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

ARTIC Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center

AUL activity and use limitation

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis

BLM U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice 

Btu British thermal unit

CA California

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

CE Categorical Exclusion 

CEP Vermont’s Energy Future - 2011 Comprehensive Energy Plan

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMR Code of Massachusetts Regulations

CMRPC Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission

CN Canadian National Railway Company

CO carbon monoxide 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-5 May 2016

Acronyms Definition

CO2 carbon dioxide 

Corridor the entire NNEIRI Corridor 

CP Canadian Pacific

CSXT CSX Transportation Company

CT Connecticut

CTC Centralized Traffic Control 

CTDEEP Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection

CTDOT Connecticut Department of Transportation 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWR continuous welded rail

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

CZMP Coastal Zone Management Plan

dBA A-weighted decibels 

DCR Department of Conservation and Recreation 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

EA Environmental Assessment

EEA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs

EIE Environmental Impact Evaluation

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EJ environmental justice 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute 

et seq. and the following

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FDPA Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FHWA U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FR Federal Register 

FRA U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-6 May 2016

Acronyms Definition

FRCOG Franklin Regional Council of Governments

ft foot or feet

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GBV Ground-Borne Vibration

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG (human-generated) greenhouse gas 

GIS Geographic Information System 

HSIPR High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

Jct. Junction

Ldn day-night average noise level 

Leq equivalent sound level 

LOS level of service 

LRTP long-range transportation plan 

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund 

M.G.L. Massachusetts General Laws

MA Massachusetts

MA NHESP Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program

MACZM Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management

MAPC Metropolitan Area Planning Council

MassDEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

MassDOT Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act

MESA Massachusetts Endangered Species Protection Act

MHC Massachusetts Historical Commission

MMC Montreal Maintenance Center

MP milepost 

mph miles per hour 

MPO metropolitan planning organization 

MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium

MSW municipal solid waste 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NDDB Natural Diversity Database
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-7 May 2016

Acronyms Definition

NEC New England Central

NECR New England Central Railroad 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NH New Hampshire

NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 

NHDOT New Hampshire Department of Transportation 

NHHS New Haven-Hartford-Springfield 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NLCD National Land Cover Database

NLEB northern long-eared bat

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NNEIRI Northern New England Interactive Rail Initiative 

NNL National Natural Landmarks

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOFA Notice of Funding Availability 

NOI notice of intent 

NOx nitrogen oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPL National Priorities List 

NPS U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service 

NRA Natural Resources Atlas

NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NR National Register

NRIS Natural Register Information System

NTP notice to proceed 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

NY New York

O&M Operations and Maintenance Costs

O3 ozone 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PAHs polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-8 May 2016

Acronyms Definition

PAR Pan Am Railways 

PAS Pan Am Southern

Pb lead 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

PEM palustrine forested (wetland) 

PEMF palustrine emergent semi permanently flooded (wetland) 

PFO palustrine emergent (wetland) 

PIP public involvement plan 

PL Public Law 

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter 

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter 

PMT Program for Mass Transportation

ppm parts per million 

PTC Positive Train Control

PVPC Pioneer Valley Planning Commission

RAO Response Action Outcome

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

ROD record of decision 

ROW right-of-way 

RSA Revised Statutes Annotated

RTA Railway Tie Association

RTC Rail Traffic Controller

SDP service development plan 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

Section 106 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1996, as amended 

Section 4(f) Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 

Section 404 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended 

Section 6(f) Section 6(f) of the U.S. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act 

SEP State Energy Program

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SSX South Station Expansion Project

Study Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-9 May 2016

Acronyms Definition

SWL Solid Waste Landfills

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

TBD To be determined

T&E threatened and endangered species 

TIGER grant Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant 

Title VI Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

TMDL total maximum daily load 

TOD Transit Oriented Development

TPC train performance calculator 

TPD tons per day

TPD Trains Per Day

TSDF treatment, storage, disposal facility 

TSS total suspended solids 

TWC Track Warrant Control

U.S. United States 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UST underground storage tank 

VdB Vibration Decibels

VFWD Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department

VMT vehicle miles traveled

VOC volatile organic compound 

V.S.A. Vermont Statutes Annotated

VT Vermont

VTDEC Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

VTrans Vermont Agency of Transportation 

WPA Wellhead Protection Areas

WRD Water Resources Discipline
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-10 May 2016

6.3 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Affected Environment- Physical conditions present within the project area that can be 

identified and would be changed by one or more of the project actions and/or alternatives.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)- Federal law prohibiting discrimination 

against people with disabilities. The legislation requires public entities and public 

accommodations to provide accessible accommodations for people with disabilities.

Aquifer- An underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock or unconsolidated materials 

from which groundwater can be extracted using a water well.

Attainment Area- A geographic area in which levels of a criteria pollutant meet the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the pollutant. 

Best Management Practice (BMP)- A structural and/ or management practice employed 

before, during, and after construction to protect receiving water quality. These practices either 

provide techniques to reduce soil erosion or remove sediment and pollutants from surface 

runoff.

Build Alternative- Based on the alternatives analysis a Build Alternative was developed that 

meets the project purpose and need. The Build Alternative was used for Tier 1 Analysis.

Capital Costs- Fixed, one-time expenses incurred on the purchase of land, buildings, 

construction, and equipment in order to complete a project.

Categorical Exclusion (CE)- Actions which: do not induce significant impacts to planned 

growth or land use for the area; do not require the relocation of significant numbers of people; 

do not have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic or other 

resource; do not involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts; do not have significant 

impacts on travel patterns; or do not otherwise, either individually or cumulatively, have any 

significant environmental impacts.

Centralized Traffic Control (CTC)- A form or railway signaling consisting of a centralized 

train dispatcher’s office that controls railroad interlocking and traffic flows.

Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA)- The Clean Water Act establishes the basic structure for 

regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States and regulating quality 

standards for surface waters.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)- Council on Environmental Quality coordinates 

federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and other White House offices 

in the development of environmental policies and initiatives.

Cumulative Impacts- Impacts on the environment, which results from the incremental impact 

of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-11 May 2016

Diverted Vehicle Miles Traveled (Diverted VMT)- The calculated reduction in miles 

traveled by passenger vehicle as a direct result of mode shift to the proposed train service.

Ecological System- An Ecological system (or ecosystem) is a collection of communities of 

organisms and the environment in which they live. 

Endangered Species- Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or in a 

significant area of its range.

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)- The ESA provides a program for the conservation 

of threatened and endangered plants and animals and the habitats in which they are found. 

Environmental Assessment (EA)- A concise public document that provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement 

or a finding of no significant impact. It includes brief discussions of the need for the proposal, 

alternatives, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives, and a listing of 

agencies and persons consulted.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)- A document, required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), prepared for an action (i.e., project) that is likely to have 

significant impact. This document summarizes the major environmental impacts, outlines 

issues, examines reasonable alternatives, and arrives at a Record of Decision (ROD), 

identifying the selected alternative for the project.

Environmental Justice (EJ)- Environmental Justice refers to the fair treatment of minority 

and low-income populations in environmental decision-making. Executive Order 12898, 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, February 11, 1994 requires all federal agencies to ensure that their programs, 

policies, and activities do not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health and 

environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations.

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)- A document by a federal agency briefly

presenting the reasons why an action, not otherwise excluded, would not have a significant 

effect on the human environment and for which an environmental impact statement therefore 

would not be prepared.

Floodway- The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must 

be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water 

surface elevation more than a designated height.

Floodway Fringe- The area between the floodway boundary and the limit of the 100-year 

floodplain.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)- A federal agency that regulated federal 

actions in floodplains.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-12 May 2016

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)- Federal Railroad Administration is the agency 

within the U.S. Department of Transportation that administers financial assistance programs 

and regulates the operation and safety of freight and passenger rail throughout the United 

States.

Geographic Information System (GIS)- Data management software tool that enables data to 

be displayed geographically (i.e., as maps).

Grade Crossing- A location where a highway, road, or street, including associated sidewalks 

and pathways, crosses railroad tracks at the same level.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)- One of the major economic indices of the socioeconomic 

development of a region. GDP is equal to the total of the added values in the regional 

economic industries, estimated as a difference between production and intermediate 

consumption.

HSIPR Program- High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail is a federal program that is designed to 

fund strategic investments in passenger rail corridors that connect communities across the 

country. 

Impaired Waters- Rivers, lakes, or streams that do not meet one or more water quality 

standards and are considered too polluted for their intended uses.

Incremental Revenue- Increased income as a result of the Build Alternative excluding 

baseline revenue from the No-Build Alternative.

Incremental Ridership- Increase in number of passengers on the Corridor as a result of the 

Build Alternative excluding baseline ridership from the No-Build Alternative.

Indirect Impacts- Indirect impacts are caused by the action and are later in time or farther 

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. They may include growth inducing 

effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population 

density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including 

ecosystems.

Inland Route - The existing rail line connecting Boston, Springfield, and New Haven. Owners 

include the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in eastern Massachusetts, CSX in 

central and Western Massachusetts, and Amtrak in Connecticut.

Interlocking- An arrangement of signal apparatus that prevents conflicting movements 

through an arrangement of tracks such as junctions or crossings. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-13 May 2016

Knowledge Corridor / Restore the Vermonter- Project to restore Amtrak’s intercity 

passenger train service to its original route by relocating the Vermonter from the New England 

Central Railroad back to its former route on the Connecticut River Line owned and maintained 

by MassDOT between Springfield and East Northfield, Massachusetts. The NNEIRI Study

proposes utilizing this route and takes advantage of recent improvements. 

Mitigation- Actions that avoid, minimize, or compensate for potential adverse impacts.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)- Standards established by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) that prescribe the 

level of pollutants in the outside air that cannot be exceeded during a specified time in a 

specified geographic areas.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)- A law enacted in 1969 that established 

a national environmental policy requiring that any project using federal funding or requiring 

federal approval, including transportation projects, examine the effects the proposal and 

alternative choices have on the environment before a decision is made.

National Natural Landmarks (NNL)- Program that recognizes and encourages the 

conservation of sites that contain outstanding biological and geological resources, regardless 

of landownership type.

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)- The official list of the Nation's historic places 

worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)- A program administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) for mapping and classifying wetland resources in the United States.

New Haven-Hartford-Springfield (NHHS) Project- Project headed by the Connecticut 

Department of Transportation to improve capacity, reliability and safety along the NHHS 

Corridor. The proposed NNEIRI Study would utilize this route and benefit from the 

improvements.

No-Build Alternative- Used as a benchmark for comparison of the Build Alternative and the 

determination of impacts. The No-Build includes all ongoing and currently planned 

improvements to the Corridor but does not propose any additional NNEIRI service.

Noise Receptor- Locations that may be affected by noise: sensitive receptors include 

residences, parks, schools, churches, libraries, hotels, and other public buildings.

Nonattainment Areas- A geographic area in which levels of a criteria pollutant fail to meet 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for the pollutant. 

Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI) Corridor- The NNEIRI 

Corridor (the Corridor) is 470 miles long and is comprised of two major rail Routes known as 

the Inland Route and the Boston-to-Montreal Route.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-14 May 2016

Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI) Study- The NNEIRI Study is a 

feasibility and planning study of intercity passenger rail service along the NNEIRI Corridor.

Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI) Study Area- The NNEIRI 

Study Area refers to the geographic limits of the review conducted for each of the resources 

during the Tier 1 EA.

Passing Siding- This is a section of track parallel to a through line and connected to it at both 

ends by switches. Passing sidings allow trains travelling in opposite directions to pass, and for 

fast, high priority trains to pass slower or lower priority trains going the same direction.

Peak Hour- The hour of the day in which traffic volumes are highest.

Positive Train Control Systems (PTC)- Positive Train Control (PTC) systems are integrated 

command, control, communications, and information systems for controlling train movements 

with safety, security, precision, and efficiency.

Programmatic Agreement- A document that spells out the terms of a formal, legally binding 

agreement between a state DOT and other state and/or federal agencies. It also establishes a 

process for consultation, review, and compliance with one or more federal laws.

Project Purpose and Need- A statement of Purpose and Need is the fundamental starting point 

of a transportation planning effort, and provides, at a minimum, a description of the 

transportation challenges and opportunities faced in the markets to be served by the proposed 

service, based on current and forecasted travel demand and capacity conditions. The Purpose 

and Need is required as part of a NEPA environmental review.

Quiet Zones- A quiet zone is a section of a rail line at least one-half mile in length that contains 

one or more consecutive public highway-rail grade crossings at which locomotive horns are not 

routinely sounded when trains are approaching the crossings.

Right-of-way (ROW)- Land, property, or interest therein necessary for transportation 

infrastructure.

Scoping- A formal coordination process used to determine the scope of the project and the 

major issues likely to be related to the proposed action

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)- Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the 

effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-15 May 2016

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act- A special provision of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966 which stipulates that no Department of 

Transportation project can use lands from publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges, or historical sites unless there is no feasible alternative and the project 

includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use.

Section 6(f) of the U.S. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)- Section 6(f) of the 

LWCF Act of 1965 stipulates that property acquired or developed with LWCF assistance shall 

be retained and used for public outdoor recreation. Any conversion of lands requires 

coordination with the Department of Interior. Usually replacement in kind is required.

Service-Level NEPA- Service NEPA (which CEQ refers to as programmatic) typically 

addresses the broader questions relating to the type of service(s) being proposed, including 

cities and stations served, route alternatives, service levels, types of operations (speed, electric, 

or diesel powered, etc.), ridership projections, and major infrastructure components. For a 

major rail corridor improvement program, this type of environmental review must be completed 

before any substantial investments in the corridor can be made.

Siding- A siding is a low-speed track section distinct from a running line or through route such 

as a main line or branch line or spur.

Sole Source Aquifers- A Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) is an aquifer that has been designated by 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the sole or principal source of 

drinking water for an area.

Stakeholder Committee- The Stakeholder Committee of parties with a vested interest in the 

study including state and federal transportation agencies, railroads, and regional planning 

commissions. The committee was formed to provide oversight, direction and primary 

Threatened Species- Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future. 

Tier 1 NEPA- A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) corridor-level analysis that may 

be completed for large studies that require certain broad questions to be answered before a 

more detailed study (a Tier 2 analysis) can be done.

Tier 2 NEPA- A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) project-level analysis focusing 

on specific sections of independent utility within the project's selected corridor.

Tilt Train Equipment- Mechanism that enables trains to tilt when rounding a curve in order 

to counteract its centripetal force. This allows acceptable levels of passenger comfort at 

increased speeds. 

FRA Track Class- The U.S. Federal Railroad Administration’s classification for track quality, 

which determines the maximum running speed limits for passenger and freight trains.
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-16 May 2016

Track Warrant Control (TWC)- Track Warrant Control (TWC) is a verbal authorization 

system defined by the General Code of Operation Rules (GCOR), used to authorize trains to 

occupy Main Tracks outside of Yard Limits.

Trainset- A group of rolling stock that is permanently or semi-permanently coupled together 

to form a unified set of equipment.

Watershed- A region or area that contains all land ultimately draining to a water course, body 

of water, or aquifer.

Wellhead Protection Areas (WPA)- A wellhead protection area is a surface and subsurface 

land area regulated to prevent contamination of a well or well-field supplying a public water 

system. This program, established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is 

implemented through state governments.

Wetlands- Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 

duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 

vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-17 May 2016

6.4 LIST OF PREPARERS

The Tier 1 EA document was prepared by FRA, MassDOT and VTrans with support from

HDR Engineering Inc. (HDR), which is the lead consultant for the NNEIRI Study, and with 

assistance from a team of consulting engineers and planners from AECOM and Fitzgerald & 

Halliday, Inc. (FHI). The following table identifies the agency personnel, consultant staff, and 

their study role. 

Table 6.4-1. List of Preparers and Their Study Role 

Firm Study Role Team Members

Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA)

 Trevor Gibson, Regional 

Manager

 Laura A. Shick, Environmental 

Protection Specialist

 Jessie Fernandez-Gatti, 

Community Planner

Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation (MassDOT), 

Office of Transportation 

Planning

 Ammie Rogers, Project 

Manager

 Ethan Britland, Project 

Manager

Vermont Agency of 

Transportation (VTrans)

 Scott Bascom, Planning 

Coordinator

 Karen Songhurst, Policy 

Analyst

 Jeff Ramsey, Environmental 

Specialist

 Glenn Gingras, Environmental 

Biologist

HDR Engineering, Inc. Study Management; 

QA/QC; 

NEPA; 

Station Assessment & Location;

Civil/Design; 

Design Criteria Development;

Route Alignment Assessment; 

Station & Facilities; 

Operations Modeling; 

Economic Assessment; 

Benefit/Cost Evaluation; 

Risk Assessment

 Ronald OBlenis, Senior Rail 

Project Manager

 John Weston, AICP, Senior 

Transportation Planner

 Stefanie McQueen, AICP, 

Senior Transportation Planner

 Matthew Moran, 

Transportation Planner
NNEIRI TIER 1 EA 6-18 May 2016

AECOM Study Management; 

Demand Forecasting; 

GIS; 

Station Layout; 

Environmental Evaluation; 

Resources Identification; 

Environmental Screening; 

Existing Condition Assessment/Video;

Station & Facilities; 

Benefit/Cost Evaluation; 

Financial Planning 

 James Doyle, AICP, Planning 

Group Manager

 David Derrig, Jr., AICP, Senior 

Transportation Planner

 Kalawati Gurung, AICP, 

Transportation Planner

 Kevin McCarthy, EIT, Civil 

Engineer

 Mike Przbyla, Senior 

Geospatial Analyst

 James Cowan, (INCE Bd. 

Cert.), Principal Engineer, 

Acoustics and Noise Control

 Laura McWethy, 

Transportation Consultant

 Jeffrey Roux, Senior 

Consulting Manager

Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. 

(FHI)

Public Involvement; 

Cultural Resources 

 Stephanie Dyer-Carroll, AICP, 

Senior Project Manager, 

Cultural Resources Specialist

 Jill Barrett, Senior Project 

Manager