Environmental Assessment & Section 4(f) Evaluation

MAY 2014

C O N N E C T I C U T 

R I V E R B R I D G E 

REPLACEMENT PROJECT

TOC-1 May 2014

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................S-1

1: Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................. 1-1

A. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1-1

B. Project Description.......................................................................................................... 1-1

C. Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 1-1

Regional Passenger Rail System........................................................................................ 1-1

Bridge History.................................................................................................................... 1-2

Current Bridge Operations ................................................................................................. 1-2

Navigation Along the Connecticut River ........................................................................... 1-3

D. Problem Identification and Need..................................................................................... 1-4

Bridge Structure ................................................................................................................. 1-4

Navigation Channel............................................................................................................ 1-4

E. Planning Context............................................................................................................. 1-5

Related Prior Projects......................................................................................................... 1-5

ARRA and PRIIA............................................................................................................... 1-5

State of Good Repair.......................................................................................................... 1-6

Amtrak’s 2012 Update Report ........................................................................................... 1-6

NEC Future Tier I EIS ....................................................................................................... 1-6

F. Project Purpose, Goals, and Objectives .......................................................................... 1-7

G. Environmental Review Process....................................................................................... 1-8

2: Project Alternatives.............................................................................................................. 2-1

A. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 2-1

B. Area of Potential Effect................................................................................................... 2-1

C. Alternatives Development and Screening....................................................................... 2-1

Alternative Groups 1, 2, and 3 ........................................................................................... 2-3

Alternative Groups 4 and 5 ................................................................................................ 2-4

Alternative Groups 6 and 7 ................................................................................................ 2-5

D. No Action Alternative..................................................................................................... 2-5

Replacement of Niantic River Bridge ................................................................................ 2-6

New Shore Line East Stations............................................................................................ 2-6

Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Q-Bridge) Construction .................................................. 2-6

ConnDOT New Haven - Hartford – Springfield Rail Program.......................................... 2-6

Amtrak State of Good Repair Program .............................................................................. 2-7

MTA Metro-North Railroad New Haven Line Improvements........................................... 2-7

CTTRANSIT New Britain – Hartford Rapid Transit......................................................... 2-7

E. Preferred Build Alternative ............................................................................................. 2-8

Superstructure and Substructure......................................................................................... 2-8

Communications and Signaling.......................................................................................... 2-9
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 TOC-2

Catenary and Traction Power .............................................................................................2-9

F. Capital Costs....................................................................................................................2-9

G. Potential Permits Required ..............................................................................................2-9

3: Transportation Effects..........................................................................................................3-1

A. Introduction and Methodology ........................................................................................3-1

B. Existing Conditions .........................................................................................................3-1

Intercity Rail.......................................................................................................................3-1

Freight Service....................................................................................................................3-2

Public Transportation..........................................................................................................3-2

Navigable Waters................................................................................................................3-5

Regional Highway System .................................................................................................3-6

C. No Action Alternative .....................................................................................................3-7

Population and Employment Growth .................................................................................3-7

Intercity Rail.......................................................................................................................3-7

Freight Service....................................................................................................................3-8

Public Transportation..........................................................................................................3-8

Navigable Waters................................................................................................................3-9

Regional Highway System .................................................................................................3-9

D. Probable Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ..............................................................3-10

Intercity Rail.....................................................................................................................3-10

Freight Service..................................................................................................................3-10

Public Transportation........................................................................................................3-10

Navigable Waters..............................................................................................................3-11

Regional Highway System ...............................................................................................3-11

4: Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions ...........................................................................4-1

A. Introduction .....................................................................................................................4-1

B. Regulatory Context and Methodology ............................................................................4-1

Regulatory Context.............................................................................................................4-1

Methodology.......................................................................................................................4-2

C. Existing Conditions .........................................................................................................4-3

Land Use.............................................................................................................................4-3

Zoning and Public Policy....................................................................................................4-4

Parkland and Open Space ...................................................................................................4-9

Socioeconomic Conditions .................................................................................................4-9

D. No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................4-11

E. Probable Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ..............................................................4-11

Land Use...........................................................................................................................4-11

Zoning and Public Policy..................................................................................................4-12

Parkland and Open Space .................................................................................................4-12

Socioeconomic Conditions ...............................................................................................4-12

5: Visual and Aesthetic Conditions..........................................................................................5-1

A. Introduction and Methodology ........................................................................................5-1

B. Existing Conditions .........................................................................................................5-1

Existing Visual Character...................................................................................................5-1

Visually Sensitive Resources..............................................................................................5-3
Table of Contents

TOC-3 May 2014

Viewer Groups and View Durations .................................................................................. 5-3

C. No Action Alternative..................................................................................................... 5-5

D. Probable Impacts of the Preferred Alternative................................................................ 5-6

Connecticut River View Corridor ...................................................................................... 5-6

Ferry Road View Corridors................................................................................................ 5-7

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 5-7

6: Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 6-1

A. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 6-1

Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 6-1

APE Delineation................................................................................................................. 6-2

B. Background History ........................................................................................................ 6-2

Prehistoric Context............................................................................................................. 6-2

Historic Context ................................................................................................................. 6-2

C. Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 6-5

Archaeological Resources.................................................................................................. 6-5

Architectural Resources ..................................................................................................... 6-9

D. No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 6-14

E. Probable Impacts of the Preferred Alternative.............................................................. 6-15

Archaeological Resources................................................................................................ 6-15

Architectural Resources ................................................................................................... 6-15

F. Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................... 6-16

G. References..................................................................................................................... 6-17

7: Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 7-1

A. Introduction and Methodology........................................................................................ 7-1

Pollutants for Analysis ....................................................................................................... 7-1

Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................ 7-3

B. Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 7-5

Existing Monitored Air Quality Conditions....................................................................... 7-5

C. No Action Alternative..................................................................................................... 7-6

D. Probable Impacts of the Preferred Alternative................................................................ 7-6

8: Noise and Vibration.............................................................................................................. 8-1

A. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 8-1

B. Noise Fundamentals, Standards, and Impact Criteria ..................................................... 8-1

Airborne Noise Fundamentals............................................................................................ 8-1

Vibration Fundamentals ..................................................................................................... 8-3

Noise Standards and Criteria.............................................................................................. 8-4

C. Regulatory Context and Methodology ............................................................................ 8-7

Airborne Noise Analysis Methodology.............................................................................. 8-7

Vibration Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................... 8-8

D. No Action Alternative..................................................................................................... 8-9

E. Probable Impacts of the Preferred Alternative................................................................ 8-9

9: Infrastructure and Energy................................................................................................... 9-1

A. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 9-1

B. Existing Conditions......................................................................................................... 9-1
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 TOC-4

C. No Action Alternative .....................................................................................................9-1

D. Probable Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ................................................................9-1

10: Natural Resources.............................................................................................................10-1

A. Introduction and Methodology ......................................................................................10-1

B. Regulatory Context........................................................................................................10-1

Federal Laws and Regulations..........................................................................................10-1

State Laws and Regulations..............................................................................................10-3

Connecticut River Watershed Designations .....................................................................10-5

C. Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................10-6

Terrestrial Resources ........................................................................................................10-6

Floodplains .......................................................................................................................10-6

Coastal Zone.....................................................................................................................10-7

Wetlands ...........................................................................................................................10-7

Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................................10-8

Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species .................................................10-12

D. No Action Alternative .................................................................................................10-15

E. Probable Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ............................................................10-15

Terrestrial Resources ......................................................................................................10-16

Floodplains .....................................................................................................................10-16

Coastal Zone...................................................................................................................10-16

Wetlands and Open Water..............................................................................................10-16

Aquatic Resources ..........................................................................................................10-17

Threatened or Endangered Species.................................................................................10-17

F. Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................10-17

G. References ...................................................................................................................10-19

11: Contaminated Materials...................................................................................................11-1

A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................11-1

Potential Contaminants of Concern..................................................................................11-1

B. Regulatory Context and Methodology ..........................................................................11-2

Applicable Regulations.....................................................................................................11-2

Methodology.....................................................................................................................11-4

C. Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................11-6

Site Visit ...........................................................................................................................11-7

History ..............................................................................................................................11-7

Regulatory Database Review............................................................................................11-7

Summary...........................................................................................................................11-9

D. No Action Alternative .................................................................................................11-10

E. Probable Impacts of the Preferred Alternative ............................................................11-10

New Bridge Construction ...............................................................................................11-10

Existing Bridge Demolition............................................................................................11-11

12: Construction Impacts .......................................................................................................12-1

A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................12-1

B. Construction Schedule and Sequencing ........................................................................12-1

Construction Schedule......................................................................................................12-1

Construction Sequence .....................................................................................................12-2
Table of Contents

TOC-5 May 2014

C. Construction of Key Elements ...................................................................................... 12-3

Mobilization and Staging ................................................................................................. 12-3

Piers.................................................................................................................................. 12-3

Abutments ........................................................................................................................ 12-4

Embankment and Retaining Walls................................................................................... 12-4

Superstructure................................................................................................................... 12-4

Channel and Fenders ........................................................................................................ 12-4

Track Work ...................................................................................................................... 12-5

Catenary System............................................................................................................... 12-5

Communications and Signals ........................................................................................... 12-6

Removal of Existing Connecticut River Bridge............................................................... 12-6

Material Transport and Debris Removal .......................................................................... 12-6

D. Potential Social, Environmental, and Economic Impacts ............................................. 12-7

Transportation .................................................................................................................. 12-7

Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions........................................................................ 12-8

Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 12-9

Visual and Aesthetic Conditions ...................................................................................... 12-9

Air Quality...................................................................................................................... 12-10

Noise and Vibration ....................................................................................................... 12-12

Natural Resources .......................................................................................................... 12-15

Contaminated Materials ................................................................................................. 12-20

Utilities........................................................................................................................... 12-22

E. References................................................................................................................... 12-23

13: Safety and Security........................................................................................................... 13-1

A. Introduction................................................................................................................... 13-1

B. Existing Conditions....................................................................................................... 13-1

Employees ........................................................................................................................ 13-1

Passengers ........................................................................................................................ 13-1

Marine Users .................................................................................................................... 13-2

C. No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 13-2

D. Probable Effects of the Preferred Alternative ............................................................... 13-2

Employees ........................................................................................................................ 13-2

Passengers ........................................................................................................................ 13-3

Marine Users .................................................................................................................... 13-3

14: Secondary and Cumulative Effects ................................................................................. 14-1

A. Introduction................................................................................................................... 14-1

B. Secondary Effects.......................................................................................................... 14-1

C. Cumulative Effects........................................................................................................ 14-1

15: Commitment of Resources............................................................................................... 15-1

A. Introduction................................................................................................................... 15-1

B. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................. 15-1

C. Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity..................................................................... 15-1

Short-Term Uses .............................................................................................................. 15-1

Long-Term Productivity................................................................................................... 15-2
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 TOC-6

Short-Term Uses Versus Long-Term Productivity...........................................................15-2

16: Environmental Justice ......................................................................................................16-1

A. Introduction and Background ........................................................................................16-1

B. Regulations....................................................................................................................16-1

CEQ Guidance..................................................................................................................16-1

USDOT’s Final Order On Environmental Justice ............................................................16-2

USEPA Guidance .............................................................................................................16-2

C. Methodology..................................................................................................................16-2

D. Environmental Justice Populations in the Study Area...................................................16-3

Minority and Low-Income Populations............................................................................16-3

E. Public Participation .......................................................................................................16-4

F. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................16-5

17: Public Involvement and Agency Coordination...............................................................17-1

A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................17-1

B. Public Involvement........................................................................................................17-1

C. Agency Coordination.....................................................................................................17-1

D. Section 106 ....................................................................................................................17-2

18: Section 4(f) Evaluation .....................................................................................................18-1

A. Introduction and Methodology ......................................................................................18-1

B. Applicability of Section 4(f) to the Project....................................................................18-2

Project Description ...........................................................................................................18-2

Section 4(f) Applicability .................................................................................................18-2

C. Use of Section 4(f) Properties .......................................................................................18-3

Connecticut River Bridge .................................................................................................18-3

Ferry Landing Park...........................................................................................................18-6

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A-Cultural Resources

Appendix B-Noise and Vibration

Appendix C-Natural Resources

Appendix D-Contaminated Materials

Appendix E-Public Involvement and Agency Coordination
TOC-7 May 2014

List of Tables

2-1 Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Alternative Groups......................................... 2-3

2-2 List of Potential Federal, State, and Local Permits...................................................... 2-10

3-1 Existing Train Traffic Across Connecticut River Bridge (Average Weekday) ............. 3-2

3-2 Connecticut River Bridges............................................................................................. 3-5

3-3 Projected 2030 Train Traffic Across Connecticut River Bridge (Average Weekday) .. 3-8

4-1 Study Area Population and Economic Characteristics ................................................ 4-10

6-1 Previously Identified Precontact Archaeological Sites Within One Mile of the

Project Site..................................................................................................................... 6-6

6-2 Previously Identified Historic-Period Archaeological Sites in the Vicinity of the

Project Site..................................................................................................................... 6-7

6-3 Architectural Resources Within APE ............................................................................ 6-9

7-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) ..................................................... 7-4

7-2 Most Recent Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data – Connecticut ............................... 7-5

8-1 Common Noise Levels................................................................................................... 8-2

8-2 Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration................................................................... 8-5

8-3 FTA’s Land Use Category and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria.................... 8-5

8-4 Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for

General Assessment....................................................................................................... 8-6

8-5 Screening Distances for Vibration Assessment ............................................................. 8-9

10-1 Essential Fish Habitat Designated Species for the Connecticut River....................... 10-11

10-2 Estimated Wetland and Open Water Impacts ............................................................ 10-17

11-1 Federal and State Regulations for Contaminated Materials......................................... 11-3

11-2 Databases Searched...................................................................................................... 11-5

11-3 Secondary Screening – Sites Potentially Requiring Further Investigation .................. 11-8

12-1 Construction Sequence and Duration........................................................................... 12-2

12-2 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels....................................................... 12-13

12-3 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment............................................... 12-14

12-4 Construction Vibration Damage Criteria................................................................... 12-14

16-1 Study Area Population and Economic Characteristics ................................................ 16-4
TOC-8 May 2014 

List of Figures

following page 

S-1 Project Site ..................................................................................................................... S-2 

1-1 Project Site ..................................................................................................................... 1-2 

1-2 Regional Project Context ............................................................................................... 1-2 

1-3 USGS Map ..................................................................................................................... 1-2 

1-4 Existing Bridge (General Plan and Elevation) ............................................................... 1-2 

2-1 Preferred Alternative: Bridge Type ................................................................................ 2-8 

2-2 Preferred Alternative: Alignment ................................................................................... 2-8 

3-1 Project Area Rail System ............................................................................................... 3-4 

4-1 Project Site Aerial .......................................................................................................... 4-2 

4-2 Existing Land Use .......................................................................................................... 4-4 

4-3 Existing Zoning - Old Saybrook .................................................................................... 4-4 

4-4 Existing Zoning - Old Lyme .......................................................................................... 4-6 

5-1 Visual Resources Study Area ......................................................................................... 5-2 

5-2 Photo Location Map ....................................................................................................... 5-2 

5-3 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-2 

5-4 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-2 

5-5 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-2 

5-6 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-2 

5-7 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-2 

5-8 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-4 

5-9 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-4 

5-10 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-4 

5-11 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 5-6 

6-1 Architectural Resources APE and Architectural Resources ........................................... 6-2 

6-2 Previously Identified Archaeological Sites in Vicinity .................................................. 6-2 

6-3 1874 Old Saybrook Map ................................................................................................ 6-8 

6-4 1868 Old Lyme Map ...................................................................................................... 6-8 
List of Figures

TOC-9 May 2014

6-5 Known Historic Resources ...........................................................................................6-10

6-6 Known Historic Resources ...........................................................................................6-10

6-7 Known Historic Resources ...........................................................................................6-12

6-8 Potential Historic Resources.........................................................................................6-12

6-9 Potential Historic Resources.........................................................................................6-12

6-10 Potential Historic Resources.........................................................................................6-14

6-11 Potential Historic Resources.........................................................................................6-14

8-1 FTA’s Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects...........................................................8-6

10-1 FEMA Floodplain.........................................................................................................10-6

10-2 CTDEEP Tidal Wetlands..............................................................................................10-8

10-3 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) ............................................................................10-8

10-4 Spring Salinity Profile, Connecticut River (Early May 1993)......................................10-8

18-1 Section 4(f) Properties ..................................................................................................18-2


S-1 May 2014

Executive Summary

A. INTRODUCTION

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is proposing to improve the operation of

the Connecticut River Bridge, a rail crossing over the Connecticut River on the Northeast

Corridor. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is serving as the lead federal agency for

this Environmental Assessment (EA), prepared in accordance with the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA).

The American Bridge Company began construction of the existing Connecticut River Bridge in

1904 and it became operational in 1907. The bridge is located between the Town of Old

Saybrook in Middlesex County and the Town of Old Lyme in New London County,

Connecticut, along Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (MP 106.89) at approximately 41°18′39′′N, 

72°20′57′′W (see Figure S-1). It spans the Connecticut River, 3.4 miles from its mouth at Long 

Island Sound. The Connecticut River Bridge is one of several moveable rail bridges along the

Northeast Corridor. The existing bridge is a two-track, ten-span steel rail bridge with an open

deck and stone masonry piers. The bridge is over 1,500 feet long and has two abutments and

nine piers. Seven of the ten spans are through-truss spans (roughly 185 feet in length each). Two

of the spans are deck-girder spans (one 38 feet in length and one 70 feet in length). One span is a

160-foot-long moveable rolling lift bascule span. The lift span opens to allow boats and other

marine vessels to traverse the Connecticut River. In the closed position, the bridge has a vertical

clearance of 18 feet, which is adequate clearance for smaller recreational boats. Larger boats and

marine vessels require opening of the bridge. With the rolling lift span in the open position, the

vertical clearance is 68 feet for the full channel width. For marine vessels requiring a channel

width less than 71 feet, the vertical clearance is unlimited. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

(USACE) maintains a channel depth of 15 feet in this stretch of the Connecticut River Bridge.

The bridge is owned by Amtrak and used primarily for passenger rail. Providence and Worcester

Railroad (P&W) also uses the bridge for freight transport.

The sections that follow summarize the purpose and need for the proposed project, the range of

alternatives evaluated, and the potential impacts during construction and operation of the

proposed project.

B. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND NEED

BRIDGE STRUCTURE

The primary concern with the existing Connecticut River Bridge is its age, since it is nearing the

end of its useful life. At times, the operational reliability of the aging bridge results in cascading

delays to rail and maritime traffic due to its failure to open and close properly. In 2006, a bridge

inspection was performed on behalf of Amtrak. The inspection found certain aspects of the
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 S-2

existing bridge to be particularly problematic, including the mechanical operating system, the

bascule span rolling tread plates, and the approach span truss pin and eyebar connection.

Amtrak’s contractor also identified the curved tread plates and mating track plates of the heel

end of the rolling lift span as concerns. Disruptive rehabilitations of the treads and tracks are

required approximately every 20 years, which limits the retrofit options. At the time of the

inspection, the existing track and tread structure, and the supporting steel segmental box girder

exhibited cracks. The approach spans have truss pin and eyebar connections, which typically

loosen after years of service. Amtrak has determined retrofit devices installed during the 1970s

to be ineffective.

Amtrak installed a moveable catenary unit on the bridge as part of its electrification project in

the 1990s. The complex structure extends the length of time required to open and close the

bridge and adds weight to the bridge. The weight of the electrification facilities was not factored

into the original bridge design, and has therefore increased stresses and bearing pressures. The

moveable span counterweight balance is a concern, as is potential deterioration of structural

members. Additional concerns include: tight working clearances within the machinery house,

limited access for maintenance and routine inspection, and uncertainty in the seismic resistance

of the existing stone masonry piers.

NAVIGATION CHANNEL

The existing bridge timber fenders that mark the channel are deteriorated and substandard.

Reconstructed fenders will provide greater protection of the bridge piers. Widening the

horizontal clearance of the channel and/or relocating it westward towards the center of the river

could potentially provide additional navigation advantages and reduce the risk of vessel impact.

Because of the off-center nature of the existing channel and its location close to the eastern

shoreline, the ebb tide current tends to pull marine vessels into Pier 5 (the west channel pier).

Relocating the moveable span westward of the existing channel will, however, require deeper

pier foundations.

A Navigation Survey1, prepared on behalf of Amtrak, determined that increasing the vertical

clearance of the bridge when in the closed position will result in a minor reduction in bridge

openings. The current practice of leaving the bridge in the open position during the summer

months is acceptable to Amtrak given the current and projected future rail traffic.

PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

FRA and Amtrak recognize the need to address the problems posed by the existing Connecticut

River Bridge. The purpose of the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project is to improve

the aging bridge, enhance its reliability and long-term serviceability, and ensure continued

passenger and freight rail operations along the Northeast Corridor as well as navigation along

the Connecticut River.

To compare and contrast the project alternatives developed as part of the environmental review

process, Amtrak identified specific project goals and objectives to be used as the basis for

developing the criteria and screening methodology for evaluating the project alternatives.

1 Hardesty and Hanover, LLP for National Railroad Passenger Corporation Office of Engineering,

Inspection and Conceptual Engineering for the Reconstruction or Replacement of the Connecticut River

Bridge, MB 106.89; Navigation Survey Report, October 2006.
SHORE RD

NORTHEAST CORRDOR

OLD

SAYBROOK

OLD

LYME

CONNECTICUT RIVER RAYMOND E. BALDWIN BRIDGE

I-95

MCCURDY ROAD

6.19.12

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure S-1

Project Site

Aerial Source: Connecticut 2010 Color NAIP, USDA-FSA-APFO, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, 2010

SCALE 0 2000 FEET

Project Site Boundary

1/4-Mile Study Area Boundary
Executive Summary

S-3 May 2014

Amtrak established three goals for the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project. The

objectives further define the goals and provide specific and measurable means by which to

evaluate project alternatives. While cost effectiveness is not an explicit project goal, the

estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs of each project alternative will be

considered in tandem with the project goals. Cost effectiveness will not, however, affect the

selection of a Preferred Alternative for NEPA analysis. The three project goals and their

respective objectives are as follows:

Goal 1: Improve the reliability and long-term serviceability of the Connecticut River Bridge

and its approach structures.

 Objective: Maintain a state-of-good-repair for the bridge and its approaches.

Goal 2: Minimize conflicts with maritime traffic.

 Objective: Minimize delays to trains and/or marine traffic due to bridge

operations.

 Objective: Provide sufficient vertical clearance and channel width for

commercial and recreational traffic on the Connecticut River.

 Objective: Minimize construction-period impacts to rail operations and

navigation.

Goal 3: Minimize permanent and temporary impacts to the surrounding environment.

 Objective: Minimize temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and other

ecologically sensitive areas.

 Objective: Minimize impacts to cultural resources.

 Objective: Minimize short-term construction impacts.

C. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Amtrak considered a number of build alternatives involving the rehabilitation, reconstruction,

and/or replacement of the Connecticut River Bridge. As a first step, Amtrak developed a list of

feasible project alternatives that considered the project’s logical termini, constructability

requirements, navigability requirements, and track requirements. Amtrak then evaluated these

alternatives based on specific criteria, including: construction-period impacts to rail service and

navigation; operational improvements to rail service and navigation; long-term serviceability

and reliability of the bridge and its approach structures; impacts to railroad facilities, such as

electrification; and permanent and temporary environmental impacts. In all, Amtrak studied 21

different build alternatives in seven groups; these are summarized in Table S-1.

Amtrak eliminated the rehabilitation alternatives in Group 1 due to concerns with the

performance of the rehabilitated components, particularly with the long-term serviceability and

reliability of the existing piers. The project team also discarded partial replacement alternatives

and those associated with complete on-line replacement alternatives in Groups 2 and 3 because

of the need to maintain uninterrupted train operations during on-line construction.

Amtrak identified Groups 4 and 5 as warranting further consideration, since they would provide

long-term serviceability and reliability and would allow for uninterrupted rail operations.

Amtrak gave additional consideration to all of the Groups 4 and 5 alternatives, except the use of

swing-type bridge replacement. Through consultation USACE and the U.S. Coast Guard

(USCG), Amtrak and the consulting agencies determined that relocating the channel would
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 S-4

require an extensive regulatory process and would present unacceptable navigation difficulties

during construction. Amtrak therefore eliminated those alternatives within Groups 4 and 5 that

proposed to relocate the channel location.

Table S-1

Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Alternative Groups

Alternative Group Channel

Location

Channel

Width Bridge Type Approach Spans

0 – No Action Alternative Off-Center 150’ Bascule Thru-Truss Open Deck

1 – Rehabilitation Off-Center 150’ Bascule Thru-Truss Open Deck

2 – Rehab Approach / Replace

Moveable Span

Off-Center or

Moved West 150-200’

Bascule or

Vertical Lift Thru-Truss Open Deck

3 – Moveable On-Line

Replacement

Off-Center or

Moved West 150-200’

Bascule or

Vertical Lift Thru-Truss Ballast Deck

4 – Moveable Replacement /

North Alignment

Off-Center or

Moved West 150-200’

Bascule or

Vertical Lift

Thru-Truss Ballast Deck

or Composite Box Girders

5 – Moveable Replacement /

South Alignment

Off-Center or

Moved West 150-200’

Bascule or

Vertical Lift Ballast Deck Girders

6 – Fixed Replacement / South

Alignment (1.5% Grade) Moved West 200’

Network Tied Arch

or Subdivided

Warren Truss

Ballasted Tub and

Deck Girders

7 – Fixed Replacement / South

Alignment (1.9% Grade) Moved West 200’

Network Tied Arch

or Subdivided

Warren Truss

Ballasted Tub and

Deck Girders

Sources: Final Concept Design Engineering Report, Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, March 2007

Final Fixed Span Crossing Preliminary Concept Design Engineering Report, Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, Oct 2010

To determine whether the existing piers could be reused and/or extended for the northern

alignment alternatives (Group 4), Amtrak performed additional conceptual engineering and a

construction feasibility study1. Minimal information is available regarding the structural integrity

of the existing piers, and Amtrak and its contractors concluded that their potential reuse could

cause problems with seismic resistance and structural capacity. Furthermore, installing new piles

or drilled shafts near the existing piers (which would be required for any of the Group 4

alternatives) raised concerns about damaging vibrations and potential pier settling occurring

during the construction process. Installing new foundations for the southern alignment

alternatives (Group 5) would provide more distance from the existing piers and would therefore

lessen the risk of damage to the existing bridge during its continued operation throughout the

construction period. Based on the need for continued operation of the existing bridge during the

construction phase, Amtrak determined that Group 4 alternatives presented unreasonable

constructability and safety risks, and therefore eliminated the remaining Group 4 alternatives

from further consideration.

The alternatives within Groups 6 and 7 would involve a high-level fixed-span crossing. Since

this segment of the Connecticut River is heavily used by tall sailboats, a vertical clearance of at

1

Source: URS Corporation, Conceptual Engineering Review, November 17, 2011.
Executive Summary

S-5 May 2014

least 90 feet would be required. This would in turn require lengthy approach structures, land

acquisition beyond Amtrak’s right-of-way, and extensive wetland impacts. The high-level nature

of the bridge would require relatively steep grades, which could be present operational impacts

for the freight trains not equipped to handle steep grade changes. Furthermore, Amtrak estimated

that these fixed bridge alternatives would be cost-prohibitive. Using these combined

considerations, Amtrak determined that Group 6 and 7 fixed-bridge alternatives did not

appropriately meet the purpose and need without significant impacts, and therefore eliminated

the Groups 6 and 7 alternatives from further consideration.

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative consists of planned improvements in the primary and secondary

study areas that are scheduled for the near future or are included in the long range transportation

plans for the region and are expected to be completed by 2030. Included are major investment

projects that involve substantial improvements to the regional transportation system as well as

minor projects that maintain the system in a state of good repair. Some of these projects include:

 State of Good Repair Program (Amtrak)

 New Shore Line East Stations (Connecticut Department of Transportation [ConnDOT])

 Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (Q-Bridge) Construction (ConnDOT)

 New Haven–Hartford–Springfield Rail Program (ConnDOT)

 CTTRANSIT New Britain – Hartford Rapid Transit (ConnDOT)

 Metro-North Railroad New Haven Line Improvements (Metropolitan Transportation

Authority [MTA])

The No Action Alternative assumes the Connecticut River Bridge will remain in service as is,

with continued maintenance and minimal repairs. No major improvements to or replacement of

the Connecticut River Bridge will be undertaken under the No Action Alternative. The No

Action Alternative will not include any changes to the existing track configuration.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

As explained above, Amtrak considered a range of improvement alternatives, including minor

repairs, rehabilitation of the existing bridge, partial replacement, and complete replacement.

Amtrak evaluated 21 build alternatives and identified the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred

Alternative will involve complete replacement of the existing superstructure with a two-track

moveable bridge. It will be built along a new southern alignment, with an offset of 48 feet from

the centerline of the existing bridge to the centerline of the new bridge. It will not reuse the

existing piers, and will therefore require a new substructure. The upland portions of the

Preferred Alternative will be built entirely within Amtrak’s existing right-of-way. The channel

will remain in its existing location. Upon completion of the new bridge, the existing Connecticut

River Bridge will be decommissioned and removed. The Preferred Alternative will also include

relocation of communication and signal systems, new catenary supports and wires, and new

approaches.

Amtrak identified two feasible options for the Preferred Alternative. One option (Option A) will

replace the existing bridge with a bascule bridge and will maintain the existing 150-foot channel

width. Option A will provide a vertical clearance of 18 feet in the closed position. In the open

position, it will likely provide a similar vertical clearance as the existing bridge (i.e., 68 feet for

full channel width and unlimited for vessels requiring less than 71 feet in width).
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 S-6

The other option (Option B) will replace the existing bridge with a vertical lift bridge. This

option could potentially provide for a wider channel. The exact channel width for Option B will

be determined during preliminary engineering; however, it will provide a minimum of 150 feet

and a maximum of 200 feet. Option B will provide a vertical clearance of 18 feet in the closed

position. When in the open position, the vertical clearance of the lift bridge will be at least 90

feet. For the purposes of this EA, both options have been analyzed.

Regardless of the type of moveable bridge and channel width, the Preferred Alternative will

include ballast deck girders for the approach spans. It will require widening of the existing rail

embankment for the bridge approaches. Based on Amtrak’s previous experience with similar

bridge replacement projects, a combination of embankments and retaining walls will likely be

required for the bridge approaches. The Preferred Alternative will include new navigation

channel fenders, regardless of whether the channel is expanded.

D. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

TRANSPORTATION

INTERCITY RAIL

The Preferred Alternative will not alter train speed, schedule, or capacity. The Preferred

Alternative will improve the reliability of the bridge structure and moveable span, which will

decrease unscheduled train delays caused by bridge malfunctions and improve service. The

Preferred Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts to intercity rail operations.

FREIGHT SERVICE

The Preferred Alternative will result in a long-term benefit to freight service, as it will improve

the reliability of the bridge. The Preferred Alternative will not result in significant adverse

impacts to freight rail operations.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

The Preferred Alternative will not affect the Metro-North Railroad New Haven Line, and there

will be minimal effects to Shore Line East (SLE) service to New London Station during the

construction period (see Chapter 12, “Construction Impacts”). The Preferred Alternative will

improve the reliability of the Connecticut River Bridge, thereby improving the reliability of SLE

service to New London. The Preferred Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts

to commuter rail operations, ferry service, or bus service.

NAVIGABLE WATERS

The Preferred Alternative will result in an improvement to navigability along this segment of the

Connecticut River. The project will improve the reliability of the bridge and will therefore

reduce delays to maritime traffic caused by bridge openings and closings. Option A will retain

the alignment and width of the existing channel and replace the existing bridge with a bascule

moveable span, which will provide unlimited vertical clearance for a portion of the channel.

Option B could potentially expand the navigation channel to 200 feet in width (which could

further benefit navigation by reducing the likelihood of fender collisions) and will include a

vertical lift span with a vertical clearance of 90 feet.
Executive Summary

S-7 May 2014

As described in Chapter 12, “Construction Impacts”, the Preferred Alternative will result in

some temporary adverse impacts to mariners. Impacts to navigability will be temporary, nonsignificant, and limited only to the construction of the replacement bridge.

REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

The Preferred Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts to the regional highway

system.

LAND USE, ZONING AND PUBLIC POLICY

LAND USE

The Preferred Alternative will not adversely affect existing or planned land uses in the study

area. The proposed project will not require any permanent upland land acquisition. The upland

portions of the new bridge will be located entirely within the existing Amtrak right-of-way. The

Amtrak right-of-way will continue to be used for rail transportation and surrounding land uses

will not change as a result of the proposed project.

ZONING AND PUBLIC POLICY

Amtrak is not subject to local zoning ordinances. Nonetheless, because all upland improvements

will be contained within the existing Amtrak right-of-way, local zoning districts and legislation

will remain unaffected. The proposed project will not result in any zoning changes within the

study area.

Master plans and vision statements adopted by the towns of Old Saybrook and Old Lyme

express a desire to preserve the small-town qualities of each municipality. In addition, protecting

the unique natural environment of the Lower Connecticut River Valley and its historic integrity

is also vital to the towns, as well as the State of Connecticut. Since the Preferred Alternative is

expected to only improve the reliability and long-term serviceability of the Connecticut River

Bridge and its approach structures and to minimize conflict between rail and maritime traffic,

and will not result in increased train speed or frequency of service, the proposed project will not

alter the existing neighborhood character. The Preferred Alternative will not result in adverse

impacts to zoning or public policy.

PARKLAND AND OPEN SPACE

The proposed project will not have significant adverse effects on the two parks located within

the study area—Ferry Landing Park and the Elizabeth B. Karter Watch Rock Natural Preserve

(“Watch Rock”). Access to a portion of the boardwalk located in Ferry Landing Park, which is

owned by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) and

is located directly beneath the Connecticut River Bridge, will be affected in the short-term

during bridge construction (for a period of up to three years). As discussed in Chapter 12,

“Construction Impacts,” Amtrak and its contractors will take appropriate measures during

construction to minimize short-term impacts to the boardwalk. Additionally, Chapter 18,

“Section 4(f) Evaluation” includes an evaluation of the short-term park impacts in accordance

with Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966. The project’s

impacts to the boardwalk at Ferry Landing Park will be temporary and of short duration.

Therefore, the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to parkland and open space.

While the project would require a use of this Section 4(f) resource, there are no prudent and
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 S-8

feasible alternatives to the use of this resource. Amtrak will work with CTDEEP to minimize

boardwalk closures and provide adequate signage and information to users of the park.

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

While Option B may improve navigation on the Connecticut River by potentially expanding the

navigation channel, the proposed project is not expected to increase marine traffic in the project

area or adversely impact the marine-related businesses. The proposed project will not spur rapid

population growth or development and therefore will not adversely impact local or regional

public policies or interfere with the master plans for Old Saybrook or Old Lyme. The project

will not adversely affect socioeconomic conditions, employment, or community cohesion.

VISUAL AND AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS

The Preferred Alternative will result in the removal of the Connecticut River Bridge, which

contributes to the character of the Connecticut River View Corridor. In replacing the historic

bridge with a new bridge, this aspect of the corridor will be altered. The magnitude of the change

will vary somewhat according to whether Option A or Option B is selected. Both options will

likely result in the removal of the existing stone pier structure. Option A will be of the same

bridge type and will have dimensions and height similar to the existing bridge. Insofar as the

bascule bridge design will minimize impacts to the Connecticut River View Corridor, Option A

will result in less change to visual conditions, while Option B will result in more change. Neither

will block views along the Connecticut River View Corridor. Throughout the NEPA process,

Amtrak has coordinated with the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office (CTSHPO). The

design of the new bridge will be undertaken by Amtrak in coordination with CTSHPO, as

described in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), in Appendix A and will include

consultation to incorporate historically compatible designs. This process will, to the extent

practicable, result in a new bridge design that reflects the historic character of the existing bridge

and will further minimize any visual changes or intrusions along the Connecticut River View

Corridor.

The Preferred Alternative will not have an adverse impact on the Ferry Road view corridors.

Views to the project site from Ferry Road in Old Saybrook and Old Lyme are limited. These

views are relatively distant and of short duration, and the replacement of the existing railroad

bridge with a new railroad bridge will not be expected to substantially change the overall

character of the views. The differences in dimension and design proposed under the options of

the Preferred Alternative will not be substantial enough to be strongly perceived from these

vantage points.

In summary, the Preferred Alternative will not substantially alter the visual character of the

study area or block important views to visually sensitive resources. Therefore, the project will

not result in adverse impacts on visual character and visually sensitive resources in the study

area.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

An adverse archaeological effect is defined as any disturbance or damage to an archaeological

resource. Such an effect could occur if construction were to disturb the soil at the same depth

where that resource was present. Construction of the Ragged Rock Marina channel in the early
Executive Summary

S-9 May 2014

20th century likely destroyed any resources that may have once been located in the Old

Saybrook portion of the area of potential effect (APE). Since the extent of previous disturbances

associated with rail construction within the Old Lyme portion of the APE but beyond the

embankments is not known, Amtrak considers those areas to have moderate potential for

prehistoric archaeological resources. Should Amtrak determine that the area adjacent to the

embankments has been previously disturbed, Amtrak will then consider these areas to have low

to no potential for prehistoric archaeological resources.

The Preferred Alternative involves modification of portions of the Northeast Corridor within the

archaeological APE. Embankment extensions required for the Preferred Alternative will impact

ground surfaces to the south of the current alignment for a length of up to 1,200 feet in Old

Saybrook and 1,100 feet in Old Lyme. As described in the MOA to be executed by FRA,

CTSHPO, and Amtrak (and any consulting parties), Amtrak will develop and implement an

archaeological testing plan, in coordination with the CTSHPO, to determine the presence or

absence of archaeological resources in Old Lyme that could be affected by the Preferred

Alternative. If archaeological resources are found to be present in the APE, further field testing

may be necessary to determine whether these resources are significant (S/NR eligible). If

Amtrak determines that S/NR-eligible archaeological resources will be impacted by the project,

avoidance or mitigation measures will be developed in coordination with the CTSHPO (see

Mitigation section below).

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

The Preferred Alternative will not directly affect any known or potential architectural resources

identified in the study area, with the exception of the Connecticut River Bridge. Because these

architectural resources are far removed (between 400 feet and a 1⁄4-mile) from the project site,

they are not at risk for inadvertent damage due to project-related construction activities.

Furthermore, while the context of these resources will be somewhat altered by the removal of

the Connecticut River Bridge and the construction of a new bridge over the Connecticut River,

the overall context of these resources will not substantially change. The project will replace

existing railroad-related structures with new railroad-related structures, and therefore, the use,

atmosphere, and overall conditions of the resources’ context will remain largely the same. The

history and significance of these historic resources is not associated with the railroad, and

therefore, their relationship to the railroad is not an important character-defining feature. Lastly,

under the Preferred Alternative, the new bridge will not differ substantially in height, dimension,

or alignment, and therefore, is not expected to block existing views to and from historic

resources.

The Preferred Alternative will result in the removal of the existing Connecticut River Bridge and

the construction of a new bridge. The Preferred Alternative will therefore have an adverse effect

on the Connecticut River Bridge, which is SR-listed and NR-eligible as a contributing element

within the Moveable Railroad Bridges on the Northeast Corridor in Connecticut Thematic

Resource. FRA documented this adverse effects finding in its correspondence to CTSHPO, dated

July 31, 2012 (see Appendix A). In response, CTSHPO concurred and provided input on the Draft

MOA, as discussed below.

MITIGATION MEASURES

As project engineering proceeds, Amtrak and FRA will continue to participate in a consultation

process with the CTSHPO to identify potential effects on archaeological and architectural
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 S-10

resources, as mandated by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of

1966. As part of this process, measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate, to the extent practicable,

any adverse effects to archaeological and architectural resources will be explored. Development

of these measures is set forth in the Draft MOA (included in Appendix A, “Cultural Resources”).

Amtrak will implement the various provisions of the Draft MOA in consultation with FRA and

CTSHPO.

The Draft MOA describes the continuing consultation process that will be conducted as project

designs evolve and the measures to be implemented during the project’s design process to avoid,

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of the project on historic resources. Amtrak will undertake

the design of the replacement bridge in coordination with the CTSHPO and will make an effort

to incorporate historically compatible designs. Mitigation for adverse effects on the Connecticut

River Bridge (a contributing element of the Moveable Railroad Bridges of the Northeast

Corridor in Connecticut Thematic Resource), may include Historic American Engineering

Record (HAER) documentation for the Connecticut River Bridge and development of an

interpretive exhibit in a park, greenway, or public space that will present the history of the bridge

and other moveable railroad bridges on the Northeast Corridor in Connecticut. This exhibit could

possibly include salvaged elements of the bridge, signage, etc.

As described above and detailed in the Draft MOA, if archaeological testing determines that

S/NR-eligible archaeological resources are present in the APE and could be affected by the

project, and if avoidance of these resources during construction is not feasible, mitigation

measures, such as data recovery, may be required. Data recovery and additional mitigation, if

appropriate, will be carried out in consultation with the CTSHPO.

AIR QUALITY

The Preferred Alternative will not result in an increase in capacity over the Connecticut River

and the project will not increase the number of trains traveling over the bridge on the Northeast

Corridor. Therefore, the project will not substantially increase the number of new transit riders

and will not measurably reduce vehicle-miles-traveled in the region. The Preferred Alternative

will not cause any change in current conformity designations and will not result in significant

adverse effects on air quality. While the proposed improvements will lead to an improvement in

service along the Northeast Corridor that could slightly increase passenger travel and reduce

auto usage in the region, the air quality benefits will be negligible.

NOISE AND VIBRATION

There are two options of the Preferred Alternative for the proposed project; both will result in

comparable noise levels since rail traffic will be identical, and the track alignment will be the

same with either option. The distance between the boardwalk receptor and the track will not

change, as the track runs directly over the boardwalk in both options of the Preferred Alternative

as well as the existing condition. The distance between the Clark Street receptors and the track

will increase with either option, as compared to the existing condition. The noise levels at the

Clark Street receptors generated by rail traffic on the bridge will not be noticeably changed by

the slight increase in distance, according to the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) General

Noise Assessment. The results of the assessment are shown in Appendix B, “Noise and

Vibration.” In summary, the Preferred Alternative will not result in significant adverse noise or

vibration impacts.
Executive Summary

S-11 May 2014

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENERGY

The Preferred Alternative will operate more efficiently than the existing bridge, using state-ofthe-art electric motors and modern construction materials. Both bascule bridges and vertical lift

bridges require relatively little power to operate the moveable span since the weight of the span

is balanced by the counterweight. There is no meaningful difference in energy requirements for a

bascule bridge versus a vertical lift bridge; therefore, neither option of the Preferred Alternative

presents a benefit over the other in terms of energy consumption.

Amtrak does not expect the number of year-round bridge openings to be affected by the

proposed project. The Preferred Alternative will not result in any increases in train service, or

create a demand for additional energy. Amtrak does not expect the Preferred Alternative to

substantially reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled by replacing automobile trips with rail

ridership. Overall, changes in energy consumption in the study area as a result of the proposed

project will be negligible, and the Preferred Alternative will not result in significant adverse

impacts to energy consumption or resources.

NATURAL RESOURCES

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

Terrestrial resources potentially affected by the project are confined to those within Amtrak’s

right-of-way and possible construction staging areas. The removal of some scrub/shrub

vegetation along the existing embankment may be necessary to accommodate the new alignment

and construction access. These areas have relatively little value as terrestrial habitat, and as such,

no significant permanent impacts to terrestrial natural resources are expected. The proposed

project will not result in increases in rail traffic or train speed; therefore, no long-term noise

impacts on local reptile, bird, and mammal reproduction, foraging, or movement will be occur.

FLOODPLAINS

The Preferred Alternative will not significantly impact floodplains. In-water piers and other

support structures do not constrict tidal or freshwater flows, and are expected to be virtually

identical to the existing structures with respect to flood water throughput. The bottom of steel of

the new bridge superstructure will be located above the 100-year flood elevation. Small areas of

fill in tidal floodplains associated with embankment widening and pier installation encroach into

the floodplain. Because the Connecticut River and adjacent coastal floodplains are entirely tidal

in the project area, this fill will not impact the capacity of the river to absorb flood waters. Since

the project area is located near the mouth of the river at Long Island Sound, the ultimate flood

storage capacity that should be considered for the site is that of Long Island Sound and the

Atlantic Ocean.

COASTAL ZONE

According to CTDEEP, a formal coastal management consistency review should be performed

during the subsequent preliminary engineering and permitting phase, rather than during the

environmental review phase. At that time, Amtrak will submit a complete “Coastal Management

Consistency Review Form for Federal Activities” along with all required attachments and will

seek a formal Coastal Zone Consistency Determination from CTDEEP.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 S-12

However, as part of this EA, Amtrak performed a preliminary coastal zone consistency analysis

to determine the project’s anticipated effects on coastal resources. The applicability of and

consistency with each individual coastal zone policy is discussed in Appendix C. Overall, the

proposed project is consistent with Connecticut’s Coastal Management Program.

WETLANDS AND OPEN WATER

Due to the nature and location of the river crossing and the need for continuous operations along

the Northeast Corridor, complete avoidance of wetland and open water areas will not be feasible.

Based on the conceptual bridge design, Amtrak estimates that the Preferred Alternative will

result in approximately 2.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts and 0.74 acres of permanent

open water impacts. Removal of the existing Connecticut River Bridge may result in

approximately 0.33 acres of restored open water, for a net project impact of 0.41 acres.

As discussed in Chapter 12, “Construction Impacts”, temporary access roadways and

construction platforms will temporarily impact wetlands and open water. Based on the

conceptual bridge design and the anticipated construction means and methods, Amtrak estimates

that approximately 3.2 acres of wetlands and 2.0 acres of open water will be temporarily

impacted during the construction period. The differences in impacts between Option A and

Option B are expected to be minor.

To the extent practicable, Amtrak will minimize environmental impacts through the use of

retaining walls and by locating the new bridge alignment close to the existing alignment. After

appropriate mitigation measures are implemented, the proposed project will not result in

significant adverse wetland or open water impacts.

AQUATIC RESOURCES

Water quality impacts from the Preferred Alternative will comprise sediment resuspension, a

temporary impact associated with in-water construction. Estuarine-dependent and anadromous

fish species, bivalves and other macroinvertebrates, including those present in the lower

Connecticut River and near the Connecticut River Bridge, are generally tolerant of elevated

suspended sediment concentrations and have evolved behavioral and physiological mechanisms

for dealing with variable concentrations of suspended sediment. Due to its coarse nature, the

Connecticut River sediment will not remain suspended for extended periods of time, especially

since in-water work will be performed intermittently as various project elements are constructed.

Therefore, temporary increases in suspended sediment resulting from in-water construction

activities will not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to fish and mobile benthic

macroinvertebrates.

An Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) assessment was conducted for the proposed project, and is

included in Appendix C. For those EFH species likely to occur in the vicinity of the project area,

the short duration and localized extent of construction activities and similar operation of existing

and replacement bridges means that the proposed project will not result in significant adverse

impacts.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

Fish

Shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, and blueback herring are likely to occur at least

seasonally within the study area. Because the proposed project is for bridge replacement, long-
Executive Summary

S-13 May 2014

term future operational effects will be similar to those of the existing bridge and no adverse

operational impacts are anticipated. If present in the study area, these highly mobile fishes will

be expected to avoid noise associated with construction activities. The use of pile drilling (rather

than impact pile driving) is expected to minimize the potential for noise impacts by ensuring that

construction noise does not reach levels associated with the onset of physiological impacts,

recoverable physical injury, or mortality. Therefore, noise-related impacts to fishes are not

expected to result from the proposed project. Furthermore, no dredging is planned for the

proposed project, which will avoid any indirect impacts caused by increased turbidity and the

removal of benthic forage organisms. Increases in suspended sediment concentrations will be

minimized through the use of containment measures during pile drilling. Overall, construction

and demolition activities associated with the proposed project are not expected to have an

adverse impact on listed fish species in the Connecticut River.

As shown in Appendix C, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has confirmed that no

further consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is required.

Since all three of these species are likely to occur at least seasonally within the study area, and

Atlantic sturgeon have recently been listed under the Section 7 of the ESA, Amtrak will continue

to coordinate with NMFS and any other involved federal agencies during the final design and

permitting process. If necessary, in-water work restrictions will be implemented to minimize the

potential impacts. Permits issued by USCG, USACE, and through USDOT’s ESA Section 7

Consultation process for similar bridge construction projects have included in-water work

restrictions designed to protect fishes. Since construction will adhere to the in-water work

restrictions anticipated for this project, no adverse impacts to federally or state listed fish

populations are expected.

Plants

CTDEEP identified saltmarsh bulrush and pygmy weed as being potentially within or

immediately adjacent to the project site. Although bayonet grass, mudwort, eastern prickly pear,

and Lilaeopsis have not been documented in the immediate vicinity of the project site, they have

been documented within the 0.5 mile study area and habitat is present within the vicinity of the

project site for these species. While Amtrak did not observe any of these plant species during

preliminary field surveys, they may be present within the project site and there is the potential

for an adverse impact to these plants as a result of the proposed project. During the preliminary

engineering and permitting phase, additional surveys will be conducted in coordination with

CTDEEP to determine the presence or absence of these species and the size of the populations

within the area of disturbance. Should these plants be present in the area of disturbance, then

measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts to these species where possible will be developed in

coordination with CTDEEP.

Birds

Several threatened or endangered bird species may be seasonally present within the tidal

wetlands affected by the Preferred Alternative. Further coordination with CTDEEP and speciesspecific surveys will likely be required during the preliminary engineering and permitting phase

of the project to confirm the presence of these birds. Should these species be determined to be

present, CTDEEP may include construction restrictions (i.e., “work windows”) in its permits to

minimize disturbance and ensure that the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to

these bird species.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 S-14

CONTAMINATED MATERIALS

NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

The Preferred Alternative will involve shallow soil disturbance in areas where the proposed

track will be placed on existing embankment. Deeper excavations will be required for catenary

and signal support structures, new or relocated utilities, and embankment retaining walls. Due to

the presence of compressible soils, deep foundations for the river crossing will be necessary.

Construction of the foundation could potentially require the removal and off-site disposal of soil

and river sediments up to 90 feet or more below existing grade, depending on the foundation

type that is chosen. Amtrak will import clean fill for grading during construction, e.g., to widen

the bridge embankments.

Construction Health and Safety Plan (CHASP)

Amtrak will perform all work in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulatory

requirements. Prior to commencing site disturbance, Amtrak will prepare a CHASP to address

the potential of encountering contamination during soil disturbance activities. The CHASP will

describe in detail the health and safety procedures to minimize exposure to contaminated

materials by workers and the public. The CHASP will evaluate the hazards by determining the

potential subsurface contaminants of concern and their chemical and physical characteristics; it

will also consider health hazards within the potential exposure associated with the work to be

performed. The CHASP will be developed in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) regulations and guidelines. The CHASP will include designation and

training of appropriate personnel, monitoring for the presence of contamination (e.g., soil which

shows evidence of potential contamination, such as discoloration, staining, or odors) and

appropriate response plans. To prevent the potential off-site transport of dust, the CHASP will

define dust control requirements for all soil-disturbing operations.

Waste Management

Amtrak will handle excavated soil or sediment in accordance with all applicable regulations and

will classify all excavated material (e.g., historical fill, uncontaminated native soils, petroleumcontaminated wastes, etc.). The extent and parameters of any testing depend on the classification

and any requirements of off-site waste disposal facilities.

EXISTING BRIDGE DEMOLITION

Prior to the demolition of the existing bridge, Amtrak will survey the structure for asbestos, leadbased paint, and PCB-containing equipment.

 Amtrak will remove any identified asbestos-containing materials prior to demolition, and

will implement controls to minimize asbestos exposure

 If lead paint is present, Amtrak will perform an exposure assessment to determine whether

lead exposure will occur during the demolition and/or removal of the existing bridge. If the

exposure assessment indicates the potential to generate airborne dust or fumes with lead

levels exceeding health-based standards, Amtrak will employ a higher personal protection

equipment standard to counteract the exposure.

 Amtrak will survey and evaluate any suspected PCB-containing equipment (e.g.,

transformers, electrical feeder cables, hydraulic equipment, and fluorescent light ballasts)

that would require removal, disturbance or relocation. Amtrak will remove and dispose of
Executive Summary

S-15 May 2014

PCB-containing equipment that the work would disturb in accordance with applicable

federal and state regulations. Generally, unless suspected PCB-containing equipment is

labeled to be “non-PCB,” it must be tested or assumed to be PCB-containing and disposed of

at properly licensed facilities.

With the implementation of these measures, construction and demolition activities on the project

site will result in no adverse impacts related to hazardous materials. After the completion of the

project, there is no potential for adverse impacts from hazardous materials.

CONSTRUCTION

OVERVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

Amtrak based its analysis of construction activities on a representative construction approach

and schedule that is typical for a moveable bridge replacement project. The actual project

schedule will require consideration of in-water work restrictions and other limitations likely to

be required by the permits issued. Amtrak expects that construction of the replacement bridge

will begin in 2018 and be completed in 2021.

The Preferred Alternative will require construction in the Connecticut River and adjacent

wetlands. Prior to initiation of construction, Amtrak’s contractor will establish construction

staging areas and mobilize heavy equipment. Temporary access roads and platforms will be

required for construction over wetlands and/or open water; the contractor will also use barges to

minimize wetland and open water impacts. The contractor will transport materials and remove

debris through a combination of barge, rail, and truck transport.

For the construction of the Preferred Alternative, the contractor will rehabilitate and modify

existing abutments, extend the existing embankments to the south, and build nine new piers

(seven approach piers and two moveable span piers). The contractor will assemble bridge spans,

including the moveable span, off-site and deliver them to the project site by barge, and float

them in for installation. The contractor will install new track, a new catenary system, a new

communication and signals system, and a new channel fender system. Once the contractor has

constructed the replacement bridge and diverted all train traffic from the existing span, the

contractor will decommission and remove the existing Connecticut River Bridge including both

the superstructure and the substructure. The contractor will likely float out the existing moveable

span on barges.

SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION PERIOD IMPACTS

Transportation

During the construction period, passenger and freight trains operating through the project area

may need to operate at slower speeds to ensure safety. A track outage may also be required to

reconnect the newly constructed bridge approach spans to the existing track.

There will be no adverse impacts on vehicular traffic in the project area; Amtrak will deliver and

transport material through a combination of rail, barge, and truck trips to minimize vehicular

traffic, and employee trips will be negligible.

Construction may impede navigation during the construction of the replacement moveable span,

which will be placed in alignment with the existing channel. Intensive construction activities in

the Connecticut River during the high season for recreational boating (May through October)
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 S-16

could result in a problematic impairment to navigation, since this stretch of the river is heavily

used by the boating community during those months. Amtrak will schedule construction in the

river outside of that time period to the extent practicable. However, navigation will be

maintained even in the winter months (November through April) since commercial traffic

continues during that time. Amtrak will arrange channel closures through coordination with

USCG and the maritime community. Overall, river closures are expected to be limited to brief

periods during winter months. Amtrak anticipates that river navigation closures will occur only

during the installation of the moveable span and a portion of the existing bridge demolition and

will last approximately two days.

Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions

Construction will result in temporary impacts to the elevated wooden boardwalk which runs

from Ferry Landing Park, underneath the existing bridge, and out to the wetland complex to the

southeast. This will require the closure (and possible temporary removal) of the portion of

boardwalk that extends over the river, from the gazebo area in Ferry Landing Park to a bird

watching platform approximately 600 feet southeast of the existing bridge. Additionally, if

permitted, the contractor may use a portion of the CTDEEP Marine Headquarters (adjacent to

Ferry Landing Park) for staging of equipment during the construction of the eastern portion of

the replacement bridge and its embankments. The construction-related impacts to Ferry Landing

Park and the marinas will be temporary and of short duration. Therefore, no significant adverse

impacts to land use and social conditions are expected from the project.

Cultural Resources

Archaeological Resources

Construction of the Ragged Rock Marina channel in the early 20th century likely destroyed any

resources that may have once been located in the Old Saybrook portion of the APE. Since the

extent of previous disturbances associated with rail construction within the Old Lyme portion of

the APE but beyond the embankments is not known, those areas are considered to have

moderate potential for prehistoric archaeological resources. Should Amtrak determine that the

area adjacent to the embankments has been previously disturbed, Amtrak will then consider

these areas as having low to no potential for prehistoric archaeological resources. The Preferred

Alternative involves modification of portions of the Northeast Corridor within the archaeological

APE. Embankment extensions required for the Preferred Alternative will impact ground surfaces

to the south of the current alignment for a length of up to 1,200 feet in Old Saybrook and 1,100

feet in Old Lyme. As described in the Draft MOA in Appendix A, “Cultural Resources,” Amtrak

will develop and implement an archaeological testing plan, in coordination with the CTSHPO, to

determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources in Old Lyme that could be

affected by the Preferred Alternative. If archaeological resources are found to be present in the

APE, Amtrak may need to conduct further field testing necessary, to determine whether these

resources are significant (S/NR eligible). If Amtrak determines that the project will impact

S/NR-eligible archaeological resources, Amtrak will develop avoidance or mitigation measures

in coordination with the CTSHPO.

Architectural Resources

The Preferred Alternative is not expected to directly affect any known or potential architectural

resources identified in the study area, with the exception of the Connecticut River Bridge. Other

architectural resources are far removed from the project site and are not at risk for inadvertent
Executive Summary

S-17 May 2014

damage due to project-related construction activities. Construction of a replacement bridge will

obviously impact the Connecticut River Bridge since the final stage of construction will include

the demolition of the existing bridge. The Preferred Alternative will therefore have an adverse

effect on the Connecticut River Bridge, which is SR-listed and NR-eligible as a contributing

element within the Moveable Railroad Bridges on the Northeast Corridor in Connecticut

Thematic Resource. Measures to mitigate this adverse effect are described in detail in Chapter 6.

Visual

The Connecticut River View Corridor is the central visual resource in the study area. Viewer

groups in the area consist of pedestrians, motorists, rail passengers, and boaters. Rail passengers

traveling on the Northeast Corridor and motorists passing on I-95 are not expected to be greatly

impacted by change in the visual character of the bridge since their view of the bridge is limited

and of short duration. Boaters in the immediate vicinity of the bridge and pedestrians in Ferry

Point Park in Old Lyme will experience the longest duration and closest range views of the

replacement bridge construction area. For the duration of construction, cranes, barges and other

construction equipment, as well as staging areas on both sides of the Connecticut River will be

visible to boaters and pedestrians. These temporary changes will not constitute an adverse

impact to visual resources.

Air Quality

Air pollutant emissions from construction of the Preferred Alternative will include emissions

from on-site non-road construction equipment (potentially including both construction vehicles

and small generators), emissions from on-road vehicles, including worker and delivery vehicles,

emissions from marine engines and possibly locomotives delivering and removing materials

from the site, and fugitive dust emissions from land-clearing operations, demolition, grading,

excavation, and transfer of debris and loose material.

Emission Controls

In order to ensure that pollutant concentrations do not cause significant adverse air quality

impacts in nearby publicly accessible areas, the project will require the following emission

controls. The contractor will prepare an emissions control plan and submit the plan to Amtrak,

identifying the incorporation, documentation, and enforcement of the following control

measures in the project.

Diesel Engines:

 All non-road diesel engines will be U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 2

certified or higher.

 All non-road diesel engines greater than 50 hp will be retrofit with diesel particulate filters

(DPFs) unless they are Tier 4 certified.

 Truck routes for deliveries will be established so as to minimize the use of local truck trips

in populated areas.

 Idling of delivery trucks or construction equipment when not in active use will be strictly

prohibited.

 The contractor will coordinate as early as possible with Connecticut Light & Power to

ensure the availability of grid power on-site, and will distribute power throughout the site as

necessary. The contractor will use a combination of grid power and catenary power in lieu of
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 S-18

generators to the extent practicable, including, but not limited to, lighting, signage, and small

power tools.

 If rail transfer is used, locomotives would idle only as necessary at the sidings in Old

Saybrook and would do so to maximize the distance from the nearest residence (i.e., at least

200 feet from the nearest residence).

Dust Suppression:

 The contractor will be responsible for control of dust at all times during contract, 24 hours a

day, seven days a week, including non-working hours, weekends, and holidays.

 Exposed unpaved areas and access roads will be watered at regular intervals or treated with

water soluble, non-toxic, non-reactive, and non-foaming dust suppression agents as

necessary to avoid fugitive dust resuspension by vehicles.

 Stock piles will be covered or watered at regular intervals to avoid windblown dust.

 Vehicles leaving the construction site will not have loose mud or dirt on the vehicle body or

wheels and will be cleaned as necessary before leaving sites to control tracking.

 Haul truck cargo areas will be securely covered during material transport on public

roadways. Trucks will have tight fitting tailgates that can be secured in the closed position.

 Vehicle mud and dirt carryout, material spills, and soil washout onto public roadways and

walkways and other paved areas will be cleaned up immediately.

 Demolition, excavation, dumping, and transfer of materials will be accompanied by wet

suppression so as to avoid the release of dust.

Noise and Vibration

Noise

Construction activities related to the bridges, approach structures, embankment and retaining

walls, and new track and ancillary equipment along each alignment will result in short-term

noise increases in the vicinity of the actual work site. The project will result in temporary noise

increases at CTDEEP Marine Headquarters and Ferry Point Park from deliveries of materials

that will be needed for construction purposes. Any impacts will be temporary and will most

likely occur due to weekday truck trips concentrated in the morning and afternoon peak periods,

with occasional late night deliveries of oversized materials (e.g., bridge girders).

Vibration

Since the use of driven piles will be limited, and since this analysis anticipates no controlled

blasting, the likelihood of vibration-related adverse effects is small. Furthermore, as identified in

Chapter 6, “Cultural Resources,” the project will not directly affect any known or potential

architectural resources identified in the study area, with the exception of the Connecticut River

Bridge itself. Any identified resources are far removed from the potential construction activity

area, and therefore do not require special protection from construction-related vibration impacts.

Natural Resources

The construction-period impacts to natural resources were presented in conjunction with the

permanent impacts above (see section titled “Natural Resources” on page S-11).
Executive Summary

S-19 May 2014

Contaminated Materials

The construction-period impacts to contaminated materials were presented in conjunction with

the permanent impacts above (see section titled “Contaminated Materials” on page S-13).

Utilities

Amtrak will coordinate relocation of all utilities with the utility provider to minimize service

disruptions. The contractor will use a combination of grid power and catenary power in lieu of

generators to the extent practicable, including, but not limited to, lighting, signage, and small

power tools.

SAFETY AND SECURITY

EMPLOYEES

Amtrak will design, build, and operate the proposed project to comply with all relevant federal,

state, and local safety regulations, including: 49 CFR 214: Railroad Workplace Safety; 49 CFR

237: Bridge Safety Standards; National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) regulations; OSHA

regulations; American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)

regulations; the Connecticut State Fire Safety Plan; Connecticut State Building Code; and Old

Saybrook and Old Lyme Fire and Building Codes. During construction of the proposed project,

Amtrak will develop written Safe Work Plans to identify potential hazards and safety measures

to be implemented for the protection of workers on the project site and the general public in the

vicinity of the project.

With the implementation of the safety measures described above, no adverse impacts to safety or

security of employees will result from the proposed project.

PASSENGERS

The Preferred Alternative will improve the structural and operational reliability of the existing

Connecticut River Bridge and increase the safety of passengers traveling on SLE and Amtrak

trains over the bridge.

MARINE USERS

The Preferred Alternative will provide navigational benefits by improving the reliability of the

bridge and minimizing delays during bridge openings and closings. Option A (which will retain

the existing channel width and alignment) will maintain the current navigational conditions.

Widening the channel (a possibility under Option B) can improve navigation further and may

reduce the likelihood of boat collisions due to tidal currents. To prevent and/or minimize future

accidents due to an off-center channel, Amtrak will provide navigation channel fenders and a

dolphin system designed to protect the piers from all aberrant vessels.

SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The proposed project will not result in an increase in train frequency or speed, nor will it result

in measurable new rail ridership. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the

population, land use, or economic activities in the study area. The project will not result in new

development or population/employment growth. Therefore, no positive or negative secondary

effects will result from the proposed project.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 S-20

The planned major and minor improvement projects discussed under the No Action Alternative

are located outside of the primary study area used for this analysis and are not expected to have

an effect on any environmental resource in the study area. The construction and operation of the

Preferred Alternative in conjunction with the planned projects identified in this EA will not

result in an adverse cumulative impact to any environmental resource in the region around the

project site.

Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor Improvement Project includes infrastructure improvements to the

Northeast Corridor system between Washington, D.C. and Boston. The Northeast Corridor

Improvement Project, together with the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project, will

improve the operations and reliability of the Northeast Corridor and result in a cumulative

benefit. Similarly, the NEC FUTURE program, which is being led by FRA, is a comprehensive

planning effort focused on the 457-mile rail transportation system extending from Boston’s

South Station in the north to Washington’s Union Station in the south. The Connecticut River

Bridge Project will be informed by the outcome of that planning effort and will be designed so

as not to preclude the NEC FUTURE project.

COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Construction of the Preferred Alternative will require the irreversible and irretrievable

commitment of construction materials such as concrete, steel, wood, and other building

materials. Amtrak and its contractors will consume energy in the form of fossil fuels and

electricity during the construction and operation of the facility. These materials are available and

their use for the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on their continued availability

for other purposes. In addition to materials, Amtrak will require funding and human labor to

design, build, and operate the proposed project.

Construction of the proposed project will have greater short-term impacts on the environment

than the No Action Alternative. However, the environmental impacts that will result from the

proposed construction activities would be temporary and non-significant. The proposed project

will be a component of the long-term viability of the intercity rail system, as well as the area’s

maritime industry, and will help to promote the region’s economic vitality. Based on this

information, the localized short-term impacts that will result from construction of the proposed

project will be temporary, and will facilitate the maintenance and enhancement of long-term

productivity in the region through the provision of improved rail and marine operations.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Amtrak conducted an environmental justice analysis for the proposed project, following the

guidance and methodologies recommended in the federal Council on Environmental Quality’s

(CEQ) Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act

(December 1997) and USDOT’s Final Order on Environmental Justice (April 1997). Based on

this analysis, the proposed project will not result in any disproportionately high and adverse

effects on minority and low-income populations.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION

During the early phases of the proposed project, Amtrak and FRA prepared a Public Involvement

and Agency Coordination Plan. Amtrak and FRA considered recent experience from similar bridge

replacement projects in Connecticut to identify potentially interested parties and obtain

comprehensive community representation. The plan included outreach to marina operators, boaters,
Executive Summary

S-21 May 2014

trade associations, elected officials, local businesses, and private citizens who rely upon Northeast

Corridor rail service, use the Connecticut River, or live or work in the project study area.

FRA and Amtrak hosted a joint public involvement and agency coordination meeting in Old

Lyme, Connecticut on July 8, 2008. The meeting included an overview of the project purpose

and the project alternatives being considered. Attendees of the meeting included members of

local marine businesses, officials of the towns of Old Lyme and Old Saybrook, and

representatives of state and federal agencies. Amtrak and FRA solicited input on the proposed

project during the meeting.

Amtrak also developed a list of potentially involved and interested federal, state, and local

agencies in the initial stages of the project and included this list in the Public Involvement and

Agency Coordination Plan. Numerous agency representatives attended the coordination meeting

on July 8, 2008 and provided input on the project and the regulatory process. Throughout the

environmental review process, Amtrak has been coordinating with multiple regulatory agencies,

including USACE, USCG, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), USEPA, NMFS,

CTDEEP, CTSHPO, and ConnDOT.

SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from

approving any program or project that requires the use of: (1) any publicly owned land in a

public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national state, or local

significance, or (2) any land from a historic site of national, state, or local significance

(collectively “Section 4(f) resources”), unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the

use of such land and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource.

The Preferred Alternative would require the use of the following Section 4(f) resources:

 The Connecticut River Bridge. The Preferred Alternative will require the decommissioning

and removal of the existing bridge. As part of the Moveable Railroad Bridges on the

Northeast Corridor in Connecticut Thematic Resource, the bridge is SR- listed and NReligible. Amtrak is participating in an ongoing consultation process with the CTSHPO

regarding the potential effects on archaeological and architectural resources. Development

of mitigation measures is set forth in the draft MOA, included in Appendix A.

 Ferry Landing Park Boardwalk. The Preferred Alternative would involve construction of a

new bridge over the existing boardwalk within Ferry Landing Park, a waterfront park owned

by CTDEEP. The proposed project will not permanently adversely affect either the park or

the boardwalk; however, it is likely that a portion of the boardwalk will be temporarily

closed (and possibly removed and replaced) during the construction phase of the project.

Amtrak will work closely with CTDEEP to minimize these closures and provide adequate

signage and information to the users of the park.

As described in detail in Chapter 18, “Section 4(f) Evaluation,” there are no prudent and feasible

alternatives to the use of these two resources.

PERMITS REQUIRED

The Preferred Alternative will potentially require a number of federal, state, and local permits

and approvals (see Table S-2). The project must also comply with numerous laws, including

those regarding worker and public safety, use of parkland and historic resources, and endangered

and protected species.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 S-22

Table S-2

List of Potential Federal, State, and Local Permits

Permits/Certifications Responsible Agency Activity

Federal

Section 404 Permit US Army Corps of Engineers Discharge of dredged or fill material

into U.S. waters.

Section 10 Permit US Army Corps of Engineers Construction of structures in

navigable waters

Section 9 Permit US Coast Guard Construction over navigable waters

Hazards to Navigation

Assessment

US Coast Guard Obstructions in navigable waters

State

Coastal Consistency Review Connecticut DEEP Excavation and fill in navigable

waters

401 Water Quality Certificate Connecticut DEEP Discharges to surface waters

Stream Encroachment Connecticut DEEP Coastal development

Tidal Conveyance Connecticut DEEP Activities that affect tidal wetlands

Construction General Permit Connecticut DEEP Stormwater and

dewatering/wastewaters from

construction activities

Note: Other federal, state and local permits and approvals may be required.


1-1 May 2014 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need

A. INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides a description of the proposed project, identifies the problems posed by the 

existing situation, describes the regional planning context, and states the project purpose, goals, 

and objectives. 

B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Amtrak is proposing improvements to the Connecticut River Bridge. FRA is serving as the lead 

federal agency for this EA, prepared in accordance with NEPA. The bridge is located between 

the Town of Old Saybrook in Middlesex County and the Town of Old Lyme in New London 

County (See Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The bridge is located along Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor (MP 

106.89) and spans the Connecticut River, 3.4 miles from its mouth at Long Island Sound (see 

Figure 1-3). The Connecticut River Bridge is one of several moveable rail bridges along the 

Northeast Corridor. The existing bridge is a two-track, ten-span steel rail bridge with an open 

deck and stone masonry piers. The bridge is over 1,500 feet long and has two abutments and 

nine piers. Seven of the ten spans are through-truss spans (roughly 185 feet in length each). Two 

of the spans are deck-girder spans (one 38 feet in length and one 70 feet in length). One span is a 

160-foot-long moveable rolling lift bascule span (see Figure 1-4). The lift span opens to allow 

boats and other marine vessels to traverse the Connecticut River. The bridge is owned by 

Amtrak and used primarily for passenger rail. P&W also uses the bridge for freight transport. 

Construction of the existing Connecticut River Bridge began in 1904 and it became operational 

in 1907. It is nearing the end of its serviceable life. Amtrak is initiating the Connecticut River 

Bridge Replacement Project to identify problems posed by the current rail crossing and propose 

necessary improvements. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” Amtrak has 

considered a range of improvement alternatives, including minor repairs, rehabilitation of the 

existing bridge, partial replacement, and complete replacement. 

C. EXISTING CONDITIONS 

REGIONAL PASSENGER RAIL SYSTEM 

The Northeast Corridor is the most heavily used passenger rail line in the U.S., both in terms of 

ridership and service frequency.1 The Northeast Corridor extends from Washington, D.C. in the 

south to Boston, Massachusetts in the north, serving the densely populated northeast region 

including Pennsylvania Station in New York City (PSNY). Amtrak, the nationwide inter-city 

passenger rail operator, owns much of and operates over all of the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak 

 

1

 Source: BGL Rail Associates, for the Amtrak Reform Council, “A Recommended Approach to Funding 

the Estimated Capital Investment Needs of the Northeast Corridor Rail Infrastructure”, April 2002. 
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA 

May 2014 1-2 

operates regional service, long distance service, and high-speed Acela Express service along the 

line. Several commuter rail agencies provide local and semi-express regional passenger services 

along the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak provides service to over 500 destinations in 46 states on 

21,000 miles of routes. An average of nearly 78,500 passengers travel on more than 300 Amtrak 

trains per day across the nation. In FY 2012, Amtrak’s total ridership was 31.2 million 

passengers, the most in Amtrak’s history. Nearly 11.4 million of these riders traveled along the 

Boston-New York-Washington segment of the Northeast Corridor.

BRIDGE HISTORY 

The American Bridge Company began constructing the existing bridge in 1904 and it became 

operational in 1907. The bridge was initially owned by the New York, New Haven & Hartford 

Railroad, subsequently by Penn Central Railroad, and eventually by Amtrak. The bridge piers 

were constructed to allow for the future addition of parallel spans to the north. Regular 

maintenance and structural repairs have been made to the bridge over its lifetime, including: 

mechanical, electrical, and structural repairs to the moveable span; structural repairs to the 

approach span floor systems and trusses; and bridge cleaning and painting. Amtrak installed a 

moveable catenary unit on the bridge in the 1990s as part of the Northeast Corridor 

Electrification Project between New Haven and Boston. 

CURRENT BRIDGE OPERATIONS 

The existing Connecticut River Bridge is used by Amtrak, P&W, and by ConnDOT’s SLE 

service. Roughly 38 Amtrak trains, 12 SLE trains (including 2 non-revenue trains), and 6 freight 

trains travel across the bridge each weekday. Between 1999 and 2011, the rolling lift span has 

opened approximately 3,400 times per year to allow marine vessels to pass. Since approximately 

80 percent of these openings are needed during the summer months, the bridge largely remains 

open for navigation between May 15 and October 15 and closes for rail traffic as needed.1

The maximum allowable speed over the bridge is 60 miles per hour (mph). Speed over the 

bridge is limited by the east and west approach curves and by the miter rails, special rail 

connections that allow the rails to disengage and the bridge to open and close. The bridge 

approaches consist of fill material and rise approximately 28 feet above the surrounding open 

waters and tidal wetlands. 

The Connecticut River Bridge is part of the CONN Interlocking. The existing communication 

and signals (C&S) system on the bridge includes systems for both rail and marine traffic, and the 

C&S lines are housed in a concrete duct parallel to the right-of-way (ROW) on the north side. 

Control of the bridge openings and signal protection can be performed locally at the bridge or 

remotely from Boston. Submarine fiber optic and copper cables, owned by AT&T and MCI, are 

also located along the north side of the ROW and cross the river to the north of the bridge. The 

electrification system for the existing bridge comprises an auto-tension type wire catenary with 

feeder arrangement. Steel poles and bracket arms support the catenaries along the ROW. The 

steel poles are in reinforced concrete caisson foundations. An emergency generator is located 

near the northeast corner of bridge. 

 

1

 Source: Hardesty and Hanover, LLP for National Railroad Passenger Corporation Office of Engineering, 

Inspection and Conceptual Engineering for the Reconstruction or Replacement of the Connecticut River 

Bridge, MB 106.89; Navigation Survey Report, October 2006. 
SHORE RD

NORTHEAST CORRDOR

OLD

SAYBROOK

OLD

LYME

CONNECTICUT RIVER RAYMOND E. BALDWIN BRIDGE

I-95

MCCURDY ROAD

5.23.12

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 1-1

Project Site

Aerial Source: Connecticut 2010 Color NAIP, USDA-FSA-APFO, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, 2010

SCALE 0 2000 FEET

Project Site Boundary

1/4-Mile Study Area Boundary
Project Site

New London

County Middlesex

County

Hartford

County

Tolland

County

Windham

County

New Haven

County

Groton

Lyme

Lebanon

Stonington

Haddam Montville

Ledyard

Salem

Colchester

Waterford

East Lyme

Griswold

East Haddam

Preston

Voluntown

Middletown

Norwich

Old Lyme

North Stonington

Clinton

Killingworth

Durham

Portland

Bozrah

East Hampton

Lisbon

Franklin

Westbrook

Old Saybrook

Chester

Essex

Sprague

Cromwell

Deep River

Middlefield

New London

6.16.08

Figure 1-2

Regional Project Context

Schematic Not To Scale

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
6.16.08

Figure 1-3

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT USGS Map

SCALE

0 800 1600 FEET

OLD

LYME

OLD

SAYBROOK

1/4-Mile Study Area Boundary
6.5.12

SOURCE: Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, “Final Concept Design Engineering Report”, March 2007

Figure 1-4

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Existing Bridge (General Plan and Elevation)

SCALE

0 200 FEET
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 

1-3 May 2014

NAVIGATION ALONG THE CONNECTICUT RIVER 

The Connecticut River is 407 miles long, stretching from northern New Hampshire to its mouth 

at Long Island Sound, between the towns of Old Saybrook and Old Lyme, Connecticut. The 

river is tidally influenced as far as Hartford, the practical head of navigation, approximately 50 

miles from the mouth of the river. Several marinas serving recreational users are located on 

either side of the bridge. In the town of Old Saybrook, several facilities associated with the 

“Between the Bridges Marina” operate north of the project site. Additionally, the “Ragged Rock 

Marina” is located in a small inlet west of the project site. CTDEEP’s Marine Headquarters, with 

several support facilities, is located on the eastern bank of the river in Old Lyme, immediately 

north of the existing bridge approach. 

The existing Connecticut River Bridge has a navigable channel width of approximately 150 feet, 

located between the fenders of the moveable span (i.e., not in the center of the river). During the 

original construction of the bridge, the moveable span was built east of center in a shallow 

portion of the river so the bridge piers could be more easily anchored. In the closed position, the 

bridge has a vertical clearance of 18 feet, which is adequate clearance for smaller recreational 

boats. Larger boats and marine vessels require opening of the bridge. With the rolling lift span in 

the open position, the vertical clearance is 68 feet for the full channel width. For marine vessels 

requiring a channel width less than 71 feet, the vertical clearance is unlimited. USACE maintains 

a channel depth of 15 feet in this stretch of the Connecticut River Bridge.

Between the bridge and the mouth of the river, the navigable channel width is 300 feet. 

Upstream of the bridge, the navigable channel width is 150 feet. The Raymond E. Baldwin 

Bridge, an eight-lane fixed highway bridge carrying I-95, is located 1/3-mile to the north of the 

study area (see Figure 1-3). The Baldwin Bridge was reconstructed in 1993 using a modern 

segmental concrete design with a vertical clearance of 81 feet. The next crossing of the 

Connecticut River, the Route 82 swing auto bridge, is located about 12 miles to the north of the 

project site. 

Recreational use of the Connecticut River has been increasing steadily in the last 20 years due to 

an improvement in environmental quality of the river and its designation as an American 

Heritage River in 1998 by the Clinton administration1

. Recreational boaters are the primary users 

of the Connecticut River between late spring and early autumn. The majority of recreational 

craft are power boats but a substantial number of sailing vessels also use the river. There are 

approximately 30 yacht marinas and four boat launches between the mouth of the river and the 

head of navigation. In 2006, a navigation survey of the Connecticut River Bridge vicinity was 

performed on behalf of Amtrak, referred to herein as the Navigation Survey.2 The survey was 

conducted through conversations with various marinas, contractors, and commercial users of the 

river, interviews with USCG and USACE, reviews of bridge operating practices, and 

observations at the site. The Navigation Survey concluded that the existing channel width and 

alignment are adequate for current navigation, and further suggested that widening and centering 

the channel could possibly improve navigation and reduce vessel impact risk. The tallest 

recreational vessels using the river were identified as tall as 90 feet high, although these vessels 

 

1

http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/named/heritage/connecticut.cfm. Accessed March 16, 2011. 

2

 Source: Hardesty and Hanover, LLP for National Railroad Passenger Corporation Office of Engineering, 

Inspection and Conceptual Engineering for the Reconstruction or Replacement of the Connecticut River 

Bridge, MB 106.89; Navigation Survey Report, October 2006. 
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA 

May 2014 1-4 

are known to have trouble navigating under the 81-foot-tall Baldwin Bridge immediately to the 

north of the study area. 

Commercial traffic on the Connecticut River consists mainly of general contractors and the 

shipping of coal and oil by Moran Towing during the colder months. Self-propelled vessels 

include dry cargo ships, towboats and tugboats. Non-propelled vessels on the river include 

barges and tankers. Barges from Moran Towing make up the largest vessels on the Connecticut 

River, displacing roughly 11,000 tons when fully loaded with coal or oil. 

D. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND NEED 

BRIDGE STRUCTURE

The primary concern with the existing Connecticut River Bridge is its age, since it is nearing the 

end of its useful life. At times, the operational reliability of the aging bridge results in cascading 

delays to rail and maritime traffic due to its failure to open and close properly. In 2006, a bridge 

inspection was performed on behalf of Amtrak. As discussed below, Amtrak’s contractor found 

certain aspects of the existing bridge to be particularly problematic, including the mechanical 

operating system, the bascule span rolling tread plates, and the approach span truss pin and 

eyebar connection, the curved tread plates, and mating track plates of the heel end of the rolling 

lift span. Disruptive rehabilitations of the treads and tracks are required approximately every 20 

years, which limits the retrofit options. At the time of the inspection, the existing track and tread 

structure, and the supporting steel segmental box girder exhibited cracks. The approach spans 

have truss pin and eyebar connections, which typically loosen after years of service. Amtrak has 

determined retrofit devices installed during the 1970s to be ineffective. 

Amtrak installed a moveable catenary unit on the bridge as part of its Northeast Corridor 

Electrification Project. The complex structure extends the length of time required to open and 

close the bridge and adds weight to the bridge. The original bridge design did not factor in the 

weight of the electrification facilities and, as a result, the electrification facilities have increased 

stresses and bearing pressures on the bridge. The moveable span counterweight balance is a 

concern, as is potential deterioration of structural members. Additional concerns include: tight 

working clearances within the machinery house, limited access for maintenance and routine 

inspection, and uncertainty in the seismic resistance of the existing stone masonry piers. 

NAVIGATION CHANNEL 

The existing bridge timber fenders that mark the channel are deteriorated and substandard. 

Reconstructed fenders will provide greater protection of the bridge piers. As explained above, 

widening the horizontal clearance of the channel and/or relocating it westward towards the 

center of the river will potentially provide additional navigation advantages and reduce the risk 

of vessel impact. Because of the off-center nature of the existing channel and its location close to 

the eastern shoreline, the ebb tide current tends to pull marine vessels into Pier 5 (the west 

channel pier). Relocating the moveable span westward of the existing channel would, however, 

require deeper pier foundations. 

The Navigation Survey determined that increasing the vertical clearance of the bridge when in 

the closed position will not result in a meaningful reduction of bridge openings. The current 

practice of leaving the bridge in the open position during the summer months is acceptable to 

Amtrak given the current and projected future rail traffic. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 

1-5 May 2014

E. PLANNING CONTEXT 

RELATED PRIOR PROJECTS 

In the 1980s, FRA financed the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project (NECIP) which, for a 

total cost of nearly $4 billion, included a major overhaul to fully electrify and improve the 

system between Washington, D.C. and Boston. In the late 1990s, in preparation for the launch of 

the Acela Express service, Amtrak upgraded the portion of the Northeast Corridor north of New 

York City again to eliminate grade crossings, modify approach curves, and rebuild bridges to 

accommodate the new trains. Amtrak replaced the Mystic River Bridge in Mystic, Connecticut 

and the Shaw’s Cove Bridge in New London as part of this effort in the 1980s. 

ARRA AND PRIIA 

As is evident in recent legislation, the federal government is making substantial investments in 

intercity rail service. Two important new sources of federal funding have emphasized extensive 

capital investment into Amtrak infrastructure on the state and corridor level: 

 The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) set objectives for 

Amtrak by focusing on intercity passenger rail, including Amtrak’s service on the Northeast 

Corridor. Programs authorized under PRIIA represent a shift in rail project funding to statelead planning, positioning Amtrak to ensure that service planning and development proceed 

in a consistent manner along each long-distance corridor and throughout the entire network. 

 The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) has provided a muchneeded infusion of funds to allow Amtrak to begin making capital investments that may 

otherwise have been backlogged. 

Using the framework established under PRIIA and ARRA, and the authorized funding, FRA 

launched the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program in June 2009. HSIPR 

emphasizes a corridor-level approach to planning rail services to support the state-centric 

funding. The administration’s initial vision for establishing high-speed rail was documented in 

the High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan (April 2009)1

, and clarified by the FRA’s Interim Program 

Guidance (June 2009), which outlined the eligibility requirements and procedures for obtaining 

funds under the program, and the criteria by which applications are evaluated. 

The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan (May 2010)2 has identified the capital needs 

to meet the increase in service of Amtrak and commuter railroads, together with the remaining 

state of good repair backlog. The next step in the planning process is to prepare more detailed 

plans of the proposed improvements, more clearly defining the service improvements, costs, and 

environmental impacts. This step will help focus investment in those areas that will best serve 

the needs of Amtrak and its partners. 

 

1

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2011.

2

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=123760834501 

8&cid=1241245669222. Accessed March 21, 2011. 
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA 

May 2014 1-6 

STATE OF GOOD REPAIR 

On April 15, 2009, Amtrak issued the Northeast Corridor State of Good Repair Spend Plan1as 

required by Section 211 of PRIIA. The plan cited then-Secretary of Transportation Mary E. 

Peters’ definition of state of good repair: “A condition in which the existing physical assets, both 

individually and as a system, (a) are functioning as designed within their useful lives and (b) are 

sustained through regular maintenance and replacement programs; state of good repair 

represents just one element of a comprehensive capital investment program that also addresses 

system capacity and performance.” 

Amtrak’s planned state of good repair projects include normalized replacement (sustaining 

assets in a state of good repair) and backlog of deferred investments (replacing assets that are no 

longer functioning as designed within their useful lives). It will include replacement of 

infrastructure elements such as: track, bridges, tunnels, overhead catenary wire, power supply 

systems, cable, transformers and converters, signals, communications and dispatching systems, 

stations, and facilities. The program also includes the procurement of new rolling stock 

throughout the Amtrak system. 

As part of the State of Good Repair program, Amtrak has two similar moveable bridge projects 

along the Connecticut segment of the Northeast Corridor. The Thames River Bridge 

Replacement Project was completed in July 2008. The Niantic River Bridge Replacement 

Project was completed in May 2013. The Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project will be 

the next major improvement project to address the operational reliability of Northeast Corridor 

drawbridges. 

AMTRAK’S 2012 UPDATE REPORT 

Amtrak’s recent summary document, The Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor, 2012 

Update Report2

 outlined actions and initiatives taken in the preceding years, identified critically 

needed near-term Master Plan projects benefiting the Northeast Corridor, and established a 

phasing strategy for the implementation of next generation high-speed rail operations within the 

next 5 to 15 years. The report reaffirmed the Connecticut River Bridge as one of the critical 

components for improving Northeast Corridor operations from Washington to Boston. The plan 

noted that the approach of the NECIP going forward will be to integrate suites of state-of-goodrepair projects—designed to repair the network and increase reliability—with capacity 

enhancements that would allow next-generation initiatives such as high-speed rail service. 

NEC FUTURE TIER I EIS 

The NEC FUTURE program is a comprehensive planning effort focused on the 457-mile rail 

transportation system extending from Boston's South Station in the north to Washington's Union 

Station in the south3. The program is being led by FRA with FTA acting as a cooperating 

agency for the initiative. A unique partnership with the White House Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) has been established for NEC FUTURE to promote early collaboration with 

 

1

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345018&

cid=1241245669222. Accessed March 21, 2011. 

2

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/453/325/Amtrak-Vision-for-the-Northeast-Corridor.pdf. Accessed on 

October 21, 2013. 

3

http://www.necfuture.com/. Accessed on December 10, 2013. 
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need 

1-7 May 2014

federal and state environmental agencies for efficient environmental decision-making. NEC 

FUTURE aims to define, evaluate, and prioritize future investments in the NEC, and will include 

new ideas and approaches to grow the region's intercity, commuter, and freight rail services.

The first phase of the program took place in 2012 and entailed stakeholder and public outreach, 

data collection and analysis, a scoping process in accordance with NEPA requirements, and 

development of initial alternatives. In 2013, principal activities included preliminary alternatives 

development and a screening process to identify a smaller set of reasonable alternatives for 

analysis in the Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Additional activities included an 

existing conditions analysis of the NEC FUTURE study area and ongoing public outreach and 

agency coordination. In 2014, FRA anticipates preparation of the Draft Tier 1 EIS (DEIS) and 

Draft Service Development Plans, with the selection of a preferred investment program for the 

Northeast Corridor. The Final Tier 1 EIS (FEIS) and Final Service Development Plan are 

expected to be completed in 2015. The Connecticut River Bridge Project is within the Tier I EIS 

study area. Amtrak is coordinating with FRA regarding both projects. The Connecticut River 

Bridge Project will be informed by the outcome of the Tier I EIS and will be designed so as not 

to preclude the NEC FUTURE project.

F. PROJECT PURPOSE, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES 

FRA and Amtrak recognize the need to address the problems posed by the existing Connecticut 

River Bridge. The purpose of the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project is to improve 

the aging bridge, enhance its reliability and long-term serviceability, and ensure continued 

passenger and freight rail operations along the Northeast Corridor as well as navigation along the 

Connecticut River. 

To compare and contrast the project alternatives developed as part of the environmental review 

process, Amtrak has identified specific project goals and objectives to be used as the basis for 

developing the criteria and screening methodology for evaluating the project alternatives. 

Amtrak has established three goals for the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project. The 

objectives further define the goals and provide specific and measurable means by which to 

evaluate project alternatives. While cost effectiveness is not an explicit project goal, the 

estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs of each project alternative will be 

considered in tandem with the project goals. Cost effectiveness will not, however, affect the 

selection of a Preferred Alternative for NEPA analysis. The three project goals and their 

respective objectives are as follows: 

Goal 1: Improve the reliability and long-term serviceability of the Connecticut River Bridge 

and its approach structures. 

 Objective: Maintain a state-of-good-repair for the bridge and its approaches. 

Goal 2: Minimize conflicts with maritime traffic. 

 Objective: Minimize delays to trains and/or marine traffic due to bridge 

operations. 

 Objective: Provide sufficient vertical clearance and channel width for 

commercial and recreational traffic on the Connecticut River. 

 Objective: Minimize construction-period impacts to rail operations and 

navigation. 

Goal 3: Minimize permanent and temporary impacts to the surrounding environment. 
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA 

May 2014 1-8 

 Objective: Minimize temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and other 

ecologically sensitive areas. 

 Objective: Minimize impacts to cultural resources. 

 Objective: Minimize short-term construction impacts. 

G. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS 

In accordance with NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq., FRA is performing this EA to analyze the 

potential environmental impacts from each feasible project alternative. Subsequent chapters in 

this EA describe the project alternatives being considered, describe the current state of the 

surrounding environment, and identify possible effects of the project alternatives. This EA also 

documents compliance with applicable federal environmental laws, rules, and regulations, 

including Section 106 of the NHPA, Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act, and Executive Order 

12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations.” 
2-1 May 2014

Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

A. INTRODUCTION

Amtrak is initiating the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project (project) to identify

problems posed by the current rail bridge and propose necessary improvements. Consistent with

NEPA requirements and FRA guidance, this EA evaluates several build alternatives. Also

evaluated is a “no build” scenario, referred to as the “No Action Alternative”, wherein none of

the project elements will be constructed and the existing Connecticut River Bridge will remain in

place. Amtrak developed the project alternatives evaluated in this EA through a comprehensive

alternatives development and screening process that considered bridge rehabilitation, partial

bridge replacement, and full on-line and off-line bridge replacement options. Upon completion

of the screening process, the project team evaluated potential build options and identified a

Preferred Build Alternative as best meeting the project goals and objectives. The Preferred Build

Alternative will be fully constructed and operational by the year 2018. Amtrak identified the

year 2030 as the long-term planning year for all project alternatives and the environmental

impact analysis year for this EA.

This chapter identifies the APE, explains the alternatives development and screening

methodology, describes the No Action Alternative and identifies the Preferred Build Alternative

as the Preferred Alternative for purposes of this EA. The estimated project costs and a list of

potential permits and approvals required to build the project are also provided.

B. AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT

The APE (also referred to as the “project study area”) includes the Connecticut River Bridge, its

eastern approach in the Town of Old Lyme, and its western approach in the Town of Old

Saybrook. Amtrak has generally defined the primary study area as the area within a quarter-mile

of this segment of the existing Northeast Corridor ROW (as shown in Figure 1-1). The primary

study area also represents the area within which project elements will be constructed and where

environmental impacts could occur. As described in subsequent chapters of this EA, each impact

analysis may also consider a larger secondary study area to appropriately assess the potential for

the project to result in regional impacts or benefits.

C. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING

Amtrak considered a number of build alternatives involving the rehabilitation, reconstruction,

and/or replacement of the Connecticut River Bridge. As a first step, Amtrak developed a list of

feasible project alternatives that considered the project’s logical termini, constructability

requirements, navigability requirements, and track requirements. These alternatives were then

evaluated based on specific criteria, including: construction-period impacts to rail service and

navigation; operational improvements to rail service and navigation; long-term serviceability and
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 2-2

reliability of the bridge and its approach structures; impacts to railroad facilities, such as

electrification; and permanent and temporary environmental impacts.

The list of feasible project alternatives was formulated based on the following alternative

groups:

 Alternative Group 0—No Action Alternative. Only minimal repairs and maintenance

needed to keep the existing bridge in service will be performed.

 Alternative Group 1—Rehabilitation of the existing bridge. This will include

rehabilitation of the existing bridge approach spans and substructures. These alternatives

are assumed to extend the service life of the bridge for 40 years.

 Alternative Group 2—Partial bridge replacement. This will include rehabilitation of the

approach spans and substructures. The moveable span will be replaced in its entirety.

These alternatives are assumed to extend the service life of the bridge for 40 years.

 Alternative Group 3—On-line bridge replacement. This will include replacement of the

entire bridge superstructure, the approach spans, and the moveable span. The bridge will

be replaced on its current alignment. These alternatives are assumed to extend the

service life of the bridge for 75 years.

 Alternative Group 4—Off-line moveable bridge replacement to the north. This will

include the replacement of the entire bridge superstructure, the approach spans, and the

moveable span. As discussed in Chapter 1, the existing bridge piers were constructed to

allow for the future addition of parallel spans to the north. The northern alignment

alternatives could extend and reuse the existing bridge piers, if determined to be

structurally sufficient. If not, construction of a new substructure will be required. These

alternatives assume the service life of the replacement bridge to be 75 years.

 Alternative Group 5—Off-line moveable bridge replacement to the south. This will

include the replacement of the entire bridge superstructure, the approach spans, and the

moveable span. The construction of a new substructure will be required. These

alternatives assume the service life of the replacement bridge to be 75 years.

 Alternative Group 6—Off-line fixed bridge replacement to the south. This will include

the complete replacement of the bridge superstructure and substructure, and new

approach spans. The vertical alignment for this alternative group will include a 1.5

percent grade. These alternatives assume the service life of the replacement bridge to be

100 years.

 Alternative Group 7—Off-line fixed bridge replacement to the south. This will include

the complete replacement of the bridge superstructure and substructure, and new

approach spans. The vertical alignment for this alternative group will include a 1.9

percent grade. These alternatives assume the service life of the replacement bridge to be

100 years.

Amtrak further categorized the build alternatives according to navigation channel location,

channel width, moveable bridge type, and approach span type. As described in Chapter 1,

“Purpose and Need”, during the original construction of the bridge, the moveable span was built

east of center in a shallow portion of the river where the bridge piers could be more easily

anchored. The existing 150-foot-wide navigable channel is therefore located closer to the eastern

riverbank (i.e. not in the center of the river). Amtrak studied several build alternatives that
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

2-3 May 2014

proposed centering the channel in the river. Several build alternatives entailed widening the

channel up to 200 feet. A wider channel, either in the existing location or moved to the west,

likely requires either a fixed span or a different type of moveable bridge, since a bascule bridge

is appropriate for spans of less than 150 feet. During the alternatives development process,

Amtrak determined that any fixed span or vertical lift bridge alternatives will need to provide a

vertical clearance of at least 90 feet to accommodate tall sailboats. Amtrak also determined that,

for a moveable bridge in the closed position, providing a higher vertical clearance than the

existing 18 feet will not meaningfully reduce the number of bridge openings (due mostly to the

number of tall sailboats using the river). Therefore, Amtrak considered raising the profile of the

entire bridge only for the fixed bridge alternatives. All alternatives maintain the existing twotrack configuration, since two tracks will provide sufficient capacity to meet the projected 2030

rail operations. Table 2-1 summarizes the permutations within each alternative group. In all,

Amtrak studied 21 different build alternatives.

Table 2-1

Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Alternative Groups

Alternative Group Channel

Location

Channel

Width Bridge Type Approach Spans

0 – No Action Alternative Off-Center 150’ Bascule Thru-Truss Open Deck

1 – Rehabilitation Off-Center 150’ Bascule Thru-Truss Open Deck

2 – Rehab Approach / Replace

Moveable Span

Off-Center or

Moved West 150-200’

Bascule or

Vertical Lift Thru-Truss Open Deck

3 – Moveable On-Line

Replacement

Off-Center or

Moved West 150-200’

Bascule or

Vertical Lift Thru-Truss Ballast Deck

4 – Moveable Replacement /

North Alignment

Off-Center or

Moved West 150-200’

Bascule or

Vertical Lift

Thru-Truss Ballast Deck

or Composite Box Girders

5 – Moveable Replacement /

South Alignment

Off-Center or

Moved West 150-200’

Bascule or

Vertical Lift Ballast Deck Girders

6 – Fixed Replacement / South

Alignment (1.5% Grade) Moved West 200’

Network Tied Arch

or Subdivided

Warren Truss

Ballasted Tub and

Deck Girders

7 – Fixed Replacement / South

Alignment (1.9% Grade) Moved West 200’

Network Tied Arch

or Subdivided

Warren Truss

Ballasted Tub and

Deck Girders

Sources: Final Concept Design Engineering Report, Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, March 2007

Final Fixed Span Crossing Preliminary Concept Design Engineering Report, Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, Oct 2010

ALTERNATIVE GROUPS 1, 2, AND 3

Amtrak eliminated the rehabilitation alternatives in Group 1 due to concerns with the

performance of the rehabilitated components, particularly with the long-term serviceability and

reliability of the existing piers. The project team also discarded partial replacement alternatives

and those associated with complete on-line replacement alternatives in Groups 2 and 3 because

of the need to maintain uninterrupted train operations during on-line construction. The estimated

loss of revenue for each two track outage is unacceptable; thus Amtrak determined that Groups
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 2-4

1, 2, and 3 did not appropriately meet the project purpose and need and eliminated them from

further project consideration.

ALTERNATIVE GROUPS 4 AND 5

Amtrak identified Groups 4 and 5 as warranting further consideration, since they provide longterm serviceability and reliability and allow for uninterrupted rail operations. Within Groups 4

and 5, Amtrak considered multiple moveable bridge types. As explained below, moveable bridge

types include swing, vertical lift, and bascule bridges.

MOVEABLE BRIDGE TYPES

Swing bridges employ a primary structural support on which a turning span can pivot

horizontally. Swing bridges can pivot on a central support, creating two side by side navigation

channels, or on one end of the span, opening as a gate. Swing bridge alternatives were deemed

unreasonable for the proposed project due to constructability concerns. To accommodate

construction with the current bridge intact, a new swing bridge will need to be built

approximately 200 feet off-line from the current bridge, an effort that will involve extensive land

use and potential environmental impacts. Additionally, a central support swing bridge will not

satisfy the 150 foot minimum channel width that is needed for navigation at this site. The

extensive substructure required to support the pivot of a center-bearing swing bridge will

decrease the channel width available for navigation. Swing bridges also generally require more

complex mechanical devices than either vertical lift or bascule bridges.

Vertical lift bridges operate by moving a center span vertically to allow the passage of vessels

underneath. The center span operates along two towers that house the counterweights required to

raise and lower the moveable span. Vertical lift bridge designs offer several advantages at the

project site. A vertical lift bridge offers a longer span than other moveable bridge types, which

will allow for a wider navigation channel than presently exists. The Navigation Survey1,

performed on behalf of Amtrak, found that the existing channel of 150 feet was adequate for

navigation, but that widening the channel may ease congestion and should be considered.

Vertical lift bridges can also more easily accommodate electrification facilities.

With a bascule bridge, a counterweight balances the moveable span through an upward swing. A

bascule bridge can be double or single-leafed. A bascule bridge will be a feasible alternative for

the proposed project. The typical types of bascule bridges include rolling lift, articulated, and

simple trunnion. All of these bascule bridge types utilize an overhead counterweight similar to

the current bridge. Maintenance simplicity and operational reliability are paramount

considerations in a moveable bridge structure. Therefore, simple trunnion or rolling lift bridge

structures offer definite advantages for their utilization in this crossing. A bascule bridge

typically can provide for a channel width up to 150 feet, but a few have been documented

beyond this limit.

1

Source: Hardesty and Hanover, LLP for National Railroad Passenger Corporation Office of Engineering,

Inspection and Conceptual Engineering for the Reconstruction or Replacement of the Connecticut River

Bridge, MB 106.89; Navigation Survey Report, October 2006.
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

2-5 May 2014

SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES GROUPS 4 AND 5

Amtrak gave additional consideration to all of the Groups 4 and 5 alternatives, except the use of

swing-type bridge replacement. Through consultation with USACE and USCG, Amtrak and the

consulting agencies determined that relocating the channel will require an extensive regulatory

process and will present unacceptable navigation difficulties during construction. Amtrak

therefore eliminated those alternatives within Groups 4 and 5 that proposed to relocate the

channel location.

To determine whether to reuse and/or extend the existing piers for the northern alignment

alternatives (Group 4), Amtrak performed additional conceptual engineering and a construction

feasibility study1. Minimal information is available regarding the structural integrity of the

existing piers, and Amtrak concluded that their potential reuse could cause problems with

seismic resistance and structural capacity. Furthermore, installing new piles or drilled shafts near

the existing piers (which will be required for any of the Group 4 alternatives) was not

recommended due to concerns about damaging vibrations and potential pier settling occurring

during the construction process. Installing new foundations for the southern alignment

alternatives (Group 5) will provide more distance from the existing piers and will therefore

lessen the risk of damage to the existing bridge during its continued operation throughout the

construction period. Based on the need for continued operation of the existing bridge during the

construction phase, Amtrak determined that Group 4 alternatives presented unreasonable

constructability and safety risks, and therefore eliminated the remaining Group 4 alternatives

from further consideration.

ALTERNATIVE GROUPS 6 AND 7

The alternatives within Groups 6 and 7 will involve a high-level fixed-span crossing. Since this

segment of the Connecticut River is heavily used by tall sailboats, a vertical underclearance of at

least 90 feet will be required. This will in turn require lengthy approach structures, land

acquisition beyond Amtrak’s ROW, and extensive wetland impacts. The high-level nature of the

bridge will require relatively steep grades, which could be present operational impacts for the

freight trains not equipped to handle steep grade changes. Furthermore, it was estimated that

these fixed bridge alternatives will be cost-prohibitive. Using these combined considerations,

Amtrak determined that Group 6 and 7 fixed-bridge alternatives did not appropriately meet the

purpose and need without significant impacts, and therefore eliminated the Groups 6 and 7

alternatives from further consideration.

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative assumes the Connecticut River Bridge will remain in service as is,

with continued maintenance and minimal repairs. No major improvements to or replacement of

the Connecticut River Bridge will be undertaken under the No Action Alternative. The No

Action Alternative will not include any changes to the existing track configuration. The No

Action Alternative consists of planned improvements in the primary and secondary study areas

that are scheduled for the near future or are included in the long range transportation plans for

the region and are expected to be completed by 2030. Included are major investment projects

1

Source: URS Corporation, Conceptual Engineering Review, November 17, 2011.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 2-6

that involve substantial improvements to the regional transportation system as well as minor

projects that maintain the system in a state of good repair, as detailed below.

REPLACEMENT OF NIANTIC RIVER BRIDGE

The Connecticut River Bridge is one of several moveable Northeast Corridor bridges located in

southern Connecticut. Amtrak began to address the operational reliability of these bridges with

the Thames River Bridge Replacement Project (between New London and Groton) completed in

July 2008. Similarly, Amtrak replaced the Niantic River Bridge (between Waterford and East

Lyme) with a trunnion type bascule bridge. That project was completed in May 2013.

NEW SHORE LINE EAST STATIONS

The SLE service runs parallel to the shore of the Long Island Sound on this segment of the

Northeast Corridor. SLE is operated by Amtrak under contract with ConnDOT. SLE service is

currently available along nine Connecticut stations, from New Haven Union Station to the west

to Old Saybrook and New London to the east. ConnDOT constructed and opened a new

SLE/New Haven Line station in New Haven (State Street Station) in 2003 and new SLE stations

in Branford, Clinton, and Guilford in 2005 as part of the New Haven Harbor Crossing Corridor

Improvement Program. The Madison Station was completed in 2007 and upgrades to the

Westbrook Station are nearing completion. North side high level platforms are planned for

Branford and Westbrook, and will be designed for Madison and Clinton. An additional 272

parking spots at the Branford Station were completed in June 2011. ConnDOT expects to

complete further station upgrades by 2015. Ridership has been increasing steadily since the

inception of the SLE service in 1990. Station improvements will allow SLE to accommodate the

anticipated continued increase in ridership.

PEARL HARBOR MEMORIAL BRIDGE (Q-BRIDGE) CONSTRUCTION

The new Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, also known as the “Q-Bridge”, is currently being

constructed by ConnDOT as part of the I-95 New Haven Harbor Crossing Improvement

Program. The bridge will replace the current six-lane structure carrying the Connecticut

Turnpike over the Quinnipiac River with a ten lane design that will incorporate the capacity of a

concrete box girder bridge into a cable-stayed bridge design. The new northbound side of the QBridge is complete and open to traffic1

. ConnDOT is now constructing the new southbound side

of the Q-Bridge, with an expected completion date of 2015. ConnDOT began work on a related

project—the reconstruction and widening of the I-95/I-91/Route 34 interchange—in April 2011.

ConnDOT expects that project to be complete in 2016.

CONNDOT NEW HAVEN - HARTFORD – SPRINGFIELD RAIL PROGRAM

ConnDOT conducted an EA for the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Program (NHHS), an

upgrade of Amtrak’s existing 62-mile-long Springfield Line between New Haven and

Springfield, Massachusetts. In August of 2012, ConnDOT obtained a Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI) from FRA2.The corridor has been identified as a key component in meeting

1

http://www.i95newhaven.com/contractor/#. Accessed December 23, 2013.

2

http://www.nhhsrail.com/ea/. Accessed December 11, 2013.
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

2-7 May 2014

regional transit goals and sustaining regional economic viability1. The NHHS program will

provide new equipment and facilities, including several new stations; improve tracks and

crossings; and increase capacity by double-tracking large portions of the corridor. These changes

will enable a greater number and variety of intercity and regional trains to provide frequent

service along the NHHS corridor throughout the day. In addition to serving those traveling

between the towns and cities along the corridor, the service will provide a connection to Bradley

International Airport in northern Connecticut, multiple links to Amtrak service, and a direct

connection to the existing MTA Metro-North Railroad (MNR) and SLE service in New Haven,

as well as direct service to New York City on certain trains. Additional new service to points in

Massachusetts, Vermont, and Quebec will also travel along the corridor. While ConnDOT has

not yet developed a firm implementation plan, the line is scheduled to be operational by 20162.

AMTRAK STATE OF GOOD REPAIR PROGRAM

The No Action Alternative assumes that Amtrak will continue its “State of Good Repair”

program, which aims to restore Amtrak’s aging infrastructure and continue to improve

operations. As discussed in Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need,” Amtrak’s planned state of good

repair projects include normalized replacement (sustaining assets in a state of good repair) and

backlog of deferred investments (replacing assets that are no longer functioning as designed

within their useful lives). It will include replacement of infrastructure elements such as: track,

bridges, tunnels, overhead catenary wire, power supply systems, cable, transformers and

converters, signals, communications and dispatching systems, stations, and facilities. The

program also includes the procurement of new rolling stock throughout the Amtrak system.

Besides the replacement of the Connecticut River Bridge, Amtrak is seeking to address a

substantial backlog of Northeast Corridor projects between FY 2009 and FY 2023, including

many bridges, tunnels, interlocking, and electric traction systems.

MTA METRO-NORTH RAILROAD NEW HAVEN LINE IMPROVEMENTS

The MTA Capital Program 2010-20143(June 2010) includes a number of state of good repair

and replacement projects for the MTA-MNR, which provides service in Connecticut on its New

Haven Line. A fleet modernization project will address the MNR New Haven Line, for which

the current 1970s M-2 fleet will be replaced with new M-8 models. Other projects along the

New Haven Line will include: the replacement of Substation Bridge 23 at Mount Vernon East;

an aging AC traction power station that supplies the New York section of the New Haven Line;

replacement and major repair of various New Haven Line equipment; the replacement of four

under-grade bridges on the New Haven Line; and a number of station improvements.

CTTRANSIT NEW BRITAIN – HARTFORD RAPID TRANSIT

As part of an initiative to improve congestion along I-84 in the Hartford area, ConnDOT is

developing a dedicated 9.4-mile long busway linking downtown New Britain with Hartford’s

Union Station4. The Bus Rapid Transit system, also referred to as “CTfastrak”, will be the first

in the State of Connecticut and will run along active and inactive railroad ROWs through four

1

http://www.ct.gov/dot/cwp/view.asp?a=3535&q=425114. Accessed February 24, 2012.

2

http://www.nhhsrail.com. Accessed February 24, 2012.

3

http://www.mta.info/news/pdf/cap10/capital_program.pdf. Accessed February 24, 2012.

4

http://www.ctfastrak.com/about/what-is-ctfastrak. Accessed December 23, 2013.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 2-8

cities/towns: New Britain, Newington, West Hartford, and Hartford. Eleven new transit stations

will be constructed to serve the route. The facility will permit bus access at intermediate points,

with circulator bus routes that will serve surrounding neighborhoods and enter the busway as

needed, providing a one-seat ride. Construction began in the spring of 2012 and ConnDOT

expects the busway to be operational in 2015.

E. PREFERRED BUILD ALTERNATIVE

Based on the criteria discussed above, Amtrak evaluated the 21 build alternatives discussed

above and identified the Preferred Build Alternative. The Preferred Build Alternative is a Group

5 alternative and includes replacing the existing bridge with a new moveable bridge along a new

alignment to the south of the existing alignment. For the purposes of this EA, the Preferred Build

Alternative is adopted as the Preferred Alternative, and is analyzed in detail throughout this

document. The details of the Preferred Alternative are discussed below.

SUPERSTRUCTURE AND SUBSTRUCTURE

The Preferred Alternative will involve complete replacement of the existing superstructure with

a two-track moveable bridge. It will be built along a new southern alignment, with an offset of

48 feet from the centerline of the existing bridge to the centerline of the new bridge. It will not

reuse the existing piers, and will therefore require a new substructure. The upland portions of the

Preferred Alternative will be built entirely within Amtrak’s existing ROW. The channel will

remain in its existing location. Upon completion of the new bridge, the existing Connecticut

River Bridge will be decommissioned and removed.

Amtrak has identified two feasible options for the Preferred Alternative (see Figures 2-1 and

2-2). One option (Option A) will replace the existing bridge with a bascule bridge and will

maintain the existing 150-foot channel width. As explained above, a bascule bridge is typically

appropriate to span a navigational channel with a maximum width of 150 feet. Option A will

provide a vertical clearance of 18 feet in the closed position. In the open position, it will likely

provide a similar vertical clearance as the existing bridge (i.e., 68 feet for full channel width and

unlimited for vessels requiring less than 71 feet in width).

The other option (Option B) will replace the existing bridge with a vertical lift bridge. This

option could potentially provide for a wider channel. The exact channel width for Option B will

be determined during preliminary engineering; however, it will provide a minimum of 150 feet

and a maximum of 200 feet. Option B will provide a vertical clearance of 18 feet in the closed

position. When in the open position, the vertical clearance of the lift bridge will be at least 90

feet.

Both options are evaluated in this EA. As stated throughout the environmental analyses, the

differences in environmental impacts between the two options are minimal, unless otherwise

noted. Amtrak will decide which of these options to pursue during the preliminary engineering

phase, based on a variety of factors including cost and constructability.

Regardless of the type of moveable bridge and channel width, the Preferred Alternative will

include ballast deck girders for the approach spans. It will require widening of the existing rail

embankment for the bridge approaches. Based on Amtrak’s previous experience with similar

bridge replacement projects, a combination of embankments and retaining walls will likely be

required for the bridge approaches. The use of retaining walls in certain locations will minimize
5.29.12

Figure 2-1

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Preferred Alternative: Bridge Type

OPTION B: VERTICAL LIFT BRIDGE

OPTION A: BASCULE BRIDGE
OPTION A

OPTION B

150’

200’ (MAX)

150’

150’

150’ (MIN)

5.29.12

Figure 2-2

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Preferred Alternative: Alignment

Vertical Lift Bridge

Bascule Bridge

Existing Bascule Bridge
Chapter 2: Project Alternatives

2-9 May 2014

wetland impacts, as discussed later in this EA. The Preferred Alternative will include new

navigation channel fenders and a dolphin system, regardless of whether the channel is expanded.

COMMUNICATIONS AND SIGNALING

Fiber optic and copper cables are located parallel to the Northeast Corridor tracks on the north

side of the ROW of both approaches. These cables are mounted on the north side of the existing

box girder structure until they reach the bascule span of the bridge, at which point the cables

become submarine and cross beneath the river’s channel. Existing signal, communication, and

traction power system cables are located on the south side of the bridge. The contractor will have

to relocate these cables prior to construction in addition to relocating several signals, on both the

east and west bridge approaches. A new signal system will have to be installed on the moveable

span.

CATENARY AND TRACTION POWER

The Preferred Alternative will require removal of existing catenary poles and wire. Amtrak and

its contractors will install new catenary supports and wire. Due to differences in moveable

bridge type, there will be certain differences between Option A and Option B in the positioning

of catenary poles and wire on the bridge superstructure, particularly on either side of the

moveable span.

The bascule bridge replacement option (Option A) will require a new moveable catenary unit

that will span the gap between the fixed conductor rail on the lift span and the bascule roll back

point. The new fixed termination, variable tension catenary from the east will dead-end on a

termination structure at the moveable catenary unit, and from the west at a termination structure

on the fixed span before the channel. The vertical lift bridge option (Option B) will require new

moveable catenary skids that will span the gap between the fixed conductor rail on the vertical

lift span and the fixed skid at each tower. The new fixed termination (variable tension) catenary

from the east and west will dead-end on termination structures at each vertical lift tower.

The placement of catenary equipment will be identical on the bridge approaches under both

options. The Preferred Alternative will also require the replacement of an emergency generator

currently located north of the existing bridge on the east approach.

F. CAPITAL COSTS

The estimated maximum capital costs for the Preferred Alternative ranges from $225 to $300

million (in 2012 dollars). This cost includes the construction of the bridge superstructure and

substructure, deck, machinery, channel fender and dolphin system, catenaries, the construction

of new approaches, the demolition of the existing bridge, and engineering and project costs.

G. POTENTIAL PERMITS REQUIRED

The Preferred Alternative will potentially require a number of federal, state, and local permits

and approvals (see Table 2-2). The project must also comply with numerous laws, including

those regarding worker and public safety, use of parkland and historic resources, and endangered

and protected species.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 2-10

Table 2-2

List of Potential Federal, State, and Local Permits

Permits/Certifications Responsible Agency Activity

Federal

Section 404 Permit US Army Corps of Engineers Discharge of dredged or fill material

into U.S. waters.

Section 10 Permit US Army Corps of Engineers Construction of structures in

navigable waters

Section 9 Permit US Coast Guard Construction over navigable waters

Hazards to Navigation

Assessment

US Coast Guard Obstructions in navigable waters

State

Coastal Consistency Review Connecticut DEEP Excavation and fill in navigable

waters

401 Water Quality Certificate Connecticut DEEP Discharges to surface waters

Stream Encroachment Connecticut DEEP Coastal development

Tidal Conveyance Connecticut DEEP Activities that affect tidal wetlands

Construction General Permit Connecticut DEEP Stormwater and

dewatering/wastewaters from

construction activities

Note: Other federal, state and local permits and approvals may be required.


3-1 May 2014

Chapter 3: Transportation Effects

A. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter assesses the potential benefits and impacts of the proposed project on transportation

conditions in the project area and in southern Connecticut. Since several intercity, commuter,

and freight service lines operate via the Northeast Corridor and traverse the Connecticut River

Bridge, the project could result in effects over a larger area. Therefore, this transportation

analysis considers a larger secondary study area and includes a discussion of the regional

transportation network, with a focus on southern Connecticut. It includes an evaluation of

current and future transportation infrastructure, including intercity rail, public transportation

(including commuter rail, public and private bus service, and ferry services), freight service,

navigable waters, and the roadway system. Construction period impacts to transportation in the

project area and overall region are documented in Chapter 12, “Construction Impacts”.

B. EXISTING CONDITIONS

INTERCITY RAIL

Amtrak is the nation’s only intercity passenger railroad, transporting an average of nearly 78,500

passengers on more than 300 trains per day. Amtrak operates passenger rail service to over 500

destinations in 46 states on 21,000 miles of routes. As part of this network, Amtrak runs the

Northeast Regional service between Newport News, Virginia and Boston, Massachusetts,

including service to PSNY in New York City. PSNY is the busiest station served by Amtrak, the

busiest railroad station in the country, and accommodates more passengers each working

weekday than all three of the major New York City area airports combined (Kennedy,

LaGuardia, and Newark Liberty).1

The premium time-sensitive Acela Express service operates along the Northeast Corridor, serving

Boston, PSNY, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. Launched in 2000, Acela became

the nation’s first high-speed rail service, allowing passengers to travel from New York City to

Boston in three and a half hours, and between New York and Washington, D.C. in two and a half

hours. The Acela Express service has become increasingly competitive with plane shuttles in the

northeast, particularly after September 11, 2001. The Connecticut River Bridge is utilized by both

Northeast Regional and Acela trains (see Table 3-1). Within the larger study area, Amtrak also

operates the Vermonter. This line follows the Northeast Corridor north from Washington, D.C. and

branches off in New Haven, west of the project site, to continue through Massachusetts and

Vermont. Vermonter trains do not cross the Connecticut River Bridge.

1

Federal Railroad Administration. Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the

Expanded Moynihan/Penn Station Redevelopment Project, New York, NY. Federal Register: November

9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 217)
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 3-2

Table 3-1

Existing Train Traffic Across Connecticut River Bridge (average weekday)

Train Type No. Trains

Amtrak Northeast Regional 18

Amtrak Acela 20

P&W Freight 6

Shore Line East 12*

Total 56

Notes: * Includes 2 non-revenue trains.

FREIGHT SERVICE

Two regional freight companies operate freight service along the Northeast Corridor in the

secondary study area. P&W operates in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New

York and has exclusive rights to conduct freight operations over the Northeast Corridor between

New Haven and the Massachusetts/Rhode Island border. P&W operates approximately six daily

freight trains over the Connecticut River Bridge. Freight service west of New Haven is operated

by CSX Corporation.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE

MTA Metro-North Railroad

The MTA’s MNR was founded in 1983 when the MTA assumed control of commuter train

operations in New York and Connecticut. MNR encompasses 384 route miles, serving 120

stations in seven counties in New York State and two counties in Connecticut. In 2011, MNR

reached its second-highest ridership record of over 82 million trips1. MNR’s 2010 average

weekday ridership was 277,169.2 While MNR service does not extend to the Connecticut River

Bridge, the New Haven Line provides connectivity to Amtrak and SLE trains that cross the

Connecticut River Bridge. MNR runs two main lines west of the Hudson River—the Port Jervis

Line and the Pascack Valley Line—which operate out of the New Jersey Transit terminal in

Hoboken with connections to PSNY via Secaucus. MNR runs three main lines east of the

Hudson River—the Hudson Line, the Harlem Line, and the New Haven Line—which operate

out of Grand Central Terminal in New York City. The New Haven Line originates in Grand

Central Terminal and follows the shore of Long Island Sound (along the Northeast Corridor) to

Union Station and State Street Station in New Haven. In New Haven, MNR customers can

switch to Amtrak’s Hartford/Springfield Line, Amtrak’s Northeast Regional service to Boston,

or to SLE service (described below).

1

http://www.mta.info/mta/news/releases/?agency=mnr&en=120123-MNR5. Accessed February 9, 2012.

2

http://www.mta.info/mta/network.htm. Accessed February 9, 2012.
Chapter 3: Transportation Effects

3-3 May 2014

Shore Line East Service

In 1990, ConnDOT established the SLE service to temporarily alleviate traffic congestion

resulting from construction work on Interstate 95, which runs parallel to the shore of the Long

Island Sound and the Connecticut segment of the Northeast Corridor. SLE is operated by

Amtrak under contract with ConnDOT. Service was extended from New Haven’s Union Station

to New London when the SLE line was made permanent in 1996. Connecticut commuters can

transfer at Union Station, Bridgeport, or Stamford for MNR New Haven Line service to New

York City.

In 2006, as part of a state-wide effort to improve public transportation, the Connecticut State

Legislature mandated that ConnDOT study the feasibility of the expansion of SLE service. The

resulting report, Expanding Rail Service on Shore Line East1, released in January 2007,

identified obstacles to improved SLE service and outlined several phases of expansion of

service. Phase One, implemented in July 2008, added weekend train service at the six SLE stops

from New Haven to Old Saybrook. Phase Two added one round trip to New London in February

2010 and an additional 3 round trips to New London in May 2010.

SLE service is currently available along nine Connecticut stations from New Haven Union

Station to the west to Old Saybrook and New London to the east (Figure 3-1). Service to the

ninth station, New London, is limited to five daily westbound trains and five daily eastbound

trains. SLE trains to/from New London cross the Connecticut River Bridge. As an additional

travel option, passengers with monthly, weekly, or ten-ride SLE passes have the option of

boarding eight “select” daily Amtrak trains serving Old Saybrook and New London stations.

Two SLE weekday trains operate west of New Haven.

During the weekday, SLE operates 13 westbound trains, with an additional summer schedule

“Friday Special” train operating between June and August. Westbound trains from Old

Saybrook/New London operate mainly during early morning (5:22 AM to 9:14 AM) and during

the afternoon/early evening (2:05 PM to 8:35 PM). There are 13 eastbound trains, with an

additional summer schedule “Friday Special” train. SLE eastbound trains from New Haven

Union Station operate during the morning (5:20 AM to 8:10 AM) and during the

afternoon/evening (1:00 PM to 10:05 PM). Of the above-mentioned eight “select” Amtrak trains

(which operate between Old Saybrook/New London and New Haven Union Station and accept

SLE multi-ride tickets), three are westbound morning trains and five are eastbound trains, which

operate throughout the day. SLE operates 16 revenue trains on Saturdays, Sundays and

Holidays; however, these trains do not serve New London and therefore do not use the

Connecticut River Bridge. Currently, SLE has 10 revenue trains and 2 non-revenue trains

crossing the Connecticut River Bridge on weekdays2.

Ridership on SLE continues to increase, with over 614,000 annual passenger trips and over 13

million passenger miles in 20113. Due to the limited number of trains continuing to New

1 Connecticut Department of Transportation, Expanding Rail Service on Shore Line East, pursuant to

Public Act 06-136, Section 2(d). January 1, 2007

2

http://www.shorelineeast.com/service_info/schedules.php. Accessed June 20, 2012.

3

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dplansprojectsstudies/plans/state_rail_plan/State_Rail_Plan_Fin

al_Draft_2-8-12.pdf. Accessed March 2012.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 3-4

London, SLE New London service has lower ridership; in 2010, there were 12,700 annual

weekday rides.

Valley Railroad Company Essex Steam Train

The Valley Railroad Company operates a historic, recreational steam train (and associated steam

boat rides) along the Connecticut River from Essex Junction to Chester and East Haddam,

Connecticut. Although the train’s proximity to business districts in the towns of Old Saybrook,

Essex, Chester, and East Haddam could be used for a local commuter connection, currently the

train is used only for seasonal recreational purposes. These trains do not utilize the Connecticut

River Bridge.

BUS SERVICE

Connecticut Transit (CTTRANSIT) is the state bus service, operated by several companies under

contract with ConnDOT. Most Connecticut bus service is concentrated in the Capital Region in

the central area of the state. The Hartford/New Haven/Stamford metro areas include over 30

local and 12 express bus routes. CTTRANSIT New Haven connects with the MNR New Haven

Line and SLE. CTTRANSIT Stamford also connects with the MNR Harlem Line and several

bus lines for service to White Plains, New York and Westchester County. CTTRANSIT

Waterbury, New Britain/Bristol, and Meriden/Wallingford lines focus on service in the Capital

Region.

The Estuary Transit District (ETD) operates a public transit service along two routes

immediately near the project site, serving the towns of Chester, Clinton, Deep River, Essex,

Killingworth, Lyme, Old Lyme, Old Saybrook, and Westbrook. ETD is able to cover a larger

service area by providing flexible route options. Flex-Route lines run several buses along a

designated route, with regular stops at selected locations. Passengers also have the option to

request drop-off and pick-up one mile from the designated route, or to schedule a pick-up by the

By-Request service for an additional fee.

FERRY SERVICE

The Chester-Hadlyme Ferry is operated by ConnDOT on the Connecticut River between the

towns of Chester and Hadlyme, Connecticut, approximately nine miles north of the project site.

The ferry allows for the passage of eight to nine cars and approximately 50 people. The ferry

operating season is limited to April 1 through November 30. The service is therefore most often

used for seasonal recreational travel and emergency services for the towns of Chester and

Hadlyme.

Several cross-sound ferries operate between Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island in Long

Island Sound. The privately-operated vehicle ferry between Bridgeport, Connecticut and Port

Jefferson, New York has ten to fourteen runs per day. Passengers can connect to Amtrak’s

Northeast Regional service or the MNR New Haven Line. Three ferry lines operate to the east of

the project site from New London where passengers can connect to Amtrak Regional service.

The Cross Sound Ferry operates a vehicle ferry between New London and Orient Point, New

York, on the north fork of Long Island, with seven to fourteen runs available per day. The

Fishers Island Ferry operates five to nine runs per day between New London and Fishers Island,

New York. Several of these ferries operate on a more limited schedule during the off-peak

months. The Block Island Express operates a high speed ferry between New London and Block

Island, Rhode Island, with three to four runs on select days during the summer months.
LONG ISLAND SOUND

Mystic

Milford

Clinton

New Haven

Branford Guilford

Madison

New London

Old Saybrook

Westbrook

NEW HAVEN MIDDLESEX

NEW LONDON

TO BOSTON

TO NEW YORK

PROJECT SITE

CONNECTICUT

Hartford

PROJECT REGION

10.2.08

Figure 3-1

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Project Area Rail System

Project Site Boundary

County Boundary

Town Boundary

Amtrak

Metro North Railroad

Shore Line East

Amtrak Station

Metro North Station

Shore Line East Station

SCALE

0 2 5 MILES
Chapter 3: Transportation Effects

3-5 May 2014

NAVIGABLE WATERS

The Connecticut River has a total length of 407 miles and is the largest river in New England.

The river stretches from the Connecticut lakes in New Hampshire to its mouth at Long Island

Sound, between the towns of Old Saybrook and Old Lyme, Connecticut. The river is tidally

influenced as far as Hartford, approximately 50 miles upstream.

The Connecticut River Bridge is the southernmost crossing of the Connecticut River at river

navigation mile 3.4. There are eight crossings of the river between the Connecticut River Bridge

and the head of navigation at Hartford, approximately 50 miles from the mouth of the river. Two

of these structures are moveable bridges and six are bridges of fixed elevation. Fixed bridges are

constructed at an elevation that allows marine vessels to pass underneath the bridge. The bridge

elevation is measured with respect to the mean high water (MHW) of the navigable waterway.

Moveable bridges, which may be constructed at a lower elevation, are designed to open when

needed to accommodate the passage of a vessel that could not pass under the bridge in its closed

position. Types of moveable bridges include swing-span bridges (which rotate horizontally, open

to a perpendicular position using a center pivot in the river), lift bridges (where a section of the

bridge is raised vertically), and bascule bridges (which are lifted from one or both sides of the

river, like a drawbridge).

Table 3-2 shows the characteristics of the rail and highway bridges located between the mouth of

the river and the head of navigation at Hartford. They are listed in order from the southernmost

to the northernmost bridge, and each bridge’s location is identified in terms of its distance (in

nautical miles) from the mouth at Long Island Sound. The vertical clearance describes the

distance between MHW and the bottom of the bridge structure (for moveable bridges, vertical

clearance is provided for both the open and closed positions). Horizontal clearance describes the

width of the navigable channel at that location.

Table 3-2

Connecticut River Bridges

Bridge Name

Location

(Miles from

Mouth of

River) Bridge Type

Vertical

Clearance

Horizontal

Open* Closed Clearance

1 Connecticut River 3.4 Bascule Rail Bridge 68’-

71’** 19’ 139’

Bridges

Upstream of

Connecticut

River Bridge

2 Raymond E. Baldwin 4 Fixed Auto Bridge (I-95) 81’ 258’

3 Route 82 Bridge 16.8 Swing Auto Bridge (Rt. 82) >89’ 22’ 180’-200’

4 Middletown-Portland 32 Swing Rail Bridge >89’ 25’ 100’

5 Arrigoni 32.2 Fixed Auto Bridge (Rt. 66) 89’ 480’

6 W. H. Putnam Memorial 46 Fixed Auto Bridge (Rt. 3) 80’ 300’

7 Charter Oak 49 Fixed Auto Bridge (Rt. 15) 69’ 215’

8 Founders 50 Fixed Auto Bridge (Rts. 2

and 6) 49’ 155’

9 Bulkeley 50.3 Fixed Auto Bridge (I-84) 39’ 100’

Notes: * Swing-span bridges have an infinite vertical clearance when in the open position, denoted above as >89’.

** The Connecticut River Bridge has a 68’ vertical clearance for full 150’ channel width and an unlimited vertical

clearance for 71’ width.

Sources: NOAA Connecticut River Navigation Charts, 2001

MARINE TRAFFIC

Commercial traffic on the Connecticut River consists mainly of general contractors and the

shipping of coal and oil by Moran Towing during the colder months. Self-propelled vessels
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 3-6

include dry cargo ships, towboats and tugboats. Non-propelled vessels on the river include

barges and tankers. Barges from Moran Towing make up the largest vessels on the Connecticut

River, displacing roughly 11,000 tons when fully loaded with coal or oil.

Recreational boaters are the primary users of the Connecticut River between late spring and

early autumn, and recreational use of the Connecticut River has been increasing steadily in the

last 20 years due to an improvement in environmental quality of the river and its designation as

an American Heritage River in 1998. The majority of recreational craft are power boats but a

large number of sailing vessels also use the river. There are approximately 30 yacht marinas and

approximately 4 boat launches between the mouth of the river and the head of navigation.

The required vertical clearance for a marine vessel depends on the size and weight of the vessel

and the tide conditions. Vessels require the most vertical clearance when traveling empty at high

tide. The least vertical clearance is needed when a vessel is fully loaded at low tide. The need to

open the Connecticut River Bridge and other moveable bridges is correlated with certain vessels.

Amtrak logs information about each opening of these moveable bridges and the type of boat or

tug that passes. In addition, USACE maintains information regarding marine traffic along the

Connecticut River.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need,” the Navigation Survey1found that the existing

channel width and alignment was adequate for current navigation. Some users reported that the

ebb tide current pulls the ships into the western channel pier as a result of the existing channel

being located close to the eastern shoreline. The report identified the tallest recreational vessels

using the river were 90 feet high. These vessels often have trouble navigating under the 81-foottall Raymond E. Baldwin Bridge immediately to the north of the study area. Between 1999 and

2011, the Connecticut River Bridge opened approximately 3,400 times per year, with 80 percent

of those openings occurring in the summer months between May and October.

REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

The secondary study area includes the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95), also known as the Governor

John Davis Lodge Turnpike, which runs west to east from Greenwich to Killingley, at the border

with Rhode Island. The westbound Connecticut Turnpike passes through the New Haven

metropolitan area and connects to the New England Thruway, leading to the Bronx, NY via the

Bruckner Expressway and Queens, NY via the Throgs Neck Bridge. The eastbound Connecticut

Turnpike continues as I-95 to connect to Providence, Rhode Island, Boston, Massachusetts and

further north to New Hampshire and Maine. The Chester Bowles Highway (Route 9) in the

project area connects with I-91, a major thoroughfare leading to Hartford, Connecticut and north

into Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont

Congestion on most of the region’s road network is partially dependent on seasonal traffic and

road accidents. Congestion along I-95 is not seasonally dependent, as it supports commuter

traffic also in addition to a large volume of through-state traffic.

1 Hardesty and Hanover, LLP for National Railroad Passenger Corporation Office of Engineering,

Inspection and Conceptual Engineering for the Reconstruction or Replacement of the Connecticut River

Bridge, MB 106.89; Navigation Survey Report, October 2006.
Chapter 3: Transportation Effects

3-7 May 2014

C. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The project team identified short- and long-term projects evaluated as part of the No Action

Alternative through review of the ConnDOT Long Range Transportation Plan for 2004-2030,

the Regional Transportation Plan of the Connecticut River Estuary Metropolitan Planning

Organization (CREMPO) for 2007-2035, the ConnDOT Master Transportation Plan for 2008-

2017, and the MTA Capital Program for 2010-2014. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project

Alternatives,” the No Action Alternative assumes the Connecticut River Bridge will remain in

service as is, with continued maintenance and minimal repairs. Amtrak expects that service over

the bridge will worsen in the future without the proposed project, as the bridge will continue to

age and problems will occur more frequently.

POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH

Changes to population occur due to natural changes in the existing population as well as

immigration and emigration of residents. Employment changes occur due to changes in size,

number or location of businesses as economies grow or shrink throughout the region, and as

dominant industries expand or contract. Changes in population and employment in the region

affect both the number of trips as well as their distribution throughout the transportation

network.

In Old Lyme, Old Saybrook, Clinton, and Westbrook, the shoreline towns surrounding the

project site, the availability of undeveloped, usable land in the area and the attraction of Long

Island Sound have resulted in the conversion of a number of seasonal dwellings to year-round

homes. Coupled with the increased density in the surrounding communities, this pattern has

created a greater need for intermodal commuting options, as problems of vehicular access begin

to develop.

Over the past hundred years, population has grown in the Connecticut River Estuary region,

which includes the towns of Chester, Clinton, Deep River, Essex, Killingworth, Lyme, Old

Lyme, Old Saybrook, and Westbrook. From 1950 to 1970, the region witnessed explosive

growth, and population more than doubled. Growth slowed considerably in the last two decades

of the 20th century, but still continues at about ten percent per decade, and local governments

expect this trend to continue in the coming decades.1

INTERCITY RAIL

As described in Chapter 2, the Connecticut River Bridge is one of several moveable Northeast

Corridor bridges located in southern Connecticut. Amtrak began to address the operational

reliability of these bridges with the Thames River Bridge Replacement Project (between New

London and Groton) completed in July 2008. Similarly, Amtrak replaced the Niantic River

Bridge (between Waterford and East Lyme) with a rolling lift bascule bridge. Amtrak completed

that project in 2013. Also as discussed in Chapter 2, the No Action Alternative will include

Amtrak’s State of Good Repair program. Amtrak’s 2030 service plan includes an increase in the

number of average weekday Acela trains crossing the Connecticut River Bridge from 20 to 32;

the number of Northeast Regional trains is expected to remain the same. ConnDOT is planning

1 Connecticut River Estuary Metropolitan Planning Organization. Regional Transportation Plan 2007-

2035. 2007.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 3-8

to increase the number of SLE trains traveling between Old Saybrook and New London from 12

to 24 trains per average weekday.

Table 3-3

Projected 2030 Train Traffic Across Connecticut River Bridge (average weekday)

Train Type No. Trains

Amtrak Northeast Regional 18

Amtrak Acela 32

P&W Freight 6

Shore Line East 24

Total 80

FREIGHT SERVICE

As part of its Maritime Policy, released in 2005, the State of Connecticut has reemphasized its

support of projects that will facilitate the intermodal connection of water, rail, and highway

systems. The State has pledged to develop and provide incentives for public-private maritime

investment projects that will facilitate intrastate and interstate freight movement from the

region’s ports. ConnDOT is currently undertaking a study to investigate rail access to

Connecticut’s deep water sea ports at New London, New Haven, and Bridgeport. If freight

service is increased across the Northeast Corridor near Connecticut ports, the reliability and

maintenance concerns presented by the existing Connecticut River Bridge will continue to

present a limiting factor.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE

As described in Chapter 2, the No Action Alternative assumes the completion of ConnDOT’s

New Haven-Hartford-Springfield Rail Program and MTA-MNR’s planned improvements to the

New Haven Line. Neither of these projects will affect train traffic over the Connecticut River

Bridge.

Shore Line East Service

As discussed above, a 2007 ConnDOT report1identified a number of obstacles to expanding

SLE service and presented a phased plan for expansion. Phase One of the plan, additional

weekend SLE service, has been implemented. The report states that Phase Two, the expansion of

daily service to New London, is contingent upon a number of issues, including improving the

reliability of the Connecticut River Bridge. With planned New London weekend service, overall

SLE ridership to New London is projected to increase to over 22,000 annual rides for calendar

year 2014. Under the No Action Alternative, the deteriorating Connecticut River Bridge could

inhibit further expansion of SLE service beyond the planned service level.

1 Connecticut Department of Transportation, Expanding Rail Service on Shore Line East, pursuant to

Public Act 06-136, Section 2(d). January 1, 2007
Chapter 3: Transportation Effects

3-9 May 2014

BUS SERVICE

CTTRANSIT New Britain – Hartford Rapid Transit

As part of an initiative to improve congestion along I-84 in the Hartford area, ConnDOT is

developing a dedicated 9.4-mile long busway linking downtown New Britain with Hartford’s

Union Station1. The Bus Rapid Transit system, also referred to as “CTfastrak”, will be the first

in the State of Connecticut and will run along active and inactive railroad ROWs through four

cities/towns: New Britain, Newington, West Hartford, and Hartford. ConnDOT will construct

eleven new transit stations to serve the route. The facility will permit bus access at intermediate

points, with circulator bus routes that will serve surrounding neighborhoods and enter the

busway as needed, providing a one-seat ride. The project is currently in the final design phase.

Construction began in 2012 and ConnDOT expects the busway to be operational in 2015.

There are no other major planned capital improvements to bus service in the project region. This

EA assumes that bus ridership will see a natural amount of growth due to an increase in the

regional population.

FERRY SERVICE

There are no major planned improvements for ferry service between New York and Connecticut

in the short and long term. This EA assumes that ferry ridership will experience slight amounts

of natural growth due to increases in the regional population and growing popularity of

recreational destinations in New York and Connecticut.

NAVIGABLE WATERS

There are no large maritime facilities planned for the Connecticut River. The river will likely

continue to see a heavy emphasis on recreational uses in the summer months. Commercial traffic

on the river is expected to remain stagnant. Navigation limitations cited by the Navigation

Survey included the height of the nearby Raymond E. Baldwin Bridge, and the east-shore

alignment of the existing channel. Without the proposed project, navigation near the Connecticut

River Bridge will likely not improve but will continue to be adequate.

REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

PEARL HARBOR MEMORIAL BRIDGE (Q BRIDGE) CONSTRUCTION

As described in Chapter 2, ConnDOT is currently constructing the new Pearl Harbor Memorial

Bridge, also known as the “Q-Bridge”, as part of the I-95 New Haven Harbor Crossing

Improvement Program. The bridge will replace the current six-lane structure carrying the

Connecticut Turnpike over the Quinnipiac River with a ten lane design that will incorporate the

capacity of a concrete box girder bridge into a cable-stayed bridge design. The new northbound

side of the Q-Bridge is open to traffic. ConnDOT expects construction of the new southbound

side of the Q-Bridge will be complete in 2015. Work on a related project—the reconstruction

and widening of the I-95/I-91/Route 34 interchange—began in April 2011, and ConnDOT

expects it to be complete in 2016. Completion of this project will not affect train traffic over the

Connecticut River Bridge.

1

http://www.ctfastrak.com/about/what-is-ctfastrak. Accessed December 23, 2013.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 3-10

D. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This section discusses the potential impacts to transportation from the Preferred Alternative.

The Preferred Alternative will enhance the reliability of the Connecticut River Bridge and

thereby provide benefits to marine traffic, Amtrak service, SLE service, and freight operations.

INTERCITY RAIL

The Preferred Alternative involves off-line construction of the replacement bridge on a new

southern alignment, which will be used for intercity rail service. During the construction period,

trains operating through the project area may need to operate at slower speeds to ensure safety

(as discussed in Chapter 12, “Construction Impacts”). A track outage may also be required to

reconnect the newly constructed bridge approach spans to the existing track. The project team

will determine the length of this delay and mitigation measures to minimize impact during the

final design and construction of the replacement bridge.

The Preferred Alternative will not alter train speed, schedule, or capacity. The Preferred

Alternative will improve the reliability of the bridge structure and moveable span, which will

decrease unscheduled train delays caused by bridge malfunctions and improve service. In

summary, the Preferred Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts to intercity rail

operations.

FREIGHT SERVICE

During the construction period, freight trains operating through the project area may need to

operate at slower speeds to ensure safety. A track outage may also be required to reconnect the

newly constructed bridge approach spans to the existing track. Amtrak will determine the length

of this delay and mitigation measures to minimize impact during the final design and

construction of the replacement bridge.

The proposed project will result in a long-term benefit to freight service, as it will improve the

reliability of the bridge. The Preferred Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts

to freight rail operations.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

COMMUTER RAIL SERVICE

The Preferred Alternative will not affect the MNR New Haven Line, and there will be minimal

effects to SLE service to New London Station during the construction period (see Chapter 12,

“Construction Impacts”). The Preferred Alternative will improve the reliability of the

Connecticut River Bridge, thereby improving the reliability of SLE service to New London. In

summary, the Preferred Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts to commuter

rail operations.

FERRY SERVICE

The Preferred Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts to ferry service.
Chapter 3: Transportation Effects

3-11 May 2014

BUS SERVICE

The Preferred Alternative will have only a minimal effect on bus service. Some riders may

temporarily switch to bus service to avoid any train service delays caused by the construction of

the new bridge; however, this effect will be temporary. The Preferred Alternative will not result

in significant adverse impacts to bus service.

NAVIGABLE WATERS

The Preferred Alternative will provide benefits to navigation. The project will improve the

reliability of the bridge and will therefore reduce delays to maritime traffic caused by bridge

openings and closings. Option A will retain the alignment and width of the existing channel and

replace the existing bridge with a bascule moveable span, which will provide unlimited vertical

clearance for a portion of the channel. Option B may potentially expand the navigation channel

to 200 feet in width (which could further benefit navigation by reducing the likelihood of fender

collisions) and will include a vertical lift span with a vertical clearance of 90 feet.

In summary, the Preferred Alternative will result in an improvement to navigability along this

segment of the Connecticut River. As described in Chapter 12, “Construction Impacts”, the

Preferred Alternative will result in some temporary adverse impacts to mariners. Impacts to

navigability will be temporary, non-significant, and limited only to the construction of the

replacement bridge.

REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

The Preferred Alternative will not result in significant adverse impacts to the regional highway

system. 
4-1 May 2014

Chapter 4: Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions

A. INTRODUCTION

This chapter evaluates the land use and social conditions for areas potentially affected by the

Preferred Alternative. This evaluation considers current and future land uses, parkland, zoning,

public policy, community facilities, land acquisition, and socioeconomic conditions within the

project study area.

Land use is the activity occurring on a particular piece of land and in the structures that occupy

the land. Land uses may be categorized broadly (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) or in

more detail (e.g., single-family residential, multi-family residential, warehousing, and storage).

Zoning is the classification and regulation of land according to use categories, usually developed

by local jurisdictions. Zoning controls the type, density, and bulk of development in a given

jurisdiction by establishing districts where specific land uses are allowed. Community facilities

include religious institutions, daycare centers, police and fire stations, and schools, all of which

contribute to the overall character of an area. The regulatory context and methodology for the

analysis of land use and social conditions are discussed below, followed by a description of

existing and future land use and social conditions, and the potential for impacts from the

Preferred Alternative.

B. REGULATORY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY

REGULATORY CONTEXT

For purposes of environmental review, FRA follows guidance provided by the CEQ and internal

procedures dated May 26, 1999.1 These procedures stipulate consideration of a project’s impacts

on existing and planned land uses. Environmental review involves evaluating local land use

plans as well as comprehensive regional plans with respect to the project to identify conflicts.

An environmental review must also identify open space and areas devoted to recreation (passive

and active) to determine whether a proposed project could adversely affect these sites. As

discussed below, the Connecticut River Bridge is located between the towns of Old Saybrook

and Old Lyme, Connecticut. Land use planning and public policy are established at the

municipal level, giving authority over planning and zoning issues to the local towns’ planning

commissions. The Old Lyme Planning Commission and the Old Saybrook Planning Commission

periodically review and update their respective local master plans and zoning regulations. While

Amtrak is exempt from local zoning and public policy, this EA provides an overview of these

regulations for analysis context.

Following FRA’s procedures, environmental reviews also consider a proposed project’s

potential to adversely impact the socioeconomic environment—including available jobs (number

1

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Downloads/RRDev/FRAEnvProcedures.pdf
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 4-2

and type), community disruption or cohesion, demographic shifts, and the need for and

availability of relocation housing. An environmental review also considers the potential impacts

on existing businesses and local government services and revenues. Transportation projects

often require property acquisition and relocation. A federally funded project must adhere to the

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as codified

in Title 42, Section 4601 et seq. of the United States Code, and the applicable implementing

regulations set forth in Title 49, Part 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations (collectively, “the

Uniform Act”) with regard to relocation services, moving payments, replacement housing

payments, and other allowable payments related to commercial and residential moving costs and

displacement. The rights of owners and tenants of real property acquired to implement the

proposed project are protected under the Uniform Act, which provides for fair uniform and

equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms by federal and

federally assisted programs. The Uniform Act recognizes that displacement of businesses often

results in their closure, and aims to minimize the adverse impact of displacement to maintain the

economic and social well-being of communities. The Uniform Act is designed to ensure that

individuals do not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of programs and projects designed

for the benefit of the public as a whole, and to minimize the hardship of displacement on such

persons.

METHODOLOGY

As discussed in Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need,” the project site is located along the Northeast

Corridor and includes the existing Connecticut River Bridge and its approaches. The project

study area extends a quarter-mile around the project site and occupies the east and west banks of

the Connecticut River (See Figure 4-1). The project team based the size of the study area on a

consideration of potential project impacts during construction and operation. The boundaries of

the study area consider existing physical and visual boundaries, such as the Connecticut River

and Long Island Sound.

LAND USE, ZONING, PUBLIC POLICY, OPEN SPACE, AND PARKLAND

The project team performed the analysis of land use, zoning, public policy, open space, and

parkland through the following six steps:

1. Identification of land uses and land use patterns, community facilities, parklands, and open

space.

2. Review of local and regional government regulations (including zoning), policies, and plans

influencing growth, development, and preservation in the study area;

3. Identification of development trends and planned transportation and development projects;

4. Projection of future conditions with the proposed project and the potential impacts related to

land use, community facilities, and open space.

5. Determination of the proposed project’s consistency with the various land use and zoning

plans and policies and future developments;

6. Where impacts are identified, description of mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce the

magnitude and/or severity of the impacts.
SHORE RD

NORTHEAST CORRDOR

OLD

SAYBROOK

OLD

LYME

CONNECTICUT RIVER RAYMOND E. BALDWIN BRIDGE

I-95

MCCURDY ROAD

5.23.12

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 4-1

Project Site Aerial

Aerial Source: Connecticut 2010 Color NAIP, USDA-FSA-APFO, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, 2010

SCALE 0 2000 FEET

Project Site Boundary

1/4-Mile Study Area Boundary
Chapter 4: Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions

4-3 May 2014

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

The analysis of socioeconomic conditions was performed by identifying the existing and

projected population within the study area. The purpose of this analysis was to consider the

potential for the Preferred Alternative to bifurcate neighborhoods, adversely affect community

cohesiveness and neighborhood character (e.g., through increased noise and traffic), and alter

pedestrian circulation and accessibility to local businesses.

C. EXISTING CONDITIONS

LAND USE

As mentioned above, the Connecticut River Bridge is located along the Connecticut River, 3.4

miles from the mouth of the river at Long Island Sound. The western half of the study area is

located in the Town of Old Saybrook, within Middlesex County, and the eastern half of the

study area is located in the Town of Old Lyme, within New London County.

OLD SAYBROOK

Land uses within the study area in the Town of Old Saybrook are shown on Figure 4-2. Much of

the area immediately surrounding the Connecticut River Bridge is characterized by undisturbed

tidal marshes with tall grasses and expansive views. These marshes are within the Connecticut

River Gateway Conservation Zone (“the Gateway Conservation Zone”) and are protected by the

Connecticut River Gateway Commission (“the Gateway Commission”) and CTDEEP, described

further in “Zoning and Public Policy” below. A few rural roads travel through this section of the

study area. Just north of the project site, the Between the Bridges Marina operates several

facilities along the waterfront, accessible via Ferry Road and Clark Street. Clark Street is a short,

dead-end, local rural street comprising primarily single-family residences and several small

fishing and boating-related businesses, most of which appear to be run out of private residences.

West of the existing Connecticut River Bridge, the Ragged Rock Marina, also accessible by car

from Ferry Road, is located at the end of a small inlet. Ferry Road is a lightly traveled rural

arterial that experiences heavier traffic during the summer months due to its location adjacent to

the marinas. The remaining portion of Ferry Road within the study area consists of single-family

residences and vacant or undeveloped land. The Boston Post Road (Route 1), another rural

arterial, runs just west of the study area. The Boston Post Road is a quiet roadway in this area,

although it becomes a more principal thoroughfare west of the study area where it merges with

U.S. Highway 1 and commercial and industrial land uses become more prevalent. Several

industrial, commercial, and institutional establishments are accessible from the Boston Post

Road and are located within or near the study area, including the Gladeview Health Care Center.

However, these various uses make up a small portion of the study area, which is characterized

predominantly by marshland and forests.

OLD LYME

Land uses within the study area in the Town of Old Lyme are shown on Figure 4-2. Similar to

Old Saybrook, tidal marshes surround the Connecticut River Bridge approaches east of the rail

bridge in Old Lyme. The Lieutenant River also crosses through this portion of the study area.

The CTDEEP Marine Headquarters, comprising an office building, a large garage, and several

other small structures, sits adjacent to the north side of the existing bridge approach. Next to the
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 4-4

CTDEEP Marine Headquarters is Ferry Landing Park, a waterfront park owned by CTDEEP. An

elevated wooden boardwalk begins at Ferry Landing Park near the CTDEEP Marine

Headquarters and continues underneath the existing bridge, providing recreational access to the

marshes. The tidal marshes are a protected natural area in which activities are strictly regulated

by CTDEEP.1

Three roads are located within the Old Lyme portion of the quarter-mile study boundary: Ferry

Road, Sandpaper Point Road, and Shore Road. These roads are lightly traveled rural roads with

little development. Ferry Road is a local rural roadway that terminates at the CTDEEP Marine

Headquarters and is characterized primarily by low-density residential uses comprising singlefamily homes on large, wooded lots. Other uses along Ferry Road include several small boat

docking areas and a boat refueling station along the Connecticut River waterfront. Sandpiper

Point Road, another local rural road accessible from Ferry Road, ends in a cul-de-sac and also

comprises single-family residences surrounded largely by forests and undisturbed land.

Shore Road, a rural arterial roadway, traverses the easternmost portion of the study area where it

crosses over the Northeast Corridor tracks. Land west of Shore Road is primarily wetlands,

whereas land uses east of Shore Road are more varied, yet are accessible only from roads located

outside the study area. Land uses in the eastern portion of the study area include low-density

residential uses, a condominium complex, a church facility, and large expanses of forest. The

Elizabeth B. Karter Watch Rock Nature Preserve, a property of the Old Lyme Conservation

Trust, is located at the southeastern border of the study area.

ZONING AND PUBLIC POLICY

Zoning and public policy are under the jurisdiction of the local municipalities, in this case, the

respective Planning Commissions of Old Saybrook and Old Lyme. While Amtrak is exempt

from local zoning and public policy, this section includes an overview of zoning and public

policy within the towns of Old Saybrook and Old Lyme.

OLD SAYBROOK ZONING AND PUBLIC POLICY

Zoning

The study area includes four zoning districts pursuant to the “Zoning Regulations of the Town of

Old Saybrook, Connecticut,” adopted in 1948 and last amended in October 2009. These zoning

designations include the Marine Commercial (MC) district, the Residence (AA-2) district, the

Industrial (I-1) district, and the Residence (A) district (see Figure 4-3).

Much of the land north of and adjacent to this segment of the Northeast Corridor is zoned MC,

including most of Clark Street and waterfront properties along Ferry Road. The MC district

promotes uses that are water-dependent and provide waterfront access. Permitted uses include

docks, boat sale and service establishments, fish markets, and boat storage areas. In addition,

detached single-family dwellings, schools, parks, and other open space lands are permitted.

Land immediately south of and adjacent to this segment of the Northeast Corridor is zoned AA2. Permitted uses in the AA-2 district include detached single-family residences, home offices,

accessory rental units, schools, parks, and farms. The following uses are allowed with a special

1

Personal communication with CTDEEP, Office of Long Island Sound Programs and Marine District

Headquarters Office, May 17, 2011.
FERRY 

SANDPIPER POINT RD.

LYME S 

McCURDY RD.

McCURDY CT.

DUCK 

RIVER LN.

FERRY RD.

I-95

BOSTON POST RD.

FERRY RD.

CLARK ST. 

RAGGED ROCK RD. 

FARM RD.

FERRY RD.

CONNECTICUT RIVER

Elizabeth B. Karter

Watch Rock Preserve

SANDPIPER POINT RD.

LYME ST.

McCURDY RD.

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

McCURDY CT.

DUCK 

RIVER LN.

FERRY RD.

I-95

SHORE RD.

BOSTON POST RD.

FERRY RD.

CLARK ST. 

RAGGED ROCK RD. 

FARM RD.

5.25.12

Figure 4-2

Existing Land Use

SCALE

0 400 1000 FEET

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

OLD

LYME

OLD

SAYBROOK

Project Site Boundary

1/4-Mile Study Area Boundary

Residential

Mixed Residential and

Marine Commercial 

Marine Commercial

Industrial and Manufacturing

Transportation

Public Facility and Institution

Open Space and Outdoor Recreation

Wetland/Open Water

Vacant Land

Under Construction
Little Rock

Creek

Ragged Rock Creek

Springdale

Pond

POST BOSTON ROAD

RAILROAD

HARTFORD AND HAVEN NEW YORK NEW

ROAD

ROAD

FERRY

RO

ESSEX

ROAD

RIDGEWOOD

TRA LI

BRIARCLIFFE

SPRINGBROOK

DRIVE

ROAD

TRAIL

DRUMMER

OVERLOOK

CONNECTICUT TURNPIKE

FERRY ROAD

FOURTH

ANCHO

LA ERU N L N

(PVT)

(FERRY PLACE)

CLARK STREET

HILL

POSSIB

WATCH LE FUTURE ROAD

DRIVE

B RIARCLIFFE

PATTERS ON PL TRAIL SPRINGBROOK

CLIFFE DRIVE

ROAD MULCAHY

ROAD RIDGE

RIVERS

B-2

B-3

AA-2

B-2

MC

B-4

I-1

AA-2

A

AA-1

300' from CL

6.16.08

Figure 4-3

Existing Zoning - Old Saybrook

SCALE

0 400 1000 FEET

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Project Site Boundary

1/4-Mile Study Area Boundary

Residential District 

Residential District

Residential District

Shopping Center Business District

Restricted Business District

Gateway Business District

Industrial District

Marine Commercial

Connecticut Coastal Management Zone

Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone

AA-1

AA-2

A

B-2

B-3

B-4

I-1

MC
Chapter 4: Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions

4-5 May 2014

permit: convalescent homes and hospitals, colleges, religious institutions, recreational clubs and

facilities, nature preserves, agricultural nurseries, utilities, and railroad ROWs.

The northernmost portion of the study area within Old Saybrook is zoned as an A district.

Similar to the AA-2 district, permitted uses in the A district include detached single-family

residences, home offices, accessory rental units, parks, and farms. Uses permitted by special

permit include convalescent homes and hospitals, residential life care facilities, religious

institutions, schools, colleges, recreational clubs and facilities, agricultural nurseries, utilities,

and railroad ROWs.

Western portions of the study area, primarily along the Boston Post Road, are zoned I-1 (Note:

this district is mapped as I-1 but described as the I district in the Zoning Code). The I district is

intended to allow offices and light industrial uses without compromising the important natural

features of the town. Permitted uses include research and manufacturing facilities, office

buildings, medical clinics, hotels, retail establishments, utilities, railroad ROWs, parks, and other

various light industrial uses. Special exception uses include indoor restaurants or other indoor

food establishments, nursing home facilities, and town government buildings or facilities.

In addition to the aforementioned zoning districts, the study area is also located within several

special state- and local-designated districts, including the Flood Plain Zone, the Gateway

Conservation Zone, and the Coastal Area Management Zone. The project site is located within a

100-year floodplain and is classified as an area of minimal flooding. However, before any new

construction or improvements to existing structures or sites can take place within a Flood Plain

Zone, a Flood Hazard Area Permit must be obtained from the Town of Old Saybrook Engineer.

Most of the study area, with the exception of the northwestern portion, is within the Gateway

Conservation Zone, discussed further below in “Connecticut River Public Policy.” Within this

zone, pursuant to Section 25-102g of the Connecticut General Statues (CGS), the Gateway

Commission has the authority to establish minimum zoning standards that must be adopted into

each affected municipality’s zoning code. The Gateway Conservation Zone aims to preserve the

scenic, ecological, and historic character of areas within the lower Connecticut River Valley.

Strict guidelines within this special district limit development. In some instances, the Town of

Old Saybrook has expanded upon the minimum standards created by the Gateway Commission

and has established more stringent regulations. For instance, the town has established a 100-foot

riparian buffer area from the high-tide line of the Connecticut River and associated tributaries

and wetlands as opposed to the 50-foot buffer area established by the Gateway Commission.

Within this riparian buffer area, the removal of vegetation and the destruction of wildlife habitat

is restricted, as well as other activities that may be harmful to the lower Connecticut River

environment.

The entire study area is within the Coastal Area Management Zone, which has been established

pursuant to CGS Sections 22a-90 through 22a-111 and is intended to protect vegetation, wildlife,

soils, and other natural features in coastal regions. Limited development is permitted within the

Coastal Area Management Zone provided that a Coastal Site Plan is prepared, with several

exceptions and exemptions. Certain minor activities and improvements that will not have a

substantial negative effect on important coastal and tidal natural features are exempt from

Coastal Site Plan review.

Public Policy

In addition to zoning, the Planning Commission of the Town of Old Saybrook has developed a

master plan for the town, the Old Saybrook Plan of Conservation & Development, which was
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 4-6

last updated in 2006. The master plan further outlines the Planning Commission’s vision for the

town and emphasizes the importance of maintaining the small-town character of Old Saybrook

by encouraging appropriate future development that is compatible in size, character, and design

to the town’s existing small-town aesthetic. An Architectural Review Board was established in

1998 to ensure that proposed new developments are in keeping with the existing small-town,

New England character of Old Saybrook.

The Old Saybrook Conservation Commission—a subdivision of the Planning Commission—in

conjunction with the Old Saybrook Land Trust—a nonprofit committed to preserving open

space—completed the Old Saybrook Conservation Plan in 1994. The plan promotes ongoing

efforts of the Town’s Conservation Commission and Land Trust to conserve the town’s

important natural resources through the acquisition of undeveloped land, which in turn will be

preserved as public open space and potential greenway belts. Old Saybrook’s special location on

the eastern bank of the Connecticut River at the mouth of Long Island Sound creates a unique

natural environment, which is recognized on state, national, and international levels, as

discussed below in “Connecticut River Public Policy.” In 2003, the Old Saybrook Harbor

Management Commission completed a Harbor Management Plan that includes both general

goals and objectives and specific guidelines for promoting the balanced use of the Old Saybrook

Harbor Management Area, which encompasses largely Old Saybrook’s municipal jurisdiction

along the Connecticut River, including a portion of the proposed project site. The plan works to

balance the protection of environmental quality, the safe and enjoyable use of waterfront

resources, and marine commercial interests in the Old Saybrook Harbor Management Area.

OLD LYME ZONING AND PUBLIC POLICY

Zoning

The study area comprises four separate zoning districts pursuant to the “Zoning Regulations for

the Town of Old Lyme,” originally adopted in 1941 with the most recent comprehensive

revisions dated April 2009 with additional periodic amendments through July 2011. The zoning

designations in the study area include the Waterfront Business (WF-20) district, the Rural

Residential (RU-80) district, the Rural Residential (RU-40) district, and the Multi-Family

Residential (MFR-40) district (see Figure 4-4).

The WF-20 district makes up a small portion of the study area, primarily limited to the CTDEEP

property and adjacent waterfront parcels just north of the railroad tracks in the westernmost

portion of the Town of Old Lyme. Permitted uses in the WF-20 district include marine facilities,

boat livery, and other water-related businesses. Special permit uses include retail businesses,

professional offices, restaurants, governmental services, parks, and public utilities.

The RU-40 district comprises a large area within the quarter-mile study boundary. Much of the

land east of Shore Road is within the RU-40 zoning district. A small area in the western portion

of Old Lyme, including parcels along Sandpiper Point Road and marshland adjacent to the south

side of the rail tracks, is also zoned as RU-40. Permitted uses in the RU-40 zoning district

include single-family residences, seasonal dwellings, community residences for mentally ill or

disabled persons, farms, small commercial horticultural establishments, and small horse stables

and riding academies. A number of uses are allowed by special permit including planned

residential cluster development, private schools, religious institutions, convalescent and nursing

homes, governmental services, parks, and public utilities.
6.16.08

Figure 4-4

Existing Zoning - Old Lyme

SCALE

0 400 800 FEET

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Project Site Boundary

1/4-Mile Study Area Boundary

Rural Residential District

Rural Residential District

Residential District

Multi-Family Residence District

Multi-Family Residence District

Waterfront Business District

Commercial District

RU-80

RU-40

R-15

MRF-80

MFR-40

WF-20

C-30S

WF-20

MFR-40

MFR-40

MFR-80

RU-40 R-15

R-15

RU-40

C-30S

RU-80

RU-80

RU-40 

MFR-40

MFR-40

MFR-80

RU-40 R-15

R-15

RU-40

C-30S

RU-80

RU-80

RU-40 
Chapter 4: Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions

4-7 May 2014

Much of the study area is within the RU-80 zoning district. Land in the eastern portion of the

study area and west of Shore Road is classified as RU-80. Within the study area, much of the

land designated as RU-80 comprises undeveloped land or tidal marshland. Similar to the RU-40

district, permitted uses in the RU-80 district include single-family residences, seasonal

dwellings, community residences for mentally ill or disabled persons, farms, small commercial

horticultural establishments, and small horse stables and riding academies. Special permit uses

include planned residential cluster development, private schools, religious institutions,

convalescent and nursing homes, governmental services, parks, and public utilities.

A small portion of the quarter-mile study area, near the intersection of Shore Road and Ferry

Road, is zoned as an MFR-40 district. The Lyme Regis condominium complex is located here.

The MFR-40 district allows single-family residences, seasonal dwellings, community residences

for mentally ill or disabled persons, farms, small commercial horticultural establishments, and

small horse stables and riding academies. Special permit uses include planned residential cluster

developments, two-family dwellings, private schools, religious institutions, convalescent and

nursing homes, governmental services, parks, and public utilities.

As stated earlier, and as described later in greater detail under “Connecticut River Public

Policy,” the study area is within the State-designated Gateway Conservation Zone. This includes

the entire portion of the study area within the Town of Old Lyme. Through enacted legislation,

the State of Connecticut aims to preserve the unique ecological and historical integrity of the

lower Connecticut River Valley and therefore requires development to adhere to strict guidelines

within the Gateway Conservation Zone. As required, the Town of Old Lyme has adopted the

standards established by the Gateway Commission into its zoning code. Similar to Old

Saybrook, the Old Lyme Zoning Code strictly regulates activities within 100 feet of the high tide

line of the Connecticut River and its tributaries or associated wetlands.

Due to its close proximity to the Long Island Sound, the Old Lyme portion of the study area is

also within the Coastal Boundary, another State-designated protection zone. Development in

these areas, other than minor activities or structure modifications, is subject to Coastal Site Plan

Review requirements as administered by CTDEEP.

Public Policy

In addition to zoning, the Old Lyme Planning Commission presides over a master plan for the

Town of Old Lyme, Plan of Conservation and Development Revisions, originally adopted in

1965 and most recently updated December 2010. The master plan outlines the community’s

vision for Old Lyme. Overall, the vision statement focuses on maintaining the small town

character of Old Lyme by preserving its important and unique natural, cultural, and historic

resources and ensuring that future commercial and residential development is compatible with

the existing town aesthetic and scale. The master plan also discusses the Amtrak Northeast

Corridor railroad bridge over the Connecticut River, which is the subject of this EA. While the

town recognizes the benefits of having access to rail service to the New York and Boston

metropolitan areas, it also expresses concerns over balancing both rail and boat traffic. Since the

railroad bridge is a drawbridge that needs to be opened to allow boat traffic, there are concerns

that if rail service increases, it may be less accommodating to boat traffic.

Old Lyme’s unique location, situated near the mouth of the Connecticut River where it meets

Long Island Sound, provides for an important natural environment, recognized on the local,

national, and international level for its environmental resources (see “Connecticut River Public

Policy” below). In addition to the already protected natural resources of Old Lyme, there is a
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 4-8

new effort to preserve open space in the town. The Open Space Committee, a subcommittee of

the Planning Commission, advocates for this cause and completed the Town of Old Lyme Open

Space Plan in 1997, which was updated in 2004. With the help of the Old Lyme Conservation

Trust (OLCT), a non-profit conservation group founded in 1966, the Town has begun to

annually allocate funds to be used for the acquisition of open space. This emphasis on preserving

open space is in accordance with the State’s goal to preserve 21 percent of its land for open

space.1

To further protect the sensitive ecological habitat of the Connecticut River and tidal marshes, as

well as to protect residents and property, the Town of Old Lyme has established a Harbor

Ordinance. This ordinance regulates boating and other recreational activities in the harbor area

to ensure safe and orderly conduct.

CONNECTICUT RIVER PUBLIC POLICY

As described above, the Connecticut River has received much recognition on the state, national,

and international level and therefore benefits from significant environmental protection and

conservation from various public interest groups. In 1991, the USFWS created the Silvio O.

Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge to restore the biological diversity of the Connecticut

River watershed. The refuge includes several parcels in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire, and Vermont (none of which are located within the project study area).

As mentioned further in Chapter 10, “Natural Resources,” the tidal marshes at the mouth of the

Connecticut River were recognized as “Wetlands of International Significance” by the Ramsar

Treaty in 1994. The Ramsar Treaty was originally signed in 1971 in Ramsar, Iran and provides a

framework for the protection of wetlands and the correct and wise use of these resources. The

treaty promotes international cooperation for the preservation of sensitive environmental

resources. In addition to being recognized as “Wetlands of International Significance,” the lower

Connecticut River is also just one out of 15 designated “Wetlands of International Importance

with Respect to Waterfowl.”

In 1993, the Nature Conservancy, an international nonprofit conservation organization,

recognized the “Tidelands of the Connecticut River” as one of its Last Great Places campaign.

The Nature Conservancy’s mission is to preserve plants, wildlife habitats, and other important

ecological features. Since 1960, the Nature Conservancy has protected over 4,000 acres of land

in the Tidelands region of the Connecticut River Valley. The Conservancy works closely with

CTDEEP to conduct marsh restoration projects in the area, and has protected 109 acres in Old

Saybrook alone.2

In 1998, the Clinton Administration recognized the Connecticut River as an “American Heritage

River” by; it is only one of 14 rivers in the United States with this designation. The American

Heritage Rivers program promotes the protection of the natural environment, economic

revitalization, and preservation of historic and cultural resources. The initiative allows riverfront

communities, such as Old Saybrook and Old Lyme, to seek federal assistance to attain these

goals.

1 Old Lyme Planning Commission, Plan of Conservation and Development Revisions: Town of Old

Lyme, CT. May 2000

2 Old Saybrook Planning Commission, Plan of Conservation and Development, February 2006, p. H.
Chapter 4: Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions

4-9 May 2014

On the state level, the Connecticut General Assembly established the Gateway Commission in

1973 to protect the Lower Connecticut River through a state-local contract. The Gateway

Conservation Zone was delineated along the shores of the Connecticut River, extending 30 miles

upstream from the Long Island Sound, which encompasses much of the study area. Pursuant to

CGS Section 25-102g, the Gateway Commission is granted the authority to establish minimum

development and use standards within the Gateway Conservation Zone, which are required to be

adopted into the local zoning codes of all municipalities within the zone.1 The Commission has

successfully preserved over 1,000 acres of land since its inception through gifts and purchases of

scenic easements and development rights.2

PARKLAND AND OPEN SPACE

There are two designated public parks located within the quarter-mile study area boundary; both

are located in Old Lyme: the Elizabeth B. Karter Watch Rock Nature Preserve and Ferry

Landing Park at the CTDEEP Marine Headquarters.

The Elizabeth B. Karter Watch Rock Preserve is located at the southeastern edge of the study

area and is maintained by OLCT. “Watch Rock,” as it is commonly known, is a 25-acre preserve

along the Duck River—a tributary to the Connecticut River—that provides wooded hiking trails

and picnic areas open year-round to the public. OLCT acquired the preserve in 1986. The park is

also unique for its archeological significance; in the early 1980s, archeologists discovered Native

American artifacts dating back several thousand years. Watch Rock was renamed in 2005 after

the passing of Elizabeth B. Karter, a valued member of the Trust and a respected philanthropist.

Ferry Landing Park is located just north of the project site in Old Lyme and includes the

CTDEEP Marine Headquarters. The park extends along the east bank of the Connecticut River

and is furnished with picnic benches and a gazebo. The park features an elevated wooden

boardwalk that extends from the park into the marshes and offers access to various recreational

uses, such as fishing and crabbing. The pier also provides scenic vistas of the Connecticut River

and tidal marshlands.

The Connecticut River and surrounding marshes also provide recreational opportunities to local

residents and tourists. The presence of numerous marinas in the study area indicates that boating

and fishing are popular recreational activities in this area. As discussed above, the lower

Connecticut River’s natural and scenic integrity is protected by a collaborative effort of the

Gateway Commission, CTDEEP, various non-profit organizations, and several national and

international environmental protection agencies.

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

There are approximately eight businesses in the project study area. Most of the business are

related to the fishing industry and include fishing supply stores, fish markets, boat sales and

service shops, and boat storage areas. The majority of the businesses are located within the

marinas in Old Saybrook, including Ragged Rock Marina, south of Ferry Road, and the Between

the Bridges Marina along the Connecticut River waterfront east of Ferry Road and Clark Street.

1 Connecticut River Gateway Commission, http://www.ctrivergateway.org/standards.html. Accessed May

13, 2011.

2 Connecticut River Gateway Commission, http://www.crerpa.org/gateway.html. Accessed March 11,

2008.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 4-10

Many of the businesses are housed in detached one- and two-story shingled buildings, many of

which also serve as the residences of the business owners.

Both the Town of Old Saybrook and the Town of Old Lyme contain small residential

communities that maintain a substantial number of seasonal residents who have summer

vacation homes within the two towns. As discussed above under “Land Use”, there are several

residential enclaves located in the study area, including those to the north and south of Ferry

Road in Old Saybrook, and on either side of Sandpiper Point Road and north of Shore Road in

Old Lyme. The majority of homes are single-family one- and two-story detached residences

which are located on large wooded plots of land.

As detailed below in Table 4-1, there is a majority white population in each of the three census

tracts located in the study area. The residents of the Town of Old Saybrook are approximately 92

percent white and the Town of Old Lyme is approximately 94 percent white. This also reflects

the racial composition within the counties, as Middlesex County is approximately 86 percent

white and New London County is 78 percent white. The majority of residents in the study area

live above the poverty level. Approximately five percent of persons in the Town of Old

Saybrook and four percent of persons in the Town of Old Lyme live below the poverty level. In

accordance with Executive Order 12898, an environmental justice analysis has been performed

for the project and is presented in Chapter 16, “Environmental Justice”.

Table 4-1

Study Area Population and Economic Characteristics

Study Area

2010 Census

2005-2009 American

Community Survey

2010

Total

Race and Ethnicity* Persons Below

Poverty Level

White % Black % Asian % Other % Hispanic % (%)***

Total

Minority (%)

Middlesex

County 165,676 143,144 86.4 7,256 4.4 4,207 2.5 3,235 2.0 7,834 4.7 13.6

5.8

New London

County 274,055 214,605 78.3 14,488 5.3 11,248 4.1 10,500 3.8 23,214 8.5 21.7

6.7

Town of Old

Saybrook 10,242 9,404 91.8 96 0.9 243 2.4 157 1.5 342 3.3 8.2

5.1

Town of Old

Lyme 7,603 7,142 93.9 35 0.5 154 2.0 88 1.2 184 2.4 6.1

3.9

Census Tract

6701 (Old

Saybrook) ** 4,848 4,467 92.1 42 0.9 98 2.0 75 1.5 166 3.4 7.9

4.0

Census Tract

6702 (Old

Saybrook) ** 5,394 4,937 91.5 54 1.0 145 2.7 82 1.5 176 3.3 8.5

6.2

Census Tract

6601.01 (Old

Lyme)** 3,356 3,181 94.8 13 0.4 63 1.9 31 0.9 68 2.0 5.2

3.4

Notes:

* The racial and ethnic categories provided are further defined as: White (White alone, not Hispanic or Latino); Black (Black or African

American alone, not Hispanic or Latino); Asian (Asian alone, not Hispanic or Latino); Other (American Indian and Alaska Native alone, not

Hispanic or Latino; Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, not Hispanic or Latino; Some other race alone, not Hispanic or Latino;

Two or more races, not Hispanic or Latino); Hispanic (Hispanic or Latino; Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race).

** Census Tracts 6701, 6702, and 6601.01 include the project study area and surrounding areas.

*** Percent of individuals with incomes below established poverty level. The U.S. Census Bureau's established income thresholds for poverty

levels defines poverty level.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 and American Community Survey 2005-2009 Estimates
Chapter 4: Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions

4-11 May 2014

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

In the future without the proposed project, no development is planned to occur in the primary

study area within the Town of Old Lyme.1 However, the Town of Old Lyme is reviewing a

sizeable mixed residential and commercial project proposed on a site in the Old Saybrook

portion of the study area. That development site comprises four parcels on both sides of Ferry

Road, just north of Clark Street. Approximately half of the total development site is within the

quarter-mile study area boundary, shown on Figure 4-2. That development project will include a

reconfiguration and expansion of existing businesses including a restaurant. The residential

component of the development project includes 90 condominium/townhouse-type units as well

as apartments above commercial uses.2

No immediate improvements to state roadways or local railways are planned in the primary

study area.3 However, the “I-95 Southeast CT Feasibility Study” issued by ConnDOT in July

2004 recommended several highway improvements in the Old Lyme and Old Saybrook area,

including widening I-95 from four to six lanes and improving Exits 71 and 72.4 These

improvements will improve traffic flow and safety, but will not have a meaningful effect on land

use or socioeconomic conditions in the study area. The planned major and minor improvement

projects discussed under the No Action Alternative in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” are

located outside of the primary study area and will not meaningfully change the land use and

socioeconomic conditions in the area.

The Town of Old Saybrook and the Town of Old Lyme have each recently adopted revisions to

their zoning ordinances. The most recent amendments to the Old Saybrook Zoning Regulations

were effective as of 2009. The Old Lyme Zoning Code was last revised May 2011. The most

recent zoning regulations within the study area are reflected in this chapter.

E. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This section discusses the potential impacts to land use, zoning and public policy from the

Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative will not have any adverse impacts on land use,

zoning, and public policy.

LAND USE

Overall, the Preferred Alternative will not adversely affect existing or planned land uses in the

study area. The proposed project will not require any permanent upland land acquisition. The

upland portions of the new bridge will be located entirely within the existing Amtrak ROW. The

Amtrak ROW will continue to be used for rail transportation and surrounding land uses will not

change as a result of the proposed project.

1

Personal communication with Ann Brown, Town of Old Lyme Zoning Department, May 13, 2011.

2

Personal communication with Christine Nelson, Town of Old Saybrook Land Use Department, May 17,

2011.

3 Connecticut Department of Transportation, http://www.ct.gov/dot, accessed May 11, 2011.

4 Old Lyme Planning Commission, Plan of Conservation and Development, December 28, 2010.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 4-12

ZONING AND PUBLIC POLICY

As noted earlier, Amtrak is not subject to local zoning ordinances. Nonetheless, because all

upland improvements and railroad modifications will be contained within the existing Amtrak

ROW, local zoning districts and legislation will remain unaffected. The proposed project will

not result in any zoning changes within the study area.

Master plans and vision statements adopted by the towns of Old Saybrook and Old Lyme

express a desire to preserve the small-town qualities of each municipality. In addition, protecting

the unique natural environment of the Lower Connecticut River Valley and its historic integrity

is also vital to the towns, as well as the State of Connecticut. Since the Preferred Alternative is

expected to only improve the reliability and long-term serviceability of the Connecticut River

Bridge and its approach structures and to minimize conflict between rail and maritime traffic,

and will not result in increased train speed or frequency of service, the proposed project will not

alter the existing neighborhood character. The Preferred Alternative will not result in significant

adverse impacts to zoning or public policy.

PARKLAND AND OPEN SPACE

The proposed project will not have significant adverse effects on the two parks located within

the study area—Ferry Landing Park and the Elizabeth B. Karter Watch Rock Natural Preserve

(“Watch Rock”). Access to a portion of the boardwalk located in Ferry Landing Park, directly

beneath the Connecticut River Bridge, may be affected in the short-term during bridge

construction (for a period of up to three years). As discussed in Chapter 12, “Construction

Impacts,” Amtrak and its contractors will take appropriate measures during construction to

minimize short-term impacts to the boardwalk. Additionally, Chapter 18, “Section 4(f)

Evaluation” includes an evaluation of the short-term park impacts in accordance with Section

4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966. The project impacts to the boardwalk at Ferry Landing Park

will be temporary and of short duration. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to parkland

and open space are expected from the project.

SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

While Option B may improve navigation on the Connecticut River by potentially expanding the

navigation channel, the proposed project is not expected to increase marine traffic in the project

area or adversely impact the marine-related businesses. The proposed project will not spur rapid

population growth or development and therefore will not adversely impact local or regional

public policies or interfere with the master plans for Old Saybrook or Old Lyme. The project

will not adversely affect socioeconomic conditions, employment, or community cohesion. 
5-1 May 2014

Chapter 5: Visual and Aesthetic Conditions

A. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter considers the effects of the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project on the

visual character and aesthetic conditions of the surrounding area. The project team has prepared

this chapter in accordance with the guidelines for visual analyses contained in federal documents

prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), including Guidance for Preparing

and Processing Environmental and 4(f) Documents (1987), Environmental Impact Statement

Visual Impact Discussion (undated), and Guidance Material on the Preparation of Visual Impact

Assessments (1986), which is the standard USDOT methodology for assessing potential impacts

to visual and aesthetic resources.

The proposed project will replace the existing Connecticut River Bridge, a two-track moveable

rail bridge along Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor. This analysis considers the effects of the

proposed project on locations from which it will be visible. The project team delineated the

study area for visual resources as a quarter-mile from the project site (see Figure 5-1). Where

there are substantial views to the project site in locations outside of the quarter-mile study area,

this EA also takes these locations into account, as noted throughout this chapter. To prepare this

analysis, the project team collected information through field visits. The team identified visually

sensitive locations and viewer groups, and assessed the duration of views to determine any

potential effects.

B. EXISTING CONDITIONS

EXISTING VISUAL CHARACTER

The study area is characterized by a relatively rural maritime landscape traversed by

transportation corridors, and containing residential development and recreational facilities.

Amtrak’s existing Northeast Corridor runs along the center of the study area, oriented roughly

east-west. The track sits on an embankment in the study area, with the exception of the

Connecticut River Bridge and a smaller bridge that carries the railroad over the Lieutenant River

in Old Lyme.

The Connecticut River Bridge is a two-track, moveable rail bridge over the Connecticut River. It

appears as a long, low, steel structure, one of two river crossings in the vicinity (Raymond E.

Baldwin Bridge is located immediately to the north of the study area). As described in Chapter 6,

“Cultural Resources,” the Connecticut River Bridge has been determined eligible for the

National Register of Historic Places (NR) and is listed on the State Register of Historic Places

(SR) as part of a thematic grouping of Moveable Railroad Bridges on the Northeast Corridor in

Connecticut (see Figures 5-2 and 5-3, Photo 1). Built in 1904, the 1,535-foot-long steel through-truss

bridge has ten spans including a rolling-lift bascule span. With the moveable span closed, the bridge

has a vertical clearance of 18 feet above MHW and its tallest point is approximately 75 feet
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 5-2

above MHW. With the moveable span open, the tallest point of the bridge is approximately 170

feet above MHW. The bridge piers and abutments are constructed of rusticated stone blocks.

As described in greater detail in Chapter 4, “Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions” and

Chapter 6, “Cultural Resources”, the Connecticut River is roughly a third of a mile wide where it

runs through the study area and was designated as an American Heritage River by Executive

Order 13061 in 1997. In the area south of the Connecticut River Bridge, the shoreline is

characterized by areas of marsh reeds and grasses, woodlands, and tributary waterways (see

Figures 5-2 and 5-3, Photo 2). North of the project site, marinas, residential development, and

woodlands characterize the shoreline (see Figures 5-2 and 5-4, Photo 3). The Lieutenant River, a

roughly 200-foot-wide tributary of the Connecticut River, passes through the study area in Old

Lyme (see Figures 5-2 and 5-4, Photo 4). Ragged Rock Creek, a smaller tributary of the

Connecticut River, passes through the study area in Old Saybrook. Much of the marshland in the

study area is within the Connecticut River Gateway Conservation Zone and is protected by the

Connecticut River Gateway Commission and CTDEEP.

Two public parks are located in the study area, both in Old Lyme. One of these, Ferry Landing

Park, is associated with the CTDEEP Marine Headquarters, located at the western terminus of

Ferry Road in Old Lyme. The Marine Headquarters includes a large office building, a garage,

and several smaller structures (see Figures 5-2 and 5-5, Photo 5). The public park space is located

adjacent to these structures, along the shore of the Connecticut River, both north and south of the

Connecticut River Bridge. The park contains a boat dock, a wide grassy jetty with a gazebo, and

open and wooded areas (see Figures 5-2 and 5-5, Photo 5). A long wood boardwalk runs along the

shore from the jetty to the mouth of the Lieutenant River, passing beneath the Connecticut River

Bridge, and affording pedestrian access to a substantial portion of the Old Lyme waterfront in

the study area (see Figures 5-2 and 5-5, Photo 6). A second park, the Elizabeth B. Karter Watch

Rock Nature Preserve, is located at the southeastern edge of the study area. The portion of the

park located in the study area is characterized by marshes, while south of the study area, the park

is forested and contains a nature trail.

In addition to the CTDEEP Marine Headquarters boat dock in Old Lyme, there are several

marinas in the study area. In Old Saybrook, the Ragged Rock Marina is located on the south side

of Ferry Road between the railroad and the Connecticut Turnpike (I-95) (see Figures 5-2 and 5-6,

Photo 7). It is located a short distance inland, accessible from the Connecticut River via a

channel. Further northeast, the Between the Bridges Marina operates a facility on the

Connecticut River shore at the intersection of Ferry Road and Clark Street (see Figures 5-2 and 5-

6, Photo 8). Just north of the study area in Old Saybrook, the Baldwin Boat Launch provides

docks for vessels of various sizes (see Figures 5-2 and 5-4, Photo 3). Immediately north of the

study area in Old Lyme, the Lieutenant River State Boat Launch, located on the west side of

Shore Road just south of Ferry Road, provides public access for launching small craft.

There are only a few roads that run through the study area, and most of these are rural and

residential in character. Ferry Road (in both Old Saybrook and Old Lyme) is flanked by stone

walls in many locations (see Figures 5-2 and 5-7). Properties along this roadway are generally

older single-family homes on relatively large parcels of land. Shore Road, in Old Lyme, contains

less residential development and is carried over marshes and waterways on a series of bridges.

The Boston Post Road (Route 1) runs southwest-northeast through Old Saybrook, a short

distance west of the study area. It is slightly busier and a number of small businesses are located

along this road. The heavily trafficked I-95 runs east-west approximately quarter-mile north of

the study area. Both I-95 and the Boston Post Road cross the Connecticut River on the Raymond
SHORE RD

NORTHEAST CORRDOR

OLD

SAYBROOK

OLD

LYME

CONNECTICUT RIVER RAYMOND E. BALDWIN BRIDGE

I-95

MCCURDY ROAD

5.23.12

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 5-1

Visual Resources Study Area

Aerial Source: Connecticut 2010 Color NAIP, USDA-FSA-APFO, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, 2010

SCALE 0 2000 FEET

Project Site Boundary

1/4-Mile Study Area Boundary
FERRY RD.

SANDPIPER POINT RD.

LYME ST.

McCURDY RD.

AMTRAK

AMTRAK

McCURDY CT.

DUCK 

RIVER LN.

FERRY RD.

I-95

BOSTON POST RD.

CLARK ST. 

RAGGED ROCK RD. 

FARM RD.

FERRY RD.

CONNECTICUT RIVER

SANDPIPER POINT RD.

LYME ST.

McCURDY RD.

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

McCURDY CT.

DUCK 

RIVER LN.

FERRY RD.

I-95

SHORE RD.

BOSTON POST RD.

FERRY RD.

CLARK ST. 

RAGGED ROCK RD. 

FARM RD.

6.16.08

Figure 5-2

Photo Location Map

SCALE

OLD

OLD LYME

SAYBROOK

0 400 1000 FEET

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

2

3

8

9

1

4

5

7

10

13

16

14

15

11

12

6

Project Site Boundary

1/4-Mile Study Area Boundary

1 Photo Location
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

5.25.12

Figure 5-3

Visual Resources

Looking south from the wood walkway in the Ferry Landing Park in Old Lyme, a view 2

showing the Connecticut River and the marshes and woodlands associated with it. The 

mouth of the Lieutenant River is pictured in the foreground. The Lynde Point Lighthouse, 

and beyond it the Long Island Sound, are visible in the distance.

The Connecticut River Bridge, which carries Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor over the Con- 1

necticut River, as seen from the Ferry Landing Park in Old Lyme, looking northwest.
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 5-4

Visual Resources

The Lieutenant River in Old Lyme, looking west from Shore Road where it crosses this 

waterway, adjacent to the Lieutenant River State Boat Launch. The embankment and 

catenary system of the Northeast Corridor are visible in the distance.

4

A view from the Baldwin Boat Launch, just north of the study area in Old Saybrook, look- 3

ing east across the Connecticut River. Residences and woodlands in the northern portion 

of the study area in Old Lyme are visible. 

5.25.12
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 5-5

Visual Resources

Looking north from the wood walkway in the Ferry Landing Park in Old Lyme, immediately 6

south of the Connecticut River Railroad Bridge. The Baldwin Bridge, which carries I-95 

and the Boston Post Road over the Connecticut River, is pictured in the background.

Ferry Landing Park in Old Lyme, looking northeast from the wide grassy jetty within the 5

park. A gazebo and picnic tables are pictured in the foreground. In the background, the 

CTDEEP Marine Headquarters Building and associated structures can be seen.

5.25.12
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

7

Figure 5-6

Visual Resources

A view of the Between the Bridges Marina in Old Saybrook, as seen from the Ferry 8

Landing Park in Old Lyme.

A view looking south from the Ragged Rock Marina in Old Saybrook.

5.25.12
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 5-7

Visual Resources

Looking west along Ferry Road in Old Lyme, from a hill just west of Sandpiper Point 10

Road. Note the stone walls, houses, and trees that flank the roadway; a historic milestone 

is also visible in the foreground. The Connecticut River and Connecticut River Bridge can 

be discerned in the background.

Looking southeast along Ferry Road in Old Saybrook, showing the John Whittlesey Jr. 9

property (State/National Register-listed) and the stone walls and trees that characterize 

the roadway.

5.25.12
Chapter 5: Visual and Aesthetic Conditions

5-3 May 2014

E. Baldwin Bridge (see Figures 5-2 and 5-5, Photo 6). The Baldwin Bridge is an 11-lane concrete

segmental box-girder bridge, originally constructed in 1948, and rebuilt in 1993. The bridge is

over 2,500 feet long and has a vertical clearance of 81 feet.

VISUALLY SENSITIVE RESOURCES

FHWA’s Guidance Material on the Preparation of Visual Impact Assessments defines visual

resources as those physical features that make up the visible landscape, including land, water,

vegetation, and man-made elements to which viewers attach visual value. Visual resources may

include historic buildings, open spaces such as parks and landscaped plazas, and views to natural

resources such as water features and natural vegetation.

The Connecticut River View Corridor is the central visual resource in the study area. It is

characterized by an expansive open view shed that includes the Connecticut River, the

tributaries, marshes, wetlands, and woods that surround it, and the Connecticut River Bridge (see

Figures 5-2; 5-3; 5-4, Photo 3; and 5-8). As a historic and visually interesting structure, the

Connecticut River Bridge contributes to the visual character of the Connecticut River View

Corridor. The corridor also includes distant views of the Lynde Point Lighthouse and the Long

Island Sound, both over two miles south of the Connecticut River Bridge. Among the waterways

associated with the Connecticut River in the study area are Ragged Rock Creek in Old Saybrook

and the Lieutenant River in Old Lyme. The Baldwin Bridge which carries the I-95 and the

Boston Post Road over the Connecticut River just north of the study area is not considered to

contribute to the aesthetic or cultural aspects of the corridor.

Ferry Road in both Old Saybrook and Old Lyme is also a scenic corridor in the study area (see

Figures 5-2 and 5-7). One of the earliest routes constructed in the region, the winding rural road

is flanked by trees, stone walls, and several historic houses (see Chapter 6, “Cultural

Resources”), and provides views to the Connecticut River.

The Old Lyme Historic District, a small portion of which is in the eastern portion of the study

area, is a historic downtown area containing churches and residences. While the location is

visually sensitive, it is not substantially visible from the project site, and no views to the project

site are afforded from the historic district.

VIEWER GROUPS AND VIEW DURATIONS

Viewer groups in the area consist of pedestrians, motorists, rail passengers, and boaters. In terms

of visual resources, viewer groups may be divided into two categories: those that have views of

visual resources and those that have views from visual resources or visually sensitive locations.

Within the study area, visual resources include the Connecticut River View Corridor and Ferry

Road in Old Saybrook and Old Lyme.

PEDESTRIANS

The majority of pedestrian traffic in the study area is located at Ferry Landing Park in Old

Lyme. The park’s waterfront access areas, including a wood boardwalk that runs along the shore

of the Connecticut and Lieutenant Rivers, provide pedestrians with clear views along the

Connecticut River View Corridor, including the Connecticut and Lieutenant Rivers and their

associated wetlands, and the Connecticut River Bridge (see Figures 5-2; 5-3; and 5-8, Photo 12).

Looking south from the park, there are distant views of the Lynde Point Lighthouse (see Figures

5-2 and 5-3, Photo 2). Looking north, the Baldwin Bridge, which does not contribute to the
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 5-4

defined view shed quality, interrupts the otherwise clear view corridor (see Figures 5-2 and 5-9,

Photo 13).

The only other public park in the study area is the Elizabeth J. Karter Watch Rock Preserve.

However, only a small portion of the park, consisting of inaccessible wetlands, is in the study

area. A nature trail is located in the southern section of the park, outside of the study area, yet

due to the thickly wooded nature of this trail there are no significant views to the project site.

As described above, there are several marinas and boat launches in and around the study area.

These include the Ragged Rock Marina, Between the Bridges Marina, and the Baldwin Boat

Launch in Old Saybrook, and the CTDEEP Marine Headquarters-Ferry Landing Park and the

Lieutenant River State Boat Launch in Old Lyme. All of these marinas and boat launches are

located in waterfront locations and provide clear views of the Connecticut River View Corridor

(see Figures 5-2; 5-4; 5-8, Photo 11; and 5-9, Photo 14). The Ragged Rock Marina in Old

Saybrook has less expansive views of the Connecticut River View Corridor than the others due

to its location further inland (see Figures 5-2 and 5-6, Photo 7).

MOTORISTS

Motorists travel on multiple roadways that pass through the study area. These roadways include

Ferry Road, Clark Street, Sandpiper Point Road, and Shore Road. The Boston Post Road and I95 are two major roads that are located just beyond the study area.

As described above, Ferry Road in the study area in both Old Saybrook and Old Lyme is a

visually sensitive corridor. Motorists traveling along Ferry Road have the primary views of the

Ferry Road corridor. In Old Lyme, however, views of the corridor are best at the northern edge

of the study area and east of the study area (see Figures 5-2 and 5-7, Photo 10). Motorists

traveling along Ferry Road also enjoy views of the Connecticut River View Corridor. The

Connecticut River Bridge is visible from certain limited locations on Ferry Road, including the

western end of the road in Old Lyme, west of Sandpiper Point Road, where the highest point of

the roadway is located. There are fewer views of the Connecticut River in Old Saybrook, and

these are limited primarily to where Ferry Road intersects with Clark Street (see Figures 5-2 and

5-9, Photo 14). Views afforded along Ferry Road are of relatively long duration due to the low

speed of traffic along the winding rural roadway.

Clark Street, also known as Ferry Place, is a short road segment located in the northern portion

of the study area in Old Saybrook. Motorists on Clark Street looking south and east have brief

views of the Connecticut River Bridge and marshes associated with the Connecticut River.

Views are partly blocked, however, by the railroad embankment (see Figures 5-2 and 5-10, Photo

15).

Sandpiper Point Road in Old Lyme is a short residential street adjoining Ferry Road and

terminating in a cul-de-sac. Views of the Ferry Road corridor are accessible from portions of this

roadway. Views of the Connecticut River, however, are limited.

Shore Road is a relatively busy roadway located in the eastern portion of the study area in Old

Lyme. The roadway is carried over the Lieutenant River and surrounding wetlands on bridges,

and crosses over the Northeast Corridor railroad at the southeastern edge of the study area. Due

to the flat, open nature of the surrounding topography and the relative lack of trees and structures

along this roadway, there are relatively clear views of the wetlands associated with the

Connecticut and Lieutenant Rivers (see Figures 5-2 and 5-4, Photo 4). Looking west from Shore

Road in the southern portion of the study area, views of the Connecticut River are partially
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 5-8

Visual Resources

Looking east towards the Lieutenant River and associated marshes from the south- 12

eastern end of the wood walkway in the Ferry Landing Park in Old Lyme.

The Connecticut River View Corridor, as seen looking south from the Baldwin Boat 

Launch in Old Saybrook, immediately north of the study area. The Connecticut River 

Bridge is pictured centrally.

11

5.25.12
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 5-9

Visual Resources

Looking northwest from the Ferry Landing Park in Old Lyme, 13

a view of the Connecticut River, and the Baldwin Bridge.

A view looking southeast from the Between the Bridges Marina in Old Saybrook. The 14

Connecticut River and Connecticut River Bridge are visible in the background.

5.25.12
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 5-10

Visual Resources

A view looking west from Shore Road where it crosses a creek associated with the 16

Lieutenant River. The embankment of the Northeast Corridor partially blocks views of the 

Connecticut River View Corridor.

From the south end of Clark Street in Old Saybrook, a view looking southeast towards the 15

Connecticut River and Connecticut River Bridge. The embankment of the Northeast Corridor partially blocks views of the Connecticut River View Corridor.

5.25.12
Chapter 5: Visual and Aesthetic Conditions

5-5 May 2014

obstructed by the intervening Northeast Corridor tracks, which run on an embankment, roughly

parallel to Shore Road (see Figures 5-2 and 5-10, Photo 16).

Motorists traveling on I-95 and the Boston Post Road cross the Connecticut River on the

Baldwin Bridge. While the Baldwin Bridge is outside the study area, these motorists have clear

and expansive views of the Connecticut River View Corridor. Due to the high speeds at which

motorists travel over this bridge, these views are of relatively short duration. Looking north from

the Baldwin Bridge, the Connecticut River and associated wetlands north of the study area are

visible. Looking south from the Baldwin Bridge, towards the study area, views include the

Connecticut and Lieutenant Rivers and associated wetlands, and the Connecticut River Bridge

(see Figures 5-2 and 5-11). With the exception of the Baldwin Bridge segment, no other portions

of these routes afford significant views of the study area.

RAIL PASSENGERS

Rail passengers traveling on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, including on the Connecticut River

Bridge, are afforded brief but clear views of the Connecticut River View Corridor as they pass

through the study area. To the south, the Lynde Point Lighthouse and Long Island Sound can be

seen at a distance. Looking north, the Baldwin Bridge intervenes in the view corridor.

While some buildings on Ferry Road in Old Lyme and Old Saybrook are briefly visible, the

Ferry Road corridors can not be seen by rail passengers traveling through the study area due to

intervening vegetation and topography.

BOATERS

The Connecticut River and associated waterways in the study area are relatively well-trafficked

by recreational and commercial vessels. As described above, several marinas and boat launches

are located in or near the study area.

Boaters traveling on the Connecticut River and the Lieutenant River in the study area have

expansive views of the Connecticut River View Corridor, including the waterway itself,

associated wetlands and woods, and the Connecticut River Bridge. Looking south from the study

area, the Lynde Point Lighthouse and Long Island Sound are distantly visible. Looking north

from the study area, the Baldwin Bridge intervenes in the view shed.

Views of the Ferry Road corridors in Old Saybrook and Old Lyme are very limited from the

Connecticut River and associated waterways. Buildings and properties at the terminus of the

roads in both towns are distantly visible, however, very little of the roadways can be seen from

the water to allow the boater to take in their visual character due to topography and intervening

vegetation.

C. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

As described in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” under the No Action Alternative, the existing

Connecticut River Bridge will remain in service as is, with continued maintenance and minimal

repairs. The planned major and minor improvement projects discussed under the No Action

Alternative are located outside of the primary study area used for this visual analysis. Therefore,

in the future without the proposed project, no changes to the aesthetic character of the study area

or to visually sensitive resources are anticipated.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 5-6

D. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

As described in detail in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” the Preferred Alternative evaluated in

this EA will result in the removal of the existing Connecticut River Bridge substructure and

superstructure and its replacement with a new bascule bridge or a vertical lift bridge.

Option A will replace the existing bascule bridge with a new bascule bridge. As described

above, the existing bascule bridge has a vertical clearance of 18 feet above MHW; its tallest

point is approximately 75 feet above MHW when the moveable span is closed and 170 feet

above MHW when the span is open. The width of the existing channel is 150 feet. Under Option

A, the replacement bridge will have similar height and dimensions, and the channel width will

remain the same.

Option B will replace the existing bascule bridge with a new vertical lift bridge (see Figure 2-1).

The vertical lift bridge will have a vertical clearance of roughly 18 feet when in a closed

position. The moveable span, which will be approximately 43 feet in height (from top to

bottom), will be roughly 61 feet above MHW at its highest point when in a closed position.

When in an open position, the moveable span will have a clearance of 90 feet above MHW and a

total height of approximately 133 feet above MHW. The two towers flanking the moveable span

will be approximately 170 feet tall. The channel width could potentially be widened to 200 feet

under Option B.

The Preferred Alternative will follow a southern alignment and will require the construction of a

new substructure and removal of existing piers. The new alignment will not diverge from the

existing alignment by more than 50 feet at any point (as measured from center line of existing

track to center line of proposed track). The Preferred Alternative will maintain the existing

channel location, closer to the eastern shore of the river.

CONNECTICUT RIVER VIEW CORRIDOR

The Preferred Alternative will result in the removal of the Connecticut River Bridge, which

contributes to the character of the Connecticut River View Corridor. In replacing the historic

bridge with a new bridge, this aspect of the corridor will be altered. The magnitude of the change

will vary somewhat according to whether Option A or Option B was selected. Both options will

likely result in the removal of the existing stone pier structure.

Option A will incorporate a new bascule span rather than a vertical lift span, and will minimize

the changes that will result in the visual character of the Connecticut River View Corridor. This

option will be of the same bridge type and will have dimensions and height similar to the

existing bridge. Insofar as the bascule bridge design will minimize impacts to the Connecticut

River View Corridor, Option A will result in less change to visual conditions, while Option B

will result in more change.

While the magnitude of change will differ somewhat according to the option of the Preferred

Alternative that is chosen, neither will result in significant adverse impacts to the Connecticut

River View Corridor. Under Option B, the highest fixed point of the new vertical lift bridge (the

towers) will be 170 feet above MHW, as compared to the dimensions of the existing bridge, at

75 feet above MHW when the moveable span is closed and 170 feet above MHW when open.

Under Option A, the new bridge will have dimensions similar to the existing bridge. Therefore,

neither the vertical lift nor bascule bridge option will block views along the Connecticut River

View Corridor.
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 5-11

Visual Resources

Taken from a vehicle traveling across the Baldwin Bridge, a view looking south towards the 17

Connecticut River View Corridor including the Connecticut River Bridge.

5.25.12
Chapter 5: Visual and Aesthetic Conditions

5-7 May 2014

The extent to which the various viewer groups identified above will perceive the change caused

by the Preferred Alternative varies. Rail passengers are not expected to perceive the change in

the visual character of the bridge since their view of the bridge is limited and of short duration.

Rail passengers’ views to other aspects of the Connecticut River View Corridor, such as the

river and surrounding wetlands, will not change. Motorists traveling on I-95 currently

experience expansive but brief views of the Connecticut River View Corridor. When looking

south from I-95, the Connecticut River Bridge is a visible but relatively distant element of this

View Corridor. Because the alignment, height, and dimensions of the new bridge will likely not

differ substantially from the existing bridge, views to the Connecticut River View Corridor as a

whole will not be substantially changed and the change in design of the new bridge will be

minimally perceptible. Motorists traveling on other roadways in the study area currently

experience only limited views of the Connecticut River View Corridor. From the few vantage

points where motorists do have clear views of the corridor, such as Clark Street in Old

Saybrook, the change in view will be limited to the change in design of the new bridge. Views to

other aspects of the Connecticut River View Corridor will not be blocked or substantially

changed, and the durations of these views will remain the same.

The viewer groups that currently experience the longest duration and closest range views of the

Connecticut River Bridge are boaters in the immediate vicinity of the bridge and pedestrians in

Ferry Landing Park in Old Lyme. These viewer groups will likely notice the change in bridge

design and alignment more than any other viewer group due to their proximity to the project site.

However, the project will replace an existing railroad structure with a new railroad structure on a

similar alignment, and thus the use and overall character and location of the feature will not

change. Neither the bascule nor vertical lift bridge designs proposed under the Preferred

Alternative will differ substantially in height, dimension, or alignment from the existing bridge

and will not obstruct views to other aspects of the Connecticut River View Corridor from

vantage points in Ferry Landing Park and the Connecticut River. Furthermore, as described in

Chapter 6, “Cultural Resources,” the design of the new bridge will be undertaken in coordination

with CTSHPO and will include consultation to incorporate historically compatible designs. This

process, which will, to the extent practicable, result in a new bridge design that reflects the

historic character of the existing bridge, will further minimize any visual changes or intrusions

along the Connecticut River View Corridor.

FERRY ROAD VIEW CORRIDORS

The Preferred Alternative will not have an adverse impact on the Ferry Road corridors. Views to

the project site from Ferry Road in Old Saybrook and Old Lyme, experienced almost exclusively

by motorists, are limited. The western portion of Ferry Road in Old Lyme, where the elevation is

highest (see Figures 5-2 and 5-7, Photo 10) and the portion of Ferry Road in Old Saybrook near

the intersection of Clark Street (see Figures 5-2 and 5-9, Photo 14) are among the few locations

along Ferry Road where views to the project site are afforded. These views of the project site are

relatively distant and of short duration, and the replacement of the existing railroad bridge with a

new railroad bridge will not be expected to substantially change the overall character of the

views. The differences in dimension and design proposed under the options of the Preferred

Alternative will not be substantial enough to be strongly perceived from these vantage points.

CONCLUSIONS

The options of the Preferred Alternative will affect visual character and visually sensitive

resources as follows:
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 5-8

 Option A—Bascule bridge will minimize visual change. Will not block views along the

Connecticut River View Corridor.

 Option B—Will not block views along the Connecticut River View Corridor.

In summary, the Preferred Alternative will not substantially alter the visual character of the

study area or block important views to visually sensitive resources. Therefore, the project will

not result in adverse impacts on visual character and visually sensitive resources in the study

area. 
6-1 May 2014

Chapter 6: Cultural Resources

A. INTRODUCTION

This section considers the potential of the proposed project to affect historic resources in the

project’s APE. The Preferred Alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2, “Project

Alternatives.” Potential in-ground disturbances of the project site may result from construction

of various components of a replacement bridge over the Connecticut River. Modifications and/or

additions to existing railroad tracks and other railroad infrastructure could occur throughout the

APE as well.

This EA has been prepared in accordance with NEPA, Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act, and

Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966 (as amended) and associated implementing regulations in 36

C.F.R. 800. Per Subpart A, Section 800.2(a)(3) and 800.2(c)(4) of 36 C.F.R., FRA is authorizing

the project sponsor, as an applicant for federal approvals, to prepare information, analyses, and

recommendations regarding Section 106 consultation for the referenced project.

METHODOLOGY

Amtrak and the project team, in consultation with CTSHPO, identified APEs for the Preferred

Alternative to assess the potential effects of the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project

on historic resources (see Appendix A for CTSHPO correspondence). Once the APEs were

determined, the project team compiled an inventory of officially recognized historic resources

within the APEs based on the files of the CTSHPO and the Connecticut State Museum (CTSM).

This inventory includes properties or districts listed on the NR and/or the SR, or determined eligible for such listing, National Historic Landmarks (NHL), and archaeological sites on file at the

CTSM. Amtrak also compiled a list of potential architectural resources (i.e., properties that may

be eligible for listing on the S/NR) within the architectural APE based on field surveys, and

prepared Historic Resource Inventory Forms for the potential architectural resources.

Amtrak and the project team then assessed the archaeological APE for areas that may be

sensitive for archaeological resources, and conducted documentary research to identify areas

where prehistoric or historic-period activities may have occurred and resulted in archaeological

resources. For each area where prehistoric or historic-period activities may have left

archaeological remains, Amtrak evaluated construction activities and other ground disturbances

that occurred later on the site to identify locations where any archaeological resources, if

originally present, may have survived.

Once the historic resources in the APEs were identified, Amtrak assessed the effects of the project on those resources. Project effects on architectural resources may include both direct (i.e.,

physical) and indirect (i.e., contextual) impacts. Amtrak also considered direct and indirect

effects. Direct effects could include physical destruction, demolition, damage, or alteration of a

historic resource. Indirect effects could include changes in the appearance of a historic resource

or in its setting, including the introduction of incompatible visual, audible, or atmospheric
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 6-2

elements to a resource’s setting, or elimination of publicly accessible views to the resource. In

addition, Section 106 requires consideration of reasonably foreseeable effects that may occur

later in time, be further removed in distance, or be cumulative.

Amtrak also assessed the Preferred Alternative’s effects on the potential archaeological resources identified. Construction–rather than operation–of the project alternatives would affect

any archaeological resources present. For all potential adverse effects identified, Amtrak

identified mitigation measures.

APE DELINEATION

In consultation with CTSHPO, Amtrak and the project team delineated APEs for historic and

archaeological resources to take into account the direct, indirect, secondary, and cumulative

impacts on these resources types (see Figures 6-1 and 6-2). Correspondence with CTSHPO is

provided in Appendix A. The APEs are described below.

APE FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The area of potential effect for archaeological resources includes all areas that could experience

ground disturbance under the Preferred Alternative. The archaeological APE, shown in Figure

6-2, includes the Amtrak ROW and extends 1,648 feet west of the Connecticut River shoreline

in Old Saybrook and 2,953 feet east of the Connecticut River shoreline in Old Lyme.

APE FOR ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

The APE for architectural resources (shown in Figure 6-1) was sized to account for any potential

impacts that may occur where proposed construction activities could physically alter

architectural resources or be close enough to them to potentially cause physical damage or visual

or contextual impacts. The architectural resources APE extends quarter-mile from the project

site.

B. BACKGROUND HISTORY

PREHISTORIC CONTEXT

Archaeologists have divided the time between the arrival of the first humans in northeastern

North America and the arrival of Europeans more than 10,000 years later into three precontact

periods: Paleo-Indian (11,000-10,000 before present, or BP), Archaic (10,000-2,700 BP), and

Woodland (2,700 BP-AD 1500). These divisions are based on certain changes in environmental

conditions, technological advancements, and cultural adaptations, which are observable in the

archaeological record. The Woodland period ended with the arrival of the first Europeans in the

early 1500s, which initiated the Contact period (AD 1500-CA. 1700). A more detailed

prehistoric context is provided in Appendix A, “Cultural Resources.”

HISTORIC CONTEXT

COLONIAL PERIOD OLD SAYBROOK AND OLD LYME

The towns of Old Lyme and Old Saybrook continued to thrive at the beginning of the Historic

Period in the 18th century. Early on, the marshy areas bordering the river on the eastern side

were used for the harvesting of salt hay (Ely and Plimpton 1991). Soon, however, Old Lyme
FERRY RD.

SANDPIPER POINT RD.

LYME ST.

McCURDY RD.

AMTRAK

AMTRAK

McCURDY CT.

DUCK 

RIVER LN.

FERRY RD.

I-95

BOSTON POST RD.

FERRY RD.

CLARK ST. 

RAGGED ROCK RD. 

FARM RD.

FERRY RD.

CONNECTICUT RIVER

SANDPIPER POINT RD.

LYME ST.

McCURDY RD.

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

McCURDY CT.

DUCK 

RIVER LN.

FERRY RD.

I-95

SHORE RD.

BOSTON POST RD.

FERRY RD.

CLARK ST. 

RAGGED ROCK RD. 

FARM RD.

1

E

2

3

5.25.12

Figure 6-1

Architectural Resources APE

and Architectural Resources

SCALE

OLD

OLD LYME

SAYBROOK

0 400 1000 FEET

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

A

B

C

D

4

Project Site Boundary

Architectural APE (1/4-mile Boundary)

Previously Designated Architectural Resource

Potential Architectural Resource

Connecticut River Bridge (NR-eligible, SR-listed as part of thematic nomination)

John Whittlesey Jr. House (S/NR-listed)

Old Lyme Historic District (S/NR-listed, Local Landmark)

Enoch Noyes House, 317 Ferry Road (SR-Listed)

NOTE: See Table 6-3 for Reference

1

2

3

4

1

A
I-95

SHORE

ESSEX

LYME

MIDDLESEX

HALLS

ELM

MAIN

FERRY

RIVER

BOSTON POST

MILE CREEK

4TH

NECK

LIBRARY

SPRINGBROOK

MCCURDY

WHIPPOORWILL

CONNOLLY

MILL ROCK

COULTER

PINE

SUNSET

BEN FRANKLIN

CHESTER BOWLES

BAILEY

BOGGY HOLE

RESERVOIR

MEETINGHOUSE

LYNDE

SMITH NECK

BRIARCLIFFE

1ST

JOHNNY CAKE HILL

NOYES

TROLLEY

RIDGE

KING

AYERS POINT

RESEARCH

BOKUM

FORD

DUDLEY

RAGGED ROCK

MONK

MAYNARD

BIRCH

OVERLOOK

HUNTLEY

BRENDA

POND

2ND

GOULD

OBED HEIGHTS

DUNNIS

OLD BRIDGE

ACADEMY

KATHERINE

HEFFLON FARM

MALLARD

LITTLEFIELD

SANDS

CHRIST HEIGHTS

STAGE

TOWN LANDING

DEVITT

RIVERSIDE

WILLIAMS

CLIFF

SANDPIPER POINT

DUCK RIVER

RIDGE DRIVE NORTH

WHITEWOOD

JADE

HIGH SCHOOL

MAPLE

DAVIS

ROCKY POINT

PATTERSON

WICKFORD

RIDGEWOOD

ANCHORAGE

TERRA

SALT MARSH POINT

LEE

BARNES

FERRY

FERRY

FERRY

CONNECTICUT 

RIVER

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

V U

W

X

Y

Project Site Boundary and Archaeological APE

1-mile Boundary

Approximate Location of Previously Identified Precontact Archaeological Site (See Table 6-1 for Reference)

Approximate Location of Previously Identified Historic-Period Archaeological Site (See Table 6-2 for Reference) 

A

W

5.25.12

Figure 6-2

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT Previously Identified Archaeological Sites in Vicinity

SCALE

0 1/2 MILE
Chapter 6: Cultural Resources

6-3 May 2014

became a major center of the shipping industry and at one point “a sea captain lived at every

house” (WPA 1938: 283). In addition to shipping, the area was also known for fishing, ship

building, and salt production (ibid). Old Saybrook experienced similar growth and also became a

center for ship building in the 18th century (Morgan 1904). The town was famous for being the

first home of Yale, established in Old Saybrook in 1701 and remained there until approximately

1716 (Sargent 1916). Old Saybrook’s convenient location at the mouth of the Connecticut River

at the half-way point between New York and Boston on the Boston Post Road, contributed to its

success (ibid). The Saybrook Ferry played a key role in this route as well, and the areas

surrounding the ferry terminals on both shores—known on the Saybrook side as “the Ferry

District”—became prosperous communities (NR Nomination Form 1984). Ferry Road was

constructed in the town of Old Lyme in 1729 (Ely and Plimpton 1991). While neighboring

towns such as New London became increasingly industrialized and more involved in foreign

trade (TAMS et al. 1998), Old Lyme and Old Saybrook were hindered because of a large

sandbar situated at the mouth of the Connecticut River that prevented large ships from entering

the river.

The Connecticut River Valley continued to thrive as the Revolution approached and although

most towns situated along the Connecticut waterfront aided the British fleet as it passed through

Long Island Sound, Old Saybrook residents “slept with one eye open and the other eye on the

watch” for British supporters along the shore (Roberts 1906: 37). Several years before the war

John MacCurdy, an Old Lyme resident, published manuscripts drafted by the Sons of Liberty

even though he was legally committing treason (ibid). After the British-imposed tax on tea that

resulted in the infamous Boston Tea Party, the town of Old Lyme had its own tea party, on a

much smaller scale, when bags of tea carried through town by a peddler were burned by local

residents (Roberts 1906). During the Revolutionary War, the British fleet took advantage of the

strategic location of the Connecticut River as dozens of ships passed through it headed for

northern states (WPA 1938). During the war, Old Saybrook also gained notoriety for being the

place where the first submarine torpedo boat was constructed. Its inventor, patriot David

Bushell, intended to “[blow] the entire British Navy on the American coast out of the water” and

began building his craft near the site of the Old Saybrook Ferry (Roberts 1906: 37).

NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY DEVELOPMENT

The towns on the mouth of the Connecticut River, especially Old Lyme, became increasingly

prominent as ship-building and shipping centers in the early 19th century. During the War of

1812, the British Navy was once again stationed in the Long Island Sound and near the mouth of

the Connecticut River. Although the British fleet destroyed several shipyards in the area, Old

Lyme escaped the war unharmed (Burt 1912).

In 1782, at the end of the Revolutionary War, a writer declared that the town of Old Saybrook

had “fallen from its ancient grandeur” (McCormick 1877: 124). However, this assertion may

have been due to the increasing population and development of the area. The increased

population was caused, in part, by the linking of the Connecticut River towns with other parts of

Connecticut via new methods of transportation. In 1807, the New London and Lyme Turnpike

Company was founded, and maintained the road which began at the ferry terminal on the eastern

shore of the Connecticut River in Old Lyme and continued east; there was no turnpike on the

Old Saybrook side of the river (Wood 1919). By 1824, the Connecticut River Steamboat

Company had opened, transporting commuters between New York and Calves Island, within the

Connecticut River near the northern boundary of the town of Old Lyme.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 6-4

Perhaps the most significant change to the transportation infrastructure of the Connecticut River

Valley was the introduction of railroad lines in the mid-19th century, which rendered the old

Boston Post Road and the Saybrook Ferry somewhat obsolete. The first railroad lines in the area

were established in the early 1850s, although these lines experienced financial difficulties and

suffered as a result of the poor construction of railroad tracks (NR Nomination Form 1984). In

1872, the railroad line, which crossed the Connecticut River, fell under the control of the New

York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad (NYNHHRR), a major line that connected

Connecticut with New York City (ibid). The Connecticut Valley Railroad, also established in the

mid-19th century, ran to the south of the NYNHHRR in the vicinity of Saybrook Point.

The railroad originally relied on ferryboats to transport both train cars and passengers over the

Connecticut River. In Old Lyme, a wood trestle was constructed over Ben Marvin’s Crick and

the Lieutenant River to enable trains to travel to the ferry. Several attempts at creating a bridge

to replace the inefficient ferries took place in the late-19th century. Construction began on a

wood railroad bridge over the River in the 1860s, yet it was damaged before it could be

completed. It was reconstructed in 1870 by the Shore Line Railroad, a predecessor of the

NYNHHRR (Ely and Plimpton 1991). A replacement steel bridge was constructed in 1889.

However, the single track of the 1889 bridge was insufficient for the railroad’s new double-track

system and quickly became outdated (HPI 2006 and Clouette 2004).

The American Bridge Company constructed the existing steel railroad bridge to the south of the

former bridge beginning in 1904. The bridge became operational in 1907, revolutionizing

transportation in the region and further promoting economic and population growth in the area.

To facilitate construction of the new bridge, a portion of Ben Marvin’s Crick, a small estuary

associated with the Lieutenant River, and the wetlands that surrounded it were filled in. A new

channel south of the railroad, known as the Dugway, was then cut between the southern portion

of Ben Marvin’s Crick and the Lieutenant River (Ely and Plimpton 1991). It is said that pilings

from the former wood trestle that carried trains to the ferry slip in the late 19th century are

visible a short distance north of the Connecticut River Railroad Bridge (ibid).

To the north of the railroad bridge, a highway bridge (known as the Saybrook Bridge or the

Great Bridge) was constructed in 1911 to allow motorcar and trolley traffic to cross the

Connecticut River, where previously there was only a ferry connection. The bridge included a

two-arm Scherzer drawbridge over the channel, allowing 200-foot wide clearance for the

passage of schooners and other vessels (Hubbard 1993). By the mid-20th century, the highway

bridge was found incapable of carrying the increasing volume of automobile traffic, and traffic

bottlenecked during the frequent openings of the moveable span for boat traffic. Between 1947

and 1948, a new steel-girder twelve-span highway bridge was constructed a short distance south

of the Saybrook Bridge, which it replaced. The new bridge carried four lanes of traffic over the

Connecticut River and was high enough that no moveable spans were necessary. It was named

the Baldwin Bridge after Senator Raymond E. Baldwin. Within a few decades, this bridge had

also become obsolete, unable to support the high volumes of traffic through the corridor. In the

early 1990s, ConnDOT replaced the former bridge with a new precast concrete bridge, which

was also named the Baldwin Bridge. The new Baldwin Bridge was located a short distance south

of the 1948 bridge.

In 1910, an electric trolley system known as the Shore Line Electric Railway opened, with

service between New Haven and New London and between Old Saybrook and Middletown,

running along the western shore of the Connecticut River. The trip between New Haven and

New London was two hours in duration, and stops were made in both Old Saybrook and Old
Chapter 6: Cultural Resources

6-5 May 2014

Lyme. The trolley crossed the Connecticut River on the Great Bridge when the latter was

completed in 1911. Despite the trolley system’s popularity, the line was shut down only nine

years after its inception due to a major collision in 1917 and a workers’ strike in 1919

(“Connecticut Shore Line Electric Railway,” December 2007). The company reorganized as the

New Haven & Shore Line Railway in 1923, but it resumed its service through Old Saybrook

with buses rather than trolleys.

With the increasing population came the transformation of the waterfront areas in both Old

Saybrook and Old Lyme into summer resort communities (Sargent 1916). One of the first of

these developments was located on the former Lynde family farm the small peninsula once

known as Lynde’s Point (now referred to as Lighthouse Point), after the lighthouse that was built

there in 1866 (WPA 1938). As the 19th century drew to a close, a large population of artists

moved to Old Lyme after Henry Ranger established an artist colony there in 1899 (Sargent

1916).

C. EXISTING CONDITIONS

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Previously Identified Prehistoric Sites

A review of the files at the CTSHPO and the CTSM indicates a very high density of previously

identified precontact sites in the immediate vicinity of the APE. There are 22 Native American

archaeological sites within a one-mile radius of the project site, 6 in Old Saybrook and 16 in Old

Lyme. Extensive local surveys in the 1970s and 1980s identified many of these sites. The sites

range in date from the Archaic to the Contact period, and the vast majority were found in or near

wetlands adjacent to the Connecticut River (see Table 6-1).

Old Saybrook

In Old Saybrook, sites within one mile of the project site include camp and village sites from the

Archaic and Woodland period which, though generally characterized by substantial disturbance,

yielded stone tools, lithics, pottery, and other materials. All but one of the Old Saybrook sites,

the Obed Heights Rock Shelter (Site Number 106-018, “E”), were situated in or near marshes or

waterfront areas along Connecticut River coves and tributaries. The North Cove Site (“D,” Site

Number 106-017) and the Ferry Road Site (“F,” Site Number 106-020) contained large numbers

of artifacts encountered during dredging operations in the marshes along the west bank of the

Connecticut River. The Jones Site (“C,” Site Number 106-013), a large camp site, was located in

close proximity to the North Cove Site on a partially sheltered portion of the Connecticut River.

The Ragged Rock/Chimney Point Marina Site (“A,” Site Number 106-110), an extensive village

site, was located in a salt marsh on a tributary of the Connecticut River, roughly 500 feet north

of the project site. The files reviewed by Amtrak indicate that materials recovered from the site

reflect the range of activities conducted in Native American settlements along the Connecticut

coast, including hunting and fishing.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 6-6

Table 6-1

Previously Identified Precontact Archaeological Sites Within One Mile of the Project Site

Key to

Fig 6-2 Site Name Site #

Approximate

Distance from

Project Site Time Period Site Type

Old Saybrook

A Ragged Rock

Marina/ Chimney

Point Marina

106-009

500 feet Archaic (2255

+/-85BP)

Large village site on coast. Variety of

material recovered; substantial

disturbance.

B Ferry Point

Facility 106-110 0.25 miles Archaic/Woodland Camp site; largely disturbed bydevelopment.

C Jones Site 106-013 1 mile Archaic/Woodland Coastal camp site

D

North Cove Site 106-017

1 mile

Archaic/Woodland

Coastal camp site containing material

dredged from North Cove, representing

a location now inundated

E Obed Heights

Rock Shelter 106-018 0.5 miles Middle Woodland Rock Shelter containing lithic andpottery artifacts

F

Ferry Road Site 106-020 1,000 feet Precontact Artifacts found in tidal marsh after

dredging

Old Lyme

G Broeder

Point/Duck River

Site

105-001 (has

been confused

with105-024)

(6-NL-24)

600 feet Late Archaic/ Early,

Middle, and Late

Woodland/Contact

Camp site with long temporal duration

and continuity through periods. Located

on wooded peninsula.

H Murdock Site 105-006 0.65 miles Late Archaic Camp site, possibly associated with

Griffin Site (105-041) across creek

I Lieutenant River

Site

105-016

(6-NL-6027)

0.25 miles Precontact Camp site/Village site in tidal marsh

J

156 Site 105-020

(6-NL-54)

0.25 miles

Woodland

Camp site. Highly disturbed half-acre

site near railroad tracks, Ducks River,

and Lieutenant River

K Johnnycake Hill

#1

105-022

(6-NL-44)

1,000 feet Precontact Disturbed remains of a hunting and/or

habitation camp site.

L

Bliss Site 105-023

0.25 miles

Ca. 4688 BP

Cremation burial complex. Evidence of

five individuals cremated at one point in

time, possible ritual killing. Grave

offerings; exotic lithics

M

Natcon Site

105-024

(has been

confused with

105-001)

500 feet

Middle Woodland

Seasonal camp in marsh near

Lieutenant River and railroad tracks.

Lithics and faunal remains

N

Griffin Site 105-041

(6-NL-79)

0.55 miles Terminal Archaic

(3200 BP)

Cemetery/ cremation site/ mortuary

complex. Cremains, bones, and lithics

present

O Chadwick Site 105-042 0.90 miles Terminal Archaic

(4280 BP) Subsistence and settlement site

P Great Island II 105-043 0.65 miles Precontact Unknown site type; aboriginal pottery

Q Railroad Access

Site 105-044 500 feet Precontact Unknown site type; lithics and

soapstone bowl fragments

R Great Island I 105-045 0.80 miles Early Woodland Unknown site type; pottery and lithics

S MacDonald Site 105-048 0.70 miles Precontact Subsistence and settlement site

T Old Lyme School

Site 105-049 0.90 miles Late Archaic Unknown site type; lithics

U Salisbury Place 105-058 0.30 miles Late Archaic Cremation burial complex

V Ferry Tavern 105-059 700 feet Late Archaic Camp site

Note: See Figure 6-2 for reference.

Sources: Files of the Connecticut State Museum
Chapter 6: Cultural Resources

6-7 May 2014

Old Lyme

The large number of precontact sites within one mile of the APE in Old Lyme is made up almost

entirely of camp and village sites in or near wetlands, including the Connecticut River and

associated marshes and tributaries such as the Lieutenant River and Duck River. The Broeder

Point/Duck River Site (“G,” Site Number 105-001), located on a wooded peninsula, contained

artifact assemblages ranging in date from the Terminal Archaic to the Contact Period, indicating

long temporal duration and continuity of settlement. Camp sites showing evidence of hunting

and tool maintenance, containing lithic debitage; and short-duration subsistence and settlement

sites, containing pottery, domestic tools, and shell middens, are also located in the area. Several

sites were located in close proximity to the railroad, including the Railroad Access Site (“Q,”

Site Number 105-044) and the Johnnycake Hill #1 Site (“K,” Site Number 105-022). The

CTSHPO and CTSM files reviewed by Amtrak indicate a high degree of archeological

disturbance.

In addition to the camp sites and both short-term and long-term settlement sites found in the

area, three burial sites have also been documented within one mile of the project site in Old

Lyme. The Bliss Site (“L,” Site Number 105-023) was a cremation burial complex dating to

4688 years BP, believed to be associated with a single-episode ritual killing. The site contained

the cremated remains of five individuals and grave offerings such as sheet mica, exotic lithic

materials, and hickory nuts. The nearby Griffin Site (“N,” Site Number 105-041), was a

Terminal Archaic-period mortuary complex containing human remains, skull and bone

fragments, and stone tools. The Salisbury Place site (“U,” Site Number 105-058), first surveyed

in 1916, included cremated burials and other materials.

Previously Identified Historic Period Sites

Three previously identified historic period archaeological sites are located within a mile of the

project site, including two marine railway industrial archaeological sites in Old Saybrook and

one historic tavern site in Old Lyme (see Table 6-2).

Table 6-2

Previously Identified Historic-Period Archaeological Sites in the Vicinity of the

Project Site

Key to

Fig 6-2

Site Name Site

Number

Approximate

Distance

from APE

Time

Period Site Type

Additional

Reference

Old Saybrook

W Brockway Boatworks

Marine Railway Site 106-033

0.90 miles 1931-

1996

Marine railway industrial archaeological

site

Raber

(Nov. 30,

2006)

X Presson Yard Marine

Railway Site 106-034

0.65 miles 1934-

2005 Marine railway remains, demolished

Raber

(Nov. 30,

2006)

Old Lyme

Y Ferry Tavern Site 105-067 1,000 feet 1835-

1971

Inn site. Standing ruins, surface finds,

cellar hole, and historic artifacts

McBride

(1985)

Note: See Figure 6-2 for reference.

Sources: Files of the Connecticut State Museum.

Both of the marine railways were surveyed by others in November 2006. The Brockway Boatworks

Marine Railway Site (Site Number 106-033, identified as Site W on Table 6-2 and Figure 6-2), is

located roughly 0.9 miles north of the project site on the Connecticut River shore in Old Saybrook.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 6-8

The 20th century industrial archaeological site consists of the remains of a marine railway which

was part of a small shipyard, such as hand-powered hoisting mechanisms to move boats. The

Presson Yard Marine Railway Site (Site Number 106-034, identified as Site X on Table 6-2 and

Figure 6-2), located roughly 0.65 miles north of the study area, also included remains, now

demolished, associated with a marine railyard. Both sites were considered significant as components

of a once important vessel repair and marina operations along the Atlantic coast.

The Ferry Tavern Site, located on Ferry Road in Old Lyme, consisted of standing ruins, a cellar

hole, and surface finds including historic period ceramics, metal, glass, brick, and shell

fragments. The site was associated with a former inn, which stood on the site from roughly 1835

to 1971, when it was destroyed by fire. The site was surveyed in 1985.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL OF APE

Based on the results of background research, archaeological resources dating to both the prehistoric

and historic periods are likely located within the APE. The prehistoric sensitivity is based primarily

on the large number of precontact archaeological sites that have been previously identified in the

vicinity of the APE. Based on regional precedents, the project site’s geography and topography, at

the mouth of the Connecticut River, near Long Island Sound, and inclusive of marshes, wetlands,

and creeks, makes it a prime location for precontact settlement, foraging, and camping.

The project team’s review of historic maps has indicated that no dwellings appear to have been

located within or immediately adjacent to the archaeological APE in the historic period. A

comparison of mid-19th century atlases with current conditions, however, indicates that several

former railroad structures appear to have overlapped with the APE. In Old Saybrook, an 1874

Beers map shows that an “Engine House,” a “Depot,” an unidentified round building, and

several short rail spurs were located in the northern portion of the APE (see Figure 6-3). These

structures were in locations currently occupied by the current railroad embankment and by the

navigable channel leading to the Ragged Rock Marina. In Old Lyme, the 1868 Beers map shows

an “Engine House,” “Lyme Station,” and a short rail spur located in the western portion of the

APE in Old Lyme (see Figure 6-4). As described above, pilings associated with the former

railroad trestle over the marshes in Old Lyme are still visible in some locations (Ely and

Plimpton 1991). However, since the exact location of these pilings is not known, they and any

other remnants of the former trestle that may exist are not considered archaeologically sensitive,

due to the highly limited information their investigation could provide.

Construction of the existing Connecticut River Bridge and removal of the earlier rail alignment

during the early 20th century involved extensive site preparation, grading, filling, and

excavation. These activities likely disturbed the first few feet of soil where the existing bridge

and its approaches are now located. It is also likely that staging activities and temporary roads

were present adjacent to the rail line during the construction process, which could have disturbed

the ground surface beyond the edge of the embankment, although evidence of such disturbance

is not visible in these areas today.

Furthermore, excavation associated with construction of a channel located immediately north of

the current alignment in Old Saybrook likely destroyed any resources once present in that area.

Based on historic maps and aerial photographs, the narrow east-west-oriented channel was

constructed at some point between 1893 and 1934. On a 1934 aerial map, this channel is shown

running from the Connecticut River (immediately north of the project site) southwest, to join

with the northern tip of the western finger of Ragged Rock Creek. The eastern portion of the
5.29.12

Figure 6-3

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 1874 Old Saybrook Map

SCALE

0 500 1000 FEET

General Location of Project Site
5.29.12

Figure 6-4

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 1868 Old Lyme Map

SCALE

0 500 1000 FEET

General Location of Project Site
Chapter 6: Cultural Resources

6-9 May 2014

channel was widened later in the 20th century, and now connects to a large inland basin

currently functioning as part of Ragged Rock Marina.

While several railroad structures and features existed in the APE in Old Lyme and Old Saybrook

in the mid to late 19th century, as described above, any remains of these buildings were likely

destroyed by the construction of the channel in Old Saybrook and by the construction of the

current railroad embankments and bridge in the early 20th century. Therefore, the APE has little

or no potential to contain significant historic-period archaeological resources.

There is a high probability that pre-contact period sites were once present within the APE;

however, it is very unlikely that any such resources remain intact under the current bridge piers

and embankments. Since the extent of disturbances associated with rail construction within the

Old Lyme portion of the APE but beyond the embankments is not known, Amtrak considers

those areas to have moderate potential for prehistoric archaeological resources. Should Amtrak

determine that the area adjacent to the embankments has been disturbed, it will then consider

these areas to have low to no potential for prehistoric archaeological resources.

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

There are three previously identified architectural resources in the Connecticut River Bridge

APE, as described below and in Table 6-3. One of these, the Connecticut River Bridge, is

located within the project site.

Table 6-3

Architectural Resources within APE

Ref

No Resource Name Location

Municipality in

Study Area

NRListedSRListedNREligibleSREligible

Potential

S/NReligible

KNOWN RESOURCES

1 Moveable RR

Bridges on the NE

Corridor in CT

Various (Includes

Amtrak

Connecticut River

Bridge)

Various

(Includes Old

Saybrook and

Old Lyme)

X X

2 John Whittlesey

Jr. House

40 Ferry Road Old Saybrook X X

3 Old Lyme Historic

District*

Lyme Street from

Rose Lane to

McCurdy Road

Old Lyme X X

4 Enoch Noyes

House

317 Ferry Road Old Lyme X

POTENTIAL RESOURCES

Study Area

A 61 Ferry Road** 61 Ferry Road Old Saybrook X

B 94 Ferry Road 94 Ferry Road Old Saybrook X

C 101 Ferry Road 101 Ferry Road Old Saybrook X

D 9 Clark Street 9 Clark Street Old Saybrook X

E 2-20 Clark Street 2-20 Clark Street Old Saybrook X

Notes: See Figure 6-1 for reference.

* Also a locally designated Town of Old Lyme historic district

**Based on preliminary comments given by CTSHPO staff member, Dan Forrest, this structure likely does not

qualify as S/NR-eligible
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 6-10

KNOWN RESOURCES

Connecticut River Railroad Bridge, (NR-eligible; SR-listed) (referred to in this document as the

Connecticut River Bridge) as part of the Moveable Railroad Bridges on the Northeast Corridor

in Connecticut Thematic Resource. Connecticut’s moveable railroad bridges date from the late

19th through the early 20th century, and span such rivers as the Pequonnock, Mianus, Norwalk,

Housatonic, Saugatuck, Niantic, and Thames. The Connecticut River Bridge, which carries the

Northeast Corridor over the Connecticut River between Old Saybrook and Old Lyme, is also part of

this thematic grouping (see Figures 6-1 and 6-5, View 1). Constructed between 1904 and 1907 by the

American Bridge Company, the Connecticut River Bridge is the longest railroad bridge in the state,

with ten spans totaling over 1,500 feet long. The approach spans are constructed with Baltimore

through-trusses (a variant on the Pratt-type truss), while the Scherzer rolling-lift bascule is a Warren

through-truss. The first railroad was constructed in the area in the 1850s; trains were initially carried

across the Connecticut River on a ferry, rather than a bridge. In 1870, the Shore Line Railway

completed the first rail drawbridge across the river in the area. Two years later, the railroad fell

under the control of the larger New York & New Haven Railroad. The wood bridge was

replaced with an iron structure in 1889. This too became quickly outdated as the railroad

developed a new double-track system, however, and the present bridge was commissioned in

1904. The thematic resource was listed on the SR and determined eligible for the NR in 1986.

John Whittlesey, Jr. House (S/NR-Listed) Located at 40 Ferry Road in Old Saybrook (roughly

a 1⁄4-mile from the project site), the John Whittlesey Jr. House is a two-and-a-half-story timberframed vernacular dwelling (see Figures 6-1 and 6-5, View 2). The main (front) portion of the

building is an example of the Georgian style, with a central stone chimney and symmetrical

fenestration. The house is sided in wood clapboard, the roof is clad in wood shingles, and the

windows contain twelve-over-twelve and twelve-over-eight-light double-hung sash. While the

main section of the house dates to ca. 1750, the rear ell, built in 1693, constituted the original

house. A shed-roofed side addition is of more recent construction. John Whittlesey Jr., who

documented the construction of the 1693 portion of the house in his diaries, was a shoemaker

and a farmer. He also participated in operating the ferry between Saybrook and Lyme with his

father, uncle, and brother-in-law William Dudley of Guilford. The house was occupied by

descendents of John Whittlesey, Jr. until 1919. In 1925, a wealthy insurance executive, William

B. Goodwin, purchased the property. Goodwin, an amateur archaeologist and history enthusiast,

intended to move the house to Saybrook Point to include it in a reconstruction of the

Revolutionary War-period Saybrook Fort built there during the Revolutionary War. His plans

were never carried out. The house remained on its original site, and was listed on the S/NR in

1984.

Old Lyme Historic District (S/NR-listed; Local Historic District) A small portion of the Old Lyme

Historic District falls within the eastern section of the APE, over 600 feet north of the project site.

The historic district includes properties on both sides of Lyme Street from Rose Lane on the north to

McCurdy Road on the south. It contains a mix of architectural styles ranging from 18th century

vernacular dwellings to the Town Hall and an early 20th century reconstruction of a Greek Revivalstyle church. Within the APE, the structure at 1 McCurdy Road, also known as the Marvin-Griffin

House, is a Federal-style dwelling (see Figures 6-1 and 6-6, View 3). The structure was

commissioned by the three sons of Benjamin Marvin for their father and was constructed ca. 1820 by

an Albany builder (Ladies Library Association 1968:10). A porch with Ionic columns was added

slightly later. The building now serves as the Parish House for the adjacent Christ the King Church.

The structure had a gable roof with brick chimneys, windows containing six-over-six-light doublehung sash, a half-round gable window, and a Colonial Revival-style porch supported by Ionic
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 6-5

5.25.12

Known Historic Resources

The S/NR-listed John Whittlesey Jr. House at 40 Ferry Road in Old Saybrook. This historic resource is located on 2

the northwestern edge of the study area, roughly one quarter of a mile from the project site.

Looking northwest from Ferry Landing Park in Old Lyme, a view of the Connecticut River Bridge, which carries Amtrak’s 1

Northeast Corridor across the Connecticut River. The bridge is listed on the State Register of Historic Places (SR) and 

has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NR) as part of the Moveable Railroad Bridges 

on the Northeast Corridor in Connecticut Thematic Resource.
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 6-6

5.25.12

Known Historic Resources

The Federal-style Marvin-Griffin House at 1 McCurdy Road in Old Lyme is located within the S/NR-eligible Old 3

Lyme Historic District. The property is the only parcel within the historic district that is located within the project 

study area; it is located in the northeastern portion of the study area.
Chapter 6: Cultural Resources

6-11 May 2014

columns. The Old Lyme Historic District became a Town of Old Lyme local historic district in 1971

in accordance with the Town Enabling Ordinance of that year and the provisions of Section 7-147 of

the Connecticut General Statutes, as amended.

The Enoch Noyes House (“House on the Hill”), 317 Ferry Road (Old Lyme) (SR-listed, per

personal communication with Dan Forrest, CTSHPO). This two-story five-bay house is

prominently situated on a hill on the north side of Ferry Road, a short distance before its

terminus at the historic location of the ferry to Old Saybrook, a 1⁄4-mile north of the project site

(see Figures 6-1 and 6-7). The ca. 1820 Federal-style house is clad in wood clapboard and has

brick side chimneys. It is symmetrically fenestrated, with a central doorway flanked by windows

containing twelve-over-twelve-light double-hung sash. A tripartite flat-headed Palladian window

occupies the central bay of the upper story. The doorway itself is flanked by three-quarter

sidelights defined by striated and attenuated pilasters and surmounted by a narrow frieze and a

large scalloped fanlight. The house has a side-gable roof and a raking cornice with mutules. The

tympana are faced in flushboard and contain semi-circular windows. A widow’s walk and a

balustered parapet surmount the structure’s peaked roof. Based on historic photographs and oral

history, these features, as well as the fanlight over the front door, represent late 20th century

alterations. The fanlight was reportedly salvaged from a house on Nantucket of similar vintage.

Historic photographs show that a small flat-roofed entry porch, no longer extant, was in place

until at least the 1960s. A small single-story addition on the west façade is believed to be an

early 20th century addition. The parcel contains lawns, a number of stone walls, and several

small relatively recently constructed outbuildings. A brownstone mile marker, known locally as

a Benjamin Franklin mile marker, is located along Ferry Road on the eastern portion of the

property (Ladies Library Association of Old Lyme 1968: 26). Inscribed in the marker are the

words “16 M/ N.L,” denoting 16 miles to New London.

This house was built ca. 1820 for Enoch Noyes by his father, Captain Joseph Noyes, who

purchased the land from his relative, Captain Timothy Mather. The high promontory of coastal

land was known by the name “Mathers Neck.” An early gambrel-roofed Mather house stood on

the land until the early 20th century, and “there was formerly on the place a fort made of

earthworks thrown up at the time the British went up the river and burned the town of Essex”

(CT Society of Colonial Dames of America 1923: 139). Noyes was a sergeant in the War of

1812. Among Enoch Noyes’ children was Ellen Noyes Chadwick (1824-1900) a painter and a

member of the Old Lyme Art Colony. The Colony, which has been called “one of the largest and

most significant art colonies in America,” was a group of Tonalist and Impressionist artists that

gathered in Old Lyme in the late 19th century (Anderson, accessed April 1, 2008). Among Ellen

Noyes Chadwick’s paintings is View of Ferry Point (ca. 1860) a picturesque view of the

Connecticut River as seen from the vicinity of the Enoch Noyes House. Following Enoch

Noyes’ death, the house was inherited by his son, Charles Rockwell Noyes, who subsequently

left the property to his nephew (Ellen Noyes Chadwick’s son), Charles Noyes Chadwick. As

Commissioner of the New York Board of Water Supply, Chadwick spearheaded and oversaw

the plan to construct the Catskill Aqueduct. He and his wife also cofounded the Froebel

Academy in Brooklyn and were active in reforming public education in New York.

POTENTIAL RESOURCES

Five resources within the study area appear to meet the criteria for S/NR eligibility (see Table 6-

3 and Figure 6-1).
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 6-12

61 Ferry Road (Old Saybrook) 61 Ferry Road, located just less than a 1⁄4-mile northwest of the

project site, is a one-and-a-half-story wood-frame dwelling with a front-gable roof (see Figures

6-1 and 6-8, View 6). It is clad in wood shingles and has a stone foundation. The house displays

several Gothic Revival-style elements, while its proportions are more evocative of the Greek

Revival style. It may either represent a transitional blend of these two styles, or a Greek Revivalstyle house that was later updated. The gable is ornamented with decorative quatrefoil

vergeboard and a finial. A frieze band window is visible under the eaves on the side (west)

façade. The front (south) façade of the house has a central doorway with a six-panel door with

round moldings, which is flanked by a window on each side containing six-over-six-light

double-hung sash. On the upper story is a central paired window, each element of which

contains four-over-four-light double-hung sash. A small single-story ell addition is appended to

the west façade of the house. This addition has a brick end chimney, diamond-pane casementsash windows, and appears to have a concrete foundation.

The house is shown on the 1859 Walling map of the area as belonging to Capt. J. D. Billiard.

Joseph Billiard is listed on the 1850 federal census as a New York State-born fisherman living in

Saybrook with his wife, Fanny, two children, and an Irishwoman, likely a domestic. The 1874

Beers map depicts the house as belonging to C. Richardson.

94 Ferry Road (Old Saybrook) The house at 94 Ferry Road, roughly 500 feet north of the

project site, is a three-bay front-gable dwelling clad in wood clapboard, with a stone foundation

(see Figures 6-1 and 6-8, View 7). Designed in the late Federal style, the house has a raking

cornice and a door casing composed of pilasters surmounted by an entablature with a simple

frieze. A rectangular gable window bears an ornamented keystone and corner medallions and

contains geometrical tracery. Windows of this sort are relatively commonly found in early 19th

century New England dwellings and were promoted in early builders’ guides such as those of

Asher Benjamin (1773-1845). While the gable window of 94 Ferry Road is in excellent

condition, the rest of the windows on the façade have lost their original sash and now contain

one-over-one-light double-hung sash. Based on its architectural style, the house was probably

constructed during the first quarter of the 19th century.

While documentary sources shed little light on the early history of the house, the 1859 Walling

map and 1874 Beers map of Saybrook show that the structure was owned by Samuel Miner

(a.k.a. Minor) of Connecticut. The 1850 and 1860 censuses list Samuel W. Miner as living in

Saybrook with his wife Phebe, and several children. The 1870 census also lists Miner and his

wife in the same location, then living alone.

101 Ferry Road (Old Saybrook) Located roughly 700 feet north of the project site, this Federalstyle, wood-frame, wood clapboard-clad dwelling has a two-story three-bay façade (see Figures

6-1 and 6-9, View 8). It is distinguished by a front-gable roof with a denticulated raking cornice

forming a pediment. Within the pediment is a variant on a Palladian window, composed of a

keystoned semi-elliptical window surmounting a tripartite window in which each section is

separated by a pilaster. A six-light fixed sash occupies the central section, the only apparent

retrofitting within the Federal-style feature. The façade is flanked with pilasters, which are

echoed on the casing of the door, which occupies the easternmost bay. The doorway is occupied

by an eight-panel door and surmounted by a toplight with leaded tracery and an entablature with

a simple wide frieze. The windows throughout the house contain twelve-over-twelve-light

double-hung sash. The windows are flanked by shutters, which appear to be modern retrofits.

The house has a stone foundation. Stylistically, the house appears to have been constructed ca.

1800.
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 6-7

5.25.12

Known Historic Resources

Looking west on Ferry Road in Old Lyme, a view of the east (side) façade of the Enoch Noyes House, also 5

showing the extensive property that surrounds it. This property is edged in stone walls; a “Benjamin Franklin” 

brownstone mile marker is located on the southeastern edge of the property, a short distance northeast of 

the study area

The front (south) façade of the Enoch Noyes House (the “House on the Hill”), located at 317 Ferry Road in Old 4

Lyme, roughly a quarter of a mile north of the project site. The ca. 1820 Federal-style house is clad in wood 

clapboard and has brick side chimneys
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 6-8

Potential Historic Resources

5.25.12

The house at 94 Ferry Road in Old Saybrook, roughly 500 feet north of the project site, is a late Federal-style house 7

with a raking cornice, classical door frame, and a decorative gable window. It is clad in wood clapboard. Most of the 

windows have been replaced with modern sash.

On the north side of Ferry Road in Old Saybrook (just less than a quarter mile northwest of the project site) the 

house at 61 Ferry Road displays elements of the Gothic Revival style. The front-gable wood-frame structure is clad 

in wood shingles. Its gable is ornamented with decorative quatrefoil vergeboard and a drop finial.

6
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 6-9

Potential Historic Resources

5.25.12

The Federal-style house at 101 Ferry Road in Old Saybrook, roughly 700 feet north of the project 8

site, is a front-gable structure with a denticulated raking cornice and a Palladian window in the gable 

tympanum. It is clad in wood clapboard, has windows containing twelve-over-twelve-light 

double-hung sash, and retains its original pilasters and door surround.

A view of the east façade of the large masonry building at 2-20 Clark Street, located at the intersection of Clark 9

Street and Ferry Road on the western shore of the Connecticut River in Old Saybrook. This photograph is taken from 

Ferry Landing Park in Old Lyme, looking west across the river. The structure was built ca. 1910 as a power plant for 

the Shore Line Electric Railway, an ‘interurban’ trolly system. It is located roughly 400 feet north of the project site.
Chapter 6: Cultural Resources

6-13 May 2014

While no early history of 101 Ferry Road has been found, maps and censuses indicate that the

structure was owned by members of the Tryon family in the mid and late 19th century. An 1859

Walling map indicates that the house was owned by J. Tryon, likely Jedidiah Tryon (1806-

1859). According to census and other records, Tryon was a “mariner.” He married Wealthy Ann

Williams in 1827, and by 1850, they had six children, including Charles W., a fisherman, and

Henry K., a ferryman and merchant who ran the H.K. Tryon store located across Ferry Road

from the house. After Jedidiah Tryon died in 1859, Wealthy Ann continued to occupy the house

with her children until her death in 1874.

2-20 Clark Street (Old Saybrook) Located on the western shore of the Connecticut River at the

intersection of Ferry Road and Clark Street in Old Saybrook, roughly 400 feet north of the

project site, 2-20 Clark Street, now occupied by Between the Bridges Marina, is a large

Renaissance Revival-style industrial building (see Figures 6-1; 6-9, View 9; and 6-10). It is a large

flat-roofed rectangular-plan concrete building, with a parged exterior. The building is banked,

standing two-and-a-half stories tall on its front (east) façade, along the river; and one-and-a-half

stories tall on its rear façade, along Clark Street. A smokestack rises from the center of the

building’s roof; it appears to be constructed of concrete, and is painted with red and white

stripes. The building has a low parapet, which wraps around the front and side facades,

terminating at the corners of the rear façade. Beneath the parapet, wide eaves supported by large

modillion brackets, project over a tightly spaced row of six-light clerestory windows. The five

bays of the building are delineated by simple pilasters and are occupied on the side facades by

large twenty-light windows with simple lintels. The windows on the front façade have all been

altered; some contain multi-light sash while others have been partially or entirely sealed. On the

rear (west) façade, a narrow horizontal multi-light window occupies the upper portion of each

bay; only the center window has been sealed. A single-story shed-roofed addition is appended to

the rear façade. A small flat-roofed concrete structure has been added to the south façade, which

connects to a large Quonset hut-type building clad in corrugated metal. This building in turn

connects to a large low utilitarian building with a shallowly pitched metal roof.

This building was constructed ca. 1910 as a power house for the Shore Line Electric Railway, an

electric trolley system that both ran east-west between New Haven and New London (through

Old Saybrook) and north-south along the western shore of the Connecticut River, between Old

Saybrook and Middletown (Diane Hoyt, Old Saybrook Historical Society, pers.comm.). At its

height, the Shore Line was an important competitor of the New Haven Railroad, and operated

nearly 230 miles of track, but it had a short lifespan (Cummings 2007). It opened in 1910 and

closed in 1919, after a devastating collision in 1917 and a workers’ strike in 1919 ruined the

company financially (“Connecticut Shore Line Electric Railway,” December 2007). The

company reorganized as the New Haven & Shore Line Railway in 1923, and ran trolleys

between New Haven and Branford. The sections of the route from Guildford to New London

(through Old Saybrook), and between Old Saybrook and Middletown, however, was replaced by

bus service; and in 1929, the company terminated trolley service completely and ran only buses.

The Shore Line Trolley Museum in East Haven, Connecticut, interprets the history of the line

and runs vintage trolley cars; it is the oldest trolley museum in the country.

The original 1910 Shore Line system included two car barns, one in Guilford and one in Old

Saybrook (located west of the structure, near downtown Old Saybrook). The structure at 2-20

Clark Street served as a power house, or electric generator, for the trolley. With its location

immediately adjacent to the ferry to Old Lyme, it was likely also the location of a station stop,

where passengers crossing the Connecticut River embarked and disembarked on the ferry. The

structure was constructed ca. 1910, and likely went out of use as a power house in 1919. A 1934
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 6-14

aerial map shows 2-20 Clark Street (including smokestack) in its present location. The additions

on the west and south sides of the structure were not standing at that time.

Architecturally, the building is an unusual example of the Renaissance Revival style applied to

an industrial building. Although the historic integrity of the structure is compromised somewhat

due to the changes in fenestration and the multiple additions, it retains significance for its

association with the Shore Line Electric Railway.

9 Clark Street (Old Saybrook) This Cape Cod-style three-bay “half house” faces east on Clark

Street just south of Ferry Road, roughly 400 feet north of the project site (see Figures 6-1 and

6-11). The single-story structure has a stone foundation and is sided in wood clapboard. Its roof

is clad in wood shingles and is pierced by a roughly central brick chimney, accessed by stone

steps. The structure has a doorway containing a six-paneled door and three windows on the front

façade containing six-over-nine-light double-hung sash. Windows on the side elevations contain

six-over-six-light double-hung sash. The window openings throughout the house have simple

wood ship-lap frames. The dwelling has a molded cornice. A small one-bay single-story addition

on the south façade is also clad in wood clapboard and has six-over-nine-light double-hung sash

windows and a stone foundation. Based on stylistic features, the dwelling most likely dates to

the late 18th or early 19th century. A small brick side chimney on the north façade was likely a

mid-20th century addition.

The house at 9 Clark Street is depicted on an 1859 Walling map as the J.J. Tryon House. The

house very likely belonged to Jeremiah J. Tryon Sr. The latter was born in Saybrook in 1804,

and is listed in the 1850 federal census as living there with his wife, Lucinda, seven children,

and an Irish woman, Mary Higgins (presumably a boarder or a domestic servant). Tryon is listed

in the census as being employed in “Fisheries.” In the 1860 census, Tryon is listed as a farmer,

still living in Saybrook with his wife and five remaining children (his eldest son, Jeremiah, had

moved to his own house further south on Ferry Road). Tryon died before 1870, and in the census

of this year, Lucinda Tryon is listed as living in the household of Orison B. Champion, possibly

at 9 Clark Street. An 1874 Beers map shows the property as belonging to Mrs. J. Tryon,

presumably Lucinda.

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

As described in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” under the No Action Alternative, the existing

Connecticut River Bridge will remain in service, with continued maintenance and minimal

repairs. The planned transportation projects and development projects previously mentioned in

this EA will not be expected to change architectural or archaeological resources in the study area

absent the proposed project.

It is possible that in a future without the proposed project, one or more of the potential resources

within the study area may be determined eligible for listing on the State or National Registers or

designated as locally designated historic properties.

Architectural resources that are listed on the National Register or that have been found eligible

for listing are given a measure of protection from the effects of federally sponsored or assisted

projects under Section 106 of the NHPA. Although the Act does not mandate preservation,

federal agencies must attempt to avoid adverse impacts on such resources through a notice,

review, and construction process. The Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) and other

regulations provide similar protections against impacts resulting from state-sponsored or stateassisted projects to properties listed on the State Register. Private property owners using private
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 6-10

Potential Historic Resources

5.25.12

The north and west facades of the building at 2-20 Clark Street. Note the single-story addition appended to the 11

west façade. While most of the clerestory windows remain intact, many of the larger windows along the facades 

have been truncated or sealed.

The west and south facades of the building at 2-20 Clark Street, viewed from the southern portion of Clark Street in 10

Old Saybrook. The parged masonry structure has decorative eaves brackets, large metal windows and simple 

pilasters. A single-story addition has been appended to the west façade (left); and a large corrugated metal 

structure has been connected to the south façade (right).
AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 6-11

Potential Historic Resources

5.25.12

A view of the front (east) and north facades of the single-story Cape Cod-style house at 9 Clark Street in Old Say- 12

brook; located roughly 400 feet north of the project site. The small ca. 1800 clapboard-clad “half house” has a stone 

foundation, a central brick chimney, and six-panel wood door. Its roof is clad in wood shingles and the windows 

contain six-over-six-light double-hung sash.

The south and front façades of 9 Clark Street in Old Saybrook, showing the small single-story 

addition on the south façade.

13
Chapter 6: Cultural Resources

6-15 May 2014

funds can, however, alter or demolish their properties without such a review process. In the

Town of Old Lyme, the Old Lyme Historic District Council holds the regulatory authority in

accordance with Town Ordinances and Connecticut General Statutes. The Historic District

Council must issue a Certificate of Appropriateness before any structure in the Old Lyme

Historic District is erected, altered, removed, or demolished. The Town of Old Saybrook’s

Historic District Commission retains similar authority in reviewing construction within Old

Saybrook’s North Cove Historic District.

E. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

As described above, an adverse archaeological effect is defined as any disturbance or damage to

an archaeological resource. Such an effect could occur if construction were to disturb the soil at

the same depth where that resource was present. Construction of the Ragged Rock Marina

channel in the early 20th century likely destroyed any resources that may have once been located

in the Old Saybrook portion of the APE. Since the extent of previous disturbances associated

with rail construction within the Old Lyme portion of the APE but beyond the embankments is

not known, Amtrak considers those areas to have moderate potential for prehistoric

archaeological resources. Should Amtrak determine that the area adjacent to the embankments

has been previously disturbed, Amtrak will then consider these areas to have low to no potential

for prehistoric archaeological resources.

The Preferred Alternative involves modification of portions of the Northeast Corridor within the

archaeological APE. Embankment extensions required for the Preferred Alternative will impact

ground surfaces to the south of the current alignment for a length of up to 1,200 feet in Old

Saybrook and 1,100 feet in Old Lyme. As described in the Draft Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA) in Appendix A, “Cultural Resources,” Amtrak will develop and implement an

archaeological testing plan, in coordination with the CTSHPO, to determine the presence or

absence of archaeological resources in Old Lyme that could be affected by the Preferred

Alternative. If archaeological resources are found to be present in the APE, further field testing

may be necessary to determine whether these resources are significant (S/NR eligible). If it is

determined that S/NR-eligible archaeological resources will be impacted by the project,

avoidance or mitigation measures will be developed in coordination with the CTSHPO (see

Mitigation section below).

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

The Preferred Alternative will not directly affect any known or potential architectural resources

identified in the study area, with the exception of the Connecticut River Bridge. Because these

resources are far removed (between 400 feet and a quarter-mile) from the project site, they are

not at risk for inadvertent damage due to project-related construction activities. Furthermore,

while the context of these resources will be somewhat altered by the removal of the Connecticut

River Bridge and the construction of a new bridge over the Connecticut River, the overall

context of these resources will not substantially change. The project will replace existing

railroad-related structures with new railroad-related structures, and therefore, the use,

atmosphere, and overall conditions of the resources’ context will remain largely the same. The

history and significance of these historic resources is not associated with the railroad, and

therefore, their relationship to the railroad is not an important character-defining feature. Lastly,
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 6-16

under the Preferred Alternative, the new bridge will not differ substantially in height, dimension,

or alignment, and therefore, is not expected to block existing views to and from historic

resources.

As described in detail in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” the Preferred Alternative will result

in the removal of the existing Connecticut River Bridge and the construction of a new bridge.

The Preferred Alternative will therefore have an adverse effect on the Connecticut River Bridge,

which is SR-listed and NR-eligible as a contributing element within the Moveable Railroad

Bridges on the Northeast Corridor in Connecticut Thematic Resource, as described above. FRA

documented this adverse effects finding in its correspondence to CTSHPO, dated July 31, 2012 (see

Appendix A). In response, CTSHPO concurred and provided input on the Draft MOA, as discussed

below.

F. MITIGATION MEASURES

As project engineering proceeds, Amtrak and FRA will continue to participate in a consultation

process with the CTSHPO to identify potential effects on archaeological and architectural

resources, as mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966. As part of this process, Amtrak

will explore measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate, to the extent practicable, any adverse

effects to archaeological and architectural resources. Development of these measures is set forth

in the Draft MOA (included in Appendix A), to be executed by FRA, CTSHPO, and Amtrak

(and any consulting parties). Amtrak will implement the various provisions of the Draft MOA in

consultation with FRA and CTSHPO.

The Draft MOA describes the continuing consultation process that will be conducted as project

designs evolve and the measures to be implemented during the project’s design process to avoid,

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of the project on historic resources. Amtrak will undertake

the design of the replacement bridge in coordination with the CTSHPO and will make an effort

to incorporate historically compatible designs. Mitigation for adverse effects on the Connecticut

River Bridge (a contributing element of the Moveable Railroad Bridges of the Northeast

Corridor in Connecticut Thematic Resource), may include Historic American Engineering

Record (HAER) documentation for the Connecticut River Bridge and development of an

interpretive exhibit in a park, greenway, or public space that will present the history of the bridge

and other moveable railroad bridges on the Northeast Corridor in Connecticut. This exhibit could

possibly include salvaged elements of the bridge, signage, etc.

As described above and detailed in the Draft MOA, if archaeological testing determines that

S/NR-eligible archaeological resources are present in the APE and could be affected by the

project, and if avoidance of these resources during construction is not feasible, mitigation

measures, such as data recovery, may be required. Data recovery and additional mitigation, if

appropriate, will be carried out in consultation with the CTSHPO.
Chapter 6: Cultural Resources

6-17 May 2014

G. REFERENCES

National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form for the John Whittlesey Jr.

House.

1984 On file at the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office.

Anderson, Jeffrey

(undated) “Introduction to the Lyme Art Colony.” Website: The Fox Chase

(www.flogris.org, accessed April 1, 2008).

Burt, Sarah Sill Welles

1912 Old Silltown. Published by W. Griswold Burt.

Cantwell, Anne-Marie and Diana diZerega Wall

2001 Unearthing Gotham. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Clouette, Bruce

2004 Where Water Meets Land: Historic Movable Bridges of Connecticut.

Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Transportation in cooperation with the

Federal Highway Administration.

Connecticut Society of Colonial Dames of America

1923 Old Houses of Connecticut. Bertha Chadwick Trowbridge, ed. New Haven:

Yale University Press.

“Connecticut’s Shore Line Electric Railway”

December 2007 Website: Dave’s Electric Railroads

(http://davesrailpix.com/odds/ct/htm/sler01.htm accessed June 2008).

Cummings, O.R.

2007 The Shore Line Electric Railway Company. (Bulletin #139) Central Electric

Railfans’ Association.

Dincauze, Dena F.

2000 “The Earliest Americans: The Northeast.” Common Ground: Archaeology and

Ethnography in Public Interest. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service.

Ely, Susan H. and Elizabeth B. Plimpton

1991 The Lieutenant River. Old Lyme: Lyme Historical Society.

Hinman, Royal Ralph

1846 A Catalogue of the Names of the First Puritan Settlers of the Colony of

Connecticut. Hartford: E. Gleason.

Historical Perspectives, Inc

2005 Phase 1A Archaeological Assessment: Brooklyn Bridge Park Project; Blocks 1,

7, 16, 25, 26, 45, 199, 208, 245, 258, and Portions of Pearl, Washington, New

Dock, Fulton, and Joralemon Streets and Atlantic Avenue; Bounded Roughly by

Atlantic Avenue, jay Street, and the East River; Brooklyn, Kings County, New

York. For: AKRF, Inc, New York, New York.

2006 The Connecticut River Railroad Bridge Across the Connecticut River:

Preliminary Assessment of Historic Resources Final Report.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 6-18

Ladies Library Association of Old Lyme

1968 Landmarks of Old Lyme, Connecticut.

Louis Berger Group

2004 Proposed Fulton Street Transit Center. Prepared for New York City Transit,

New York, NY.

McCormick, Samuel Jarvis

1877 The Rev. Samuel Peters’ LL.S. General History of Connecticut...By a

Gentleman of the Province, London: 1781. New York: D. Appleton and

Company.

Morgan, Forrest

1904 Connecticut as a Colony and as a State, or one of the Original Thirteen.

Hartford: The Publishing Society of Connecticut.

Roberts, George S.

1906 Historic Towns of the Connecticut River Valley. Schenectady, NY: Robson &

Adee.

Sargent, Porter E.

1916 A Handbook of New England: An Annual Publication. Boston: Sargent’s

Handbook Series.

Swanton, James Reed

2003 The Indian Tribes of North America. Genealogical Publishing Company.

TAMS Consultants, Inc. and Historical Perspectives Inc.

1998 Cultural Resources Survey: Naval Undersea Welfare Center, New London, CT.

Prepared for: Department of the Navy, Naval Air Systems Command.

Wood, Frederic James

1919 The Turnpikes of New England and Evolution of the Same Through England,

Virginia, and Maryland. Boston: Marshall Jones Company.

Works Progress Administration Federal Writers’ Project

1938 American Guide Series: Connecticut: A Guide to its Roads, Lore, and People.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

1939 Here’s New England! A Guide to Vacationland. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.


7-1 May 2014

Chapter 7: Air Quality

A. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter assesses the potential long-term impacts on ambient air quality due to operation of

the Preferred Alternative. Potential short-term air quality impacts from construction of the

Preferred Alternative are discussed in Chapter 12, “Construction Impacts.”

The Preferred Alternative is designed to improve reliability of operations for the Connecticut

River Bridge and will not provide additional rail capacity. These improvements in service and

reliability are likely to lead to negligible increases in ridership and are therefore unlikely to have

any effects on regional and local air quality. As described in Chapter 2, the emergency generator

will be used exclusively for emergency situations and required periodic testing. Therefore, the

project’s effects on air quality will not be measurable and subsequently no detailed analysis is

presented in this chapter. This chapter discusses the regulatory context for air quality analysis

and presents a qualitative discussion of the existing air quality conditions in the greater study

area.

POLLUTANTS FOR ANALYSIS

Air pollutants produced by motor vehicles and stationary sources affect ambient air quality.

Emissions from motor vehicles are referred to as mobile source emissions, while emissions from

fixed facilities are referred to as stationary source emissions. Mobile source emissions impact

ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO). Both mobile and stationary sources emit

particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2,

collectively referred to as NOx). Fine PM is also formed when emissions of NOx, sulfur oxides

(SOx), ammonia, organic compounds, and other gases react or condense in the atmosphere.

Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) are associated mainly with stationary sources, as well as

sources utilizing non-road diesel fuel, such as diesel trains, marine engines, and non-road

vehicles (e.g., construction engines). On-road diesel vehicles currently contribute very little to

SO2 emissions since the sulfur content of on-road diesel fuel, which is federally regulated, is

extremely low. Complex photochemical processes that include NOx and VOCs, emitted mainly

from industrial processes and mobile sources, result in the formation of ozone in the atmosphere.

CARBON MONOXIDE

CO, a colorless and odorless gas, is produced primarily in urban areas by the incomplete

combustion of gasoline and other fossil fuels. In urban areas, approximately 80 to 90 percent of

CO emissions are from motor vehicles. Since CO is a reactive gas, which does not persist in the

atmosphere, CO concentrations can vary greatly over relatively short distances; elevated

concentrations are usually limited to locations near crowded intersections, heavily traveled and

congested roadways, parking lots, and garages. Consequently, CO concentrations must be

predicted on a local, or microscale, basis.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 7-2

NITROGEN OXIDES, VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS, AND OZONE

NOx are emitted from both mobile and stationary sources primarily as a result of the combustion

of fossil fuels. VOCs include a wide range of organic compounds emitted principally from

solvents, coatings, petroleum production and distribution, and combustion of fossil fuels. NOx

and VOC emissions are of principal concern because of their role as precursors in the formation

of ozone. Ozone is formed through a series of reactions that take place in the atmosphere in the

presence of sunlight. Because the reactions are slow and occur as the pollutants are transported

downwind, elevated ozone levels are often found many miles from sources of the precursor

pollutants. The effects of NOx and VOC emissions from all sources are, therefore, generally

examined on a regional basis. However, with the promulgation of the 2010 1-hour average

standard for NO2, local sources such as vehicular emissions may become of greater concern for

this pollutant.

LEAD

Airborne lead emissions are principally associated with industrial sources. Effective January 1,

1996, the Clean Air Act (CAA) banned the sale of the small amount of leaded fuel that was still

available in some parts of the country for use in on-road vehicles, concluding a 25-year effort to

phase out lead in gasoline. As a result, ambient concentrations of lead have declined

significantly.

RESPIRABLE PARTICULATE MATTER—PM10 AND PM2.5

PM is a class of air pollutants that includes discrete particles of a range of sizes and chemical

compositions that are either liquid droplets (aerosols) or solids suspended in the atmosphere. PM

is emitted from a variety of sources, both natural and anthropogenic (man-made). Major

anthropogenic sources include the combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., vehicular exhaust, power

generation, boilers, engines, and home heating); chemical and manufacturing processes;

construction and agricultural activities; and wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.

PM is regulated in two size categories: particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or

equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) and particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or

equal to 10 micrometers (PM10) which includes the smaller PM2.5. PM2.5 has the ability to reach

the lower regions of the respiratory tract, delivering with it other compounds that adsorb to the

surfaces of the PM; PM2.5 is also extremely persistent in the atmosphere. Diesel-powered

vehicles are a significant source of respirable PM, most of which is PM2.5. PM concentrations

may, consequently, be locally elevated near roadways with high volumes of heavy diesel

powered vehicles.

SULFUR DIOXIDE

SO2 emissions are primarily associated with the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels: oil and

coal. Due to the federal restrictions on the sulfur content in diesel fuel for on-road vehicles,

vehicle sources emit no significant quantities of SO2. Therefore, an analysis of SO2 is typically

only performed for large stationary sources (e.g., coal-fired power generating facility).
Chapter 7: Air Quality

7-3 May 2014

REGULATORY CONTEXT

NATIONAL AND STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

The Clean Air Act mandated the establishment of primary and secondary National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six major air pollutants: CO, NO2, ozone, respirable PM (both

PM2.5 and PM10), SO2, and lead. The primary standards represent levels that are necessary to

protect the public health, allowing an adequate margin of safety. The secondary standards are

intended to protect the nation’s welfare, and account for air pollutant effects on soil, water,

visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of the environment. The primary and

secondary standards are the same for NO2 annual, ozone, lead, and PM, respectively, and there is

no secondary standard for CO and the 1-hour NO2 standard.

USEPA revised the NAAQS for PM, effective December 18, 2006; it lowered the level of the

24-hour PM2.5 standard from the former level of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 35

μg/m3and retained the level of the annual standard at 15 μg/m3. In addition, USEPA maintained

the PM10 24-hour average standard and revoked the annual average PM10 standard. USEPA

recently lowered the primary annual-average standard from 15 μg/m3to 12 μg/m3, effective

March 2013. USEPA also revised the 8-hour ozone standard, lowering it from 0.08 to 0.075

parts per million (ppm), effective as of May 2008. USEPA lowered the primary and secondary

standards for lead to 0.15 μg/m3, effective January 12, 2009. USEPA revised the averaging time

to a rolling 3-month average and the form of the standard to not-to-exceed across a 3-year span.

USEPA also established a 1-hour average NO2 standard of 0.100 ppm, effective April 12, 2010

and a 1-hour average SO2 standard of 0.075 ppm, effective August 23, 2010. The 1-hour average

NO2 standard is in addition to the annual standard, while the 1-hour SO2 standard replaced the

24-hour and annual primary standards.

The NAAQS are presented in Table 7-1. Connecticut has adopted the NAAQS as the state’s

ambient air quality standards.

LOCAL AIR QUALITY REQUIREMENTS

Connecticut has not established local air quality impact thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Therefore,

for the purposes of this analysis, an adverse impact occurs if the project causes a violation of the

NAAQS, worsens an existing violation, or delays timely attainment of the NAAQS.

NAAQS ATTAINMENT STATUS AND STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

As amended in 1990, the CAA defines non-attainment areas (NAA) as geographic regions that

have been designated as not meeting one or more of the NAAQS. When USEPA designated an

area as non-attainment, the state must develop and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP),

which delineates how a state plans to achieve air quality that meets the NAAQS under the

deadlines established by the CAA.

The proposed project site falls within areas that are designated as non-attainment for ozone and

maintenance for CO. In 2008, CTDEEP recommended that USEPA designate the entire State of

Connecticut as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Middlesex County and New

London County are in attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS. USEPA has designated the entire state

of Connecticut as “unclassifiable/attainment” for the new 1-hour NO2 standard effective

February 29, 2012. Since additional monitoring is required for the 1-hour standard, areas will be

reclassified once three years of monitoring data are available (2016 or 2017).
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 7-4

Table 7-1

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

Pollutant

Primary Secondary

ppm μg/m3ppm μg/m3

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

8-Hour Average (1) 9 10,000

None

1-Hour Average (1) 35 40,000

Lead

Rolling 3-Month Average (2) NA 0.15 NA 0.15

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

1-Hour Average (3) 0.100 188 None

Annual Average 0.053 100 0.053 100

Ozone (O3)

8-Hour Average (4) 0.075 150 0.075 150

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)

24-Hour Average (1) NA 150 NA 150

Fine Respirable Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Annual Mean (5) NA 12 NA 15

24-Hour Average (5) NA 35 NA 35

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

1-Hour Average(7)0.075 196 NA NA

Maximum 3-Hour Average (1) NA NA 0.50 1,300

Notes:

ppm – parts per million

μg/m3– micrograms per cubic meter

NA – not applicable

All annual periods refer to calendar year.

Standards are defined in ppm. Approximately equivalent concentrations in μg/m3are presented.

(1) Not to be exceeded more than once a year.

(2) USEPA has lowered the NAAQS down from 1.5 μg/m3

, effective January 12, 2009.

(3) 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile daily maximum 1-hr average concentration. Effective

April 12, 2010.

(4) 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hr average concentration.

(5) 3-year average of annual mean. USEPA has lowered the primary standard from 15 μg/m3, effective

March 2013.

(5) Not to be exceeded by the annual 98th percentile when averaged over 3 years.

(6) 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hr average concentration. Effective

August 23, 2010.

Source: 40 CFR Part 50: National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Chapter 7: Air Quality

7-5 May 2014

GENERAL CONFORMITY

In November 1993, USEPA promulgated the General Conformity Regulations to prohibit federal

entities from taking actions that do not conform to the SIPs attainment and maintenance of the

NAAQS. Federal actions with FRA as the lead agency are subject to the General Conformity

Rule, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 51.851. A conformity determination is needed for each pollutant of

concern in the non-attainment or maintenance area affected by a federal action. It is assumed

that actions resulting in emissions of pollutants of concern less than established (de minimis)

screening criteria emissions rates will conform to SIPs. Conforming actions will not:

1. Cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area;

2. Interfere with provisions in the applicable SIP for maintenance of any standard;

3. Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or

4. Delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other

milestones in any area.

As an FRA action, the proposed project must conform to the purpose of SIPs for ozone and CO

to meet and maintain the NAAQS in Connecticut and multi-state nonattainment and

maintenance areas. The applicable de minimis threshold for CO and NOx (as an ozone precursor)

is 100 tons per year. The applicable de minimis for VOCs (ozone precursors) is 50 tons per year.

The proposed project will not exceed these de minimis thresholds for any criteria pollutant either

during construction or operation of the project. The project will not result in additional train

capacity and increases in ridership are likely to be negligible. The project is therefore be unlikely

to result in substantial increases or decreases in air quality pollutants emissions.

B. EXISTING CONDITIONS

EXISTING MONITORED AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS

The project team compiled air quality data using CTDEEP and USEPA AirData databases for

2010, the latest calendar year for which these data are available. Representative monitoring sites

are shown in Table 7-2.

Table 7-2

Most Recent Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data – Connecticut

Pollutant Location

Averaging

Period Concentration NAAQS

CO 1 James Street, New Haven 8-hour 1.6 ppm 9 ppm

1-hour 2.2 ppm 35 ppm

SO2 1 James Street, New Haven 3-hour 0.0015 ppm 0.5 ppm

1-hour 39.5 ppb 75 ppb

PM10 1 James Street, New Haven 24-hour 34 μg/m3150 μg/m3

PM2.5 1 James Street, New Haven Annual 8.9 μg/m315 μg/m3

24-hour125.5 μg/m335 μg/m3

NO2 1 James Street, New Haven Annual 14 ppb 53 ppb

1-hour 57 ppb 100 ppb

Ozone Hammonasset State Park, New

Haven 8-hour 0.079 ppm 0.075 ppm

Source: http://www.epa.gov/region01/oeme/AnnualReport2010.pdf
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 7-6

With the exception of ozone, monitored levels for the criteria pollutants do not exceed National

or State ambient air quality standards in the project area.

C. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” describes several regional transportation projects. In the future

without the proposed project, air quality in the region should continue to improve due to the

effect of federally mandated emission control programs scheduled to be implemented over the

next several years. Many of these programs were part of the 1990 CAA Amendments or are

included as part of each state’s SIP to meet the NAAQS. These programs cover a wide range of

sources, both mobile and stationary, and will reduce emissions of NOx, SO2, CO, particulate

matter, and volatile organic compounds.

D. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Amtrak does not expect the Preferred Alternative to result in an increase in capacity over the

Connecticut River Bridge and the project will not increase the number of trains traveling over

the bridge on the Northeast Corridor. Therefore, the project will not substantially increase the

number of new transit riders and would not measurably reduce vehicle-miles-traveled in the

region. As a result there will be no significant adverse effect on air quality due to the Preferred

Alternative, and the Preferred Alternative will not cause any change in current conformity

designations. While the proposed project will lead to an improvement in service along the

Northeast Corridor that may slightly increase passenger travel and reduce auto usage in the

region, the air quality benefits will be negligible. 
8-1 May 2014

Chapter 8: Noise and Vibration

A. INTRODUCTION

This chapter assesses the potential for noise and vibration impacts from the Connecticut River

Bridge Replacement Project. The Preferred Alternative has the potential to affect noise and

vibration levels adjacent to the rail ROW by shifting the existing alignment of the Northeast

Corridor. Potential impacts during construction are discussed in Chapter 12, “Construction

Impacts.” This chapter includes a discussion of the fundamentals of airborne noise, vibration and

ground-borne noise impacts, along with the applicable standards, analysis methodologies, and

impact criteria for each.

Airborne noise is noise that travels through the air—such as the sound of traffic on a nearby roadway,

or children on a playground. Ground-borne noise is the rumbling sound caused by vibration (or

oscillatory motion). This chapter assesses the Preferred Alternative’s potential to create both types of

noise, as well as vibrations.

Amtrak conducted an analysis of the effects of the Preferred Alternative on noise following the

methodology set forth in FTA’s guidance manual, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact

Assessment (May 2006). This FTA guidance document sets forth methodologies for analyzing

noise and vibration from commuter and inter-city rail operations and as such is the standard

USDOT methodology for assessing potential impacts of new and expanded rail transit systems.

This chapter describes the analysis conducted and conclusions reached.

B. NOISE FUNDAMENTALS, STANDARDS, AND IMPACT CRITERIA

AIRBORNE NOISE FUNDAMENTALS

Quantitative information on the effects of airborne noise on people is well documented. If

sufficiently loud, noise may adversely affect people in several ways. For example, noise may

interfere with human activities, such as sleep, speech communication, and tasks requiring

concentration or coordination. It may also cause annoyance, hearing damage, and other

physiological problems. Several noise scales and rating methods are used to quantify the effects

of noise on people. These scales and methods consider such factors as loudness, duration, time

of occurrence, and changes in noise level with time. However, all the stated effects of noise on

people are subjective.

Sound pressure levels are measured in units called “decibels” (dB). The particular character of

the noise that we hear is determined by the rate, or “frequency,” at which the air pressure

fluctuates, or “oscillates.” Frequency defines the oscillation of sound pressure in terms of cycles

per second. One cycle per second is known as 1 Hertz (Hz). People can hear over a relatively

limited range of sound frequencies, generally between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz, and the human ear

does not perceive all frequencies equally well. High frequencies are more easily discerned and

therefore more intrusive than many of the lower frequencies.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 8-2

“A”-Weighted Sound Level (dBA)

To bring a uniform noise measurement that simulates people’s perception of loudness and

annoyance, the decibel measurement is weighted to account for those frequencies most audible to

the human ear. This is known as the A-weighted sound level, or “dBA,” and it is the most often

used descriptor of noise levels where community noise is the issue. As shown in Table 8-1, the

threshold of human hearing is defined as 0 dBA; very quiet conditions (as in a library, for

example) are approximately 40 dBA; levels between 50 dBA and 70 dBA define the range of

acceptable daily activity; levels above 70 dBA are considered noisy, and then loud, intrusive, and

deafening as the scale approaches 130 dBA. For most people to perceive an increase in noise, it

must be at least 3 dBA. At 5 dBA, the change will be readily noticeable (Bolt, Beranek and

Newman, 1973). An increase of 10 dBA is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness.

Table 8-1

Common Noise Levels

Sound Source (dBA)

Military jet, air raid siren 130

Amplified rock music 110

Jet takeoff at 500 meters 100

Freight train at 30 meters 95

Train horn at 30 meters 90

Heavy truck at 15 meters

Busy city street, loud shout 80

Busy traffic intersection

Highway traffic at 15 meters, train 70

Predominantly industrial area 60

Light car traffic at 15 meters, city or commercial areas or

residential areas close to industry

Background noise in an office 50

Suburban areas with medium density transportation

Public library 40

Soft whisper at 5 meters 30

Threshold of hearing 0

Note: A 10 dBA increase in level appears to double the loudness, and a 10

dBA decrease halves the apparent loudness.

Source: Cowan, James P. Handbook of Environmental Acoustics. Van

Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1994. Egan, M. David,

Architectural Acoustics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1988.

Combinations of different sources are not additive in an arithmetic manner, because of the dBA

scale’s logarithmic nature. For example, two noise sources—a vacuum cleaner operating at

approximately 72 dBA and a telephone ringing at approximately 58 dBA—do not combine to

create a noise level of 130 dBA, the equivalent of a jet airplane or air raid siren (see Table 8-1).

In fact, the noise produced by the telephone ringing may be masked by the noise of the vacuum
Chapter 8: Noise and Vibration

8-3 May 2014

cleaner and not be heard. The logarithmic combination of these two noise sources would yield a

noise level of 72.2 dBA.

Effects of Distance on Noise

Noise varies with distance. For example, highway traffic 50 feet away from a receptor (such as a

person listening to the noise) typically produces sound levels of approximately 70 dBA. The

same highway noise measures 66 dBA at a distance of 100 feet, assuming soft ground conditions

(such as grass). This decrease is known as “drop-off.” The outdoor drop-off rate for line sources,

such as traffic, is a decrease of approximately 4.5 dBA (for soft ground) for every doubling of

distance between the noise source and receptor. For hard ground (such as concrete), the outdoor

drop-off rate is 3 dBA for line sources. Assuming soft ground, for point sources, such as

amplified rock music, the outdoor drop-off rate is a decrease of approximately 7.5 dBA for every

doubling of distance between the noise source and receptor (for hard ground the outdoor dropoff rate is 6 dBA for point sources).

Noise Descriptors Used in Impact Assessment

The sound-pressure level unit of dBA describes a noise level at just one moment, but since very

few noises are constant, other ways of describing noise over more extended periods have been

developed. One way of describing fluctuating sound is to describe the fluctuating noise heard

over a specific period as if it were a steady, unchanging sound (i.e., as if it were averaged over

that time period). For this condition, a descriptor called the “equivalent sound level” (Leq) can be

computed. Leq is the constant sound level that, in a given situation and period (e.g., 1 hour,

denoted by Leq(1), or 24 hours, denoted as Leq(24)), conveys the same sound energy as the actual

time-varying sound.

A descriptor for cumulative 24-hour exposure is the day-night sound level, abbreviated as Ldn.

This is a 24-hour measure that accounts for the moment-to-moment fluctuations in A-weighted

noise levels due to all sound sources during 24 hours, combined. Mathematically, the Ldn noise

level is the energy average of all Leq(1) noise levels over a 24-hour period, where nighttime noise

levels (10 PM to 7 AM) are increased by 10 dBA before averaging.

Following FTA guidance, either the maximum Leq(1) sound level or the Ldn sound level is used

for impact assessment, depending on land use category as described below.

VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS

Fixed railway operations have the potential to produce high vibration levels, since railway

vehicles contact a rigid steel rail with steel wheels. Train wheels rolling on the steel rails create

vibration energy that is transmitted into the track support system. The amount of vibrational

energy is strongly dependent on such factors as how smooth the wheels and rails are and the

vehicle suspension system. The vibration of the track structure “excites” the adjacent ground,

creating vibration waves that propagate through the various soil and rock strata to the

foundations of nearby buildings. As the vibration propagates from the foundation through the

remaining building structure, certain resonant, or natural, frequencies of various components of

the building may be excited.

The effects of ground-borne vibration may include discernable movement of building floors,

rattling of windows, and shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls. In extreme cases, the

vibration can cause damage to buildings. The vibration of floors and walls may cause perceptible

vibration, rattling of such items as windows or dishes on shelves. The movement of building
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 8-4

surfaces and objects within the building can also result in a low-frequency rumble noise. The

rumble is the noise radiated from the motion of the room surfaces, even when the motion itself

cannot be felt. This is called ground-borne noise.

Vibrations consist of rapidly fluctuating motions in which there is no “net” movement. When an

object vibrates, any point on the object is displaced from its initial “static” position equally in

both directions so that the average of all its motion is zero. Any object can vibrate differently in

three mutually independent directions: vertical, horizontal, and lateral. It is common to describe

vibration levels in terms of velocity, which represents the instantaneous speed at a point on the

object that is displaced. In a sense, the human body responds to an average vibration amplitude,

which is usually expressed in terms of the root mean square (rms) amplitude.

All vibration levels in this document are referenced to 1x10-6 inches per second. “VdB”

(referenced to 1x10-6 inches per second) is used for vibration decibels to reduce the potential for

confusion with noise decibels.

EFFECT OF PROPAGATION PATH

Vibrations are transmitted from the source to the ground, and propagate through the ground to

the receptor. Soil conditions have a strong influence on the levels of ground-borne vibration.

Stiff soils, such as some clay and rock, can transmit vibrations over substantial distances. Sandy

soils, wetlands, and groundwater tend to absorb movement and thus reduce vibration

transmission. Because subsurface conditions vary widely, measurement of actual vibration

conditions, or transfer mobility, at the site can be the most practical way to address the

variability of propagation conditions.

HUMAN RESPONSE TO VIBRATION LEVELS

Although the perceptibility threshold for ground-borne vibration is about 65 VdB, the typical

threshold of human annoyance is 72 VdB. As a comparison, buses and trucks rarely create

vibration that exceeds 72 VdB unless there are significant bumps in the road, and these vehicles

are operating at moderate speeds. Vibration levels for typical human and structural responses

and sources are shown in Table 8-2.

NOISE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA

AIRBORNE NOISE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA

The FTA guidance manual defines noise criteria based on the specific type of land use that would be

affected, with explicit operational noise impact criteria for three land use categories. These impact

criteria are based on either peak 1-hour Leq or 24-hour Ldn values. Table 8-3 describes the land use

categories defined in the FTA report, and provides noise metrics used for determining operational

noise impacts. As described in Table 8-3, categories 1 and 3—which include land uses that are noisesensitive, but where people do not sleep—require examination using the 1-hour Leq descriptor for the

noisiest peak hour. Category 2, which includes residences, hospitals, and other locations where

nighttime sensitivity to noise is very important, requires examination using the 24-hour Ldn descriptor.
Chapter 8: Noise and Vibration

8-5 May 2014

Table 8-2

Typical Levels of Ground-Borne Vibration

Human/Structural Response

Velocity Level

(VdB) Typical Sources (at 50 feet)

Threshold, minor cosmetic damage fragile

buildings

100 Blasting from construction projects

Bulldozers and other heavy tracked

construction equipment

Difficulty with vibration-sensitive tasks, such

as reading a video screen

90

Locomotive powered freight train

Residential annoyance, infrequent events 80 Rapid Transit Rail, upper range

Commuter Rail, typical range

Residential annoyance, frequent events Bus or Truck over bump

70 Rapid Transit Rail, typical range

Limit for vibration-sensitive equipment.

Approximate threshold for human perception

of vibration

Bus or truck, typical

60

Typical background vibration

50

Source: U.S. Dept of Transportation, FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.

Table 8-3

FTA’s Land Use Category and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria

Land Use

Category

Noise Metric

(dBA) Description of Land Use Category

1 Outdoor Leq(h)* Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in the intended purpose. This

category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet, and such land uses as

outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, as well as National Historic Landmarks

with significant outdoor use. Also included are recording studios and concert halls.

2 Outdoor Ldn Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes

homes, hospitals, and hotels, where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be

of utmost importance.

3 Outdoor Leq(h)* Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes

schools, libraries, and churches, where it is important to avoid interference with such

activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Places for

study or meditation associated with cemeteries, monuments, museums,

campgrounds and recreational facilities can also be considered to be in this

category. Certain historical sites and parks are also included.

Note: * Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity.

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, May 2006.

Figure 8-1 shows FTA’s noise impact criteria for transit projects. The FTA impact criteria are

keyed to the noise level generated by the project (called “project noise exposure”) in locations of

varying existing noise levels. Two types of impacts—moderate and severe—are defined for each

land use category, depending on existing noise levels. Thus, where existing noise levels are 40

dBA, for land use categories 1 and 2, the respective Leq and Ldn noise exposure from the project

would create moderate impacts if they were above approximately 50 dBA, and would create

severe impacts if they were above approximately 55 dBA. For category 3, a project noise

exposure level above approximately 55 dBA would be considered a moderate impact, and above

approximately 60 dBA would be considered a severe impact. The difference between “severe

impact” and “moderate impact” is that a severe impact occurs when a change in noise level

occurs that a significant percentage of people would find annoying, while a moderate impact
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 8-6

occurs when a change in noise level occurs that is noticeable to most people but not necessarily

sufficient to result in strong adverse reactions from the community.

VIBRATION STANDARDS AND CRITERIA

With the construction of new rail rapid transit systems in the past 20 years, the acoustical industry

has gained considerable experience about how communities react to various levels of building

vibration. This experience, combined with the available national and international standards,

represents a good foundation for predicting annoyance from ground-borne noise and vibration in

residential areas. Table 8-2 summarizes typical human or structural responses to various levels of

vibration.

The FTA criteria for environmental impact from ground-borne vibration and noise are based on

the maximum levels for a single event. The impact criteria as defined in the FTA guidance

manual are shown in Table 8-4. The criteria for acceptable ground-borne vibration are expressed

in terms of rms velocity levels in decibels and the criteria for acceptable ground-borne noise are

expressed in terms of A-weighted sound level. As shown in the table, the FTA methodology

provides three different impact criteria—one for “infrequent” events, when there are fewer than

30 vibration events per day, one for “occasional” events, when there are between 30 and 70

vibration events per day, and one for “frequent” events, when there are more than 70 vibration

events per day. It should be noted that these impacts occur only if a project causes ground-borne

noise or vibration levels that are higher than existing vibration levels. Thus, if the vibration level

for a building in Category 1 is already 70 VdB (5 VdB above the 65 VdB threshold listed in

Table 8-4) but a hypothetical project will not increase that level, then the project will not be

considered to have an impact.

Table 8-4

Ground-Borne Vibration and Ground-Borne Noise Impact Criteria for

General Assessment

Land Use Category GBV Impact Levels

(VdB re 1 micro-inch/sec)

GBN Impact Levels

(dB re 20 micro Pascals)

Frequent

Events1

Occasional

Events2

Infrequent

Events3

Frequent

Events1

Occasional

Events2

Infrequent

Events3

Category 1: Buildings where vibration would

interfere with interior operations

65 VdB465 VdB465 VdB4 N/A4 N/A4 N/A4

Category 2: Residences and buildings where

people normally sleep

72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA

Category 3: Institutional land uses with

primarily daytime use

75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA

Notes:

1 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects

fall into this category.

2 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most commuter

trunk lines have this many operations.

3 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes

most commuter rail systems.

4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical

microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable

vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and

stiffened floors.

5 Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground-borne noise.
80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 8075

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

Project Noise Exposure, Category 1 and 2

Land Uses (dBA)

Existing Noise Exposure (dBA)

Project Noise Exposure, Category 3

Land Uses (dBA)

Source: Transit Noise and

Vibration Impact Assessment,

FTA-VA-90-1003-06,

May 2006

Note:

Noise exposure is in terms

of Leq(h) for Category

1 and 3 land uses, Ldn for

Category 2 land uses.

7.22.08

Figure 8-1

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FTA’s Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects

Moderate

Impact

Severe Impact

No Impact
Chapter 8: Noise and Vibration

8-7 May 2014

The limits are specified for the three land use categories defined below:

 Vibration Category 1: High Sensitivity—Buildings where low ambient vibration is

essential for the operations within the building, which may be well below levels associated

with human annoyance. Typical land uses are vibration-sensitive research and

manufacturing, hospitals, and university research operations.

 Vibration Category 2: Residential—This category covers all residential land uses and any

buildings where people sleep, such as hotels and hospitals. No differentiation is made

between different types of residential areas. This is primarily because ground-borne

vibration and noise are experienced indoors and building occupants have practically no

means to reduce their exposure. Even in a noisy urban area, the bedrooms often will be quiet

in buildings that have effective noise insulation and tightly closed windows. Hence, an

occupant of a bedroom in a noisy urban area is likely to be just as sensitive to ground-borne

noise and vibration as someone in a quiet suburban area.

 Vibration Category 3: Institutional—This category includes schools, churches, other

institutions, and quiet offices that do not have vibration-sensitive equipment, but still have

the potential for activity interference.

There are some buildings, such as concert halls, TV and recording studios, auditoriums, and

theaters that can be very sensitive to vibration and ground-borne noise, but do not fit into any of

these three categories. Special vibration level thresholds are defined for these land uses. In

addition, FTA has established vibration criteria for fragile buildings (94 VdB, 0.2 in/sec) and

very fragile buildings (90 VdB, 0.12 in/sec). The operational activities associated with the

project will not reach these levels and therefore, these criteria are only evaluated in the

construction impacts assessment (see Chapter 12, “Construction Impacts”).

C. REGULATORY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY

AIRBORNE NOISE ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Amtrak performed the analysis of airborne noise using procedures set forth in the FTA guidance

manual, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006). Following the

methodologies set forth in this document, airborne noise impacts are analyzed using a three-step

process that consists of a screening procedure, a general noise assessment, and a detailed noise

analysis. The screening procedure is performed first to determine whether any noise-sensitive

receptors are within distances where impacts are likely to occur. If the screening reveals that

there are noise-sensitive receptors in locations where impacts are likely to occur, then a general

noise assessment is performed to determine locations where noise impacts could occur. If this

general assessment indicates that a potential for noise impact does exist, then a detailed noise

analysis may be necessary. FTA’s detailed analysis methodology is used to predict impacts and

evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation with greater precision than can be achieved with the

general noise assessment. The methodology and results of the FTA noise analysis screening

procedure are presented below.

STEP 1: NOISE SCREENING

The FTA methodology begins with a noise screening to determine whether any noise-sensitive

receptors are within a distance where an impact is likely to occur. According to the FTA

screening methodology, potential impacts may occur if noise receptors are within 750 feet of the
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 8-8

centerline of a commuter rail mainline if the pathway between the track and the receptor is

unobstructed, or 375 feet from the track centerline if the pathway is obstructed (since

obstructions block some noise and therefore reduce the distance the noise will travel).

Based on a review of current aerial photography, site visits, and land use maps, it was

determined that two noise-sensitive receptors are located within the screening distances of the

proposed project site: (1) the waterfront boardwalk accessory to the CTDEEP Marine

Headquarters; and (2) a group of residences located along Clark Street in Old Saybrook.

STEP 2: GENERAL NOISE ASSESSMENT

Since sensitive receptors are present within the screening distance, Amtrak conducted a general

noise assessment to examine the effect of the change in alignment on noise levels using the

procedures contained in the FTA guidance manual. According to FTA’s guidance document, the

potential for noise impacts at sensitive land use locations will occur if the project-generated

noise levels, or “noise exposure,” exceed the levels shown in Figure 8-1.

The general noise assessment methodology consists of determining the project noise exposure at

50 feet from the centerline of track, and comparing the calculated levels with the criteria based

on land use categories. The calculations to predict the noise levels from the increased train speed

and change in the alignment along the rail line branch take into account: the type of trains and

type of locomotives, number of trains and number of locomotives on each train, the speed of the

trains, characteristics of the track, and the time of day.

The waterfront boardwalk accessory to the CTDEEP Marine Headquarters is an FTA land use

Category 3, which uses the 1-hour Leq noise metric. Since the dominant noise source at this

location is already the rail traffic over the Connecticut River Bridge, the project team calculated

the existing noise levels at this location using the FTA’s General Noise Assessment

methodology. The existing Leq(1) was calculated to be 74 dBA.

The residences on Clark Street in Old Saybrook are an FTA land use Category 2, which uses the

Ldn noise metric. Since the dominant noise source at this location is already the rail traffic over

the Connecticut River Bridge, the project team calculated the existing noise levels at this

location using the FTA’s General Noise Assessment methodology. The existing Leq(1) was

calculated to be 59 dBA.

VIBRATION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Amtrak performed the vibration analysis for the Preferred Alternative using the procedures

described in the FTA guidance manual, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May

2006). To examine potential impacts during operation, the FTA guidance document (similar to the

approach for assessing noise) lays out a three-step approach for the analysis of vibration and

ground-borne noise: a screening procedure, a general assessment methodology, and a detailed

analysis methodology. The screening procedure is used to determine whether any noise-sensitive

receptors are within distances where impacts are likely to occur; the general assessment

methodology is used to determine locations or rail segments where there is the potential for

impacts; and the detailed analysis methodology is used to predict impacts and evaluate the

effectiveness of mitigation with greater precision than can be achieved with the general

assessment.

The first step in the FTA vibration analysis determines if there is the potential for a vibration

impact based on the type of project. Since the Connecticut River Bridge and its approaches are
Chapter 8: Noise and Vibration

8-9 May 2014

of the steel-wheel/steel-rail type, the project team performed a vibration screening analysis.

Table 8-5 shows screening distances based upon the type of project and the category of land use

involved.

Table 8-5

Screening Distances for Vibration Assessment

Type of Project

Critical Distance for Land Use Categories* Distance

from ROW or Property Line (feet)

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

Conventional Commuter Railroad 600 200 120

Rail Rapid Transit 600 200 120

Light Rail Transit 450 150 100

Intermediate Capacity Transit 200 100 50

Bus Project (if not previously screened out) 100 50 N/A

Note:

* The land-use categories are defined in Chapter 8 of the FTA Manual. Some vibration-sensitive land uses

are not included in these categories. Examples are: concert halls and TV studios which, for the screening

procedure, should be evaluated as Category 1; and theaters and auditoriums which should be evaluated

as Category 2.

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA, May 2006, page 9-4.

Based on a review of current aerial photography and land-use maps, Amtrak found that no

vibration-sensitive uses are located within the vibration-screening distances of the proposed

project.

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” describes the two options of the Preferred Alternative, either

of which will be complete by 2018. In the No Action Alternative, train traffic will remain at its

current level on the existing bridge, and will result in no change in noise levels over the existing

conditions and be identical to the current noise environment at the site.

E. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

There are two options of the Preferred Alternative for the proposed project; both will result in

comparable noise levels since rail traffic will be identical, and the track alignment will be the

same with either option. The distance between the boardwalk receptor and the track will not

change, as the track runs directly over the boardwalk in both options of the Preferred Alternative

as well as the existing condition. The distance between the Clark Street receptors and the track

will increase with either option, as compared to the existing condition. The noise levels at the

Clark Street receptors generated by rail traffic on the bridge will not be noticeably changed by

the slight increase in distance, according to the FTA’s General Noise Assessment. As described

in Chapter 2, the replacement emergency generator will be used exclusively for emergency

situations and required periodic testing. Amtrak expects the new generator assembly will

generate similar or lower noise levels than the existing generator assembly. The results of the

assessment are shown in Appendix B, “Noise and Vibration.” In summary, the Preferred

Alternative will not result in significant adverse noise or vibration impacts. 
9-1 May 2014

Chapter 9: Infrastructure and Energy

A. INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the potential for the Preferred Alternative to affect energy consumption.

The energy assessment considers potential impacts on energy sources and transmission of

energy. NEPA guidelines require a discussion of major direct energy (e.g., energy consumed by

vehicles using a proposed facility) and/or indirect energy (e.g., increase in automobiles due to a

new roadway) consumption, and detailed energy analyses are required for large-scale projects.

Infrastructure and energy needs during the construction period are discussed in Chapter 12.

B. EXISTING CONDITIONS

Connecticut Light and Power (CL&P) delivers electricity to most of the state of Connecticut,

including Middlesex and New London counties where the proposed project site is located.

Electricity delivered by CL&P is generated by a number of independent power suppliers.

Overhead catenary systems power Amtrak trains operating within the project area. Electrically

operated Amtrak trains use 2,706 British Thermal Units (BTUs)1per passenger mile, and are 18

percent more energy efficient than domestic plane or automobile travel.2SLE trains and P&W

freight trains operating through the project site are all powered by diesel locomotives.

C. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Amtrak expects adequate electrical capacity to be available to meet Connecticut’s future energy

demand through the analysis year of 2030. The planned major and minor improvement projects

discussed under the No Action Alternative in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” are located

outside of the primary study area used for this analysis and are not expected to change energy

use in the area.

D. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The Preferred Alternative will operate more efficiently than the existing bridge, using state-ofthe-art electric motors and modern construction materials. Both bascule bridges and vertical lift

bridges require relatively little power to operate the moveable span since the weight of the span

is balanced by the counterweight. There is no meaningful difference in energy requirements for a

1 British Thermal Units, or BTUs, are a measure of energy used to compare consumption of energy from

different sources, such as gasoline, electricity, etc., taking into consideration how efficiently those

sources are converted to energy. One BTU is the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of one

pound of water by one Fahrenheit degree.

2 Oak Ridge National Laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy. Transportation Energy Data Book:

Edition 26. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 2007
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 9-2

bascule bridge versus a vertical lift bridge; therefore, neither option of the Preferred Alternative

presents a benefit over the others in terms of energy consumption. As mentioned in Chapter 2,

the existing emergency generator will likely be replaced as part of the project with a generator of

similar size.

Amtrak does not expect the number of year-round bridge openings to be affected by the

proposed project. The Preferred Alternative will not result in any increases in train service, or

create a demand for additional energy. The energy consumed by the electrically operated trains

will not change. Amtrak does not expect the Preferred Alternative to substantially reduce the

number of vehicle miles traveled by replacing automobile trips with rail ridership. Overall,

changes in energy consumption in the study area as a result of the proposed project will be

negligible, and no significant adverse impacts to energy consumption or resources will result

under the Preferred Alternative. 
10-1 May 2014

Chapter 10: Natural Resources

A. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter assesses the potential for the proposed project to impact terrestrial, wetland, and

aquatic natural resources and floodplains in the project area. Natural resources include plant and

animal species, and any area capable of providing habitat for plant and animal species or capable

of functioning to support ecological systems and maintain a study area’s environmental balance.

As such, resources such as surface and ground waters, soils, drainage systems, wetlands, dunes,

beaches, grasslands, woodlands, landscaped areas, gardens, parks, and built structures used by

wildlife may be considered in a natural resource analysis.

The general study area for this natural resources analysis includes the area within and immediately

adjacent to the proposed project site, portions of the tidal Connecticut River, and associated tidal

wetlands. The study area for threatened, endangered, and special concern species and habitats is 1⁄2-

mile radius from the project site.

Amtrak summarized existing conditions for natural resources, water quality, and floodplains

within the study area using:

 Observations made during field visits.

 CTDEEP (formerly known as CTDEP) and USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)

wetlands maps.

 Existing information identified in the available literature and obtained from governmental

and non-governmental agencies such as: CTDEEP; USFWS; USEPA; USEPA

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (USEPA EMAP); Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA); U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); and others.

 USFWS, NMFS, and CTDEEP responses to requests for information on rare, threatened or

endangered species, or critical habitats in the vicinity of the project area.

B. REGULATORY CONTEXT

Project activities in wetlands or open water or within a coastal zone require compliance with

relevant federal and state laws and regulations. A summary of these laws and regulations is

provided below.

FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS

CLEAN WATER ACT (33 USC §§ 1251 TO 1387)

The objective of the Clean Water Act, also known as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, is to

restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of U.S. waters. The Act regulates

point sources of water pollution such as discharges of municipal sewage and industrial wastewater,
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 10-2

the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters and other U.S. waters, and non-point

source pollution such as runoff from streets, agricultural fields, and construction sites.

Under Section 401 of the Act, any applicant for a federal permit or license for an activity that may

result in a discharge to navigable waters must provide a certificate to the relevant federal agency

stating that the discharge will comply with Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, and 316 (b) of the Act.

Section 404 of the Act requires authorization from the Secretary of the Army, acting through the

USACE, for the permanent or temporary discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable

waters and other waters of the United States. The term “waters of the United States,” as defined

in 33 CFR 328.3, includes streams, rivers, wetlands, mudflats, and sandflats that meet the

specified requirements. Activities authorized under Section 404 must also comply with Section

401 of the Act.

RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF 1899

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires authorization from the Secretary of

the Army, acting through the USACE, for the construction of any structure in or over any

navigable waters of the United States, the excavation from or deposition of material into these

waters, or the introduction of any obstruction or alteration into these waters. Any structures

placed in navigable waters such as pilings, piers, or bridge abutments up to the MHW line are

regulated pursuant to this Act.

FEDERAL COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972 (16 USC §§ 1451 TO 1465)

The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 established a voluntary participation

program to encourage coastal states to develop programs to manage development within the

state’s designated coastal areas in order to reduce conflicts between coastal development and

protection of resources within the coastal area. Federal permits issued in Connecticut must be

accompanied by a Coastal Zone Consistency Determination, which evaluates consistency with

Connecticut’s federally approved Coastal Zone Management Program.

MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT (16 USC §§ 1801 TO 1883)

Section 305(b)(2)-(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act outlines the process for NMFS and the

Regional Fishery Management Councils (in this case, the New England Fishery Management

Council) to comment on activities proposed by federal agencies that may adversely impact areas

designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH is defined as those waters and substrate

necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (16 USC §1802(10)).

Adverse impacts, as defined in 50 CFR 600.910(A), include any impacts that reduce the quality

and/or quantity of EFH. Examples include:

 Direct impacts, such as physical disruption or the release of contaminants;

 Indirect impacts, such as the loss of prey or reduction in the fecundity (number of offspring

produced) of a managed species; and

 Site-specific or habitat-wide impacts that may include individual, cumulative or synergistic

consequences of a federal action.
Chapter 10: Natural Resources

10-3 May 2014

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 (16 USC §§ 1531 TO 1544)

The ESA recognizes that endangered species of wildlife and plants are of aesthetic, ecological,

educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the nation and its people. The Act

provides for the protection of these species, and the critical habitats on which they depend for

survival. The proposed project, as a discretionary federal action with the potential to affect a

listed species, must undergo consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, as amended. As

discussed below, correspondence related to this consultation is provided in Appendix C.

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT (PL 85-624; 16 USC 661-667D)

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act entrusts the Secretary of the Interior with providing assistance to, and cooperating with, federal, state and public or private agencies and organizations, to

ensure that wildlife conservation receives equal consideration with other water-resource development

programs. These programs can include the control (such as a diversion), modification (such as

channel deepening), or impoundment (through the construction of a dam) of a body of water.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988 (FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT)

Executive Order 11988 requires that agencies provide leadership and take action to reduce the

risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990 (PROTECTION OF WETLANDS)

Executive Order 11990 directs federal agencies to provide leadership and take action to

minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance wetland

quality. New activities in wetlands, either undertaken or supported by a federal agency, are to be

avoided unless there is no practicable alternative and all practical measures have been taken to

minimize the potential impacts to the wetlands.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13112 (INVASIVE SPECIES)

Executive Order 13112 requires federal agencies to prevent, to the extent practicable and

permitted by law, the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to

minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause.

STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

CONNECTICUT COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Connecticut's Coastal Management Program is administered by CTDEEP and is approved by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the Federal Coastal Zone

Management Act. Under the guidance of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA), enacted

in 1980, the Program ensures balanced growth along the coast, restores coastal habitat, improves

public access, protects water-dependent uses, public trust waters and submerged lands, promotes

harbor management, and facilitates research. The Connecticut Coastal Management Program also

regulates work in tidal, coastal and navigable waters, and tidal wetlands under the CCMA (Section

22a-90 through 22a-112 of the Connecticut General Statutes), the Structures Dredging and Fill statutes

(Section 22a-359 through 22a-363f) and the Tidal Wetlands Act (Section 22a-28 through 22a-35).
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 10-4

At the local level, development of the shoreline is regulated under the policies of the CCMA

through municipal zoning boards and commissions, with technical assistance and oversight

provided by Connecticut Coastal Management Program staff.

STORMWATER AND DEWATERING/DISCHARGE REGULATIONS

CTDEEP serves as the responsible agency for administering the state’s National Pollution

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water management program. Connecticut’s storm

water program is closely modeled after the federal NPDES program, which requires storm water

be treated to the maximum extent practicable. Best Management Practices must be designed to

remove 80 percent of the total suspended solids (TSS) load. At the state level, all construction

sites disturbing more than one acre, many industrial sites, and all designated Municipal Separate

Storm Sewer Systems are required to obtain a NPDES permit.

Construction activities that involve disturbance of more than one acre must develop and implement

site erosion control and storm water management plans. Most construction activities are eligible

for coverage under state-issued general permits. A CTDEEP Stormwater and Dewatering

Wastewaters from Construction Activities General Permit (“General Permit”) applies to all

discharges of stormwater and dewatering wastewater from construction activities which result in

the disturbance of one or more total acres of land area, regardless of project phasing. In the case of

a larger plan of development, the estimate of total acres of site disturbance shall include, but is not

limited to, road and utility construction, individual lot construction (i.e., house, driveway, septic

system, etc.), and all other construction associated with the overall plan, regardless of the

individual parties responsible for construction of these various elements.

There are a number of established and proposed total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) on

Connecticut’s watersheds, which often impact stormwater treatment requirements. For

construction projects that have a total disturbed area of between one and five acres, the project

owner shall agree to adhere to the erosion and sediment control land use regulations of the town

in which the construction activity is conducted. No registration of a General Permit is required

for construction activity that receives the town’s review and written approval of its

erosion/sediment control measures. If no review is conducted by the town, the permittee must

register and comply with Section 6 of the General Permit which includes requirements for a

Stormwater Pollution Control Plan. For construction projects with a total disturbed area of

greater than five acres, registration is required to be submitted in order for the discharges to be

authorized by this General Permit.

SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATE

The Section 401 Water Quality Certification program is administered by the Inland Water

Resources Division and Office of Long Island Sound Programs within the CTDEEP Bureau of

Water Protection and Land Reuse. The program regulates any applicant for a federal license or

permit who seeks to conduct an activity that may result in any discharge into the navigable waters,

including all wetlands, watercourses, and natural and man-made ponds. Such persons must obtain

certification from CTDEEP that the discharge is consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act and

the Connecticut Water Quality Standards. Any conditions contained in a water quality certification

become conditions of the federal permit or license. In making a decision on a request for 401

Water Quality Certification, CTDEEP must consider the effects of proposed discharges on ground

and surface water quality and existing and designated uses of waters of the state.
Chapter 10: Natural Resources

10-5 May 2014

CONNECTICUT NATURAL DIVERSITY DATABASE REVIEW

Section 26-310 of the Connecticut General Statutes requires that any activity that is authorized

by a state agency, including any activity issued a permit by CTDEEP, must not threaten the

continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. If an activity is located in an area

of concern, CTDEEP’s Connecticut Natural Diversity Database (CT NDDB) program will

conduct a detailed review to determine any impact from the proposed project.

CONNECTICUT RIVER WATERSHED DESIGNATIONS

The Connecticut River, the largest river in New England, flows south 407 miles, from the

Connecticut Lakes in northern New Hampshire, through Vermont, western Massachusetts, and

central Connecticut into Long Island Sound. The estuarine portion of the river extends about

thirty miles upstream from the river’s mouth. The river serves as a major migratory route for

diadromous fish, linking the estuarine waters of Long Island Sound and the marine environment

of the Atlantic Ocean to freshwater inland rivers, streams, and lakes. The Connecticut River

Valley is a major bird migration route between wintering grounds and summer nesting areas for

many species of waterfowl, shore and wading birds, rails, raptors, and neo-tropical migratory

song birds. The estuary, its wetlands, and surrounding buffer areas all provide important habitats

and nutrients for a wide array of plant, invertebrate, fish, bird, and other wildlife species,

including many listed as federal and/or state endangered, threatened, or of special concern.

There are several designations associated with the Connecticut River. It is an important river that

is recognized on the international, national, and state levels for its unique environmental

significance. On the international level, the tidal marshes at the mouth of the Connecticut River

were recognized as “Wetlands of International Significance” by the Ramsar Treaty in 19941. The

Ramsar Treaty was originally signed in 1971 in Ramsar, Iran and provides a framework for the

protection of wetlands and the correct and wise use of these resources. Under the same treaty,

the lower Connecticut River is designated a “Wetlands of International Importance with Respect

to Waterfowl.” In 1993, the Nature Conservancy, an international nonprofit conservation

organization, recognized the “Tidelands of the Connecticut River” as one of its Last Great Places

campaign. The river was designated as one of 14 American Heritage Rivers by the Clinton

Administration in the 1990s2.

On the state level, the Connecticut General Assembly established the Connecticut River

Gateway Commission in 1973 to protect the Lower Connecticut River through a state-local

contract. The Gateway Conservation Zone was delineated along the shores of the Connecticut

River, extending 30 miles upstream from the Long Island Sound, which encompasses much of

the study area. The Commission has successfully preserved over 1,000 acres of land since its

inception through gifts and purchases of scenic easements and development rights.

Portions of the Connecticut River watershed are part of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and

Wildlife Refuge, which was established “to conserve the abundance and diversity of the native

plants and animals and their habitats in the 7.2 million acre Connecticut River watershed”3. The

1

http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-list-anno-list-usa/main/ramsar/1-31-

218%5E15774_4000_0__ (Accessed March 23, 2012).

2

http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/long_island_sound/coastal_management/gatewaycommissionmission.pd

f (Accessed March 23, 2012).

3

http://www.fws.gov/r5soc/ (Accessed March 23, 2012).
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 10-6

parcels acquired by USFWS and designated as Conte Refuge property are not located within the

project study area. Designations specific to the study area are discussed in the context of

wetlands, terrestrial resources, and aquatic resources below.

C. EXISTING CONDITIONS

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

The existing ROW includes rail embankments located on both sides of the Connecticut River.

The vegetation near the top of the embankment consists of upland species, whereas vegetation at

the toe of the embankment resembles a transition area to extensive marsh and wildlife

management areas. The vegetation near the top of the embankment comprises primarily woody

and herbaceous species that are tolerant of disturbed conditions (e.g., the invasive tree-of-heaven

[Ailanthus altissima]). As ground elevation approaches MHW at the embankment toe of slope,

the vegetation transitions to estuarine scrub/shrub species that are tolerant of occasional tidal

flooding (e.g., groundsel bush [Baccharus halimifolia] and northern bayberry [Morella

pensylvanica]).

The fauna associated with these vegetative communities reflect the transitional nature of the site.

Field visits were performed in 2008 and 2012 to confirm the existing natural resource conditions

in the area. While specific species were not field-surveyed, this section describes the types of

species likely to be found in present habitat. Bird species often found in both estuarine

scrub/shrub vegetation and in upland plant communities common to disturbed ROW areas

include seaside sparrows (Ammodramus maritimus), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris),

Connecticut warbler (Oporornis agilis), and brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), among

others. The superstructure of the existing Connecticut River Bridge may also provide nesting

opportunities for barn swallows (Hirundo rustica). Examples of waterfowl that may occur in the

study area include American black duck (Anas rubripes), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos),

common merganser (Mergus merganser), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), and doublecrested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Waterfowl hunting is permitted in the adjacent

Wildlife Management Areas.

Mammalian species in the area likely include various rodents that inhabit tidal wetlands or

upland wetland buffers (e.g., muskrat [Ondatra zibethicus] and meadow vole [Microtus

pennsylvanicus]) or other species that opportunistically utilize the wetland/upland transition area

(e.g., raccoons [Procyon lotor]). Reptiles and amphibians likely to occur within the upland and

transitional zones of the site are those that are habitat generalists that are tolerant of the disturbed

conditions along the ROW, and may include snapping turtles (Chelydra s. serpentina), Fowler’s

toad (Bufo fowleri), eastern American toad (Bufo a. americanus), northern spring peeper

(Pseudacris c. crucifer), and garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).

FLOODPLAINS

The 100-year and 500-year floodplains for the project area are shown in Figure 10-1. The 100-

year floodplain is the area with a 1 percent chance of flooding each year, and the 500-year

floodplain is the area with a 0.2 percent chance of flooding each year. As shown in Figure 10-1,

the majority of the ROW is within the 100-year floodplain. However, the tracks are above both

the 100-year and 500-year floodplains, with the exception of the easterly bridge approaches just

east of the Lieutenant River crossing. Small areas in the ROW on the Old Lyme side of the river

are in the 500-year floodplain.
OLD

SAYBROOK

OLD

LYME

SHORE RD

NORTHEAST CORRDOR

5.23.12

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 10-1

FEMA Floodplain

SCALE

0 2000 FEET

Project Site Boundary

1/2-Mile Study Area Boundary

Source: Connecticut Coastal Towns ADS40 Aerial Imagery, NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2004

100-Year Floodplain

500-Year Floodplain

CONNECTICUT RIVER
Chapter 10: Natural Resources

10-7 May 2014

The study area is influenced by coastal flooding (i.e., long and short wave surges that affect the

shores of the Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound) and tidal flooding along tidally influenced

rivers, streams, and inlets (FEMA 2007) which is caused by astronomic tides and meteorological

forces (e.g., northeasters and hurricanes (FEMA 2007)). The flood elevations within the study

area range from 10.0 to 13.0 feet.1 The embankments leading up to the bridge are classified as

areas without wave action (Zone A8) and areas of minimal flooding (Zone C), with areas of

wave action (Zone V9) associated with the areas in the immediate vicinity of wetlands. The

existing bridge serves as a wave attenuating structure.

COASTAL ZONE

A description of coastal resources located within the project study area is provided in Appendix C.

WETLANDS

As shown in Figure 10-2, portions of the study area, particularly to the south of the bridge,

consist of an extensive tidal marsh complex mapped by CTDEEP. On both sides of the river,

these areas are designated as wildlife areas. In the Town of Old Saybrook, the marsh area to the

south of the existing bridge (beyond the existing Amtrak ROW) is known as the Ragged Rock

Creek Marsh Wildlife Management Area (WMA). In Old Lyme, the marsh area to the south of

the existing bridge (beyond the existing Amtrak ROW) is known as the Roger Tory Peterson

Wildlife Area, formerly called the Great Island Wildlife Area.2

These CTDEEP-mapped tidal wetlands and CTDEEP-designated wildlife areas roughly coincide

with estuarine wetlands mapped by the NWI (see Figure 10-3). The majority of NWI-mapped

vegetated wetlands within this portion of the Connecticut River, including the project site, are

partially ditched or drained estuarine intertidal wetlands that are dominated by emergent

vegetation that is irregularly flooded with mesholaine waters (i.e., salinity is 5.0 to 18.0 parts per

thousand [ppt]) (E2EMP5d). The open waters of the Connecticut River in the vicinity of the

project site are estuarine intertidal waters with a rocky shore that are irregularly flooded

(E2RSP). NWI-mapped non-tidal freshwater wetlands are not present within the vicinity of the

study area.

Vegetation of these wetlands consist of cordgrass species such as smooth cordgrass (Spartina

alterniflora), salt meadow cordgrass (S. patens), and the non-native, highly invasive common

reed (Phragmites australis). The tidal wetlands on both sides of the river in the vicinity of the

study area are considered to be brackish meadows dominated by cordgrasses. Other plant and

herbaceous species such as seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens), arrow-grass (Triglochin

maritimum), common three-square (Scirpus pungens), Olney three square (Scirpus americanus),

and salt marsh fleabane (Pluchea odorata) are also present.

Although submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) tends to occur in eastern Long Island Sound

(mostly as eelgrass [Zostera marina]), the fluctuating salt wedge present in the project area

precludes the establishment of eelgrass in the Connecticut River. Recent eelgrass mapping

efforts conducted by the USFWS along Connecticut’s shoreline confirm that eelgrass beds are

not found the Connecticut River (USFWS 2006).

1 Elevations are in NGVD29 Datum.

2

http://www.depdata.ct.gov/wildlife/hunting/hntareas.asp (accessed March 23, 2012).
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 10-8

AQUATIC RESOURCES

SURFACE WATER RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA

As mentioned above, the Connecticut River flows south 407 miles, from the Connecticut Lakes

in northern New Hampshire, through Vermont, western Massachusetts, and central Connecticut

into Long Island Sound. The river’s drainage basin extends over 11,250 square miles (29,100

km2). The mean freshwater discharge into Long Island Sound is nearly 16,000 cubic feet per

second (cfs), or 453 m3/s, providing about 70 percent of all freshwater input into the Long Island

Sound. The flow of the river can range as high as 282,000 cfs (7985 m3/s) and as low as 971 cfs

(27 m3/s). The river is tidally influenced up to Windsor Locks, near Hartford, approximately 60

miles (97 km) from the mouth. In addition to the Lieutenant River, significant tributaries of the

Connecticut River include the Ashuelot, West, Miller's, Mill, Deerfield, White, and Chicopee

Rivers (USFWS 1997).

The lower valley of the Connecticut River is tightly constrained by hills of bedrock. Because of

its small cross-sectional area, the river supports little tidal volume flux. Its ratio of tidal inflow

volume to freshwater flow volume during flood tide is about 0.5 for average conditions,

compared to ratios of 10 and 140 for the Hudson and Delaware rivers, respectively. Figure 10-4

illustrates the typical limited excursion of saltwater from flood tide where lower density

freshwater from upriver floats above saltier water from Long Island Sound. This results in a

classic “salt wedge,” where salinity values vary dramatically from surface to bottom at locations

within the wedge. The formation of a salt wedge is ecologically significant, because organisms

living within these areas of salinity variability have evolved physiological measures to tolerate

these changes. As discussed below in “Aquatic Biota,” this variability can lead to the presence of

freshwater and saltwater species in the same area at the same time.

The Connecticut River transports a large amount of silt, especially during spring snow melt. As

with many large rivers, the often heavy silt load results in the formation of a large and shifting

sandbar near the mouth. Historically, this sandbar provided an obstacle to navigation, which is

the primary reason that no large cities are located near the mouth of the river.

Several important tributary watercourses are present near the project area. A network of tidal

creeks and ditches known as Ragged Rock Creek flows through a large marsh within the Ragged

Rock Creek Marsh WMA in Old Saybrook. At the southeastern end of the project site in Old

Lyme, the Lieutenant River represents a substantial input with a 12.1 mi2(3133 ha) watershed.

This tributary flows through the Roger Tory Peterson Wildlife Area, under the eastern bridge

approach, and discharges into the Connecticut River approximately 500 ft (150 m) south of the

existing bridge.

The Connecticut River, Ragged Rock Creek, and the Lieutenant River within the vicinity of the

study area are classified by CTDEEP as SB waterbodies. Class SB waters are designated for

habitat for marine fish, other aquatic life and wildlife, commercial shellfish harvesting,

recreation, industrial water supply, and navigation.

SEDIMENT QUALITY

The Connecticut River carries a heavy amount of silt, especially during spring snow melt, from

as far away as Canada. As a fluvial source of sediments to Long Island Sound, the Connecticut

River contributes approximately 42,000 tons (3.5 x 108kg) of suspended solids per year (Gordon

1980, cited in Knebel et al. 1999).
Shore Rd

NORTHEAST CORRDOR

OLD

SAYBROOK

OLD

LYME

5.23.12

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 10-2

CTDEEP Tidal Wetlands

SCALE

0 1000 FEET

Project Site Boundary

1/4-Mile Study Area Boundary

Tidal Wetland 1990s

CONNECTICUT RIVER
E2EMPd

E2EMPd

E2EMPd

E2EMP5d

E2EMPd

E2EMP5d

E2EMP5d

E2EMP5d

E2EMP5d

E2EMP5d

E2EMP5

PUBH E2EMP5d

E2EMP

E2EMP

E2EMPd

E2EMPd

E2EMP5

E2EMP5d

E2RSP

E2RSP

Shore Rd

NORTHEAST CORRDOR

OLD

SAYBROOK

OLD

LYME

CONNECTICUT RIVER

5.23.12

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

Figure 10-3

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)

SCALE

0 1000 FEET

Project Site Boundary

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

(E2EMP) Estuarine Intertidal Emergent Irregularly Flooded

(E2EMPd) Estuarine Intertidal Emergent Irregularly Flooded /Drained

(E2EMP5d) Estuarine Intertidal Emergent Irregularly Flooded Mesohaline, Drained

(E2RSP) Estuarine Intertidal Rocky Shore Irregularly Flooded

(E1UBL) Estuarine Subtidal Unconsolidated Bottom 
6.20.08

Figure 10-4

Spring Salinity Profile, Connecticut River

(Early May 1993)

Source: http://training.fws.gov/library/pubs5/ramsar/web_link/intro.htm

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

NOT TO SCALE
Chapter 10: Natural Resources

10-9 May 2014

In general, sediments near the project area are coarse-grained sand overlain with a silt/sand

surficial layer. Silt/sand is more predominant in the shallows on the nearshore portions of the

river, while coarser sediments mixed with shell hash appear to be more predominant in the

deeper channel areas (Hardesty and Hanover, LLP 2007). This grain-size distribution is

consistent with that of other southern New England rivers and is similar to grain sizes reported

from EMAP stations in Long Island Sound near the mouth of the Connecticut River.

Sediment contaminant data is available from USEPA EMAP from a 2000 sampling. The

sediments indicated the presence of metals, including iron (13,200 μg/g), aluminum (5,560

μg/g), manganese (511 μg/g), zinc (49.5 μg/g), chromium (23.6 μg/g), lead (19.5 μg), copper

(7.8 μg/g), nickel (6.36 μg/g), and arsenic (3.78 μg/g). Tin, silver, cadmium, and mercury were

also present in concentrations of less than 1 μg/g. The presence of some these metals in the

Connecticut River sediments near the project site may not imply anthropogenic sources. Some of

these elements (e.g., aluminum and iron) are common in rocks and soils within the watershed.

Silver, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead, and zinc, however, are considered

anthropogenic metals. The concentrations of poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), DDT congeners, and pesticides in the sediments near the

project area were all below analytical detection limits in the EMAP sampling.

Currently, Connecticut Department of Public Health (CTDPH) advises against the consumption

of bluefish or striped bass from waters of Long Island Sound and tributary rivers for high risk

individuals, and recommends limited consumption for these species for lower risk consumers.

The contaminants of concern associated with this restriction are PCBs, and although these

contaminants do not originate in the Connecticut River, they are common regionally, as

described above.1

AQUATIC BIOTA

Aquatic habitats within the project area include deep channel areas, shallow near-shore flats,

intertidal mudflats, and tidal wetlands. A full aquatic biota discussion is provided in Appendix

C; a summary is presented below.

Phytoplankton

CTDEEP published the results of photopigment-based plankton monitoring conducted between

April 2002 and June 2004 (CTDEEP 2005). In these samples, diatoms represented over 51

percent of phytoplankton present. Fourteen percent of the samples were members of the class

cryptophyceae (historically classified as diatoms, but more recently assigned a separate

taxonomic class), and nine percent were dinoflagellates. Other taxa present included members of

Euglenaphyceae, Prymnesiophyceae, and Cyanobacters (so-called “blue green algae”). The

CTDEEP fact sheet for the monitoring program provides example illustrations of several species

common in collections, including Eucampia zoodiacus, Thalassionema nitzschoides,

Skeletonema costatum, and Dinophysis spp.

1 Connecticut Department of Public Health. If I Catch It, Can I Eat It? A Guide to Eating Fish Safely 2011

Connecticut Fish Consumption Advisory Available: http://www.ct.gov/dph/cwp/view.asp?a=3140&Q=387460

(accessed March 29, 2012).
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 10-10

Zooplankton

Zooplankton taxa common in Long Island Sound include ctenophores, copepod crustaceans

(especially Acartia tonsa and Eurytemora spp.) and the early life stages of fish, crabs, barnacles,

shrimp, worms, mollusks, and echinoderms (sea stars and urchins). Zooplankton abundance in

Long Island Sound peaks in spring and summer when organism density can reach over 200,000

individuals per cubic meter.

Benthic Invertebrates

A number of commercially and recreationally important shellfish are found in the lower

Connecticut River Estuary. These include infaunal species such as the soft clam (Mya arenaria)

and hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria). In addition, epifaunal species such as eastern oysters

(Crassostrea virginica), bay scallops (Argopecten irradians), blue mussels (Mytilus edulis), and

blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) may be present in the lower mixing zone of the estuary. The

presence of these species may be ephemeral in the project area given widely and rapidly

fluctuating salinity concentrations.

This mix of infaunal species near the proposed project is indicative of a highly dynamic

waterbody with daily fluctuating salinity regime (salt wedge) driven by normal tidal exchange

interacting with the geology of the Connecticut River. Benthic organisms permanently inhabiting

the area of the existing bridge are tolerant of alternating exposure to salt and fresh water. In

addition to daily fluctuations, the zone of mixing moves up or downriver in response to seasonal,

annual, or longer-term changes in freshwater discharge, moving upriver during dry periods and

extending well into Long Island Sound during rainy periods.

Fish

Several factors have contributed to the Connecticut River’s importance as fish habitat. First, as

discussed above, historic sandbar formation precluded the development of an urban center near

the River’s mouth. Therefore the lower part of the river has not experienced many of the impacts

associated with urbanization such as large nutrient loads from urban combined sewer overlows,

which can lead to toxic algae blooms and dissolved oxygen barriers that effectively prevent

upstream and downstream movement of fish at critical times of the year. Secondly, the wetland

complexes present near the mouth of the Connecticut River remain relatively undisturbed. These

tidal marshes serve as vital nurseries to many species of juvenile fish, by providing forage,

shelter from predators, and warmer temperatures that promote the development of early life

stages of fish. Lastly, the Connecticut River’s large drainage area (11,250 square miles (29,100

km2) and associated tributaries provide extensive spawning areas for anadromous species (e.g.,

herring, shad, and salmon). Despite the installation of a number of upstream dams, the river still

provides many miles of suitable fish habitat for important estuarine species.

Marine, estuarine, anadromous, and catadromous species are exist in the Connecticut River.

Marine species include winter flounder, windowpane flounder, scup, red hake, and bluefish.

Estuarine species common to the Connecticut River include resident species such as bay

anchovy, Atlantic silverside, striped killifish (Fundulus majalis), mummichog (Fundulus

heteroclitus), American sand lance (Ammodytes americanus) and summer flounder. Anadromous

species that use the Connecticut River as a migration route include Atlantic salmon, striped bass,

tomcod, and members of the herring family. The single catadromous species occurring in the

Connecticut River is the American eel. Eels spawn in the Atlantic Ocean and the young move

into the estuary in the spring (Fahay 1978, Moriarty 1978).
Chapter 10: Natural Resources

10-11 May 2014

In addition, because of the complex tidal dynamic and typically short zone of

freshwater/saltwater mixing, a number of common freshwater fish species can also occur in the

lower Connecticut River near the project area under certain high flow, low salinity conditions.

These species may include northern pike (Esox lucius), largemouth bass (Micropterus

salmoides), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus),

white perch (Morone americana), and yellow perch (Perca flavescens), among others.

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

The project area is located within the tidal Connecticut River and within an EFH-designated area

bounded by: 41 ̊ 20.0 N; 72 ̊ 20.0 W; 41 ̊ 10.0 N; and 72 ̊ 30.0 W. Specific waterbodies 

identified as EFH within the Connecticut River estuary including those of the study area are the

Connecticut River, Ragged Rock Creek, and southwest Lieutenant River. Within this area, EFH

has been designated for 13 species, which are listed in Table 10-1.

Table 10-1

Essential Fish Habitat Designated Species for the Connecticut River

Species Eggs Larvae Juveniles Adults

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) X X

Pollock (Pollachius virens) X X

Red hake (Urophycis chuss) X X X X

Winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) X X X X

Windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus) X X X X

Atlantic sea herring (Clupea harengus) X X

Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) X X

King mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) X X X X

Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) X X X X

Cobia (Rachycentron canadum) X X X X

Sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus) X*

Little skate (Leucoraja erinacea) X X

Winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata) X X

Note: “X” denotes that the river is designated as EFH for the life stage; * denotes neonates.

Source: National Marine Fisheries Service. “Summary of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Designation.”

Available: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/STATES4/conn_li_ny/41107220.html (accessed on

March 29, 2012).

Juvenile Atlantic salmon and bluefish use these habitats, as are winter flounder and

windowpane. The nine other EFH species are more commonly found in deeper habitats and

higher salinities, particularly king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia. For those EFH

species likely to occur in the vicinity of the project area, the short duration and localized extent

of construction activities and similar operation of the existing and replacement bridges means

that the proposed project will not result in adverse impacts to the populations. Limitations on inwater construction activities during the migration window will protect anadromous species,

including Atlantic salmon, which could move through the project area to freshwater spawning

habitat upstream in the Connecticut River. See Appendix C for the full EFH Assessment.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 10-12

MARINE TURTLES

The diamondback terrapin is the only marine species of turtle that regularly occurs in

Connecticut. The turtles hibernate during winter submerged in the mud of tidal creeks. It is most

often found west of the Connecticut River, but has the potential to occur within the Connecticut

River within the project site (CTDEEP 2008).

Four other species of marine turtles, Kemps ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), loggerhead (Caretta

caretta), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) and leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea),

all state and federally listed, occasionally occur in northeastern waters and Long Island Sound

(LISS 2009). The Kemps ridley occurs in Long Island Sound and, in New York, has been

documented as the most abundant sea turtle (CTDEEP 1999). Although the loggerhead is found

in concentrated numbers within New England, it is rarely found in Connecticut Waters

(CTDEEP 2011). Green turtles have never been found along Connecticut’s shorelines, but they

may occasionally migrate through Connecticut’s waters (CTDEEP 2011). Leatherback sea

turtles are usually restricted to the higher salinity areas (Turtle Expert Working Group 1998).

These four species neither nest in the Connecticut River, nor reside there year-round. Therefore,

these species are not likely to occur within the Connecticut River except as transients.

ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

According to information received from CTDEEP in 2012,1 CTDEEP has documented three

state-listed fish species and six plant species as occurring within a 0.5 mile study area of the

proposed project. Brief descriptions of these species are provided below.

Fish

In the project area, three species of fish are state and/or federally listed as endangered,

threatened, or species of special concern: shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, and blueback

herring.

The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) is a federally- and state-listed endangered

species. It is typically an anadromous species, migrating from saline estuaries (and occasionally

the Atlantic Ocean into fresh water to spawn. Shortnose sturgeon are found along the Atlantic

coast of North America in estuaries and large rivers such as the Hudson, Delaware, and

Susquehanna (Chesapeake Bay). Shortnose sturgeon are distributed throughout the Connecticut

River from the mouth at Long Island Sound (RM 0) to the Turners Falls Dam (RM 123). Over

this range there are two mostly discontinuous populations of shortnose sturgeon separated by the

Holyoke Dam (RM 87; NMFS 2011a). Within the river, shortnose sturgeon can be found in

discrete “concentration areas” located at Deerfield above the Holyoke Dam (RM 89-119),

Agawam (RM 71-74) and in the lower Connecticut River (RM 0-68) (Kynard et al. 2012). These

concentration areas serve as habitat for summer feeding, spawning, and overwintering depending

on season and life stage (Buckley and Kynard 1985). In general, shortnose sturgeon remain

within the freshwater portion of the river above the salt front, based on acoustic telemetry studies

in the Connecticut River (Buckley and Kynard 1985).

1 Correspondence dated May 08, 2012 from Nelson DeBarros, CTDEEP Wildlife Division to Aubrey

McMahon, AKRF, Inc.; and email correspondence dated May 18, 2012 between Elaine Hinsch, CTEEP

Wildlife Division, and Aubrey McMahon, AKRF, Inc.
Chapter 10: Natural Resources

10-13 May 2014

Shortnose sturgeon spawn in the spring between late April and late May at spawning grounds

located well upstream of the project area near Montague, MA (RM 120) (NMFS 2011a). Due to

the location of spawning areas well upstream of the salt front and the project area, early life

stages of shortnose sturgeon (eggs, larvae, juveniles age-0 and 1) do not occur in the project area

(NMFS 2012, Kynard et al. 2012). Older juveniles are also not likely to occur in the project area

during the spring and summer months as they typically migrate upstream during this time of the

year (NMFS 2011b). Even during the rest of the year, juveniles are more commonly found

upstream of the salt front.

Shortnose sturgeon are most likely to occur in the project area between late April and mid-May

when river flows are greatest and salinities are low (NMFS 2011a). By mid-June, most shortnose

sturgeon migrate to foraging areas upstream of RM 12 where they spend the summer months

(August – October) foraging near the Holyoke Dam (RM 87; NMFS 2011a). During the fall

months, adult shortnose sturgeon migrate to overwintering habitats near the spawning grounds in

the freshwater portion of the river and remain there until spring (Savoy 2004, NMFS 2011b).

The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) is a federally-listed endangered1and state-listed

threatened species. It is also typically anadromous, sharing much of their range with the closelyrelated shortnose sturgeon. Of the two species, Atlantic sturgeon can grow considerably larger.

In terms of life history, in relatively unperturbed rivers the Atlantic sturgeon tends to be more

oceanic than shortnose sturgeon and does not typically migrate as far upstream to spawn.

Although shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are both expected to occur at least intermittently in the

study area, neither species is found there in exceptionally high abundance based on their

distribution within the Connecticut River and Long Island Sound and their association with

deep-water areas of the river (Savoy and Pacileo 2003, Savoy and Benway 2004). The majority

of Atlantic sturgeon (post-migrant juveniles) collected during trawl surveys in Long Island

Sound and the lower portion of coastal rivers have been found in the Central Basin area of Long

Island Sound (Savoy and Pacileo 2003, Savoy and Benway 2004). Only a small percentage of

those Atlantic sturgeon have been observed in the lower part of the river. Atlantic sturgeon

occurring in the project area are subadults (<1,100 mm fork length) primarily from the Hudson

River population (Savoy and Pacileo 2003, Savoy and Benway 2004). Once they enter the river

during late spring (May), the majority of Atlantic sturgeon are found in discrete, deep-water

areas (>9 m in depth) upstream (RM 6-16) of the project area (Savoy and Pacileo 2003). Atlantic

sturgeon leave the Connecticut River during early fall (September). There is not a spawning

population in the Connecticut River (Kynard et al. 2012); therefore, Atlantic sturgeon eggs,

larvae, and early juveniles (age-0 and 1) are not expected to occur in the project area.

Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis) is a state-listed species of concern, in response to declining

stocks. In Connecticut, populations have seen a sharp decline since around 1990. Major causes

for the decline in populations are dams, habitat degradation, fishing, and predation. Blueback

herring are anadromous, spending their adult lives schooling in pelagic waters and feeding on

plankton (NOAA 2007). Adult blueback herring are transient inhabitants of the Connecticut

River, migrating from Long Island Sound to shallow, freshwater sections of the river to spawn

between mid-April and June (USFWS 2010). Similarly larval and juvenile blueback herring

1 On February 2, 2012, certain distinct population segments (DPS) were designated as federally

endangered. The New York Bight DPS, which includes species that are spawned in the watersheds that

drain into coastal waters, including the Connecticut River and Long Island Sound, is one of the

populations that have been recently listed under the ESA.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 10-14

reside primarily in the freshwater portions of the Connecticut River, and only until they reach

approximately 5 cm in length. Because the site of the proposed project is located in a highsalinity (30 ppt) section of the river, larval blueback herring are not likely to be present in the

study area, and juveniles are only likely to occur seasonally as they migrate out to the ocean

during the late summer and fall (August-September; USFWS 2010, NOAA 2007). Blueback

herring are not expected to occur in the Connecticut River between fall and spring.

All three fish species have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the proposed project.

Plants

As stated above, the CTDEEP NDDB reported six state-listed plant species within a 1⁄2-mile

radius of the project site. Two of these species, pygmy weed (Crassula aquatic) and saltmarsh

bulrush (Bolboschoenus novae-angliae), are documented as occurring within or immediately

adjacent to the project site (CTDEEP 2012). Pygmy weed is a state-listed endangered species

and is found on the margins of pools and along fresh to tidal shores (Fernald 1950), as well as

muddy shores near the coasts usually within the limits of the tide (Gleason and Cronquist 1963).

Saltmarsh bulrush is a state-listed species of special concern and is found in brackish to saline

marshes along the coast (Gleason and Cronquist 1963) and brackish to fresh tidal shores

(Fernald 1950).

The other four species listed by the NDDB including bayonet grass (Bolboschoenus maritimus

ssp. paludosus), lilaeopsis (Lilaeopsis chinensis), mudwort (Limosella australis), and eastern

prickly pear (Opuntia humifusa)have the potential to occur within the project site and have been

documented within the 0.5 mile study area but have not been documented as occurring within or

immediately adjacent to the site. All of these species are listed as special concern species by the

state. Bayonet grass is found in salt marshes and alkaline marshes (Gray and Fernald 1987).

Lilaeopsis is found in brackish tidal mudflats (NYNHP 2011). Mudwort is found on wet sands,

as well as brackish to freshwater shorelines, and tends to grow in the mid to lower intertidal zone

(MDC 2010). Eastern prickly pear is found on sandy or rocky soils, and is tolerant of salt-spray

(Newcomb 1977). Due to the proximity to tidal marshes, shores, and upland areas of the ROW,

all of these species have the potential to occur within the study area.

Birds

During an earlier phase of the project in 2007, CTDEEP NDDB also reported that several statelisted wetland birds had the potential to occur within the project study area1

. These birds

included the state-listed endangered black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis), state-listed threatened

bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and state-listed threatened least bittern (Ixobrychus

exilis). While these birds were not referenced in the most recent correspondence from CTDEEP,

they have been considered in this EA to provide a conservative analysis.

Bald eagles regularly use the Connecticut River as a travel corridor during the winter months,

from December through March. The black rail is a secretive wetland bird that prefers high

coastal marshes (upper portions of salt and estuarine marshes) and wet meadows as nesting and

foraging habitat. The least bittern is also a secretive wetland bird that nests in marsh complexes

and is most susceptible to human disturbance during the breeding season. CTDEEP indicated

that the breeding season for both species is approximately mid-April through the end of July, and

1 Correspondence dated February 3, 2007 from Jenny Dickson, CTDEEP Wildlife Division to Priscilla

Bailie, Marine and Freshwater Service. (see Appendix C).
Chapter 10: Natural Resources

10-15 May 2014

recommended that construction along salt marsh areas be conducted outside the breeding season

to reduce potential disturbance to these species.

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

The project team sent a letter requesting information on threatened and endangered species to the

USFWS Connecticut River Coordinator on June 16, 2008. In a response dated July 16, 2008 (see

Appendix C “Natural Resources”), the USFWS confirmed that no federally-listed or proposed

threatened or endangered species, or critical habitat were known to occur in the project area and

that no further consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA is required. In its

correspondence, the USFWS indicated that future Section 7 requests should be made first by

reviewing the “Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species in Connecticut” available

on the New England Field Office’s Website. On March 5, 2012, this list was reviewed. The only

species that is listed for Old Saybrook and Old Lyme is the state-listed threatened piping plover

(Charadrius melodus). The piping plover is found along seacoasts, on isolated, sandy beaches

with little vegetation and access to mudflats for feeding (CTDEEP 1999). The piping plover is

not expected to occur within the project area as the preferred habitats are not present.

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

The project team sent a letter requesting information on threatened and endangered species on

June 16, 2008 and October 13, 2011 to the Protected Resources Division within the NMFS

Northeast Division. In responses dated July 2, 2008 and October 24, 2011 (see Appendix C),

NMFS identified the shortnose sturgeon as occurring within the project a rea. In addition, on

October 24, 2011, the NMFS indicated that the Distinct Population Segments (DPS) of the

Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus)—including the New York DPS (which encompasses

the Connecticut River)—were proposed for listing under the ESA. On February 2, 2012, the

New York DPS of Atlantic sturgeon was listed and is now covered under Section 7 of the ESA.

As explained below and in Appendix C, NMFS subsequently confirmed that no further

consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA is required.

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative consists of planned improvements in the primary and secondary

study areas that are scheduled for the near future or are included in the long range transportation

plans for the region and are expected to be completed by 2030. Included are small scale projects

that maintain the system in a state of good repair and larger investment projects that involve

substantial improvements to the transportation system in the region; however, no changes to the

ecology of the study area from these projects are expected in the future.

The No Action Alternative assumes the Connecticut River Bridge will remain in service as is,

with continued maintenance and minimal repairs. The existing rail ROW, embankment, and

bridge structures will remain intact.

E. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” the Preferred Alternative involves off-line

replacement to the south of the existing bridge. Amtrak has identified two feasible options of the

Preferred Alternative; Option A will include a bascule bridge, while Option B will include a
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 10-16

vertical lift bridge. The natural resource impacts associated with the two options of the Preferred

Alternative are similar to one another, unless otherwise noted below.

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

As discussed above under “Existing Conditions”, terrestrial resources potentially affected by the

project are confined to those within Amtrak’s ROW and possible construction staging areas. The

removal of some scrub/shrub vegetation along the existing embankment may be necessary to

accommodate the new alignment and construction access, but Amtrak will minimize the extent

of vegetation removal to the extent practical. These areas have relatively little value as terrestrial

habitat, and as such, no significant permanent impacts to terrestrial natural resources are

expected. The proposed project will not result in increases in rail traffic or train speed, therefore

no long-term noise impacts on local reptile, bird, and mammal reproduction, foraging, or

movement will be occur.

FLOODPLAINS

The Preferred Alternative will not significantly impact floodplains. In-water piers and other

support structures do not constrict tidal or freshwater flows, and are expected to be virtually

identical to the existing structures with respect to flood water throughput. The bottom of steel of

the new bridge superstructure will be located above the 100-year flood elevation. Small areas of

fill in tidal floodplains associated with embankment widening and pier installation encroach into

the floodplain. Because the Connecticut River and adjacent coastal floodplains are entirely tidal

in the project area, this fill will not impact the capacity of the river to absorb flood waters. Since

the project area is located near the mouth of the river at Long Island Sound, the ultimate flood

storage capacity that should be considered for the site is that of Long Island Sound and the

Atlantic Ocean.

COASTAL ZONE

CTDEEP has confirmed that a formal coastal management consistency review should be

performed during the subsequent preliminary engineering and permitting phase, rather than

during the environmental review phase1. At that time, Amtrak will submit a complete “Coastal

Management Consistency Review Form for Federal Activities” along with all required

attachments and will seek a formal Coastal Zone Consistency Determination from CTDEEP.

However, as part of this EA, the project team performed a preliminary coastal zone consistency

analysis to determine the project’s anticipated effects on coastal resources. The applicability of

and consistency with each individual coastal zone policy is discussed in Appendix C. Overall,

the proposed project is consistent with Connecticut’s Coastal Management Program.

WETLANDS AND OPEN WATER

Due to the nature and location of the river crossing and the need for continuous operations along

the Northeast Corridor, complete avoidance of wetland and open water areas will not be feasible.

Based on the conceptual bridge design, it is estimated that the Preferred Alternative will result in

1

Personal communication between Leslie Mesnick-Uretsky of AKRF, Inc., and Susan Bailey of CTDEEP

on April 3, 2012 and between Leslie Mesnick-Uretsky of AKRF, Inc. and Frederick Riese of CTDEEP

on April 4, 2012.
Chapter 10: Natural Resources

10-17 May 2014

approximately 2.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts and 0.74 acres of permanent open water

impacts. Removal of the existing Connecticut River Bridge may result in approximately 0.33

acres of restored open water, for a net project impact of 0.41 acres. As discussed in Chapter 12,

“Construction Impacts”, temporary access roadways and construction platforms will temporarily

impact wetlands and open water. Based on the conceptual bridge design and the anticipated

construction means and methods, it is estimated that approximately 3.2 acres of wetlands and 2.0

acres of open water will be temporarily impacted during the construction period. The differences

in impacts between Option A and Option B are expected to be minor.

To the extent practicable, Amtrak will minimize environmental impacts through the use of

retaining walls and by locating the new bridge alignment close to the existing alignment. These

impact estimates (shown in Table 10-2) have been based on conceptual engineering performed

to date and will be refined during the preliminary engineering and permitting phase. Mitigation

measures to address these impacts are described in Section F, below. After appropriate

mitigation measures are implemented, no significant adverse wetland or open water impacts will

result from the proposed project.

Table 10-2

Estimated Wetland and Open Water Impacts

Impact Type

Western

Approach

Eastern

Approach New Bridge Total

Permanent Wetland 1.28 1.49 - 2.77

Permanent Open Water 0.23 0.26 0.25* 0.74*

Temporary Wetland 2.40 0.78 - 3.18

Temporary Open Water - - 2.04 2.04

Note: * The removal of the existing bridge may restore approximately 0.33 acres of open water, for a net

project impact of 0.41 acres of open water (0.74 – 0.33 = 0.41 acres).

AQUATIC RESOURCES

Because the proposed project is for bridge replacement, long-term future operational effects will

be similar to those of the existing bridge and no adverse operational impacts to aquatic resources

are anticipated. The potential for impacts to aquatic resources during the construction period are

assessed in Chapter 12, “Construction Impacts”.

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES

Because the proposed project is for bridge replacement, long-term future operational effects will

be similar to those of the existing bridge and no adverse operational impacts to threatened and

endangered species are anticipated. The potential for impacts to threatened and endangered

species during the construction period are assessed in Chapter 12, “Construction Impacts”. As

shown in Appendix C, USFWS and NMFS have confirmed that no further consultation pursuant

to Section 7 of the ESA is required.

F. MITIGATION MEASURES

Due to the nature and location of the river crossing and the need for continuous operations along

the Northeast Corridor, complete avoidance of wetland and open water areas will not be feasible

for the Preferred Alternative. Consistent with Executive Order 11990, Amtrak has determined
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 10-18

that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to avoid construction in wetlands and therefore

measures to minimize harm have been considered. Amtrak has incorporated efforts to minimize

wetland impacts into the conceptual design for the proposed project. Amtrak will continue to

minimize these impacts to the extent practical as the project proceeds into the preliminary and

final engineering stages. Amtrak may add other sedimentation control measures, such as silt

fences, hay bales, sedimentation basins, slope stabilization measures, and sediment booms,

during the final design phase for the Preferred Alternative.

Amtrak conservatively estimated the impacts on wetlands, open water, and benthic habitat

presented in this EA using mapping resources and conceptual engineering alignments. Once

engineering design has sufficiently progressed and the permitting phase of the project has begun,

Amtrak will field-verify the acres of ecological resource impact. Field reviews will follow

scientifically acceptable methods based on the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual,

Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and

Northeast Region (Version 2.0) and methods outlined by the American Society of Testing and

Materials (ASTM). Based on these field reviews and the final engineering design, Amtrak will

calculate the exact impacts to wetlands and open water for use as the final basis for mitigation

measures. Amtrak will then determine the appropriate mitigation measures through coordination

with CTDEEP, USACE, USCG, and other relevant regulatory bodies during the permit process.

The most likely mitigation measures include:

 Purchasing credits from a state- and/or federally-approved wetland mitigation bank;

 Completion of a project-specific mitigation at a nearby site. This could include the

establishment, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands;

 Assistance with or contributions to other mitigation measures being implemented as part of

other nearby transportation or development projects.

Amtrak will develop the exact mitigation ratios in coordination with natural resource

management agencies. These ratios will be based on factors including but not limited to: value,

function, and type of wetland impacted; existing contamination within the project area; and the

availability of suitable in-kind restoration areas. With the implementation of these mitigation

measures, no significant adverse wetland or open water impacts will result from the proposed

project.
Chapter 10: Natural Resources

10-19 May 2014

G. REFERENCES

Able, K.W., A.L. Studholme, and J.P. Manderson. 1995. Habitat quality in the New York/New

Jersey Harbor Estuary: An evaluation of pier effects on fishes. Final Report. Hudson

River Foundation, New York, NY

Able, K.W., J.T. Duffy-Anderson. 2006. In: The Hudson River Estuary. J.S. Levinton and J.R.

Waldman eds. Cambridge University Press. pp.428-440.

Abraham, B.J. 1985. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of

Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates: Mummichog and Striped Killifish. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station

Coastal Ecology Group and the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Division of

Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

ASA Analysis and Communications Inc. (ASA). 2001. 1998 Year Class Report for the Hudson

River Estuary Monitoring Program. Prepared for Central Hudson Gas and Electric

Corporation by ASA, New Hampton, NY

Bigelow, H.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin of the

Fish and Wildlife Service Volume 53.

Birtwell, I.K., M.D. Nassichuk, H. Beune, and M. Gang. 1987. Deas Slough, Fraser River

Estuary, British Columbia: General description and some aquatic characteristics. Can.

Fish. Mar. Serv. Man. Rep. No. 1464.

Brey, T. Population Dynamics in Benthic Invertebrates. A Virtual Handbook. Version 01.2.

http://www.awi-bremerhaven.de/Benthic/Ecosystem/FoodWeb/Handbook/main.html.

Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Germany. 2001.

Buckley, J. and B. Kynard. 1985. Spawning and Rearing of Shortnose Sturgeon from the

Connecticut River. The Progressive Fish Culturist. 43:74-76.

Chang, S., P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source

Document: Windowpane, Scophthalmus aquosus, Life History and Habitat

Characteristics. National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMFS-NE 137, http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/ - list

Clarke, D.G., and D.H. Wilber. 2000. Assessment of potential impacts of dredging operations

due to sediment resuspension. DOER Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-DOERE9), US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (CTDEEP). Letter from

CTDEEP Bureau of Natural Resources Wildlife Division to A. McMahon, dated May 8,

2012.

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP).

November/December 2011. Connecticut Wildlife. Volume 31, Number 6. Available:

http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/wildlife/pdf_files/...wildlife.../cwnd11.pdf (accessed on

May 15, 2012).

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP). 1999. Kemp’s

(Atlantic) Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys kempii Available:

http://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?A=2723&Q=326026 (viewed on May 15, 2012).
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 10-20

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) (formerly

CTDEP). 2005. Phytoplankton Fact Sheet.

http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/water/lis_water_quality/hypoxia/phytoplanktonfactshee

t.pdf (accessed January 8, 2008).

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) (formerly

CTDEP). 2008. Wildlife in Connecticut. Northern Diamondback Terrapin. Malaclemys

terrapin.

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) (formerly

CTDEP), Office of Long Island Sound Programs; U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,

Southern New England - New York Bight Coastal Ecosystems Program; The Nature

Conservancy Connecticut Chapter. 1994. Nomination Report to the Convention on

Wetlands of International Importance - Connecticut River Estuary and Tidal River

Wetland Complex.

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) (formerly CTDEP)

Coastal Area Management Program. Coastal Resources Map. 1979.

Connecticut River Watershed Council 2008. http://www.ctriver.org/about_river/

watershed_geo.html (accessed January 08, 2008).

Dolat, S.W. 1997. Acoustic measurements during the Baldwin Bridge demolition (final, dated

March 14, 1997). Prepared for White Oak Construction by Sonalysts, Inc, Waterford,

CT. 34 p. plus appendices.

Dunford, W.E. 1975. Space and food utilization by salmonids in marsh habitats of the Fraser

River estuary. University of British Columbia.

Enger, P.S., H.E. Karlsen, F.R. Knudsen, and O. Sand. 1993. Detection and reaction of fish to

infrasound. Fish Behavior in Relation to Fishing Operations., 1993, pp. 108-112, ICES

marine science symposia. Copenhagen vol. 196.

Fahay, M.P. 1978. Biological and fisheries data on the American eel, Anguilla rostrata

(LeSueur). NTIS PB-297 067. National Marine Fisheries Service Technical Series

Report No. 17

Gray, A., M.L. Fernald. 1987. Gray's manual of botany: a handbook of the flowering plants and

ferns of the central and northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. Dioscorides

Press.

Grimes, B.H., M.T. Huish, J.H. Kerby, and D. Moran. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and

environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (mid-Atlantic): summer

and winter flounder. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.112). U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4

Hammerson, G. A. 2004. Connecticut Wildlife: Biodiversity, Natural History, and Conservation.

University Press of New England

Hanson, B.N., W.H. Bason, B.E. Beitz, and K.E. Charles. 1978. A practical intake screen which

substantially reduces the entrainment and impingement of early life stages of fish, in

Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement (L.D.

Jensen, ed.), Chicago, Illinois, December 5, 1977, pp. 393-407. EA Communications,

Melville, New York
Chapter 10: Natural Resources

10-21 May 2014

Hardesty and Hanover, LLP for National Railroad Passenger Corporation Office of Engineering.

2007. Inspection and Conceptual Engineering for the Reconstruction or Replacement of

the Connecticut River Bridge, MB 106.89

Hastings, M.C., and A.N. Popper. Effects of Sound on Fish. 2005. California Department of

Transportation. Contract No. 43A0139, Task Order 1. Sacramento, CA.

Knebel, H.J., R.P. Signell, R.R. Rendigs, L.J. Poppe, J.H. List. 1999. Seafloor environments in

the Long Island Sound estuarine system. Marine Geology 155:277–318

Kynard, B., P. Bronzi, and H. Rosenthal. 2012. Life history and behaviour of Connecticut River

shortnose sturgeon and other sturgeons. World Sturgeon Conservation Society Special

Publication no. 4. 320pp.

LaSalle, M.W., D.G. Clarke, J. Homziak, J.D. Lunz, and T.J. Fredette. 1991. A framework for

assessing the need for seasonal restrictions on dredging and disposal operations.

Department of the Army, Environmental laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station,

Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Long Island Sound Study (LISS). Sound Update. Fall 2009. Available:

longislandsoundstudy.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/fall2009.pdf (accessed May 15,

2012).

Maine Department of Conservation (MDC). 2010. Maine Natural Areas Program. Accessed May

11, 2012. Available from: http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mnap/features/limaus.htm.

Moriarty, C., 1978. Eels-A Natural and Unnatural History, Universe Books, NY

Murdy, E.O., R. S. Birdsong, and J. A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of the Chesapeake Bay.

Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C. 324 p.

Mullaney, J.R. 2004. Summary of Water Quality Trends in the Connecticut River 1968 – 1998.

American Fisheries Society Monograph 9:273–286 Available:

http://ct.water.usgs.gov/pubs/273-286,%20Mullaney.pdf (accessed on February 10,

2012).

Newcomb, L. 1977. Newcomb’s Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, New York.

New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP). 2011. Online Conservation Guide for

Lilaeopsis chinensis. Accessed May 11, 2012. Available from:

http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=8714.

Nightingale, B, and C.A. Simenstad, University of Washington. 2001. Dredging Activities:

Marine Issues. White Paper, Research Project T1803, Task 35. Prepared by the

Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC), University of Washington. Prepared

for Washington State Transportation Commission, Department of Transportation and in

cooperation with the US Department of Transportation, Federal highway

Administration.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2007. Species of Concern: River

Herring. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/riverherring_

highlights.pdf. Accessed on May 15, 2012.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011a. Letter Regarding Essential Fish Habitat and

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Species Information Request, National Railroad
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 10-22

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project, Old

Saybrook, Middlesex County, and Old Lyme, New London County, Connecticut.

October 24, 2011.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2011b. Biological Opinion on the Permits,

Conservation and Education Division’s Proposal to Issue a Permit (Number 15614 to

Tom Savoy, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Fisheries, for

Research on Shortnose Sturgeon in the Connecticut, Thames, and Housatonic Rivers,

Connecticut. Issued May 19, 2011. 71pp.

Savoy, T. 2004. Population estimate and utilization of the lower Connecticut River by shortnose

sturgeon. American Fisheries Society Monograph 9:345-352.

Savoy, T. and D. Pacileo. 2003. Movements and Important Habitats of Subadult Atlantic Sturgeon

in Connecticut Waters. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 132:1-8.

Savoy, T. and J. Benway. 2004. Food habits of shortnose sturgeon collected in the lower

Connecticut River from 2000 through 2002. American Fisheries Society Monograph

9:353-360.

Steimle, F.W., W.W. Morse, P.L. Berrien, and D.L. Johnson. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat

Source Document: Red Hake, Urophycis chuss Life History and Habitat Characteristics.

National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE 133,

http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/nefsc/habitat/efh/ - list

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Environmental Monitoring and

Assessment Program (EMAP) data. Available at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/emap/

webdev_emap.search

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Fish Facts: Blueback Herring.

Available at: http://www.fws.gov/r5crc/Fish/zd_alae.html#lifehistory. Accessed on May

15, 2012.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Map. Eastern Long Island Sound

Eelgrass 2006 Inventory. Willard Bay/Connecticut River/Old Lyme Shores/Rocky Neck

State Park Area SubBasins.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Publication 5 of the Conservation

Library. Available: http://library.fws.gov/pubs5/ramsar/web_link/area.htm (accessed on

May 18, 2012).

Vella, G., I. Rushforth, E. Mason, A. Hough, R. England, P. Styles, T. Holt, and P. Thorne.

2001. Assessment of the Effects of Noise and Vibration from Offshore Windfarms on

Marine Wildlife. University of Liverpool. ETSU W/13/00566/REP.


11-1 May 2014

Chapter 11: Contaminated Materials

A. INTRODUCTION

This chapter addresses the potential for the presence of contaminated materials resulting from

past and present uses of the site and adjacent areas, and potential risks from the proposed project

with respect to any such materials. The Preferred Alternative will involve the construction of a

replacement bridge to the south of the existing bridge alignment and the subsequent demolition

of the existing bridge. The Preferred Alternative will also involve the placement of fill to extend

existing embankments and subsurface excavation on the bridge approaches to replace track and

ties, creating the potential to discover contaminated materials.

Contaminated materials are potentially harmful substances that may be present in soil,

groundwater, or building materials and may pose a threat to human health or the environment.

These materials are frequently encountered during construction activities in areas that have been

subject to past disturbance from construction, excavation, filling and industrial uses. Generally,

“contaminated material” is used interchangeably with “regulated material” or “hazardous

material,” but none should be confused with the term “hazardous waste,” which is a regulatory

term.1 This chapter assesses the potential for the presence of contaminated materials on the

project site, the potential for exposure to them during and after the construction of the project,

and the specific measures that will be employed to protect public health, worker safety, and the

environment in the event of contaminated materials’ presence within the project boundaries.

The analysis begins by considering the location, type, and extent of contaminated materials that

may be present. As described below, Amtrak conducted this assessment through a review of

historic maps and aerial photos, regulatory records and databases. This evaluation focuses on the

potential for encountering contaminated materials during demolition and construction activities

rather than post-construction use of the new bridge, since bridge demolition and construction

work will disturb the soil and, in some locations, groundwater. Finally, the chapter describes the

measures that Amtrak will implement to avoid potential impacts both during construction and

once the project is completed and operational.

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

Soil and groundwater in the project site can be contaminated as a result of past or present uses

on the project site or adjacent properties. Most of the area affected by the project is currently or

was historically used for railroad purposes. Over time, railroad-related maintenance, train traffic,

freight hauling and related activities could have led to contamination from spills or leaks. Along

rail lines, common contaminants include volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, heavy

1

“Hazardous waste” is defined in the USEPA regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 261) and refers to a subset of

solid wastes that are either specific wastes listed in the regulations (listed wastes) or solid wastes

possessing the characteristics of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, or toxicity (characteristic wastes).
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 11-2

metals, pesticides, and herbicides. The project site may also have been contaminated by past or

present uses of neighboring properties. In addition, much of the rail ROW was built on fill

material of unknown origin, which could contain contaminants such as PAHs and heavy metals.

Some of the potential common contaminants of concern for the project site and adjacent uses are

discussed below.

 PCBs. Commonly used as a dielectric fluid in train-mounted or other electrical transformers.

 Heavy metals, including lead, cadmium, chromium, and mercury. These have been widely

used in many industries, including printers, foundries, and metal working facilities, and are

found in paint, ink, petroleum products, and coal ash. Lead is also a common component of

paint on bridges or other steel structures.

 VOCs. These include aromatic compounds (such as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and

xylene [BTEX]), which are found in petroleum products used in fuels, equipment repair and

metal works, as well as many other industries; and chlorinated compounds (such as

tricholoroethene and tetrachloroethene, common ingredients in solvents and cleansers) used

in degreasing, dry cleaners, and other industrial facilities. Soil and groundwater can become

contaminated with VOCs and vapors can be released, especially during excavation activities.

In addition, some VOCs, such as methane, can be flammable if the vapors are confined.

Methane is produced from the breakdown of organic materials and can be associated with

marsh deposits as well as landfilling with putrescible wastes.

 Semivolatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs). These include PAHs (which are common

constituents of partially combusted coal or petroleum-derived products); coal-derived

products such as creosote applied to protect rail ties; and coal and coal ash used as fill

material.

 Pesticides and Herbicides. These are commonly used to control rodents and/or insects, and

vegetation along rail lines.

 Fuel Oil and Gasoline Storage Tanks. Rail operations, businesses, and industries currently

or formerly located in the vicinity of the site may have used aboveground storage tanks

(ASTs) or underground storage tanks (USTs) for fuels. Some of these tanks may have been

removed. Other tanks, although no longer in use, may remain buried in place. Soils and

groundwater in proximity to fuel oil and gasoline storage tanks may be contaminated

because of ongoing or past leaks or spills. Fuel oil and gasoline from off-site sources may

have migrated to the project site, contaminating soil and groundwater on-site.

 Asbestos. Potentially asbestos-containing materials may be located within structures or on

underground steam pipes, or at (illegal) dumping sites.

B. REGULATORY CONTEXT AND METHODOLOGY

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

There are numerous regulations regarding contaminated materials at the federal and state levels.

The applicable industry standards, regulatory requirements, guidelines and rules for

contaminated materials investigations are listed in Table 11-1.
Chapter 11: Contaminated Materials

11-3 May 2014

Table 11-1

Federal and State Regulations for Contaminated Materials

Regulation Type Regulation

Federal

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) – National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42

U.S.C. s/s 4321 (1969)

USEPA – Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. s/s 1251 et seq. (1977)

USEPA – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42

U.S.C. s/s 9601 et seq. (1980)

USEPA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. s/s 321 et seq. (1976)

USEPA – Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. s/s 300f et seq. (1974)

USEPA – National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), 40 C.F.R. Part 61

USEPA – 40 C.F.R. Parts 260, 261, 262, 263, 266, 268, and 280

USEPA – Asbestos Hazardous Emergency Response Act (AHERA), 40 C.F.R. Part 763

USEPA – Lead: Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and Child-Occupied

Facilities; Final Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 745

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) – 29 C.F.R. 1910.120, 1910.1001,1910.1101,

1926.62, and 1929.58

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) – Guideline for the Evaluation and

Control of Lead Based Paint Hazards in Housing pursuant to Title X of the Housing and Community

Development Act of 1992

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. s/s 2601 et seq. (1976)

OSHA – Lead: Occupational Health and Environmental Controls, 29 C.F.R. 1926.62

OSHA – Asbestos, 29 C.F.R. 1926.1101

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) – Technical Advisory, T6640.8A (1987)

FHWA – Supplementary Hazardous Waste Guidance (1997)

FHWA – Hazardous Wastes in Highway Rights-of-Way (1994)

FHWA – Interim Guidance, Hazardous Waste Sites Affecting Highway Project Development (1988)

FHWA – Policy Revision to Support the Brownfield Economic Redevelopment Initiative (1998)

Connecticut

Connecticut Environmental Protection Act, 22a-1g

CTDEEP Remediation Standards, 22a-133

CTDEEP Underground Storage Tank Regulations, 22a-449(d)

American Society for

Testing and

Materials Guidelines

ASTM E1527-05 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site

Assessment Process

ASTM PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASESSMENT

The typical assessment of a property used to determine the potential presence of contaminated

materials is referred to as a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and includes a

records search within radii specified in ASTM1 E1527-05; a review of available documents with

the federal, state and local regulatory agencies; review and interpretation of historical data that

may reveal evidence of historical activities and their potential to impact the environment; a site

inspection; and interviews with the current and past operators at the parcel. Normally, the focus

of the investigation is to determine past and current uses of a site as related to contaminated

materials usage and potential for subsurface contamination. The intent of the Phase I ESA is to

also identify and evaluate Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) associated with a

property to allow the user to qualify for the innocent landowner defense under CERCLA.

1 American Society of Testing and Materials Standards
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 11-4

The findings of a Phase I ESA include information available from a review of existing

conditions and identify any required remedial or mitigation measures that may be required prior

to or during construction as well as any specific areas of concern where subsurface (Phase II)

investigations (typically laboratory analysis of soil and groundwater samples) are warranted to

better characterize areas or media that are potentially impacted.

METHODOLOGY

Amtrak initially conducted a contaminated materials assessment for the Connecticut River

Bridge Project study area in 2008. The assessment began with identifying all potential sites of

concern within the primary study area (defined as a quarter-mile radius surrounding the project

site). Amtrak categorized the sites either as: (1) potentially requires further investigation; or (2)

further investigation not required. The assessment included a review of federal and state

databases and regulatory records, including listings of spills, petroleum storage facilities, and

state and federally listed contaminated materials sites, to determine the regulatory status of each

site. Amtrak conducted the search of federal and state environmental agency records in general

accordance with ASTM E1527-05 for the secondary study area surrounding the primary study

area. A report summarizing the environmental database search was prepared by Environmental

Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) of Milford, Connecticut. A copy of the report is attached as

Appendix D, “Contaminated Materials.” Table 11-2 shows the federal and state databases that

EDR searched as part of the preliminary site screening methodology. The project team also

conducted a visual inspection of the project site and surrounding area. In 2012, the project team

updated the assessment with a review of regulatory databases (also included in Appendix D),

aerial photographs and an additional site visit.

The project team did not consider groundwater flow direction and proximity to the project site,

making this analysis conservative since potentially contaminated sites in any direction from the

project site reviewed. Thus, some of the sites identified as potentially requiring further

investigation were located in an anticipated downgradient or cross-gradient groundwater flow

direction, i.e., groundwater will not be expected to flow towards the project site. Sites located

upgradient (with respect to groundwater) of the project site are of greater concern because

contaminants may travel towards the project site in the groundwater. Proximity to the rail line is

also an important factor in determining the potential for impact. All other factors being equal,

the closer a concern is to the project site, the greater the likelihood for impact.
Chapter 11: Contaminated Materials

11-5 May 2014

Table 11-2

Databases Searched

Database Searched Description

Federal ASTM Standard Databases

National Priority List (NPL) Identifies site for priority cleanup under the Superfund

Program.

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Information System (CERCLIS) List

Data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been

reported to the USEPA pursuant to Section 103 of the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA).

CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action

Planned (CERC-NFRAP) List

CERCLIS sites that have been removed from CERCLIS.

Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS)

List

Identifies hazardous waste handlers with Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action

activity.

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Information System (RCRIS) List

Includes information on sites which generate, transport, treat

and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by RCRA.

Emergency Response Notification

System (ERNS) List

Data on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances.

State ASTM Standard Databases

State Hazardous Waste Site (SHWS) Sites in Connecticut which have contamination levels greater

than applicable cleanup criteria soil and/or groundwater

standards.

Site Discovery and Assessment

Database (SDADB)

All sites where it is suspected that hazardous waste has been

disposed.

Leaking UST (LUST) List Inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank

incidents.

Underground Storage Tank (UST) List Inventory of USTs regulated under Subtitle I of RCRA.

Federal ASTM Supplemental Databases

CERCLA Consent Decrees

(CONSENT)

Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and

standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites.

Records of Decision (ROD) ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL

(Superfund) site.

De-Listed NPL Sites deleted from the NPL in accordance with 40 C.F.R.

300.425(e).

Facility Index System (FINDS) Includes facility information and “pointers” to other sources that

contain more detail.

Hazardous Materials Information

Reporting System (HMIRS)

Includes hazardous material spill incidents reported to the

Department of Transportation.

Material Licensing Tracking System

(MLTS)

Database of sites which possess or use radioactive materials

and which are subject to Nuclear Regulatory Commission

requirements.

Mines Master Index File (MINES) Inventory of mines active or opened since 1971.

NPL Liens Inventory of sites where the USEPA has filed liens against real

property in order to recover remedial action expenditures.

PCB Activity Database System (PADS) Inventory of generators, transporters, commercial storers

and/or brokers and disposers of PCB’s.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 11-6

Table 11-2 (cont’d)

Databases Searched

Database Searched Description

Federal ASTM Supplemental Databases

Department of Defense (DOD) Sites Inventory of federally owned or administered lands,

administered by the DOD, that have any area equal to or

greater than 640 acres.

U.S. Brownfields Listing of brownfields properties addressed by Cooperative

Agreement Recipients and brownfields addressed by Targeted

Brownfields Assessments.

RCRA Administrative Action Tracking

System (RAATS)

Includes data on enforcement actions issued under RCRA

pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and

civil actions brought by the USEPA.

Toxic Chemical Release Inventory

System (TRIS)

Inventory of facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air,

water and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III

Section 313.

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included

on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list.

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)/Toxic

Substances Control Act (TSCA) Tracking

System (FTTS)

Data on administrative cases and pesticide enforcement

actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA, TSCA and

EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know

Act).

State or Local ASTM Supplemental Databases

Connecticut Manifest Facilities where manifests are documented and track

hazardous waste from the generator to the TSD facility

Connecticut Spills Initial notification information of hazardous material incidents.

Landfills/Transfer Stations Inventory of landfills in Connecticut.

Connecticut Leachate and Wastewater

Discharge Sites (LWDS)

Locates surface and groundwater discharge that receive

wastewater discharge, are waste sites, or are locations of

accidental spills.

Marine Terminals and Tank Information A listing of bulk petroleum facilities that receive petroleum by

vessel.

Voluntary Remediation Sites Sites involved in the Voluntary Remediation Program

Drycleaner Sites Inventory of drycleaner facilities.

Brownfields (CTDEEP) Former or current commercial or industrial use sites that are

presently vacant or underutilized, on which there is suspected

contamination to the soil or groundwater at concentrations

greater than applicable cleanup criteria.

Connecticut Property Transfer Filings Listing of sites that meet the definition of a hazardous waste

establishment and have been sold to another owner.

C. EXISTING CONDITIONS

The following assessment summarizes conditions at the project site and within 1⁄4-mile of the

project site (i.e., within the APE) and is based on the results of the records research, review of

historical aerial photographs, and a site visit. Appendix D, “Contaminated Materials,” provides

the aerials and the complete EDR report, including a map that shows the locations of sites

identified in the regulatory databases.
Chapter 11: Contaminated Materials

11-7 May 2014

SITE VISIT

The project team conducted visual inspections of the site and surrounding area on February 28,

2008 and on May 18, 2012. The project site was occupied by the existing steel two-track rail

bridge with an electrically operated bascule span. The bridge is supported by two soil

embankments (on the eastern and western shores of the Connecticut River), which were

constructed over 100 years ago, and by nine stone piers under the bridge spans. The surrounding

land is moderately developed, with many vegetated areas as well as a mixture of residential and

marine commercial uses northwest of the bridge, mainly residential and institutional uses to the

northeast, and wetlands to the south.

HISTORY

The existing bridge was constructed beginning in 1904 and it became operational in 1907. An

1868 historical map of the project site and surrounding area showed the present rail line, with a

ferry at the approximate location of the existing bridge; and an 1874 map showed an earlier rail

bridge. Historical aerial photographs showed the present bridge from 1957 (the earliest date for

which aerials were available) onward, and showed that by 1957 the land to the north of the

bridge appeared to be occupied mainly by small-boat marinas and wetlands, with more

development with marinas and small buildings occurring between approximately 1961 and 1986.

No significant changes were noted in the vicinity of the project site in 1997 (the latest year for

which aerials were available). No significant changes from the 1997 aerial were noted on a 2011

online (Google Earth) aerial photograph. The land to the south of the bridge appeared to contain

wetlands throughout this time.

REGULATORY DATABASE REVIEW

The project team performed the initial screening of the project site and surrounding area using

the methodology described above. Four off-site locations in Old Saybrook, within the primary

study area, required additional investigation (see Table 11-3). These include marine terminals

and a former industrial facility. A summary of these four sites is listed below in Table 11-3.

SAYBROOK MARINE SERVICE, INC.

Saybrook Marine Service, Inc., located at 2 Clark Street, approximately 1,500 feet northwest of

the project site, was listed on the CT Property and Site Discovery and Assessment Database

(SDADB). The site was sold by Saybrook Marine Service, Inc. and purchased by Between the

Bridges, LLC in 1998. A Property Transfer Form III is associated with the site. A Form III is

required by the CTDEEP Property Transfer Program when environmental conditions are

unknown or when a discharge, spill, uncontrolled loss, seepage, or filtration of hazardous waste

has occurred at the parcel and has not been fully remediated. The Form III indicates that

investigation and necessary remediation will be completed. According to the database report,

CTDEEP completed and approved the remediation on October 19, 1998. However, no additional

information or documents were available to confirm this status.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 11-8

Table 11-3

Secondary Screening – Sites Potentially Requiring Further Investigation

Item No.

Site

Identification Site Address Reference

Potential

Contaminants

1 Saybrook

Marine Service,

Inc.

2 Clark Street

Old Saybrook, CT

CT Property

SDADB: Facility ID 4842

CT Manifest

Unknown

2 Max Snyder 145 Ferry Road

Old Saybrook, CT

CT Manifest Gasoline

3 Between the

Bridges Marina

142 Ferry Road

Old Saybrook, CT

UST: Facility ID 1915

LWDS No. 4000102

CT Spills: Case No.

200007388, 200008884,

200305061, 200306725

CT Manifest

NPDES Permit No.

UI0000373, GSI001382

Petroleum

products,

transformer oil

4 Oppell Estate 203 Ferry Road

Old Saybrook, CT

LUST: Case No. 45217

CT Spills: Case No. 9604501

SDADB: Facility ID 2884

Petroleum

products

The database search identified a manifest (a type of document generated when hazardous waste

is excavated and disposed of off-site) for the site, associated with 1998 disposal of lead waste to

a facility identified as Clean Harbors of Connecticut, Inc. (EPA ID # CTD000604488).

A small tributary of the Connecticut River is located between the project site and Saybrook

Marine Service, Inc. Any subsurface contamination associated with this site is not likely to have

migrated across the tributary to affect the project site. Due to the distance and the anticipated

groundwater flow direction, it is not likely that this site has impacted the project site.

MAX SNYDER

Max Snyder, located at 145 Ferry Road, approximately 1,600 feet northwest of the project site,

was listed on the CT Manifest database. The project team identified a 2004 manifest for the site,

associated with disposal of gasoline and ignitable waste to Bridgeport United Recycling, Inc.

(EPA ID # CTD002593887). A small tributary of the Connecticut River is located between the

project site and Max Snyder. Any subsurface contamination associated with this site is not likely

to have migrated across the tributary to affect the project site. Due to the distance and the

anticipated groundwater flow direction, it is not likely that this site has impacted the project site.

BETWEEN THE BRIDGES MARINA

Between the Bridges Marina, located at 142 Ferry Road, approximately 1,600 feet northwest of

the project site, was listed on the Underground Storage Tank database. Two diesel tanks

installed in 1999 were listed as currently in-use: one with a capacity of 10,000 gallons and the

other with a capacity of 6,000 gallons. Two gasoline tanks were listed as closed and removed in

1999: each had a capacity of 8,000 gallons. Four CT Spills listings were reported for this site.

Spill No. 200007388 reported a release of approximately 135 gallons of transformer oil to the

Connecticut River in 2000, and was listed with a status of “not terminated.” The remaining spills

involved a less than one-gallon release of gasoline onto pavement (No. 200008884, reported in
Chapter 11: Contaminated Materials

11-9 May 2014

November 2000), an approximately 10-gallon release of transformer oil within a transformer

vault (No. 200305061, reported in July 2003), and an observation of a diesel-like sheen on the

Connecticut River (No. 200306725, reported in September 2003). All of these spills were

assigned a status of “terminated.”

This site was listed as an LWDS site with reported active leachate. The site was also listed in the

USEPA NPDES with permit UI0000373 for installation of a subsurface sewage disposal system,

and with permit GSI001382 for stormwater discharge associated with industrial activities.

The project team identified two manifests for the site. The first (undated) was associated with

disposal of benzene and unspecified solid hazardous waste to the offsite Northland

Environmental, Inc. facility (EPA ID # RID040098352). The second manifest was associated

with 1988 disposal of ignitable waste to Hitchcock Gas Engine Co. (EPA ID # CTD002593887).

A small tributary of the Connecticut River is located between the project site and Between the

Bridges Marina. Any subsurface contamination associated with this site is not likely to have

migrated across the tributary to affect the project site. Although the releases to the Connecticut

River may have affected the project site, given the distance and the likelihood of the spills’

dilution in the river, it is not likely that this site has affected the project site.

OPPELL ESTATE

The Oppell Estate, located at 203 Ferry Road, was mapped as located approximately 1,900 feet

west-northwest of the project site in the regulatory database search for the 2008 assessment;

however, the 2012 report reflected a revised location of approximately 2,900 feet north of the

project site. This site was listed on the Leaking Underground Storage Tank, SDADB, and CT

Spills databases. According to the database report, four aboveground storage tanks were

identified that leaked oil and gas due to a tank failure. The spill was reported on September 4,

1996 and issued case number 45217. The database reported that the site remediation case was

still pending and the property has been transferred to the state. The remedial activities included

surface sampling and well installations.

A small tributary of the Connecticut River is located between the project site and the Oppell

Estate. Any subsurface contamination associated with this site is not likely to have migrated

across the tributary to affect the project site. Due to the distance and the anticipated groundwater

flow direction, it is not likely that this site has impacted the project site.

SUMMARY

Amtrak’s site inspection and review of available documents and databases did not identify any

potential sources of hazardous materials that likely impacted the project site. However, based on

the age of the existing bridge, potential lead-based paint, asbestos-containing materials and

PCB-containing electrical equipment may be present on or otherwise associated with the bridge

itself. Additionally, the embankments were constructed from historic fill of unknown origin.

Such fill may contain elevated levels of contaminants such as SVOCs or metals. Railroad ties

may contaminate surrounding soils with creosote or other treatment chemicals. Finally, releases

of petroleum or PCBs related to leaks from train-mounted fuel tanks or electrical transformers

could have occurred, although no spills on the on-site tracks were identified in regulatory

databases.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 11-10

D. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action Alternative will include only minimal repairs and maintenance on the existing

bridge as needed. No excavation for new structures will be required. Amtrak will follow

applicable state and federal regulations if the potential lead paint on the existing bridge were to

be disturbed. Additionally, remediation activities could occur in the future on the properties

discussed in Section C. The planned major and minor improvement projects discussed under the

No Action Alternative in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” are located outside of the primary

study area used for this analysis and are not expected to change hazardous materials conditions

in the area.

E. PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Although the exact extent of subsurface disturbance associated with the Preferred Alternative

will not be determined until final engineering, Amtrak expects that construction will involve the

excavation, disturbance, and likely removal for off-site disposal of some existing soil (including

soil from the embankments), potential removal and off-site disposal of river sediments, and

demolition of the existing bridge. These activities will take place along the new southern bridge

alignment, as discussed in Chapter 2. Amtrak also expects that the new catenary pole

foundations (roughly 3 feet in diameter) will be installed to a depth of up to 20 feet.

The presence of contaminated materials only presents a threat if exposure to these materials

occurs. Even then, a health risk requires both a complete exposure pathway to the contaminants

and a sufficient dose to produce adverse health effects. The most likely route of exposure will be

through breathing volatile/semi-volatile compounds or particulate-laden air released during

demolition, excavation, and construction activities. Other potential routes of exposure are dermal

contact and accidental ingestion. In order to prevent any of these exposure pathways and doses,

the proposed project will include measures such as:

 Following established regulatory requirements for pre-construction removal of asbestos and

appropriate management of lead-based paint and of PCB-containing equipment.

 Development and implementation of a CHASP that will include detailed procedures for

managing potential contamination (e.g., railroad ties, creosote-contaminated soil and any

underground storage tanks unexpectedly encountered). The CHASP will also include

procedures for minimizing the generation of dust that could affect workers, the surrounding

community and the environment as well as the monitoring necessary to ensure that no such

impacts are occurring.

With these measures, there will be no significant impacts due to contaminated materials during

the construction period. Following the construction of the proposed project, there will be no

significant potential for continued exposure. There will be no significant impacts due to the

contaminated materials during the construction period.

NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

The Preferred Alternative will involve construction of a new bridge, widening of existing

embankments, construction of new bridge piers, and construction of retaining walls, catenary

support structures, etc. Shallow soil disturbance will occur in areas where the proposed track

will be placed on existing embankment. Deeper excavations will be required for catenary and

signal support structures, new or relocated utilities, and embankment retaining walls.
Chapter 11: Contaminated Materials

11-11 May 2014

Due to the presence of compressible soils, deep foundations for the river crossing will be

necessary. While the foundation type will be determined during subsequent engineering phases,

it is likely to comprise drilled shafts, which could require the disposal of soil up to 90 feet or

more below existing grade. Amtrak will import clean fill for grading during construction, e.g., to

widen the bridge embankments.

CONSTRUCTION HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN

Amtrak will perform all work in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulatory

requirements. Prior to commencing site disturbance, Amtrak will prepare a CHASP to address

the potential of encountering contamination during soil disturbance activities. The CHASP will

describe in detail the health and safety procedures to minimize exposure to contaminated

materials by workers and the public. Amtrak will evaluate the hazards by determining the

potential subsurface contaminants of concern and their chemical and physical characteristics,

and will consider health hazards within the potential exposure associated with the work to be

performed. Amtrak will develop the CHASP in accordance with OSHA regulations and

guidelines. The CHASP will include designation and training of appropriate personnel,

monitoring for the presence of contamination (e.g., soil which shows evidence of potential

contamination, such as discoloration, staining, or odors) and appropriate response plans. To

prevent the potential off-site transport of dust, Amtrak will define dust control requirements for

all soil-disturbing operations.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Amtrak will handle excavated soil or sediment in accordance with all applicable regulations.

Amtrak will characterize excavated material to classify the material (e.g., historical fill,

uncontaminated native soils, petroleum-contaminated wastes, etc). The extent and parameters of

any testing will be dependent on the classification and any requirements of off-site waste

disposal facilities.

Wastes containing contaminated materials require special handling, storage, transportation, and

disposal methods to prevent releases that could impact human health or the environment.

Depending on the nature of the material, federal, state, and local regulations require the use of

special containers or stockpiling practices for on-site storage of the material to prevent the

release of contaminated materials. The federal and state Departments of Transportation have

requirements for transportation of wastes containing contaminated materials. Facilities that

receive contaminated materials require federal, state, and local permits to accept the waste, and

generally require that specific representative waste sampling and laboratory analysis protocols

be conducted prior to accepting material for disposal.

EXISTING BRIDGE DEMOLITION

Prior to the demolition of the existing bridge, Amtrak will survey the structure for asbestos and

lead-based paint. Amtrak will remove any identified asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior

to demolition in accordance with the applicable federal, state and local requirements. Amtrak

will implement appropriate engineering controls (e.g., containment, wetting and other dust

control measures) to minimize asbestos exposure.

If lead paint is present, Amtrak will perform an exposure assessment to determine whether lead

exposure will occur during the demolition and/or removal of the existing bridge. If the exposure

assessment indicates the potential to generate airborne dust or fumes with lead levels exceeding
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 11-12

health-based standards, Amtrak will employ a higher personal protection equipment standard to

counteract the exposure. Amtrak will perform the demolition activities in accordance with the

applicable OSHA regulation (OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62 - Lead Exposure in Construction).

Amtrak will survey and evaluate any suspected PCB-containing equipment (e.g., transformers,

electrical feeder cables, hydraulic equipment, and fluorescent light ballasts) that will require

removal, disturbance or relocation. Amtrak will remove and properly dispose of any PCBcontaining equipment that will be disturbed by the work in accordance with applicable federal

and state regulations. Generally, unless suspected PCB-containing equipment is labeled to be

“non-PCB,” it must be tested or assumed to be PCB-containing and disposed of at properly

licensed facilities.

With the implementation of these measures, no adverse impacts related to hazardous materials

will result from construction and demolition activities on the project site. After the completion of

the project, there will be no potential for adverse impacts from hazardous materials. 
12-1 May 2014

Chapter 12: Construction Impacts

A. INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the anticipated construction process for the Preferred Alternative and

assesses the potential for temporary environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with

these activities. The two options of the Preferred Alternative will likely be constructed using the

same general construction sequencing and methods. Since both options will be similar from a

construction perspective, this chapter includes a general description of the construction means

and methods anticipated for the project. The No Action Alternative will not involve any

construction and is therefore not discussed in this chapter. Section B of this chapter includes an

overall description of the construction sequencing for the Preferred Alternative and the estimated

project schedule. Section C describes the construction of the key project elements. Section D

analyzes the potential environmental impacts and mitigation. This analysis addresses the

potential for temporary impacts that could occur during the construction period.

The construction means and methods presented in this chapter are based on the current

conceptual engineering design and Amtrak’s past experience on similar projects. While

Amtrak’s construction contractor will ultimately determine the construction techniques utilized

for the, the potential for environmental impacts and types of mitigation measures described

herein will likely be the same.

B. CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND SEQUENCING

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

This section presents a general construction schedule that is typical for a moveable rail bridge

replacement project. However, the actual project schedule will require consideration of in-water

restrictions and other limitations likely to be required by permits. Much of the bridge

replacement work and existing bridge demolition will occur within coastal wetlands or open

water, limiting equipment access and the techniques that may be used for construction. In

general, based on information about the spawning and migration of fish species found in the

Connecticut River, in-water work may be restricted during certain times of the year. Federal and

state natural resource and permitting agencies typically enforce such restrictions to prevent

disturbance to the channel bottom during shellfish gestation and development or disturbance of

migratory fish during spawning. These agencies may impose additional schedule restrictions to

protect birds or other species. Such construction windows will be more clearly defined during

the final design and permitting stage and in conjunction with the natural resource agencies.

Taking into account these potential schedule limitations, Amtrak anticipates construction of the

Preferred Alternative will take approximately three years. Amtrak expects that construction of

the replacement bridge will begin in 2018 and be completed in 2021.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 12-2

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE

While the contractor will determine the exact construction methods and sequencing, a

conceptual outline is presented in Table 12-1, along with the approximate duration of each step

in the sequence. The outline is based on engineering work performed to date and Amtrak’s

experience with similar bridge replacement projects. Several of the construction steps below

could potentially occur simultaneously.

Table 12-1

Construction Sequence and Duration

No. Construction Step Approximate Duration

1 Mobilization and establishment of staging areas 1 month

2

Relocation of local utility power and

communications around the project site 10 to12 months

3

Construction of access roads and construction

trestles 8 to 10 months

4 Construction of embankments and retaining walls

12 to14 months, assuming concurrent work on

both approaches.

5 Construction of abutments and concrete piers

5 months for each abutment;

2 to 3 months for each pier.

Work on abutments and piers can be performed

concurrently.

6 Construction of the moveable span (off-site)

10 to12 months, for both the bascule and

vertical lift alternatives

7 Construction of tower piers 3 to 4 months

8 Erection of the approach spans superstructures

3 to 4 months per span; multiple spans can be

erected simultaneously.

9 Construction of portions of the new fender system 3 months

10 Construction of the new control house 6 months

11 Float-in of the new moveable span 48 hours (will require a channel closure).

12 Make the moveable span operational 2 to 3 weeks

13 Installation of track work 2 months

14

Installation of communication & signals equipment

and cables 7 to 10 months*

15 Installation of catenary system 12 months

16 Cut over train service to new track 2 weekends

17 Demolition of existing bridge 1-2 months**

18

Construction of remaining portion of the new fender

system 3 months

Total 36-40 months

Notes:

* The duration of this task will be determined by the type of cable system that will be installed on the replacement

bridge. A cable trough system will take about 7 to 9 months to install; a conduit system will require 8 to 10 months.

** Demolition of the approach span superstructure will likely require 2 weeks per span, with multiple spans

deconstructed simultaneously. The float-out of the existing moveable span will take place within a 48-hour window.

The demolition of any remaining piers will require 2 months per pier if the pier has to be taken down to below the

mud line of the river bottom.

Several of these steps, such as the installation of the moveable span or the construction of the

fender system, may require the temporary suspension of marine navigation in the project area.

The contractor may have to complete certain steps for the construction of a replacement bridge

after the existing bridge is demolished. For example, existing bridge piers may interfere with the

completion of replacement channel fenders. The contractor will complete these fenders after the
Chapter 12: Construction Impacts

12-3 May 2014

existing bridge is demolished. Amtrak will coordinate with the contractor and the maritime

community to minimize the duration and frequency of navigation restrictions.

C. CONSTRUCTION OF KEY ELEMENTS

MOBILIZATION AND STAGING

Prior to initiation of construction, the contractor will establish construction staging areas and

mobilize heavy equipment. Temporary access roads of approximately 30 feet in width may be

required for the duration of construction since some sections of the replacement bridge (such as

the embankment extensions) will be located over wetlands and/or open water. The contractor

will secure any necessary easements for staging areas and access roads. If permitted, the

contractor may use the parking lot and storage areas of the CTDEEP Marine Headquarters for

staging on the east side of the Connecticut River Bridge. The contractor will use temporary

platforms, constructed of driven steel piles, steel framing and timber matting decks for both east

and west approaches. These temporary platforms will vary in width, from approximately 20 feet

to as much as 40 feet, and will need to support heavy equipment such as crawler cranes,

excavators, bulldozers and trucks. To decrease the need for additional platform width and its

associated impacts, temporary barges may be used. On the west side of the bridge, options are

limited due to the presence of wetlands. As a result, on the west shore of the river, the contractor

may have to construct temporary platforms over adjacent wetlands to construct the new

approach embankment, retaining walls, and approach spans. While the larger equipment may be

transported to the west temporary platforms by barge, the contractor will most likely need a

second staging area and truck access to the west platform. A potential site for a second staging

area could be the industrial property directly adjacent to the Amtrak ROW approximately 0.6

miles west of the bridge. There is an existing Amtrak access road that runs along the north side

of the tracks between this industrial property and the Connecticut River Bridge that may be

suitable for construction access. If it is not possible to use or improve this access road for

construction vehicles, the contractor may build a temporary access road or trestle along the south

side of the existing rail corridor. This option could temporarily impact up to an additional 1.3

acres of wetlands. To provide a conservative analysis, this EA assumes these wetland areas will

be impacted. It is possible that these impacts will be further minimized during preliminary and

final engineering.

Currently, fiber optic and copper cables are mounted on the north side of the existing box girder

structure until they reach the bascule span of the bridge, at which point the cables become

submarine and cross beneath the river’s channel. Existing signal, communication, and traction

power system cables are located on the south side of the bridge. The contractor will relocate

these cables prior to construction of the Preferred Alternative.

PIERS

The Preferred Alternative will not reuse any existing piers. It will require the construction of

nine new piers—seven approach piers comprising drilled shafts supporting a reinforced concrete

pier cap, and two moveable span piers comprising drilled shafts supporting a large concrete cap.

As opposed to other methods of pile installation such as vibratory or impact pile driving, drilling

provides a relatively quiet option by which to install piles (HDR 2011). The piers of the existing

Connecticut River Bridge are founded either on rock or on timber piles driven into dense sand or

gravel. This subsurface is anticipated to provide adequate foundation for new piers.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 12-4

All new piers will require in-water construction in the Connecticut River. The contractor will

construct the piers from barges placed in the river with an effort to minimize disruption to

marine navigation. Three barges may be required—one to support the shaft drilling equipment,

one to store materials, and one to hold any spoils or excavated material. It is assumed that 4.5-

foot diameter drilled shafts will be sufficient for most piers, except at the west approaches,

where 7-foot diameter drilled shafts may be required. Three drilled shafts will be required for

each approach pier. During shaft drilling, the drilling operations will be isolated using the

appropriate containment measures to prevent drilling fluids and debris from contacting water or

entering the river channel. Once each set of shafts is constructed, the contractor will construct a

concrete pile cap on top.

In total, each new pier will take approximately two to three months to construct. Multiple piers

will be constructed simultaneously. The in-water construction will be scheduled to occur during

work windows that will minimize the potential environmental impacts to aquatic resources.

ABUTMENTS

The contractor will rehabilitate and modify existing abutments for the construction of the

Preferred Alternative. The contractor will prepare existing masonry before the embankments

could be extended; therefore, the contractor may have to demolish portions of existing

abutments in order to begin construction. The track embankment may require temporary

measures to ensure stability during this phase.

EMBANKMENT AND RETAINING WALLS

The Preferred Alternative will require embankment extensions to the south of the existing

embankments. These embankments will likely comprise fill material with precast or poured-inplace concrete retaining walls for the length of the extension. The contractor will likely extend

the existing embankments by constructing portions of the retaining walls and compacting the fill

material in approximately one-foot vertical sections behind these walls. Precast concrete sheet

piling retaining walls can be manufactured off site in four-foot widths at various lengths,

transported to the job site, and installed into the existing soil or marsh with a minimal amount of

ground disturbance.

SUPERSTRUCTURE

The approach spans will comprise ballast deck girders. The contractor may assemble the bridge

spans off-site, deliver them to the project site by barge, and float them in for installation.

Construction crews will most likely assemble the towers for the vertical lift option (Option B) on

site, using conventional steel erection methods. Construction of the new control houses could

take place prior to or concurrent with tower construction. The contractor will then float in the

moveable span, erect it, and make it operational to allow marine traffic to resume.

CHANNEL AND FENDERS

The contractor will install a new channel fender system. The new fender system will be built out

of composite material, as opposed to the existing treated timber fender system. It is possible that

construction crews will only install portions of the new fender system before the existing bridge

is demolished due to interference with existing bridge piers. Therefore, the contractor will

complete this work after rail traffic is cut over to the new bridge (allowing for the demolition of

the existing bridge), scheduling it to minimize interruptions in marine navigation.
Chapter 12: Construction Impacts

12-5 May 2014

TRACK WORK

The Preferred Alternative will require the construction of new track—approximately 1,700 feet

of track on the western embankment, nearly 3,000 feet on the eastern embankment, and

approximately 1,600 feet on the bridge itself. Amtrak will construct new tracks with a centerline

distance of up to 48 feet to the centerline of the existing tracks. This will ensure that new track is

constructed close enough to the existing track to minimize changes to the approach curve. At the

same time, the track will be built far enough from the existing track that continuity of operations

on the existing line is maintained during construction.

Once the girders and deck work are in place, the contractor will install the required track work,

including concrete ties, plates, fastening clips and rail. Construction crews will use a Track

Laying Machine (TLM) or conventional methods such as railcar-mounted Burro cranes for

material handling, and conventional mechanized track construction machinery. Concrete ties

will come pre-equipped with plates used to affix the sections of rail. Rail will come in quartermile long sections of continuously welded steel. Construction crews will then fit the rail into the

plates, affix it with ties, and clamp it into place. In locations where track work is placed on

embankment, the contractor will use a final layer of ballast to hold the cross ties in place.

Elsewhere, construction crews will affix the cross ties to the steel deck plate. After the rail

service cutover to the newly constructed track is complete, the contractor will dismantle existing

track which, depending on age and condition of the materials, will be reused off-site or disposed

of as scrap or salvage.

CATENARY SYSTEM

The existing electrification system must remain in operation to maintain train traffic until the

contractor completes a cutover to the new track. To facilitate an easy transition from the old

alignment to the new alignment, the contractor may install new catenary portals at the interface

locations. The Preferred Alternative will require installation of a new traction power feeder.

The bascule bridge replacement option (Option A) will require a new moveable catenary unit

that will span the gap between the fixed conductor rail on the lift span and the bascule roll back

point. The new fixed termination, variable tension catenary from the east will dead-end on a

termination structure at the moveable catenary unit, and from the west at a termination structure

on the fixed span before the channel. The vertical lift bridge option will require new moveable

catenary skids that will span the gap between the fixed conductor rail on the vertical lift span and

the fixed skid at each tower. The new fixed termination (variable tension) catenary from the east

and west will dead-end on termination structures at each vertical lift tower.

The contractor will likely install elements of the electric traction systems in two ways. On the

replacement bridge itself, construction crews will affix steel catenary poles directly to the bridge

structure. On the approaches, where embankments are used, the contractor will install

foundations for the poles by first excavating holes (roughly 20 feet deep and 3 feet in diameter)

and then either by using pre-cast segments or by pouring concrete into constructed forms. The

contractor will make all efforts to ensure that this construction does not interfere with in-service

tracks. Once the catenary poles are installed, the contractor will affix messenger wire, auxiliary

wire, and contact wire to the poles using a wire train which consists of specialized equipment to

reach, install, and adjust the catenary system and transport necessary supplies to the work site.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 12-6

COMMUNICATIONS AND SIGNALS

As mentioned above, communication and signals cables run to the south of the existing bridge,

on the bridge structure itself and on the river bottom. The Preferred Alternative could employ a

cable trough system in conjunction with the ballasted deck girder design. Cable installation will

be modular and thus, less labor intensive than other types of installations, and safer for the

construction crew during installation. The contractor will expand construction staging to support

conduit installation; construction crews will thread fish lines in each conduit and install the

cables.

The contractor will also relocate several signals on both the east and west bridge approaches.

Construction crews will install a new signalized interlocking on the moveable span of the

Preferred Alternative to replace the existing interlocking on the bridge (known as Conn

Interlocking). The contractor will need to interface the new interlocking controls and electronic

track circuit system with Crescent Interlocking to the east of the project site and View

Interlocking to the west. Recently, system improvements associated with the replacement of the

Niantic Bridge in New London, to the east of the project site, included the retirement of existing

split point derails, a track safety mechanism that deliberately derails a train that is headed into an

open moveable bridge. This system-wide upgrade may require a re-evaluation of the existing

signal block safe braking distances and a re-spacing of the wayside signals. Amtrak will confirm

the final signal spacing for the replacement bridge and approaches during the design and

engineering phases of the project.

REMOVAL OF EXISTING CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE

The contractor will remove the existing Connecticut River Bridge after constructing the

replacement bridge and diverting all train traffic from the existing span. The contractor will

likely float out the existing moveable span on barges. Construction crews could lift the approach

spans off their piers with a crane and place them on a barge for removal. To lighten the spans,

the contractor could remove track work ahead of time.

After the removal of the superstructure, the contractor will remove the substructure.

Construction crews could break up the piers that will be removed using an expansion demolition

agent, which will break the piers into smaller and more easily removed pieces without using

explosives. This task will entail drilling holes into the piers and injecting an expandable

compound, which will place pressure on the masonry piers and cause them to crack and break.

The contractor will remove the smaller pieces with a barge mounted crane. Depending upon

USCG requirements, the contractor will remove the existing timber piles from the pier

foundations and fender system, either completely or cut off two feet below the mudline. The

contractor will place turbidity curtains in the river around the work area during demolition to

control any sediment that might be disturbed. The removal of the existing bridge will take one to

two months and will be scheduled so as to minimize potential environmental impacts to aquatic

resources

MATERIAL TRANSPORT AND DEBRIS REMOVAL

The contractor will accomplish material transport and debris removal through a combination of

barge, rail, and truck transport. Construction crews could transport materials such as aggregate

and dry concrete materials for foundation work, steel sheeting, wood for formwork, precast

concrete retaining wall panels, steel reinforcement bars, and steel beams to the project site by

barge along the Connecticut River and unload them in quantities as necessary.
Chapter 12: Construction Impacts

12-7 May 2014

Embankment material, stone for the track subballast, and possibly a pre-ballast pad will most

likely arrive by truck to ease delivery and installation. Numerous other smaller quantity

materials such as pre-wired instrument houses, signal components, and concrete will most likely

arrive by truck.

The contractor will remove most of the construction and demolition debris by barge. The

contractor will dismantle and remove the existing river bridge structure by barge. Construction

crews will remove some debris by truck.

D. POTENTIAL SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ECONOMIC

IMPACTS

This section addresses the potential adverse social, environmental, and economic impacts due to

construction of the Preferred Alternative. Since the No Action Alternative will only require

maintenance and minimal repairs of the existing Connecticut River Bridge and no new major

construction activities, this EA does not analyze it any further for construction-related impacts.

As discussed in Chapter 2, the Preferred Alternative will minimize impacts on railroad

operations during construction, affecting train operations only during tie-in periods required to

cut-over new track to the existing alignment. It will present challenges to marine navigation as a

result of temporary closures of the navigation channel during the float-in of the moveable span.

Other environmental impacts that may result in the project area from the construction of the

Preferred Alternative are discussed further below.

TRANSPORTATION

In general, the Preferred Alternative, which involves off-line replacement of the existing bridge,

presents the opportunity for performing construction during normal hours while maintaining

train operations without impediment.

COMMUTER/INTERCITY/FREIGHT RAIL

The Preferred Alternative will require short-term interruptions in SLE and Amtrak service

during construction. Maintenance of freight and passenger rail service and marine traffic is a

priority during the construction period; however, some service interruptions are inevitable.

Amtrak will strive to minimize service interruptions through careful planning and construction

staging. Much of the construction will be performed without impacting rail service. The

Preferred Alternative will minimize impacts to rail operations since the replacement bridge will

be constructed off-line. It will require rail service interruptions mainly during the final tie-in

stage toward the end of construction when Amtrak cuts train service over from the existing

tracks to the newly constructed tracks, after installation and testing of the catenary and

communication and signals systems. Amtrak expects that this outage will last approximately two

days and could be scheduled during the weekend, at a time when train traffic is at a minimum.

While Amtrak will make every effort to ensure that trains begin operations over the new

alignment as soon as possible, in the event of any unforeseen delays, a limited number of trains

may begin operating over the replacement bridge, at reduced speed, before the replacement

signal system is fully tested and commissioned. This option will further ensure that train service

over the Connecticut River is not interrupted for more than two days and may be employed at

Amtrak’s discretion.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 12-8

VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

No adverse impacts on vehicular traffic in the project area will result from the construction of

the Connecticut River Bridge replacement. I-95 may experience slight increases in traffic

volume during the periods when commuter or intercity rail service experiences outages

associated with bridge construction. These periods will be infrequent and brief, and therefore

any effects will be negligible. As stated above, material delivery and transport will occur

through a combination of rail, barge, and truck trips to minimize vehicular traffic. Employee

trips will be negligible.

NAVIGATION

The Preferred Alternative will include the construction of new navigation channel fenders. It

may impede navigation during the construction of the replacement moveable span, which will be

placed in alignment with the existing channel.

Intensive construction activities in the Connecticut River during the high season for recreational

boating (May through October) could result in a problematic impairment to navigation, since

this stretch of the river is heavily used by the boating community during those months. Thus, to

the extent practicable, Amtrak will schedule construction in the river outside of that time period.

However, navigation will be maintained even in the winter months (November through April)

since commercial traffic continues during that time. Amtrak will arrange channel closures

through coordination with USCG and the maritime community. Overall, river closures are

expected to be limited to brief periods during winter months. It is assumed that river navigation

closures will occur only during the installation of the moveable span and a portion of the

existing bridge demolition and will last approximately two days.

LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Construction of the temporary access platforms, eastern abutment and adjacent piers will

temporarily impact the elevated wooden boardwalk, which runs from Ferry Landing Park near

CTDEEP Marine Headquarters, underneath the existing bridge, and out to the wetland complex

to the southeast. Activities associated with construction of this portion of the replacement bridge

will require the closure (and possible temporary removal) of the portion of boardwalk that

extends over the river, from the gazebo area in Ferry Landing Park to a bird watching platform

approximately 600 feet southeast of the existing bridge. This closure will be required primarily

for public safety and could last the duration of the project. Public waterfront access will likely be

available throughout the construction period in the gazebo area to the north of the boardwalk.

Amtrak and the contractor will work closely with CTDEEP to minimize these temporary

impacts.

If permitted, the contractor may use a portion of the CTDEEP Marine Headquarters (adjacent to

Ferry Landing Park) for staging of equipment during the construction of the eastern portion of

the replacement bridge and its embankments. The access to Amtrak’s ROW on this side of the

existing bridge begins at the CTDEEP Marine Headquarters parking lot; the contractor may use

a portion of this lot for equipment access and storage during the construction of the replacement

bridge.

Local businesses will not be affected during the construction period, although the marinas and

their customers may be affected by the short-term navigation restrictions. The constructionrelated impacts to Ferry Landing Park and the marinas will be temporary and of short duration,
Chapter 12: Construction Impacts

12-9 May 2014

as detailed above. Therefore, no significant adverse impacts to land use and social conditions are

expected from the project.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Construction of the Ragged Rock Marina channel in the early 20th century likely destroyed any

resources that may have once been located in the Old Saybrook portion of the APE. Since the

extent of previous disturbances associated with rail construction within the Old Lyme portion of

the APE but beyond the embankments is not known, Amtrak considers those areas to have

moderate potential for prehistoric archaeological resources. Should Amtrak determine that the

area adjacent to the embankments has been previously disturbed, Amtrak will then consider

these areas to have low to no potential for prehistoric archaeological resources. The Preferred

Alternative involves modification of portions of the Northeast Corridor within the archaeological

APE. Embankment extensions required for the Preferred Alternative will impact ground surfaces

to the south of the current alignment for a length of up to 1,200 feet in Old Saybrook and 1,100

feet in Old Lyme. As described in the Draft MOA in Appendix A, “Cultural Resources,” Amtrak

will develop and implement an archaeological testing plan, in coordination with the CTSHPO, to

determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources in Old Lyme that could be

affected by the Preferred Alternative. If Amtrak finds archaeological resources present in the

APE, further field testing may be necessary to determine whether these resources are significant

(i.e., S/NR eligible). If Amtrak determines that S/NR-eligible archaeological resources will be

impacted by the project, Amtrak will develop avoidance or mitigation measures in coordination

with the CTSHPO.

ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

As mentioned in Chapter 6, “Cultural Resources,” the Preferred Alternative is not expected to

directly affect any known or potential architectural resources identified in the study area, with

the exception of the Connecticut River Bridge. Because the other architectural resources—

comprising a S/NR listed historic house in Old Saybrook, a historic house and historic district in

Old Lyme, and a number of potentially S/NR eligible houses in both Old Saybrook and Old

Lyme—are far removed (between 400 feet and a quarter-mile) from the project site they are not

at risk for inadvertent damage due to project-related construction activities; however,

construction of a replacement bridge will impact the Connecticut River Bridge since the final

stage of construction will include the demolition of the existing bridge. The Preferred

Alternative will therefore have an adverse effect on the Connecticut River Bridge, which is SRlisted and NR-eligible as a contributing element within the Moveable Railroad Bridges on the

Northeast Corridor in Connecticut Thematic Resource. Chapter 6 describes measures to mitigate this

adverse effect.

VISUAL AND AESTHETIC CONDITIONS

The Connecticut River View Corridor is the central visual resource in the study area. It is

characterized by an expansive open view shed that includes the Connecticut River, the

tributaries, marshes, wetlands, and woods that surround it, and the Connecticut River Bridge.

During construction, there will be an increase in the level of activity within the study area. As

the project proceeds, cranes and other large pieces of equipment will be visible.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 12-10

Viewer groups in the area consist of pedestrians, motorists, rail passengers, and boaters. The

extent to which the various viewer groups identified above will perceive the change caused by

construction of the Preferred Alternative varies. Rail passengers traveling on the Northeast

Corridor and motorists passing on I-95 are not expected to be greatly impacted by change in the

visual character of the bridge since their view of the bridge is limited and of short duration.

Views to other aspects of the Connecticut River View Corridor will not be blocked or

substantially changed, and the durations of these views will remain the same. Boaters in the

immediate vicinity of the bridge and pedestrians in Ferry Point Park in Old Lyme will

experience the longest duration and closest range views of the replacement bridge construction

area. For the duration of construction, cranes, barges and other construction equipment, as well

as staging areas on both sides of the Connecticut River will be visible to boaters and pedestrians.

These temporary changes will not constitute an adverse impact to visual resources.

AIR QUALITY

Air pollutant emissions from construction of the Preferred Alternative will include emissions

from on-site non-road construction equipment (potentially including both construction vehicles

and small generators), emissions from on-road vehicles, including worker and delivery vehicles,

emissions from marine engines and possibly locomotives delivering and removing materials

from the site, and fugitive dust emissions from land-clearing operations, demolition, grading,

excavation, and transfer of debris and loose material.

SOURCE DESCRIPTION

Major construction activities will occur simultaneously at a number of locations throughout the

project area. Non-road construction engines will include equipment such as crawler cranes,

excavators, bulldozers, and other various heavy and light equipment, as well as some small

generators. Large construction engines are typically diesel powered, while some small engines

may be gasoline powered. The primary pollutants of concern from diesel engines are nitrogen

oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). Small gasoline engines emit relatively larger

quantities of carbon dioxide (CO) and in some instances PM, but CO will not generally be of

concern due to the small quantity of these engines and the distance to nearby sensitive uses and

other areas with public access.

Fugitive dust emissions from construction operations can result from excavation, hauling,

loading, dumping, transferring, spreading, grading, compaction, wind erosion, and traffic over

unpaved areas. The quantity of emissions can vary widely depending on the extent and nature of

the clearing operations, the type of equipment employed, the physical characteristics and

moisture content of the material, the speed at which vehicles are operated, wind speed, direction,

and duration, and the type of fugitive dust control methods employed. Much of the fugitive dust

generated by construction activities consists of relatively large-size particles, which settle within

a short distance from the construction site. Some of the resuspended dust (i.e., dust that does not

settle) is smaller, within the size categories of regulated PM, but is nonetheless easily

suppressible using water and other methods (see more on preventing emissions below). An

important factor in limiting the amount of fugitive dust generated by construction of the

replacement Connecticut River Bridge is that some of the activity will occur in the water. For

example, material removed from the river will be wet and will not easily disperse at the time of

removal.
Chapter 12: Construction Impacts

12-11 May 2014

During construction, trucks delivering construction materials and removing debris and workers’

private vehicles may result in on-road emissions. Other transportation-related emissions will

include tugboats removing and delivering materials and other small marine vessels that may be

required, and may include diesel-powered locomotives for delivery or removal of materials. Tug

boats will not operate continuously on site. If Amtrak delivers or removes materials via rail,

Amtrak will transfer the materials to and from rail cars within the work site and will assemble

the loaded cars along the existing sidings in Old Saybrook.

EMISSION CONTROLS

In order to ensure that pollutant concentrations do not cause significant adverse air quality

impacts in nearby publicly accessible areas, the project will require the following emission

controls. The contractor will prepare and submit to Amtrak an emissions control, identifying the

incorporation, documentation, and enforcement of the following control measures in the project.

Diesel Engines:

 All non-road diesel engines will be EPA Tier 2 certified or higher.

 All non-road diesel engines greater than 50 hp will be retrofit with diesel particulate filters

(DPFs) unless they are Tier 4 certified.

 Truck routes for deliveries will be established so as to minimize the use of local truck trips

in populated areas.

 Idling of delivery trucks or construction equipment when not in active use will be strictly

prohibited.

 The contractor will coordinate as early as possible with CL&P to ensure the availability of

grid power on-site, and will distribute power throughout the site as necessary. The contractor

will use a combination of grid power and catenary power in lieu of generators to the extent

practicable, including, but not limited to, lighting, signage, and small power tools.

 If rail transfer is used, locomotives will minimize idling at the sidings in Old Saybrook and

will idle as far as possible from the nearest residence (i.e., at least 200 feet from the nearest

residence).

Dust Suppression

 The contractor will be responsible for control of dust at all times during contract, 24 hours a

day, seven days a week, including non-working hours, weekends, and holidays.

 Exposed unpaved areas and access roads will be watered at regular intervals or treated with

water soluble, non-toxic, non-reactive, and non-foaming dust suppression agents as

necessary to avoid fugitive dust resuspension by vehicles.

 Stock piles will be covered or watered at regular intervals to avoid windblown dust.

 Vehicles leaving the construction site will not have loose mud or dirt on the vehicle body or

wheels and will be cleaned as necessary before leaving sites to control tracking.

 Haul truck cargo areas will be securely covered during material transport on public

roadways. Trucks will have tight fitting tailgates that can be secured in the closed position.

 Vehicle mud and dirt carryout, material spills, and soil washout onto public roadways and

walkways and other paved areas will be cleaned up immediately.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 12-12

 Demolition, excavation, dumping, and transfer of materials will be accompanied by wet

suppression so as to avoid the release of dust.

NOISE AND VIBRATION

Noise and vibration from construction equipment operation and noise from construction vehicles

and delivery vehicles traveling to and from the project area may occur during construction of the

project. The level of impact of these noise sources depends on the noise characteristics of the

construction equipment and activities, the schedule, and the location of potentially sensitive

noise receptors. Noise and vibration levels at a given location are dependent on the kind and

number of pieces of construction equipment being operated, as well as the distance from the

construction site. Like most construction projects, construction will result in increased noise and

vibration levels for a limited time period.

NOISE

Typical noise levels of construction equipment that the contractor may employ during the

construction process are provided in Table 12-2. Noise from construction equipment is regulated

by USEPA noise emission standards. These federal requirements mandate that: (1) certain

classifications of construction equipment and motor vehicles meet specified noise emissions

standards; and (2) construction materials be handled and transported in such a manner as not to

create unnecessary noise. Amtrak will ensure that the contractor will follow these regulations

carefully. In addition, the contractor will use appropriate low-noise emission level equipment

and will implement operational procedures. Amtrak will ensure compliance with noise control

measures by including them in the contract documents as material specifications and by

directives to the construction contractor. Amtrak will encourage the contractor to use quiet

construction equipment.

Noise generated by construction equipment decreases with distance. In general, the outdoor

drop-off rate for moving noise sources is a decrease of 4.5 dBA for every doubling of distance

between the noise source and the receiver. For stationary sources, the outdoor drop-off rate is a

decrease of 6 dBA for every doubling of distance between the noise source and the receiver. In

general, noise caused by construction activities will vary widely in volume, duration and

location, depending on the task and the type of equipment. Noise caused by delivery trucks,

employees traveling to and from the site, and other construction vehicles will not be severe in

volume or duration, and will be limited to the major access roadways leading to the project site.

Highway access to the project site is good, minimizing the need for project-related trucks to

travel on local roads. Furthermore, trucks to and from the project site, and their potential effect

on noise, will be limited due to the availability of barge and rail access at the project site. The

contractor will assemble major elements of the project—such as the steel trusses for the river

crossings—off-site, and deliver them by barge. While the contractor will deliver some

components by truck, on a daily basis, the number of trucks will not result in substantial noise

increases at any residential receptors.
Chapter 12: Construction Impacts

12-13 May 2014

Table 12-2

Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels

Equipment

Typical Noise Level (dBA)

50 feet from source

Air compressor 81

Backhoe 80

Bulldozer 85

Compactor 82

Concrete Mixer 85

Concrete Pump 82

Concrete Vibrator 76

Crane, Derrick 88

Crane, Mobile 83

Generator 81

Grader 85

Impact Wrench 85

Jackhammer 88

Loader 85

Paver 89

Pile Driver (Impact) 101

Pile Driver (Sonic) 96

Pneumatic Tool 85

Pump 76

Rail Saw 90

Rock Drill 98

Roller 74

Saw 76

Scarifier 83

Scraper 89

Shovel 82

Spike Driver 77

Tie Cutter 84

Tie Handler 80

Tie Inserter 85

Truck 88

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTAVA-90-1003-06, May 2006.

Construction activities related to the bridges, approach structures, embankment and retaining

walls, and new track and ancillary equipment along each alignment will result in short-term

noise increases in the vicinity of the actual work site. The project may result in temporary noise

increases at CTDEEP Marine Headquarters and Ferry Point Park from deliveries of materials

that may be needed for construction purposes. Any impacts will be temporary and will most

likely occur due to weekday truck trips concentrated in the morning and afternoon peak periods,

with occasional late night deliveries of oversized materials (e.g., bridge girders).

VIBRATION

Tables 12-3 and 12-4 show architectural and structural damage risk and perceptibility distances

for residential and historic structures in proximity to the types of construction activities that will

occur during construction of the proposed project. Architectural damage usually includes

cosmetic damage, such as cracked plaster, etc. Architectural damage is not considered
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 12-14

potentially dangerous. As shown in Table 12-3, pile driving has the greatest potential to result in

architectural damage to most building types. While not shown in the table, controlled blasting

also can result in high vibration levels in excess of 100 VdB with resultant damage to existing

structures; however, Amtrak does not expect blasting to be required for the construction of the

Preferred Alternative. Most other construction activities require very small (i.e., less than 25

feet) distances between the structure and the construction equipment or the presence of highly

fragile buildings for impacts to occur. For fragile and highly fragile buildings respectively, FTA

recommends a limit of peak particle velocities of 0.2 and 0.12 inches per second or 94 and 90

VdB. Since the use of driven piles will be limited, and since this analysis anticipates no

controlled blasting, the likelihood of vibration-related adverse effects will be small.

Furthermore, as identified in Chapter 6, “Cultural Resources,” the project will not directly affect

any known or potential architectural resources identified in the study area, with the exception of

the Connecticut River Bridge itself. Any identified resources are far removed from the potential

construction activity area, and therefore will not require special protection from constructionrelated vibration impacts.

Table 12-3

Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment

PPV at 25 ft

(in/sec) Approximate Lv* at 25 ft

Pile Driver (impact) 0.644 104

Pile Driver (sonic) 0.170 93

Clam Shovel drop (slurry wall) 0.202 94

Hydromill (slurry wall in soil) 0.008 66

Hydromill (slurry wall in rock) 0.017 75

Vibratory Roller 0.210 94

Hoe Ram 0.089 87

Large bulldozer 0.089 87

Caisson drilling 0.089 87

Loaded trucks 0.076 86

Jackhammer 0.035 79

Small bulldozer 0.003 58

Note: * RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-

06, May 2006.

Table 12-4

Construction Vibration Damage Criteria

Building Category PPV (in/sec) Approximate Lv *

I. Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102

II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98

III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94

IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90

Note: * RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) re 1 micro-inch/second

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006.
Chapter 12: Construction Impacts

12-15 May 2014

NATURAL RESOURCES

Because the Preferred Alternative involves in-water elements such as removing and installing

piers in the Connecticut River, this section assesses potential construction-related impacts to

aquatic resources. Because the proposed project is for bridge replacement, long-term effects

from future bridge operations are not expected to differ from those associated with the operation

of the existing bridge.

TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

As discussed above under “Existing Conditions”, terrestrial resources that could be affected by

the project are confined to those resources within Amtrak’s ROW and possible construction

staging areas. The removal of some scrub/shrub vegetation along the existing embankment may

be necessary to accommodate the new alignment and construction access. These areas have

relatively little value as terrestrial habitat, and as such, permanent impacts to terrestrial natural

resources are expected to be minor.

WETLANDS AND OPEN WATER

Due to the nature and location of the river crossing and the need for continuous operations along

the Northeast Corridor, complete avoidance of wetland and open water areas will not be feasible

for the Preferred Alternative. Based on the conceptual bridge design, the project team estimates

the Preferred Alternative will result in approximately 2.8 acres of permanent wetland impacts to

Spartina and Phragmites marsh and 0.74 acres of permanent open water impacts. Benthic habitat

in the area of permanent open water impacts consists of unvegetated coarse-grained sand and

silt/sand substrate. There are no oyster reefs and no submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) in the

permanently impacted area. However, there may be hard clam beds within the 0.23 acres of

permanently impacted open water habitat along the western approach embankment/retaining

wall. Removal of the existing Connecticut River Bridge may result in approximately 0.33 acres

of restored open water, for a net project impact of 0.41 acres. Temporary access roadways and

construction platforms will temporarily impact wetlands and open water. Based on the

conceptual bridge design and the anticipated construction means and methods, the project team

estimates approximately 3.2 acres of wetlands and 2.0 acres of open water will be temporarily

impacted during the construction period. The differences in impacts between Option A and

Option B are expected to be minor. As discussed in Chapter 10, Amtrak will determine

appropriate mitigation measures to offset the permanent loss of wetland and open water habitats

(e.g., restoration and/or purchasing of wetland banking credits) through coordination with

CTDEEP, USACE, USCG, and other involved agencies during the permitting process.

WATER QUALITY

Water quality impacts from the Preferred Alternative will comprise sediment resuspension, a

temporary impact associated in this case with in-water construction. Estuarine-dependent and

anadromous fish species, bivalves and other macroinvertebrates, including those present in the

lower Connecticut River and near the Connecticut River Bridge are generally tolerant of

elevated suspended sediment concentrations and have evolved behavioral and physiological

mechanisms for dealing with variable concentrations of suspended sediment (Birtwell et al.

1987, Dunford 1975, Levy and Northcote 1982 and Gregory 1990 in Nightingale and Simenstad

2001, LaSalle et al. 1991). Fish are mobile and generally avoid unsuitable conditions such as

increased suspended sediment and noise (Clarke and Wilber 2000). In addition, many estuarine
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 12-16

fish species have the ability to expel materials that may clog their gills when they return to

cleaner, less sediment-laden waters. The shellfish species found in the Connecticut River are

necessarily adapted to naturally turbid conditions and can tolerate short-term exposures by

closing valves or reducing pumping activity. Mobile benthic invertebrates that occur in estuaries

have been found to be tolerant of extremely elevated suspended sediment concentrations. In

studies involving the tolerance of crustaceans to suspended sediments for up to two weeks,

nearly all mortality was caused by the full-time exposure to high suspended sediment

concentrations (greater than 10,000 mg/L) (Clarke and Wilber 2000).

Due to its coarse nature, the Connecticut River sediment, which is composed primarily of

coarse-grained sand in deeper channel areas and silt/sand near the shorelines, will not remain

suspended for extended periods of time, especially since in-water work will be performed

intermittently as various project elements are constructed. While a localized increase in

suspended sediment may cause fish to temporarily avoid the area where bottom disturbing

activities are occurring, the area affected will be confined to the project site. Suitable habitats

similar to the Connecticut River will be available nearby for use by disturbed fish. Therefore,

temporary increases in suspended sediment resulting from in-water construction activities will

not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to fish and mobile benthic

macroinvertebrates.

The Preferred Alternative will not result in any permanent, significant adverse impacts to water

quality.

PHYSICAL HABITAT

Potential Noise Caused by Project Construction and Operation

Anthropogenic noise in the environment has the potential to impact aquatic organisms. Impacts

range from behavioral avoidance of ensonified areas to sublethal physiological stress and

physical injury, to mortality (Hastings and Popper 2005). In the case of sublethal and lethal

impacts, the spatial extent of the impacts is typically smaller than the area of behavioral

avoidance. Research on noise produced by pile driving, dredging, offshore wind farms, and

vessel operation has provided a better understanding of the potential impacts of these activities

(Vella et al 2001), whereas those resulting from radiated noise produced by bridge traffic and the

operation of moving bridges (noise likely to result from the proposed project) are less well

understood.

Pile driving in particular can produce underwater sound pressure waves that can affect fishes,

although the type and intensity of pile-driving noise vary with factors such as the type and size

of the pile and pile driver, firmness of the substrate, and water depth. Larger piles driven in

firmer substrates require greater energy to install resulting in higher sound pressure levels (SPL).

Hollow steel piles produce higher SPLs than similarly sized timber piles (Hastings and Popper

2005). Sound attenuates more rapidly in shallow waters than in deep waters (Rogers and Cox

1988 in Hanson et al. 2003). Fish with swim bladders have been shown to be more vulnerable to

these impacts than fish without swim bladders (Hanson et al. 2003, Halvorsen et al. 2012). The

noise levels associated with the potential onset of physiological effects and recoverable physical

injury appear to be considerably higher than the currently accepted noise levels used to assess

impacts to fishes (Halvorsen et al. 2012).

A number of factors determine the intensity and frequency of sound radiated into the aquatic

environment during bridge construction and normal bridge operations. The factors include, but
Chapter 12: Construction Impacts

12-17 May 2014

are not limited to, bridge design, construction materials, degree of coupling to the water column,

typical uses, and water depth (Hazelwood 1994). The effect of radiated noise from the existing

Connecticut River Bridge on the aquatic biota of the Connecticut River is largely unknown,

however many other sources of natural and anthropogenic sounds exist in the Connecticut River

estuary and in Long Island Sound; it is expected that fishes moving through the estuary will

encounter an acoustic environment that is at least as noisy as that encountered in the vicinity of

the Connecticut River Bridge. It is likely that fishes will habituate to the noise produced by the

bridge (Wysocki et al. 2007; Popper and Schilt 2008).

As discussed above, Amtrak will construct the bridge substructure using drilled shafts rather

than pile driving, which will minimize the extent of underwater noise impacts. Compared to

other methods of pile installation such as vibratory or impact pile driving, drilling provides a

relatively quiet option by which to install piles (HDR 2011). Noise at close range to pile drilling

(30 m from the drilling operation) has been shown to be well below the level thought to cause

behavioral avoidance by fishes (i.e., 150 dB re 1μPa root mean square sound pressure level;

SPLrms) and only slightly higher on average (122 dB re 1μPa) than ambient noise levels (116 dB

re 1μPa; HDR 2011). Because the nature of the sound produced during drilling is continuous

rather than percussive (as with impact pile driving), the amplitude of the sound is far less than

that created during impact pile driving and thus the spatial extent of the ensonified area, and the

likelihood that fish will be exposed, is also considerably smaller.

Furthermore, because the length of time for in-water construction is expected to be relatively

short, individual fish should not be exposed to SPLs of the magnitude known to result in

sublethal or lethal injury. To further protect fish populations, in-water construction activities

will be limited to periods outside of the spawning season for anadromous fishes as identified by

regulatory authorities. Therefore, noise produced during in-water construction activities will not

be expected to result in significant adverse impacts to aquatic biota.

Potential Obstruction of Fish Migration

In-water structures can serve as barriers to fish migration, especially when these structures create

significant areas of turbulence, cause a rapid change in hydraulic head, or physically restrict

passage (USACE 1991). Typically, these types of obstructions (or restrictions) are found in

flowing rivers blocked by hydroelectric dams, low-head weirs, or culverts. In the case of the

Preferred Alternative, the width of the navigable bridge passage will be preserved at 150 feet

(45.7 m), with substantial open water areas remaining beneath the fixed spans. As with the

existing structure, these wide passages are not expected to obstruct fish movements. In general,

natural resources agencies may require work windows where in-water construction and

demolition activities may be restricted during the spawning and migration of fish and shellfish

species found in the Connecticut River. Such restrictions are typically enforced to prevent

potential disturbance of migratory fish during spawning. Amtrak will more clearly define any

required work windows in conjunction with the natural resource agencies during the final design

and permitting stage. Therefore, construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative is not

expected to obstruct fish migration within the Connecticut River.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 12-18

Essential Fish Habitat

An EFH assessment was conducted for the proposed project, and is included in Appendix C,

“Natural Resources.” With respect to temporary impacts during the construction of the Preferred

Alternative, the EFH assessment concludes that:

 Sediment resuspension resulting from in-water construction activities is not likely to cause

adverse impacts to EFH by reducing water clarity or by increasing concentrations of total

suspended sediments because of the coarse grain size of the sediment and the

implementation of containment measures (e.g., turbidity curtains);

 Noise from pile-driving activities will not adversely impact EFH or EFH species because

Amtrak will install piles in drilled shafts rather than driving with impact hammers; and

 Shading by temporary construction platforms is not expected to cause significant adverse

impacts to EFH as the size of their underwater footprint will be minimal and Amtrak will

use barges when possible.

In terms of permanent impacts, the EFH assessment concludes that:

 Adverse impacts to EFH caused by changes to, or loss of, benthic habitat as a result of

construction activities will be limited to a localized area within the project area;

 Shading by the replacement bridge is not expected to have an adverse effect on EFH or EFH

species at the project site;

 Operation of the Preferred Alternative is not expected to radiate substantially more sound

into the water than the existing bridge; and

 Construction of the replacement bridge is not expected to obstruct migration of EFH species

in the Connecticut River.

The bridge replacement project will result in the permanent loss of a small area of open water

benthic habitat and tidal wetlands, which will affect four of the EFH species. Juvenile Atlantic

salmon and bluefish are known to use these habitats, as are winter flounder and windowpane.

For the four EFH species likely to occur in the vicinity of the project area, the short duration and

localized extent of construction activities and similar operation of existing and replacement

bridges means that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect EFH or EFH species in

the Connecticut River. Limitations on in-water construction activities during the migration

window will protect anadromous species, including Atlantic salmon that could move through the

project area to freshwater spawning habitat upstream in the Connecticut River.

Marine Turtles

Because state-listed and federally-listed marine turtles neither nest nor reside in the area yearround, and are only rarely observed in the Connecticut River estuary, they will not be expected to

be impacted by the construction or operation of the proposed project.

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES

Fish

According to the response to an information request on the presence of threatened and

endangered species in the study area, NMFS indicated that shortnose sturgeon are vulnerable to

direct (injury, mortality) and indirect (removal of forage items, increase in sediment etc.) effects

of in-water construction activities, including the driving of large piles and blasting, which are
Chapter 12: Construction Impacts

12-19 May 2014

often associated with bridge projects (Colligan 2008 and 2011). If present in the study area,

these highly mobile fishes will be expected to avoid noise associated with construction activities,

which as discussed earlier in the “Physical Habitat” section, is not expected to reach levels

associated with the onset of physiological impacts, recoverable physical injury, or mortality.

Because of the distance between the project area near the mouth of the Connecticut River (RM

3.5) and the spawning grounds (RM 120) and the location of sturgeon concentration areas

upstream of the project area, the likelihood that the proposed project will obstruct migration of

shortnose sturgeon is low. Therefore, noise impacts to sturgeon are not expected to result from

the proposed project. Furthermore, Amtrak does not foresee dredging for the proposed project,

which will avoid any indirect impacts caused by the removal of benthic forage organisms.

Increases in suspended sediment concentrations will be minimized through the use of

containment measures during pile drilling. Overall, construction and demolition activities

associated with the proposed project may affect but are not expected to adversely affect

shortnose sturgeon or Atlantic sturgeon in the Connecticut River.

As discussed in Chapter 10, adult blueback herring occur only seasonally in the Connecticut

River, migrating to shallow, freshwater sections of the river to spawn between mid-April and

June (USFWS 2010). Larval and juvenile blueback herring remain in the freshwater portions of

the Connecticut River, and only until they reach approximately 5 cm in length. Because of the

high salinity (30 ppt) of the project area, larval blueback herring are not likely to be present in

the study area, and juveniles and adults are only likely to occur seasonally as they migrate out to

the ocean during the late summer and fall (August-September). As with sturgeon, blueback

herring are highly mobile and will likely avoid construction noise during their migrations to and

from the river. Blueback herring are not expected to occur in the Connecticut River between fall

and spring. Because blueback herring spend most of the year in freshwater habitats well

upstream of the project area or in marine habitats of Long Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean,

and because the Preferred Alternative will not obstruct fish migration through the project area,

the proposed project is not expected to adversely affect the blueback herring population.

As shown in Appendix C, NMFS has confirmed that no further consultation pursuant to Section

7 of the ESA is required. Since all three of these species are likely to occur at least seasonally

within the study area, and Atlantic sturgeon have recently been listed under the Section 7 of the

ESA, Amtrak will continue to coordinate with NMFS and any other involved federal agencies

during the final design and permitting process. If necessary, Amtrak will abide by in-water work

restrictions to minimize the potential impacts. Permits issued by USCG, USACE, and through

USDOT’s ESA Section 7 Consultation process for similar bridge construction projects have

included in-water work restrictions designed to protect fishes. Since construction will adhere to

the in-water work restrictions anticipated for this project, the proposed project is not expected to

adversely affect any federally or state listed fish populations.

Plants

As stated in Chapter 10, the saltmarsh bulrush and pygmy weed were identified, by CTDEEP, as

being within or immediately adjacent the project site. Although bayonet grass, mudwort, eastern

prickly pear, and Lilaeopsis have not been documented in the immediate vicinity of the project

site, they have been documented within the 0.5 mile study area and habitat is present within the

vicinity of the project site for these species. While Amtrak did not observe any of these plant

species during preliminary field surveys, they may be present within the project site and there is

the potential for an adverse impact to these plants as a result of the proposed project. During the

preliminary engineering and permitting phase, Amtrak will conduct surveys in coordination with
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 12-20

CTDEEP to determine the presence or absence of these species and the size of the populations

within the area of disturbance. Should these plants be present in the area of disturbance, then

measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts to these species where possible will be developed in

coordination with CTDEEP.

Birds

As discussed in Chapter 10, several threatened or endangered bird species may be seasonally

present within the tidal wetlands affected by the Preferred Alternative. Further coordination with

CTDEEP and species-specific surveys will likely be required during the preliminary engineering

and permitting phase of the project to confirm the presence of these birds. Should these species

be determined to be present, CTDEEP may include construction restrictions (i.e., “work

windows”) in its permits to minimize disturbance and ensure that the project will not result in

significant adverse impacts to these bird species.

CONTAMINATED MATERIALS

Although the exact extent of subsurface disturbance associated with the Preferred Alternative

will not be determined until final engineering, Amtrak expects that construction will involve the

excavation, disturbance, and likely removal for off-site disposal of some existing soil (including

soil from the embankments), potential removal and off-site disposal of river sediments, and

demolition of the existing bridge. These activities will take place along the new southern bridge

alignment, as discussed in Chapter 2. Amtrak also expects that the new catenary pole

foundations (roughly 3 feet in diameter) will be installed to a depth of up to 20 feet.

The presence of contaminated materials only presents a threat if exposure to these materials

occurs. Even then, a health risk requires both a complete exposure pathway to the contaminants

and a sufficient dose to produce adverse health effects. The most likely route of exposure will be

through breathing volatile/semi-volatile compounds or particulate-laden air released during

demolition, excavation, and construction activities. Other potential routes of exposure are dermal

contact and accidental ingestion. In order to prevent any of these exposure pathways and doses,

the proposed project will include measures such as:

 Amtrak will follow established regulatory requirements for pre-construction removal of

asbestos and appropriate management of lead-based paint and of PCB-containing

equipment.

 Amtrak will develop and implement a CHASP that will include detailed procedures for

managing potential contamination (e.g., railroad ties, creosote-contaminated soil and any

underground storage tanks unexpectedly encountered). The CHASP will also include

procedures for minimizing the generation of dust that could affect workers, the surrounding

community and the environment as well as the monitoring necessary to ensure that no such

impacts are occurring.

With these measures, there will be no significant impacts due to contaminated materials during

the construction period.

NEW BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

The Preferred Alternative will involve construction of a new bridge, widening of existing

embankments, construction of new bridge piers, and construction of retaining walls, catenary

support structures, etc. Shallow soil disturbance will occur in areas where the proposed track
Chapter 12: Construction Impacts

12-21 May 2014

will be placed on existing embankment. Deeper excavations will be required for catenary and

signal support structures, new or relocated utilities, and embankment retaining walls.

Due to the presence of compressible soils, deep foundations for the river crossing will be

necessary. While Amtrak will determine the foundation type during subsequent engineering

phases, it is likely to comprise drilled shafts, which could require the disposal of soil up to 90

feet or more below existing grade. Amtrak will import clean fill for grading during construction,

e.g., to widen the bridge embankments.

CONSTRUCTION HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN (CHASP)

Amtrak will perform all work in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulatory

requirements. Prior to commencing site disturbance, Amtrak will prepare a CHASP to address

the potential of encountering contamination during soil disturbance activities. The CHASP will

describe in detail the health and safety procedures to minimize exposure to contaminated

materials by workers and the public. Amtrak will evaluate the hazards by determining the

potential subsurface contaminants of concern and their chemical and physical characteristics,

and health hazards will be considered within the potential exposure associated with the work to

be performed. Amtrak will develop the CHASP in accordance with OSHA regulations and

guidelines. The CHASP will include designation and training of appropriate personnel,

monitoring for the presence of contamination (e.g., soil which shows evidence of potential

contamination, such as discoloration, staining, or odors) and appropriate response plans. To

prevent the potential off-site transport of dust, Amtrak will define dust control requirements for

all soil-disturbing operations.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Amtrak and its contractors will handle excavated soil or sediment in accordance with all

applicable regulations. Amtrak will characterize excavated material to classify the material (e.g.,

historical fill, uncontaminated native soils, petroleum-contaminated wastes, etc). The extent and

parameters of any testing will be dependent on the classification and any requirements of off-site

waste disposal facilities.

Wastes containing contaminated materials require special handling, storage, transportation, and

disposal methods to prevent releases that could impact human health or the environment.

Depending on the nature of the material, federal, state, and local regulations require the use of

special containers or stockpiling practices for on-site storage of the material to prevent the

release of contaminated materials. The federal and state Departments of Transportation have

requirements for transportation of wastes containing contaminated materials. Facilities that

receive contaminated materials require federal, state, and local permits to accept the waste, and

generally require that specific representative waste sampling and laboratory analysis protocols

be conducted prior to accepting material for disposal.

EXISTING BRIDGE DEMOLITION

Prior to the demolition of the existing bridge, Amtrak will survey the structure for asbestos and

lead-based paint. Amtrak will remove any identified ACM prior to demolition in accordance

with the applicable federal, state and local requirements. Amtrak will implement appropriate

engineering controls (e.g., containment, wetting and other dust control measures) to minimize

asbestos exposure.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 12-22

If lead paint is present, Amtrak will perform an exposure assessment to determine whether lead

exposure will occur during the demolition and/or removal of the existing bridge. If the exposure

assessment will indicate the potential to generate airborne dust or fumes with lead levels

exceeding health-based standards, Amtrak will employ a higher personal protection equipment

standard to counteract the exposure. Amtrak will perform the demolition activities in accordance

with the applicable OSHA regulation (OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62 - Lead Exposure in

Construction).

Amtrak will survey and evaluate any suspected PCB-containing equipment (e.g., transformers,

electrical feeder cables, hydraulic equipment, and fluorescent light ballasts) that will require

removal, disturbance or relocation. Amtrak will remove and dispose PCB-containing equipment

that will be disturbed by the work in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations.

Generally, unless suspected PCB-containing equipment is labeled to be “non-PCB,” it must be

tested or assumed to be PCB-containing and disposed of at properly licensed facilities.

With the implementation of these measures, no adverse impacts related to hazardous materials

will result from construction and demolition activities on the project site. After the completion of

the project, there will be no potential for adverse impacts from hazardous materials.

UTILITIES

As described above, Amtrak will further evaluate the fiber optic and copper lines located north

of the existing bridge (within the Amtrak ROW) during the preliminary engineering stage. The

project team will also confirm the presence or absence of other aboveground and underground

utilities including sanitary and stormwater sewers and electric and gas lines at that time. Amtrak

will coordinate relocation of such utilities with the utility provider to minimize service

disruptions. As stated above, the contractor will coordinate as early as possible with CL&P to

ensure the availability of grid power on-site, and will distribute power throughout the site as

necessary. The contractor will use a combination of grid power and catenary power in lieu of

generators to the extent practicable, including, but not limited to, lighting, signage, and small

power tools.
Chapter 12: Construction Impacts

12-23 May 2014

E. REFERENCES

NOTE: Additional references included in Chapter 10 “Natural Resources”.

Birtwell, I.K., M.D. Nassichuk, H. Beune, and M. Gang. Deas Slough, Fraser River Estuary,

British Columbia: General description and some aquatic characteristics. Can. Fish. Mar.

Serv. Man. Rep. No. 1464. 1987.

Dunford, W.E. 1975. Space and food utilization by salmonids in marsh habitats of the Fraser

River estuary. University of British Columbia.

Halvorsen, M.B., B.M. Casper, F. Matthews, T.J. Carlson, and A.N. Popper. 2012. Effects of

exposure to pile-driving sounds on the lake sturgeon, Nile tilapia and hogchoker. Proc.

R. Soc. B. 279:4705-4714.

Hanson, B.N., W.H. Bason, B.E. Beitz, and K.E. Charles. 1978. A practical intake screen which

substantially reduces the entrainment and impingement of early life stages of fish, in

Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement (L.D.

Jensen, ed.), Chicago, Illinois, December 5, 1977, pp. 393-407. EA Communications,

Melville, New York

Hastings, M.C., and A.N. Popper. Effects of Sound on Fish. 2005. California Department of

Transportation. Contract No. 43A0139, Task Order 1. Sacramento, CA.

HDR. 2011. Noise Measurements of an Oscillator System for Drilled Shafts. Prepared for Knik

Arm Bridge and Toll Authority. 30 pp.

LaSalle, M.W., D.G. Clarke, J. Homziak, J.D. Lunz, and T.J. Fredette. 1991. A framework for

assessing the need for seasonal restrictions on dredging and disposal operations.

Department of the Army, Environmental laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station,

Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Nightingale, B, and C.A. Simenstad, University of Washington. 2001. Dredging Activities:

Marine Issues. White Paper, Research Project T1803, Task 35. Prepared by the

Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC), University of Washington. Prepared

for Washington State Transportation Commission, Department of Transportation and in

cooperation with the US Department of Transportation, Federal highway

Administration.

Popper, A. N. and Schilt, C. R. 2008. Hearing and acoustic behavior (basic and applied). In:

Webb, J. F., Fay, R. R., and Popper, A. N. eds. Fish Bioacoustics. Springer

Science+Business Media, LLC, New York, pp. 17-48.

Wysocki, L.E., J.W. Davidson, M.E. Smith, A.S. Frankel, W.T. Ellison, P.M. Mazik, A.N.

Popper and J. Bebak. 2007. Effects of aquaculture production noise on hearing, growth,

and disease resistance of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture 272: 687-

697.


13-1 May 2014

Chapter 13: Safety and Security

A. INTRODUCTION

This chapter identifies safety and security considerations related to the design and operation of

the proposed project. The safety procedures and security systems that Amtrak will implement to

protect rail employees, passengers, marine users, and the general public are described below.

FRA guidance requires that environmental reviews address safety and security concerns, including

the short-term construction effects and long-term operational effects on residents and other users of

the project area. The review should also include potential pedestrian and traffic hazards as well as

transit user and employee security issues. Specific regulations relevant to safety and security are

discussed below. Safety and security concerns pertaining to the construction of the proposed

project are described in Chapter 12, “Construction Impacts.”

B. EXISTING CONDITIONS

EMPLOYEES

Amtrak complies with all applicable federal safety regulations and industry standards, including

FRA 49 CFR 214: Railroad Workplace Safety; FRA 49 CFR 237: Bridge Safety Standards;

NFPA regulations; OSHA regulations; and AREMA regulations. Adequate signaling and

communications are currently in place to prevent any trains from entering the bridge when the

moveable span is open or when personnel are on site for repairs. Personnel undergo Amtrak Safety

Training before they are permitted on site. Amtrak inspects all bridge structural components

regularly and repairs them as needed.

In 2006, Amtrak instituted a System Safety Program that applies to all Amtrak facilities,

including the project site. The program provides guidance on hazard management, incident

reporting, inspection, maintenance and repair of current facilities and stock, training and

certification, emergency response, environmental management, drug and alcohol programs, and

a number of security policies. One section of the System Safety Program is devoted to employee

safety, with a particular focus on field safety.

PASSENGERS

Amtrak maintains and updates a Passenger Train Emergency Response Plan, approved by the

FRA. The plan includes train operations on the Northeast Corridor and therefore also covers the

project site. Amtrak also conducts Passenger Train Emergency Response Training. In 2006,

training was conducted for more than 500 local emergency response agencies along Amtrak

routes across the U.S and more than 6,500 individual responders participated.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 13-2

MARINE USERS

As discussed in the Navigation Survey1, some boaters have reported that the ebb tide current pulls

ships into Pier 5, the west channel pier, as a result of the existing channel being located close to

the eastern shoreline. At least one major accident occurred on September 9, 2006, involving an

oil barge damaging the bridge fender system. Subsequent minor incidents with no damage to the

bridge or the fender system occurred on February 29, 2008, involving a tug boat rubbing against

the fender system; and on August 30, 2011, involving a sailboat striking the bridge due to

floating debris in the water.

C. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Action Alternative, Amtrak will continue to adhere to current regulations

regarding worker and passenger safety. The planned major and minor improvement projects

discussed under the No Action Alternative in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” are located

outside of the primary study area used for this analysis and would not affect rail employee,

passenger, and marine user safety in the area.

As part of a separate ARRA-funded project, Amtrak plans to implement a series of security

measures at Amtrak-owned or operated stations and facilities across the U.S, including the

Connecticut River Bridge. This separate project will include a number of enhanced security

features to improve the safety of workers as well as rail passengers. In particular, Amtrak will

implement security measures to protect against potential terrorist threats. Amtrak will install

upgraded or new access control systems, including electronic card readers, to prevent

unauthorized access to restricted areas. This enhanced system will also improve data collection

and monitoring to support future risk management decisions. Other measures that Amtrak will

put in place to restrict access to secure areas include high-impact fencing, precast architectural

concrete or metal units, and connections/vehicular barriers capable of withstanding specific

design loads. Additionally, Amtrak will install a state-of-the-art Closed Circuit Television

(CCTV) surveillance system that will comprise new video cameras and a hybrid analog and

digital surveillance system. This security project is proceeding and is currently in the design

phase, with fit-out and construction scheduled for completion by 2014.

D. PROBABLE EFFECTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

EMPLOYEES

Amtrak will design, build, and operate the proposed project to comply with all relevant federal,

state, and local safety regulations, including: FRA 49 CFR 214: Railroad Workplace Safety;

FRA 49 CFR 237: Bridge Safety Standards; NFPA regulations; OSHA regulations; AREMA

regulations; the Connecticut State Fire Safety Plan; Connecticut State Building Code; and Old

Saybrook and Old Lyme Fire and Building Codes.

1 Hardesty and Hanover, LLP for National Railroad Passenger Corporation Office of Engineering,

Inspection and Conceptual Engineering for the Reconstruction or Replacement of the Connecticut River

Bridge, MB 106.89; Navigation Survey Report, October 2006
Chapter 13: Safety and Security

13-3 May 2014

During construction of the proposed project, Amtrak will develop written Safe Work Plans to

identify potential hazards and safety measures to be implemented for the protection of workers

on the project site and the general public in the vicinity of the project.

Examples of specific safety design elements for the proposed project include:

 Manufacturer-recommended work areas, service clearances, and staging requirements for all

bridge operation equipment;

 Old Lyme and Old Saybrook Fire Department approvals and/or permits as may be required

for systems and equipment such as: diesel fueling system, sprinkler and standpipe systems,

and certain air conditioning systems and air compressors;

 Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for paints, coatings, sealers, and chemical substances;

With the implementation of the safety measures described above, no adverse impacts to safety or

security of employees will result from the proposed project.

PASSENGERS

The Preferred Alternative will improve the structural and operational reliability of the existing

Connecticut River Bridge and increase the safety of passengers traveling on Shore Line East and

Amtrak trains over the bridge.

MARINE USERS

The Preferred Alternative will provide navigational benefits by improving the reliability of the

bridge and minimizing delays during bridge openings and closings. Option A (which would

retain the existing channel width and alignment) will maintain the current navigational

conditions. Widening the channel (a possibility under Option B) may improve navigation further

and may reduce the likelihood of boat collisions due to tidal currents. To prevent and/or

minimize future accidents due to an off-center channel, Amtrak will provide navigation channel

fenders and a dolphin system designed to protect the piers from all aberrant vessels. 
14-1 May 2014 

Chapter 14: Secondary and Cumulative Effects 

A. INTRODUCTION 

Secondary effects are those that are “caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed 

in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable” (40 CFR 1508.8). Generally, these effects are 

induced by a proposed project. These can include growth-inducing effects as well as changes in 

land use, economic vitality, neighborhood character, traffic congestion, and their associated 

effects on air quality and noise, water resources, and other natural resources.

Cumulative effects result from the incremental consequences of an action (the project) when 

added to other past and reasonably foreseeable future actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative 

effects of an action may be undetectable when viewed in the individual context of direct and 

even secondary effects, but when added to other actions can eventually lead to a measurable 

environmental change. Summarized in this chapter is the potential for the proposed project to 

result in secondary and cumulative effects.

B. SECONDARY EFFECTS 

As discussed in previous chapters, the proposed project will not result in an increase in train 

frequency, capacity, or speed, and will not result in measurable new rail ridership. Chapter 4, 

“Land Use and Socioeconomic Conditions,” included an assessment of the project’s potential to 

cause direct and indirect socioeconomic effects, and concluded that the proposed project will not 

have an adverse impact on the population, land use, or economic activities in the study area. The 

project will result in no new development or population/employment growth. Therefore, no 

positive or negative secondary effects will result from the proposed project. 

C. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

The planned major and minor improvement projects discussed under the No Action Alternative 

in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” are located outside of the primary study area used for this 

analysis and are not expected to have an effect on any environmental resource in the study area. 

The construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative in conjunction with the planned 

projects identified in this EA will not result in an adverse cumulative impact to any 

environmental resource in the region around the project site. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, the NEC FUTURE program is a comprehensive planning effort 

focused on the 457-mile rail transportation system extending from Boston's South Station in the 

north to Washington's Union Station in the south1. The program is being led by FRA with FTA 

acting as a cooperating agency for the initiative. NEC FUTURE aims to define, evaluate, and 

prioritize future investments in the NEC, and will include new ideas and approaches to grow the 

region's intercity, commuter, and freight rail services. The first phase of the program took place 

 

1

 http://www.necfuture.com/. Accessed on December 10, 2013. 
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA 

May 2014 14-2 

in 2012 and entailed stakeholder and public outreach, data collection and analysis, a scoping 

process in accordance with NEPA requirements, and development of initial alternatives. In 2013, 

principal activities included preliminary alternatives development and a screening process to 

identify a smaller set of reasonable alternatives for analysis in the Tier 1 EIS. Additional 

activities included an existing conditions analysis of the NEC FUTURE study area and ongoing 

public outreach and agency coordination. In 2014, FRA anticipates preparation of the Draft Tier 

1 EIS (DEIS) and Draft Service Development Plans, with the selection of a preferred investment 

program for the Northeast Corridor. The final Tier 1 EIS (FEIS) and Final Service Development 

Plan are expected to be completed in 2015. The Connecticut River Bridge Project is within the 

Tier I EIS study area. Amtrak is coordinating with FRA regarding both projects. The 

Connecticut River Bridge Project will be informed by the outcome of the Tier I EIS and will be 

designed so as not to preclude the NEC FUTURE project.

The Northeast Corridor Improvement Project (discussed in Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need”) 

includes improvements to the Northeast Corridor system between Washington, D.C. and Boston. 

The Mystic River Bridge and the Shaw’s Cove Bridge, both in Connecticut, were replaced as 

part of that effort in the 1980s. The Thames River Bridge replacement was completed in July 

2008 and the Niantic River Bridge replacement was completed in May 2013. All of these 

projects, together with the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project, will improve the 

operations and reliability of the Northeast Corridor and result in a cumulative benefit. 
15-1 May 2014

Chapter 15: Commitment of Resources

A. INTRODUCTION

In accordance with NEPA and CEQ’s implementing procedures under Title 40, Part 1502 of the

CFR, this EA includes an analysis of the relationship between short-term uses of the

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and of any

irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources that will occur if the proposed project is

constructed.

B. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF

RESOURCES

Construction of the Preferred Alternative, described in Chapter 2, “Project Alternatives,” will

require the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of construction materials such as concrete,

steel, wood, and other building materials. Amtrak and its contractors will consume energy in the

form of fossil fuels and electricity during the construction and operation of the facility. These

materials are available and their use for the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on

their continued availability for other purposes. In addition to materials, Amtrak will require

funding and human labor to design, build, and operate the proposed project.

Amtrak endeavors to minimize the use of irretrievable resources and to conserve and reuse

resources whenever possible. To that end, Amtrak has established and implemented an

Environmental Management System (EMS) pursuant to International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) 14001, with a focus on minimizing consumption of raw materials, energy

usage, pollutant emissions, and generation of wastes.

C. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE

ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT

OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Short-term effects on the environment typically result from construction impacts. Long-term

effects relate to the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, including

consistency of a project with local and regional economic, social, planning, and sustainability

objectives.

SHORT-TERM USES

Construction of the proposed project will have greater short-term impacts on the environment

than the No Action Alternative. However, the environmental impacts that will result from the

proposed construction activities will be temporary and non-significant, as discussed in greater

detail in Chapter 12, “Construction Impacts.” Amtrak will endeavor to reduce any constructionrelated environmental impacts through the implementation of best management practices.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 15-2

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

The proposed project will be a component of the long-term viability of the intercity rail system,

as well as the area’s maritime industry, and will help to promote the region’s economic vitality.

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Based on the information presented above, the localized short-term impacts that will result from

construction of the proposed project will be temporary, and will facilitate the maintenance and

enhancement of long-term productivity in the region through the provision of improved rail and

marine operations. 
16-1 May 2014

Chapter 16: Environmental Justice

A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 11, 1994) Amtrak has prepared

this environmental justice analysis to identify and address any disproportionate and adverse

impacts on minority or low-income populations that could result from the proposed project.

Executive Order 12898 also requires federal agencies to work to ensure greater public

participation in the decision-making process. For the proposed project, this requirement has been

satisfied by the review process for this EA under NEPA.

This chapter analyzes the proposed project’s potential effects on minority and low-income

populations, to determine if disproportionately high and adverse impacts on those populations

will result from the proposed project. This environmental justice analysis assesses the potential

effects of the proposed project over the full range of environmental impacts on minority and

low-income populations.

B. REGULATIONS

The environmental justice analysis for the proposed project follows the guidance and

methodologies recommended in CEQ’s Environmental Justice Guidance under the National

Environmental Policy Act (December 1997) and USDOT’s Final Order on Environmental

Justice (April 1997).

CEQ GUIDANCE

CEQ, which has oversight of the federal government’s compliance with Executive Order 12898

and NEPA, developed its guidance to assist federal agencies with their NEPA procedures so that

environmental justice concerns are effectively identified and addressed. Federal agencies are

permitted to supplement this guidance with more specific procedures tailored to their particular

programs or activities, as USDOT has done.

The CEQ methodology involves collecting demographic information on the area where the

project may cause significant and adverse effects; identifying low-income and minority

populations in that area using census data; and identifying whether the project’s adverse effects

are disproportionately high on the low-income and minority populations, in comparison to the

effects on other populations. The federal agency should develop and implement mitigation

measures for any disproportionately high and adverse effects. Under NEPA, the potential for

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and/or low-income populations should

be one of the factors the federal agency considers in making its finding on a project and issuing a

FONSI or a Record of Decision (ROD).
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 16-2

USDOT’S FINAL ORDER ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

USDOT Order 5610.2(a) Final Order on Environmental Justice establishes the procedures for

USDOT to use in complying with Executive Order 12898. The order applies to all of USDOT’s

operating administrations, including FRA. Following the procedures set forth in Executive Order

12898, the consideration of environmental justice begins with a determination of whether the

project will have an adverse impact on minority and low-income populations and whether that

adverse impact will be disproportionately high. Disproportionately high and adverse effects on

minority and low-income populations are adverse effects that are predominantly borne by a

minority population and/or low-income population or that are appreciably more severe or greater

in magnitude than the adverse effects that will be suffered by the non-minority or non-lowincome population. In making determinations regarding disproportionately high and adverse

effects, the federal agency may take into account the mitigation and enhancement measures that

it will implement and all offsetting benefits to the affected minority and low-income populations,

as well as the design, comparative impacts, and relevant number of similar existing system

elements in non-minority and non-low-income areas.

Federal agencies must ensure that they will only carry out a project having a disproportionately

high and adverse effect on minority populations or low-income populations if (1) further

mitigation measures or alternatives that will avoid or reduce the disproportionately high and

adverse effect are not practicable; and (2) a substantial need for the program, policy, or activity

exists, based on the overall public interest, and alternatives that will have fewer adverse effects

on protected populations that will still satisfy that need will either have other adverse social,

economic, environmental, or human health impacts that will be more severe, or will involve

increased costs of extraordinary magnitude.

USEPA GUIDANCE

USEPA’s guidance on conducting an environmental justice analysis follows the same

methodology as the CEQ guidance, which was discussed above.

C. METHODOLOGY

Amtrak based its assessment of environmental justice for the proposed project on the guidance

documents described above. The assessment involved four basic steps:

1. Identify the area where the project may cause significant and adverse effects;

2. Compile population and economic characteristics for the area of potential effect and identify

potential environmental justice areas;

3. Identify the proposed project’s potential adverse effects on potential environmental justice

areas; and

4. Evaluate the proposed project’s potential adverse effects on minority and low-income

communities relative to its overall effects to determine whether any potential adverse

impacts on those communities will be disproportionate.

DELINEATION OF STUDY AREA

The study area for environmental justice encompasses the area most likely to be affected by the

proposed project and considers the area where potential impacts resulting from construction and
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice 

16-3 May 2014 

operation of the proposed project could occur. The study area for environmental justice follows 

the 1⁄4-mile study area used for the analysis of land use and social conditions in Chapter 4, “Land 

Use and Socioeconomic Conditions.” The study area includes Census Tracts 6702 and 6701 on 

the west side of the study area in Old Saybrook and Census Tract 6601.01 in Old Lyme on the 

east side of the project area. 

IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREAS 

Amtrak gathered data on race and poverty status from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Census 2010 

and 2005-2009 American Community Survey Estimates (05-09 ACS), respectively, for the three 

census tracts within the study area, and then aggregated the data for the study area as a whole. 

For comparison purposes, the project team also compiled data for Middlesex and New London 

Counties. Based on census data on racial and ethnic characteristics and poverty status and the 

guidance documents described above, Amtrak identified potential environmental justice areas as 

follows: 

 Racial and ethnic characteristics: The guidance documents define minorities to include 

American Indians or Alaskan Natives, Asian and Pacific Islanders, African Americans or 

Black persons, and Hispanic persons. Following CEQ guidance, Amtrak identified minority 

populations where either: (1) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 

percent; or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully 

greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other 

appropriate unit of geographic analysis. For this analysis, Middlesex and New London 

Counties are the project’s primary statistical reference area. In Middlesex County, the 

minority population in 2010 was 13.6 percent. The minority population in New London 

County as a whole in 2010 was 21.7 percent. 

 Income: Amtrak used the percentage of individuals below poverty level in each census tract, 

as estimated in the 05-09 ACS, to identify low-income communities. Poverty levels are 

established annually by the U.S. Census Bureau and vary based on family size and number 

of children. For example, the established poverty level for 2009 for a family of four with two 

children was $21,756. This analysis used Middlesex and New London counties as the 

statistical reference areas. In Middlesex County, 5.8 percent of persons lived below poverty 

level as of the survey; in New London County, 6.7 percent of persons. 

D. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE POPULATIONS IN THE STUDY AREA 

MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME POPULATIONS 

The environmental justice study area includes three census tracts, as described above, with a 

total population of 13,598 in 2010. Table 16-1 details the study area’s population and economic 

characteristics in terms of race and ethnicity and poverty status. Some 7.4 percent of the 

residents of this study area are minority, which is a smaller proportion than in Middlesex County 

(13.6 percent) or in New London County (21.7 percent). Because the study area’s total minority 

percentage does not exceed CEQ’s 50 percent threshold, this analysis does not identify the study 

area as a whole as a minority community. 

Only one of the census tracts in the study area has a higher proportion of low-income individuals 

than in Middlesex or New London counties as a whole. Census Tract 6702 has an estimated 6.2 

percent of persons living below the poverty level. However, the study area as whole has an 
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 16-4

estimated 4.7 percent of individuals living below poverty level, compared with 5.8 percent in

Middlesex County and 6.7 percent in New London County. Because the poverty rate of

individuals in census tract 6702 is not significantly greater than the percentage of low income

individuals in the statistical reference area and the percentage of low income individuals in the

study area as a whole does not exceed the percentage of low income individuals in the statistical

reference area, Amtrak did not identify the study area as a low-income community. Therefore,

this analysis identified no potential environmental justice areas.

Table 16-1

Study Area Population and Economic Characteristics

Study Area

2010 Census

2005-2009 American

Community Survey

2010

Total

Race and Ethnicity* Persons Below

Poverty Level

White % Black % Asian % Other % Hispanic % (%)***

Total

Minority (%)

Middlesex

County 165,676 143,144 86.4 7,256 4.4 4,207 2.5 3,235 2.0 7,834 4.7 13.6 5.8

New London

County 274,055 214,605 78.3 14,488 5.3 11,248 4.1 10,500 3.8 23,214 8.5 21.7 6.7

Town of Old

Saybrook 10,242 9,404 91.8 96 0.9 243 2.4 157 1.5 342 3.3 8.2 5.1

Town of Old

Lyme 7,603 7,142 93.9 35 0.5 154 2.0 88 1.2 184 2.4 6.1 3.9

Census Tract

6701 (Old

Saybrook) ** 4,848 4,467 92.1 42 0.9 98 2.0 75 1.5 166 3.4 7.9 4.0

Census Tract

6702 (Old

Saybrook) ** 5,394 4,937 91.5 54 1.0 145 2.7 82 1.5 176 3.3 8.5 6.2

Census Tract

6601.01 (Old

Lyme)** 3,356 3,181 94.8 13 0.4 63 1.9 31 0.9 68 2.0 5.2 3.4

Notes:

* The racial and ethnic categories provided are further defined as: White (White alone, not Hispanic or Latino); Black (Black or African

American alone, not Hispanic or Latino); Asian (Asian alone, not Hispanic or Latino); Other (American Indian and Alaska Native alone, not

Hispanic or Latino; Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, not Hispanic or Latino; Some other race alone, not Hispanic or Latino;

Two or more races, not Hispanic or Latino); Hispanic (Hispanic or Latino; Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race).

** Census Tracts 6701, 6702, and 6601.01 include the project study area and surrounding areas.

*** Percent of individuals with incomes below established poverty level. The U.S. Census Bureau has established income thresholds which

define the poverty level based on family unit size and number of children1.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 and American Community Survey 2005-2009 Estimates.

E. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to work to ensure greater public participation in

the decision-making process. CEQ guidance suggests that federal agencies should acknowledge

and seek to overcome linguistic, cultural, institutional, geographic, and other barriers to

meaningful participation. Similarly, the USDOT’s Final Order on Environmental Justice

indicates that project sponsors should seek public involvement opportunities, including soliciting

input from affected minority and low-income populations in considering alternatives. Although

no minority and low-income populations are located within the project study area, Amtrak has

conducted this EA in accordance with the public review process requirements under NEPA.

1

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html.
Chapter 16: Environmental Justice 

16-5 May 2014 

Amtrak conducted an initial agency and public coordination meeting at CTDEEP Marine 

Headquarters in Old Lyme on July 8, 2008 (see Appendix E). 

F. CONCLUSION 

Because this analysis did not identify any potential environmental justice areas, the proposed 

project will not result in any disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and lowincome populations. This EA anticipates no significant adverse impacts from the proposed 

project. In conclusion, there are no environmental justice concerns associated with the proposed 

project. 
17-1 May 2014

Chapter 17: Public Involvement and Agency Coordination

A. INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the process used to solicit public and agency participation for the

environmental review phase of the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project. Federallyfunded mass transportation projects are required to be developed in accordance with NEPA,

which provides a role for the public in the planning and decision-making process. FRA guidance

encourages citizen involvement at every stage of the environmental assessment of a proposed

FRA action. As described below, Amtrak has undertaken public and community outreach efforts

for the proposed project, along with federal, state, and local agency coordination.

B. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

During the early phases of the proposed project, Amtrak and FRA prepared a Public

Involvement and Agency Coordination Plan. The plan identified a proactive approach to

effectively engaging input from key interest groups and community leaders. Amtrak and FRA

considered recent experience from similar bridge replacement projects in Connecticut to identify

potentially interested parties and obtain comprehensive community representation. The plan

included outreach to marina operators, boaters, trade associations, elected officials, local

businesses, and private citizens who rely upon Northeast Corridor rail service, use the

Connecticut River, or live or work in the project study area.

FRA and Amtrak hosted a joint public involvement and agency coordination meeting at the

CTDEEP Marine Headquarters in Old Lyme, Connecticut on July 8, 2008. The meeting included

an overview of the project purpose and the project alternatives being considered. Attendees of

the meeting included members of local marine businesses, officials of the towns of Old Lyme

and Old Saybrook, and representatives of state and federal agencies. Amtrak and FRA solicited

input on the proposed project during the meeting. A complete list of attendees and meeting

minutes can be found in Appendix E, “Public Involvement and Agency Coordination.”

NEPA and the implementing regulations of the CEQ require public involvement for

environmental assessments to include, at a minimum, reasonable public notice of availability of

the EA and the FONSI. Regulations do not require a formal public scoping process for

environmental assessments. Reasonable public notice of availability of this EA and subsequent

documentation of comments will be provided.

C. AGENCY COORDINATION

Amtrak also developed a list of potentially involved and interested federal, state, and local

agencies in the initial stages of the project and included this list in the Public Involvement and

Agency Coordination Plan. Numerous agency representatives attended the coordination meeting

on July 8, 2008 and provided input on the project and the regulatory process. Throughout the

environmental review process, Amtrak has been coordinating with multiple regulatory agencies,

including:
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 17-2

 USACE

 USCG

 USFWS

 USEPA

 NMFS

 CTDEEP

 CTSHPO

 ConnDOT

Amtrak will continue coordination with these agencies and other appropriate agencies, in

addition to the Towns of Old Saybrook and Old Lyme, throughout the environmental review,

engineering design and permitting, and construction phases of the project.

D. SECTION 106

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that any federal agency

having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally assisted undertaking or

license thereof, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building,

structure, or other object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. As

part of this environmental review, Amtrak has consulted with and solicited comments from

agencies that oversee the resources protected under Section 106 regulations. Amtrak invited

groups and organizations with special interest in these resources (referred to as Section 106

Consulting Parties) to participate in the Section 106 process and invited them to the July 8, 2008

public involvement and agency coordination meeting, which also served as the initial Section

106 consultation meeting. Invited groups included local historical societies, historical

organizations, Native American tribes, and CTSHPO. Amtrak will continue Section 106

consultation throughout the environmental review, engineering design and permitting, and

construction phases of the project. 
18-1 May 2014

Chapter 18: Section 4(f) Evaluation

A. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 USC § 303) prohibits the Secretary of

Transportation from approving any program or project that requires the use of: (1) any publicly

owned land in a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state,

or local significance, or (2) any land from a historic site of national, state, or local significance

(collectively “Section 4(f) resources”), unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the

use of such land and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource.

FHWA and the FTA updated their joint Section 4(f) regulations (23 CFR Part 774) in March

2008 to modify the procedures for granting Section 4(f) approvals. FHWA and FTA updated the

regulations to clarify language regarding to the factors to be considered and the standards to be

applied when determining if a project alternative that would avoid the use of a Section 4(f)

property is feasible and prudent, and in the case of selecting a project alternative when all

alternatives would use some Section 4(f) property. In addition, the new regulations established

procedures for determining that the use of a Section 4(f) property has a de minimis impact on the

property, described further below. While the regulations do not apply directly to FRA projects,

they do provide guidance that FRA uses in making its own Section 4(f) determinations.

The USDOT and FRA consider three possible ways in which a project could “use” a resource:

• When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility;

• When there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s

preservation purpose; or

• When there is a constructive use of land.

Constructive use occurs when a project does not directly incorporate land from a Section 4(f)

property but the impacts of that project on the Section 4(f) property are so severe that the

activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for Section 4(f) protection are

substantially diminished (23 CFR 771.135(p)(2)). This requires that mitigation measures have

been taken into consideration but the value of the resource (with respect to its significance under

Section 4(f)) will nonetheless be meaningfully reduced or lost.

Pursuant to 49 USC § 303(d)(2), FRA may satisfy the requirements of Section 4(f) by finding

that a transportation project will have a de minimis impact on a historic resource. A finding of de

minimis impact is, in essence, a finding that the project will not adversely affect the qualities of

the resource that make it eligible for protection under Section 4(f). FRA can make a finding of

de minimis impact for a historic site if: (1) FRA determines through the Section 106 consultation

process that a transportation project will have “no adverse effect” on the site; (2) the State

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) (and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, if

participating) concurs in writing with FRA’s de minimis impact finding; and (3) FRA has

developed its finding in consultation with parties consulting as part of the Section 106 process.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 18-2

In making a finding of de minimis impact, FRA shall consider to be part of the transportation

program or project “any avoidance, minimization, mitigation, or enhancement measures that are

required to be implemented as a condition of approval” of the project. This means that the

finding of de minimis impact takes into account any measures that may offset the impacts of the

project on a Section 4(f) resource. For historic sites, a finding of de minimis impact satisfies the

requirements of Section 4(f) in full. Therefore, if a finding of de minimis impact is made for a

historic site, no further Section 4(f) analysis is required for that site.

The sections below describe the applicability of Section 4(f) to the project, the use of Section

4(f) properties, avoidance alternatives to the use of the Section 4(f) properties, and measures to

minimize harm to the Section 4(f) properties.

B. APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 4(F) TO THE PROJECT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Amtrak has proposed the Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project to improve the

operations and reliability of the Connecticut River Bridge, a passenger and freight rail bridge

over the Connecticut River. The project would include the following elements: the

decommissioning and removal of the existing two-track Connecticut River Bridge, off-line

construction of a two-track replacement bridge, relocation of communication and signal systems,

and replacement of catenary supports and wires. Amtrak has identified a Preferred Alternative,

analyzed in this EA. The upland portions of the Preferred Alternative would be located within

the existing Amtrak ROW. It would involve complete replacement of the existing bridge with a

new moveable bridge along a new alignment to the south of the existing alignment. Amtrak has

identified two feasible options of the Preferred Alternative. Option A would replace the existing

bridge with a bascule bridge and maintain the existing 150-foot channel width. Option B would

replace the existing bridge with a vertical lift bridge, and would provide a channel of between

150 and 200 feet wide. Both options would retain the existing channel location. Further detail

regarding the Preferred Alternative can be found in Chapter 2 of the EA, “Project Alternatives”.

SECTION 4(F) APPLICABILITY

The Section 4(f) Evaluation identified individual Section 4(f) resources and determined whether

the proposed project would use these resources. The Preferred Alternative would require the

decommissioning and removal of the existing bridge. The Connecticut River Bridge, as part of

the Moveable Railroad Bridges on the Northeast Corridor in Connecticut Thematic Resource,

was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NR) and was listed on the

Connecticut State Register of Historic Places (SR) in 1986. The Preferred Alternative would

involve construction of a new bridge over the existing boardwalk within Ferry Landing Park, a

waterfront park owned by CTDEEP. The proposed project would constitute a use of these two

Section 4(f) resources (shown in Figure 18-1) and therefore a Section 4(f) analysis is needed.

Amtrak identified additional parklands, wildlife areas, and cultural resources in the EA. The

Elizabeth B. Karter Watch Rock Nature Preserve, a property of the Old Lyme Conservation

Trust, is located at the southeastern border of the study area. There are two CTDEEP-owned and

managed wildlife areas adjacent to the project site: the Roger Tory Peterson Wildlife Area,

located south of the project site on the western side of Connecticut River, and the Ragged Rock

Creek Marsh WMA, located south of the project site on the eastern side of the river. CTDEEP

defines a wildlife area as “an area where wildlife habitat is managed to maintain stable, healthy
FERRY RD.

SANDPIPER POINT RD.

LYME ST.

McCURDY RD.

AMTRAK

AMTRAK

McCURDY CT.

DUCK 

RIVER LN.

FERRY RD.

I-95

BOSTON POST RD.

FERRY RD.

CLARK ST. 

RAGGED ROCK RD. 

FARM RD.

FERRY RD.

CONNECTICUT RIVER

SANDPIPER POINT RD.

LYME ST.

McCURDY RD.

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

McCURDY CT.

DUCK 

RIVER LN.

FERRY RD.

I-95

SHORE RD.

BOSTON POST RD.

FERRY RD.

CLARK ST. 

RAGGED ROCK RD. 

FARM RD.

1

6.5.12

Figure 18-1

Section 4(f) Properties

SCALE

OLD

OLD LYME

SAYBROOK

0 400 1000 FEET

AMTRAK CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE REPLACEMENT

2

Project Site Boundary

Connecticut River Bridge

CTDEEP Marine Headquarters/Ferry Landing Park

1

2
Chapter 18: Section 4(f) Evaluation

18-3 May 2014

populations of wildlife”. This definition appears to be consistent with the Section 4(f) definition

of a wildlife refuge, and therefore these two properties may be considered Section 4(f) resources.

Besides the Connecticut River Bridge itself, three known historic resources—the John

Whittlesey Jr. House (S/NR-Listed), the Old Lyme Historic District (S/NR-Listed and a Local

Landmark), and the Enoch Noyes House at 317 Ferry Road (SR-Listed)—are located within the

project study area. Additionally, the project team identified five potential historic resources (61

Ferry Road, 94 Ferry Road, 101 Ferry Road, 9 Clark Street, and 2-20 Clark Street) within the

study area. The Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect any of these additional

resources; therefore, the project would not constitute a Section 4(f) use of these properties and

no further analysis is necessary.

Section 4(f) regulations apply to archaeological sites (including those discovered during

construction) if their value derives from their preservation in place. As described in Chapter 6,

“Cultural Resources,” there is the possibility that S/NR-eligible archaeological resources are

present within the Old Lyme portion of the project site. These potential archaeological resources,

if present, would be important for the information they might yield and not for preservation in

place. Therefore, at this time, Amtrak does not consider these potential archaeological resources

as Section 4(f) properties. If, however, based on further study and consultation with CTSHPO,

Amtrak determines that any archaeological resources present within the project site derive their

value from preservation in place, then Amtrak will supplement this Section 4(f) evaluation to

address these properties.

C. USE OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES

CONNECTICUT RIVER BRIDGE

DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY

The Connecticut River Bridge carries the Northeast Corridor over the Connecticut River

between Old Saybrook and Old Lyme. The Connecticut River Bridge is eligible for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places, and is listed on the State Register of Historic Places as part

of the Moveable Railroad Bridges on the Northeast Corridor in Connecticut Thematic Resource.

Connecticut’s moveable railroad bridges date from the late 19th through the early 20th century,

and span such rivers as the Pequonnock, Mianus, Norwalk, Housatonic, Saugatuck, Niantic, and

Thames. The American Bridge Company began construction of the bridge in 1904 and it became

operational in 1907. The Connecticut River Bridge is over 1,500 feet long and has ten spans. The

bridge is a two-track, ten-span steel rail bridge with an open deck and stone masonry piers. The

Preferred Alternative would require the decommissioning and replacement of this Section 4(f)

property.

PROBABLE USE OF THE SECTION 4(F) PROPERTY

Construction of either option of the Preferred Alternative will involve the decommissioning and

removal of the existing Connecticut River Bridge. Amtrak will build a new moveable bridge and

a new substructure on a new alignment to the south of the existing bridge. The removal of the

existing bridge will constitute a use of this Section 4(f) property.
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 18-4

AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES

Under Section 4(f), the project sponsor must demonstrate that any alternatives that avoid the use

of the historic structure, known as “Avoidance Alternatives,” are either not feasible or would not

be prudent to undertake. To demonstrate that no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of

the Section 4(f) resource exist, location alternatives and design options should be considered.

Amtrak considered the following alternatives, which would avoid removal of the historic bridge:

 Perform minimal repairs and maintenance of the existing Connecticut River Bridge in order

to keep the bridge in service for rail traffic.

 Rehabilitate the existing bridge including the approach spans and substructures without

affecting the historic integrity of the structure as determined by NHPA and reuse the bridge

for rail traffic.

 Construct a new bridge on a new alignment and leave the existing bridge in-place and out of

service.

In finding that an avoidance alternative is not feasible or prudent, adverse factors such as

environmental impacts, safety, engineering/operational deficiencies, poor transportation service,

increased costs, and other factors may be considered collectively. Amtrak has considered these

factors in determining whether the avoidance alternatives would be feasible and prudent.

Minimal Repairs and Maintenance of Existing Connecticut River Bridge

Under this avoidance alternative, minimal repairs and maintenance would be employed to keep

the Connecticut River Bridge in service (similar to the “No Action Alternative” analyzed in the

EA). The existing bridge was constructed beginning in 1904 and it became operational in 1907.

It has been in continuous operation for over 100 years and, due to its age, it is nearing the end of

its useful life. In 2006, Amtrak’s contractors performed a bridge inspection. The inspection

found several aspects of the existing bridge to be particularly problematic, including the

mechanical operating system, the bascule span rolling tread plates, and the approach span truss

pin and eyebar connection. The curved tread plates and mating track plates of the heel end of the

rolling lift span were specifically identified as concerns. Disruptive rehabilitations of the treads

and tracks are required approximately every 20 years, which limits the retrofit options. At the

time of the inspection, the existing track and tread structure, and the supporting steel segmental

box girder exhibited cracks. The approach spans have truss pin and eyebar connections, which

typically loosen after years of service. Amtrak has determined retrofit devices installed during

the 1970s to be ineffective.

Amtrak installed a moveable catenary unit on the bridge as part of the electrification project. The

complex structure extends the length of time required to open and close the bridge and adds

weight to the bridge. The weight of the electrification facilities was not factored into the original

bridge design, and has therefore increased stresses and bearing pressures. The moveable span

counterweight balance is a concern, as is potential deterioration of structural members. Amtrak

identified additional concerns such as: tight working clearances within the machinery house,

limited access for maintenance and routine inspection, and uncertainty in the seismic resistance

of the existing stone masonry piers.

Amtrak considered performing minimal repairs and maintenance on the existing bridge and

allowing it to remain in service. This avoidance alternative would permit the Connecticut River

Bridge to remain in place with its historical integrity unaffected. Amtrak determined that

substantial maintenance would be required roughly every 20 years. This avoidance alternative
Chapter 18: Section 4(f) Evaluation

18-5 May 2014

would not provide a reliable structure and would be expected to perform poorly. It would fail to

meet several of the project goals and objectives, including long-term serviceability and

reliability. While this avoidance alternative would be feasible, it would not be prudent to expend

capital funds and still fail to meet the goals and objectives of the proposed project.

Rehabilitation of Existing Connecticut River Bridge

This avoidance alternative would result in the rehabilitation of the existing bridge approach

spans, the moveable span, and minimal rehabilitation of the substructure. This avoidance

alternative would likely extend the service life of the bridge for 40 years. This avoidance

alternative would permit the Connecticut River Bridge to remain in place with its historical

integrity unaffected. This avoidance alternative would not provide a reliable structure and would

be expected to perform poorly. It would fail to meet several of the project goals and objectives,

including long-term serviceability and reliability. While this avoidance alternative would be

feasible, it would not be prudent to expend capital funds and still fail to meet the goals and

objectives of the proposed project.

Construct a New Bridge and Leave Existing Bridge in Place

This avoidance alternative would involve construction of a new rail bridge far enough away

from the existing bridge to leave its historical integrity intact. This would pose several

engineering and planning challenges. The bridge approaches and existing infrastructure would

need to be modified to align with the new bridge. Amtrak would need to expand its ROW and

therefore substantial property acquisition would be required. Based on the surrounding land

uses, the properties to be acquired would likely be a combination of private residences,

commercial uses, wetland preserves, and fish and wildlife refuges.

The existing bridge could not remain in the closed position as it would preclude the passage of

all marine vessels requiring more than 18 feet in vertical clearance. It would need to be fixed in

the open position or Amtrak would need to continue to open and close the bridge regularly. This

would not be feasible from an operational and cost perspective. The bridge could remain inplace and fixed in the open position; however, it would still present navigational challenges due

to the narrow and off-center channel. Boats would be required to navigate around three bridges

in close proximity—the existing I-95 Baldwin Bridge, the existing Connecticut River Bridge,

and the new replacement bridge. This would not satisfy one of the main project goals—to

minimize conflicts with marine traffic. Amtrak determined this avoidance alternative to be

neither feasible nor prudent.

MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM

As required by Section 106 of NHPA, Amtrak is participating in an ongoing consultation

process with the CTSHPO regarding the potential effects on archaeological and architectural

resources. As part of this ongoing process, Amtrak has explored measures to avoid or minimize

any adverse effects to such resources. Development of these mitigation measures is set forth in

the draft MOA, included in Appendix A of the EA, to be executed by CTSHPO, FRA, and

Amtrak.

The draft MOA describes the continuing consultation process that Amtrak will conduct as

project designs evolve, and the measures Amtrak will implement during the project’s design

process to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of the project on historic resources.

Amtrak will undertake the design of the replacement bridge in coordination with CTSHPO and
Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project EA

May 2014 18-6

make an effort to incorporate historically compatible designs. Mitigation for adverse effects on

the Connecticut River Bridge (a contributing element of the Moveable Railroad Bridges of the

Northeast Corridor in Connecticut Thematic Resource) could include HAER documentation for

the Connecticut River Bridge and development of an interpretive exhibit in a park, greenway, or

public space that presents the history of the bridge and other moveable railroad bridges on the

Northeast Corridor in Connecticut. This exhibit could possibly include salvaged elements of the

bridge, signage, etc.

FERRY LANDING PARK

DESCRIPTION OF THE SECTION 4(f) PROPERTY

Ferry Landing Park is located on the east bank of the Connecticut River within the confines of

the CTDEEP Marine Headquarters and just north of the project site in Old Lyme. The waterfront

park is open to the public year-round and is furnished with picnic benches and a gazebo, and

features an elevated wooden boardwalk that extends south from the park, passing underneath the

bridge into the marshes. The boardwalk offers access to various recreational uses such as fishing

and crabbing. The pier also provides scenic vistas of the Connecticut River and tidal marshlands.

The park is owned and maintained by CTDEEP.

PROBABLE USE OF THE SECTION 4(f) PROPERTY

The Preferred Alternative eastern approach will be constructed over the existing boardwalk. The

proposed project will not require permanent acquisition of any upland portion of the park.

Neither the park nor the boardwalk will be permanently adversely affected by the proposed

project. However, it is likely that a portion of the boardwalk will be temporarily closed (and

possibly removed and replaced) during the construction phase of the project. Because these

activities will temporarily interfere with the intended purpose of the boardwalk, they constitute a

“use” of the Section 4(f) property.

AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES

As stated above, project sponsors should consider location alternatives and design options to

demonstrate that no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the Section 4(f) resource exist.

Decommissioning and removing the existing bridge will require temporary closure of the

boardwalk. Performing minimal repairs, minor rehabilitation, or major rehabilitation of the

existing bridge will also require temporary closure of the boardwalk. Complete avoidance of

Ferry Landing Park will only be possible with the following avoidance alternative:

 Construct a new bridge on a new alignment far away from Ferry Landing Park and the

boardwalk and leave the existing bridge in-place and out of service.

This avoidance alternative would involve construction of a new rail bridge far enough away

from the existing bridge to avoid Ferry Landing Park and the boardwalk. This would pose

several engineering and planning challenges. The bridge approaches and existing infrastructure

would need to be modified to align with the new bridge. Amtrak would need to expand its ROW

and therefore substantial property acquisition would be required. Based on the surrounding land

uses, the properties to be acquired would likely be a combination of private residences,

commercial uses, wetland preserves, and fish and wildlife refuges.
Chapter 18: Section 4(f) Evaluation

18-7 May 2014

The existing bridge could not remain in the closed position as it would preclude the passage of

all marine vessels requiring more than 18 feet in vertical clearance. It would need to be fixed in

the open position or Amtrak would need to continue to open and close the bridge regularly. This

would not be feasible from an operational and cost perspective. The bridge could remain inplace and fixed in the open position; however, it would still present navigational challenges due

to the narrow and off-center channel. Boats would be required to navigate around three bridges

in close proximity—the existing I-95 Baldwin Bridge, the existing Connecticut River Bridge,

and the new replacement bridge. This would not satisfy one of the main project goals—to

minimize conflicts with marine traffic. Amtrak determined this avoidance alternative to be

neither feasible nor prudent.

MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM

The proposed project will require a temporary closure of a portion of the boardwalk to facilitate

construction of the new bridge and ensure the safety of the public. Amtrak will work closely

with CTDEEP to minimize these closures and provide adequate signage and information to the

users of the park. Good construction practices will be implemented to ensure the boardwalk is

protected during the construction period and rebuilt as necessary. The project will not result in

any permanent adverse effects to Ferry Landing Park or the boardwalk. 