Agricultural lands include the nation's farmlands and timberlands, which are unique natural resources that provide food, fiber, wood, and water. Conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses, such as a transportation use, results in the loss of these lands for agricultural purposes. This section describes agricultural lands in the NEC FUTURE Study Area (Study Area) and identifies potential impacts on agricultural lands associated with the Preferred Alternative. Also included within this section is a qualitative evaluation of the effects on agricultural lands associated with the No Action Alternative. Refer to Volume 2, Appendix E.03 for the Agricultural Lands detailed methodology.
Prime farmland and prime timberland are dispersed throughout the Study Area with larger amounts found in Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. In many instances, greater impacts on agricultural lands are associated with areas where the Preferred Alternative diverges from the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line and creates new segments or extends off-corridor. Notable impacts on agricultural lands as a result of the Preferred Alternative, as further described in Section 7.3.4, would occur in the following areas:
Notable impacts on agricultural lands as a result of the Preferred Alternative would not occur in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and New York.
This Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analysis does not identify active or specific farmland or timberland uses.
Throughout the Affected Environment of the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line and the Preferred Alternative, prime farmland generally consists of noncontiguous tracts that are similar in size and dispersion. High concentrations (i.e., more than 500 acres) of prime farmland exist within the Affected Environment of the following areas:
High concentrations of prime farmland within the Affected Environment do not exist in Washington, D.C., Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts.
High concentrations (i.e., more than 1,000 acres) or large contiguous or uniform tracts of prime timberland exist within the Affected Environment of the following areas:
High concentrations or large contiguous or uniform tracts of prime timberland do not exist within the Affected Environment of Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York.
Table 7.3-1 and Table 7.3-2 summarize by geography the acreages of prime farmland and prime timberland, respectively, within the Affected Environments of the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line and the Preferred Alternative.
| Geography | Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line (Acres) |
Preferred Alternative (Acres) |
|---|---|---|
| D.C. | 2 | 2 |
| MD | 2,220 | 3,590 |
| DE | 185 | 210 |
| PA | 115 | 100 |
| NJ | 840 | 850 |
| NY | 4 | 5 |
| CT | 1,910 | 2,435 |
| RI | 1,080 | 1,280 |
| MA | 440 | 440 |
| TOTAL | 6,800 | 8,910 |
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
| Geography | Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line (Acres) |
Preferred Alternative (Acres) |
|---|---|---|
| D.C. | 70 | 70 |
| MD | 6,545 | 9,195 |
| DE | 820 | 1,010 |
| PA | 465 | 450 |
| NJ | 1,770 | 1,805 |
| NY | 30 | 40 |
| CT | 10,800 | 14,280 |
| RI | 4,960 | 6,375 |
| MA | 3,410 | 3,410 |
| TOTAL | 28,870 | 36,635 |
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
This analysis focuses on identifying the effects of the Preferred Alternative on prime farmland and prime timberland that are not already considered developed land. Table 7.3-3 and Table 7.3-4 present the acreages of prime farmland or prime timberland that lie within the Representative Route of the Preferred Alternative, and thus have the potential to be converted to transportation use. The Preferred Alternative assumes improvements to the Existing NEC; therefore, the data presented include the Environmental Consequences inclusive of improvements to the Existing NEC and any new route option or off-corridor route associated with the Preferred Alternative.
Impacts to prime farmland and prime timberland as a result of the No Action Alternative will be minimal. Most projects that fall under the No Action Alternative will occur within or adjacent to the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line, which is largely characterized by developed land already utilized for transportation (i.e., land that cannot again be converted to a transportation use and thus be considered an impact on prime farmland or prime timberland).
Table 7.3-3 and Table 7.3-4 present the environmental consequences to agricultural resources for the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line and the Preferred Alternative.
| Geography | Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line (Acres) |
Preferred Alternative (Acres) |
|---|---|---|
| D.C. | 0 | 0 |
| MD | 40 | 200 |
| DE | 5 | 30 |
| PA | 0 | 0 |
| NJ | 30 | 35 |
| NY | 0 | 0 |
| CT | 150 | 180 |
| RI | 70 | 90 |
| MA | 20 | 20 |
| TOTAL | 315 | 555 |
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
* The Preferred
Alternative assumes improvements to the Existing NEC; therefore, the
data presented include the Environmental Consequences inclusive of improvements
to the Existing NEC and any new route option or off-corridor route associated
with the Preferred Alternative.
| Geography | Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line (Acres) |
Preferred Alternative (Acres) |
|---|---|---|
| D.C. | 0 | 0 |
| MD | 220 | 545 |
| DE | 40 | 130 |
| PA | 10 | 10 |
| NJ | 65 | 75 |
| NY | 0 | 0 |
| CT | 640 | 870 |
| RI | 350 | 530 |
| MA | 245 | 265 |
| TOTAL | 1,570 | 2,425 |
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
* The Preferred
Alternative assumes improvements to the Existing NEC; therefore, the
data presented include the Environmental Consequences inclusive of improvements
to the Existing NEC and any new route option or off-corridor route associated
with the Preferred Alternative.
Since the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line is incorporated in whole within the Preferred Alternative, the following describes the effects of new segments proposed under the Preferred Alternative on agricultural resources.
Elements South of New York City
Elements North of New York City
The Preferred Alternative includes continued service to existing stations along the NEC, modifications to existing stations - which may increase the station footprint - and new stations. No effects on prime farmland or prime timberland would occur at existing stations where modifications are not proposed. Minimal effects would occur at stations where modifications are proposed and an increase in the station footprint overlaps with small noncontiguous tracts of prime farmland and prime timberland. Greater effects would be associated in areas where new stations are proposed and overlap with prime farmland and prime timberland. Table 7.3-5 and Table 7.3-6 identify those stations associated with the Preferred Alternative that overlap with areas of prime farmland and prime timberland. Volume 2, Appendix E.03, provides a list of all stations for the Preferred Alternative and related effects.
| State | County | Station ID | Station Type | Station Name | Acres |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NJ | Middlesex | 62 | New | North Brunswick | 1 |
| CT | New Haven | 189 | New | Orange | 1 |
| Hartford / Springfield Line | |||||
| No effects. | |||||
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
| State | County | Station ID | Station Type | Station Name | Acres |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD | Anne Arundel | 5 | Modified | Odenton | 10 |
| DE | New Castle | 26 | New | Newport | 1 |
| NJ | Mercer | 61 | Modified | Princeton Junction | 1 |
| CT | New Haven | 189 | New | Orange | 3 |
| New London | 124 | Mystic / New London H.S. | 10 | ||
| New Haven | 157 | North Haven | 2 | ||
| Hartford | 161 | Newington | 4 | ||
| 187 | Enfield | 3 | |||
| Hartford / Springfield Line | |||||
| No effects. | |||||
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
In addition to the GIS-based analysis of effects, the FRA reviewed land use planning documents by states and federally mandated metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to identify goals and objectives that correlate or conflict with impacts to preservation of prime farmland and prime timberland. Five of the states for which impacts are reported have set goals and objectives toward the conservation or preservation of farmlands and rural lands or contain MPO area(s) that have set goals and objectives toward the conservation or preservation of farmlands and rural lands, including Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. Two of the states, Maryland and Connecticut, have set goals and objectives toward the conservation or preservation of timberlands, forest, and woodlands or contain MPO area(s) that have set goals and objectives toward the conservation or preservation of timberlands, forest, and woodlands. For example, one plan outlines the need to support resource-based industries, such as agriculture and forestry from encroachment of incompatible land uses and the promotion of economic viability of these resources. This support should include the preservation of relatively large contiguous tracts that sustain resources and resource-based industries, such as agriculture.1 Another plan outlines goals to reinforce existing land use policies that focus development in the region's existing developed corridors that have transportation, employment, and utility infrastructure while conserving the region's land areas that are integral for maintaining the region's agricultural heritage.2 Appendix E, Section E.03, summarizes the land use planning documents and the goals and objectives set toward the conservation or preservation of farmlands, rural lands, timberlands, forest, and woodlands that coincide with counties that would have impacts.
In addition, all states, with the exception of the District of Columbia, have programs dedicated to agricultural land conservation. Each state promotes conservation through various mechanisms such as preservation easements and tax incentive programs.
Conditions within the Context Area are similar to the Affected Environments for both prime farmland and prime timberland. No particular agricultural resource of special concern was noted.
The Affected Environment of the Preferred Alternative is generally consistent and comparable in size and dispersion with the Affected Environments of the Action Alternatives described in Volume 2. The Preferred Alternative would contain more acres of prime farmland within its Affected Environment than Alternative 1, but less than Alternatives 2 and 3 and more acres of prime timberland within its Affected Environment than Alternatives 1 and 2, but less than Alternative 3. The Preferred Alternative notably does not include a route through Long Island, New York, and certain areas of Connecticut, which are rich in prime timberland resources.
Under the Preferred Alternative, there would be no notable agricultural resources potentially affected in New York, which is similar and consistent with Alternatives 1 and 2 but different from Alternative 3, which includes more routes off the Existing NEC, including the New York City to Hartford via Long Island route segment. Under the Action Alternatives, there would be notable agricultural resources potentially affected in Anne Arundel County, MD; Mercer County, NJ; Tolland and Windham Counties, CT; Providence County, RI; and Worcester and Middlesex Counties, MA. However, under the Preferred Alternative, there would be no notable resources potentially affected within these counties.
Environmental Consequences of the Preferred Alternative would be generally consistent and comparable in size and dispersion with the Environmental Consequences for the Action Alternatives described in Volume 2. In Maryland, the Preferred Alternative would affect more acreages of prime farmland than Alternatives 1 and 2, but less than Alternative 3.
In Maryland, the Preferred Alternative would affect more acreages of prime timberland than Alternatives 1 and 2, but less than Alternative 3. In Connecticut, the Preferred Alternative would affect less acreages of prime timberland than Alternatives 2 and 3, but more than Alternative 1. In Rhode Island, the Preferred Alternative is comparable to Alternative 1 in affected acreages.
An example of a programmatic mitigation measure for agricultural lands could include providing equipment access via rights-of-way. Where large, contiguous tracts of agricultural land might be bisected, coordination and arrangements with the landowner will occur to mitigate for access constraints. This could occur through monetary compensation or through a land swap.
During Tier 2 studies, coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (as applicable under the Farmland Protection Policy Act) to perform land evaluation and site assessments will establish a farmland conversion impact rating score. This score will determine if potential adverse impacts on the agricultural land exceed the recommended allowable level. If so, then the following mitigation strategy will be considered during Tier 2 processes:
For the counties identified in Section 7.3.2, more-detailed analysis and coordination with local land use and zoning agencies will be conducted during the various Tier 2 project studies. In addition, Tier 2 project studies will coordinate further with states identified in Section 7.3.6 that have programs dedicated to agricultural land conservation or have set goals and objectives toward the conservation or preservation of agricultural land. Additional coordination at the state and local levels will help to ascertain where agricultural lands (e.g., farmlands of statewide importance) are located, further define the actual acreage of agricultural lands, evaluate potential for farmland fragmentation, identify lands actively used or preserved for agricultural purposes, and will also help to identify local land use and zoning restrictions.
1 Maryland Department of Planning. (2011). Plan Maryland: A Sustainable Growth Plan for the 21st Century. Baltimore: Maryland Department of Planning.
2 South Central Regional Council of Governments. (Amended 2009). Plan of Conservation and Development - South Central Region. North Haven: South Central Regional Council of Governments.
The information posted on this website includes hypertext links or pointers to information created and maintained by other public and/or private organizations. The FRA provides these links and pointers solely for information and convenience. When users select a link to an outside website, they are leaving the NEC FUTURE website and are subject to the privacy and security policies of the owners/sponsors of the outside website. The FRA does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of information contained on a linked website, or endorse the organizations sponsoring linked websites, the views they express, or the products/services they offer. The FRA cannot authorize the use of copyrighted materials contained in linked websites and is not responsible for transmissions users receive from linked websites.
