ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT 

NEW HAMPSHIRE CAPITOL CORRIDOR 

RAIL PLANNING STUDY 

STATE PROJECT NUMBER 63037 A 

April 2015 
 New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

ii | P a g e 

This document was prepared by AECOM for The New Hampshire Department of 

Transportation for submittal to The U.S. Department of Transportation Federal 

Railroad Administration. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

iii | P a g e 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Planning Study Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2

Public Involvement Objectives .................................................................................................................. 7

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail and Service-level NEPA Overview ....................................... 9

1.2 Corridor History ..........................................................................................................................10

1.2.1 Previous Corridor Planning ................................................................................................. 10

1.2.2 Other Related Planning .......................................................................................................11

1.3 Corridor Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................12

2 Purpose and Need ...............................................................................................................................15

2.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................15

2.2 Need ............................................................................................................................................15

2.3 Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................................16

3 Alternatives Evaluation .......................................................................................................................18

3.1 No Build Alternative ....................................................................................................................18

3.2 Build Alternative (Intercity 8) ......................................................................................................19

3.2.1 Route ...................................................................................................................................20

3.2.2 Stations and Layover Facility ...............................................................................................20

3.3 Train Service Levels .....................................................................................................................24

3.3.1 Train Operating Speeds .......................................................................................................25

3.3.2 Ridership Projections ..........................................................................................................25

3.3.3 Major Infrastructure Components ......................................................................................26

3.4 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis ..................................................27

3.4.1 Route Alternatives ..............................................................................................................27

3.4.2 Station Alternatives .............................................................................................................27

3.4.3 Train Service Levels .............................................................................................................28

4 Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts ...........................................................................28

4.1 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................29
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

iv | P a g e 

4.1.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................30

4.1.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................32

4.1.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................32

4.2 Noise and Vibration ....................................................................................................................35

4.2.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................36

4.2.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................36

4.2.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................36

4.3 Hazardous Waste Sites ................................................................................................................39

4.3.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................39

4.3.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................40

4.3.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................40

4.4 Water Quality ..............................................................................................................................41

4.4.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................41

4.4.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................41

4.4.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................41

4.5 Wetlands .....................................................................................................................................42

4.5.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................42

4.5.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................44

4.5.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................44

4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species .........................................................................................44

4.6.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................45

4.6.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................46

4.6.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................46

4.7 Floodplains ..................................................................................................................................46

4.7.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................47

4.7.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................47

4.7.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................47

4.8 Energy Resources ........................................................................................................................48

4.8.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................48

4.8.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................48

4.8.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................48
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

 v | P a g e 

4.9 Visual and Aesthetic Resources ..................................................................................................48

4.9.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................49

4.9.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................49

4.9.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................49

4.10 Accessibility ................................................................................................................................. 49

4.10.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................50

4.10.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................50

4.10.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................50

4.11 Property Acquisition ...................................................................................................................50

4.11.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................50

4.11.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................51

4.11.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................51

4.12 Land Use ......................................................................................................................................51

4.12.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................52

4.12.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................52

4.12.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................53

4.13 Environmental Justice .................................................................................................................53

4.13.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................54

4.13.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................55

4.13.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................55

4.14 Public Safety ................................................................................................................................56

4.14.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................56

4.14.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................56

4.14.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................57

4.15 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties ................................................................................57

4.15.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................58

4.15.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................59

4.15.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................59

4.16 Parks and Recreation ..................................................................................................................60

4.16.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................60

4.16.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................60
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

vi | P a g e 

4.16.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................61

4.17 Socioeconomics...........................................................................................................................61

4.17.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................62

4.17.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................62

4.17.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................62

4.18 Transportation ............................................................................................................................63

4.18.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................63

4.18.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................63

4.18.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................63

4.19 Indirect Effects ............................................................................................................................64

4.19.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................64

4.19.2 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................64

4.20 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................................65

4.20.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................66

4.20.2 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................66

4.21 Construction Impacts ..................................................................................................................67

4.21.1 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................67

4.21.2 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................67

4.21.3 Build Alternative .................................................................................................................67

5 Agency Coordination and Public Involvement ....................................................................................68

5.1 Agency and Stakeholder Coordination .......................................................................................69

5.1.1 Project Advisory Committee ...............................................................................................69

5.1.2 Other Stakeholders .............................................................................................................70

5.2 Public Involvement......................................................................................................................72

5.3 Website .......................................................................................................................................76

5.4 Media Outreach ..........................................................................................................................76

5.5 Project Electronic Mailing List .....................................................................................................77

6 List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................78

7 Distribution List ...................................................................................................................................79

8 References ..........................................................................................................................................81
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

 vii | P a g e 

Table of Figures 

Figure 1.1: Capitol Corridor ........................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 1.2: Designated High-Speed Rail Corridors and the Northeast Corridor ........................................... 9

Figure 2.1: Existing Volume-to-Capacity Ratio during the Inbound Morning Peak ....................................15

Figure 3.1: Intercity 8 Service .....................................................................................................................19

Figure 3.2: Proposed Concord Stickney Avenue Station .............................................................................21

Figure 3.3 Proposed Manchester Station ...................................................................................................22

Figure 3.4: Proposed Bedford/Manchester Airport Station .......................................................................23

Figure 3.5: Proposed Nashua Station ..........................................................................................................24

List of Tables 

Table 1: Summary of Intercity 8 Resource Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ............................................. 3

Table 2.1: Capitol Corridor Study Goals and Objectives .............................................................................17

Table 3.1: Proposed Service Schedule ........................................................................................................25

Table 3.2: Ridership Demand Forecast (Start of Service) ...........................................................................25

Table 4.1: Air Pollutants and NAAQS Attainment Status ............................................................................31

Table 4.2: Air Quality Impact for Intercity 8 – Criteria Pollutants ..............................................................33

Table 4.3: Air Quality Impact for the Intercity 8 Alternative – Hazardous Air Pollutants ...........................33

Table 4.4: Air Quality Impact for Intercity 8 Alternative – Greenhouse Gases ...........................................33

Table 4.5: Summary of Unmitigated Noise Impact Results ........................................................................37

Table 4.6: Summary of Severe Noise Impact at Intersections ....................................................................37

Table 4.7: Summary of Unmitigated Construction Noise Impact Results ................................................... 38

Table 4.8: Prime New Hampshire Wetlands in Corridor .............................................................................43

Table 4.9: Development Potential at Each Station .....................................................................................63

Table 4.10: Impacts on Employment and Output .......................................................................................63

Table 5.1: Stakeholder Outreach Summary ................................................................................................73

Table 7.1: Distribution List ..........................................................................................................................79

List of Appendices

Appendix A Air Quality Technical Memorandum 

Appendix B Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum 

Appendix C Contamination Inventory 

Appendix D Natural Resources Technical Report 

Appendix E Sustainable Land Use Technical Report 

Appendix F Corridor, Regional, Equity Analysis Technical Report 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

 viii | P a g e 

Appendix G Phase 1A: Cultural Resource Investigation for the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail 

and Transit Study; Lowell, Tyngsborough, Chelmsford, Middlesex County, Massachusetts 

Phase 1A: Cultural Resource Investigation for the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail 

and Transit Study; Hillsborough and Merrimack County, New Hampshire 

Appendix H Public Involvement Materials and Meeting Notes 

List of Acronyms 

AA Alternatives Analysis 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

AHWD Automatic Highway Warning Devices 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

ATSM American Society for Testing and Materials 

B&M Boston and Maine Railroad 

BMP Best Management Practices 

BX Boston Express 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBP Central Business Performance 

CE Categorical Exclusion 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent 

CTC Centralized Traffic Control 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWR Continuous Welded Rail 

dBA Decibels 

DCS Data Communication System 

DFIRMs Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

DPM Diesel Particulate Matter 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EJ Environmental Justice 

ESA Environmental Site Assessment 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

GHG Greenhouse Gases 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GWP Gateway Performance District 

HSIPR High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

Ldn Day-Night Noise Levels 

LLPs Landowner Liability Protections 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

ix | P a g e 

LOD Limit of Disturbance 

LOS Level of Service 

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank 

MA Massachusetts 

MACRIS Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System 

MassDEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

MassDOT Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

MassGIS Massachusetts Geographic Information System 

MHT Boston-Manchester Regional Airport 

MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 

MESA Massachusetts Endangered Species Act 

MHC Massachusetts Historical Commission 

NHESP Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

MHT Boston-Manchester Regional Airport or Manchester Airport 

MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 

mph miles per hour 

MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEGS New England Southern Railroad 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NH New Hampshire 

NH GRANIT New Hampshire Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System 

NHB New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau 

NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 

NHDOT New Hampshire Department of Transportation 

NHDRED New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development 

NHESP Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program 

NHF&G New Hampshire Fish and Game Department 

NHL National Historic Landmark 

NHML New Hampshire Main Line 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NHRTA New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NO2 Nitrogen dioxide 

NOx Nitrogen oxide 

NORAC Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

O3 Ozone 

OCP Opportunity Corridor Performance 

PAC Project Advisory Committee 

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

PAR Pan Am Railways 

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

POM Polycyclic Organic Matter 

PM Particulate Matter 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

 x | P a g e 

PRICP Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Plan 

PSIP Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan 

PSNH Public Service of New Hampshire 

PTC Positive Train Control 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

REC Recognized Environmental Condition 

ROW Right-of-way 

RPC Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission 

SDP Service Development Plan 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide 

TMDLs Total Maximum Daily Loads 

TOD Transit-Oriented Development 

tpy tons per year 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geologic Survey 

UST Underground Storage Tanks 

VdB Vibration Velocity Level 

VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled 

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds 

WPA Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

 1 | P a g e 

Executive Summary 

Purpose and Need 

This Service-level Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by the New Hampshire Department of 

Transportation (NHDOT) in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The EA was 

prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 4321 et. seq.; its implementing regulations, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508; 

and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 Federal Register (FR) 28545 (May 26, 

1999) and 78 FR 2713 (January 14, 2013). 

NHDOT received a funding grant for the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study (Study) 

under FRA’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program. The Study included preparation of a Service 

Development Plan (SDP) and accompanying environmental analysis, and was developed by a team of 

transportation planning, engineering, and environmental experts from FRA, NHDOT, and their respective 

consultants (Study Team). The overarching purpose of the Study was to identify and implement the 

intercity passenger rail investment strategy that will best leverage the existing transportation 

infrastructure to improve connectivity to and from Boston, the region’s largest economic hub; diversify 

options and reduce the primarily single-mode reliance on roadways for the movement of people and 

goods; support mobility options that match emerging demographic trends and preferences in the 

corridor; and maintain the region’s high quality-of-life through strategic infrastructure investments. 

More specifically, the purpose of the Study was to evaluate options for introducing intercity passenger 

rail service between Boston, Massachusetts (MA) and Concord, New Hampshire (NH) over existing 

transportation infrastructure, namely the portion of the New Hampshire Mail Line (NHML) owned by 

Pan Am Railways (PAR), which is currently used for freight rail only. 

There are a number of reasons why investment in an improved transportation strategy within the 

Capitol Corridor is needed, including: 

 Increased roadway congestion: Projected population growth will result in increased congestion 

on the existing roadway network. 

 Gaps in Connectivity: New Hampshire’s existing transportation network does not effectively 

connect existing modes. 

 Lack of Transportation Options: The regional economy is singularly dependent on automobile 

travel/roadways for movement of goods and passengers. 

 Stagnant Economic Growth & Brain Drain in the Capitol Corridor: Multi-modal transportation 

investment is necessary to link New Hampshire’s Millennial and Generation X workforce with 

the knowledge-based employment found in and near Boston. Without it, these employees will 

continue to move closer to these jobs rather than remaining New Hampshire residents and 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

 2 | P a g e 

driving to work. Young New Hampshire professionals are leaving the area to be closer to 

employment and cultural/social opportunities associated with larger urban centers. 

 Aging Population: New Hampshire’s growing senior population needs more “car-light” mobility 

options. 

 Sustainability: Multi-modal transportation investment is necessary to sustainably accommodate 

increases in traffic volume and development pressure associated with projected population 

growth. 

 Insufficient Capacity: The existing transportation network cannot accommodate increased levels 

of demand without negative environmental consequences. 

Planning Study Objectives 

This EA follows FRA’s guidance for compliance with NEPA at the Service-level. Service-level NEPA 

“...typically addresses the broader questions relating to the type of service(s) being proposed, including 

cities and stations served, route alternatives, service levels, types of operations (speed, electric, or diesel 

powered, etc.), ridership projections, and major infrastructure components.” This Study, if it advances to 

the project level, will be followed by a future Tier2 NEPA analysis, or analyses, which may be an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), an Environmental Assessment (EA), or a Categorical Exclusion 

(CE), depending on the details of the project, site-specific conditions and resources present, and the 

significance of potential impacts to the human environment. 

The Study identified three intercity passenger rail service alternatives; one of these, the Intercity 8 

alternative, was selected as the Build Alternative and carried forward for analysis in this EA (see 

Appendix 5, Preliminary Evaluation of Conceptual Alternatives, Section 4, to the Capitol Corridor AA 

Final Report). Service under the Build Alternative was found to be the lowest cost per new NH rider of 

the three intercity alternatives (8, 12, and 18 trains per day, respectively) and maintains all existing bus 

service on I-93 and US Route 3. The Build Alternative performs about the same in terms of ridership, is 

slightly less favorable for land use and economic development and has no significant difference in 

overall environmental impact. This EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the Build and 

No Build Alternatives for an Amtrak‐operated (or similar) intercity rail service between Boston, 

Massachusetts and Concord, New Hampshire. 

The Build Alternative would operate eight trips per day between Boston North Station and Concord. The 

four daily round trips over the 73-mile route would stop at five intermediate stations – (Three new 

stations in New Hampshire: Manchester, Manchester-Boston Regional Airport [Manchester Airport or 

MHT], Nashua and two existing stations in Massachusetts: Lowell and Woburn). Track improvements 

north of the Stony Brook wye in North Chelmsford and the New Hampshire stations would be new 

construction. No improvements south of Lowell would be required. End-to-end trip time would be 

approximately 96 minutes. The service would operate at a maximum speed of 75 miles per hour (mph) 

between Bedford/Manchester Airport and Nashua and 70 mph at many other locations and is expected 

to attract 172,645 passengers per year. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

 3 | P a g e 

Connections to private bus service- would allow travelers to reach additional North Country destinations. 

The Build Alternative proposes no changes to express bus service for commuting to Boston via I-93 or

Route 3. Local bus service to the intercity rail stations could be offered, but would not be integral to 

the service design. A Boston Express (BX)/Concord Coach/Intercity Rail fare integration scheme similar 

to that employed by the Amtrak Downeaster at Portland, Maine could be employed at the Concord and 

Manchester stations that would be shared by both intercity rail and coach bus services. 

The purpose of this EA is to identify and evaluate potential environmental, social, and economic impacts 

associated with the Build Alternative and determine appropriate mitigation measures (see Table 1 for a 

summary). As this is a Service-level NEPA document, some resources will not have mitigation 

determined at this level of analysis. 

Table 1: Summary of Build Alternative Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 

Resource Impact Mitigation

Air Quality Improved air quality through vehicle trips shifting to 

intercity rail

A number of sustainable mitigation measures 

that could be implemented to improve air 

quality including using higher tier locomotive 

engines, and biodiesel fuel; electrification of the 

line, sustainable station design; local, recycled 

and renewable construction materials and 

replanting trees. During project construction, 

appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

would be implemented to address air quality 

impacts.

Noise and 

Vibration

707 moderate noise impacts and 75 severe impacts due to 

warning horns; four potential daytime construction 

impacts and up to 324 potential nighttime construction 

impacts have been identified as a result of the analysis 

conducted pursuant to Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) guidelines; no vibration impacts are expected.

Mitigation measures would be applied during 

Tier 2. Potential measures include installation of 

stationary wayside horns at severely impacted 

intersection locations.

Hazardous 

Waste Sites

Short-term adverse impacts may occur during construction 

of rail and station sites due to potential for movement of 

contaminated soils or material.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) 

would be completed during Tier 2, as necessary, 

for each property acquired to be eligible for 

Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs).

Water Quality Negligible to minor, short-term, localized impacts during 

construction activities.

All impacts would be mitigated through

construction BMPs and improvements to 

drainage and storm water management.
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

 4 | P a g e 

Resource Impact Mitigation

Wetlands  No impact to wetlands in most areas of the corridor and 

minor temporary and permanent impacts to 

jurisdictional wetland resource areas in a few discrete 

areas of the corridor

 The Bedford/Manchester Airport station has several 

wetlands and watercourses

 North of Ray Wieczorek Drive, the majority of the site is 

forested wetland

 South of Ray Wieczorek Drive, there are two small 

forested wetlands and one emergent/scrub-shrub 

wetland

 Minor temporary impacts may occur during 

construction activities

If the project advances to Tier 2, these impacts 

would be defined in greater detail. Any wetland 

impacts would be subject to state and federal 

permitting requirements which would include 

compensatory mitigation for any unavoidable 

impacts.

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species

Impacts have not been identified at the Tier 1 stage. Coordination and consultation with the 

appropriate state and federal agencies (NHESP, 

NHB, NHF&G, USFWS, and NMFS) will occur at 

the Tier 2 level study or project level, as 

necessary. This may include the identification of 

ways to avoid, reduce, or mitigate impacts.

Floodplains Minor to negligible impacts to floodplains In locations where floodplain elevations will be 

altered, the project will provide compensatory 

floodplain storage. Through mitigation, adverse 

impacts to floodplains will be kept to a 

minimum.

Energy 

Resources

Beneficial impact: Diverting trips from vehicles to 

passenger rail will reduce the overall Vehicle Miles 

Travelled (VMT) and greenhouse emissions. During 

construction, the project would consume energy through 

the processing of materials and construction activities.

Energy impacts from the operation of the 

service are expected to be positive, but there 

would be energy consumption during 

construction that could have temporary 

negative impacts.

Visual Resources Impacts to visual resources, including natural and cultural 

resources, were not assessed at the Tier1 level study. 

Visual impacts of the project will be better understood at 

the Tier 2 level of study when the project plans are more 

fully developed.

All mitigation measures associated with visual 

resource impacts would be addressed in the Tier 

2 level study.

Accessibility Beneficial impact: Platform, stations and facilities will meet 

the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

None

Property 

Acquisition

Minor impacts: Station development would require 

acquisition of two privately held parcels.

All mitigation measures associated with 

property acquisitions would be addressed in the 

Tier 2 level study.
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

 5 | P a g e 

Resource Impact Mitigation

Land Use Land uses around the four station locations are compatible 

with proposed stations. The local comprehensive plans and 

policies are supportive of intercity rail service. Overall, 

intercity rail service would not result in negative impacts 

to the existing land uses within a half-mile of the four 

proposed stations.

None

Environmental 

Justice (EJ)

Major beneficial impacts for those EJ populations within 

proximity to proposed stations in Concord, Manchester,

and Nashua, as the project provides increased access to 

transportation options within the corridor.

None

Public Safety Beneficial impact through mitigation and upgraded safety 

features.

A number of mitigation measures would

improve the safety of the 35 at grade crossings: 

the Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) signal 

system would be renewed and upgraded; all 

new equipment for the Automatic Highway 

Warning Devices (AHWD) would be installed; 

and it is assumed that Positive Train Control 

(PTC) would be in-place by the time the 

proposed service is operational. In addition, 

public safety benefits would be realized from 

travelers shifting from road to rail.

Cultural 

Resources

Impacts to archaeological and historic architectural 

resources were not assessed at the Tier 1 level study and 

will be better understood at the Tier 2 level study when 

the project plans are more fully developed.

As the area’s archaeological potential is 

generally high, archaeological testing and 

monitoring of construction activities may be 

necessary. Consultation with the Massachusetts 

and New Hampshire State Historic Preservation 

Officers (SHPOs), and other parties such as 

Native American Tribes, would occur at the Tier 

2 level. Such consultation would resolve any 

adverse effects to historic properties.

Parks and 

Recreation

Impacts to Section 4(f) resources have not been identified 

during Tier 1. Impacts will be identified during the Tier 2

level study.

If impacts to Section 4(f) resources are 

identified during the Tier 2 level study. Any 

necessary mitigation would also be determined 

at that stage.
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

 6 | P a g e 

Resource Impact Mitigation

Socioeconomics Beneficial impact on New Hampshire economics by 

potentially generating the following:

 1,600 new residential units*

 819,000 square feet of commercial space

 2,480 new station area jobs in 2030 and beyond, plus 

1,100 other new jobs due to expansion of the economy

 350 new jobs over the construction period (2019-2022) 

and 2,460 jobs related to new real estate development 

between 2021 and 2030

 Real estate development would add $750 million to the 

state’s output between 2021 and 2030

None

Transportation Beneficial impact on rail options and mobility in the 

corridor by increasing transportation options

None

Indirect Effects Indirect Effects: Beneficial long-term effects due to 

induced growth and development around station 

locations. Development in cities and communities along 

the corridor has the potential to impact land use, 

transportation systems, air, storm water runoff/water 

quality, cultural resources and visual resources.

Increases in traffic associated with development have the 

potential for a cumulative effect on wildlife mortality and 

public safety. 

During Tier 2, the indirect effects would be 

more defined and any necessary mitigation 

measures will be determined.

Cumulative 

Impacts

Cumulative Impacts: Incremental beneficial impact on the 

environment through greater access to transportation 

options and reduction in VMT within the US Route 3 and 

I-93 corridors.

Depending on extent and location incremental 

development has the potential for impacts to natural 

areas, wetlands, property, vegetation, noise, parks and 

cultural resources.

Incremental increases in freight rail and/or passenger rail 

operations would bring additional noise and vibration to 

the proposed project corridor, posing a potential for 

cumulative effects

During Tier 2, the cumulative impacts would be 

more defined and any necessary mitigation 

measures will be determined.

Construction 

Period Impacts

Minor temporary impacts may occur during construction 

activities, such as replacing or rehabilitating bridges or 

culverts, relocating utilities for track work and grading 

work associated with station construction. Noise 

associated with the construction of the project is expected 

to have four potential daytime impacts, and up to 324 

potential nighttime impacts have been identified as a 

result of the analysis.

These impacts would be mitigated during design 

and restored after construction has been 

completed. Minor permanent impacts may 

occur during these same activities in cases 

where temporary impacts cannot be mitigated.

During Tier 2 the impacts and mitigation 

measures would be more defined.
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

 7 | P a g e 

Resource Impact Mitigation

*Residential units rounded to the nearest 100

Public Involvement Objectives 

The Capitol Corridor Study, which includes the NEPA process, featured a robust public involvement 

program designed to solicit input from a broad, diverse range of stakeholders who have a demonstrated 

interest in the future of passenger rail in New Hampshire. During the study, contacts within agencies, 

public officials, civic and business groups, relevant interest groups, present and potential riders/users, 

and private service providers/shippers were identified. The project team conducted 91 stakeholder 

meetings, three Project Advisory Committee (PAC) meetings, and three public meetings (Concord, 

Manchester, and Nashua) including a scoping meeting. The main objectives of the public and 

stakeholder outreach are as follows: 

 Build support for the study and NEPA processes among different stakeholder groups. 

 Encourage stakeholders (appropriate federal, state, and local authorities, and the public) to 

engage in the study efforts at the earliest practicable time. 

 Provide clear and understandable information at each step of the study. 

 Document public and stakeholder opinion as part of the decision-making process concerning the 

consequences of the current and any future grant applications. 

 Create a high-level of transparency regarding how the project is conducted. 

As the project moves forward, the public and stakeholders will continue to be encouraged to 

participate. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

 8 | Page 

1 Introduction

The New Hampshire Department 

of Transportation (NHDOT), 

through a funding grant from the 

Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA), has prepared this Servicelevel Environmental Assessment 

(EA) consistent with NEPA of 

1969, as amended, 41 U.S.C. §§ 

4331 et seq.; the regulations of 

the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ), 40 CFR 1500-1508; 

the FRA Procedures for 

Considering Environmental 

Impacts, 64 FR 28545 (May 26, 

1999) and 78 FR 2713 (January 14, 

2013); the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, 

16 U.S.C. 470(f); Section 4(f) of 

the Department of Transportation 

Act (of 1966, as amended, Title 

49U.S.C. 303; the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 

1990; the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531; the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance 

and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act of 1970, 42 U.S., 4601; 

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1342; Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low Income Populations; Executive Order 11990, 

Protection of Wetlands; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and FRA’s guidance on 

compliance with NEPA in Implementing the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program, issued 

August 13, 2009. 

The Capitol Corridor extends 73 miles from Boston, Massachusetts (MA) to Concord, New Hampshire 

(NH). The geographic area of the corridor encompasses the existing track alignment that runs north 

from Boston, through Lowell, Nashua, and Manchester to Concord. The portion of the alignment within 

Massachusetts is owned by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the portion 

within New Hampshire is owned by Pan Am Railways (PAR). The corridor also includes US Route 3 and 

I-93 highway corridors, as well as Boston Logan International Airport and Manchester Airport (Figure 

Figure 1.1: Capitol Corridor
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

 9 | P a g e 

1.1). The corridor connects Boston with the three largest cities in New Hampshire: Concord, 

Manchester, and Nashua. These cities, as well as the other communities on the corridor, represent 

nearly 39 percent of the population and just over 41 percent of the employment in the entire State of 

New Hampshire. Manchester is the largest city in the northeast currently without passenger rail service. 

1.1 High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail and Service-level NEPA Overview 

In the High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan, published in April 2009, FRA announced its vision for high-speed 

intercity passenger rail in America. The HSIPR Program was created to help address the nation’s 

transportation challenges by making strategic investments in an efficient network of passenger rail 

corridors that connect communities across the country. The goal of the strategy is to (1) ensure safe and 

efficient transportation choices; (2) build a foundation for economic competitiveness; (3) promote 

energy efficiency and environmental quality; and (4) support interconnected, livable communities. The 

Capitol Corridor makes up a section of the larger Boston to Montreal (Northern New England) Corridor 

(Figure 1.2). 

Figure 1.2: Designated High-Speed Rail Corridors and the Northeast Corridor 

This Tier 1 EA addresses Build and No Build Alternatives for new intercity passenger rail service between 

Boston, MA and Concord, NH. Because of the scope (corridor- or service level study), and the length of 

the corridor between Boston and Concord (73 miles), the FRA determined that a Tier 1EA is the 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

10 | P a g e 

appropriate level of NEPA analysis. In the future, Project-level NEPA analyses may result in one or more 

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), EAs, or Categorical Exclusions (CE). The appropriate level of 

Tier2 NEPA analyses will depend on site-specific conditions and resources present, project details, and 

the significance of potential impacts to the human environment. 

1.2 Corridor History 

The New Hampshire Capitol Corridor occupies the same alignment as the New Hampshire Main Line 

(NHML), a rail corridor that has been in continuous use for freight service for 175 years. The first 

passenger train in New Hampshire pulled into Nashua from Lowell, Massachusetts in October 1838 on 

the NHML.1

 Passenger rail service along this alignment soon extended further into New Hampshire, to 

Manchester and Concord with further extensions into the White Mountains and westerly to Hanover 

and White River Junction. NHML passenger service ran for almost 130 years until it was abandoned in 

1967. Passenger service was briefly restored in 1980, but abandoned again when federal funding 

expired. The NHML was a principal artery of the Boston and Maine Railroad (B&M), and remains a vital 

portion of the PAR’s network. The NHML functions as a key economic link between New Hampshire and 

the national economy. 

In 2006, the Community Advisory Committee to the NHDOT Commissioner recommended expanded 

passenger rail as one of the five “initial action items” in its final report, which is a component of the 

state’s long-range transportation plan.2 In 2007, the New Hampshire Legislature created the New 

Hampshire Rail Transit Authority (NHRTA) to establish passenger rail service in New Hampshire. In 2009, 

the New Hampshire Climate Action Plan, prepared by the New Hampshire Climate Change Policy Task 

Force, recommended maintaining and expanding passenger rail service within New Hampshire as part of 

a balanced, state-wide, multi-modal transportation system that keeps the state competitive with and 

accessible to the region. Initial actions would focus on sustaining and improving existing passenger rail 

service. Near- to mid-term actions would focus on improving and expanding New Hampshire’s primary 

travel corridors (I-93 from Salem through Manchester to Concord, and the I-95 corridor on the 

Seacoast). Long-term actions would address the goal of expanding passenger rail service throughout 

New Hampshire.3

 The following are examples of recent state-level recognition of the need for the 

Capitol Corridor Study. 

1.2.1 Previous Corridor Planning 

In 2003, the state DOTs from New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts commissioned a feasibility 

study for the Boston, MA to Montreal, QC, Canada rail corridor: Boston to Montreal High-Speed Rail 

 

1

 Crowninshield-Bradlee, Francis Boardman; The Boston And Lowell Railroad, The Nashua And Lowell Railroad, And The Salem 

And Lowell Railroad (1918); Kessinger Publishing; 2009 

2

 The report of the Community Advisory Committee to the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation; 

June 9, 2006; http://www.nhcf.org/document.doc?id=34 

3

http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/air/tsb/tps/climate/action_plan/documents/nhcap_final.pdf; Pg 53 - Maintain and 

Expand Passenger Rail Service (TLU Action 2.B.2.a) 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

11 | P a g e 

Planning and Feasibility Study Phase I: Final Report.4 The study describes existing conditions, including 

those within the Boston, MA to Concord, NH portion of the Study corridor, as well as a ridership analysis 

of corridor stations. The feasibility study found that “further study of associated operational, 

engineering and cost/revenue factors is warranted,” a recommendation that supports the Capitol 

Corridor Study. 

In 2004, NHDOT developed a draft EA, Lowell, MA to Nashua, NH Commuter Rail Extension Project 

Environmental Assessment (2004),5

 for the corridor segment from Lowell, MA to Nashua, NH in 

anticipation of extending MBTA commuter rail service to New Hampshire. Because the study focuses on 

a segment of the Capitol Corridor Study area, NHDOT used the environmental analysis to support the 

Capitol Corridor Study. 

The 2010 New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Project Overview, based on a white paper prepared for 

Amtrak,6details this corridor’s state-of-readiness to function as part of the intercity passenger rail 

system. The overview includes many elements of the Capitol Corridor project including proposed 

service, ridership forecast, capital costs, and economic impacts. 

Also in 2010, NHRTA commissioned the Economic Impact of Passenger Rail Expansion along the New 

Hampshire Capitol Corridor.7 The report assessed the economic impacts of restoring intercity passenger 

rail service between Boston, MA and Concord, NH. The study supports the case that the implementation 

of passenger rail along this corridor is a net economic benefit for New Hampshire. 

In 2011, a poll was conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center of New Hampshire 

residents to assess attitudes about the extension of commuter rail service through the New Hampshire 

Capitol Corridor. Findings suggest a majority of residents strongly favor extending passenger rail service 

in New Hampshire, and using federal funding to study the issue. 

1.2.2 Other Related Planning 

A number of other planning studies reference the Capitol Corridor, and are relevant to the current Study: 

 The Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan (2013-2022) includes a provision that requires 

legislative approval for capital and operating budgets associated with passenger rail service prior 

to expenditure. 

 The Massachusetts Department of Transportation Rail Plan (2010) and the New Hampshire State 

Rail Plan (2012) both identify the corridor as a potential for passenger service, and the New 

Hampshire plan recommendations include “implement recommendations of studies of the New 

Hampshire Capitol Corridor.” 

 

4

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

5

http://www.nhcapitolcorridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Nashua-EA-6-23-05-ver1_3_Part1.pdf

6

 http://www.cometolowell.com/pdfs/NHCCorridorOverview.pdf 

7

 http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/NH-PassRail-Economic-Impact-Memo.pdf 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

12 | P a g e 

 The I-93 Corridor Multi-Modal Transit Investment Study (2009) does not focus on studying the 

Capitol Corridor, but recognizes it as a viable candidate for passenger rail service. 

1.3 Corridor Existing Conditions 

The Capitol Corridor’s transportation network includes roadways, highways, transit services, intercity 

passenger rail service (in Massachusetts), freight railroads, airports, and pedestrian and bicyclist 

facilities. Despite the multi-modal nature of this transportation network, demand is exceeding capacity 

(particularly within the highway network) and there are opportunities to encourage shifts to less 

congested and more efficient modes. 

 Highway Facilities: The limited access highways that connect New Hampshire’s major 

population centers to metropolitan Boston are I-93, US Route 3/Everett Turnpike, Route 

128/I-95, I-293, and, I-495. Under current conditions, severe traffic congestion occurs inbound 

towards Boston during the weekday morning peak hour. I-93 between Route 128/I-95 and I-495 

is generally over-capacity with level of service (LOS) E and F conditions (E = unstable traffic flow, 

operating at capacity; F = forced or breakdown traffic flow). This LOS represents roadway 

conditions with bumper-to-bumper or completely stopped traffic. Route 128/I-95 between US 

Route 3 and I-93 is generally over capacity with traffic congestion. I-495 is over capacity closer to 

US Route 3. Near I-93, I-495 is close to and above capacity. US Route 3 operates near capacity 

during the weekday morning peak hour and has LOS E and F conditions between Route 128 and 

I-495, with congestion focused in the vicinity of the US Route 3 and I-495 interchange and the 

Lowell Connector. US Route 3 is close to capacity in the vicinity of North Chelmsford 

(Massachusetts), Tyngsborough (Massachusetts), and Nashua (New Hampshire). US Route 3 and 

I-93 are close to capacity in the vicinity of Manchester (New Hampshire) and Concord (New 

Hampshire).

 Bus Service: Seven regional and four local bus operators provide service within New Hampshire 

and intercity service to Boston and beyond. A partnership between NHDOT and Concord Coach 

operates two Boston Express (BX) commuter bus routes along I-93 and US Route 3 between 

New Hampshire park and ride lots and Boston South Station. This service provides 42 

southbound trips to Boston and 38 northbound to New Hampshire and typically carries 1,800 

passengers per day. Existing traffic congestion along I-93 significantly impacts BX’s scheduled 

travel times. The level of recurring daily congestion delays is built-in to the schedules. For 

example, the 6:30 am southbound departure from Londonderry (Exit 4) on the I-93 service is 

scheduled for a one-hour trip to Boston South Station. Meanwhile, the 9:50 am southbound 

departure is scheduled for a two-hour and 20 minute trip, which is a built-in or induced delay of 

one hour and 20 minutes. 

 Commuter Rail: On a typical weekday, Lowell is served by 44 MBTA revenue trains to and from 

Boston’s North Station. The 25-mile trip serving up to seven intermediate station stops takes 44 

to 49 minutes. Typical weekday MBTA ridership on the entire line is 17,500 passenger trips 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

13 | P a g e 

including both northbound and southbound travel. Lowell is the busiest passenger station on 

the line with 4,280 weekday boardings and alightings. 

 Freight Rail: The NHML was a principal artery of B&M’s (now PAR’s) network and remains a key 

economic link between New Hampshire and the national economy. While the freight received is 

quite diverse, traffic flow is dominated by coal for electric generation shipped to the Bow Power 

Plant. 

 Airports: Boston’s Logan International Airport is currently New England’s largest transportation 

center and ranks 20th in the nation in passenger volume. Manchester Airport ranks 140th in the 

nation and handled 2.452 million passengers in 2012 and remains New England's fourth largest 

airport by passenger volume, behind Boston Logan, Bradley International in Connecticut, and T. 

F. Green in Rhode Island. It contributes over $1 billion annually to the region's economy and 

accounts for more than 3,500 jobs in the three-county region contiguous to the airport.8

Once a busy main line railway, the NHML was originally double-tracked to Concord and beyond. 

However, today the railway is largely single-tracked north of Chelmsford with some passing sidings, 

yards in Nashua and Manchester, and numerous turnouts to freight customer sidings. The following 

provides an overview of the conditions of the existing rail line along this corridor. 

 Ownership: In Massachusetts, MBTA acquired the southernmost 34.5 miles of the NHML in the 

1960s. In New Hampshire, PAR owns the NHML. PAR has conveyed trackage rights for the 

operation of passenger trains on the NHML northward into New Hampshire between the state 

line and Concord to the MBTA. 

 Railway Signal System and Traffic Regulation: The train control signal system for the route 

supports Northeast Operating Rules Advisory Committee (NORAC) Rule 261 between North 

Station and Manchester. Rule 261 allows for bi-directional operation with automatic wayside 

block signals on all main line tracks. North of Manchester, there are no wayside signals and 

operations are governed by Data Communication System (DCS) rules, wherein a Form D train 

order issued over the radio by the railroad dispatcher in Billerica, MA is necessary to move a 

train. 

 Track Class and Speed: Within the southern 25 miles of the NHML between Boston and Lowell, 

most of the trackage is rated for 60 miles per hour (mph) passenger operations, with some 

segments maintained to a 70 mph speed standard to accommodate higher speed MBTA 

operations. North from Lowell is a three-mile section of track to North Chelmsford that 

experiences heavy freight traffic, which is maintained for a maximum freight speed of 40 mph 

(Class 3). North of Chelmsford the track is maintained for 40 and 30 mph freight speeds on 

 

8 Manchester-Boston Regional Airport Economic Impact Study, 2008-2009, Jacobs Consultancy
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

14 | P a g e 

predominately Class 3 track north to Bow, and with Class 2 track north to Concord with 25 mph 

freight speeds. 

 Track Condition: The track conditions along the route are consistent with the FRA Track Class 

and maximum speeds. 

 Boston to Lowell: The entire rail is welded with the latest major tie renewal completed 

in 1992. The oldest rail on this segment was manufactured in 1980. Much of the track 

uses 132-pound (per yard) rail, but approximately 20 of the 51 track miles between 

Boston and Lowell uses 115-pound rail.

 Lowell to Chelmsford: The track is jointed here and the northbound track is primarily 

constructed with 100-pound rail manufactured in 1927. The southbound track is mostly 

constructed with 112-pound relay rail from 1965. 

 North of Chelmsford: Similar to the southern portion, the rail is almost all jointed. There 

are approximately two miles of welded rail just north of downtown Manchester. Nearly 

the entire rail is 112-pound manufactured during the first half of the 1940s. 

 Alignment: The NHML track north of Lowell to Concord runs along the Merrimack River. This 

alignment has mostly gentle grades, with none steeper than 0.35 percent. The horizontal 

alignment curves to follow the river with few tangent (straight) segments more than one-mile 

long. Between Lowell and Concord, 29.6 of the 48.5 track miles are curved, which is 61 percent 

of the route. Many of the curves are sufficiently tight to impact maximum train speeds. 

 Bridges: There are 25 bridges along the NHML between Lowell and Concord rated generally fair 

to good, with one bridge noted in poor condition in Tyngsborough, Massachusetts. The two 

longest bridges crossing the Merrimack River are not rated and should be inspected before 

passenger service is restored. 

 Highway Grade Crossings: There are 35 locations identified between Lowell and Concord where 

roadways or pedestrian paths cross the railway at grade. Federal safety regulations require 

trains to sound their horns at all grade crossings. The density of 35 crossings along the 48-mile 

route is relatively low for a suburban railway. Of the 35 grade crossings, 21 are public roads, 13 

are private drives, and one is an informal community crossing. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

15 | P a g e 

2 Purpose and Need

2.1 Purpose 

The overarching purpose of the Capitol Corridor 

Study was to identify and implement the intercity 

passenger rail investment strategy that will best 

leverage the existing transportation infrastructure 

to improve connectivity to and from Boston, the 

region’s largest economic hub; diversify options 

and reduce the primarily single-mode reliance on 

roadways for the movement of people and goods; 

support mobility options that match emerging 

demographic trends and preferences in the 

corridor; and maintain the region’s high quality-oflife through strategic infrastructure investments. 

More specifically, the purpose of the Study was to 

evaluate options for introducing intercity passenger 

rail service between Boston, MA and Concord, NH

over existing transportation infrastructure, namely 

the portion of the NHML owned by PAR, which is 

currently used for freight rail only. 

2.2 Need 

Projected population growth will result in 

increased roadway congestion. As population 

density increases over the coming years, an 

increased number of multi-modal transportation 

options to Boston, the region’s largest employment center, will be critical to mitigate corresponding 

increases in roadway congestion, particularly along I-93 and US Route 3, as shown in Figure 2.1. 

New Hampshire’s existing transportation network does not effectively connect existing modes. 

Increased levels of corridor transportation investment will improve local and regional mobility by linking 

travelers to the network of existing transportation modes: roadway, buses, commuter rail, heavy rail, 

light rail, bicycles, and airplanes. These increased linkages will improve ridership and usage across all of 

the modes, while promoting sustainable mobility. 

Regional economy suffers from predominantly singular dependency on automobile travel/roadways 

for movement of goods and passengers. Investing in transportation infrastructure that provides an 

alternative to roadway transport will link New Hampshire’s businesses, industries, and residents to the 

national and New England transportation network. 

Figure 2.1: Existing Volume-to-Capacity Ratio during 

the Inbound Morning Peak
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

16 | P a g e 

Improved transportation options will attract employers to New Hampshire and improve employment 

options for New Hampshire residents. A mismatch between locations of residence and employment 

forces many in New Hampshire to spend comparatively long periods of time commuting to work. 

Investing in more efficient transportation modes will not only improve connectivity between existing 

centers of residence and employment, but increased levels of multi-modal access may catalyze 

additional business investment within New Hampshire. 

New Hampshire is experiencing a young professional “brain drain.” While the region’s overall 

population is projected to grow in the coming decades, young professionals are choosing to leave 

southern New Hampshire to be closer to the employment, cultural, and social opportunities that are 

associated with larger urban centers. Improved transportation connectivity will support the attraction 

and retention of young professionals within the Study area.

New Hampshire is getting older. New Hampshire’s senior population continues to grow. Additional 

shared transportation accommodations that support “car-light” mobility will be required to 

accommodate these emerging demographic and lifestyle trends, and will continue to make New 

Hampshire attractive to residents from childhood through retirement. 

Residential development patterns resulting from population growth may negatively impact the 

region’s existing quality-of-life. Population growth, if not guided through strategic infrastructure 

investments that promote efficiency, will result in uncoordinated development patterns and sprawl that 

will diminish the region’s high quality-of-life and negatively impact its unique character. 

The existing transportation network cannot accommodate increased levels of demand without 

negative environmental consequences. The expansion of existing roadways and construction of new 

roadways will not be sufficient to sustainably accommodate the projected growth in travel demand, 

causing negative environmental consequences associated with an increased number of vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) and corresponding congestion. 

2.3 Goals and Objectives 

To determine how well intercity passenger rail investment within the Capitol Corridor will address 

regional and corridor needs, NHDOT developed a set of goals and objectives. These goals and objectives, 

outlined in Table 2.1, build on the work that has been completed or is ongoing within the corridor and 

region. Each goal reflects an understanding of the role that integrated transportation and land use 

planning can play in supporting an economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable community. 

Intercity passenger rail investment will be a major step in implementing this integrated planning 

approach within the Capitol Corridor. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

17 | P a g e 

Table 2.1: Capitol Corridor Study Goals and Objectives 

Goals Objectives

Transportation and Mobility

Leverage the existing 

transportation network to 

improve access and mobility 

within the corridor and 

throughout the region

 Provide alternatives to address congestion within the Study corridor

 Expand the rail network capacity 

 Increase intercity passenger rail ridership and mode share by expanding the existing rider 

base and attracting new riders

 Provide travel time savings 

 Improve the efficiency, convenience, and reliability of transportation

System Integration

Invest in transportation 

improvements that 

complement the existing multimodal transportation network

 Increase corridor modal connectivity

 Provide connections to other corridors within the region

 Increase access to the Manchester Airport through additional intercity passenger rail service

 Balance system capacity (MBTA, BX, Concord Coach)

 Ensure operating efficiency

Economic Development and 

Land Use

Support the vision for growth 

laid out in local/regional 

development plans

 Improve access to higher-paying jobs in greater Boston

 Support development patterns/lifestyle choices that attract younger, highly educated 

professionals to New Hampshire

 Leverage younger, highly educated employee base to attract new businesses/grow existing 

ones 

 Promote Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) to mitigate sprawl development patterns

 Improve the potential for additional freight rail business through infrastructure upgrades

Sustainability

Support transportation 

investments that contribute to 

an environmentally, 

economically, and socially 

sustainable community 

 Leverage existing transportation infrastructure to qualify for federal transportation 

investment dollars

 Mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from anticipated development

 Support growth patterns that attract and retain residents from childhood through retirement

 Improve access to other tourism, recreation, and cultural attractions in greater Boston and 

New Hampshire
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

18 | P a g e 

3 Alternatives Evaluation

The Study team examined three intercity passenger rail alternatives, and selected one of them (Intercity 

8, which stands for eight trains per day) as the Build Alternative to be carried forward for analysis in this 

EA. The Build Alternative was selected because it was found to be the lowest cost of the three intercity 

alternatives (the other two being 12 and 18 trains per day) and maintains all existing bus service on I-93 

and US Route 3. The Build Alternative performs about the same in terms of ridership, is slightly less 

favorable for land use and economic development and has no significant difference in overall 

environmental impact. This EA evaluates the Build and No-Build Alternative described in the SDP. 

In addition to looking at train service levels, the Study team performed a layover facility alternatives 

analysis and a passenger station location alternatives analysis. The Build Alternative is composed of one 

layover facility and four passenger station locations. The analysis of the Build Alternative is detailed in 

Section 3.2. 

3.1 No Build Alternative 

NEPA requires that the No Build Alternative be evaluated as a baseline for comparing build alternatives’ 

impacts. Under the No Build Alternative, the existing condition of the rail corridor would remain 

unchanged. There would be no intercity passenger rail service and there would be no other rail 

improvement projects planned for the corridor. Freight traffic would continue to serve the existing 

customers located on the NHML, and intercity bus service would continue to serve passengers between 

Concord, Manchester, Nashua, and Boston. Population growth in the region and the demand for jobs in 

the greater Boston market would further negatively impact corridor traffic conditions. 

The No Build Alternative does not satisfy the project’s purpose and need for several reasons:

 It fails to improve connectivity to and from Boston, the region’s largest economic hub. 

 It maintains single-mode reliance on roadways for the movement of people and goods. 

 It does not increase mobility options that match emerging demographic trends and preferences 

in the corridor. 

 The region’s high quality-of-life may deteriorate without strategic infrastructure investments. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

19 | P a g e 

3.2 Build Alternative (Intercity 8) 

After evaluating three intercity passenger rail build alternatives and consulting with stakeholders 

primarily on the fiscal constraints faced by the State of New Hampshire, NHDOT in consultation with FRA 

selected the Intercity 8 alternative as the 

preferred Build Alternative because of its 

low net operating cost and mobility 

benefits. Section 3.4 briefly discusses the 

alternatives that NHDOT did not carry 

forward for analysis in this EA. The Build 

Alternative would operate eight trips per 

day between Boston North Station and 

Concord. The four daily round trips over 

the 73-mile route would stop at five 

intermediate stations (Manchester, 

Bedford/Manchester Airport, Nashua, 

Lowell and Woburn) as shown in Figure 

3.1. The end-to-end trip time would be 

approximately 96 minutes. In order to 

add intercity passenger rail service, a 

variety of work would be necessary. This 

includes the construction of new stations, 

improvements to infrastructure such as 

track, bridges, grade crossings, train 

control, and signal systems. These 

activities are summarized below and 

described in detail in the SDP. 

Under the Build Alternative, the new intercity passenger rail service could connect to private bus 

service to reach North Country destinations. The Build Alternative would not likely result in any 

substantial changes in express bus service for commuting to Boston via US Route3/Everett Turnpike. 

Local bus service to the intercity rail stations could be offered but would not be integral to the service 

design. The FRA considers local connection critical to supporting intercity travel, but determining the 

nature of local bus service is outside the scope of this study. A Boston Express/Concord Coach/Intercity 

Rail fare integration scheme similar to that employed by the Downeaster at Portland, Maine could be

employed at the Concord and Manchester stations that would be shared by both intercity rail and coach 

bus services. 

The Build Alternative anticipates that travelers would be attracted to the new intercity rail service over 

other modes. It is assumed that few current MBTA commuter rail passengers living in New Hampshire 

would shift from using the MBTA Lowell and North Billerica Stations to the new intercity rail service. 

Figure 3.1: Build Alternative Service
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

20 | P a g e 

Some Boston Express and Concord Coach customers might shift to intercity rail service from Nashua, 

Manchester, and Concord. The overall increase in the quality and frequency of rail options to 

Manchester and Concord may also stimulate bus ridership as has seemed to be the case at the shared 

terminal in Portland, Maine. Ridership figures show that Concord Coach served 216,000 passengers in 

Portland in 2003 while the Downeaster carried 250,000 passengers. In 2008, those numbers had 

increased to 400,000 passengers on Concord Coach and 320,000 passengers on the Downeaster. 

3.2.1 Route 

The Build Alternative route would utilize the existing NHML rail line from Boston to Concord that travels 

through Lowell, Nashua, and Manchester. Existing commuter rail service operates between Boston and 

Lowell, and freight service currently operates along the entire length of the line. 

3.2.2 Stations and Layover Facility 

The corridor connects the two state capitals (Concord and Boston) and the two major population 

centers in each state (Manchester and Boston). The Intercity passenger rail service proposed in the Build 

Alternative would make four stops in New Hampshire (Concord, Manchester, Bedford/Manchester 

Airport, and Nashua), in addition to three existing Massachusetts commuter rail stops (Lowell, Woburn, 

and Boston). Four new passenger stations with high-level platforms would be constructed. 

In the station alternatives analysis, NHDOT considered a wide-range of alternatives at each location. 

NHDOT conducted field inspections, interviews with local officials, and reviews of previous studies to 

determine the station alternatives. NHDOT then selected the preferred station locations through 

coordination with local officials and a screening process that took into account standard criteria for each 

alternative. Each of the rail stations would require ADA9-compliant platforms for passengers to board 

and alight the trains, provide a canopy for shelter, have provisions for buses and automobiles to pickup 

and drop-off passengers, and provide direct access to and from major highways and nearby land uses. 

All, but one, of the stations would require parking designated for rail passengers. Following is a summary 

of preferred station locations. For a detailed description of the station and layover yard alternatives and 

a discussion of the site evaluation and screening criteria, please refer to the SDP Chapter 6 - Stations and 

Layover Yards. 

Concord – Stickney Avenue 

The preferred station location in the City of Concord is located at Stickney Avenue, the location of the 

existing bus depot and park-and-ride facility (see Figure 3.2). It is also the former NHDOT headquarters, 

and the State of New Hampshire owns a number of parcels in the vicinity of the rail line. This site is 

highly rated because it could accommodate both a station and layover yard. The station would have one 

platform serving one or two tracks and operate as a joint station/layover facility. Requirements for 

implementing the service levels in the Build Alternative call for only one track, but with future expansion 

 

9

 Americans with Disabilities Act 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

21 | P a g e 

of intercity passenger rail service, two storage tracks may eventually be necessary. The preliminary 

station design shows ample land within the larger site for construction of a railway station with parking, 

train layover on the station tracks or on an adjacent track and New England Southern Railroad (NEGS) 

run around track. This design would still allow for the City of Concord’s redevelopment plans and the 

Boston-Concord project for I-93 improvements to proceed. 

Figure 3.2: Proposed Concord Stickney Avenue Station 

Manchester – Granite Street 

Manchester’s main passenger rail station stood for nearly 90 years on the south side of Granite Street 

before the building was demolished and the site redeveloped. The site is proximate to the center of 

Manchester’s densest urban development, across the street from the intercity bus terminal, and a short 

walk to the Manchester Transit Authority’s downtown hub at Veteran’s Park (see Figure 3.3). Public parking 

is available in the 940-space Center of New Hampshire parking garage located diagonally across the Granite 

and Canal Streets intersection from the proposed station site. The recommended station design would close 

the Depot Street crossing and develop the city-owned parcel on the corner of Granite and Canal Streets, 

which is presently used for public parking. NHDOT developed a two-track station option with a single highlevel platform serving the east track. This would enable efficient operation of a terminal station and allow 

for unimpeded freight traffic to and from the north. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

22 | P a g e 

Figure 3.3 Proposed Manchester Station 

Bedford/Manchester Airport 

The proposed station at Boston-Manchester Regional Airport in Bedford would provide a location for air-rail 

passenger interchange and also serve as a regional park-and-ride for northern Hillsborough and southern 

Merrimack counties. The site is located under the Ray Wieczorek Drive/Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge that 

provides a direct connection between US Route 3 and Manchester Airport. This is a largely vegetated site 

with little development. This site has been proposed as a development node within the Town of Bedford. A 

proposed shuttle bus would provide connecting service, meeting all trains, along the 2.8-mile (six-minute) 

route between the airport passenger terminal and the proposed station (see Figure 3.4). Similar air-rail 

shuttle connections are used at airports in Baltimore, Boston, and Milwaukee. The station parking lot would 

be managed to prohibit overnight parking, avoid use by air passengers, and keep spaces available for rail 

passengers from Manchester, Bedford, and other nearby communities. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

23 | P a g e 

Figure 3.4: Proposed Bedford/Manchester Airport Station 

Nashua – Crown Street 

This site is located south of the Crown Street site and north and west of the PAR yard, as shown on 

Figure 3.5. It is the approximate location of Nashua’s historic main line train station. The proposed 

center-island, high-level station platform would be located adjacent to the Triangle Pacific building, 

which could potentially be redeveloped. The city and state recently cooperated to acquire the site with 

the intention of developing a park-and-ride lot independent of the proposed rail service. City plans call 

for 255 parking spaces and reuse of existing industrial buildings. Additional parking supply would be 

constrained by the size of the parcel. Since this location would rely on pedestrian and bicycle 

accessibility, a new sidewalk would be necessary on the south side of Crown Street and east of Arlington 

Street to ensure safe access to the site. A pedestrian/bicycle connection off Harvard Street would 

provide improved accessibility from the surrounding neighborhoods. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

24 | P a g e 

Figure 3.5: Proposed Nashua Station 

Massachusetts Stations 

The preferred intercity rail service would make three stops in Massachusetts at existing rail stations. 

Each station is currently constructed with high-level platforms and no modifications are anticipated to 

be necessary: 

 Gallagher Intermodal Transit Center located in Lowell, Massachusetts: The current terminus of 

MBTA’s Lowell Commuter Line, with connections to local bus and intercity bus service

 Anderson Regional Transportation Center located in Woburn, Massachusetts: Services MBTA’s 

Lowell Commuter Line, the Amtrak Downeaster, as well as a regional shuttle 

 North Station located in Boston Massachusetts: The terminus for Amtrak’s Downeaster and the 

four northern MBTA Commuter Rail Lines, and also provides connections to local buses and the 

MBTA subway 

3.3 Train Service Levels 

Four round trips per day are proposed under the Build Alternative. Table 3.1 shows the proposed service 

schedule. This LOS mimics that first used on the Downeaster, a model for the proposed project. The 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

25 | P a g e 

Build Alternative would not preclude a commuter rail service to either Nashua or Manchester along the 

same alignment. 

Table 3.1: Proposed Service Schedule 

380 382 384 386 Station MP 381 383 385 387

6:38am 10:38am 2:53pm 7:53pm

Read Down

Concord NH 73.3

Read Up

10:07am 2:22pm 6:57pm 11:37pm

6:52 10:52 3:07 8:07 Manchester NH 55.7 9:41 1:56 6:31 11:11

7:05 11:05 3:20 8:20 Bedford/MHT 50.1 9:33 1:48 6:23 11:03

7:18 11:18 3:33 8:33 Nashua 39.0 9:20 1:35 6:10 10:50

7:36 11:36 3:51 8:51 Lowell 25.5 9:02 1:17 5:52 10:32

7:52 11:52 4:07 9:07 Anderson/Woburn 12.6 8:46 1:01 5:36 10:16

8:15 12:15 4:30 9:30 North Station 0.0 8:30 12:45 5:20 10:00 

3.3.1 Train Operating Speeds 

The maximum speed of train service is dependent on existing track characteristics and the amount of 

investment required to increase the speeds in the corridor. The maximum historic passenger speed 

along the NHML was 70 mph. The NHML track profile or vertical alignment north of Lowell to Concord 

runs along the banks of the Merrimack River. Many of the curves are sufficiently tight to impact 

maximum train speeds. The engineering required to achieve train speeds of 79 mph or higher is 

substantially more challenging with sharp curves. Between Lowell and Concord there are 19.6 miles of 

such restrictive curves that constitute 40 percent of the route miles. As such, the service would operate 

at maximum speeds up to 75 mph between the Manchester Airport and Nashua and 70 mph at many 

other locations. 

3.3.2 Ridership Projections 

All ridership estimates presented in this chapter are station boardings. It is expected that travel patterns 

would be symmetrical and each station would have an equal number of alightings, thus total system 

ridership is two times the estimated boardings. The estimates are all present-day forecasts and do not 

assume any changes in regional socioeconomics, travel demand, or auto congestion. Ridership estimates 

for the Build Alternative are based on the Fiscal Year 2013 Amtrak Downeaster ridership/revenue data 

and are presented in Table 3.2. Each station on the proposed service is associated with a Downeaster

“surrogate” station with similar travel time, station demographics, and train service characteristics. 

Table 3.2: Ridership Demand Forecast (Start of Service) 

Station Annual Average Boardings Average Daily Boardings

Concord 28,470 78

Manchester 67,890 186

Bedford/MHT Airport 28,105 77

Nashua 48,180 132

Total 172,645 473
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

26 | P a g e 

3.3.3 Major Infrastructure Components 

Historically, the NHML had two tracks along the entire length between Boston and Concord. Today, 

aside from sidings, the rail line is single-tracked north of Chelmsford. To balance the need to achieve 

maximum allowable speed with an acceptable level of capital and operating expense, the Build 

Alternative would involve upgrades to the existing rail and provide enough second track to 

accommodate both passenger rail and freight on the same line. As such, double track will not need to 

be installed throughout the corridor. 

No improvements south of MBTA’s Lowell Gallagher Terminal would be required. North of Lowell the 

railroad would be upgraded to permit safe, reliable operation of eight daily passenger trains at speeds of 

up to 75 mph. Recommended upgrades to track, bridges, crossings, and signals are summarized below. 

 Track: All of the existing 70-plus-year-old 112-pound main line rail between Lowell and Concord 

would be upgraded with new continuous welded rail (CWR) of a similar weight. Along segments 

where the rail is renewed with CWR, approximately one-third of the existing ties would be 

replaced. No double track would be required between North Chelmsford (MP 28.5) and the 

southern end of the Tyngsborough Curve (MP 32). Industrial sidings would be created at three 

key areas of freight activity in Nashua and Merrimack to eliminate conflicts between local 

freight deliveries and through passenger trains. At these locations the existing main line track 

would be retained as an industrial siding with an entirely new parallel main line track 

constructed in the same alignment for use by through trains. Adding a second track would be 

relatively straightforward, as the railway was once entirely double-tracked with the double-track 

bed still largely intact. However, fitting turnouts in double-track sections would be difficult. 

Also, reinstalling a second track on bridges can be challenging depending on the type and 

condition of the bridge. The study team's conceptual design for the railway identified and 

responded to these and other challenges as necessary. 

 Bridges: The service expansion would use 25 existing bridges over watercourses or roadways. 

Most of the bridges are rated as having sufficient strength to accommodate the proposed 

additional traffic. One bridge in Tyngsborough is a candidate for complete replacement. The large 

steel (circa 1930) structure spanning the Merrimack River between Manchester and Bedford is 

subject to more detailed inspection. In Hooksett, the 488-foot steel bridge also spanning the 

Merrimack is similarly subject to more detailed inspection. The other 22 bridges should receive a 

renewal of worn and weakened components when the rails crossing them are replaced. 

 Grade Crossings: With an increased frequency of faster trains, most of the 35 roadway grade 

crossings between Concord and downtown Lowell would need upgrades in their Automatic 

Highway Warning Devices (AHWD). The density of crossings just north of the proposed Granite 

Street Station in Manchester is especially high. 

 Other: Upgrades to the train control and signal systems would also be required as well as some 

new switches and reconfigurations of track. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

27 | P a g e 

3.4 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis 

During the alternatives development process, the Study team considered a wide-range of alternatives. 

This section provides an overview of the development process and justification for dismissal. 

3.4.1 Route Alternatives 

The Study corridor encompasses two highway corridors (US Route 3 and I-93), and two existing rail lines 

that historically ran between New Hampshire and Massachusetts. A previous study, I-93 Corridor MultiModal Transit Investment Study, completed in 2009 by NHDOT, evaluated the NHML, which is the 

preferred route alternative for this Study, the old Manchester & Lawrence (M&L) Branch, which extends 

north from Lawrence off of the existing MBTA Haverhill line, and, lastly, the I-93 Corridor, which can 

accommodate a new rail line within the existing right-of-way. The current Study dismissed the M&L 

Branch and I-93 corridor alternatives for similar reasons – each line would require either extensive rail 

upgrades, or in some cases entirely new rail infrastructure to accommodate future rail use. The NHML is 

the only corridor that has intact and maintained rail infrastructure along its entire length; therefore, it 

was chosen by NHDOT as part of the Build Alternative. Use of the existing NHML achieves the project 

purpose and need objectives at a reasonable cost. 

3.4.2 Station Alternatives 

The Study team determined station alternatives based on field inspections, interviews with local 

officials, and reviews of previous studies. The Study team chose the preferred locations described above 

through coordination with local officials and a screening process that took into account standard criteria 

for each alternative. The standard screening criteria considered are the travel market; adequate access; 

track operational characteristics; parcel size/configuration/ownership; land use; sensitive receptors; and 

environmental sensitivity. If the Build Alternative progresses to the next phase of project development, 

additional information may become available that could alter station location alternatives. The following 

is a summary of the station locations that were identified but dismissed from detailed analysis at this 

time. 

 Concord: In addition to the Stickney Avenue site, the Study team analyzed a site at the 

base of Depot Street, which was the historic site of Concord’s rail station. The original 

station was torn down in 1960, and the existing land use at the site is commercial and 

retail, with private ownership. Because the existing land use was incompatible with the 

proposed station, and a more feasible alternative consistent with Concord downtown 

development plans was available, this alternative was dismissed from analysis. 

 Manchester: In addition to the Granite Street site, the Study team analyzed two 

additional sites: (1) at the base of Spring Street and underneath the overpass for West 

Bridge Street, and (2) in the gaslight district near the location of the existing Market 

Basket supermarket. Of the three alternatives analyzed, the Granite Street location best 

fit the Study purpose and need due to its close proximity to the bus depot and existing 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

28 | P a g e 

development in the city. As mentioned above, if future development plans emerge in 

the next project phase, they could alter the preferred station location for Manchester. 

 Nashua: In addition to the Crown Street site, the Study team analyzed three additional 

sites: 1) Beazer East property north of downtown adjacent to Greeley Park, 2) Dow 

Chemical property at the base of Spit Brook Road, and 3) adjacent to the Pheasant Lane 

Mall. The Beazer East property was the least desirable site as it was located furthest 

from the highest density development in the city and was the least accessible location. 

The Study team considered two additional sites as commuter rail stations. For the Build 

Alternative, the Study team determined that one station location would serve the City 

of Nashua to best balance demand and schedule efficiencies. Under this scenario, the 

Crown Street site best fit the purpose and need. 

3.4.3 Train Service Levels 

The Study team initially developed three service-level alternatives. In addition to the four round trips 

per day under the Build Alternative, the Study team analyzed six round trips per day and nine round 

trips per day. The main difference between the alternatives was operations cost, as the six and nine 

round trip alternatives would require an additional train set to accommodate this LOS. The Build 

Alternative performs about the same in terms of ridership, is slightly less favorable for land use and 

economic development and has no significant difference in overall environmental impact. The fourround-trips-per-day alternative is the same as the level of service the Downeaster used at the beginning 

of its operation. Based on the Downeaster’s success, the Study team determined that the four-roundtrips-per-day alternative was the most feasible service level that was still able to satisfy the Study 

purpose and need. 

4 Affected Environment and Environmental 

Impacts

This section describes existing environmental conditions and potential impacts resulting from construction 

and operation of the Build Alternative for the following resources: Air Quality, Noise and Vibration, 

Hazardous Waste Sites, Water Quality, Wetlands, Threatened and Endangered Species, Floodplains, 

Energy Resources, Visual Resources, Accessibility, Property Acquisition, Land Use, Environmental Justice, 

Public Safety, Cultural Resources, Parks and Recreation, Socioeconomics, Transportation, and Indirect 

Effects and Cumulative Impacts. No construction is proposed in areas protected under the Farmland 

Protection Policy Act. The EA for the Capitol Corridor Rail Study is a “Service-Level” or “Tier 1” EA

undertaken to identify and evaluate potential environmental impacts of service alternatives. Because rail 

planning studies may include numerous alternatives and extend over long corridors, project 

implementation may ultimately be through a series of smaller projects at a later date that are reviewed in 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

29 | P a g e 

more detail at the project level ("Tier 2").

10

 This Tier 1 EA identifies the potential impacts of the preferred 

service alternative, based on conceptual identification of infrastructure improvements and railroad 

operations. Impacts were identified and assessed with regard to the anticipated level of intensity based on 

a review of scientific literature, previously prepared documentation, data and information available on 

websites maintained by state and federal environmental agencies, and the professional judgment of 

resource specialists. 

Potential impacts are described in terms of the following: 

 Type: Beneficial impact (a positive change in condition of the resource) or adverse 

impact (a change that reduces or degrades the condition of the resource) 

 Context: Local, regional, global, or any combination 

 Duration: Short- or long-term 

4.1 Air Quality 

The Capitol Corridor Air Quality and Global Climate Change Study follows the Service-level NEPA process 

as outlined in the HSIPR NEPA guidance from FRA. The Study and related analyses looked at the 

following pollutants: ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), including PM10, (10 micrometers or less in 

diameter and PM 2.5, 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NOx), 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead, asbestos, and mobile source air toxics (MSAT). In addition, greenhouse gases 

(GHGs), including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and synthetic GHGs, were analyzed for 

climate change impacts. 

40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W, applies where a state has an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision adopting General Conformity regulations. 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B, applies in states where the 

state does not have an approved SIP revision adopting General Conformity regulations. The project is 

subject to the general conformity regulations, but not the transportation conformity guidelines in 40 

CFR Part 93.109 and 93.119. 

On a local scale, the potential effect of the Build Alternative on air quality is limited to increases in 

locomotive emissions, and both increases and decreases in on-road emissions. Decreases in on-road 

emissions could have a beneficial impact on local air quality if large numbers of vehicle trips are shifted 

to rail. Since the details of that shift are not clearly known at this time, this potential benefit has not 

been analyzed; however, a more meaningful analysis of the region-wide benefits of this mode shift is 

included in the regional analysis (see Appendix A). 

 

10 FRA. 2009. High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program. Docket No. FRA-2009-0045, and Compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act in Implementing the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program. 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02855 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

30 | P a g e 

For local impacts, CO hotspot and PM hotspot analysis were not conducted because this is a Tier1 

document (this would be performed during the project’s next phase), but locomotive emissions factors 

were obtained from “2009 Technical Highlights for Locomotive Emissions” by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA). The total emissions were distributed to each state (Massachusetts and New 

Hampshire) and by attainment areas. For regional impact, the locomotive emission factors are the same 

as for the local impact. An on-road vehicle emission analysis was conducted using average daily VMT 

estimates and associated average daily speed estimates for each of the affected areas. The criteria 

pollutants emissions for the vehicles were obtained from USEPA Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 

(MOVES) model (national level allocated to the Hillsborough and Merrimack counties in New Hampshire). 

Total VMT were obtained from the project traffic study. The analysis was conducted for the modeling 

year 2020, which is expected to be the earliest possible build out year. The emission factors in the 

earliest build out year are more conservative since the control technology improves over time and 

therefore the average emission factors will decrease in the later years. 

To determine overall pollutant burdens generated by on-road vehicles, estimated VMT increases or 

decreases were multiplied by applicable pollutants’ emission factors, which are based on national default 

speeds and vehicle speciation data, and using a 2020 analysis year. The regional or local specific data are 

not required for this Tier 1analysis, but will be in the Tier II quantitative analysis. Therefore, the national 

default values were used in the EPA MOVES model for this Tier 1 EA. Based on the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) guidance, the Build Alternative does not require a detailed quantitative analysis 

for MSAT. In addition, the detailed project level MSAT and GHG emission factors for vehicles and 

locomotives are not available in the current version of MOVES. Therefore, the hazardous air pollutant 

and GHG emissions were estimated by scaling either NOx emissions from the MOVES model, SO2

emissions from locomotive engines, or NOx emissions from USEPA’s 2011 National Emissions Inventory 

data. The Air Quality Technical Memorandum in Appendix A to this EA has the detailed methodology and 

the results. 

4.1.1 Affected Environment 

Ambient air quality standards have been set by both the federal government and state agencies. Both 

New Hampshire and Massachusetts do not designate areas as state attainment or nonattainment with 

these standards. USEPA, in response to the federal CAA of 1970, established National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) in Title 40 CFR Part 50. The NAAQS include both primary and secondary 

standards for six “criteria pollutants.” These criteria pollutants are O3, CO, nitrogen NO2, SO2, PM10, 

PM2.5, and lead. Primary standards were established to protect human health, and secondary standards 

were designed to protect property and natural ecosystems from the effects of air pollution. The NAAQS 

and related requirements can be found in the Air Quality Technical Memorandum in Appendix A. 

The Study area is classified as attainment with respect to the NAAQS for O3, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and 

CO, except for some areas in Massachusetts that are maintenance areas for CO (1971 standard) and 

nonattainment areas for O3 (1997 standard). Some areas in New Hampshire are nonattainment areas for 

SO2 (2010 standard) and maintenance areas for CO (1997 standard). 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

31 | P a g e 

NOx and SO2 are regulated as PM10 precursors, and NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as O3

precursors. Table 4.1 provides the area, pollutant, attainment status, and the General Conformity 

applicable de minimis emission levels for the Study area. 

Table 4.1: Air Pollutants and NAAQS Attainment Status 

Area Pollutant Attainment Status

General Conformity 

applicable de minimis 

emission levels tons 

per year (tpy)

MA – Boston and Lowell CO (1971 standard) Maintenance 100

MA – Boston-Lawrence-Worcester Ozone (1997 standard) Nonattainment -

Moderate 100 (NOx and VOC)

NH – Hillsborough County CO (1971 standard) Maintenance 100

NH – Central New Hampshire Sulfur Dioxide (2010 standard) Nonattainment 100

NH – Boston-Manchester-Portsmouth Ozone (1997 standard) Maintenance 100 (NOx and VOC)

The ambient air quality in the project area is monitored at a number of permanent air quality 

monitoring stations operated by USEPA, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 

(MassDEP), and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). The monitoring 

stations within Massachusetts that are closest to the project area are in Chelmsford, Lawrence, and 

Boston (Charlestown, North End, Kenmore Square, and Roxbury). In New Hampshire, the monitoring 

stations nearest to the project area are in Nashua (Gilson Road and Crown Street), Concord, 

Peterborough, and Manchester. For each pollutant, the maximum concentration from these stations 

was selected as a conservative background. These numbers can be found in the Air Quality Technical 

Memorandum in Appendix A. 

Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: The federal CAA Amendments of 1990 listed 188 Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (HAPs) and addressed the need to control toxic emissions from transportation. USEPA’s 2007 

MSAT rule identified a subset of seven HAPs as having significant contributions from mobile sources: 

benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, acrolein, naphthalene, polycyclic organic matter (POM), and 

diesel particulate matter (DPM). 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Climate change and GHG emission reductions are a concern at the federal 

level. Laws and regulations, as well as plans and policies, address global climate change issues. This 

section summarizes key federal regulations relevant to the project. 

In Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the United States 

Supreme Court ruled that GHG does fit within the CAA definition of a pollutant and that USEPA has the 

authority to regulate GHG.

On February 18, 2010, the White House CEQ released draft guidance regarding the consideration of GHG 

in NEPA documents. On December 18, 2014, CEQ released revised draft guidance that describes in more 

detail how federal departments and agencies should consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions 

and climate change in their NEPA reviews. The revised draft guidelines include a presumptive threshold 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

32 | P a g e 

of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)11 emissions as a reference point on an annual 

basis below which a GHG emissions quantitative analysis is not recommended unless quantification 

below that reference point is easily accomplished. The guidance also emphasizes that agency analyses 

should be commensurate with projected greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts, and should 

employ appropriate quantitative or qualitative analytical methods to ensure useful information is 

available to inform the public and the decision-making process in distinguishing between alternatives 

and mitigations. This revised draft guidance advises that when assessing direct and indirect climate 

change effects, agencies should take account of the proposed action, including connected actions, 

“subject to reasonable limits based on feasibility and practicality.” The reasonable mitigation measures 

and alternatives as provided for under the existing regulations to lower the level of the potential GHG 

emissions need to be considered in the analysis. This revised draft guidance applies to all proposed 

Federal agency actions, including land and resource management actions. CEQ has not adopted the GHG 

emissions significant threshold for NEPA purposes (CEQ 2014); therefore, there is no current standard 

for GHG emissions to compare for this project. 

4.1.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative assumes that the existing transportation system would continue to operate at 

its current capacity and the rail corridor would remain unchanged. Freight traffic would continue to 

serve the existing customers located on the NHML, and intercity bus service would continue to serve 

passengers between Concord, Manchester, Nashua, and Boston. 

As this is a Tier 1 screening level analysis, a quantitative analysis is not required for the No Build 

Alternative. 

4.1.3 Build Alternative 

The mobile source dispersion models and hotspot analyses are not required for this project at a Servicelevel NEPA analysis, as the results of the local scale emissions for the project are below the federal 

general conformity de minimis levels for all applicable criteria pollutants in every nonattainment or 

maintenance area in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Therefore, the local air quality impact is not 

significant due to the project operation. 

For the regional context, the emission increases presented in Table 4.2 show that the Build Alternative 

would not only be below the federal general conformity de minimis levels, but would also even create 

net emission reduction benefits by saving vehicle trips for some pollutants (CO and SO2). Therefore, the 

project is presumed to conform to the applicable SIPs and would not require a full conformity analysis 

and conformity determination. The detailed analysis can be found in the Air Quality Technical 

Memorandum in Appendix A.

 

11 A universal unit of measurement that allows the global warming potential of different GHGs to be compared 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

33 | P a g e 

Table 4.2: Build Alternative Air Quality Impacts– Criteria Pollutants 

Emissions Increases 

(ton/year) CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Personal Vehicles -29.23 -1.92 -0.09 -0.08 -0.03 -0.69

BX Buses -3.80 -13.78 -0.63 -0.58 -0.03 -0.85

Locomotive 7.13 47.89 1.78 1.73 0.03 2.81

Net Emissions Increases -25.91 32.19 1.06 1.07 -0.04 1.27

Applicable General 

Conformity Emission de 

minimis level (to each 

nonattainment or 

maintenance area)

100 100 NA NA 100 100

Exceed de minimis 

level? No No NA NA No No

Note: NA = Not Applicable 

The estimated annual operational emissions increases in MSAT (HAPs) and GHG emissions associated 

with the Build Alternative are presented in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4, respectively. The Build Alternative is 

expected to create fewer emissions in GHG by saving vehicle trips and, therefore, it would have less 

environmental and global climate change impact and be more beneficial to the environment. 

The New Hampshire 10-year State Energy Strategy from the New Hampshire Office of Energy & Planning 

Department in September 2014 also supported rail as one of the major energy-saving strategies for the 

state. It recommended the State of New Hampshire should continue supporting efforts to maintain and 

to expand rail service. 

Table 4.3: Build Alternative Air Quality Impacts– Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Emissions 

Increases 

(ton/year)

1,3-

Butadiene Acrolein Formaldehyde Benzene Naphthalene POM DPM Lead

Net 

Emissions 

Increases

0.15 0.02 0.34 0.90 0.06 NA 1.07 0.00007

Note: NA = Not Applicable 

Table 4.4: Build Alternative Air Quality Impacts– Greenhouse Gases 

Emissions Increases

(metric ton/year) Greenhouse Gases in CO2e

Personal Vehicles -699

BX Buses -5,021

Locomotive 2,735

Net Emissions Increases -2,985
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

34 | P a g e 

Since climate change is caused cumulatively by world-wide activity, the Study team could not determine 

the impact of the Build Alternative on climate change. Therefore, the approach applied here for 

evaluating the potential impact of the project is to identify the project’s potential GHG emissions, and to 

evaluate whether it incorporates cost-effective energy efficiency and renewable energy measures into 

its design, construction, and operation to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with social, 

economic, and other essential considerations. By doing so, the project would demonstrate consistency 

with state and local policies. 

Since this is a Tier 1 (or Service-level) NEPA analysis, the details of design, construction, and operation 

are not yet fully available. Therefore, this section identifies potential measures for inclusion, which 

would reduce the project’s energy and GHG footprint if implemented. These measures will be further 

investigated, and, if found to be practicable, incorporated in the project’s design and operation.

Operational 

Shift Locomotives Engines to Higher Tier 1s or to Change the Fuel to Biodiesel Fuel: The project could 

use higher tier (i.e., newer/more efficient) locomotive engines that provide better control and generate 

lower emissions. Options to use biodiesel for the locomotives could be investigated, including blends of 

B20 and B100 (20 percent biodiesel with 80 percent standard diesel and pure biodiesel, respectively). 

B20 can be used with current technology while B100 may require some adjustments for new engines. 

The use of B20 would reduce GHG emissions by 10 percent and B100 would reduce GHG emissions by 50

percent.12 Using biodiesel also reduces emissions of CO, PM, and sulfates; however, it results in an 

increase of NOx emissions compared to traditional diesel fuel. 

Electrification: The benefits of electrifying the NHML have not been quantified at this time. Benefits 

would increase over the years as the New Hampshire grid shifts to increasingly higher fractions of 

renewable power sources (the New Hampshire grid currently includes relatively large fractions of 

nuclear and hydro power, which result in very little GHG emissions). The cost of electrification is not 

included in the Build Alternative. 

Sustainable Station Design and Construction: Although station energy use was not included in this 

analysis, new stations could be designed in accordance with the new requirements from the state. 

Construction 

Use of Local, Renewable, and Recycled Materials: 75 percent of the construction emissions were 

estimated to come from the extraction, production, transport, and disposal of construction materials. 

Although precise details are not known at this time, reduction in these emissions can be substantial if 

local, renewable, and recycled materials are used. The largest contributors are cement and steel. If 

emissions associated with material can be cut in half (existing strategies demonstrate that this is 

 

12 EPA. Smart Way Grow & Go Program Overview, Frequent Questions. EPA420-F-06-068, October, 2006. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

35 | P a g e 

possible), the emissions payback period, a measure of how long a CO2 mitigating process needs to run 

to compensate for the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere during the life cycle stage, could be reduced by 

nearly 40 percent.13

Biodiesel for Construction Engines: Biodiesel blends would be used in construction engines to the 

extent practicable. 

Replanting Trees: Although not quantified in this analysis, any trees that need to be removed for 

construction could be replaced with a larger number of trees, replacing the trees in kind or more on a 

tree-mass basis. 

Future Analysis: If the Build Alternative progresses to the Tier 2, or project level, additional analysis 

would include the potential air quality implications of local traffic to and from stations, locomotives, and 

other sources operating in rail yards and other locations. Potential construction impacts would also be 

analyzed. If the project is not included in the SIP, an applicability analysis would be performed to 

determine whether a general conformity analysis is required. In addition, because line-haul operations 

change substantially, micro-scale line-haul and meso-scale emissions likely would be investigated. All 

emission estimations for criteria pollutants, HAPs, and GHG would need to be refined. The detailed GHG 

reduction measures may be reviewed and evaluated for applicability and practicability, and 

incorporated into the project as appropriate. In addition, beneficial measures would be quantified, if 

practicable. If substantial changes in design occur, the overall GHG emissions analysis would be 

reevaluated as well, and further refined if possible.

4.2 Noise and Vibration 

The noise and vibration limits chosen for the analysis satisfy the federal guidelines of the FTA for train 

and rail facility operations14 and are discussed in this section and in Appendix B. Since FRA noise and 

vibration assessment guidelines are relevant only to high-speed rail projects, FRA guidelines defer the 

noise and vibration analysis of projects that do not fall into the category of high-speed rail (with 

operating speeds exceeding 90 miles per hour) to the FTA guidelines. As the maximum speed associated 

with this project is 75 miles per hour, this project is being evaluated in accordance with the FTA noise 

and vibration assessment guidelines. The noise-sensitive receptors for the analysis include relevant 

receptors defined by FTA criteria. The number of receptors potentially impacted have been determined 

using FTA’s general assessment guidelines, including comparing existing with future noise levels and 

rating impacts. The vibration impact assessment uses the FTA general assessment procedure of 

determining whether absolute vibration limits will exceed specified thresholds at vibration-sensitive 

receptors. Additional detail can be found in the Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum in Appendix 

B.

 

13 EPA. Solid Waste Management And Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks 3rd Edition, 

September 2006

14 FTA. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-1003-06, May 2006 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

36 | P a g e 

4.2.1 Affected Environment 

The region for this analysis includes areas and communities within Middlesex County in Massachusetts 

and Hillsborough and Merrimack Counties in New Hampshire. These areas are mixed in terms of rural, 

residential, commercial, and industrial uses with isolated residential clusters considered to be suburban 

in nature, except for the downtown urban areas of Lowell, Nashua, Manchester, and Concord. 

In general, freight trains without horns would generate 67 decibels (dBA) day-night average noise levels 

(Ldn) at 50 feet from the rail tracks. The noise level would drop off at a rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of 

distance, per the FTA Guidance Manual. The warning horn noise level would be 74 dBA Ldn at 50 feet 

from the rail centerline within one-fourth-mile of each grade crossing. 

Warning horns would be the dominant noise sources when receptors are near grade crossings. When 

receptors are not near grade crossings, the dominant noise sources would be passing freight trains, 

passenger trains, or vehicular traffic. 

4.2.2 No Build Alternative 

No noise impacts would result from the No Build Alternative in that this scenario maintains freight 

operations within the corridor with no projected and planned annual growth. The FTA impact criteria 

are based on an increase in noise between the existing and future conditions and the No Build 

Alternative would not introduce an increase in noise levels in the Study area. 

4.2.3 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative was analyzed for impacts to noise and vibration related to operations, stations, 

traffic, and construction. 

Operations Noise Impacts: The Build Alternative would have predicted unmitigated noise impacts due 

exclusively to the added warning horns. Table 4.5 provides a summary of the unmitigated noise impact 

results. Hillsborough County, New Hampshire has the most parcels with severe noise impacts with 58 

single- family residential units and 13 multi-family residential units impacted. Installation of stationary 

wayside horns at the 10 grade crossings where severe, unmitigated noise impacts exist for the Build 

Alternative would mitigate noise and result in no adverse noise impact on the surrounding communities. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

37 | P a g e 

Table 4.5: Summary of Unmitigated Noise Impact Results 

County Number of Severe Impact 

Parcels

Number of Moderate Impact 

Parcels

Residential Single- FamilyResidential Multi- FamilyInstitutionalRecreationalResidential Single- FamilyResidential Multi- Family InstitutionalRecreational

Middlesex (MA) 2 0 0 0 47 50 1 1

Hillsborough (NH) 58 13 0 0 503 46 0 0

Merrimack (NH) 2 0 0 0 54 5 0 0

Source: URS Corporation, 2014

Table 4.6: Summary of Severe Noise Impact at Intersections 

Crossing Description City Limit/County

No. of 

Receptors 

with Severe 

Impacts

Maximum

Distance 

Between Track 

and Receptor 

(ft)

Wellman Avenue Middlesex County 

near Lowell

2 73

Crown Street Nashua, Hillsborough 

County

1 55

West Mitchell Street track crossing panel Manchester, 

Hillsborough County

30 175

Dunbar Street (Sundial Av) track crossing panel Manchester, 

Hillsborough County

12 192

Granite Street track crossing panel Manchester, 

Hillsborough County

2 80

Pleasant Street track crossing panel Manchester, 

Hillsborough County

6 160

Spring Street track crossing panel Manchester, 

Hillsborough County

2 132

Kidder Street track crossing panel Manchester, 

Hillsborough County

1 161

Commercial Street track crossing panel Manchester, 

Hillsborough County

17 135

Edgewater Drive track crossing near W River 

Road

Hookset, Merrimack 

County

2 159

Operations Vibrations Impacts: Due to the distance between the rail activities and the closest vibrationsensitive locations, no vibration-related impacts are anticipated with the Build Alternative. None of the 

residential buildings in the Study area would experience levels exceeding the FTA limits of 80 Vibration 

Velocity Level (VdB) for ground borne vibration and 43 dBA for ground-borne noise. Likewise, no 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

38 | P a g e 

institutional buildings in the Study area would experience levels exceeding the FTA limits of 83 VdB and 

48 dBA. 

Station Noise Impacts: The dominant noise source near each station would be the warning horn. When 

a train slows down near a station, train pass-by noise would be reduced. However, the warning horn 

would be used when a train approaches each station regardless of the train speed. There are no noiseor vibration-sensitive parcels within 500 feet of any of the proposed station sites to be impacted by the 

station noise, including horn soundings. Therefore, station noise is considered negligible and not 

included in the impact calculation. 

Traffic Noise Impacts: While traffic conditions would change for the roadways around the proposed 

stations, there are no new major roadways or roadway expansions anticipated with the Build 

Alternative. Because the proposed stations are located in the developed areas of Nashua, Bedford, 

Manchester, and Concord, the existing traffic volumes around the station sites are already high. Traffic 

noise produced by the Build Alternative is not anticipated to cause significant impacts due to the already 

existing high-ambient noise environment and lack of sensitive receptors in the impact range of the Build 

Alternative. 

Construction Noise Impacts: Only four potential daytime impacts and up to 324 potential nighttime 

impacts have been identified as a result of the analysis. However, any such impact would be addressed 

through committed mitigation measures. Because the construction noise mitigation measures would be 

followed during construction, no noise impacts would result from implementing the Build Alternative. 

Table 4.7 provides a summary of the unmitigated construction noise impact results. 

Construction Vibration Impacts: Operation of the Build Alternative is not expected to result in impacts 

exceeding FTA limits for residential buildings or for institutional buildings in the Study area. There are no 

significant vibration impacts expected during construction of the Build Alternative. Some equipment 

may cause perceptible ground-borne vibrations. For example, construction equipment can produce 

vibration levels at 25 feet that range from 58 VdB for a small bulldozer to 112 VdB for heavier 

equipment. Any potential impacts would be mitigated during construction. 

Table 4.7: Summary of Unmitigated Construction Noise Impact Results 

County Potential Daytime Impacts Potential Nighttime Impacts Residential Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Institutional Recreational Residential Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Institutional Recreational

Middlesex (MA) 0 1 0 0 27 43 2 2

Hillsborough (NH) 3 0 0 0 205 29 0 1

Merrimack (NH) 0 0 0 0 11 2 1 1

Source: URS Corporation, 2014
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

39 | P a g e 

4.3 Hazardous Waste Sites 

The NHDES OneStop Geographic Information System (GIS) website was used to identify contaminated 

sites within the 1,000-foot search distance. The website includes NHDES project sites with 

administrative tracking records, such as underground storage tanks (USTs) and hazardous waste 

generators, as well as contaminated sites with documented discharges or suspected discharges of 

petroleum or hazardous materials. In reviewing the corridor through the OneStop GIS website, three 

basic assumptions were applied: 1) the Merrimack River is considered to be a contaminant migration 

barrier -soil and groundwater contamination are assumed to not cross the river, 2) groundwater flow 

within 1,000 feet of the Merrimack River is generally toward the river, and 3) sites with a status of 

Closed or Inactive are assumed, in the absence of other mitigating factors or information, to be in 

compliance with state and federal requirements with respect to soil and groundwater. 

A database report was commissioned from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) for each of the 

properties proposed for construction of new facilities (Target Properties). The EDR report includes a 

summary of environmentally-related sites identified in state and federal environmental databases 

(database sites). These sources include databases that track controlled facilities and/or activities, e.g., 

hazardous waste generators and regulated USTs with no identified violations, as well as sites with 

known contamination such as discharges of petroleum and/or hazardous waste, remediation activities, 

institutional controls as the result of discharges, and ongoing environmental monitoring due to 

discharges. The search radius of the database report for each Target Property conforms to the American 

Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) 1527-13, Section 8.2.1, and is based on the approximate property 

or construction boundaries. 

Additional details are in the Contamination Inventory Memorandum in Appendix C to this report. 

4.3.1 Affected Environment 

Along the existing railroad track bed, there is a high probability of the presence of contaminated soils or 

debris. Contaminants commonly found associated with railroad corridors include railroad ties (wood 

treating chemicals), spilled or leaked fluids (oil, cleaning solvents), herbicides, transformer fluids 

[Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)], fossil fuel combustion products [Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

(PAHs)], asbestos, and metals such as arsenic and mercury. Also, existing steel bridge overpasses along 

the corridor were likely painted with lead-based paint prior to 1970, which may or may not have been 

removed or sealed. 

Full Corridor: Of the contaminated sites within 1,000 feet of the corridor, 81 were identified as having 

the potential to impact the corridor. 

Concord – Stickney Avenue: The Target Property has a history as a vehicle repair and machine shop 

facility since at least 1926. Sign and highway department equipment painting has been conducted on 

the property during the prior NHDOT usage and vehicle painting continues currently as a commercial 

operation. Based on the development history, the presence of petroleum and halogenated VOCs, PAHs 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

40 | P a g e 

related to coal use in the past, hazardous materials related to painting and solvent usage, and elevated 

metals concentrations in the subsurface is possible. 

Manchester – Granite Street: The EDR database report did not identify the Target Property as a 

contaminated site. The property is depicted on historical Sanborn maps dated 1885 and 1891 as rail 

tracks and a freight depot. An 1897 map depicts tracks only. The 1915 through 1954 maps depict rail 

tracks and a rail station and associated facilities. The 1971 and 1983 maps depict rail tracks and parking; 

the 1985 and 1989 maps depict rail tracks and a commercial building on the southern portion and 

parking. The building is currently occupied by Hampshire First Bank with an address of 80 Canal Street. 

Bedford/Manchester Airport: The EDR database report did not identify the Target Property as a 

contaminated site. The Target Property is not depicted on historical Sanborn fire insurance maps. 

Historical aerial photographs appear to depict the Target Property as undeveloped from 1947 through 

1998. No contaminated sites requiring further review were identified. 

Nashua – Crown Street: The Target Property and vicinity has been developed for industrial use since 

prior to circa 1885, as documented by historical Sanborn fire insurance maps. Documented property 

usage nearby has included machine shops, a steam boiler works, and rail. The OneStop database 

indicates that the site is a Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs), Unsolicited Site Assessment, and 

a Brownfields site. A Phase I/II report has been completed for the property on behalf of the City of 

Nashua and are located in Appendix C. 

4.3.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would result in no potential to encounter contamination or generate 

contaminated material. 

4.3.3 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative may result in short-term, adverse impacts during construction of the rail and 

station sites due to the potential for movement of contaminated soils or material. However, the Build 

Alternative would likely have a long-term beneficial impact on the corridor because construction 

activities would provide final solutions for some contaminated sites, lowering potential exposure in the 

future. 

During Tier 2 Phase I ESAs would be completed as necessary for each property acquired in order to be 

eligible for LLPs. If Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) are identified during the Phase I ESA 

process, the RECs should be addressed through clean-up or further investigation through a Phase II 

assessment. Based on the development histories of the properties and surrounding areas, it is advisable 

that the Nashua – Crown Street, Manchester – Granite Street, and Concord – Stickney Avenue 

properties be assessed for the presence of petroleum or hazardous substances that might require 

management or disposal, regardless of the findings of a Phase I ESA. Given the history and settings of 

these properties, assessment of subsurface conditions for the presence of VOCs, PAHs, PCBs, and 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

41 | P a g e 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals in soils is advisable. Assessment for asbestos 

should be considered for the Nashua – Crown Street property. 

4.4 Water Quality 

Surface water quality is regulated statewide by the NHDES under the New Hampshire Code of 

Administrative Rules (Env-Wq 1700), in Massachusetts under the Code of Massachusetts Regulations 

(314 CMR 4.00), and nationally by the USEPA under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Surface water bodies 

were identified using available mapping, such as National Wetland Inventory Maps, the New Hampshire 

Wetlands Base Map, Massachusetts Geographic Information System (MassGIS), U.S. Geologic Survey 

(USGS) topographic maps, and aerial photographs. Additional detail can be found in the Natural 

Resources Technical Report in Appendix D. 

4.4.1 Affected Environment 

The dominant surface water feature within the Study corridor is the Merrimack River, which flows from 

north to south through the entire corridor from Concord to Nashua to Lowell. The existing rail line 

parallels the Merrimack River crossing it twice: once in the Town of Hooksett and again from the City of 

Manchester to the Town of Bedford. Based upon a review of USGS topographic maps and the NHDES 

Watershed Report Cards, the existing rail corridor crosses 25 other rivers or streams between the 

Massachusetts border and the end of the project Study area in Concord. Two crossings (Baker Brook and 

Spit Brook) occur in urban areas of Manchester and Nashua, respectively, and flow through culverts 

instead of natural channels. In addition, Horseshoe Pond in Merrimack, South End Marsh in Concord and 

an unnamed pond in Concord, as well as numerous wetlands, are also located within 100 feet of the 

existing rail line. 

The Study corridor is not located near any Outstanding Resource Waters, as designated by the 

Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00) and NHDES Regulation Env-Wq 1708.05. 

4.4.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would have no impact to water quality compared to existing conditions since no 

construction would occur and no pavement, drainage structures, or stormwater treatment would be 

added. The existing corridor currently supports freight rail traffic, which does not contribute to the 

impairments of the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that have been developed for the impaired water 

bodies in the corridor. 

4.4.3 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would not adversely impact water quality within the corridor as it is an existing rail 

line and improvements to drainage and stormwater management would be part of the project. The 

upgrade to culverts and associated stormwater BMPs along the entire length of the corridor, as well as 

at potential station locations, would have a net beneficial impact to water quality. The site design for 

each station, where new parking is being proposed, would be designed to meet applicable state 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

42 | P a g e 

stormwater standards and guidelines. In addition, the existing corridor currently supports freight rail 

traffic, which does not contribute to the impairments of the TMDLs that have been developed for the 

impaired water bodies in the corridor. It is not anticipated (based on the passenger rail operating 

characteristics) that the four round trips per day would contribute to the existing impairments in the 

corridor. 

There would be, however, negligible to minor, short-term, localized impacts during construction activities 

in the corridor, including replacing or rehabilitating bridges or culverts. At this Tier 1 stage, a small bridge 

just north of The Tyngsborough Bridge is the only known bridge in the corridor that would need 

replacement in implementation of the project. The relatively short and temporary duration of these 

activities, combined with appropriate stormwater and drainage management and, construction BMPs, 

would ensure that any impacts are negligible to minor. 

4.5 Wetlands 

Wetlands are federally protected under the CWA and activities resulting in impacts to them require a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the CWA. Executive Order 

(E.O.) 11990, “Protection of Wetlands”, requires federal agencies, such as FRA, to make sure their projects 

minimize impacts to wetlands. Wetlands are also protected under State of New Hampshire statutes, with 

permits obtained through the NHDES Wetlands Bureau. Wetlands are also regulated at the state-level by 

the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), which is administered by the municipal conservation 

commissions, with overview by the MassDEP. 

Wetlands along the project corridor were not field-delineated, but were identified using available 

mapping including National Wetland Inventory Maps, the New Hampshire Wetlands Base Map, MassGIS, 

USGS topographic maps, and aerial photographs. Field reviews of the proposed station and layover 

facilities were conducted in order to obtain more accurate information on wetland resources. 

Approximate wetland boundaries within and adjacent to the proposed facilities were mapped using 

Global Positioning System (GPS), but wetland delineation flags were not placed in the field and 

surveyed. Additional detail can be found in the Natural Resources Technical Report in Appendix D. 

To more accurately evaluate wetland impacts and to apply for USACE and NHDES permits, a formal 

wetland delineation within the entire project corridor and the station and layover facilities would need 

to be conducted during the project’s preliminary design phase during Tier 2. 

4.5.1 Affected Environment 

Wetland resources within the project corridor include palustrine and riverine systems that feed into the 

Merrimack River. Since the proposed rail corridor follows an existing railroad embankment, wetland and 

stream crossings have bridges or culverts. As a result, wetland systems crossed by the rail embankment 

have already been impacted by the placement of fill and culverts. Table 4.7 provides a summary of the 

large wetland systems that are located along the project corridor. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

43 | P a g e 

Prime wetlands within the project corridor are located in the municipalities of Hooksett and Nashua. 

Prime wetlands are identified in Table 4.8. Within the City of Nashua, the Merrimack River, the Nashua 

River, and Salmon Brook are also considered prime wetlands. None of the prime wetlands within the 

project corridor have a 100-foot buffer zone. 

Table 4.8: Prime New Hampshire Wetlands in Corridor 

Town Federal Classification Prime 

Wetlands Description

Concord PUBH, PUBF, PEM1F, 

PSS1E, PFO1E No Located near I-93, Exit 12;includes the “South End Marsh” (conservation land owned by the City of Concord) and a NHDOT wetland mitigation area

Bow PSS/EM1E, PSS1E, 

PUBHh, PUB/SS1F No

Located near a Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH) facility; wetland 

system appears to have been altered by PSNH facility; Bow Bog Brook 

flows through wetland system

Hooksett PSS1E, PUBHh Yes Includes wetlands and open water areas located between Route 3A and 

the Merrimack River

Hooksett PSS/EM1E No Wetland system associated with an unnamed tributary to Merrimack 

River; located between Dale Road and Merrimack River

Hooksett PSS1E, PUBF Yes Wetland system associated with Messer Brook; located near 

Hooksett/Manchester town line

Manchester PEM1F, PSS/EM1E, 

PFO/EM1E No Wetland system associated with unnamed tributaries to Merrimack River; located approximately 1 mile north of Amoskeag Street bridge

Merrimack L1UBH, PSS1E, PSS1C No Horseshoe Pond and associated wetlands also includes Naticook Brook

Merrimack PFO1E, PFO4E, 

PEM1Eb No Located near Mast Road, between US Route 3 and the Merrimack River

Nashua R5UBHx, PUB/SS1Fh, 

PFO1E Yes Wetland system associated with Salmon Brook

In Massachusetts, the following are the wetland and water resources within the corridor: 

 Unnamed tributary to the Merrimack River and adjacent wetlands: Located north of Parlee 

Farms in Tyngsborough 

 Bridge Meadow Brook: Located north of the Route 3A bridge over the Merrimack River in 

Tyngsborough 

 Unnamed tributary to the Merrimack River (flows from Uptons Pond): Located in Tyngsborough 

near intersection of Route 3A and Westford Road 

 Deep Brook and adjacent wetlands: Located in Chelmsford near Wotton Street 

 Stony Brook and adjacent wetlands: Located in Chelmsford near Church Street 

 Black Brook: Located in Lowell near the intersection of Middlesex Street and Pawtucket Street 

and appears to be piped under the project corridor and the surrounding urban area 

 Pawtucket Canal: Located in Lowell and is crossed twice by the project corridor 

 River Meadow Brook: Located in Lowell near the Lowell Connector and the southern end of the 

project corridor 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

44 | P a g e 

4.5.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would have no impact to wetland resource areas since no construction would 

occur and the corridor would remain in its current state. 

4.5.3 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would have no impact in most areas of the corridor and minor temporary and 

permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetland resource areas in a few discrete areas of the corridor. 

Minor temporary impacts may occur during construction activities, such as replacing or rehabilitating 

bridges or culverts, relocating utilities for track work, and grading work associated with station 

construction. These impacts would be mitigated during design and restored after construction has been 

completed. Minor permanent impacts may occur during these same activities in cases where temporary 

impacts cannot be restored in-place. In these cases, the project sponsor at the Tier 2 level would identify 

compensatory mitigation at the appropriate ratio for replication. As more detail is developed in the 

project’s next phase, these impacts will be defined in greater detail. Any wetland impacts would be 

subject to state and federal permitting requirements which would include compensatory mitigation for 

any unavoidable impacts. 

The following station sites are located in previously developed areas and no wetlands or watercourses 

are located within or adjacent to the site: Concord – Stickney Avenue, Manchester – Granite Street, and 

Nashua – Crown Street. The Bedford/Manchester Airport station has several wetlands and watercourses 

located at the site. North of Ray Wieczorek Drive, the majority of the site is forested wetland. South of 

Ray Wieczorek Drive, there are two small forested wetlands and one emergent/scrub-shrub wetland. 

These three wetlands drain to Sebbins Brook, which flows into the Merrimack River. As currently 

designed, this station would impact less than 1,000 square feet of wetland at this site. 

4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 

Threatened and endangered species and critical habitat are provided protection on both federal and 

state levels. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543, Sec. 2A) is the federal legislation 

that provides protection. Under the Endangered Species Act, the FRA is required to consult with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure that 

its grant-funded activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or 

adversely modify designated critical habitats. The State of New Hampshire protects species through the 

Native Plant Protection Act of 1987 and the New Hampshire Endangered Species Conservation Act of 

1979. The State of Massachusetts protects species through the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act 

(MESA) (M.G.L. c.131A). The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) 

is the state agency responsible for the protection of plant and animal species that are listed as 

threatened, endangered, and of special concern in Massachusetts. In addition, the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668) provides federal protection for bald and golden eagles. Projects that 

impact these species may require the development of an eagle conservation plan. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

45 | P a g e 

Information on important wildlife habitat and recorded occurrences of rare, threatened, and 

endangered species was obtained from the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System 

website, the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau (NHB), the Massachusetts NHESP, the New 

Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan, and the MassGIS website. Additional detail can be found in the Natural 

Resources Technical Report in Appendix D. 

4.6.1 Affected Environment 

NHB identified the following species of concern in the project corridor: bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platirhinos), New 

England cottontail (Sylvilagus transitionalis), and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). 

NHESP identified three species of concern within the project corridor, including bald eagle, riverine 

clubtail (Stylurus amnicola), and cobra clubtail (Gomphus vastus). Information obtained from the USFWS 

Information, Planning, and Conservation System website identified one plant species, small whorled 

pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), within the project corridor. No critical habitat was identified by the 

USFWS. A full listing of threatened and endangered species can be found in the Natural Resources 

Technical Report in Appendix D to this report. 

The undeveloped, vegetated areas along the corridor are of greater concern for threatened and 

endangered species than the densely developed areas since they provide more habitat for these species, 

particularly the eastern hognose snake, the New England cottontail, the grasshopper sparrow, the 

riverine clubtail, and the cobra clubtail. Nesting and roosting sites for bald eagles are present along the 

Merrimack River, including in the more densely developed areas of the corridor near Manchester and 

Nashua. Portions of the corridor that are located along the Merrimack River and contain large trees that 

are used nesting and roosting may provide valuable habitat for this species. 

NHB also listed exemplary natural communities in the corridor, including Acidic Riverside Seep, Dry 

Appalachian Oak Forest, Pitch Pine – Scrub Oak Woodland, Semi-Rich Oak – Sugar Maple Forest, and 

Sugar Maple – Silver Maple – White Ash Floodplain Forest. 

The primary wildlife corridor within the vicinity of the project is along the Merrimack River. As noted, 

the Merrimack River provides important habitat for bald eagles. Even though the river corridor passes 

through areas that are highly developed, it provides habitat for a variety of species including mammals, 

migratory birds, reptiles, and amphibians. The Merrimack River corridor connects fragmented areas of 

undeveloped forested land and floodplain habitat that are located near the project, particularly in the 

towns of Bow, Bedford, and Merrimack. Smaller wildlife corridors located near the project include: 

 The undeveloped forested land and power line right-of-way located south of Garvins Falls dam 

in the Town of Bow – This area provides habitat for several state-listed species. The power line 

right-of-way provides a corridor for wildlife movement; however Route 3A and I-93 may limit 

the extent of the corridor. A large area of undeveloped land is located on the opposite (east) 

side of the Merrimack River. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

46 | P a g e 

 Baboosic Brook and Souhegan River in the Town of Merrimack – Habitat along these streams 

provides a connection from the Merrimack River to larger undeveloped tracts of land and open 

space areas located west of the Everett Turnpike. The US Route 3 and Everett Turnpike crossings 

may limit wildlife movement and the effectiveness of this corridor. 

 Pennichuck Brook in the Town of Merrimack – Habitat along this stream provides a connection 

between the Merrimack River and larger areas of upland and wetland habitat located west of 

the Everett Turnpike. Crossings of US Route 3, the Everett Turnpike, and several local roads may 

provide some restrictions to wildlife movement. 

4.6.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would result in no impacts to federal and state regulated wildlife and critical 

habitat since no construction would occur and the corridor would remain in its current state. 

4.6.3 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative has the potential to disturb or destroy habitat in some locations along the corridor. 

However, as currently designed, the project would require limited vegetation removal as stations are 

located in previously developed areas, and the existing rail right-of-way has been maintained to control 

vegetation in the past. Impacts to wildlife corridors, compared to existing conditions, are not anticipated 

since no new rail lines or other structures that could further restrict wildlife movement are proposed. 

Although the speed of the proposed commuter rail would be faster than the speed of the existing freight 

rail, the frequency of the commuter rail (eight trains per day) is not anticipated to be at a level that would 

have a substantial adverse effect on wildlife movement across the tracks. 

During the next phase of the project, records of federal- or state- listed species would be confirmed with 

the USFWS, New Hampshire Fish & Game (NHF&G), NHB, and NHESP to determine if listed species or 

designated critical habitat are actually present within the rail corridor. Field surveys may also be 

necessary. If protected species or habitat is present in areas where project activities would occur, 

coordination with the appropriate agencies would be required to identify potential impacts and 

mitigation measures. 

4.7 Floodplains 

Executive Order (E.O.) 11988, “Floodplain Management,” requires federal agencies to review federallyfunded projects that may affect floodplains and floodways in an effort to reduce the risk of flood loss 

and to minimize the impacts of floods. This E.O. was amended on January 30, 2015; at the time of 

preparation this EA, implementing guidance for the amended E.O. was not available. 

The Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs) available on the New Hampshire Geographically 

Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System (NH GRANIT) GIS website and MassGIS website 

were reviewed to determine the locations of flood hazard areas within the project corridor. Since the 

rail corridor is located along the Merrimack River, a large portion of the project is located within or 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

47 | P a g e 

adjacent to areas that are mapped as 100-year floodplains. Additional detail can be found in the Natural 

Resources Technical Report in Appendix D. 

4.7.1 Affected Environment 

Most of the proposed station and layover facility sites in New Hampshire are located within or adjacent 

to floodplain areas. These areas are generally mapped as either “Zone AE” (100-year floodplain or 1 

percent annual chance of flood) or “0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard” (500-year floodplain). 

Portions of the downtown Nashua site are mapped as “Zone X, Protected by Levee.”

The project corridor crosses through the 100-year floodplain (Zones A and AE) in several locations in 

Massachusetts. These floodplains are associated with the Merrimack River and its larger tributaries 

(Deep Brook, Stony Brook, Pawtucket Canal, and River Meadow Brook). The largest Zone A floodplain 

area is located in Chelmsford, where approximately one mile of proposed new rail (double-track on the 

existing embankment) is located within an area mapped as Zone A floodplain. 

4.7.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would have no impacts to floodplains or floodways since no construction would 

occur and the corridor would remain in its current state. 

4.7.3 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would have minor to negligible impacts to floodplains in the project corridor. As 

the existing rail right-of-way runs adjacent to the Merrimack River and in many cases is less than 250 

feet from the river bank, impacts to floodplains would be unavoidable in certain discrete sections of the 

corridor. However, within the existing right-of-way, the project corridor historically carried two tracks 

along its entire length, and the Build Alternative calls for restoring that second track on the existing 

embankment in certain locations. To the extent practicable, the design team has located station 

elements outside of floodplains. In locations where floodplain elevations would be altered, the project 

would provide compensatory floodplain storage and station designs would be modified to protect 

structures and equipment. This would be potentially necessary in Concord, Bedford and Nashua. 

Through mitigation, adverse impacts to floodplains would be kept to a minimum. In addition, 

implementing guidance for the amended E.O. will be followed if it is available at the time of Tier 2 

analysis and applicable to Tier 2 project activities. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

48 | P a g e 

4.8 Energy Resources 

Energy resources are measured over time and related to the energy consumption and GHG emissions 

from the construction and the operation of the project (see Section 4.1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions). New Hampshire’s transportation sector accounted for 35 percent of New Hampshire’s 

energy consumption in 201115 and ranked 41st nationally in VMT with over 12,894 million miles (2012).16

 

This project would help reduce the state’s VMT and overall energy consumption by offering a new 

passenger rail service and reducing the number vehicles on the state’s roadways. 

4.8.1 Affected Environment 

The project would impact energy sources during project construction and during new passenger rail 

service operation. Energy resources would be required to build the station facilities and operate the 

trains and other project facilities. Operation of the service would also require energy. 

4.8.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not impact energy resources related to the construction and operation 

of the project as the corridor would remain in its current state. However, energy consumption related to 

VMT within the US Route 3 and I-93 travel corridors could increase without the construction of the Build 

Alternative because the only means of surface passenger travel would be by automobile and bus. No 

surface alternative to avoid highway congestion would be available 

4.8.3 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would introduce passenger rail operations, which currently do not exist in the 

corridor. This service is expected to divert trips from vehicles to passenger rail, reducing the overall VMT 

and GHG emissions. However, the Build Alternative could potentially have a minor adverse impact on 

traffic operations around certain station locations. As described in Section 4.1 Air Quality and 

Greenhouse Emissions, emission increases related to traffic for the Build Alternative are below the 

minimum threshold for a conformity determination. The Build Alternative would create a net emission 

reduction benefit from the saving of vehicle trips for some pollutants (CO and SO2). 

During construction, the project would consume energy through the processing of materials and 

construction activities. All impacts during construction would be addressed in Tier 2. 

4.9 Visual and Aesthetic Resources 

Visual and Aesthetic Resources are natural and cultural landscape features that people see and that 

contribute to the public’s appreciative enjoyment of the environment. Aesthetic and visual resource 

impacts are generally defined in terms of the extent to which the project’s physical characteristics and 

potential visibility would change the perceived visual character and visual quality of the viewed 

 

15 U.S. Energy Information Administration, www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NH 

16 U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/state/print.cfm?sid=NH
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

49 | P a g e 

landscape. As part of the cultural resources studies (see Section 4.15), visual impacts were considered as 

part of the historic architecture evaluation. In addition to historic architectural resources, other 

resources identified as visual resources include parks and significant natural resources. 

4.9.1 Affected Environment 

The most significant natural resource in the corridor is the Merrimack River, which runs adjacent to the 

rail right-of-way for its entire length, and in some cases is less than 250 feet away. In addition to the 

river, there are three wetland systems that are classified as “prime” wetlands in New Hampshire – two 

in Hooksett and one in Nashua. The rail right-of-way also abuts several parks/recreation areas along the 

route. 

As documented in greater detail in Section 4.15 Cultural Resources, there are a number of aboveground 

historic architectural resources adjacent to the rail right-of-way. In general, the corridor is highly 

developed in the urban landscapes of Lowell, Nashua, Manchester, and Concord, and less developed in 

the rural areas between the major urban centers. Generally, the significant natural resources are located 

outside of the urban areas, and the historic architectural resources are located within the urban areas. 

4.9.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would have no impacts to visual and aesthetic resources since no construction 

would occur and the corridor would remain in its current state. 

4.9.3 Build Alternative 

Impacts to visual resources, including natural and cultural resources, were not fully assessed at the Tier 

1 level. Visual impacts of the project will be better understood at the Tier 2 level when the project plans 

are more fully developed. However, based on current plans of work associated with the rail line, 

including infrastructure associated with upgrading the existing rail and adding double-track, it is 

expected that the Build Alternative would cause limited impacts on visual resources as the rail right-ofway historically accommodated double-tracking throughout corridor length. For the work associated 

with the stations and layover facility, it is also anticipated that the Build Alternative may cause limited 

impacts to visual resources as the stations would be built in underutilized, previously developed land 

and the stations would consist of high-level platforms, which are limited in scale and do not require 

building large pedestrian crossovers at each station. 

4.10 Accessibility 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires that persons with disabilities be 

accommodated for all public facilities including transportation. All stations and transportation facilities 

must meet the ADA design standards and applicable state and local codes. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

50 | P a g e 

4.10.1 Affected Environment 

The accessibility evaluation focused on how the alternatives impacted accessibility for patrons with 

disabilities. The Build Alternative would include four stops in New Hampshire (Concord, Manchester, 

Bedford/Manchester Airport, Nashua), in addition to three existing Massachusetts commuter rail stops 

(Lowell, Woburn, and Boston). The four new stations would provide high-level platforms. 

4.10.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would have no impacts to accessibility since no new passenger rail service 

would be available. 

4.10.3 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would have a beneficial impact on accessibility as it would meet all ADA design 

standards and applicable state and local codes. Station design would include level boarding between the 

platform and train. Ramps would be included from the parking lots to the raised station platforms. The 

proposed park-and-ride lots would provide handicap accessible parking spaces. All station facilities 

would be ADA accessible. 

4.11 Property Acquisition 

Property acquisition requirements were determined based on the selection of preferred station 

locations in the corridor and through research of assessor’s databases in the affected towns. The 

existing rail right-of-way is of sufficient width to accommodate the proposed track work for the project. 

Therefore, the focus of this section is on station development. 

4.11.1 Affected Environment 

Four station locations were developed through research on previous planning studies in the corridor, 

workshops with local stakeholders in each community, and the Study team’s professional judgment. In 

Concord, the preferred station location and layover facility is located on property owned by NHDOT, 

which consists of buildings that are no longer in use by the department. Part of the station work would 

require relocating the track in this area, which would require acquisition of one privately-held parcel. In 

Manchester, the preferred station location would require coordination with the City of Manchester, as 

the proposed platform and parking is located at an existing municipally-owned parking lot. At 

Bedford/Manchester Airport, the majority of land in the vicinity of this location has been previously 

acquired by the state during the construction of the Ray Wieczorek Drive Bridge. There is one parcel still 

in private ownership that is leased to a natural gas company, which would be impacted by the project. In 

Nashua, the preferred station location would require coordination with the City of Nashua, as the parcel 

for the platform and parking is located on municipally-owned lot. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

51 | P a g e 

4.11.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not require property acquisitions, since no construction would occur and 

the corridor would remain in its current state. The proposed properties identified for stations and 

station development in the Build Alternative would be available for alternative development purposes. 

4.11.3 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would have minor impacts on privately held property in the corridor, as the station 

development would only require acquisition of two privately-held parcels. The remaining land for 

development is owned by the state or by the municipality. All private property acquisitions would 

comply with the Uniform Act. Public Law 91-646, the "Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970," (Uniform Act) provides important protections and assistance for people 

affected by federally funded projects. These properties are generally underdeveloped/underutilized and 

would see substantial benefit with the development of stations at these locations (see Section 4.17 

Socioeconomics). The one parcel with the most impact is located at the Bedford/Manchester Airport 

site, as it is currently developed and utilized as a natural gas storage location. It should be noted that the 

assessment of property impacts is based on conceptual design and impacts may change as more 

detailed design is completed in subsequent stages of the project. 

4.12 Land Use 

The land use and zoning evaluation inventories existing land uses and zoning within a half-mile of each 

proposed station and determines the Build Alternative’s potential land use impacts and its compatibility 

with existing zoning and local plans and policies. Below is a summary of the existing land use and zoning 

within a half-mile of each of the proposed station locations. For more information regarding land use 

please see Appendix E Sustainable Land Use Technical Report. 

 Concord: Currently the area immediately adjacent to the proposed station is zoned for 

Opportunity Corridor Performance (OCP) District, as well as urban commercial. The existing land 

use is primarily transportation (rail, roadway and parking) with adjacent commercial uses. The 

zoning code for the OCP states that specific transit-supportive permitted uses include a railroad 

passenger station. According to the Opportunity Corridor Master Plan17, the City of Concord 

would like to see this area developed in a mix of uses, specifically office, retail, high density 

residential and possible hotel. Additionally, the Master Plan 203018 discusses land use goals 

that coordinate land use planning with transportation planning allowing for the transportation 

system to expand where necessary. 

 Granite Street, Manchester: The zoning around this proposed station is central business district, 

urban multi-family, and general industrial/industrial park. The existing land uses are commercial, 

transportation, residential and mixed use. The construction of a station at this location would 

 

17 http://www.concordnh.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1663 

18 http://nh-concord.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/1456 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

52 | P a g e 

not significantly alter the existing land uses; the immediate area where the station would be is 

already transportation land use. Bringing intercity rail into downtown Manchester would 

complement existing zoning and support local comprehensive plans. 

 Bedford/Manchester Airport: The zoning at this station location is transportation, residential 

and general business district. The existing land uses are open space, residential, transportation, 

and industrial. of the Town of Bedford has existing plans to develop this site and an intercity rail 

station is consistent with these plans. While there would be a change from the existing zoning 

and land uses, the change is consistent with what is planned for the site. 

 Crown Street, Nashua: The existing zoning is general industrial, urban residential and mixed use. 

The existing land uses are industrial, residential, commercial and transportation. The existing 

zoning and land use are supportive of the development of an intercity rail station. Additionally, 

the plans and policies from the City of Nashua are supportive of an intercity rail station. 

Nashua’s land use code allows for a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) district that 

complements the recommendations of the Nashua Master Plan19. The Master Plan discusses 

the goal of investing in non-vehicular systems such as transit and regional rail. 

4.12.1 Affected Environment 

The land use evaluation was conducted according to FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental 

Impacts (as revised FR/Vol. 64, No. 101/Wednesday, May 26, 1999 [28545-28556] and using the 

document “Guidance on the Federal Railroad Administration Categorical Exclusion Worksheet.

20” This 

guidance specifies that evidence should show that surrounding land uses and zoning issues are 

compatible and that the local plans and policies are supportive of the project. The existing land use and 

zoning within a half mile of each proposed station has been evaluated. As described in Section 4.12, the 

existing land use and zoning at the four proposed station locations are compatible with the 

development of an intercity rail station. Land use and comprehensive plans and policies from each of 

the cities support the implementation of a rail station. Any changes to land use would be minimal and 

would be changes that each municipality already anticipates in the event of the construction of a rail 

station. 

4.12.2 No Build Alternative 

Land use changes unrelated to passenger rail station development may occur under the No Build 

Alternative, but attempting to estimate such changes would be speculative. The No Build Alternative 

would not advance the comprehensive plans and land use goals of any of the cities through which the 

Build Alternative would operate. 

 

19http://www.gonashua.com/CityGovernment/Departments/PlanningDepartment/PlansandStudies/NashuaMasterPlan/tabid/6

75/Default.aspx

20 https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02707
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

53 | P a g e 

4.12.3 Build Alternative 

Based on a qualitative assessment, it is anticipated that the Build Alternative would have a moderate 

impact on sustainable land use goals. The Build Alternative would have a low-to-medium impact on 

catalyzing more compact, infill transit-supported land use and development patterns around the 

stations, and would reduce reliance on vehicles for trips and errands21

. The Build Alternative is 

compatible with the existing land use at all four of the proposed stations. In terms of the direct land use 

impacts of constructing and maintaining a rail station, the existing land use and proposed future land 

use plans support the development of a rail station. Indirect land use impacts, such as TOD that may 

occur with the presence of a rail station, are also compatible with the existing and future land use plans 

from each of the municipalities. The overall land use plans and vision for the station areas and corridor 

are supportive of rail station and many local plans directly call for the development of a rail station and 

the associated development. 

4.13 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, issued in 1994, states that "each Federal agency shall make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, 

and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." 

The CEQ document, Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997)

states that minorities are individuals who are members of the following population groups: 

 American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or Hispanic. 

The CEQ guidance also outlines that minority populations should be identified 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; or, 

3. A minority population also exists if there is more than one minority group present and the 

minority percentage, as calculated by aggregated all minority persons, meets one of the above 

stated thresholds. 

Disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects are determined if: 

 There is or will be an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly and 

adversely affects a minority population, low-income population or Indian tribe. 

 

21 Capitol Corridor Land Use & Economic Development Analysis, January 2014, available under separate cove
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

54 | P a g e 

 Whether environmental effects are significant and are or may be having an adverse impact on 

minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes that appreciably exceeds or is 

likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population or other appropriate comparison 

group; and 

 Whether the environmental effects occur or would occur in a minority population, low-income 

population, or Indian tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from 

environmental hazards. 

DOT Order 5610.2(a), Department of Transportation Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, sets forth the DOT policy to consider environmental 

justice principles in all DOT program, policies and activities. Environmental Justice (EJ) areas are defined 

as Census Block Groups that represent neighborhoods of high-minority, low-income, non-English 

speaking, and foreign-born populations. 

4.13.1 Affected Environment 

As described in the CEQ guidance, a geographic area should be defined as the potential impact area in 

order to determine whether a proposed action is likely to have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health and environmental effects on low-income and minority populations. U.S. Census data was 

used to calculate statistics related to income and race for individuals in Census Tracts within 1,000 feet 

of the Build Alternative’s route.22 Data was collected for New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and the 

U.S. for overall comparison. Refer to Appendix F for more information on the equity analysis. 

Race 

Approximately 11 percent of the population living in the 39 Census Tracts that are within 1,000 feet of 

the proposed rail alignment are minorities.23 One Census Tract in Manchester, Census Tract 6, has a 

minority population that exceeds 50 percent (56.7 percent). The Tract immediately surrounding the 

proposed Granite Street station (Census Tract 2004) has a minority population of 17 percent. There is 

one Tract to the west of the proposed station (Census Tract 20), where the minority population is 40 

percent. In addition to the minority population clusters around the proposed Granite Street station, 

there are also clusters of minorities around the proposed station at Crown Street in Nashua. In Census 

Tract 106, which surrounds the Crown Street station, the minority population is 21 percent. The minority 

population in the State of New Hampshire is seven percent. The percentage of minorities within the 

corridor is higher than the state, but less than the neighboring State of Massachusetts (24 percent) and 

less than the U.S. (37 percent). 

Based on this data and following the CEQ guidance, the minority population throughout the corridor 

does not exceed 50 percent of the area. As little to no adverse impacts is anticipated, the minority 

population in Census Tract 6 would not face disproportionate adverse impacts. The minority population 

 

22 United States Census, American Community Survey Five-Year Data 2011

23 Ibid
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

55 | P a g e 

exceeds the minority population in the state by four percent; four percent is not determined to be 

meaningfully greater. The calculation used to assess the impact of this project on racial groups combines 

all minorities into a single groups; the combined number is used for this analysis. This analysis shows 

that there are not minority populations present in the project area that would be subject to protection 

under Executive Order 12898. 

Furthermore, the minimal anticipated local negative impacts associated with noise and vibrations could 

be easily mitigated. On a regional scale, impacts to air quality are actually anticipated to improve, as this 

is an intercity rail project and could possibly remove vehicles from roadways if travelers choose to take 

the rail service instead of driving. Refer to sections 4.1 and 4.2 as well as Appendix A and Appendix B for 

additional details. 

Low-Income Population 

Approximately eight percent of the population in the 39 Census Tracts within 1,000 feet of the rail 

corridor has fallen below the poverty line within the last 12 months (based on the five-year 2012 

American Community Survey Census data).24 This is approximately the same percentage as the State of 

New Hampshire, where eight percent of the population is also below the poverty level. The population 

below the poverty level in the corridor is less than the State of Massachusetts (almost 11 percent) and 

the U.S. (14 percent). No individual Census Tract exceeds 50 percent of the population below the 

poverty line.

Based on this data and following the CEQ guidance, the low-income population does not exceed 50 

percent of the area. The low-income population is also not meaningfully greater than a comparable 

geographic area - the State of New Hampshire in this case. The percent of the population below poverty 

is the same in the corridor and the state. 

There is not a significant presence of a low-income population in the corridor. Additionally, there are no 

anticipated negative impacts on air quality or noise and vibration. 

4.13.2 No Build Alternative 

There would be no change in the status quo for the No Build Alternative. Predominately positive 

benefits are anticipated for the Build Alternative in terms of improved mobility, increased transportation 

options, and better access to services. The No Build Alternative would not achieve these benefits for any 

population group, including EJ populations. 

4.13.3 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would have a major beneficial impact for EJ populations within proximity to 

proposed stations in Concord, Manchester, and Nashua, as the project provides increased access to 

transportation options within the corridor. Potentially minor adverse impacts to certain populations 

 

24 Ibid
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

56 | P a g e 

include the noise impacts of horns within certain communities. The noise impacts and mitigation are 

addressed under the Section 4.2, Noise and Vibration. 

4.14 Public Safety 

Increasing rail traffic in the corridor would increase the likelihood of conflicts between rail operations, 

traffic operations, and pedestrian movements. Existing railroad safety features were evaluated with the 

owner, PAR, and through field reconnaissance and GIS mapping. Of particular concern were 

interlockings, block signals, and at-grade crossings. 

4.14.1 Affected Environment 

The train control signal system for the route supports NORAC Rule 261 between North Station and 

Manchester. Rule 261 allows for bi-directional train operation with automatic wayside block signals on 

all main line tracks. North of Manchester, there are no wayside signals and operations are governed by 

DCS rules, wherein a train order issued over the radio by the railroad dispatcher in Billerica, 

Massachusetts is necessary to move a train. 

There are 35 locations identified between Lowell’s Gallagher Terminal and Stickney Avenue in Concord 

where roadways or pedestrian paths cross the railway at grade. Grade crossings are of particular 

concern as they present the greatest accident hazard on the railway due to the potential for 

vehicle/pedestrian conflicts with trains. Grade crossings would require sensitive treatment should 

substantially greater volumes of trains be reintroduced along the route. Federal safety regulations 

require trains to sound their horns at all grade crossings. A federally sanctioned “quiet zone” may be 

established cooperatively with the local community working with the railroad to make substantial 

investments that reduce the likelihood of accidents. 

The density of 35 crossings along the 48-mile route is relatively low for an intercity railroad. The railroad 

generally follows the banks of the Merrimack River and most of the grade crossings lead to relatively 

small riverfront residential enclaves or industrial sites. Of the 35 grade crossings, 21 are public roads, 13 

are private driveways, and one is an informal community crossing. Only six of these crossings are heavily 

travelled: Crown Street, Hollis Street, and Bridge Street in Nashua; Granite Street, and; Hall Street in

Concord. 

Public grade crossings are roadways that are under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public 

authority. Private grade crossings are on privately-owned roadways such as those leading into an 

apartment complex, housing estate, or commercial/industrial development. A private crossing is not 

intended for public use and is not maintained by a public road authority. 

4.14.2 No Build Alternative 

Public safety improvements would not be achieved under the No Build Alternative because no upgrades 

to the Centralized Traffic Control signal system or the Automatic Highway Crossing Warning System 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

57 | P a g e 

would occur. This would impact the 35 at grade rail crossings. Grade crossings present the greatest 

accident hazard due to the potential for vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. 

4.14.3 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would have a beneficial impact in the project corridor through the installation of 

upgraded safety features. The existing railroad (NHML) has a fully functioning CTC signal system in-place 

between Lowell and Manchester that would be renewed and upgraded for the new passenger service. 

Existing block signals were identified by reference to PAR documentation. New and renewed 

interlockings were identified in the track configuration planning process. In addition, the project 

includes installing all new equipment for the AHWD. It is also assumed that the rail line would operate 

with Positive Train Control (PTC), which is in the process of being incorporated in PAR, Amtrak, and 

MBTA facilities around New England, and would be in place by the time this route is operational. Lastly, 

public safety benefits would be realized by travelers shifting from road to rail. 

4.15 Cultural Resources and Historic Properties 

The Build Alternative may develop into a federal undertaking having the potential to impact historic 

properties and subject to review under Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, and its 

implementing regulations, 36 CFR Part 800. Historic properties are defined in the NHPA as any 

prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, 

the National Register of Historic Places. Examples of activities that have the potential to cause impacts 

to cultural resources, including historic properties, include physical destruction, physical alteration, or 

removal of the resource to another location; introduction of visual, atmospheric, and audible elements 

(including noise and vibration); and neglect that causes deterioration. To address initial Section 106 

concerns, a preliminary cultural resource study was conducted for the Build Alternative’s Limit of 

Disturbance (LOD). For the purposes of the Tier 1 study, the LOD determined a preliminary Area of 

Potential Effect (APE) running from Lowell, Massachusetts to Concord, New Hampshire. This preliminary 

APE focused on areas that may be directly and indirectly impacted (or the LOD) by the proposed 

construction such as station and layover construction and major track realignment. The preliminary APE 

was developed for the purpose of getting a reasonable sense of historic properties or potentially historic 

properties present in in the project area through a "desktop review;" the preliminary APE, however, will 

need to be refined and agreed upon through future Section 106 consultation with the Massachusetts 

and New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) at the Tier 2, or project, level. 

 While the entire project corridor from Lowell to Concord is examined in the Tier 1 survey, the majority 

of detailed discussion of archaeological resources centers on the areas within the sections of the 

corridor that may be directly impacted by the proposed construction. A larger five-kilometer 

archaeological study buffer was examined to establish the archaeological context and potential of the 

area surrounding the project corridor. This effort combined a review of the known prehistoric and 

historic archaeological sites as well as a cultural resource survey of historic maps of the region. These 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

58 | P a g e 

sources are synthesized to determine the archaeological potential of the corridor and recommend 

potential field testing within the LOD/APE. 

For historic architectural resources, the study area included potential areas of direct impact (or LOD) 

and a limited area of potential indirect impact that would result from the construction of above-ground 

facilities, namely stations and layover areas. This indirect study area consisted of a 500-foot preliminary 

APE buffer surrounding potential station locations and layover facilities. The historic architectural survey 

consisted of an inventory of previously identified historic properties and a windshield survey of 

architectural resources over 50 years of age that had not yet been identified or evaluated for historic 

significance. The cultural resources technical reports can be found in Appendix G. 

In December 2014, Section 106 consultation was initiated and the preliminary cultural resources studies 

were submitted to the Massachusetts and New Hampshire SHPOs for review. Comment letters were 

issued by the New Hampshire SHPO on December 22, 2014 and by the Massachusetts SHPO on 

December 31, 2014. A subsequent meeting was held at the New Hampshire Department of 

Transportation on January 15, 2015 and attended by FRA, SHPO, and NHDOT staff and NHDOT's 

environmental consultant. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the preliminary reports, SHPO 

comments, and determine the next steps. The parties determined that the current level of effort and 

preliminary resource identification is sufficient for a Tier 1 Study. The Tier 2 analysis, however, will 

require the APE to be more broadly defined in consultation with the SHPOs so that it encompasses all 

areas of potential direct and indirect impact. This project is in an early planning stage and establishing a 

refined APE is dependent on the project components included in the next phase of the project. 

Redefining the Tier 1 APE at this time is premature. 

If NHDOT seeks federal funding for the next phase of this project, the lead federal agency will consult 

with the New Hampshire and Massachusetts SHPOs, as required by Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, to establish the project APE, identify historic properties and determine whether or not 

any cultural resources surveys or archaeological testing is necessary, determine effects, and resolve any 

adverse effects. 

4.15.1 Affected Environment 

Historic Architecture: In New Hampshire, there are two previously identified historic properties within 

the direct APE that have been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP: the Eagle Square 

Historic District and the Amoskeag Millyard Historic District, as well as 14 previously identified historic 

properties within the indirect APE. Background research and a field visit also found that there are 12 

architectural resources over 50 years of age within the direct APE that have not been previously 

surveyed or evaluated for historic significance, including the rail line itself, two bridges that carry the rail 

line over the Merrimack River, five storage or warehouse buildings, two office buildings, and two 

garages. For additional detail, see the Reconnaissance-Level Historic Architectural Survey in Appendix G. 

Background research gathered from Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS), a 

Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) visit, and other online sources determined that there are 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

59 | P a g e 

four NRHP-listed resources in the preliminary APE. One of those resources, the Lowell Locks and Canals 

Historic District is also a National Historic Landmark (NHL). The other three are the Lowell Historic 

Preservation District, Lowell National Historic Park, and Middlesex Canal Historic and Archaeological 

District. In addition, background research and the field visit determined that there are two previously 

unidentified properties that may be 50 years of age or older within the direct APE. This includes the rail 

line itself, and one of the bridges that carries the rail line over the Pawtucket Canal. 

Archaeology: In New Hampshire, overall, the potential for prehistoric archaeological resources in the 

Study area remained consistently high, owing in large part to its proximity to the Merrimack River. The 

historical archaeological sensitivity was also determined to be high given the density of historic settlement 

within the Study area. The archaeological sensitivity for historical archaeological resources was subdivided 

into site types. Analysis of these site types revealed that sites of an industrial- or transportation-related 

association were the most likely form of historic archaeological material to be encountered. Both of these 

site types were frequently situated along the river and its tributaries from which they derived operational 

power and transportation. As the extant rail bed follows the course of the Merrimack River, the likelihood 

of encountering industry/transportation-related resources is therefore high. For a full listing of 

archaeological sites and potential in New Hampshire, see Appendix G. 

In Massachusetts, the Lowell Study area contains a total of 33 previously identified archaeological sites. 

Within the Lowell Study area, 21 sites are classified as historic sites and 12 sites are classified as 

prehistoric. Of the 33 previously identified archaeological sites contained within the Lowell Study area, 

no site occurs within the extant railroad bed; however, several sites do occur in close proximity, namely 

the Railroad Site (19-MD-0570)25 and the B&M Roundhouse Site (LOW-HA-31)

26, both of which are 

immediately adjacent to the current main line. 

4.15.2 No Build Alternative 

Under the No Build Alternative, NHDOT would not undertake any physical or operational improvements 

to the Project corridor. Therefore, there would be no effect to historic properties, including 

archaeological resources. 

4.15.3 Build Alternative 

The majority of work proposed for this project would be located in previously disturbed track bed or in 

highly developed areas. Therefore, it is anticipated that impacts to archaeological resources would be 

minor to negligible. However, given the overall archaeological sensitivity of the project area, efforts to 

identify archaeological resources and assess and resolve impacts will be necessary once specific 

locations of ground-disturbing activities are known at the Tier 2 level. Project work that would occur in 

the existing ROW and consist of replacing second track in selected locations where it existed historically 

is not anticipated to have direct impacts to historic architectural properties, except for impacts to 

 

25 Massachusetts site from the SHPO

26 Ibid
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

60 | P a g e 

historic properties directly associated with the railroad itself, such as bridges. Indirect effects of the 

project to nearby historic architectural properties may include visual, noise, and vibration impacts; these 

would be identified and analyzed at the Tier 2 level. 

The background research conducted for this Tier I, or service-level, study indicated there are previously 

identified NRHP-listed and eligible properties present in the study area, as well as resources that may 

require further evaluation to determine NRHP eligibility. However, no further identification of historic 

properties or evaluations of impacts to such properties occurred at this stage. Such activities, as well as 

surveys, archaeological testing, any necessary mitigation, etc., would take place in the future at the Tier 

2 level when project plans are more fully developed and when the nature and full extent of the project 

is known for determining the APE; this future work would include appropriate Section 106 consultation 

with the Massachusetts and New Hampshire SHPOs, and other consulting parties as appropriate. 

4.16 Parks and Recreation 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 requires DOT agencies to consider the 

impacts of transportation projects on the following: parks and recreational areas of national, state, or 

local significance that are both publicly owned and open to the public; publicly owned wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance that are open to the public to the extent that 

public access does not interfere with the primary purpose of the refuge; and historic sites of national, 

state, or local significance in public or private ownership regardless of whether they are open to the 

public. 

4.16.1 Affected Environment 

There are a number of publicly-owned parks and recreation areas that are adjacent to the existing rail 

right-of-way, though none of them would be impacted by the project, and, as such, do not qualify as 

Section 4(f) resources. The work associated with the rail would take place within existing right-of-way, 

and the stations would be located on either private or publicly-owned parcels that are not set aside as 

either park land or recreation land. 

Based on the level of detail included in the preliminary rail design, there is not yet enough information 

to determine whether any historic sites would be directly impacted by the project and, therefore, 

classified as a Section 4(f) resource. Future Tier 2 analysis will include further identification of 4(f) 

resources, and a full Section 4(f) evaluation, including coordination with the appropriate Officials with 

Jurisdiction, if necessary. 

4.16.2 No Build Alternative 

Under the No Build Alternative, NHDOT would not undertake any physical or operational improvements 

to the Project corridor and as a result, there would be no impacts to Section 4(f) resources. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

61 | P a g e 

4.16.3 Build Alternative 

Impacts of the Build Alternative on Section 4(f) resources in the corridor are not known at this time. 

Identification of Section 4(f) resources, evaluation of impacts to these resources, and identification of 

feasible and prudent alternatives if necessary, will occur during a Tier 2 study, once project details are 

further developed, including specific locations of proposed work. 

4.17 Socioeconomics 

The Build Alternative is not expected to result in direct negative impacts to neighborhoods, community 

facilities, ADA accessibility or public services. The proposed station locations are on underutilized 

properties. Currently, these sites are not easily accessible and are not cohesive parts of the surrounding 

development pattern. The implementation of the Build Alternative would facilitate development at the 

station sites and enhance connections to surrounding development, catalyzing additional development 

and weaving a more fluid network for pedestrians and all community members. There are several 

sections of this Environmental Assessment that further describe specific impacts of this project: Section 

4.10 Accessibility; Section 4.11 Property Acquisition; Section 4.14 Public Safety; Section 4.19 Indirect 

Effects, Section 4.20 Cumulative Impacts; and Section 4.21 Construction Period Impacts. 

Economic benefits of passenger rail investment were developed through examining the literature and 

findings from recent studies of similar regional rail enhancement projects. Numerous studies have 

identified a net positive benefit of passenger rail investment to the regional economy, as a result of 

travel time savings and congestion reduction, expanded access to jobs and workforce, and new 

development attracted to station areas. Studies have also found a positive impact of passenger rail on 

property values in station areas. While only a few studies have specifically examined intercity rail, 

evidence from other rail system expansions in the greater Boston region similarly suggests that 

passenger rail investment would have a positive socioeconomic effect on the communities it serves. 

Interviews were conducted with local stakeholders to gather information on the impact the different rail

alternatives could have in bringing about new development over the next 20 years. The Study team also 

assembled data on land use and zoning to evaluate the potential impact of the Capitol Corridor 

alternatives on development and redevelopment. This potential was measured in terms of commercial 

square footage (office and retail) and housing units for the different alternatives. 

Lastly, the economic modeling tool IMPLAN was used to estimate the economic benefits to the southern 

New Hampshire region of each Capitol Corridor rail alternative. The following economic benefits were 

evaluated: 

 Short-term benefits as a result of spending on construction of rail improvements in New 

Hampshire 

 Long-term benefits as a result of the attraction of more residents and jobs to southern New 

Hampshire; these include benefits from construction of new real estate, as well as ongoing 

benefits from new worker earnings reinvested in the local economy 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

62 | P a g e 

4.17.1 Affected Environment 

The Concord – Stickney Avenue station area site was identified as suitable for TOD, primarily due to the 

mixed-use and high-density residential allowances and flexible parking requirements under zoning. 

Parcels considered most likely to develop or redevelop due to rail alternatives were primarily located 

within the Opportunity Corridor Performance (OCP) district, the Gateway Performance District (GWP) 

and the Central Business Performance (CBP) district. 

There is little vacant land within the Manchester – Granite Street station area. Due to the rail supportive 

zoning, however, many underutilized parcels could potentially redevelop in conjunction with the 

proposed rail service enhancements. Parcels considered likely to redevelop are predominantly located 

within the CBD with some intensification possible in the residential district. This area is also considered 

suitable for TOD due to its high-density residential and commercial allowances under zoning. 

Given the relatively low residential and commercial densities proximate to the proposed station area for 

the Bedford/Manchester Airport, this site has the least amount of development potential; however, 

there was a general consensus among interview participants that rail connectivity to the airport was 

critical for regional economic development. 

The predominant zoning for the Nashua – Crown Street station area is Multi-Family Residential and 

General Industrial. This analysis assumed development would be predominantly residential with a small 

amount of commercial use. A mixed use or TOD supportive overlay in this area would boost 

development potential, given the amount of vacant land suitable for development. 

4.17.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not result in socioeconomic impacts . The proposed station sites would 

likely remain undeveloped, as most of the long-range plans for these sites include station construction, 

TOD and the implementation of rail service. If construction of the Build Alternative does not happen, the 

plans that the local municipalities have created for the station sites would not come to fruition. 

4.17.3 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would have a beneficial impact on the economics of the State of New Hampshire. 

This alternative, with four trains per day serving Nashua, Manchester, and Concord, could potentially 

generate about 1,60027 new residential units and 819,000 square feet of commercial space supporting 

2,480 new jobs by the year 2030, as shown in Table 4.9. It has the potential to generate 350 new jobs 

over the construction period (2019-2022), 2,460 jobs related to new real estate development between 

2021 and 2030, and 1,140 new jobs annually in 2030 and beyond (with benefits beginning to accrue 

after 2021) due to reinvested worker earnings (see Table 4.10). Real estate development would add 

$750 million to the state’s output between 2021 and 2030, with reinvested earnings adding $140 million 

per year beyond 2030. 

 

27 Rounded to the nearest 100th 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

63 | P a g e 

Table 4.9: Development Potential at Each Station 

Station Commercial (Square Feet) Residential (Units) Jobs

Concord – Stickney Avenue 335,000 400 890

Manchester – Granite Street 284,000 680 1,020

Bedford/MHT 123,000 0 360

Nashua – Crown Street 77,000 560 210

Table 4.10: Impacts on Employment and Output 

Build Alternative Project Construction 

(2019-2022)

Real Estate Development 

(2021-2030)

Reinvested New Resident 

Earnings (Annual, 2030+)

Impact on Employment (Jobs) 350 2,460 1,140

Impacts on Output (Gross Regional 

Product In Millions of 2014$)

$100 $750 $140

4.18 Transportation 

Rail operations for the Build Alternative were modeled using stringline diagrams (also referred to as 

time-distance diagrams) that plan the flow of traffic on the railroad and are designed to overlay on top 

of the existing MBTA and Amtrak operations that would share trackage south of Lowell (MBTA) and 

south of Woburn (Amtrak). Stations were designed to provide direct access from major routes or take 

advantage of dense areas of development that would most likely utilize the system. Ridership numbers 

at each station were used to estimate parking requirements. Accessibility at each station is driven by 

existing guidelines developed by Amtrak. 

4.18.1 Affected Environment 

As described in Section 1.3 Corridor Existing Conditions, the existing rail corridor is owned by PAR and 

utilized exclusively for freight rail traffic, with no passenger rail operations. See Section 1.3 for additional 

details. 

4.18.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not result in any impacts to the existing corridor transportation network. 

4.18.3 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative would have a beneficial impact on mobility in the corridor by introducing 

passenger rail operations, which currently do not exist in the corridor. The Build Alternative could 

potentially have a minor adverse impact on traffic operations around certain station locations. As more 

detail is developed for the station alternatives and designs, traffic operations will be modeled in and 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

64 | P a g e 

around the proposed stations. Due to the inherent nature of train schedules, traffic in and around 

stations usually does not coincide with local rush hour traffic. As a secondary impact to station design, 

development in and around stations would likely have a beneficial impact on accessibility and 

walkability in and around stations. 

4.19 Indirect Effects 

The CEQ has defined indirect effects as follows (40 CFR 1508.8): 

“Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are 

still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects 

related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population, density or growth rate, and related 

effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.”

Indirect effects differ from those directly associated with the construction and operation of a 

transportation project itself and are often caused by what is commonly referred to as “induced 

development.” Induced develop includes a variety of alterations such as changes in land use, economic 

vitality, or population density. The potential for indirect effects to occur is determined in part by local 

land use and planning objectives as well as the physical location of the proposed project. An example of 

an indirect effect is when a new rail station is built in an undeveloped or underdeveloped area and 

commercial development that would have not otherwise been built occurs in the vicinity of the new 

station. Typically, local jurisdictions have plans in place that may allow greater development to occur 

around such transportation improvements. 

4.19.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not foster growth in jobs and economic development around the four 

proposed stations. The No Build Alternative would also not realize the air quality benefits that a 

passenger rail corridor can generate. 

4.19.2 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative has the potential to do the following: enhance regional roadway transportation by 

reducing the number of vehicles on the regional network, improve overall air quality through the, 

reduction in regional vehicle miles traveled, improve accessibility and mobility by offering an alternative 

transportation option, result in the potential for additional economic value from induced transit‐

oriented development associated with the new passenger rail stations, result in an increase in property 

values and an increase in local and regional economic activity along the Capital Corridor through the 

generation of jobs, additional tax revenues, and associated direct and indirect spending. 

Induced development related to the Build Alternative would have the potential for a variety of 

environmental impacts, including impacts on wetlands, water quality, air quality, vegetation, and 

wildlife habitat, and increased traffic and noise. These effects would be mainly due to the indirect 

development that could follow from proposed new passenger rail stations. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

65 | P a g e 

While there is a potential for environmental consequences from any potential change in planned land 

use, local land use controls are adequate to manage any potential development in the areas near 

stations. In addition, the station area communities would continue to participate in station area 

planning activities designed to ensure that station area development is carried out consistent with each 

community’s master plan and zoning requirements. While the Bedford/Manchester Airport station is 

designed to specifically be a park-and-ride style station, the Town of Bedford has planning documents 

that include mixed use TOD-style development if a station were built at this location. The remaining 

stations are each designed with TOD in mind, which would likely foster denser development and more 

walkable communities. This type of growth is generally favored over sprawl-type growth, and helps to 

protect the natural resources of the state. In addition, as described in Section 4.17 Socioeconomics, The 

Build Alternative is expected to increase Gross Regional Product and jobs during construction and future 

operations. Indirect effects due to station development will be further addressed in the Tier 2 NEPA 

documentation to be prepared during project development. 

4.20 Cumulative Impacts 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has defined cumulative impacts as follows (40 CFR 1508.7): 

“Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result 

from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.”

A number of past, present, and future projects identified in the planning documentation for the region 

can be taken into account when analyzing the project cumulative impact scenario. 

 The I-93 widening project is currently underway and serves as a major transportation 

connection within the corridor. 

 Exit 36, located on US Route 3 in Massachusetts, was recently the subject of a planning study by 

the Southern New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission to study the impact of redesigning 

the interchange to allow southbound traffic to exit at this location (it currently only supports 

exiting from the northbound direction). 

 Bow-Concord Interstate 93 Transportation Planning Study - This portion of I-93 has been and 

continues to be studied. In 1992 NHDOT conducted a feasibility study of the corridor where 

extensive highway improvements were proposed. The results of this study were not well 

received by the surrounding communities. Additionally, Exit 13 in Concord was reconstructed to 

accommodate a six lane I-93 (three lanes in each direction). Finally, the 2020 Vision for Concord 

completed in 2001 identified several visions for I-93 within Concord. These included limiting I-93 

to six lanes, providing access to the Merrimack River from downtown, and a potential reconfiguration of Exit 14 bringing Bridge Street / Loudon Road over I-93. The project team met 

with the Bow-Concord project planning team to discuss station alternatives in Concord and the 

proposed station location is consistent with current planning. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

66 | P a g e 

 I-93 Transit Investment Study - The I-93 Transit Investment Study evaluated various transit 

alternatives in the travel corridor between Manchester and Boston. The study considered a 

range of bus and rail alternatives to help accommodate future travel demand on the corridor. 

 Manchester I-293 Exits 6 and 7 Planning Study - NHDOT has initiated a study to address the 

transportation needs of a 3-mile segment of I-293 extending northerly from the Granite Street 

interchange (Exit 5) to approximately one mile north of the NH Route 3A interchange (Exit 7) in 

Manchester, NH. 

 In addition, there is a parallel study for the FTA looking at extending MBTA commuter rail 

operations north of Lowell to Manchester. 

 Lastly, it is assumed development patterns would be affected by these transportation 

improvements if they are implemented. 

4.20.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not contribute to a cumulative effect on the majority of resources 

identified in this EA. However, it could contribute to cumulative effects on air quality because it would 

continue the dependence on personal automobiles for travel on the congested US Route 3 and I-93 

corridors by not reducing regional VMTs. 

4.20.2 Build Alternative 

Overall, the Build Alternative would have an incremental beneficial impact on the environment. The 

project would provide greater access to transportation options for people in the corridor and reduce 

VMT within the US Route 3 and I-93 travel corridors. Improved air quality could be expected as a result 

of an improved multi-modal transportation options. In addition, the project is consistent with all local 

and regional plans and has been coordinated directly and transparently with the communities who 

would see the greatest impact from the addition of passenger rail service. 

Other foreseeable future actions along the Build Alternative corridor include development in the 

downtown areas of Nashua, Manchester and Concord; expansion of passenger and commuter rail and 

bus service; and track improvements to serve additional freight customers. These actions combined with 

the addition of passenger rail service, including new station construction and related TOD, have the 

potential to impact the variety of resources identified in this EA. However, land development is guided 

by community master plans and zoning regulations. Local land use controls and permitting are adequate 

to manage the impacts of any potential development in or near the project corridor, minimizing the 

potential for cumulative effects. The addition of passenger rail service when combined with freight rail 

has the potential for a cumulative effect on wildlife mortality and public safety. Increases in freight rail 

and/or passenger rail operations would bring additional noise and vibration and has the potential to 

impact public safety. However, potential impacts would be mitigated with safety and communications 

improvements at grade crossings and improved train control. Construction of the new 

Bedford/Manchester Airport Station in New Hampshire would directly impact wetlands, thereby 

potentially contributing to a cumulative effect on this resource when combined with other projects. Any 

wetland impacts would be subject to state and federal permitting requirements which would include 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

67 | P a g e 

compensatory mitigation for any unavoidable impacts. During the next phase of analysis, cumulative 

impacts to wetlands, noise, vibration, public safety, as well as any other resources identified at the Tier 2 

stage once project details are known, will be more defined and mitigation measures will be determined 

if necessary. 

4.21 Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts are temporary during project implementation and would vary depending on the 

type of construction activity and location. Impacts would be mitigated with construction best practices. 

4.21.1 Affected Environment 

The NHML previously accommodated two tracks along the entire length between Boston and Concord; 

however, aside from sidings, the rail line today is only single-tracked north of the wye at Stony Brook in 

Chelmsford. To accommodate new passenger rail, the existing rail has to be upgraded, and enough 

second track needs to be provided to accommodate both passenger rail and freight on the same line. No 

improvements south of MBTA’s Lowell Gallagher Terminal would be required. North of Lowell the 

railroad would be upgraded to permit safe, reliable operation of eight daily passenger trains at speeds of 

up to 75 mph. Upgrades would be provided to track, bridges, crossings, and signals, which are 

summarized in Major Infrastructure Components, Section 3.3.3. 

4.21.2 No Build Alternative 

There would be no construction under the No Build Alternative. Therefore, no construction period 

impacts would occur. 

4.21.3 Build Alternative 

Minor temporary impacts to wetlands and water quality may occur during construction activities, such 

as replacing or rehabilitating bridges or culverts, relocating utilities for track work, and grading work 

associated with station construction. These impacts would be mitigated during design and restored after 

construction has been completed. Minor permanent impacts may occur during these same activities in 

cases where temporary impacts cannot be mitigated. In these cases, compensatory mitigation would be 

identified at the appropriate ratio for replication. During construction, best management practices will 

be employed to control stormwater runoff, erosion, construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust. 

Noise associated with the construction of the project is expected to have four potential daytime impacts 

and up to 324 potential nighttime impacts. As more detail is developed in the project’s next phase, 

these impacts will be better defined and mitigation procedures developed. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

68 | P a g e 

5 Agency Coordination and Public 

Involvement

A Public and Stakeholder Involvement Plan (PSIP) was developed to comply with the NEPA process that 

outlines how the NHDOT – in cooperation with FRA, FTA, and the Study team – would both educate and 

seek input from private entities, public agencies, communities, residents, and the traveling public. The 

PSIP’s purpose was to describe how stakeholder and public input would be sought to inform the 

completion of key project milestones, including the definition of the Study Purpose and Need, the 

development of alternatives, the evaluation of alternatives, the selection of a recommended strategy, 

and the methods by which clear and understandable information would be developed and disseminated 

at the conclusion of each Study milestone. Activities described in this plan would educate key 

stakeholders and the public about the technical analyses that fed into the decision-making process and 

to receive input for that process. 

A variety of approaches were used to inform stakeholders of Study activities and there were numerous 

opportunities for discussion and comment. Public opinion and comments were documented and 

considered throughout the process. The main objectives of the public and stakeholder outreach 

activities for the Capitol Corridor Study are as follows: 

 Build support for the Study, including the NEPA process, among different stakeholder groups 

 Encourage stakeholders (appropriate Federal, State, and local authorities, and the public) to 

engage in the Study efforts at the earliest practicable time. 

 Provide clear and understandable information at each step of the Study 

 Document and consider public and stakeholder opinion as part of the decision-making process 

concerning the consequences of the current and any future grant applications 

 Create a high-level of transparency regarding how the Study is conducted 

Because the Study included rail service as an alternative in the State of New Hampshire, the Study 

attracted significant interest from public and private stakeholders throughout the region, as well as 

members of the general public. Public and stakeholder outreach began at Study initiation and was 

proactive, consistent, and timely to fully engage the public and key stakeholders in the process. Federal, 

state, and local agencies with regulatory authority were contacted throughout the process to provide 

input and comment. In addition, NHDOT identified quasi- and non-governmental stakeholders, and 

solicited comments through public information meetings, PAC meetings, a project website, and other 

activities. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

69 | P a g e 

5.1 Agency and Stakeholder Coordination 

The Study team conducted 91 stakeholder meetings, three PAC meetings, and three public meetings (in 

Concord, Manchester, and Nashua) over the Study’s 21-month lifecycle. The initial phase of stakeholder 

engagement was designed to solicit input from a broad, diverse range of players who all have a stake in 

the future of passenger rail in New Hampshire. 

5.1.1 Project Advisory Committee 

The PAC provided input to the Study, including the vetting of early, preliminary alternatives. Throughout 

the Study, the PAC held meetings (including ongoing Study progress discussions) that coincided with the 

conclusion of major Study milestones and phases. The Study team coordinated the PAC’s efforts. In 

addition, the Governor’s Office, Congressional Delegation Offices, Executive Councilors, and State Senators 

and State Representatives from communities along the Capitol Corridor were notified of all meetings 

(public meetings and PAC meetings). Information on the PAC meetings is provided in Appendix H. 

The following organizations were PAC members: 

 Amtrak 

 Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission 

 City of Concord, New Hampshire 

 City of Manchester, New Hampshire 

 City of Nashua, New Hampshire/Nashua Transit System 

 Conservation Law Foundation of New Hampshire 

 The Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce 

 The Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce 

 Lowell Regional Transit Authority 

 Manchester Transit Authority 

 Manchester-Boston Regional Airport 

 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 

 Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

 Merrimack Valley Planning Commission 

 Nashua Regional Planning Commission 

 New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority 

 Northern Middlesex Council of Governments 

 Pan Am Railways 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

70 | P a g e 

 Rockingham Planning Commission 

 Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission 

5.1.2 Other Stakeholders 

One-on-one interviews and group briefings were held early in the Study with representatives of 

stakeholder groups identified by the Study team in consultation with NHDOT. These sessions allowed 

NHDOT and the Study team to convey information about the Study’s scope and process and gain an 

understanding of stakeholders’ perceptions of the Study, sensitivities associated with the project, and 

how local communities might react to the project. Stakeholders also provided information on other 

individuals and organizations that might have a particular interest in or provide support for the project. 

Following is a list of stakeholders and a brief description of each. 

 Anagnost Companies: Manchester developer 

 C&J Trailways: Regional bus service provider in the Study area 

 Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission (RPC): Planning commission serving 20 

communities in Central New Hampshire, including the City of Concord 

 City of Concord, New Hampshire 

 City of Dover, New Hampshire 

 City of Manchester, New Hampshire – Board of Aldermen: Legislative body of the City of 

Manchester 

 City of Manchester, New Hampshire – Mayor’s Office: Executive Office of the City of Manchester

 City of Nashua, New Hampshire/Nashua Transit System 

 Concord Area Transit: Public transit provider in the City of Concord 

 Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce: Business advocacy organization representing 

businesses in the Central New Hampshire region 

 Concord Coach/Dartmouth Coach/Boston Express: Regional bus service providers in the Study 

area 

 Conservation Law Foundation: Non-profit focusing on environmental issues in New England 

 FRA: Grantee for the portion of the Study to develop a SDP and related documents for intercity 

passenger rail service in the corridor between Boston and Concord 

 FTA: Grantee for the portion of the Study to provide an Alternatives Analysis for transit service 

in the Concord-Boston corridor 

 Mount Washington College, Manchester, New Hampshire 

 Lowell Regional Transit Authority: Public transit provider in the greater Lowell region 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

71 | P a g e 

 Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce: Business advocacy organization representing 

businesses in the Manchester region 

 Manchester Community College, Manchester, New Hampshire 

 Manchester Transit Authority: Public transit provider in the greater Manchester region 

 Manchester-Boston Regional Airport (Manchester Airport): Public airport located in Manchester, 

New Hampshire 

 MassDOT/ MBTA: MassDOT is the state agency that coordinates, plans, and funds all public 

transportation infrastructure within the Commonwealth; MassDOT oversees the MBTA, which is 

responsible for providing public transit service to 176 cities and towns in Massachusetts 

 Massachusetts Historical Commission: Established in 1963 to identify, evaluate, and protect 

important historical and archaeological assets of the Commonwealth 

 Merrimack Chamber of Commerce: Business advocacy organization representing businesses in 

the Merrimack region 

 Merrimack Valley Planning Commission: Regional planning agency serving 15 communities in 

the northeast region of Massachusetts 

 Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce: Business advocacy organization representing 

businesses in the Southern New Hampshire region 

 Nashua RPC: Planning commission serving 13 communities in Southern New Hampshire, 

including the City of Nashua 

 National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak): Publicly-supported service that operates 

intercity passenger rail service throughout the U.S. 

 New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority (NHRTA): Established by the legislature in 2007 for the 

general purpose of developing and providing commuter rail or other similar forms of passenger 

rail service; the authority is administratively attached to NHDOT 

 New Hampshire Technical Institute, Concord, New Hampshire 

 New Hampshire Congressional Delegates: Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Kelly Ayotte; 

Representatives Carol Shea-Porter and Annie Kuster 

 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES): State agency concerned with 

the protection and wise management of New Hampshire’s environment

 New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development (NHDRED): State agency 

concerned with economic development in the State of New Hampshire 

 New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources: Established as the State Historic Preservation 

Office in 1974 to preserve the historical, archaeological, architectural, and cultural resources of 

New Hampshire 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

72 | P a g e 

 Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority/Downeaster: Amtrak’s rail service from 

Massachusetts to Maine 

 PAR: Operator of more than 2,000 route miles of railroad in the Northeast, including the track 

included in the Study corridor 

 Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH): New Hampshire’s largest electric utility and 

owner/operator of the coal-fired Merrimack Station in Bow, New Hampshire 

 Rivier University, Nashua, New Hampshire 

 Rockingham Planning Commission: Planning commission serving the southernmost corridor 

communities 

 Southern New Hampshire University, Manchester, New Hampshire 

 Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission: Planning commission serving 13 communities 

in Southern New Hampshire, including the City of Manchester 

 The Duprey Companies: Concord, New Hampshire Developer 

 The Northern Middlesex Council of Governments: Regional planning agency serving nine 

communities in the Northeast region of Massachusetts 

 Town of Bedford, New Hampshire 

 Town of Bow, New Hampshire 

 Town of Durham, New Hampshire 

 Town of Exeter, New Hampshire 

 Town of Hooksett, New Hampshire 

 Town of Hudson, New Hampshire 

 Town of Litchfield, New Hampshire 

 Town of Merrimack, New Hampshire 

 University of New Hampshire 

Notes and details of stakeholder meetings can be found in Appendix H. 

5.2 Public Involvement 

The Study team held three public meetings at key Study milestones, one of which was a scoping meeting 

to satisfy FRA requirements: 

 Study Initiation Public Meeting, Manchester, New Hampshire – June 5, 2013 

 Public Scoping Meeting, Concord, New Hampshire – March 5, 2014 

 Final Alternatives Meeting, Nashua, New Hampshire – November 20, 2014 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

73 | P a g e 

 

Public meeting documentation can be found in Appendix H. Table 5.1 is a summary of stakeholder 

outreach activities. These were meetings held at various stages of the project to gather public input and 

to brief stakeholders on the completion of key project milestones, including the definition of the Study 

Purpose and Need, the development of alternatives, the evaluation of alternatives and the selection of a 

recommended strategy, 

Table 5.1: Stakeholder Outreach Summary

Date Stakeholder

3/11/2013 Central New Hampshire RPC

3/12/2013 NHRTA

3/12/2013 City of Nashua, New Hampshire

3/12/2013 Nashua Chamber of Commerce

3/12/2013 Concord Area Transit

3/12/2013 Concord Coach/Dartmouth Coach/Boston Express

3/13/2013 FRA

3/13/2013 FTA

3/13/2013 Nashua RPC

3/13/2013 Southern New Hampshire RPC

3/13/2013 Manchester Chamber of Commerce

3/13/2013 Manchester Airport

3/14/2013 Manchester Transit Authority

4/2/2013 Mayor of the City of Manchester, New Hampshire

4/2/2013 Conservation Law Foundation

4/3/2013 MBTA

4/3/2013 MassDOT

4/3/2013 Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority

4/3/2013 Town of Durham, New Hampshire

4/3/2013 University of New Hampshire

4/16/2013 Senator Shaheen District Office

4/16/2013 Southern New Hampshire RPC

4/16/2013 City of Manchester – Board of Alderman

4/17/2013 City of Concord, New Hampshire

4/17/2013 Rockingham Planning Commission

4/17/2013 Town of Exeter, New Hampshire

4/17/2013 C&J Trailways

4/18/2013 Nashua RPC

4/18/2013 Town of Merrimack, New Hampshire

4/18/2013 Merrimack Chamber of Commerce

5/14/2013 Concord Chamber of Commerce

5/14/2013 NHDES

5/14/2013 PAC Meeting – Concord, New Hampshire

5/15/2013 Congresswoman Shea-Porter District Office

5/16/2013 FRA/FTA Conference Call

5/16/2013 Congresswoman Kuster District Office
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

74 | P a g e 

Date Stakeholder

5/16/2013 Manchester Chamber of Commerce

5/16/2013 Merrimack Valley Planning Commission

5/16/2013 Anagnost Companies

5/28/2013 Northern Middlesex Council of Governments

5/28/2013 PAR

5/30/2013 City of Dover, New Hampshire

6/5/2013 Public Meeting – Manchester, New Hampshire

6/28/2013 FTA

7/17/2013 MBTA

7/19/2013 Briefing for NHDOT Commissioner Clement

7/19/2013 PAR

7/23/2013 Land Use Workshop – Nashua, New Hampshire

7/23/2013 Land Use Workshop – Concord, New Hampshire

7/25/2013 Land Use Workshop – Manchester, New Hampshire

7/29/2013 EPA

8/19/2013 Congresswomen’s Kuster and Shea-Porter’s Staff Project Briefing/ Senator 

Shaheen’s Staff Project Briefing/FRA Project Briefing – Washington, DC

11/20/2013 FTA/FRA – Washington, DC

12/17/2013 Central New Hampshire RPC

12/17/2013 City of Concord, New Hampshire

12/17/2013 City of Nashua, New Hampshire

12/17/2013 Nashua RPC

12/18/2013 City of Manchester, New Hampshire

12/18/2013 Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission

12/20/2013 FRA and FTA

1/21/2014 PAC Meeting – Concord, New Hampshire

1/31/2014 MassDOT/MBTA

2/06/2014 Boston Express

2/06/2014 MassDOT/NHDOT

3/03/2014 Commissioner Clement; Governor’s staff

3/04/2014 Harry Blunt and Mark Sanborn (Concord Coach/Boston Express); NHDOT 

Project Management

3/05/2014 Congresswoman Niki Tsongas’ staff

3/05/2014 Public Scoping Meeting at NHDOT, Concord, New Hampshire

3/25/2014 FRA Conference call

3/26/2014 Manchester Board of Advisors Meeting

4/03/2014 Meeting with Amtrak Regarding Ridership Forecasting

4/15/2014 John D. (Jody) Ray (MBTA) and Chris Clement (NHDOT)

4/16/2014 NHDOT Natural Resource Coordination Meeting

4/17/2014 FTA – Cambridge, Massachusetts

4/22/2014 FRA Conference Call

4/25/2014 City of Nashua, New Hampshire – Tom Galligani, Economic Development 

Director

5/07/2014 NHDOT Commissioner and NHDOT Management

5/08/2014 Montagne Communications (NHRTA Public Relations firm)

6/04/2014 Meeting on Bow-Concord Project with NHDOT
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

75 | P a g e 

Date Stakeholder

5/14/2014 First Hy-Rail trip with PAR

6/13/2014 FTA Meeting – Washington, DC

7/14/2014 Nashua RPC – Exit 36 SB Planning Study

7/1&28/2014 FRA Conference Calls

7/30/2014 Second Hy-Rail Trip with PAR 

8/06/2014 Mayor of the City of Nashua, New Hampshire

8/6/2014 Meeting with Chris Clement, selection of locally preferred alternative and 

State decision-making

8/6/2014 Meeting with Dan Kelly, development at Spit Brook Road

8/14/2014 FRA call, comments on deliverables 

10/21/2014 FRA call with NHDOT Project Management

10/23/2014 Chris Kennedy, Governor's Transport Assistant

10/23/2014 FTA – Cambridge, Massachusetts

11/18/2014 PAC Meeting – Concord, New Hampshire

11/20/2014 Montagne Communications – EJ Powers

11/20/2014 Manchester Union Leader – Michael Cousineau

11/20/2014 Public Meeting – Nashua, New Hampshire

11/21/2014 Congresswoman Annie Kuster

11/21/2014 NHRTA

As a result of agency and stakeholder input, the following is a compilation of the most frequent 

comments and concerns: 

 New Hampshire would benefit from a transportation system that provides multiple transit 

options, is less focused on single occupancy vehicles, and provides an increase in options that 

have the potential to ease traffic congestion and save commuting time. 

 The Manchester-Boston Regional Airport is an important cog in the New Hampshire economy 

and a rail connection to the airport should be part of the Study. 

 The state needs to work to attract and retain young professionals, who are now leaving New 

Hampshire at a faster rate than they are moving to the state. 

 It is important to demonstrate the impacts and benefits of passenger rail to the state (economic, 

social, and environmental). 

 The project needs to have a solid financial plan. 

 State demographics are changing (the population is getting older), and the transportation 

system needs to address the needs of this changing demographic. 

 The location of potential rail stations is important to many of the communities, and they would 

like to be part of the discussion in identifying appropriate locations. 

 System safety needs to be analyzed. 

 The fare structure for any system needs to be competitive with other forms of transportation. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

76 | P a g e 

 The frequency of operation needs to be competitive with other forms of transportation. 

 The Study has many implications for development in New Hampshire, which needs to be 

quantified. 

 Freight rail along the corridor is important, and the Study needs to examine the benefits to 

freight that could be realized by a passenger rail project. 

 The project needs to quantify environmental impacts, including emissions, air quality, 

noise/vibration, etc. 

 An increase in transit options has the potential to ease traffic congestion or slow the increase in 

traffic congestion in the state. 

 Parking issues associated with potential rail stations is a concern in many communities. 

 Any transportation study needs to include connections between rail/bus and other parts of the 

state, i.e., local transit systems. 

 There is a concern among stakeholders that any proposed train service would negate the need 

for existing bus routes, which have been successful to date. 

 A transparent process for the Study is important with a high-level of stakeholder and public 

engagement. 

 Many stakeholders are interested in how passenger rail would impact the state’s economy.

5.3 Website 

A Study-specific website, http://www.nhcapitolcorridor.com, was developed to both disseminate and 

receive information about the Capitol Corridor Study. 

5.4 Media Outreach 

In cooperation with the NHDOT Public Information Office, notices of upcoming meetings were sent to 

the following local news media outlets: 

 Print Media 

o Concord Monitor 

o Manchester Union Leader 

o Nashua Telegraph 

o Lawrence Eagle Tribune 

 Broadcast Television 

o WBIN, Concord 

o WMUR, Manchester 

o TV 23, Manchester 

o TV 16, Nashua 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

77 | P a g e 

 Radio 

o WEVO 89.1 FM, Concord 

o WGIR 610 AM, Manchester 

5.5 Project Electronic Mailing List 

An electronic mailing list was developed and utilized throughout the Study. Some 

individuals/organizations requested they be added to the list during public open houses, project 

briefings, or on the project website. 

The mailing list is provided in Appendix H. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

78 | P a g e 

6 List of Preparers 

The following individuals prepared technical portions of this Study: 

 URS Corporation

1155 Elm Street 

Manchester, New Hampshire 

o Russ Wilder, PG 

o Carl Chamberlin 

o Jim Cowan, INCE Bd. Cert. 

o Renee Ducker 

o Julia Suprock, AICP 

o Matthew Harris, RPA 

o Vanessa Zeoli 

o Eric Carlson 

o Sam Wang 

 Jacobs Engineering 

343 Congress Street 

Boston, Massachusetts

o David O. Nelson

o Ryan Harris

 Nobis Engineering

18 Chenell Drive 

Concord, New Hampshire 

o Michael Summerlin, PE 

o Stan Bonis, PG 

 Smart Environmental

72 North Main Street 

Concord, New Hampshire 

o Glenn Smart 

o Jennifer Riordan, CWS, CPESC 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

79 | P a g e 

7 Distribution List

The following agencies, organizations, and persons received a copy of the Study: 

Table 7.1: Distribution List 

US Agencies/Officials

 Federal Transit Administration

Noah Berger

 Federal Railroad Administration

Trevor Gibson

 Federal Highway Administration – New Hampshire Division 

Jamie Sikora, Environmental Program Manager 

 United States Army Corps of Engineers New England District

Michael Hicks 

 United States Environmental Protection Agency, New England

Mark Kern

Rosemary K. Monahan, PhD, Smart Growth Coordinator

State Agencies/

Officials

 Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, MEPA Office

Deirdre Buckley, Director

 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Stephen Johnson, Deputy Regional Director

 Massachusetts Department of Transportation

John D. Ray, Deputy Director – Rail and Transit Division

Ronald Morgan, MBTA Planning and Development Office

 Massachusetts Historical Commission

Brona Simon

 New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services 

Timothy Drew, Public Information & Permit Administration

Gino E. Infascelli, Water Pollution Division

Lori Summer

 New Hampshire Department of Transportation

Christine Perron, Senior Environmental Manager

 New Hampshire Division of Historic Resources

Elizabeth Muzzey, Director

 New Hampshire Fish and Game Department

Carol Henderson, Environmental Review Coordinator

 New Hampshire Natural Heritage Bureau

Melissa Coppola, Environmental Information Specialist

 MBTA

John D. Ray

Elected Officials

 Massachusetts

Governor Deval Patrick

Governor Elect Charles Baker

Congresswoman, Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 3rd Congressional District

Senator Edward Markey

 New Hampshire

Governor Maggie Hassan

Senator Jeanne Shaheen

Senator Kelly Ayotte

Congresswoman Carol Shea Porter

Congresswoman Annie Kuster
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

80 | P a g e 

Regional Planning 

Commissioners

 Boston Regional Metropolitan Planning Organization

Karl Quackenbush, Executive Director

 Central New Hampshire Planning Commission

Michael Tardiff, Executive Director

 Merrimack Valley Planning Commission

Joe Cosgrove, Environmental Program Manager

Anthony Komornick, Transportation Program Manager

 Nashua Regional Planning Commission

Kerry Diers, Executive Director

Tim Roache, Assistant Director

 Northern Middlesex Council of Governments

Beverly A. Woods, Executive Director 

 Rockingham Planning Commission

Cliff Sinnott, Executive Director

 Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission

David Preece, Executive Director 

City and Town 

Officials

 City of Concord

Mayor Jim Bouley

Carlos P. Baia, Deputy City Manager

 City of Manchester

Mayor Ted Gatsas

William Craig, Director of Economic Development

 City of Nashua

Mayor Donnalee Lozeau

Thomas Galligani, Economic Development Division Director

City Agencies

 Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce

Timothy G. Sink, CCE President

 Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce

Michael J. Skelton, President & CEO

 Greater Nashua Chamber of Commerce

Christopher Williams

 Manchester-Boston Regional Airport

Mark P. Brewer, A.A.E Director

Interest Groups

 Appalachian Mountain Club

John Judge, President

 Boston Express/Concord Coach

Ben Blount

 Conservation Law Foundation

Tom Irwin, Vice President

 New Hampshire Sierra Club

Catherine Corkey, Director

 Society of the Protection of New Hampshire Forests

Jane A. Difley, President/Forester
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

81 | P a g e 

8 References

Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment. USDOT Report Number FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May 2006. 

Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, New Hampshire Department of 

Transportation, Draft Lowell, MA to Nashua, NH Commuter Rail Extension Project Environmental 

Assessment. July 2005. 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. January 2008. Final Massachusetts SIP 

Revision: 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration. Accessed November 2014 at 

http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/air/reports/final-ma-sip-revision-8-hour-ozoneattainment.html 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. December 2009. Revision to Carbon Monoxide 

(CO) SIP Maintenance Plan for Lowell, Accessed November 2014 at 

http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/air/priorities/7lowclos.pdf

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Serves. May 2007. Nashua Maintenance Plan for CO. 

Accessed November 2014 at 

http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/air/do/sip/documents/nashua-maintenance-plan.pdf 

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Serves. August 2012. Manchester and Nashua Limited 

Maintenance Plan for CO. Accessed November 2014 at 

http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/air/do/sip/documents/limited-maintenance-plan.pdf 

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. OneStop Data Retrieval System. 

www.des.state.nh.us/OneStop

New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. OneStop Web Geographic Information 

System.www.des.state.nh.us/OneStop. 

New Hampshire Department of Transportation. 1-93 Corridor Multi-modal Transit Investment Study. 

November 2009. 

New Hampshire Department of Transportation. New Hampshire State Rail Plan. 2012. 

Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Massachusetts Department of Transportation Rail Plan. 

September 2010. 

New Hampshire Department of Transportation. Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2013-2022. 

June 11, 2012. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

82 | P a g e 

New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Nashua RPC. New 

Hampshire Capitol Corridor Project Overview, Based on a White Paper Prepared for Amtrak.

March 2010. 

New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority. Economic Impact of Passenger Rail Expansion along the New 

Hampshire Capitol Corridor. January 2010. 

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Global Climate Change. 2012. Accessed September 2014 at 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring/ 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Model Years 2012-2016: Final Rule, Joint Rulemaking to 

Establish Vehicle CAFE and GHG Emissions Standards. Accessed September 2014 at 

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/CAFE+-+Fuel+Economy/Model+Years+2012-

2016:+Final+Rule

U.S. EPA. February 2006. EPA 1999 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment. Accessed September 2014 at 

http://www.epa.gov/airtoxics/nata1999/nsata99.html 

U.S. EPA. April 2010. EPA and NHTSA Finalize Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases 

and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks. Accessed September 2014 at 

http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420f10014.pdf

U.S. EPA. August 2012. EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel 

Economy for Model Years 2017-2025 Cars and Light Trucks. Accessed September 2014 at 

http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f12051.pdf 

U.S. EPA. MOVES (Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator) and its guidance. Accessed September 2014 at 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/ 

U.S. EPA. Technical Highlights: Emission Factors for Locomotives, 2009 Accessed September 2014 at 

http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf 

Vermont Agency of Transportation, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Mass. Boston to 

Montreal High-Speed Rail Planning and Feasibility Study Phase I: Final Report. April 2003. 
New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail Planning Study 

Federal Railroad Administration Environmental Assessment – March 2015 

State Project Number 63037-A 

Appendices 

Appendix A Air Quality Technical Memorandum 

Appendix B Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum 

Appendix C Contamination Inventory 

Appendix D Natural Resources Technical Report 

Appendix E Sustainable Land Use Technical Report 

Appendix F Corridor, Regional, Equity Analysis Technical Report 

Appendix G Phase 1A: Cultural Resource Investigation for the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail 

and Transit Study; Lowell, Tyngsborough, Chelmsford, Middlesex County, Massachusetts 

Phase 1A: Cultural Resource Investigation for the New Hampshire Capitol Corridor Rail 

and Transit Study; Hillsborough and Merrimack County, New Hampshire 

Appendix H Public Involvement Materials and Meeting Notes