ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 2

Contents

1.0 Purpose and Need 3 

1.1 Introduction 3 

1.2 Project History 3 

1.3 Project Area 4 

1.4 Project Purpose and Need 4 

1.5 Decision to be Made 5 

1.6 Connected Actions 5 

1.7 Applicable Regulations and Permits 6 

2.0 Alternatives 8 

2.1 Introduction 8 

2.2 No Build Alternative 8 

2.3 Preferred Alternative 8 

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 11 

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 12 

3.1 Physical Environment 12 

3.1.1 Air Quality 12 

3.1.2 Water Quality 12 

3.1.3 Water Bodies and Waterways 13 

3.1.4 Floodplains 14 

3.1.5 Wetlands 15 

3.1.6 Coastal Zones 16 

3.1.7 Noise 16 

3.2 Biological Environment 20 

3.2.1 Ecological Systems 20 

3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species 21 

3.3 Human Environment 21 

3.3.1 Transportation 21 

3.3.2 Land Use, Zoning and Property Acquisition 24 

3.3.3 Environmental Justice 24 

3.3.4 Public Health and Safety 25 

3.3.5 Contaminated Sites and Hazardous Waste 26 

3.3.6 Cultural Resources 26 

3.3.7 Section 4(f) Resources 27 

3.4 Construction Impacts 27 

3.5 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 28 

4.0 Coordination and Consultation 31 

5.0 List of Preparers 33 

6.0 Distribution List 34 

7.0 References 37 

8.0 Appendix A 39 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 3

1.0 Purpose and Need 

1.1 Introduction 

The Northern New England Passenger Rail 

Authority (NNEPRA), in conjunction with the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), is studying 

alternatives for the Downeaster Portland North 

Expansion project. The project consists of the 

rehabilitation of an approximately 30-mile long 

existing freight rail line between Portland, Maine 

and Brunswick, Maine (exhibit 1). The project would 

support the planned Amtrak Downeaster passenger 

rail service extension from its existing terminus at 

the Portland Transportation Center (PTC) to the 

proposed Maine Street Station in Brunswick. 

Passenger rail service has the potential to play an 

important role in keeping Maine's economy 

competitive for the future by enhancing quality of 

life for Maine's employers, employees, residents and 

visitors. Investment in the passenger rail system helps fulfill State and Federal transportation 

policies. Improvements to the track infrastructure for the proposed project would also benefit the 

freight rail service, which uses the same line. 

1.2 Project History 

Regional rail service in Northern New England arrived when the Downeaster began service 

in December 2001 after ten years of planning by advocacy groups, the State of Maine, Amtrak, 

and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). More than $60 million of federal, state and local 

funds were invested in building and renovating stations and upgrading track and signal systems 

along the Downeaster corridor. Since 2001, more than $7 million additional dollars have been 

invested to reduce travel time, increase frequency and improve reliability. 

The Downeaster links ten communities in the extended Boston Metropolitan region with ten 

daily trips connecting to Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and various ferries, airports, subways, 

intercity and regional bus services. Approximately 40% of riders travel to or from Maine; Boston 

is the most popular destination. Nearly one-third of passengers travel on a multi-ride pass and 

more than half travel to and from their destination within a day. 

Under a 20-year agreement with the NNEPRA, Amtrak operates five daily push-pull train 

sets along a 116-mile corridor over tracks owned by Pan Am Railways and the Massachusetts 

Bay Transportation Authority. Each trip between Portland and Boston takes 2 hours and 25 

minutes. Four three-person Amtrak crews operate each daily round trip service, with three 

Amtrak ticket agents staffing the Portland Station. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 4

Although each train set usually consists of a locomotive, three passenger coaches, a café car 

and a non-powered control unit, additional coaches are sometimes added to increase passenger 

capacity during peak travel periods. The overall passenger train seating capacity is 232. The 

Downeaster has a layover each night at Portland’s Sewall Street facility for servicing, cleaning 

and fueling. Equipment is rotated as needed among Amtrak’s northeast equipment pool. 

The Downeaster’s 160 million passenger-miles and two million passengers since service 

initiation provide evidence of the regional demand for rail service in northern New England. 

Ridership has grown 87 percent since FY2005 and is expected to reach 468,000 passengers in 

FY2009. 

Although the increase in ridership may be partially attributed to economic trends (e.g., 

volatile gas prices), the NNERPA has undertaken service improvements in schedule, frequency 

and travel time in an effort to continue ridership gains. The Downeaster maintains on-time 

performance and has experienced strong public popularity. 

The expansion of Downeaster service to Brunswick has been part of the state's passenger rail 

plan since 1991, when the Passenger Rail Service Act was adopted by the Legislature. The State 

Transit, Aviation and Rail Transportation Fund Act (MRSA Title 23 § 4210-B) was recently 

enacted to finance the expansion project. 

In May 2008, the NNEPRA submitted the Downeaster Portland North Expansion Project 

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program Application (RRIFPA) / 

Categorical Exclusion to the FRA for approval. A Categorical Exclusion evaluation (CE) is a 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document prepared for actions that will not 

individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, 

as determined by the lead federal agency for the project (40 C.F.R. § 1508.4). After review, the 

FRA concluded in December 2008 that the NNEPRA should prepare an Environmental 

Assessment (EA). 

1.3 Project Area 

The project area consists of the existing rail corridor, which extends approximately 30 miles 

from the existing terminus at the PTC in Portland to Brunswick's Maine Street Station (exhibit 

1). Pan Am Railways owns the majority of the line between the PTC and Brunswick, including 

approximately 12.6 miles of Freight Maine Line abutting approximately 14.8 miles on the 

Brunswick Branch to Church Road in Brunswick. The Rockland Branch, owned by the state of 

Maine and operated by the Maine Eastern Railroad, begins at Church Road and continues east to 

Rockland. 

1.4 Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of the project is to enhance mobility and improve safety in the region and along 

the I-295 corridor by extending the Downeaster Amtrak passenger rail service from Portland to 

Brunswick. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 5

There is a need to reduce congestion and enhance safety on the I-295 corridor, which has 

experienced substantial growth in traffic volume since the 1950s (MaineDOT 2008). The growth 

in traffic volume is projected to continue in the future; approximately 50,000 vehicles per day 

currently travel north of Portland on I-295, and traffic is expected to increase 20 percent by 2030 

(MaineDOT 2008). Chronic congestion and delays occur due to inadequate roadway capacity. 

An increase in traffic incidents due to the high traffic volume creates hazards by temporarily 

reducing highway capacity and producing lengthy backups. Expansion of the I-295 corridor is 

unlikely due to the potential for a large number of displacements and other substantial 

environmental impacts. Instead, there is a need to consider alternate transportation modes that 

could expand regional capacity (NNEPRA 2006). 

1.5 Decision to be Made 

As proponents of an action supported by federal funds, the NNEPRA and the FRA must 

comply with NEPA. NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on 

the natural, social, economic and cultural environment and to disclose those considerations in a 

public document. The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions based on 

an understanding of the environmental consequences and take actions that protect, restore, and 

enhance the environment (40 CFR 1500.1). 

The purpose of this EA is to provide the FRA and the public with a full accounting of the 

environmental impacts of the alternatives developed to meet the project purpose and need. The 

EA serves as the primary document to facilitate review of the proposed project by federal, state 

and local agencies and the public. 

The EA process concludes with either a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a 

determination to proceed to preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. A FONSI is a 

document that presents the reasons why the agency has concluded that there are no significant 

environmental impacts projected to occur upon implementation of the action (CEQ 2007). 

1.6 Connected Actions 

The project proposes construction of platforms in Freeport and Brunswick. While not 

proposed as a part of this project, the Town of Freeport is investigating the potential for a station 

in the vicinity of the platform. One potential site under consideration is the use and/or expansion 

of the existing Freeport Merchant’s Association Information Center in the Hose Tower Building. 

This building is in proximity to the platform near the intersection of Depot and Mill Streets. 

In Brunswick, a station would be provided within the proposed Maine Street Station 

development project, which is situated south of and adjacent to the railroad tracks between 

Maine Street and Union Street. The construction of this station is not proposed as part of this 

project. The Maine Street Station development is planned to consist of six new buildings housing 

a total of 35,800 square feet (s.f) of office space, 17,920 s.f. of retail space, four restaurants 

totaling 9,000 s.f., 25,900 s.f. of residential condominiums (assumed at approximately 1,000 s.f. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 6

per unit) and a 40,000 s.f./75-room inn. The development would include approximately 185 

parking spaces. 

1.7 Applicable Regulations and Permits 

The following statutes and orders apply to the proposed action and were considered during 

the preparation of the EA: 

 Endangered Species Act, as regulated at 50 CFR 17 

 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 50 CFR part 600 

 Public Law 91-190, National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC § 4321 et seq., 

signed January 1, 1970 

 Public Law 95-217, Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 USC § 1251-1376 

 Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 USC 401 

 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 USC 470 

 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 USC 303 

 Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA) 

 Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, 16 USC 460 

 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended, 42 USC 61 

 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 42 FR 26951, signed May 24, 1977 

 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, signed May 24, 1977 

 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, signed February 11, 1994 

 Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency, 65 FR 50121, signed August 11, 2000 

 Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 

FR 28545 (May 26, 1999) and 49 CFR Part 260.35 

 Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental 

Policy Act, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, November 29, 1978 

 Federal Register, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Final 

Rule, 49 CFR parts 222 and 229, April 27, 2005. 

 Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Protection Act, 38 

MRSA, Chapter 3 § 480 et seq. 

 Maine Department of Environmental Protection/Maine Department of Transportation, 

Stormwater Memorandum of Understanding 

 Maine Endangered Species Act, 12 MRSA § 7751 

 Maine Hazardous Waste, Septage and Solid Waste Management Act, 38 MRSA § 1301, 

1979 

 Maine Revised Statutes, Sensible Transportation Policy Act of 1991, 23 MRSA § 73 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 7

The NNEPRA would be required to obtain the following permits and approvals prior to the 

start of construction: 

 Section 404 General or Individual Permit — The USACE administers Section 404 of the 

CWA on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 404(b)(1) 

regulates activities in Waters of the United States, defined as navigable waterways and 

their tributaries. Waters of the United States can include wetlands with a surface water 

connection to a navigable waterway. A Section 404 individual permit would be required 

from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United 

States. 

 Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) Permit-by-Rule (PBR) — The Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) issues PBRs for projects adjacent to 

protected natural resources, placement/maintenance of outfall pipes and ditches, and the 

replacement of permanent structures. Section 480-Q(2) of the NRPA exempts 

maintenance and minor repair of structures from permitting, provided erosion control 

measures are installed, fish passage is unimpeded, no additional intrusion to the protected 

natural resource occurs, the dimensions of repaired structure do not exceed the current 

structure, and less than 50 percent of the structure will be repaired. 

 Section 401 Water Quality Certification — Section 401 of the CWA requires that an 

applicant for a federal permit that may result in a discharge to Waters of the U.S. must 

first obtain certification from the state. The MDEP issues a Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification when the project is shown to comply with state water quality standards. 

Typically, the 401 Water Quality Certification would be issued by the MDEP 

concurrently with the NRPA Permit. 

 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Consistency Determination — Federal actions 

that have reasonably foreseeable coastal zone impacts are required to be consistent, to the 

extent practicable, with the CZMA of 1972 and the state’s federally approved coastalmanagement program. The Maine State Planning Office (SPO) administers the Maine 

Coastal Program (MCP). The SPO would perform its consistency review and issue its 

CZMA Consistency Determination following review and approval of the NRPA permit 

application by the MDEP. Receipt of necessary state and municipal permits generally 

constitutes the State’s determination that the project is consistent with the enforceable 

policies. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 8

2.0 Alternatives

2.1 Introduction 

The NNEPRA consulted with the city of Portland, the Towns of Freeport and Brunswick, 

Pan Am Railways, MaineDOT, and public stakeholders during the development of alternatives. 

The alternatives were identified and evaluated by their ability to meet the project purpose and 

need, meet engineering design criteria and avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts. 

Three alternatives were considered; one was dismissed and two were retained for detailed study: 

the No-build and Preferred Alternatives. 

2.2 No-build Alternative 

The No-build alternative would consist of the operation of the current track, with the present 

level of maintenance and no appreciable change to the current track configuration or operating 

conditions. The No-build alternative would not meet the project purpose and need because it 

would not enhance mobility or improve safety in the I-295 corridor by increasing transportation 

capacity. The chronic congestion and delays on I-295 north of Portland would continue and 

worsen as traffic volume increased through 2030. The potential for greater frequency of traffic 

incidents, possibly resulting in personal injury or loss of life, would increase as traffic volume 

increased. Travel cost savings from reduced congestion would not be realized. 

The No-build alternative was retained for detailed analysis, and its consequences were fully 

developed, to allow equal comparison to the preferred alternative, and to help decision-makers 

and the public understand the ramifications of taking no action. 

2.3 Preferred Alternative 

The Preferred Alternative would consist of the rehabilitation of an approximately 30-mile 

long existing freight rail line between Portland and Brunswick in order to support the planned 

Amtrak Downeaster passenger rail service extension from its existing terminus at the PTC to the 

proposed Maine Street Station in Brunswick. The Preferred Alternative would consist of track 

upgrades, special trackwork, the construction of platforms in Freeport and Brunswick, the 

rehabilitation of three stone arch culverts, the replacement or repair of 14 culverts, drainage 

improvements at the ‘deep cut’ north of Freeport, and signal upgrades. 

Track Upgrades 

 The existing jointed rail would be replaced with new continuous welded rail for 

approximately 29 miles of track. 

Special Trackwork 

 Grade crossings at 27 locations would be reconstructed. 

 Turnout replacement work at several locations. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 9

 Brunswick Passing Siding – A rail siding would be constructed in the vicinity of the 

proposed Brunswick platform on the north side of the existing track between Maine and 

Union Streets, running across Union Street to connect to an existing siding, to be used by 

freight trains passing the platform area. The area impacted by the proposed siding is 

within the existing railroad right-of-way between the existing track and an access road 

and parking area for existing commercial development. 

Culvert Rehabilitation and Repair Work 

 Culvert Rehabilitation 

- Davis Brook Stone Arch – install a liner and point up (add filler and mortar to) 

voids 

- Todd’s Brook Stone Arch – point up voids 

- Cousin’s River Stone Arch – repair north headwall and point up arch 

 Culvert Repair and/or replacement 

- At 14 locations, the existing culverts would be repaired or replaced in kind, at the 

same location, with a structure of similar or greater diameter to eliminate 

backwater restrictions. 

o Four 2 ft. x 2 ft. single box culverts would be replaced with 24 in. 

galvanized aluminum pipes 

o Two 20 in. corrugated iron pipe would be replaced with 24 in. galvanized 

aluminum pipes 

o One 3 ft. x 3 ft. single box culvert would be replaced with a 36 in. 

galvanized aluminum pipe 

o One 36 in. culvert would be replaced with a 36 in. galvanized aluminum 

pipe 

o One 18 in. culvert would be replaced with an 18 in. galvanized aluminum 

pipe 

o One 12 in. corrugated metal pipe would be replaced with a 15 in. 

galvanized aluminum pipe 

o One 15 in. reinforced concrete pipe would be replaced with a 15 in. 

galvanized aluminum pipe 

o One 30 in. corrugated iron pipe would be replaced with a 30 in. galvanized 

aluminum pipe 

o One 36 in. corrugated metal pipe would be replaced a with 36 in. 

galvanized aluminum pipe 

o Pour new concrete floor into one 8 ft. asphalt coated corrugated metal pipe 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 10

‘Deep Cut’ Drainage Correction 

 Remove approximately 1,200 feet of ledge and replace with ballast to improve drainage 

and prevent surface water from ponding. 

Signal Upgrades 

 The Preferred Alternative has 22 protected grade crossings along the mainline, and 13 

protected grade crossings on the Brunswick Branch. Thirteen of these grade crossings 

(seven on the mainline and five on the Brunswick Branch) would require complete 

reconstruction. The remaining grade crossings would be gated and upgraded with 

advanced technology. The Preferred Alternative would also consist of upgrades to the 

existing signal system by replacing seven miles of older high-maintenance aerial pole 

lines with new electronic (coded) track circuits. 

Platforms 

 Platforms would be constructed for stops in Brunswick and Freeport. Each platform 

would be approximately 400 feet long and would be equipped with a simple shelter and 

ticket machine. The platforms would be ADA compliant. The MaineDOT would manage 

the design of the platforms. 

- In Brunswick, the proposed platform would be constructed adjacent to the south 

side of the tracks between Union and Maine Streets; the Maine Street Station 

redevelopment project proposed by others would be designed to accommodate the 

proposed platform. Several alternative locations for the platform were considered. 

The proposed platform location was selected cooperatively by the Town of 

Brunswick in consultation with Brunswick Economic Development Corporation, 

Amtrak and Pan Am Railways due to its strategic location near Downtown 

Brunswick, Bowdoin College and the Maine Street Station redevelopment project. 

See Section 3.3.2 for more information on land use surrounding the proposed 

platform location. 

- In Freeport, the proposed platform would be constructed adjacent to the west side 

of the existing track between West and Bow Streets. No station is proposed as 

part of the project, however, the Town of Freeport is investigating the potential 

for a station in the vicinity of the platform. Several alternative locations for the 

platform were considered. The proposed platform location was selected 

cooperatively by the Town of Freeport in conjunction with the Freeport Economic 

Development Corporation, Amtrak and Pan Am Railways due to its strategic 

location near Downtown Freeport, L.L. Bean and the Freeport Village Station 

redevelopment project. See Section 3.3.2 for more information on land use 

surrounding the proposed platform location. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 11

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 

An alternative alignment that more closely followed I-295 between Portland and Yarmouth 

was considered. This alignment would have required the development of a new rail corridor in 

the designated alignment beginning at the PTC, crossing Forest Avenue and then running parallel 

to I-295 through the Bayside area of Portland, construction of a new 1,700-foot rail bridge over 

Back Cove, and a connection to the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad freight line, which would 

be rehabilitated between Portland and Yarmouth Junction. At Yarmouth Junction, this alternative 

would connect with the Brunswick Branch and continue on the same alignment as the preferred 

alternative. Because it required the construction of new rail and a new 1,700-foot rail bridge, the 

alternative had a substantially higher cost and the potential for greater adverse environmental 

impacts than the preferred alternative, and was dismissed from detailed analysis. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 12

3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This section categorizes the existing resources within the project area and analyzes the 

potential beneficial and adverse impacts to these resources from the two alternatives retained for 

detailed study. For purposes of the analysis, the project area was defined as the 30-mile existing 

freight rail corridor between Portland and Brunswick. For certain resources, such as noise, 

Environmental Justice, and secondary and cumulative impacts, the project area was expanded to 

areas adjacent to the rail corridor, to municipal boundaries or other appropriate limits.

This EA focuses only on those resources that have a reasonable likelihood to be affected by, 

or to affect, the proposed action. Because the proposed action would not affect geology, soils, 

farmlands, demographic or housing trends, these resources were not inventoried or analyzed 

within the document. 

3.1 Physical Environment 

3.1.1 Air Quality 

The project area is located in Cumberland County, which is listed as an Attainment Area for 

ozone, pursuant to the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 (USEPA, 2009). 

Vehicles emit primarily carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (also known as volatile 

organic compounds, or VOCs), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and, to a much lesser extent, respirable 

particulate matter (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). To determine compliance with 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the MDEP Bureau of Air Quality 

Control conducts long-term air-quality monitoring. The MDEP operates several continuous 

monitoring sites that measure ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants.

The No-build Alternative would not worsen air quality in the near future. Over time, air 

quality would worsen as congestion increases on the roads and highways between Portland and 

Brunswick. 

The Preferred Alternative, with six additional train trips per day along the 30 mile corridor, 

would result in a negligible increase in emissions. The Preferred Alternative would have no 

significant impact on current or future air quality standards or lead to the establishment of a nonattainment area. The Preferred Alternative would potentially improve the air quality in the region 

by diverting vehicles from the roads and highways between Portland and Brunswick. 

3.1.2 Water Quality 

Although the streams of the project area have not been individually surveyed, streams are, by 

default, classified Class B streams as described in 38 MRSA 470 (17) (exhibit 2). Class B waters 

must be suitable for drinking water supply after treatment, fishing, agriculture, recreation in and 

on the water, industrial processes and cooling water supply, hydroelectric power generation 

(except as prohibited under Title 12, section 403), navigation, and as habitat for fish and other 

aquatic life. The habitat must be characterized as “unimpaired.” 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 13

Exhibit 2 – Water Quality Classifications 

Classification Class Designated Uses Habitat Aquatic Life/Bacteria Discharge of Pollutants

1 AA drinking water after disinfection,

fishing, recreation and navigation,

habitat for aquatic life

free

flowing

and natural

as naturally occurs none allowed, except

stormwater

2 A all uses of AA, hydroelectric power

generation, industrial process and

cooling water supply

natural as naturally occurs permitted only if effluent will

be equal to or better than

the water quality of receiving

waters

3 B same as Class A unimpaired mean amount of bacteria of

human origin may not exceed

64 ppm

receiving waters shall be of

sufficient quality to support

all aquatic species indigenous

to the receiving water

4 C same as Class A unimpaired mean amount of bacteria of

human origin may not exceed

142 ppm

may cause some changes to

aquatic life, but receiving

waters must be of sufficient

quality to support all aquatic

species indigenous to the

receiving water

The No-build Alternative would not cause a change in the water quality Class B 

classification. 

The Preferred Alternative would not permanently impact water quality and would not cause a 

change in the water quality Class B classification. The Preferred Alternative would temporarily 

impact water quality, with 17 waterways temporarily impacted by the repair and replacement of 

fourteen culverts and three stone arches. These impacts would cease when construction was 

completed. Temporary impacts to waterways would be minimized by the use of best 

management practices and by following the standards for culvert replacement under the Maine 

Natural Resources Protection Act. 

3.1.3 Water Bodies and Waterways 

The perennial surface waters crossed by the rail line are the Presumpscot River, two 

unnamed waterways from the Presumpscot River, the Piscataqua River, nine unnamed 

waterways to the East Branch of the Piscataqua River, the Royal River, Pratts Brook (locally 

known as Davis Brook), one unnamed waterway to Pratts Brook, an unnamed waterway to 

Cousins River, Harvey Brook (locally known as Todd’s Brook), Cousins River, an unnamed 

waterway to the Harraseeket River, Frost Gully Brook, one unnamed waterway to Frost Gully 

Brook, Allen Range Brook, and Mill Stream. The rail line crosses four intermittent waterways, 

unnamed tributary to Mill Stream, two unnamed waterways to Bunganuc Stream, and an 

unnamed waterway to Androscoggin River (which is crossed twice). The East Branch of the 

Piscataqua River and one unnamed intermittent waterway to Merrill Brook are located near the 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 14

project area, but are not crossed by the rail line. These waterways are not considered navigable 

by the USACE. 

The No-build Alternative would not impact water bodies and waterways. 

The Preferred Alternative would not permanently impact waterways. Seventeen waterways 

would be temporarily impacted during the repair and replacement of the culverts and stone 

arches. Several culverts convey flow under the rail line from waterways not indicated on U.S. 

Geological Survey mapping. Culverts convey flow from an unnamed tributary to the East Branch 

Presumpscot River, an unnamed tributary to Davis Brook, and Mill Stream. The Davis Brook, 

Todd’s Brook, and Cousins River Stone Arches convey flow from their respective waterways. 

Temporary impacts would cease immediately after the activity is completed. Some specific 

construction impacts cannot be estimated at this time because they depend on several factors that 

would be determined either during final design or by the contractor before or during 

construction. Impacts to waterways would be minimized by following best management 

practices and the standards for culvert replacement under the NRPA. Permits or approvals would 

be required from the USACE and MDEP (See section 1.7). 

3.1.4 Floodplains 

Federal protection of floodplains is afforded by Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain 

Management,” and by implementation of federal regulations under 44 CFR 9.00. These 

regulations direct federal agencies to undertake actions to avoid impacts on floodplain areas by 

structures built in flood-prone areas. In accordance with these federal directives, the FHWA has 

enacted federal-aid policy guidance and regulations under 23 CFR 650. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has primary responsibility for 

identifying flood-prone areas. FEMA conducted flood studies for Cumberland County to locate 

the extent of the flooding from a 100-year storm. 

There are floodplains in the project area. The primary flood areas within Zone A (i.e., areas 

with a 1 percent annual chance of flooding and a 26 percent chance of flooding over the life of a 

30-year mortgage) are adjacent to the Presumpscot River, Piscataqua River, East Branch of the 

Piscataqua River, several unnamed waterways to the East Branch of the Piscataqua River, the 

Royal River, Davis Brook and two of its unnamed waterways, Todd’s Brook, the Cousins River, 

Frost Gully Brook and one of its unnamed waterways, and Allen Range Brook. The location of 

the proposed freight siding in Brunswick and the station platforms in Freeport and Brunswick are 

not within a flood zone. 

The No-build Alternative would not impact 100-year floodplains. 

The Preferred Alternative would not permanently impact 100-year floodplains, but would 

cause a temporary impact to these floodplains during culvert replacement and stone arch repair at 

Davis Brook and two of its unnamed waterways, Todd’s Brook and Cousins River. Temporarily 

impacted areas would be restored following construction. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 15

3.1.5 Wetlands 

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands,” requires federal agencies to avoid, to the 

extent practicable, short and long-term impacts associated with the destruction or modification of 

wetlands. More specifically, it directs federal agencies to avoid new construction in wetlands 

unless there is no practical alternative. It further states that where wetlands cannot be avoided, 

the proposed action must include all practical measures to minimize harm to the wetlands. 

Section 404 of the CWA provides protections for Waters of the United States and wetlands, 

including special aquatic sites. The definition of special aquatic sites consists of mudflats, which 

are vegetated shallows harboring areas of permanently inundated, rooted aquatic vegetation such 

as eelgrass. Work in or affecting navigable waters is regulated under Section 10 of the U.S. 

Rivers and Harbors Act. 

The MDEP regulates activities in wetlands under the NRPA (38 MSRA §§ 480-A through 

480-BB). This act provides protection for resources that are defined to include coastal dune 

systems; coastal wetlands; significant wildlife habitat; freshwater wetlands; great ponds; and 

rivers, streams, and brooks. These requirements are implemented through a state regulatory 

framework that includes the Chapter 310 Wetlands Protection rules as codified in Maine 

regulations (06-096 CMR 310). Activities that have a greater potential of affecting certain 

protected resources—including coastal wetlands under the NRPA and other “freshwater wetlands 

of special significance,” as defined under Chapter 310 of the wetlands rules—are generally 

subject to more extensive and restrictive permitting requirements. For these activities, the 

hierarchical analysis of avoidance, minimum alteration, compensation, and no unreasonable 

impact would apply. 

There are wetlands in the project area, which were identified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping. Detailed field investigations 

were not performed. Wetlands are adjacent to the Presumpscot River, the East Branch of the 

Piscataqua River and several of its unnamed waterways, the Royal River, Todd’s Brook, the 

Cousins River, Mill Stream, and at the headwaters of an unnamed waterway to Bunganuc Stream 

(near Deep Cut). The location of the proposed freight siding in Brunswick and the station 

platforms in Freeport and Brunswick do not contain wetlands. 

The No-build Alternative would not impact wetlands. 

The Preferred Alternative would not permanently impact wetlands. Four wetlands would be 

temporarily impacted during the repair and replacement of the culverts and stone arches, and the 

excavation at Deep Cut. The wetlands that would be temporarily impacted are adjacent to the 

Presumpscot River, an unnamed waterway to the East Branch of the Piscataqua River, Todd’s 

Brook, the Cousins River, and Mill Stream. The Deep Cut excavation would temporarily impact 

the headwaters of the unnamed waterway to Bunganuc Stream. Underdrains would convey water 

into the wetland east of Deep Cut, but as this is a minor redirection of water that is already 

present onsite, no adverse impact would be expected. The temporary impacts would cease 

immediately after the activity is completed. Some specific minor construction impacts cannot be 

estimated at this time because they depend on several factors that would be determined either 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 16

during final design or by the contractor before or during construction. Temporary impacts to 

wetlands would be minimized by using best management practices and by following the 

standards for culvert replacement under the NRPA. 

3.1.6 Coastal Zones 

Maine’s coastal zone encompasses all political jurisdictions in Maine that have land along 

the coast or a tidal waterway, such as a river or bay. Because the municipalities in the project 

area are located in Maine’s coastal zone, a federal consistency review under the CZMA is 

required. Under the CZMA, the SPO is delegated the authority to perform the federal consistency 

review using the enforceable policies of the approved MCP. The enforceable policies of the 

MCP are the 20 Maine statutes listed in appendix A of the Maine Guide to Federal Consistency 

Review, Maine 2006, including the NRPA, Erosion and Sedimentation and Control, Storm Water 

Management, Maine Rivers Act, and Coastal Management Policies Act. 

The NNEPRA has coordinated with the SPO with regard to a consistency review for the 

project. The SPO has stated that CZMA review for this action is not required at this time. As 

described previously in Section 1.8 – Applicable Regulations and Permits, the SPO would 

perform its consistency review and issue its CZMA Consistency Determination at a later stage in 

the project following review and approval of the NRPA permit application by the MDEP. 

The No-build and Preferred Alternatives would not impact coastal zones. 

3.1.7 Noise and Vibration 

Freight rail activity at existing crossings and vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways account 

for the majority of the noise present in the project area. Existing noise levels were estimated as 

part of noise studies conducted for the Preferred Alternative and are described below. 

The No-build Alternative would not create additional noise impacts. 

A noise assessment was performed for the proposed project in accordance the FTA’s Transit 

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2006). Noise sensitive areas and 

receivers of interest within the project area were identified based on the FTA screening 

procedure for determining potential impacts, a review of available information and aerial 

mapping, and a fieldview. Freight rail activity at existing crossings and vehicular traffic on 

adjacent roadways account for the majority of the existing noise present in the project area. 

The FTA screening distance for mainline commuter rail is 750 feet for an unobstructed line 

of sight. However, this screening distance is based on an assumption of higher train frequency 

than the number of trains proposed under the Preferred Alternative (three roundtrips). An FTA 

spreadsheet model was used to calculate an appropriate screening distance for the proposed 

project; the new screening distance was determined to be approximately 120 feet for the 

commuter rail mainline (i.e., without the horn blown) in the Quiet Zone area that extends from 

Congress Street in Portland to Falmouth Road in Falmouth. 

The FTA screening distance for a commuter rail-highway grade crossing with horns and bells 

is 1,600 feet for an unobstructed line of sight. However, this screening distance is based on 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 17

assumption of higher train frequency (26 trains) than the number of trains proposed under the 

Preferred Alternative (three roundtrips). Using the FTA spreadsheet model, a new screening 

distance of 500 feet was established for the at-grade highway crossings. Residences defined as 

Category 2 receivers fall within these screening distances either for the commuter rail on the 

mainline or the commuter rail with horn at grade crossings. Due to the presence of these 

receivers, additional noise analysis was required, and a general noise assessment for the project 

was performed to determine potential noise impacts. 

Noise impact is assessed based on a combination of existing ambient noise exposure and 

additional noise exposure that would result from the proposed project. To estimate existing noise 

in the project area, data on freight schedules was used in combination with information on noise 

exposures from the FTA manual (based on population density). The ambient sound level for 

urban areas (City of Portland) was estimated at 60 dBA, and the ambient sound level for rural 

areas was estimated at 50 dBA. 

The existing freight train operation consists of six trains per day (three locomotives and 50 

cars per train) between Portland and Royal Junction, and two trains per week (one locomotive 

and six cars per train) between Royal Junction and Brunswick. It was assumed the freight train 

speed varies between 25 - 40 mph (exhibit 3). Existing sound levels due to the freight trains 

range from 63 to 73 dBA (A-weighted decibel) within the project area. 

Noise levels from the proposed project were predicted for receivers within the identified 

screening distances. Predicted noise levels were based on an assumption that there would be six 

new passenger trains over a 24-hour period. The new passenger trains would consist of five 

trains between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and one train between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Speeds 

of between 30 and 60 mph were assumed (exhibit 3). 

The No-build Alternative would not create additional noise impacts. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in moderate noise impacts to 83 sensitive receivers 

(residences) due to the train horn blowing at grade crossings; passenger rail without the horn 

would not cause moderate or severe impacts. There would be no severe noise impacts. Total 

exposure noise levels would generally be higher within rural portions of the project area due to 

low background noise levels and the absence of the shielding effects provided by rows of 

buildings near the tracks (typically not present in rural areas). Noise impacts within distinct 

portions of the project area are described below. 

The project area was divided into several sections based on established Quiet Zones and 

varying passenger train speeds within the 30-mile corridor. The first section extends from 

Congress Street in Portland and to Falmouth Road in Falmouth. Proposed passenger train speed 

would be approximately 30 mph. In this section, no noise impact would result from the proposed 

project because total exposure noise levels would not exceed 65 dBA at 100 feet. The lack of 

impact can be attributed to the high existing freight train sound level and implementation of a 

Quiet Zone in this portion of the corridor. 

The second section, a predominantly rural area with low population densities, extends from 

Fields Road in Falmouth to Sligo Road in Yarmouth. Proposed passenger train speed would be 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 18

approximately 60 mph. The total exposure noise levels in this section would be 74 and 70 dBA at 

100 feet and 200 feet, respectively. This noise level would result in moderate noise impacts to 22 

sensitive receivers (exhibit 3). However, the number of impacted residences would not exceed 

five per grade crossings. 

Exhibit 3 – Noise Summary Table 

The third section extends from East Elm Street in Yarmouth to North Road in Yarmouth. 

This section consists of a predominantly rural area with low population densities and some 

commercial and industrial development in close proximity to the rail line. Proposed passenger 

train speed would be approximately 30 mph. Total exposure noise levels would be 71 and 66 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 19

dBA at 100 feet and 200 feet, respectively. This noise level would result in moderate noise 

impacts to 13 sensitive receivers (exhibit 3). However, the number of impacted residences would 

not exceed eight per grade crossing. 

The fourth section, predominantly rural with low population densities, extends from Webster 

Road to Hunter Road in Freeport. Proposed passenger train speed would be approximately 50 

mph. Total exposure noise levels would be 71 and 66 dBA at 100 feet and 200 feet, respectively. 

This noise level would result in a moderate noise impact to one residence (exhibit 3). 

The fifth section extends from West Street to East Street in downtown Freeport. The section 

is predominantly suburban with moderate population densities and a mix of commercial, 

industrial and residential uses in close proximity to the rail line. Proposed passenger train speed 

would be approximately 30 mph. Total exposure noise levels would be 71 and 66 dBA at 100 

feet and 200 feet, respectively. This noise level would result in moderate noise impacts to 

twenty-four sensitive receivers as shown in exhibit 3. However, the number of impacted 

residences would not exceed eight near any single grade crossing. 

The sixth section, predominantly rural with low population densities, extends from Upper 

Mast Landing Road in Freeport to Grant Road in Brunswick. Proposed passenger train speed 

would be approximately 50 mph. Total exposure noise levels would be 71 and 66 dBA at 100 

feet and 200 feet, respectively. There would moderate noise impacts to eleven sensitive receivers 

(exhibit 3). The number of impacted residences would not exceed seven per grade crossing. 

The seventh section extends from Church Road to Union Street in downtown Brunswick. 

This section is suburban with moderate population densities and a mix of commercial, industrial, 

and residential uses in close proximity to the rail line. Proposed passenger train speed would be 

approximately 30 mph. Total exposure noise levels would be 71 and 66 dBA at 100 feet and 200 

feet, respectively. This noise level would result in moderate noise impacts to 12 sensitive 

receivers (exhibit 3). The number of impacted residences would not exceed eight per grade 

crossing. 

Based on an evaluation of noise impacts and crossings associated with the proposed project, 

the NNEPRA proposes the following mitigation plan: 

 The corridor located between Congress Street in Portland and Falmouth Road in 

Falmouth is already an established Quiet Zone. The noise along this densely populated 

section of the corridor is already mitigated. 

 Crossings between Fields Road in Falmouth and Hunter Road in Freeport are in rural 

areas. No additional mitigation is proposed for these areas. 

 Crossings between West Street and East Street in Freeport are located in a mixed 

commercial/residential area and horns on trains passing some of these crossings have the 

potential to create a negative impact. At this time, officials from the Town of Freeport 

fully support the restoration of train service and are not requesting that noise mitigation 

measures be included in the initial expansion project. Should negative noise impacts arise 

as a result of the expanded Downeaster service, then the NNEPRA and the Town of 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 20

Freeport would work to mitigate those impacts, most likely through the installation of 

wayside horns. 

 Crossings between Upper Mast Head Landing in Freeport and Union Street in Brunswick 

are located in either rural or commercial/industrial areas. No additional noise mitigation 

is proposed for these areas. 

 Although the Downeaster does not cross Maine Street in Brunswick, it would travel up to 

that crossing. Maine Street is currently designated as part of a Quiet Zone. The upgraded 

signals and gates installed as part of this project would provide for the Town of 

Brunswick to apply to extend the Quiet Zone to Stanwood Street if they deemed it 

necessary. 

Existing vibration levels along the Preferred Alternative result from the existing freight traffic 

along the corridor, which includes six trains per day (three) locomotives and 50 cars per train) 

between Portland and the Royal Junction (located approximately one-third of the way between 

Portland and Brunswick), and two trains per week (one locomotive and six cars per train) 

between the Royal Junction and Brunswick. The freight train speed varies between 30 - 40 mph. 

The Preferred Alternative includes track upgrade to continuously welded rail (CWR along the 

entire corridor. CWR track produces less vibration relative to other track configurations, such as 

jointed rail which currently exists in the corridor. In light of the installation of CWR and 

existing freight traffic, the addition of 6 passenger trains per day running up to 60 mph but with 

an average speed of approximately 40 mph will not result in significant vibration impacts. 

3.2 Biological Environment 

3.2.1 Ecological Systems 

The NRPA, administered by the MDEP, provides protection for certain natural resources, 

including significant wildlife habitat (ecological systems) (38 MRSA 480B). Under the NRPA, 

the habitats defined as significant and subject to protection are: 

 habitat for federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered animal species 

 high- and moderate-value deer-wintering areas and travel corridors 

 critical spawning and nursery areas for Atlantic sea-run salmon, as defined by the Maine 

Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) 

The following are further defined in Chapter 335 of the Code of Maine Rules (06 CMR 96-335): 

 significant vernal pools 

 high- and moderate-value waterfowl and wading-bird habitats, including nesting and 

feeding areas 

 shorebird nesting, feeding, and staging areas 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 21

 seabird nesting islands 

Under the NPRA, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has 

responsibility for defining the high and moderate- value deer-wintering areas; waterfowl and 

wading-bird habitats; shorebird nesting, feeding, and staging areas; and seabird nesting islands. 

According to the MDIFW, the project area does not contain sensitive ecological systems 

(MDIFW 2009). 

The No-Build and Preferred Alternatives would not impact ecological systems. 

3.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, provides protections for those 

species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The Act grants the USFWS 

prime responsibility in administering the species designations and protections granted under the 

ESA. “Endangered” means that a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. “Threatened” means that a species is likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future. 

Various species receive federal and state protection to help repair previous damage to 

populations and attempt to return the species’ population to self-sustaining levels. Other species 

receive state protection if the limits of their distribution ranges are in Maine or if populations can 

only exist in a specific but uncommon habitat in Maine. Agency coordination was conducted to 

determine if federal or state-listed threatened or endangered species are known to exist in the 

project area. 

According to the USFWS, there are no known, listed or proposed, federal threatened or 

endangered species in the project area. According to the MDIFW and the Maine Natural Areas 

Program (MNAP), there are no known state listed or proposed threatened or endangered species 

in the project area. 

The No-build and Preferred Alternatives would not impact federal- or state-listed or proposed 

threatened or endangered species (MDIFW 2009). 

3.3 Human Environment 

3.3.1 Transportation 

Rail Transportation and Regional Roadway Network 

The project area is an approximately 30-mile long existing freight rail line between Portland 

and Brunswick. The existing freight train operation consists of six trains per day (three 

locomotives and 50 cars per train) between Portland and the Royal Junction, and two trains per 

week (one locomotive and six cars per train) between the Royal Junction and Brunswick. The 

freight train speed varies between 30 - 40 mph. Passenger rail is currently not available between 

Portland and Brunswick. Instead, I-295 is used for vehicular travel between these two locations. 

The No-build Alternative would not impact freight or passenger rail transportation. However, 

the No-build Alternative would impact the I-295 corridor. Over time, vehicular congestion would 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 22

increase on the roads and highways between Portland and Brunswick. An alternate form of 

transportation, passenger rail, would not be available to residents and tourists in Portland, 

Freeport and Brunswick. 

The Preferred Alternative would not have significant negative impacts on freight rail 

transportation. Current freight rail operations for the Freight Main Line, Brunswick Branch, or 

Rockland Branch would not be affected by six additional passenger train trips. Track 

rehabilitation would be performed according to best management practices to have minimal 

temporary impacts to existing freight rail operations during construction. 

The Preferred Alternative would have a positive impact on passenger rail transportation by 

offering new service between Portland and Brunswick. The Preferred Alternative would also 

have a positive impact on vehicular transportation in the I-295 corridor by offering an alternate 

form of transportation to commuters, residents and tourists in Portland, Freeport and Brunswick. 

An alternate transportation mode would reduce congestion, thereby resulting in travel cost 

savings, as well as decreasing the potential for traffic incidents. 

Local vehicular transportation 

The project area crosses numerous two- to four-lane municipal roads along its 30-mile 

length. In addition, the two proposed platforms are located in downtown Freeport and Brunswick 

and would be accessed through the municipal road network. Vehicular traffic from the south and 

southeast destined for the Freeport platform would use Route 1 northbound and take a right turn 

onto West Street followed by a left turn onto Depot Street to access parking lots near the 

proposed platform. Traffic destined for the Freeport platform from the north and northwest 

would use Route 1 southbound and take a left turn onto Bow Street followed by a right turn onto 

Depot Street. Traffic from the east would use either West or Bow Streets to Depot Street. Depot 

Street is a low volume local road that carries an estimated 3,200 vehicles per day (based on the 

MaineDOT traffic count data from 2005). 

Vehicular traffic destined for the Brunswick platform would use either Maine Street or Union 

Street. Access to the long-term parking lot would be via Cedar Street. 

The No-build Alternative would not have a significant impact on local vehicular 

transportation. 

The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on local vehicular 

transportation. The Preferred Alternative would not lower the Level of Service on roadways or at 

intersections near platforms, nor have a substantial adverse affect to pedestrians or cyclists. 

Signal and circuit upgrades performed as part of the track rehabilitation would occur within the 

railroad right of way, and would not substantially impact traffic on intersecting municipal 

roadways. 

Vehicular traffic generated by the Freeport platform would be minimal (estimated at 

approximately 24 vehicle trips per day), as the stop is expected to operate as a destination point 

due to the presence of L.L. Bean and other popular nearby tourist and shopping destinations 

rather than an originating stop for commuters as the proposed schedule of trains would not be 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 23

favorable to commuters. The proposed vehicular traffic generated by the Freeport platform 

would be accommodated on the adjacent street system. 

Vehicular traffic generated by the Brunswick platform would be minimal (estimated at 

approximately 40 vehicle trips per day) and would be accommodated using the adjacent street 

system and the proposed Station Avenue, which would be constructed as part of the project, and 

accessed using either Maine or Union Streets. 

Parking 

Approximately 3,000 parking spaces are currently provided for vehicular traffic in downtown 

Freeport, including several parking lots immediately adjacent to the proposed platform location. 

These parking spaces, while a mix of public and private ownership, are open to the public. 

A MaineDOT Park and Ride Lot is situated about 1⁄4 mile west of the proposed Brunswick 

platform along Cedar Street. The lot is also used for the Maine Eastern Railroad’s seasonal 

passenger train service. The lot is lightly used except for a few seasonal events. The lot is 

currently gravel, and is proposed to be paved prior to Fall 2010. Once paved, the lot would 

accommodate approximately 170 parking spaces with the potential for an additional 60 spaces. 

The No Build Alternative would not impact parking availability in downtown Freeport or 

Brunswick. 

The Preferred Alternative would have a negligible impact on parking availability in 

downtown Freeport. The Preferred Alternative is expected to generate minimal parking demand 

of about 12 cars per day at the Freeport platform. The majority of the estimated 48 passengers 

per day taking the Downeaster to Freeport would not require parking upon arrival and would 

walk from the train to the Freeport commercial district, located within about 1⁄4 mile of the 

platform. Of the estimated 12 riders per day originating from Freeport, it is assumed that the 

majority would drive to the platform area and park. 

An additional 550 parking spaces would be provided by the nearby proposed Freeport 

Village Station commercial development, which is scheduled to be operational in April 2009. 

The new spaces would increase the parking available in downtown Freeport to more than 3,550 

spaces, and further reduce the negligible impact from the proposed project. 

The Preferred Alternative would have a negligible impact on parking availability in 

downtown Brunswick. The demand is estimated at 20 spaces per day for the estimated 20 riders 

originating from Brunswick. This parking demand could be easily accommodated by the 

MaineDOT Park and Ride lot. 

It is assumed that the majority of the estimated 20 passengers per day destined for Brunswick 

would not require parking upon arrival and would walk from the train to the nearby commercial 

district about 1⁄4 mile to the north/northeast or to Bowdoin College, situated within about 1⁄4 mile 

southeast of the platform. 

Brunswick Rail Siding 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 24

The rail siding would have a positive effect on existing and proposed freight rail traffic. The 

proposed rail siding may have a minor effect on traffic circulation and parking at the adjacent 

Hannaford’s Supermarket and bank parking lot if a small strip take is needed from these 

properties for relocation of a chain link fence, which was built within the existing railroad rightof-way. It is envisioned that these impacts would be minor and not significant. 

There would be minor temporary impacts to transportation during construction from the 

operation of equipment and the potential temporary short-term closure of Union Street to install a 

portion of the siding across the street. Proper implementation and maintenance of traffic control 

measures would be used to minimize the temporary impacts. These minor temporary impacts 

would cease upon completion of construction. 

3.3.2 Land Use, Zoning, Property Acquisitions 

The setting for the existing rail line consists of a mix of urban, suburban, and rural areas. The 

rail corridor passes through well established and heavily developed areas of Portland, rural and 

suburban residential areas of Falmouth, Cumberland, Yarmouth and Freeport, as well as the 

downtown district of Freeport. The rail corridor passes though rural residential and commercial 

areas of Brunswick, ending west of Maine Street and the town common in downtown Brunswick. 

Zoning designations vary along the corridor by community. 

The No-build Alternative would not impact land use, be inconsistent with zoning, or acquire 

property. 

The Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on land use, zoning 

consistency or property acquisition. The proposed Freeport platform would be located within a 

commercial zone, and immediately adjacent to the existing rail lines. The proposed project 

would not present a conflict with existing uses in the area and would not require property takings 

since the platform is planned within the right-of-way. The proposed Brunswick platform would 

be located on a site purchased by the town for the station. The site is zoned as a town center and 

a railroad station would be consistent with the surrounding commercial land uses. The proposed 

Brunswick siding would likely be located entirely within the existing rail line right of way. A 

minor strip of land might need to be acquired from the adjacent access drive for the Hannaford’s 

Supermarket and from the parking area for the bank. The need for this minor strip take would be 

determined by the MaineDOT as they prepare the preliminary plan for the proposed rail siding. 

3.3.3 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to incorporate consideration of 

environmental justice into their planning processes. The executive order prohibits federal 

financial assistance for programs and activities that use criteria, methods or practices that 

discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin. Its goal is to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including 

social and economic effects, on minority and low-income populations. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 25

Executive Order 12898 defines minorities as individuals of American Indian or Alaskan 

Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic racial heritage. 

Minority populations are defined as those where either (a) the minority population of the affected 

area exceeds 50 percent or (b) 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. 

Within the project area municipalities, minority populations make up between 1.8 and 9.4 

percent of the population. In comparison, minority populations make up 4.8 and 3.5 percent of 

the population in Cumberland County and the state of Maine. Between 3.0 and 14.1 percent of 

the population had an income below the poverty level among the project area municipalities. In 

Cumberland County and the state of Maine, approximately 7.9 and 10.9 of persons live below 

the poverty level (exhibit 4) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). 

Exhibit 4 – Racial/Ethnic Distribution and Poverty Level 

   Percent

Minority

Persons

Percent of People

Below Poverty

Level

Brunswick 6.5 8.0

Cumberland 1.8 3.0

Freeport 3.2 5.9

Portland 9.4 14.1

Falmouth 2.6 3.7

Yarmouth 2.0 4.4

Cumberland County 4.8 7.9

Maine 3.5 10.9

U.S. Census Bureau (2000) 

The No-build Alternative would not have disproportionate adverse impacts on minority or 

low impact populations. However, the No-build Alternative would not encourage or provide 

increased public transportation improvements that may be of value to low-income residents who 

may not be able to afford reliable personal transportation to travel to employment opportunities. 

The Preferred Alternative would not result in disproportionate adverse impacts to minority or 

low-income residents or populations. The Preferred Alternative would benefit residents by 

providing additional public transportation services between communities, employment and 

shopping centers, and recreational amenities within the region. 

3.3.4 Public Health and Safety 

The project area is an approximately 30-mile long existing freight rail line between Portland 

and Brunswick that crosses numerous two- to four-lane municipal roads. These crossings have 

various forms of control, from actively protected grade crossing predictor technology with gates 

and flashing light signals to passively protected lights- and bells-only crossing signals. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 26

The No-build Alternative would not impact public health and safety. The safety of vehicular, 

bicycle and pedestrian traffic would not be enhanced as the grade-crossing signals would not be 

upgraded or replaced. 

The Preferred Alternative would not have an appreciable negative impact on public health 

and safety by adding six additional train trips on an existing, active rail line. The Preferred 

Alternative would improve public health and safety by upgrading out of date grade-crossing 

signal equipment. By diverting some commuter traffic from I-295 and local roads between 

Portland and Brunswick, the Preferred Alternative would likely reduce congestion and improve 

safety on the roads and highway.

3.3.5 Contaminated Sites and Hazardous Waste 

According to the EPA National Priority List (2009b) and the MaineDEP Remediation Sites 

(Institutional Controls) Database (2009a), the project area does not contain known contaminated 

or hazardous waste sites. A Phase I Site Investigation was not prepared. 

The No-build and Preferred Alternatives would not impact known contaminated sites or 

hazardous waste. 

3.3.6 Cultural Resources 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, requires 

that federal actions be reviewed for their impact to potentially significant historic resources; the 

term “historic” includes architectural and archeological resources. A significant historic resource 

is one that is either listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP). 

Consultation with The Maine Historic Preservation Commission (MHPC) has been 

performed. Previous study of historic architectural resources for the portion of the rail corridor 

north of Yarmouth Junction revealed three known resources eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP); two stone arch culverts (one in Yarmouth and one in Freeport) and one 

bridge (South Main Street crossing in Freeport). A cultural resources survey was performed for 

the 12-mile segment of Pan Am Railways between the Portland Wye in Portland and Yarmouth 

Junction, which had not previously been surveyed. The survey identified three bridges (one in 

Yarmouth, one in Cumberland, and one in Falmouth) within the project’s Area of Potential 

Effects (APE) that are eligible for listing in the NRHP (VHB 2009). None of the culverts within 

this segment were determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The survey also identified 

another bridge on the route, the Park Avenue Bridge in Portland, which had previously been 

studied and determined eligible for listing in the NRHP (VHB 2009). 

The No-build Alternative would not impact known cultural resources. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 27

The preferred alternative involves steel rail and wood tie replacements with new rails and 

ties in order to upgrade the line for passenger service. This work will not affect the integrity of 

any existing bridge structures, as the ties and rail will be attached to existing or replacement 

bridge timbers with the rails laid on top of the new ties. Based on this description of the proposed 

work, there will be no adverse effect to any of the inventoried bridges that are recommended 

eligible or are already determined eligible for the National Register. 

Three stone arch culverts are being rehabilitated as part of the project, and one of these 

has been determined as eligible for the NRHP. Since the work to be conducted on the arches is 

limited to repair and rehabilitation, there will be no adverse effect. 

The MHPC concurred that the Preferred Alternative would not impact prehistoric 

archaeological resources (MHPC 2008) and would have no adverse effect upon historic 

properties (MHPC 2009). The MHPC concurrences are attached to this EA at Section 8, 

Appendix A. 

3.3.7 Section 4(f) Resources 

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 grants special 

protection to historic sites that are listed on or eligible for the NRHP, or are a publicly owned 

park, recreational area, or wildlife refuge. Section 4(f) states that publicly owned parks, 

recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuge areas, or historic sites of national, state, or local 

significance may not be used for USDOT-funded projects unless there is no feasible and prudent 

alternative to the use of such land, and such projects include all possible planning to minimize 

harm to these lands. 

Section 4(f) resources are located within the project area. Two stone arch culverts and five 

bridge structures along the corridor have been determined eligible for the NRHP. 

The Preferred Alternative will not affect the integrity of any existing bridge structures, as 

the work necessary for upgrades to passenger service are limited to rail and tie replacement, 

which will be attached to existing or replacement bridge timbers, with the rails laid on top of the 

new ties. Based on this description of the proposed work, there will be no adverse effect to any 

of the inventoried bridges that are recommended eligible or are already determined eligible for 

the National Register. 

The Preferred Alternative will not affect the integrity of the two stone arch culverts 

determined eligible for the NRHP, as the work is only to be performed on one of the stone arch 

culverts, and the proposed work is limited to repair and rehabilitation. Based on this description 

of the proposed work, there will be no adverse effect to the stone arches. 

The No-build Alternative would not affect Section 4(f) resources. 

The Preferred Alternative would not have an adverse effect on Section 4(f) Resources. 

3.4 Construction Impacts 

Impacts from construction of an alternative are temporary and occur during and following 

construction. The time for the individual or specific construction impacts to dissipate varies with 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 28

the type of activity performed and resource impacted; most construction impacts cease 

immediately after the activity in an area is completed. Some specific construction impacts cannot 

be estimated at this time because they depend on several factors that are determined either during 

final design or by the contractor before or during construction: location for staging and 

stockpiling equipment and materials, the timing and sequencing of construction, specific 

construction methods and materials and equipment to use, and areas for the disposal of debris 

and excess earth material. 

The No-build Alternative would not create temporary construction impacts. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would not have permanent impacts on resources 

within the project area (MDIFW 2009 and MNAP 2009). The Preferred Alternative would create 

temporary construction impacts to traffic, air quality and noise during construction from the 

operation of equipment and the potential temporary short-term closure of Union Street in 

Brunswick to install a portion of the siding across the street. Proper implementation and 

maintenance of control measures (e.g., traffic control, dust/ erosion and sedimentation controls, 

properly fitted emission control devices and mufflers, etc.) would be used to minimize the 

temporary impacts. These minor temporary impacts would cease upon completion of 

construction. 

Construction of the Preferred Alternative would temporarily impact floodplains, wetlands, 

streams, and surrounding streambanks. The arch rehabilitation at Todd’s Brook, Cousins River, 

and Davis Brook and two of its unnamed waterways would impact regulated 100-year 

floodplains, while four wetlands would be temporarily impacted during the repair and 

replacement of the culverts and stone arches, and the excavation at Deep Cut. The wetlands that 

would be temporarily impacted are adjacent to the Presumpscot River, an unnamed waterway to 

the East Branch of the Piscataqua River, Todd’s Brook, the Cousins River, and Mill Stream. The 

Deep Cut excavation would temporarily impact the headwaters of the unnamed waterway to 

Bunganuc Stream. Underdrains would convey water into the wetland east of Deep Cut, but as 

this is a minor redirection of water that is already present onsite, no adverse impact would be 

expected. The Preferred Alternative would also impact 17 waterways and their surrounding 

streambanks by potentially increasing soil erosion within the disturbed portions of the project 

area. 

The temporary impacts would cease immediately after the activity is completed, and would 

be minimized by using best management practices and by following the standards for culvert 

replacement under the NRPA. Construction activities would follow federal, state, and local 

statutes, regulations and ordinances and the proper permits would be obtained and followed 

(Section 1.7 Applicable Regulations and Permits). Following construction, temporarily impacted 

floodplains, wetlands, streams, and surrounding streambanks would be restored to their natural 

condition. 

3.5 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 

Secondary Impacts 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 29

Secondary impacts are defined as reasonably foreseeable future consequences to the 

environment that are caused by the proposed action, but that would occur either in the future 

(later in time) or in the vicinity of but not at the exact same location as direct impacts associated 

with implementation of a build alternative. Under the CEQ regulations, secondary impacts are 

defined as those that are “...caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects would 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” (40 CFR 1508.8b).

Secondary impacts can be associated with the consequences of land-use development that 

would be indirectly supported by changes in local access or mobility. Secondary impacts differ 

from those directly associated with the construction and operation of a facility itself and are often 

caused by what is commonly referred to as “induced development.” Induced development would 

include a variety of alterations such as changes in land use, economic vitality, property value, 

population density. The potential for secondary impacts to occur is determined in part by local 

land-use and development-planning objectives and the physical location of a proposed action. 

The No-build Alternative would result in a slight secondary impact in that the lack of 

passenger rail service would reduce the economic competitiveness of the project area 

municipalities and would hinder economic development within Freeport and Brunswick. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in secondary impacts by creating the potential for 

development of additional platforms, as well as further transit-oriented development near the 

proposed stops, similar to the Freeport Village Station and the Brunswick Maine Street Station 

currently under construction. This transit-oriented development would likely occur in already 

built-up areas. Local review boards would be responsible for investigating the impacts to water, 

sewer, and traffic from future transit oriented development. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The consideration of cumulative effects consists of an assessment of the total effect on a 

resource, ecosystem, or community from past, present, and future actions that have altered the 

quantity, quality, or context of those resources within a broad geographic scope. Under the CEQ 

regulations, cumulative effects are defined as “...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 nonfederal) or person undertakes 

such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative effects 

analysis considers the aggregate effects of direct and indirect impacts—from federal, nonfederal, public, or private actions—on the quality or quantity of a resource. 

The intent of the cumulative-effects analysis is to determine the magnitude and significance 

of cumulative effects, both beneficial and adverse, and to determine the contribution of the 

proposed action to those aggregate effects. Contributions to cumulative effects associated with 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 30

the build alternative on the resources analyzed would be limited to those derived from the direct 

and secondary impacts of the action. 

The planned Freeport Village Station commercial development and the Brunswick Maine 

Street Station (both under construction) were identified as reasonably foreseeable future actions 

that could contribute to cumulative impacts. These projects would create additional travel 

demand, and generally increase the density of commercial and retail enterprises in the project 

area. 

The No-Build Alternative would have a slight negative contribution to cumulative impacts. 

The No-build Alternative would not provide any benefits to regional air quality because it would 

continue the State’s dependence on personal automobiles on highways for travel between 

Portland and Brunswick. 

The Preferred Alternative would have slight beneficial contributions to cumulative impacts. 

The proposed extension of passenger rail service is expected to provide an overall benefit to air 

quality. The rail service is expected to provide service to motorists who would otherwise travel 

between Portland and Brunswick by motor vehicle. This shift in travel mode is expected to 

reduce overall vehicle emissions. The addition of passenger rail service would also encourage the 

transit-oriented development already occurring adjacent to the proposed stops.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 31

4.0 Coordination and Consultation 

Coordination and consultation with agencies, stakeholder groups and the public was initiated 

early in the study to incorporate agency and public comments and concerns into the development 

and analysis of the project purpose and need, alternatives and potential resultant environmental 

impacts. Representatives from the MaineDOT, Pan Am Railways, Amtrak, and the FRA 

coordinated closely on the project. 

Coordination included stakeholder meetings, briefings, and conference presentations (exhibit 

5). Small briefings were also held with the following stakeholder groups to discuss the 

development of alternatives: 

 TrainRiders Northeast 

 Maine Tourism Association 

 Maine Bicycle Coalition, 

 Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation System 

 Greater Portland Council of Governments 

 St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad 

 Maine Eastern Railroad 

 Lewiston, Auburn, Freeport, Brunswick, Yarmouth, Falmouth and Portland station 

community representatives 

Exhibit 5 – Portland North Expansion Calendar of Presentations

Date Presentation Made To: Type of Event

April 2007 Maine Turnpike Authority Board of Directors Public Meeting

April 2007 Economic Impacts of Passenger Rail   Conference  

June 2007 Maine Chapter Assoc of Travel Agents   Monthly Meeting

June 2007 Cape Elizabeth Rotary   Monthly Meeting

June 2007 Regional Corridors Initiative   Conference (MA)

October 2007 GrowSmart Maine Summit Conference Conference

December 2007 Maine Transportation Conference   Conference

December 2007 Auburn Council Members Briefing

December 2007 Rail Caucus – State Legislature   Public Meeting

January 2008 Rail Caucus – State Legislature   Public Meeting

January 2008 Association of Government Accountants Monthly Meeting

January 2008 Rail Caucus – State Legislature   Public Meeting
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 32

January 2008 Rail Caucus – State Legislature   Public Meeting

February 2008 Portland Regional Chamber – VP Gov’t. Affairs Briefing

February 2008 Maine & Company President Briefing

February 2008 Rail Caucus – State Legislature   Public Meeting

March 2008 Portland City Council – Mayor Briefing

March 2008 Rail Caucus – State Legislature   Public Meeting

March 2008 GrowSmart Maine President & Staff Briefing

March 2008 Project Management Institute Monthly Meeting

March 2008 Sierra Club Meeting re Passenger Rail Public Meeting

March 2008 Rail Caucus – State Legislature   Public Meeting

March 2008 Maine Transportation Committee re LD2019 Public Meeting

April 2008 Earth Day Downtown Portland Event Public Speech

April 2008 Brunswick Economic Development Staff Briefing

April 2008 Maine/NH MPO meeting about Public Transportation Public Meeting

May 2008 TrainRiders NE   Annual Meeting

May 2008 Brunswick Planning Board Public Meeting

May 2008 Freeport Economic Development Corporation Briefing

May 2008 Mid Coast Chamber of Commerce Monthly Meeting

June 2008 Portland Council Transportation Committee Public Meeting

July 2008 Bowdoin College President Briefing

 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 33

5.0 List of Preparers 

Federal Railroad Administration 

David Valenstein, R.A., M.P.A., Environmental Program Manager, Office of Railroad 

Development 

Alexander Roth, RRIF Financial Analyst, Office of Railroad Development 

Wendy Messenger, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Railroad Development 

Linda Martin, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel 

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority 

Patricia Quinn, Executive Director 

Marina Douglass, Manager, Budget and Administration 

Gannett Fleming, Inc. 

William M. Plumpton, CEP, Project Manager and Senior Environmental Scientist 

Scott W. Duncanson, AICP, Senior Environmental Planner 

Christopher S. Schultz, Environmental Scientist 

Ahmed A. El-Aassar, Ph.D., INCE, Noise and Air Quality Manager 

Katherine E. Sharpe, Environmental Planner 

Aaron K. Holt, Graphic Designer 

Moffat & Nichol 

Jason L. Field, P.E., Corridor Safety Engineer, Noise Mitigation
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 34

6.0 Distribution List 

This EA was distributed to federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction by law or 

special expertise, and agencies, tribes, and local entities, which may be interested in the study. 

U.S. Federal Government

U.S. Department of Interior 

Attn: Willie R. Taylor 

Office of Policy & Compliance 

MS2340 M1B 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Federal Activities 

EIS Filing Section 

Ariel Rios Building (South Oval Lobby) 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Federal Emergency Regulation Commission 

Environmental Evaluation Branch 

825 North Capital Street Room 7102 

Washington, DC 20426 

Federal Highway Administration 

Attn: Marlys Osterhues, HEPE 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE. 

Room E72-214 

Washington, DC 20590 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Region 1 Office 

Attn: J.W. McCormack 

POCH/Room 442 

Boston, MA 02109 

USEPA New England Region 1 

Attn: Tim Timmerman 

1 Congress Street 

Boston, MA 02114-2023 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Director, New England Region 

12 New England Executive Park 

Burlington, MA 01803 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Region 1 Office 

55 Broadway, Room 1077 

Cambridge, MA 02142 

Federal Transit Administration 

Region 1 Office 

Transportation Systems Center 

Kendall Square 

55 Broadway, Suite 920 

Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Environmental Analysis Branch 

New England Division 

696 Virginia Road 

Concord, MA 01742-2751 

Jeff Murphy 

NOAA Fisheries 

Maine Field Station 

17 Godfrey Drive 

Suite 1 

Orono, ME 04473 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Northeast Regional Office 

Attn: Mary Colligan 

One Blackburn Drive 

Gloucester, MA 01930 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Attn: Robert Dudley 

Maine District 

196 Whitten Road 

Augusta, ME 04330 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 35

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Maine Project Office 

Attn: Jay Clement 

675 Western Avenue 

28 State House Station 

Manchester, ME 04351 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

Margaret Chase Smith Federal Building 

202 Harlow Street, Suite 101 

Bangor, ME 04401-4919 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Maine Field Office –Ecological Services 

Attn: Wende Mahaney 

1168 Main Street 

Old Town, ME 04468 

US Department of Agriculture. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Cumberland County Office 

Attn: Wayne P. Munroe 

306 U.S. Route 1, Suite A1 

Scarborough, ME 04074-9774 

U.S. Coast Guard, 1st Coast Guard District 

Attn: Gary Kassof 

1 South Street, Battery Park Building 

New York, NY 10004-5073 

Maine State Government 

Maine Historic Preservation Commission 

Attn: Earle Shettleworth 

65 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333-0065 

Maine Department of Conservation 

Attn: Peter McGowen, Commissioner 

East Side Campus, 18 Elkins Lane 

Augusta, ME 04330 

Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands 

Attn: Will Harris, Director 

22 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333-0022 

Maine Forest Service 

Attn: R. Alec Giffen, Director 

22 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333-0022 

Maine Geological Survey 

Attn: Robert Marvinney, Director 

22 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333-0022 

Maine Department of Agriculture 

Attn: Seth Bradstreet III, Commissioner 

28 State House Station/Deering Building. - 

AMHI Campus 

Augusta, ME 04333-0028 

Maine State Planning Office 

Attn: Martha Freeman, Director 

38 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333-0038 

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and 

Wildlife 

Attn: Steve Timpano 

41 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333-0041 

Maine Department of Economic and 

Community Development 

Attn: John Richardson, Director 

59 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333-0059 

Maine Natural Areas Program 

Attn: Molly Docherty, Director 

93 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333-0093 

Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission 

Attn: Norman R. Dube, Fisheries Scientist 

Bureau of Sea Run Fisheries and Habitat 

Maine Department of Marine Resources 

650 State Street 

Bangor, ME 04401 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 36

Maine Department of Environmental 

Protection 

Bureau of Land and Water Quality 

Attn: Andy Fiske 

17 State House Station 

Presque Isle, ME 04333-0017 

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and 

Wildlife 

Attn: James Connolly, Region Wildlife 

Biologist 

Sidney Regional Headquarters 

270 Lyons Road 

Sidney, ME 04330-9711 

Local Government

Portland City Council 

389 Congress St 

Portland Maine 04101 

Yarmouth Town Council 

Town Hall 

200 Main Street 

Yarmouth, ME 04096 

Cumberland Town Council 

Town Hall 

290 Tuttle Road 

Cumberland, ME 04021 

Freeport Town Council 

Town Hall 

30 Main Street 

Freeport, ME 04032 

Brunswick Town Council 

Town Council 

28 Federal Street 

Brunswick, Maine 04011 

Falmouth Town Council 

271 Falmouth Road 

Falmouth, ME 04105 

Libraries

Maine State Library 

Attn: Sarah Stanton 

230 State Street 

Augusta, ME 04330 

Falmouth Memorial Library 

5 Lunt Road 

Falmouth Maine 04105 

Curtis Memorial Library 

23 Pleasant Street 

Brunswick, Maine 04011 

Freeport Community Library 

10 Library Drive 

Freeport, ME 04032 

Prince Memorial Library 

266 Main Street 

Cumberland, ME 04021-9754 

Merrill Memorial Library 

215 Main Street 

Yarmouth, Maine 04096 

Portland Public Library 

5 Monument Square 

Portland Maine 04101 

Other Local Entities

Hannaford Supermarket 

35 Elm Street 

Brunswick, Maine 04011 

Androscoggin Bank 

2081⁄2 Maine Street 

Brunswick, ME 04011 

JHR Development of Maine 

8 Noble Street 

Brunswick, ME 04011 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 37

7.0 References 

Council on Environmental Quality. “A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice 

Heard.” December 2007. Online. http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/Citizens_Guide_Dec07.pdf

Accessed January 2009. 

Maine Department of Conservation, Natural Areas Program. “Rare and Exemplary Botanical 

Features, Downeaster Portland North Expansion, Portland to Brunswick, Maine.” January 

21, 2009. 

Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Remediation and Waste. 

Remediation Sites (Institutional Controls) Database. Online. 

http://www.maine.gov/dep/gis/datamaps/index.htm#brwm_ic Accessed January 2009. 

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. “Downeaster Portland North Expansion 

Corridor, Portland to Brunswick: Threatened and Endangered Species.” January 23, 2009. 

Maine Department of Transportation. "Draft I-295 Corridor Study Highlights for Public 

Comment." January 2008. 

Maine Historic Preservation Commission. “MHPC # 1688-08 – Proposed Downeaster Portland 

North Expansion Project.” September 17, 2008. 

Maine Historic Preservation Commission. “MHPC # 1688-08 – Proposed Downeaster Portland 

North Expansion Project.” January 30, 2009. 

Maine Historic Preservation Commission. “MHPC # 1688-08 – Proposed Downeaster Portland 

North Expansion Project; Cultural Resources Survey; Portland North Passenger Rail 

Extension; Portland Wye to Yarmouth Junction.” March 4, 2009. 

Maine Office of Geographic Information Systems. ArcView coverages for 100-year floodplains 

in Cumberland County. January 22, 2009. 

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority. “Downeaster Portland North Expansion: 

Federal Railroad Administration Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 

Program Application.” May 20, 2008. 

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority. "Portland North Expansion Project: Noise 

Analysis Report.” Prepared by Gannett Fleming, Inc. February 2009. 

Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority. "Portland North Expansion Review: Rail 

Alignment Alternatives." December 2006. 

 

Town of Brunswick. “Zoning Map.” Online. Available: 

http://www.brunswickme.org/planning/zoning/zoningmap17x11web%20092006.pdf. 

Accessed January 2009. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 38

Town of Freeport. “Zoning Map.” Online. Available: 

http://www.freeportmaine.com/department.detail.php?page_id=87 Accessed January 2009. 

United States Census Bureau. “2000 U.S. Census Data.” Online. Available: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/ Accessed January 2009. 

United States. Department of Agriculture, Service Center Agencies. Cumberland County, Maine, 

1:24,000 Digital Raster Graphic Mosaic. 1999-Present. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Data Monitoring Locations. Online. 

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html. Accessed January 2009a. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. National Priority List. Online. 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/npl.htm . Accessed January 2009b. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. “# 53411-2008-SL-0130 – Downeaster Portland North 

Expansion.” January 22, 2009. 

 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Mapping. ArcView 

coverages for wetlands and aquatic sites. 2009. 

VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. “Section 106 Cultural Resources Field Survey: Portland 

North Passenger Rail Extension, Portland Wye to Yarmouth Junction, Maine.” February 

2009. 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 

DOWNEASTER PORTLAND NORTH EXPANSION PROJECT 

Page 39

8.0 Appendix – State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

Correspondence