Hydrologic/Water Resources
This chapter assesses the effects from the Preferred Alternative on hydrologic/water resources including wetlands, floodplains, water quality and coastal resources. Chapter 7.7, Geologic Resources, and Chapter 7.19, Summary of Public Health Effects, discuss effects on drinking water supplies.
Water resources are protected and regulated under various federal, state, and local laws such as the Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 USC §1344). Implementation of the Preferred Alternative can result in degradation of water quality, dredge and fill of wetlands, encroachment of floodplains, development in coastal zone management areas, and crossing of Navigable Waterways. These effects would result from construction and operations associated with the modification of existing rail infrastructure (such as expansion of rail rights-of-way) and/or construction of new rail infrastructure (such as railroad tracks or stations). Adverse effects on these resources require mitigation and permitting by regulating agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), state environmental agencies, and localities.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) grouped the definition of resources, as used in this Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Final EIS), into four main categories:
Numerous water resources exist within the Study Area, including within the Affected Environments and Representative Routes for the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line and Preferred Alternative. The FRA collected, catalogued, and analyzed data pertaining to waterbodies and corresponding hydrologic systems such as floodplains and wetlands, and identified potential impacts to water resources of interest. Appendix EE.06 contains a complete list of the hundreds of streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, estuaries, and bays that occur within the Affected Environment of the Preferred Alternative.
Volume 2, Appendix E.05, provides a description of the methodology used for analyzing existing conditions and Environmental Consequences of each of these hydrologic/water resources.
Understanding the locations of water resources is important since it can influence decisions on infrastructure needs and design considerations. The analysis presented in this section identifies concentrations of known water resources that the FRA considered when identifying the Preferred Alternative and that future project proponents should evaluate further during Tier 2 project planning and development. Key findings of this water resources analysis follow:
The FRA identified numerous water resources within the Affected Environment. Table 7.5-1 summarizes the quantities and types of resources identified for the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line and Preferred Alternative; these tables list totals by state, but Appendix EE.05 provides a full listing of resources.
Geography | Existing NEC + Hartford / Springfield Line | Preferred Alternative | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SFHA (acres) | Wetlands (acres) | Coastal Zone (route miles) | Navigable Waters Crossed | WQ | SFHA (acres) | Wetlands (acres) | Coastal Zone (route miles) | Navigable Waters Crossed | WQ | |
D.C. | 120 | 60 | NA | 0 | 3* | 120 | 60 | NA | 0 | 3* |
MD | 3,310 | 1,840 | 1 | 2 | 29* | 4,465 | 2,430 | 1 | 2 | 37* |
DE | 1,645 | 915 | 25 | 1 | 7 | 2,365 | 1,310 | 40 | 2 | 6 |
PA | 1,305 | 690 | 30 | 1* | 18 | 2,405 | 915 | 40 | 1* | 13 |
NJ | 3,145 | 2,490 | 1 | 4* | 31* | 3,425 | 2,675 | 2 | 4* | 31* |
NY | 1,165 | 490 | 15 | 2* | 7* | 1,365 | 630 | 20 | 3* | 7* |
CT | 10,755 | 6,905 | 125 | 12* | 135* | 11,480 | 7,770 | 175 | 12* | 150* |
RI | 2,185 | 2,025 | 0 | 1* | 28* | 2,420 | 2,270 | 0 | 1* | 29* |
MA | 1,955 | 2,150 | 1 | 0 | 24* | 1,955 | 2,155 | 1 | 0 | 23* |
TOTAL | 25,585 | 17,565 | 198 | 20 | 280 | 28,000 | 20,215 | 279 | 22 | 297 |
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
WQ = Waterbodies
with special water quality designations.
SFHA = special flood hazard
areas
*One or more waterbodies are located within the geographical
boundaries of two states and are included in the totals for both states.
Table 7.5-1 lists the total acres of SFHA and wetlands, and route miles of coastal zones, within the Affected Environments of the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line and the Preferred Alternative. Values for route miles of coastal zones are the same for each state within the Affected Environments and the Representative Routes since it is a linear rather than areal calculation. The FRA's assessment of the effects on coastal zones included identifying areas within the Affected Environment where the Preferred Alternative intersects coastal zones boundaries, as well as describing the coastal zone boundaries for each state. Because the coastal zone extends inland from the shoreline only to the extent necessary to control the shoreline as defined by each state, coastal zones boundaries differ between jurisdictions. Jurisdictional coastal zones have been established for each affected state with the exception of Washington, D.C. The entire state of Delaware is a designated coastal zone. Volume 2, Chapter 7.5, Table 7.5-7, provides a description of each state's coastal zones.
Also listed is the number of Navigable Waterways crossed by the Representative Routes. Additional Navigable Waterways are present within the Affected Environments but are not crossed; Appendix EE.05 notes those. The FRA also calculated the total number of waterbodies with special water quality designations within the Affected Environments by state. Some of these waterbodies may serve as drinking water supplies based on their water quality designation. (See Appendix EE.05, for a complete list of all surface waters and corresponding water quality designations.) For more discussion on the effects of drinking water, refer to Chapter 7.7, Geologic Resources, and Chapter 7.19, Summary of Public Health Effects.
Connecticut has the largest number of acres of SFHA and wetlands within the Affected Environments followed by Maryland and New Jersey. Connecticut also has the largest number of acres of wetlands (freshwater and saltwater), route miles of coastal zones, Navigable Waters crossed, and waterbodies with special water quality designations within the Affected Environments.
Improvements anticipated under the No Action Alternative could affect water resources occurring within and adjacent to the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line right-of-way. Mitigation and permitting of water resources affected under the No Action Alternative will be the responsibility of project sponsors undertaking those actions.
Table 7.5-2 provides the total number of acres, route miles, or sums of water resources that would be affected by the Preferred Alternative compared to the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line. Since the Existing NEC + Hartford/Springfield Line is included in its entirety within the Preferred Alternative, a discussion of the data and impacts of just the new or upgraded segments included in the Preferred Alternative follows the table.
Geography | Existing NEC + Hartford / Springfield Line | Preferred Alternative | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SFHA (acres) | Wetlands (acres) | Coastal Zone (route miles) | Navigable Waters Crossed | WQ | SFHA (acres) | Wetlands (acres) | Coastal Zone (route miles) | Navigable Waters Crossed | WQ | |
D.C. | 10 | 1 | NA | 0 | 1 | 7 | 1 | NA | 0 | 1 |
MD | 200 | 65 | 1 | 2 | 26 | 440 | 155 | 1 | 2 | 32 |
DE | 50 | 10 | 25 | 1 | 5 | 135 | 75 | 40 | 2 | 5 |
PA | 50 | 10 | 30 | 1* | 17 | 150 | 20 | 40 | 1* | 12 |
NJ | 140 | 65 | 1 | 4* | 19* | 210 | 105 | 2 | 4* | 19* |
NY | 65 | 25 | 15 | 2* | 6* | 75 | 50 | 20 | 3* | 6* |
CT | 645 | 200 | 125 | 12* | 107* | 690 | 265 | 175 | 12* | 119* |
RI | 80 | 60 | 0 | 1* | 12* | 100 | 85 | 0 | 1* | 13* |
MA | 105 | 70 | 1 | 0 | 16 | 110 | 80 | 1 | 0 | 16 |
TOTAL | 1,345 | 506 | 198 | 20 | 207 | 1,920 | 836 | 279 | 22 | 221 |
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
WQ = Waterbodies
with special water quality designations.
SFHA = special flood hazard
areas
*One or more waterbodies are located within the geographical
boundaries of two states and are included in the totals for both states.
Elements South of New York City
Gunpowder River
The Gunpowder River in Baltimore and Harford Counties, MD, drains to the Chesapeake Bay. Where the Preferred Alternative crosses the Gunpowder River, it is considered a Navigable Waterway in addition to having associated saltwater wetlands, special flood hazard areas, and coastal zones. The state of Maryland has designated the Gunpowder River a Class II waterbody, which supports shellfish harvesting. The FRA recognizes the importance of avoiding and/or minimizing impacts to the Gunpowder River estuary in order to preserve the special designated use classification and to uphold overall water quality. Additional stormwater and water quality requirements resulting from the comprehensive Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load apply to the Gunpowder River watershed.
Passaic River
The Passaic River flows through New Jersey, draining much of the northern portion of the state through its tributaries. The Preferred Alternative crosses a section of the Passaic River that flows through a highly urbanized and industrialized area and that drains to Newark Bay. The segment of the Passaic River likely to be crossed by the ultimate alignment of the Preferred Alternative, should it be implemented, is highly polluted and is listed on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. Additionally, there are saltwater wetlands, special flood hazard areas, and coastal zones associated with the Passaic River within the Affected Environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released a $1.4 billion plan to clean up the lower 8 miles of the Passaic River over 11 years.
Elements North of New York City
Connecticut River
Flowing from the Canadian border to Long Island Sound, the Connecticut River is the longest river in New England. The Preferred Alternative crosses the Connecticut River in two places: the Hartford/Springfield Line in Hartford, CT, and the Old Saybrook-Kenyon new segment in Middlesex and New London Counties, CT. The Connecticut River is a designated American Heritage River, and the estuary and tidal wetlands complex of the Lower Connecticut River are recognized as Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance. The 7.2-million-acre Connecticut River Watershed is also home to Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge and an extensive network of high-quality fresh, brackish, and salt marshes. These marshes provide habitat for marine fish and migratory pathways for salmon, shad, and herring. The State of Connecticut has assigned a Class B water quality classification to the Connecticut River at the Preferred Alternative Old Saybrook-Kenyon segment, which includes recreational use, and fish and wildlife habitat. The Connecticut River is listed on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters at both areas where the Preferred Alternative crosses the river, and associated wetlands, special flood hazard areas, and coastal zones are present.
The Preferred Alternative could affect water resources along the Northeast coastline. The FRA identified 20 waterbodies as experiencing the greatest combined impact to water resources. Combined impact refers to instances where Environmental Consequences may be aggravated by impacts to multiple hydrologic systems (e.g., wetlands and floodplains). Table 7.5-3 lists each resource that has potentially affected associated wetlands and designated SFHA, and is navigable and in a regulated coastal zone. The table also denotes the counties identified as being at significant risk from climate change - related flooding, including sea level rise, storm surge, and riverine flooding. Chapter 7.15, Climate Change and Adaptation, provides a more detailed discussion and analysis on climate change. Appendix EE.05 provides quantifiable effects to water resources, organized by state and county, for the Preferred Alternative.
State | County | Resource |
---|---|---|
MD | Baltimore County / Harford* | Gunpowder River |
Harford* | Bush River | |
DE | New Castle | Christina River |
Brandywine Creek | ||
NJ | Essex / Hudson* | Passaic River |
Hudson* | Hackensack River | |
NJ / NY | Hudson* / Manhattan* | Hudson River |
NY | Manhattan* / Queens / Kings | East River |
CT | Fairfield | Pequonnock River |
New Haven* | West River | |
Mill River | ||
Quinnipiac River | ||
Middlesex / New London* | Connecticut River | |
New London* | Niantic River | |
Thames River | ||
Mystic River | ||
Stonington Harbor | ||
CT / RI | New London* / Washington | Pawcatuck River |
MA | Boston | Fort Point Channel |
Hartford / Springfield Line | ||
CT | Hartford | Connecticut River |
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
*County
has been identified as having significant risk of climate change - related
flooding.
Table 7.5-4 summarizes the potential Environmental Consequences to water resources from stations that are part of the Preferred Alternative. Five of the stations (44, 76, 81, 101, and 157) would potentially affect SFHA, wetlands, and coastal zones. Secaucus Station in Hudson County, NJ, would affect the largest number of acres of SFHA and acres of wetlands.
State | County | Station ID | Station Type | Station Name | Preferred Alternative | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SFHA (acres) | Wetlands (acres) | Within Coastal Zones | |||||
DE | New Castle | 26 | New | Newport | 1 | 0 | Yes |
28 | Edgemoor | 0 | 1 | Yes | |||
PA | Delaware | 34 | New | Baldwin | 3 | 0 | Yes |
44 | Philadelphia Airport | 10 | 1 | Yes | |||
NJ | Mercer | 61 | Modified | Princeton Junction | 0 | 1 | No |
Middlesex | 62 | New | North Brunswick | 0 | 5 | No | |
68 | Metropark H.S. | 2 | 0 | No | |||
Hudson | 76 | Modified | Secaucus | 20 | 15 | Yes | |
NY | Bronx | 78 | New | Hunts Point | 2 | 0 | No |
80 | Morris Park | 3 | 0 | Yes | |||
81 | Co-op City | 15 | 4 | Yes | |||
CT | Fairfield | 94 | New | Stamford H.S. | 0 | 0 | Yes |
101 | Modified | Greens Farms | 10 | 4 | Yes | ||
107 | New | Barnum | 0 | 0 | Yes | ||
New Haven | 189 | New | Orange | 0 | 2 | Yes | |
New London | 124 | New | Mystic/New London H.S. | 0 | 1 | Yes | |
Hartford / Springfield Line | |||||||
CT | New Haven | 157 | New | North Haven | 2 | 3 | Yes |
Hartford | 161 | New | Newington | 3 | 0 | No | |
187 | Enfield | 2 | 0 | No |
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
SFHA =
special flood hazard areas
The Context Area contains numerous water resources. Some of the larger water resources for each state include the Chesapeake Bay, Patuxent River, and Susquehanna River in Maryland; Delaware River in Delaware and Pennsylvania; Assunpink Creek and lower Hudson River in New Jersey; Mamaroneck and Cross Rivers in New York; major tributaries to the Long Island Sound, Connecticut River, Connecticut Coastal (Atlantic Ocean) in Connecticut; Pawcatuck River, Chapman Pond and Scituate Reservoir in Rhode Island; and the Charles River and Neponset River in Massachusetts. Many of these water resources have associated wetlands, floodplains, coastal zones, and Navigable Waterways.
The FRA identified a Preferred Alternative based on numerous comments and feedback obtained as part of the public comment period from the public and agency stakeholders. A general description of some of the notable changes to or differences between the Preferred Alternative and the Action Alternatives is provided below. The Preferred Alternative includes the Existing Hartford/Springfield Line, which was not part of the Action Alternatives. This segment would have potential impacts to water resources including SFHA, wetlands, coastal zones, and additional Navigable Waterways and waterbodies with special water quality designations crossings. Table 7.5-5 provides a comparison of impacts to water resources between the Preferred Alternative and the Action Alternatives.
Resource | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 | Alternative 3 | Preferred Alternative |
---|---|---|---|---|
Special Flood Hazard Areas (acres) | 1,135 | 1,520 | 2,225 - 2,270 | 1,920 |
Wetlands (acres) | 540 | 745 | 1,140 - 1,725 | 836 |
Coastal Zone (route miles) | 225 | 235 | 270 - 300 | 279 |
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
Alternative 1 Comparison
The Preferred Alternative proposes tunnel construction for the Old Saybrook-Kenyon new segment, which crosses the Connecticut River in Old Lyme, CT. Alternative 1 proposes this new segment, as well as an aerial structure for the area in and around Old Lyme, CT. The Preferred Alternative avoids the use of an aerial structure in the historic district of Old Lyme, which would avoid or minimize many impacts to water resources, including floodplains, wetlands, and coastal zones, as well as sensitive ecological resources within the Connecticut River area.
However, on a corridor-wide basis, the Preferred Alternative would have more total impacts to SFHA, wetlands, and coastal zones than Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 Comparison
The Preferred Alternative will use the existing railroad within the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge rather than constructing a new bridge to cross the refuge as Alternative 2 proposes. This change in the location of the Representative Route would reduce potential impacts to water resources within the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge, including SFHA, wetlands, and coastal zones as well as ecological resources.
The Preferred Alternative does not include the segment connecting Hartford, CT, to Providence, RI, which Alternative 2 proposes; however, the Preferred Alternative includes a shorter segment as part of the Hartford/Springfield Line that connects Hartford, CT, to Springfield, MA. This segment avoids constructing a new Connecticut River crossing in Hartford. The Preferred Alternative would avoid some potential impacts to water resources, specifically SFHA and wetlands impacts.
The Preferred Alternative would have more total impacts (acres and route miles) to SFHA, wetlands, and coastal zones than Alternative 2.
Alternative 3 Comparison
In Delaware, the Preferred Alternative uses the existing right-of-way when crossing Brandywine Creek and the Christina River, rather than constructing a new aerial structure that would have required two new Christina River crossings and a new Brandywine Creek crossing as Alternative 3 proposes. The Preferred Alternative would affect fewer water resources, including SFHA, wetlands, and coastal zones with fewer major waterbody crossings.
The Preferred Alternative travels farther inland than Alternative 3, in Delaware County, PA, just north of the Philadelphia International Airport and away from the Delaware River. While it does intersect the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge, it minimizes impacts to water resources within the refuge, including the Schuylkill River crossing that Alternative 3 proposes. The Preferred Alternative does not include the at-grade track proposed north of the Philadelphia International Airport from Ridley Creek in Delaware County, PA, to 30th Street Station, avoiding Darby and Cobbs Creek crossings. The Preferred Alternative does not include the proposed tunnel through Center City Philadelphia.
In New York and Connecticut, the Preferred Alternative does not include the Long Island tunnel that Alternative 3 proposes, which would avoid substantial impacts to water resources, including SFHA, wetlands, and coastal zones.
The Preferred Alternative follows the Existing NEC from New York City to New Haven, which would affect fewer water resources than the Central Connecticut segment that Alternative 3 proposes. Likewise, the Preferred Alternative follows the Existing NEC for much of the connection between New Haven, CT, and Boston, MA, with the exception of the Old Saybrook-Kenyon new segment. The Preferred Alternative would also avoid potential impacts to water resources proposed as part of the Hartford-Boston line via Providence, RI, and Worcester, MA.
The FRA incorporated the Old Saybrook-Kenyon new segment into the Preferred Alternative. Due to the sensitive hydrological and ecological resources in and around the Connecticut River watershed, the FRA changed the representative construction type at the Connecticut River crossing from aerial to tunnel, which would avoid some potential impacts to water resources.
In Connecticut, the Preferred Alternative includes the New Rochelle-Greens Farms segment in Westchester and Fairfield Counties, CT. There would be increased impacts to SFHA, wetlands and coastal zones; however, the proposed aerial construction may serve to avoid some impacts.
The FRA converted the proposed tunnel running nearly entirely through Suffolk County, MA, to Boston South Station, to at-grade, running north along Hyde Park Avenue to Forest Hill Station. At-grade construction could have more potential impacts to water resources in Massachusetts, although the Preferred Alternative follows the Existing NEC at this location.
The Preferred Alternative would affect fewer acres of SFHA and wetlands than Alternative 3 and roughly the same number of route miles of coastal zones.
Potential mitigation strategies to address adverse effects on hydrologic resources are presented below by specific topic. Many of the strategies are most appropriate during the design and construction phases of a project.
Temporary construction access into the wetlands should be limited to the maximum extent practicable. Implementing appropriate soil erosion and sediment control measures - using timber mats, and minimizing compression of the soil - will lessen the severity of the temporary impact. All areas temporarily disturbed should be restored to pre-construction elevations using appropriate soil types and will be replanted with native wetland vegetation. Where permanent impacts are unavoidable, the Tier 2 project sponsors should apply the following compensatory mitigation concepts:
The FRA has assessed environmental impacts based on conceptual and representative information as part of this programmatic Tier 1 EIS. The FRA has used the Environmental Consequences analysis to develop the Preferred Alternative and identify water resources to be considered and assessed more thoroughly during Tier 2 project studies. Volume 2, Chapter 7.5, provides considerations including regulations, permitting requirements, and coordinating authorities for subsequent Tier 2studies. Additional considerations for Tier 2 water resource analysis identified during the official comment period are summarized below.
Table 7.5-6 lists U.S. Interstate Compacts and State Commissions that provide advisory, and in many cases regulatory oversight, pertaining to water resources, watershed management, conservation, and ecological resources, and should be, or may require to be, involved and included in project-level coordination and review.
Commission | Geographic Oversight |
---|---|
Susquehanna River Basin Commission | Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York |
Delaware River Basin Commission | Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York |
Interstate Environmental Commission | New Jersey, New York, Connecticut |
Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission | New Jersey |
Connecticut River Gateway Commission | Connecticut |
Source: NEC FUTURE team, 2016
In issuing permits, the USACE must comply with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230), which generally require selection of the practicable alternative that causes the least harm to the aquatic ecosystem. The USACE may only permit discharges of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States that represent the least damaging practicable alternative. In New Jersey, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has assumed the USACE's responsibility for administering the Section 404 permitting program. Therefore, NJDEP rather than the USACE issues Section 404 permits in New Jersey, pursuant to the same legal standards that apply to the USACE. A Freshwater Wetland Individual Permit requires a rebuttal of the presumption that an activity has an alternative that does not involve disturbances to freshwater wetlands or state open waters.
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.