Environmental Assessment 

Norfolk Southern Railway Section Improvements 

From Dearborn to Kalamazoo, Michigan

 

August 31, 2011 

Prepared by the:

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
i

PREFACE

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires that the social, economic, and 

natural environmental impacts of any proposed action of the federal government be analyzed for 

decision-making a nd pu blic information pu rposes. T here a re t hree c lasses o f act ion. C lass I 

Actions, which are those that may significantly affect the environment, require the preparation of 

an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Class II Actions (categorical exclusions) are those 

that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment and do not 

require the preparation of an EIS or an Environmental Assessment (EA). C lass III Actions are 

those for which the significance of impacts is not clearly established. Class III Actions require 

the preparation of a n E A t o de termine t he s ignificance of i mpacts a nd t he a ppropriate 

environmental document to be prepared (40 C.F.R. § 1508.4) either an EIS or a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI).

This document is an Environmental Assessment for the proposed improvements and acquisition 

of t he N orfolk S outhern ( NS) R ailway S ection f rom Dearborn t o Kalamazoo in s outhern 

Michigan. This 135-mile section begins in Dearborn at global mile post (GMP) 7.5 and ends in 

Kalamazoo at GMP 143.7. T he N S Railway Section is also part of a larger rail corridor that 

begins in Detroit/Pontiac, Michigan and ends in Chicago, Illinois. This EA describes the type of 

improvements be ing pr oposed f or the N orfolk S outhern Railway, p otential impacts to the 

environment, and measures to minimize harm to the NS Railway Section in southern Michigan. 

This EA will serve as the basis for FRA’s determination of whether there are significant impacts. 

A determination of no s ignificant impacts would result in a “Finding of No Significant Impact” 

(FONSI). The determination that the p referred a lternative w ill h ave s ignificant impacts th at 

cannot be sufficiently mitigated, would result in the preparation of an EIS. 

This doc ument w as pr epared by t he M ichigan D epartment of T ransportation (MDOT) in 

cooperation with th e F ederal R ailroad A dministration (FRA), a nd ot her members o f t he H igh 

Speed Rail project study team. I nformation contained in this document was also furnished by 

other federal and state agencies, local units of government, public interest groups, and individual 

citizens.
[Intentionally left blank] 
iii

Table of Contents

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project History.................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Project Location and Description ..................................................................................... 4

1.4 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................. 7

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................... 9

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 No Build Alternative for Existing NS Railway Section ................................................... 9

2.3 Proposed Improvement Alternative ............................................................................... 10

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION 

MEASURES ....................................................................................................................... 14

3.1 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Noise and Vibration ....................................................................................................... 18

3.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 20

3.4 Energy Conservation and Use ........................................................................................ 20

3.5 Prime and Unique Farmlands ......................................................................................... 22

3.6 Wetlands ......................................................................................................................... 23

3.7 Ecologically Sensitive Areas and Threatened or Endangered Species .......................... 23

3.7.1 Ecologically Sensitive Areas ............................................................................. 23

3.7.2 Threatened or Endangered Species .................................................................... 24

3.8 Floodplains ..................................................................................................................... 29

3.9 Coastal Zone ................................................................................................................... 30

3.10 Navigable Waterways .................................................................................................... 30

3.11 Transportation ................................................................................................................ 31

3.12 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 32

3.13 Socioeconomic Conditions ............................................................................................. 33

3.13.1 Community Facilities ......................................................................................... 33

3.13.2 Demographics .................................................................................................... 33

3.13.3 Economic Resources .......................................................................................... 34

3.13.4 Community Cohesion ........................................................................................ 35

3.13.5 Safety and Security ............................................................................................ 35

3.13.6 Possible Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped ............................................. 36
iv 

3.14 Environmental Justice .................................................................................................... 36

3.15 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 38

3.15.1 Historic .............................................................................................................. 38

3.15.2 Archaeological ................................................................................................... 39

3.15.3 Section 4(f) Properties ....................................................................................... 40

3.16 Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................... 41

3.17 Hazardous Waste ............................................................................................................ 41

3.18 Construction Impacts ...................................................................................................... 42

3.19 Permits ............................................................................................................................ 45

3.20 Indirect and Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................... 45

4.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION ................................. 61

4.1 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................ 61

4.2 Agency Coordination ..................................................................................................... 61

List of Figures

Figure 1. Chicago-Detroit-Pontiac High Speed Rail Corridor ............................................. 2

Figure 2. Project Location of NS Railway Section............................................................... 4

Figure 3.1. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 7.5-20 ........................... 47

Figure 3.2. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 7.5-20 ................................................. 48

Figure 3.3. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 20-40 ............................ 49

Figure 3.4. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 20-40 .................................................. 50

Figure 3.5. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 40-60 ............................ 51

Figure 3.6. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 40-60 .................................................. 52

Figure 3.7. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 60-80 ............................ 53

Figure 3.8. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 60-80 .................................................. 54

Figure 3.9. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 80-100 .......................... 55

Figure 3.10. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 80-100 ................................................ 56

Figure 3.11. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 100-120 ........................ 57

Figure 3.12. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 100-120 .............................................. 58

Figure 3.13. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 120-143.7. .................... 59

Figure 3.14. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 120-143.7 ........................................... 60
v

List of Tables 

Table 1. Existing Train Speeds on the Michigan Rail Portion .................................................. 11

Table 2. Attainment Status Within the Proposed Improvement Alternative........................15

Table 3. Estimated Air Quality Emissions By County................................................16

Table 4. Comparison of De minimis Threshold Emissions to Estimated Emissions for the 

Proposed Improvement Alternative ..................................................................................... 17

Table 5. Noise Impact Levels based on Land Use Categories. .................................................. 19

Table 6. Estimated 2009 Total Populations. ................................................................................ 34

Table 7. Census Information. ....................................................................................................... 37

List of Appendices

A. Location Maps of Proposed Improvements 

B. Location Maps of the Three Rail Stations

C. Air Quality Conformity Analysis Supporting Documentation

D. Waters of Special Concern

E. Michigan Department of Natural Resources & U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Letters of 

Concurrence

F. List of Known and Identified Eligible, Already Listed, or Potentially Eligible Above-Ground 

Historic Resources

G. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Office of State Archaeologist

H. List of 4(f) Recreational Properties
1

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW

1.1 Introduction

The 135-mile Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway Section from Dearborn to Kalamazoo in 

southern Michigan begins in Dearborn at global mile post (GMP) 7.5 and ends in 

Kalamazoo at GMP 143.7. 

The NS-owned Dearborn to Kalamazoo section of railroad is part of the approximately 

304-mile corridor between Chicago and Detroit. The Chicago to Detroit corridor is a 

federally-designated high speed rail (HSR) corridor and is also one of several major 

branches in the hub and spoke passenger rail system centered on Chicago, IL. Figure 1

depicts Michigan’s passenger rail network. Current services on this section of the 

Chicago to Detroit corridor include Amtrak’s Wolverine service, which runs to and from 

Chicago, Detroit and Pontiac, MI with 3 round trips per day. Michigan’s state-supported 

Amtrak Blue Water service, which runs from Chicago to Port Huron, MI with one round 

trip per day, enters and exits the corridor in Battle Creek. Additionally, the statesupported Pere Marquette Amtrak service runs one daily round trip to and from Chicago 

to Grand Rapids, MI, but this service does not run along the NS-owned section of the 

corridor. The corridor travels through three (3) states (Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan) 

and includes corridor ownership of 4 railroads: NS, Amtrak, Conrail Shared Assets 

Operations (CSAO), and Grand Trunk Western Railroad, Inc. (CN). 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to meet FRA’s requirement for a 

“project specific” NEPA document for the proposed acquisition of the 135-mile Norfolk 

Southern (NS) Railway Section from Dearborn to Kalamazoo, Michigan, and the track 

rehabilitation and signal improvements required to allow for increases in passenger 

speeds up to 110 mph. 
2

 

Figure 1. Michigan’s Intercity Passenger Rail System.
3

1.2 Project History

Amtrak, with assistance from NS, performed a High Speed Rail (HSR) improvement 

study to determine the infrastructure upgrades needed to provide 110 mph train service 

on the NS-owned rail section between Kalamazoo and Dearborn in the event that federal 

funding was available to transfer the section into public ownership as a dedicated 

passenger rail line. On April 1, 2010, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a 

Notice of Funding Availability for the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) 

Program in the Federal Register. In response, Michigan Department of Transportation 

(MDOT) was selected by FRA for Phase 1 of the Kalamazoo Service Development 

Program (The Program), which consists of the acquisition of the existing 135-mile 

Norfolk Southern (NS) Railway Section from Dearborn to Kalamazoo, Michigan. In 

2011, MDOT was selected for funding under FRA’s HSIPR Program for Phase 2 and 

Phase 3 of The Program, which consist of track rehabilitation and signal improvements, 

respectively, to allow for increases in passenger speeds up to 110 mph. The Program will 

ultimately allow trains to travel at 110 mph for 235 miles, or 77 percent of the full 

corridor from Chicago to Detroit, with an average train speed of 21 mph greater than the 

current train speed, resulting in a 30 minute reduction in trip time.

As previously indicated, the Dearborn to Kalamazoo Michigan rail corridor, owned by 

NS, is a federally-designated HSR corridor that shares freight service with passenger rail 

service. Because of a decline in freight business along this section, NS can no longer 

justify maintaining track standards to 79 mph between Kalamazoo and Dearborn. NS has

stated that their existing freight business requires track standards to be only 25 mph. As a 

result, NS has started implementing a plan to downgrade this section of track over the 

next few years by issuing a series of time table speed reductions. The initial time table 

speed reduction was issued on July 1, 2010, reducing passenger speeds from 79 mph to 

60 mph on 41.2 miles of track in this section with a few smaller sections reduced to 25 

mph in July 2011. NS plans to issue additional time table speed reductions and will 

gradually expand 60 mph passenger speeds to the entire section by the end of 2012. 

In response to NS’s plan to significantly downgrade the line over the next few years, 

Amtrak performed a HSR improvement study, with assistance from NS, to determine the 

infrastructure upgrades needed to provide 110 mph train service on the NS-owned rail 

section between Kalamazoo and Dearborn in the event that federal funding was available 

to transfer the section into public ownership as a dedicated passenger rail line. The study 

was completed in June 2010 and the results were used in preparing MDOT’s application 

for funds and in preparing this EA. The Amtrak study serves as the technical foundation 

for Phases 2 and 3 of the Program, as described below. 
4

1.3 Project Location and Description 

The 135-mile NS Railway section is located in southern Michigan, beginning in 

Dearborn at GMP 7.5 and ending in Kalamazoo at GMP 143.7 as depicted in Figure 2. 

Between GMP 120.54 and GMP 121.89, passenger rail services run along a small section

of CN-owned ROW and this section is not included in this EA. The NS-owned section

traverses through five counties in southern Michigan:Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Jackson, 

Washtenaw, and Wayne, and serves the cities of Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Albion, 

Jackson, Ann Arbor and Dearborn. NS is one of the major freight carriers in Michigan. 

Freight service on the NS-owned section includes 8 round trips a day. 

 

 

Figure 2. Project Location and Corridor Description 

The proposed project consists of a series of infrastructure investments to the NS line 

between GMP 7.5 to GMP 143.7, including upgrading the existing signals, adding 

positive train control (PTC), grade crossing improvements, and replacing track, ties, and 
5

ballast to bring the line into a state of good repair and allow 110-mph passenger 

operations. The location of proposed rehabilitation improvements are depicted in 

Appendix A. In addition, the proposed improvements would involve acquiring this 

segment of the NS line for public ownership to establish long-term stability for corridor 

maintenance and operations. The acquisition is subject to National Surface 

Transportation Board (STB) approval. The project is proposed for implementation in 

three phases, which will overlap or occur concurrently as described below. 

Phase 1: Right of Way Acquisition and Final Design 

In Phase 1, MDOT will refresh existing appraisals for the entire rail line from Dearborn 

to Kalamazoo between GMP 7.5 to GMP 143.7, negotiate and complete an acquisition of 

this section between Dearborn to Kalamazoo from the NS Corporation , and complete 

final design for Phases 2 and 3. 

Phase 2: Track Rehabilitation Investments

During Phase 2, MDOT will replace approximately 200,000 ties and then resurface the 

track with clean new ballast. MDOT will also renew 40% of switch ties to include all 

mainline and control siding turnouts, including approximately 86 turnouts and 3,300 ties. 

MDOT will also rebuild highway crossings or, where required, replace track structure at 

crossings. Finally, MDOT will conduct a second surfacing on curves to achieve targets 

for super-elevation and a third pass for curves where the transition spirals needs to be 

changed. 

Phase 3: Train Control/Signal Investments

During Phase 3, MDOT will install fiber optic communication along the entire track 

ROW to provide the foundation for the subsequent train control and signal work 

activities. The renewal of the signal system includes the instillation of Positive Train 

Control (PTC) and active warning devices and crossings and the extension of crossing 

starts. 

There are several other planned rail projects for this section of the corridor. While these 

projects have been, or will be studied under separate NEPA documents, they are included 

in this EA document so the cumulative impacts of these projects can be assessed. These 

projects are described below. 

Dearborn, Ann Arbor and Battle Creek Stations: MDOT was selected by FRA to 

receive funding under the HSIPR Program to renovate or replace three passenger rail

stations along this section, improving not only the speed and reliability of the service 

along this corridor, but the access through which passengers and the communities 

connect to the passenger rail network. Appendix B depicts the location of these stations 

on aerial mapping. The Dearborn station project will combine two existing rail stops into 

an upgraded intermodal facility, which would improve connectivity between trains and 

regional bus, shuttle, taxi and limousine services to areas in and around Dearborn, and 

will be within walking distance of Dearborn’s West Downtown District and the Henry 

Ford Museum. The existing Battle Creek station will be renovated to modernize and 

create a more user friendly facility for the rail, bus and taxi services operating from the 
6

station. Additionally, MDOT received HSIPR funding to complete preliminary 

engineering and NEPA documentation for a new station in Ann Arbor, MI. The existing 

Ann Arbor station is the busiest Amtrak station in Michigan, but is located on singletrack territory without passing sidings which forces intercity trains to stop and block the 

mainline while serving the station. The design will incorporate a passing track to allow 

passenger trains to meet and for more than one train to serve the station at a time, and 

will also incorporate automobile, pedestrian, transit, and intercity bus connectivity at this 

new station. 

West Detroit Connection: The West Detroit Junction Connection Track Project is 

located in the City of Detroit, Michigan. This project will construct new signals, 

replacement a bridge over Junction Avenue, and construct 5 new cross-overs in the West 

Detroit area. By improving the access at this junction, the project will improve passenger 

rail travel times by up to 10 minutes between Dearborn Station and Detroit's New Center 

Station, reduce pollution, and improve safety by eliminating conflicts with the 6 railroads 

that use this line (CSAO, CN, CSX, Canadian Pacific (CP), NS and Amtrak. 
7

1.4 Purpose and Need 

The purpose of proposed project is to: 

• Improve the safety of the public transit service by renewing the existing signal 

system and adding positive train control; 

• Provide greater mobility by increasing train speeds to 110 mph, reducing travel 

time by up to 18 minutes, and improving reliability; 

• Complete an ownership arrangement between MDOT and Norfolk Southern that 

will bring long term stability to the corridor and bring this section to a state of 

good repair; 

• Improve access for the communities in Michigan that will support existing 

industries, foster growth of new small businesses and encourage large businesses 

to distribute their operations more widely throughout Michigan; and 

• Provide an enhanced alternative to auto and air travel that will promote 

environmental benefits which include: reduced air pollutant emissions, improved 

land use options, and fewer adverse impacts to surrounding habitat and water 

resources.

Beginning July 1, 2010, NS issued their first time table speed reduction for 41.2 miles of 

the corridor (from Ypsilanti to Battle Creek), reducing passenger speeds from 79 mph to 

60 mph. In addition, NS downgraded smaller selected areas to 25 mph in July 2011. NS 

has estimated that by the end of 2012, they will have issued a series of time table speed 

reductions that will require the entire corridor to reduce passenger speeds to 60 mph. NS 

has also indicated that the corridor will further degrade after 2012, impeding all efforts to 

maintain the existing level of service and schedule reliability. Thus, an ownership 

arrangement between MDOT and NS is needed to control the NS trackage between 

Dearborn and Kalamazoo in order to preserve the current level of rail services in this 

corridor. An ownership arrangement could include dispatching rights, which will provide 

greater control of train movements in this area. 

An ownership arrangement will also help ensure that past and present infrastructure 

improvements, including service benefits in the Chicago Hub (Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac) 

High Speed Rail Corridor will not be lost or completely offset by NS’s economic outlook 

on their section of the corridor. 

Improved service reliability along with reduced travel times on the NS Railway Section 

and the entire rail corridor would foster growth of new businesses and encourage existing 

businesses to distribute their goods throughout Michigan and the Midwest. 

One of the factors that would assist with reducing travel times is PTC used by Amtrak in 

the corridor, also known as the Incremental Train Control System (ITCS). In March 

2010, FRA provided Amtrak with conditional approval to increase speeds in this section 

to 110 mph. Amtrak is expected to meet these conditions and increase passenger speeds 

to 110 mph in the summer of 2011. This technology is also being extended under an 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant to Amtrak, from New Buffalo, 
8

Michigan to Porter, Indiana. Amtrak is expected to complete this installation by the end 

of 2012. If the proposed work for the NS Railway Section is approved, approximately 

77% of the 304 miles Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac corridor will be ready for passenger 

speeds up to 110 mph. 

Improvements such as renewing the signal system and adding PTC will not only improve 

safety but will allow trains to run more efficiently by eliminating communications and 

signal delays and improve access for the commuter. Improved mobility will assist 

economic development, including the region’s universities and colleges in their roles as 

centers of higher learning, research, business development and medical services. 

The need for the project is based on the following elements: 

• Travel delays for passenger and freight users of the system between MP 7.5 to 

MP 143.7 in Michigan; 

• Automotive congestion along the I-94 corridor that runs parallel to the NS 

Railway Section between Dearborn and Kalamazoo, and resulting travel delays 

and increased transportation costs for users of other transportation modes such as 

automobiles; 

• Poor service reliability resulting from degraded infrastructure along the NS 

Railway Section; and 

• Substandard and unsafe conditions for those using the passenger rail service and 

users of other transportation modes resulting from existing congestion, degraded 

infrastructure and signals, lack of positive train control (PTC), and air toxins 

resulting from bus and auto emissions. 
9

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Introduction 

The proposed acquisition and infrastructure improvements for the NS Railway Section 

from Dearborn to Kalamazoo is a coordinated and comprehensive project that would 

benefit passenger and freight users along this railway section by reducing travel times 

and increasing service reliability. Two alternatives were considered: 1) No Build 

Alternative for the NS Railway Section; and 2) Proposed Improvement Alternative for 

the NS Railway Section which includes infrastructure improvements and the acquisition 

of the NS Railway Section. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative is the only build alternative under consideration 

because the proposed project is conducting necessary maintenance activities for the 

existing facility, which involves minimal public impact, has no additional right of way 

acquisition needs, and does not involve significant social, economic or environmental 

impacts. In order to conduct the maintenance activities and ensure a state of good repair 

continues on the line, an ownership arrangement between MDOT and NS is needed to 

control the NS trackage between Dearborn and Kalamazoo to preserve the current level 

of rail services in this corridor, as indicated above in Section 1.4. A state of good repair 

for the track is defined for the purposes of this document to "be in good condition for the 

desired track class that is sustained through regular maintenance".

2.2 No Build Alternative for Existing NS Railway Section 

The No-Build Alternative involves taking no action to acquire or improve the NS 

Railway Section in southern Michigan. The existing NS Railway Section would remain 

operational with a current average speed of 55 mph with 3 daily round trips for 

passengers. However, NS has indicated to Amtrak and MDOT they no longer have a 

business need to maintain their line to support freight traffic speeds above 25 mph and 

they plan to allow this trackage to degrade by issuing a series of time table speed 

reductions as described previously to decrease allowable speeds over the next few years

with no improvements made to the line, which would further impede any efforts to 

improve passenger service along the NS line. 

The No Build Alternative would not improve the level and quality of passenger rail 

service in southern Michigan, and would hinder opportunities for economic growth or 

strengthening of the state’s manufacturing, service, and tourism industries. The No Build 

Alternative would not only contribute to the degradation of the passenger rail service 

within the Project area but also along the entire rail corridor between Chicago, Illinois 

and Detroit/Pontiac, Michigan including rail projects that recently received funding from 

the HSIPR Program (Section 1.2). Service benefits from past and recently selected 

projects along the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Rail Corridor would be offset by the 

degradation in the NS Railway Section because no upgrades or improvement of the 

railway line other than routine maintenance would occur. The average speed on the line 

would decrease by 7 mph due to degradation, resulting in a 56-minute travel time 
10

increase for passengers traveling between Pontiac, Michigan and Chicago, Illinois. Train 

delays of up to 25 minutes for passenger and freight trains outside of the NS Railway 

Section would continue and probably worsen over time, making train service less reliable 

and affecting on-time performance over the whole Chicago Hub Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac 

High Speed Rail Corridor, as documented in Amtrak’s report entitled The Amtrak Study 

for the NS Railway Section from Dearborn to Kalamazoo (Amtrak, 2010). 

The No-Build Alternative does not meet the Project’s purpose and need of improving the 

safety of the existing public transit service; providing greater mobility by increasing train 

speeds; bringing long-term stability and a state of good repair to the corridor by 

completing an ownership arrangement between MDOT and NS; improving access for 

existing industrial communities and fostering business growth; or promoting 

environmental benefits. 

2.3 Proposed Improvement Alternative

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would rehabilitate the existing track by 

improving track conditions and signals between Dearborn and Kalamazoo. 

Improvements to be performed under the Proposed Improvement Alternative are located 

in Appendix A and include: 

• Replacing ties (approximately 206,000) and surface lines; 

• Track resurfacing; 

• Renewing signals; 

• Rail Replacement – approximately 100,000 linear feet; 

• Switch tie replacement ( approximately 3,600);

• Installation of the Positive Train Control (PTC); 

• Installation of warning devices; 

• Upgrade signals and train controls; 

• Repair of grade crossings; 

• Maintenance of existing ballast; and

• Placement of new ballast. 

 

Although not a physical improvement or maintenance activity, the acquisition of NS 

trackage by MDOT is also an integral part of this proposed project. The Proposed 

Improvement Alternative would specifically include the MDOT acquisition of the 

existing NS Railway Section (135 miles) subject to National Surface Transportation 

Board (STB) approval. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative has been identified as the Preferred Alternative 

because it meets the purpose and need of the project by enhancing the NS Railway 

Section and improving the level and quality of passenger rail service in southern 

Michigan. The Proposed Improvement Alternative will maintain and improve the 

Michigan rail corridor for existing intercity passenger rail. The Proposed Improvement 

Alternative would also meet the project purpose and need by allowing for increased

speeds up to 110 mph and replacing existing Amtrak intercity passenger train equipment 
11

with new equipment that would improve current services on this railway section and the 

Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac rail corridor. The Proposed Improvement Alternative would 

meet project purpose and need by improving the NS Railway Section and the corridor to 

a state of good repair, preventing degradation of the ridership mobility in this rail section 

by retaining the infrastructure already in place. 

The annual ridership for the Wolverine Service in FY 2010 (Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac) 

was 479,782 passengers, while the ridership for the Blue Water Service (Chicago-Port 

Huron) was 157,709 passengers. The Wolverine Service operates three round trips per 

day; while the Blue Water service offers one round trip per day. With the proposed 

improvements, it is anticipated passenger service would increase to over 0.5 million 

passengers for the Wolverine Service, and over 138,000 passenger for the Blue Water 

Service. Although ridership would increase as a result of these improvements, daily 

round trip train service on the Wolverine and the Blue Water would remain the same, 

maintaining the current train capacity. 

Current train speeds in Michigan reflect the series of time table speed reductions issued 

by NS in July 2010 and 2011, and are shown in Table 1. Amtrak’s study for the NS 

Railway Section from Dearborn to Kalamazoo1

 indicated that their trains between 

Kalamazoo and Dearborn averaged 19 minutes of service delay per train in the time 

period from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010. The proposed improvements would reduce 

the average delay time by up to 12 minutes per train. In addition reductions in travel 

times due to these improvements would be 18 minutes once speeds are approved for 110 

mph on this railway section. After ITCS is extended on the NS Railway Section from 

Dearborn to Kalamazoo, trains speeds up to 110 mph would be possible from Dearborn, 

Michigan to Porter, Indiana, and a distance of over 235 miles. 

Table 1. Existing Train Speeds on the Michigan Rail Portion

CN RR

(25.0 miles)

CSAO RR

(5.0 miles)

NS RR

(137 miles)

Amtrak RR

Michigan

(79 miles)

Average

Speeds

Michigan

(246 miles)

Allowable

(Range) 25-60 mph 15-70 mph 25-79 mph 45-95 mph 15-95 mph

Allowable

(Average) 50 mph 55 mph 51.1 mph 70 mph 62 mph

Actual

(Range) 15-60 mph 10-56 mph 25-79 mph 35-95 mph 10-95 mph

Actual 

(Average) 30 mph 25 mph 39.1 mph 60 mph 51 mph

The Proposed Improvement Alternative includes acquisition, track infrastructure 

improvements, and train control and signal improvements. Each of these improvements 

and the phase in which the work would be completed is described below: 

 

1 The Amtrak Study for the NS Railway Section from Dearborn to Kalamazoo (Amtrak, 2010).
12

Acquisition (Ownership Arrangement) – Phase 1

MDOT would acquire the Norfolk Southern Railway Section between Dearborn and 

Kalamazoo, Michigan from Norfolk Southern Corporation. The first phase for this 

project includes acquisition and final design work that is need for phases 2 and 3. 

Funding for the acquisition and final design work of Phase 1 needed to implement Phases 

2 and 3 is approximately $187.5 million -$150 million in federal funding and $37.5 

million in match. The acquisition is expected to be completed by late 2011. The 

proposed acquisition of this railway section would allow MDOT to proceed with 

infrastructure improvements that will bring this section of the corridor to a state of good 

repair, and increase speeds up to 110 mph once the three year construction program is 

complete.

Proposed Track Infrastructure Improvements – Phase 2

The proposed track rehabilitation improvements include replacing 206,000 ties including 

ties at switches and crossings. The track would be surfaced with an average raise of 1.5 

to 2 inches on clean new ballast. There are 48 public crossings. Sixty ribbons of 

continuous welded rail (CWR) are estimated for replacement in curved areas for smooth 

transition into the new rail used in the highway crossings. There would also be 74 

crossing panels replaced in 65 private crossings. Track geometry alternation to achieve 

targets for superelevation and cant deficiency will require a second surfacing pass on the 

curves. A third pass has been included in those curves where transition spirals need to be 

changed. This would restore the track to a state of good repair allowing for passenger 

speed increases once all of the improvements have been made in train control and signals.

Funding for the construction of Phase 2 is approximately $60 million in federal funding. 

It is estimated that Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the infrastructure work could be combined and 

completed over three construction seasons. These improvements would expand on 

Amtrak's work between Porter, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan extending to the east 

(Kalamazoo to Dearborn) which would provide for passenger speeds up to 110 mph for 

235 miles (77%) of the 304 mile Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac High Speed Rail Corridor by 

the end of 2014. 

All of the proposed infrastructure improvements would occur within the existing railroad 

right of way which is 50-feet from the center of the track on each side. Eleven Aerial 

maps which show the location, Global Mile Points (GMP), and track infrastructure 

improvements can be found in Appendix A. 

Proposed Train Control/Signal Improvements – Phase 3

The proposed train control/signal improvements include replacing the current NS signal 

system which is obsolete, with a Positive Train Control (PTC) system as an extension of 

the work that has been done by Amtrak on their ownership in this corridor between 

Porter, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan. In addition, where train speeds are to be 
13

raised above 79 mph, active warning devices (gates and lights) would be installed at all 

crossings, both public and private. 

Upgrading the signals and train controls would be required for the entire length of the NS 

Railway Section, and installation of the ITCSwould be required. The installation of the 

fiber optic cable would link servers of the PTC along the existing rail right-of-way. 

These servers would analyze track occupancy and highway crossing conditions and 

communicate the conditions to the trains via data radios. Renewing the signals along the 

entire NS Railway Section would be required. Warning devices would be added to all of 

the crossings (public and private) along the NS Railway Section allowing speeds to be 

increased to 110 mph. 

Funding for the construction of Phase 3 is approximately $136.5 million in federal 

funding. The total amount combined for Phase 2 and Phase 3 is $136.5 million, 

completed over three (3) construction seasons beginning in 2012 and concluding in 2014. 
14

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, POTENTIAL IMPACTS, AND 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

The purpose of this EA is to provide a project-level analysis in order to clear the project 

for construction; and to identify potential impacts and measures to minimize, mitigate or 

compensate for each resource that is impacted by the proposed project. 

The Michigan DOT and FRA must comply with all NEPA requirements when 

considering the impacts of their proposed action on the human, physical or biological 

environment. All potential impacts need to be identified and steps to minimize, mitigate 

or compensate for these impacts on each resource must be identified in the NEPA 

document. The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are 

based on an understanding of environmental consequences and take actions that protect, 

restore, and enhance the environment2

. 

The proposed infrastructure acquisition and infrastructure improvements for the NS 

Railway Section from Dearborn to Kalamazoo were analyzed and it was determined that 

these actions along the existing railway section would not require fee right of way or 

grading permits. Michigan DOT conducted a review (visual inspections, literature 

searches, data base queries, coordination with state and federal resource agencies, etc.) 

and analysis of potential impacts. The result of this analysis and measures to minimize 

impacts for each resource is discussed in the following sections.

3.1 Air Quality 

Under the authority of the CAA and the 1990 CAAA Amendments, a set of primary and 

secondary ambient air quality standards for six criteria pollutants (SOx, particulate matter 

[PM 2.5 and PM10], ozone, NOx, CO, and Pb) were established to protect public health and 

welfare. In areas where the criteria pollutant levels do not exceed the annual average 

standards and do not exceed the short-term (1-, 3-, 8-, and 24- hour) standards, the area is 

considered in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Areas that do not meet the annual average standards and exceed the short-term (1-, 3-, 8-, 

and 24- hour) standards are in nonattainment. States with areas in nonattainment must 

submit state implementation plans (SIPs) to the U.S. EPA that details implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, include emission limitations and control 

measures. 

Federal agencies responsible for an action occurring in a nonattainment are required to 

determine if the action conforms to the applicable SIP. The U.S. EPA has developed two 

sets of conformity regulations: 

• Transportation Conformity - Transportation projects developed or approved under 

the Federal Aid Highway Program or Federal Transit Act [40 Code of Federal 

Regulation (CFR) Part 93, Subpart A]; and 

 

2 40 CFR 1500, Part 1. 
15

• General Conformity - Other projects [40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B]. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative does not fall under Transportation Conformity 

because the project is not receiving any funding assistance and approval through the 

Federal Aid Highway program or the Federal mass transit program. Therefore the 

proposed alternative must comply with the requirements under General Conformity.

General Conformity

The General Conformity Rule, established under Section 176(c)(4) under the Clean Air 

Act provides states a tool to help them improve air quality in areas that do not meet the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Under the General Conformity Rule, 

federal actions that occur in a nonattainment or maintenance area must conform to the air 

quality plans established in the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The Conformity Rule ensures: 

• Federal activities do not cause or contribute to new violation of NAAQS; 

• Actions do not cause additional or worsen existing violations of or contribute to 

new violations the NAAQS; and 

• Attainment of the NAAQSs is not delayed. 

Existing Air Quality of the Project Area 

The proposed project runs through the five counties of Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Jackson, 

Washtenaw, and Wayne in Michigan. Jackson County is in attainment for all criteria 

pollutants. Washtenaw and Wayne Counties are in nonattainment for fine particulate 

(PM2.5). All other counties are in attainment/maintenance for 8-hour ozone, as depicted 

in Table 2. 

Table 2. Attainment Status Within the Proposed Improvement Alternative.

Pollutant Counties

Calhoun Jackson Kalamazoo Washtenaw Wayne

SOx A A A A A

NOx A A A A A

PM2.5 A A A NA1 NA1

PM10 A A A A A

Pb A A A A A

Ozone A/M A A/M A/M A/M

A-Attainment

A/M- Attainment/Maintenance

NA-Nonattainment 1 In nonattainment area for the annual (1997) and 24-hour (2006) standards for PM2.5. 
16

No Build Alternative for Existing NS Railway Section 

The No Build Alternative would not have an immediate effect on air quality. However, if 

no action is taken to make the necessary updates to this railway section, air quality 

conditions may worsen over time from bus and auto emissions resulting from congestion 

on roadways that runs parallel to the NS Railway Section between Dearborn and 

Kalamazoo. 

Proposed Improvement Alternative

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would rehabilitate the existing track by 

improving track conditions and signals between Dearborn and Kalamazoo. Section 2.3 

lists the improvements that are to be completed under the Proposed Improvement 

Alternative. No capacity will be added to the existing rail corridor, and the existing 

volume would be maintained after the Proposed Improvement Alternative is constructed. 

The estimated emissions resulting from construction of the Proposed Improvement 

Alternative are listed in Table 3 below. The equipment and horsepower used for each 

activity, and in most cases, operational time was provided by the MDOT. In those cases 

where information regarding operational time was not provided, assumptions were made 

as documented in Appendix C. Appendix C also includes the methodologies used to 

calculate emissions for each activity, as well as the detailed emission analysis for each 

activity by county. 

Table 3. Estimated Air Quality Emissions By County. 

 

County

Emissions (tons)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Kalamazoo 9.98 4.22 0.42 0.41 0.10 0.75

Calhoun 24.7 10.4 1.03 1.01 0.25 1.85

Jackson 29.7 9.08 0.81 0.78 0.23 34.0

Washtenaw 10.38 7.41 0.82 0.79 0.16 1.25

Wayne 11.1 4.48 0.44 0.43 0.11 0.80

Total 85.8 35.6 3.51 3.41 0.85 38.7

The proposed improvements are estimated to take place over a two to three year period. 

However, since a proposed schedule of activities per county is not currently available, it 

was assumed for the worst case scenario that the construction and maintenance activities 

in any one county will occur during the same year. Table 4 provides a comparison of 

estimated emissions to the de minimis thresholds in accordance with 40 CRF 93.153. 

The comparison shows that the Proposed Improvement Alternative would not require a 

formal conformity determination for activities in any county because projected emission 

levels would be below the applicable de minimis thresholds. It is expected, therefore, that 

any impacts on air quality for the entire Proposed Action would not be significant. 
17

Table 4. Comparison of De minimis3 Threshold Emissions to Estimated Emissions 

for the Proposed Improvement Alternative. 

Pollutant Emissions

(Tons per Year)

de minimis

Threshold

(Tons per Year)

Kalamazoo County

NOx 4.22 100 

VOC 0.75 100 

PM2.5 0.41 100 

Calhoun County

NOx 10.4 100 

VOC 1.85 100 

PM2.5 1.01 100 

Washtenaw County

NOx 7.41 100 

VOC 1.25 100 

PM2.5 0.79 100 

Wayne County

NOx 4.48 100 

VOC 0.80 100 

PM2.5 0.43 100 

Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would have no significant impact on current or 

future air quality standards. It does not have the potential to exceed the NAAQS, or lead 

to the establishment of a new nonattainment area, or delay achievement of standard 

attainment. The proposed improvements to the NS Railway section would, over time, 

improve the air quality in this railway section by travelers diverting from air, bus and 

auto to rail travel.

Several measures may be undertaken to reduce potential emissions including engine 

reduction activity reduction of emissions per unit of operating time, and maintenance and 

upkeep of construction equipment. Construction dust associated with exposed soils will

be controlled, if necessary, with the application of water and other approved dust 

palliatives. MDOT will also encourage measures that reduce engine activity or reduce 

emissions per unit of operating time. Construction equipment will be kept clean and in 

 

3 40 CRF 93.153. See http://www.epa.gov/air/genconform/deminimis.html. 
18

good operating condition. MDOT’s Standard Construction Specification Sections 

107.15(A) and 107.19 apply to control fugitive dust during construction and cleaning of 

haul roads. All MDOT vehicles and equipment must follow MDOT Guidance #10179 

Vehicle and Equipment Engine Idling. 

3.2 Noise and Vibration 

Noise and vibration from trains are a concern for communities. The Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance manual, HighSpeed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment4

) was used to 

address potential noise and vibration impacts assessments for this project. 

This 135-mile section extends from Dearborn to Kalamazoo, Michigan. The NS Railway 

section maintains an average speed of 55 mph; with the Proposed Improvement 

Alternative, the average speed would increase to 60 mph. Table 1 shows the allowable 

and actual speeds for the entire Rail Corridor from Chicago to Pontiac. The 

improvements to the NS railroad infrastructure are intended to initially maintain rail 

speeds up to 79 miles per hour or to return sections of the corridor back to 79 mph from 

Dearborn to Kalamazoo, and allow for increased speeds up to 110 mph from Dearborn to 

Porter, Indiana.

The existing train traffic includes three passenger and five freight round trips per day. 

An additional passenger daily round trip on this rail line begins at Battle Creek to 

Chicago (Amtrak Blue Water Service). The proposed Improvement Alternative does not 

include any new service and or increase in the number of daily round trips and no 

increase in service is foreseen at this time. The trains would travel on existing rail lines 

through areas already accustomed to rail traffic, both freight and passenger, and the 

accompanying noise and vibrations. The proposed Improvement Alternative would 

upgrade the existing rails from jointed to continuous welded rail (CWR) which would 

eliminate the clacking noise typically associated with trains.

There are no FRA designated Quiet Zones along the proposed project corridor. No 

additional crossings are included in the project. Signalization and updated signage would 

be used to alert people of the high speed trains. 

The FRA High Speed Rail Initial Noise Evaluation v1.3 model was used to determine the 

general projected noise impacts along the proposed project corridor. A buffer of 60 and 

100 feet, and the screening buffer for each Land Use Category (LUC) identified in Table 

3-2 of the High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessmentwas used as distance inputs. The results illustrated in Table 5 show that the 

LUC 1 had a moderate impact with noise at the 60- and 100-foot buffers at the initial 

speed increase of 79 mph. The other LUCs showed no impacts at 79 mph. The 

 

4 Federal Railroad Administration and Federal Transit Administration. High-Speed Ground Transportation 

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, October 2005.
19

calculations show a moderate impact at 60- and 100-foot for all the LUCs for the 110 

mph increase.

Table 5. Noise Impact Levels based on Land Use Categories. 

Land Use Category Distance 55 

MPH 

79 

MPH 

Projected 

Noise 

Impact 

Exposure

110 

MPH 

Projected 

Noise 

Impact 

Exposure

1 

Outdoor Quiet (Leq[h])

60 63 62 Moderate 64 Moderate

100 59 58 Moderate 61 Moderate

300 52 51 None 53 None

2 

Residences (Ldn)

60 56 56 None 58 Moderate

100 53 52 None 55 Moderate

200 48 48 None 50 None

3 

Institutional (Leq[h])

60 62 62 None 64 Moderate

100 59 58 None 61 Moderate

500 48 48 None 50 None

Source: Based on Table 3-1, Pages 3-4, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment, US DOT and Federal Railroad Administration, October 2005.

Ground-borne Vibration and Ground-borne Noise

Higher speeds result in higher vibration levels. Doubling speed usually results in 

vibration levels 4 to 6 decibels higher. Chapter 8 of the guidance provides a vibration 

screening procedure to determine if any sensitive receivers are likely to receive groundborne vibration impacts. The guidance categorizes land uses based on sensitivity to 

vibration: Category 1 -Highly Sensitive; Category 2 – Residential; and, Category 3, 

Institutional. The guidance also provides a vibration screening procedure to determine if 

any sensitive receivers are likely to receive ground-borne vibration impacts. The 

guidance suggested using a screening distance of 100 feet for rails that have passbys of 

70 trains or less with speeds 100 - 200 mph5 adjacent to residential land uses. A land use 

proximity analysis using Geographic Information System (GIS) and the most current 

aerials (2009) of the project corridor area was used to identify Category 2 and 3 land 

uses. A review for Category 1 land uses would occur during the final design phase as 

recommended in the guidance. 

The guidance identifies ground-borne vibration and noise levels as 80 VdB and 43 dB(A) 

respectfully for Category 2, and 83 VdB and 48 dB(A) respectfully for Category 3. A 

preliminary assessment using the process described in the guidance for the generalized 

 

5

Table 8-1, Page 8-2, High Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 

Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Development, October 

2005.

 
20

prediction of ground-borne vibration calculates to 72 VdB. The ground-borne noise was 

calculated as 22 dB (A). Both levels are below both Category 2 and 3 criteria. 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would not create additional noise or 

vibration impacts. However, greater degradation of the rail bed may increase the 

likelihood of increased rail joint noise. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would provide a moderate increase in noise 

levels from the existing to the anticipated 110 mph high-speed rail. There are no foreseen 

ground-borne vibration or noise impacts expected from the Proposed Improvement 

Alternative. In addition, the Proposed Improvement Alternative will benefit from the 

purchase of new lighter and quieter cars and engines that can aid in the reduction of 

vibration impacts.

Construction of the Proposed Improvement Alternative would result in a temporary 

increase in the ambient noise level in the vicinity of the project. MDOT would 

implement mitigation measures for these temporary impacts, which would include 

construction contract specifications that require that the contractor adhere to all Federal, 

state, and local noise abatement and control requirements. MDOT would limit

construction activities to daytime hours so as to confine the timespan of noise and 

vibration impacts. Noise would be controlled by measures such as, but not limited to 

ensuring construction equipment is in good repair and fitted with manufacturer 

recommended mufflers.

3.3 Water Quality 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would not cause a change in the water 

quality or impact lakes, streams, and rivers in Michigan. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would not have an adverse effect on either water 

quality or on fish species and their habitat, as described below. 

The existing NS Railway Section crosses or is directly adjacent to waters of the State, 

including lakes, streams, county drains, and four major rivers, at approximately 86 

locations. All waters of the State are protected from water pollution by the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1972) and by Michigan’s 

Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act6

 

6

Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), Public Act 451 of 1994, as 

amended, Parts 31 and 91. 

. Any discharge of stormwater 

from State transportation facilities must comply with Michigan Department of 

Environmental Quality’s (MDEQ) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Permit issued to MDOT. This permit includes post-construction requirements 
21

on new development, as well as stormwater controls during construction, for projects that 

disturb greater than one acre. MDOT is required to develop, implement, and enforce 

stormwater management programs designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from 

the MDOT drainage system to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). 

MDOT is an Authorized Public Agency with respect to the State’s Part 91, Soil Erosion 

and Sedimentation Control program. As such, MDOT is authorized to proceed with 

construction provided they include measures to control soil erosion on all construction 

projects with earth disturbing activities. 

Seven of the 86 crossing locations are waterbodies that are considered especially 

sensitive to water quality alterations. Three of the streams, Rice Creek, Augusta Creek 

and Canal Race, are classified as trout streams. Four crossing locations, the Rouge River, 

Geddes Pond/Huron River, the Huron River, and the Grand River are not meeting state 

water quality standards and have approved Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for 

pollutants including Escherichia coli (E. coli), biota, and dissolved oxygen. A detailed 

list of these sensitive waterbodies and their locations is listed in Appendix D. If the 

TMDL defines the appropriate water quality requirements for the pollutant, the “MEP” 

standard requires stormwater controls that will meet the responsibilities established by 

the TMDL. 

The existing NS Railway line crosses several municipal wellhead protection areas 

(WHPA) in Chelsea, Jackson, Albion, and Kalamazoo. Existing railroad land use would 

have been taken into account during the development of these WHPA, and there will not 

be significant new impacts to the WHPA. The proposed action does not create a 

significant amount of impervious area or require a new WHPA to be built. Construction 

impacts would be limited to potential occurrences of sediment runoff which will not 

affect groundwater. Post construction impacts will be diminished in quality and any 

minor detection of hydrocarbons or metals would attenuate in the soil before reaching 

groundwater. There would be no significant impacts to WHPA.

There is no Essential Fish Habitat in the State of Michigan, as defined by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. However, the majority of waterbodies support various 

communities of fish species. Any work within the channel of streams or rivers is 

regulated by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and would require 

a permit under Part 301 of P.A. 451 (1994, as amended). In cooperation with the 

resource agencies, MDOT would employ avoidance, minimization and mitigation 

strategies to protect aquatic species and their associated habitats during design and 

construction. Measures may include, but are not limited to, seasonal work restrictions 

and preservation of fish passage. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would not cause an increase in stormwater 

runoff, generate wastewater, or alter surface or subsurface drainage to any waterbody . 

Any short term impacts resulting from construction activities would be minimized and 

mitigated by use of Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control measures set forth in the 

required NPDES permits. In the long term, these improvements would not cause an 
22

increase in stormwater runoff, generate wastewater, or alter surface or subsurface 

drainage to any waterbody.

MDOT is required to develop, implement, and enforce stormwater management programs 

designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the MDOT drainage system to the 

Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) and employ Best management Practices (BMPs) 

such as silt fences, check dams and appropriately sized sediment basins. Following 

construction, permanent BMPs would be implemented to reduce impacts to water quality. 

These BMPs may include permanent seeding, establishment of no-mow zones near or 

adjacent to water courses, detention basins with restricted outlets, and the use of native 

vegetation. 

3.4 Energy Conservation and Use 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No-Build Alternative would not impact energy conservation or 

use.

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would minimize the short- and long-term 

environmental impacts of development and other activities through resource 

conservation, recycling, waste minimization, and the use of energy-efficient and 

ecologically responsible materials, systems and techniques. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would also encourage mode-shift to transit from 

non-motorized transportation by improving the ridership through increasing train speeds 

and reducing travel delays, which would potentially reduce energy consumption. 

3.5 Prime and Unique Farmlands 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would not have an impact on prime and 

unique farmland. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would not have an impact on prime and unique 

farmland, as described below.

A review of the entire NS Railway Section from Dearborn to Kalamazoo indicates that 

there are Michigan farmland and Open Space Public Act 116 (PA 116) parcels adjacent 

to rural areas. Since no fee Right of Way (ROW) would be acquired in these rural areas, 

a PA116 review is not required. 

The proposed enhancements to the existing NS Railway Section would not require fee 

right of way (ROW), grading permits and easements for planned improvements to the NS 

Railway Section. Therefore, a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form (AD-1006) 

would not be required under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). 
23

3.6 Wetlands 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have no impact on wetlands. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would have no impact to wetlands, as described 

below. 

Based on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, wetlands are located along 

the NS Railway Section. Mapping which shows the proposed project improvements in 

relation to the NWI-mapped wetlands is provided in Figures 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9 and 

3.13 at the end of Chapter 3. Although the original railbed construction included a 

number of culverts to allow streams to flow beneath the railroad embankment, wetlands 

would have been permanently destroyed except where they existed beneath bridges. The 

proposed improvements do not include any alterations of existing bridges. Furthermore, 

all work is restricted to the existing railroad embankment. Therefore, no wetlands would 

be impacted by the proposed project. 

During final design, MDOT will review the Project to ensure that the proposed 

improvements do not extend beyond the existing railroad embankment. If staging areas, 

temporary access roads, or other temporary features are identified during final design, 

MDOT will determine whether wetlands are impacted, and ensure that practicable 

measures are evaluated to avoid and minimize such impacts. If temporary impacts are 

identified, but they cannot reasonably be avoided, these impacts will be mitigated. By 

special provisions of the construction contract, the contractor will be required to evaluate 

the potential for wetland impacts resulting from his chosen construction sequence, access 

points, maintenance of traffic, and methods of construction. If impacts are identified, the 

contractor will be required to prepare a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) permit application for submission to, and review by, MDOT. 

3.7 Ecologically Sensitive Areas and Threatened or Endangered Species

3.7.1 Ecologically Sensitive Areas

There are documented ecologically sensitive natural areas adjacent to the NS Railway 

Section. The following plant communities contain a variety of native species adjacent to 

this section some of which are state protected: 1) Oak Barrens – Central Midwest Type, 

2) Prairie Fen - Midwest Type, 3) Dry Mesic Prairie - High Prairie - Midwest Type, 4) 

Wet Prairie - Midwest Type, 5) Wet-mesic Prairie – Tallgrass, Central Midwest Type and 

6) Mesic Sand Prairie – Moist Sand Prairie, Midwest Type, and 7) Southern Floodplain 

Forest. 

Potential impacts to species and/or the loss of habitat would be determined after a threeseason survey has been conducted in 2011. If it is determined that there would be 

impacts to ecologically sensitive natural areas that are adjacent to the NS Railway 
24

Section, the impact could be mitigated by restoration or management of existing special 

communities adjacent to the NS Railway Section. Habitat restoration activities would be 

used to mitigate for impacts to the habitats as well as listed plant species. 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would not impact ecologically sensitive 

areas adjacent to the NS Railway Section. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative may impact ecologically sensitive areas. A 

three-season survey would be needed to determine the impacts. If the proposed project 

would impact ecologically sensitive areas, mitigation measures would be required. 

Mitigation measures may include restoration activities or management of the existing 

special communities adjacent to the NS Railway Section.

 

3.7.2 Threatened or Endangered Species

 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would not impact threatened and 

endangered species and their habitats within this NS Railway Section. 

Federally Listed Species (United States Fish and Wildlife Service):

Threatened and endangered species are legally protected by the Federal Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended. Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services 

(USFWS) has been initiated and they have identified areas of concern for the NS Railway 

Section which includes one federally endangered animal species, Indiana Bat; and, one 

federal candidate animal species, Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake.

Animals

The Proposed Improvement Alternative as described in this EA, would not impact 

protected animals if avoidance strategies are implemented in the areas where species exist 

adjacent to the NS Railway Section. 

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis). The Indiana Bat is a medium-sized member of the genus 

Myotis, being about two inches in body length and a forearm length of about 1.6 inches. 

The bat is a summer resident in Michigan from about mid-April to mid-September 

occupying a range that spans the southern portion of the Lower Peninsula. The species 

leaves Michigan to hibernate in caves, principally in Indiana, Missouri, and Kentucky. 

Roosting sites are of considerable interest in regard to protection of the species in 

Michigan. Primary roosting sites are typically snags in canopy gaps and forest edges that 

receive direct sunlight throughout the day; while alternative roosts usually receive little or 

no direct sunlight. Acceptability of a tree as a roosting site, as it relates to conditions 

with dead or dying trees with exfoliating bark an important factor. Typically the bats 

show an affinity for very large trees, generally 10.8 to 25.7 inches in diameter for the 
25

placement of maternity roosts and smaller trees for alternate roosts. The height of trees 

vary, but tend to be tall, with average heights ranging from 62.7 ft to 100 ft tall, with the 

actually roosting sites ranging from 4.6 ft to 59 ft above ground level. Males have been 

found using trees as a small as three inches in diameter, but they tend to be larger.

No impacts to the federally endangered Indiana Bat are anticipated because no trees that 

have the potential to serve as either roosting or maternity site would be cut within the 

existing ROW, or at existing station locations based upon site inspections conducted in 

2009. 

Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake (Sisturus catenatus catenatus). The massasauga is a, 

thick-bodied, medium-sized (18.5 to 39.5 inches in length) snake that is found throughout 

Michigan, including the counties of Calhoun, Jackson, Kalamazoo, and Washtenaw. It is 

the only venomous snake found in Michigan. The active period for this snake is from 

early April to late October, with emergence from hibernation taking place as ground 

temperature approaches the ambient air temperature. Hibernation typically takes place at 

the margins of, or in, wetlands where ground water is near the soil surface and there is 

access to small mammal and crayfish burrows. After spring emergence this species basks 

up to several weeks on elevated sites such as sedge and grass hummocks, muskrat and 

beaver lodges, and on dikes or other embankments. After this period of time many may 

move to drier, upland areas to forage. Gravid females would seek mammal burrows or 

fallen logs to give birth to from five to 20 young. 

The federal candidate species, Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake, would not be affected 

since the proposed work would take place within the ROW areas that do not offer 

suitable hibernation, basking, or foraging habitats. To mitigate potential impacts during 

construction of the project, MDOT will add the following statement to the plan set and 

would be discussed with construction staff prior to initiating work on the project. 

 

“Records for the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake exist within or near the project area. 

This venomous snake is a State Special Concern and Federal Candidate species that 

warrants special consideration. In the event that this species is discovered during 

construction, immediately move personnel away from the snake and call Richard 

Wolinski, MDOT Ecologist, at (517) 335-2633 for assistance.”

Plant Species 

A review of the project by the USFWS indicates that there are no known federally listed 

plants species within the project corridor. 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative described in this EA would not impact any 

federally protected plants. 
26

The Proposed Improvement Alternative described in this EA would not impact any 

federally protected plants because no federally listed plant species are known to occur 

within the project corridor. 

State Listed Species (Michigan Department of Natural Resources and 

Environment): Threatened and endangered species are legally protected by the State of 

Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public 

Acts of 1994, Part 365. To determine potential impacts for this project, MDOT 

performed a Phase I Endangered Species office review. During this review the Michigan 

Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) Database, Web mapping application, Protected Areas 

Program, aerial and wetland maps, and Element Stewardship Abstracts were reviewed for 

each species. 

Animals 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have no impact on state listed animal 

species. 

This corridor also contains two major river systems and associated floodplain. Since 

there is no work within the river itself, the following species would not be impacted by 

the Proposed Improvement Alternative but are known to occur in the area. In the 

Kalamazoo River there is a record for Purple Wartyback, Cyclonaias tuberculata (T). 

For the Huron River there are numerous records and locations for Purple Wartyback (T), 

Elktoe, Alasmiponta marginata (SC), Snuff Box, Epiblasma triquetra (E), and Southern 

Redbelly Dace, Clinostomus elonsatus (E).

There are turtles of conservation concern associated with the project railway section 

including: Eastern Box Turtle, Terrapene carolina carolina (SC), Spotted Turtle, 

Clemmys guttata (T) and Blandings Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii (SC). These species 

would not be impacted directly by the project because the proposed improvements do not 

include any alterations of existing bridges, and all work is restricted to the existing 

railroad embankment. The Proposed Improvement Alternative would not impact wildlife 

beyond the existing conditions, as there are no impacts to streams, rivers, or wetland. 

Suitable upland habitat for terrestrial vertebrate species beyond the existing ROW would 

not be affected as potential impacts to streams and wetlands would be temporary. 

Suitable upland habitat for vertebrate species beyond the existing ROW would not be 

affected.

The Eastern Box Turtle and Blanding’s Turtle are more terrestrial in their habit during the 

warmer months of the year. These two species may avoid using resources directly 

adjacent to the tracks when work activity is taking place and represents a temporary 

affect to the species Since work on a specific section of track proceeds at about 1.25 

miles/day, with specific tasks separated by four to five day intervals, any affect upon an 

individual animal is considered to be discountable. MDOT would further 

minimizeimpacts to these species by applying the following “Turtle Statement” to all 

construction plans. This would alert construction staff to move the turtles to a safe area if 
27

found during construction. The statement would be added to the plan set and would be 

discussed with construction staff prior to initiating work on the project. 

“Records for protected turtles exist within or near this project area. These turtle species 

warrant special consideration as they are rare in Michigan. In the event that turtles are 

observed within the construction zone, move the turtle(s) into adjacent vegetative cover, 

away from physical work activities. If possible, please take a photo and immediately 

contact MDOT ‘s Ecologist, to confirm identification.” 

Plant Species

This corridor contains 22 listed plant species at multiple locations that are listed as 

endangered (E), threatened (T), or special concern (SC) in the State of Michigan. The 

table below provides the common name, scientific name, listing status and best field 

survey time for each species. 

Species Scientific Name Status Survey Season

Tall Green Milkweed Asclepias hirtella T Mid June-Mid Aug 

Rosinweed Silphium integrifolium T July-Sept

Queen of the Prairie Filipendula rubra T Mid July-Aug

Small Log Fern Dryopteris celsa T June-Oct

Yellow Fumewort Corydalis flavula T Mid Mar-Mid May

Prairie Indian Plantian Cacalia plantaginea SC Mid June-Mid Oct

Leibergs Panic Grass Dichanthelium leibergii T June-July 

Prairie False Indigo Baptisia lactea SC July-Aug

Prairie Birdfoot Violet Viola pedatifida T May-June 

White Lady Slipper Cypripedium candidum T Mid May-Mid June 

Compass Plant Silphium laciniatum T July-Sept

Virginia Snakeroot Aristolchia serpentaria L. T June-Aug

Red Mulberry Morus rubra L. T May-Sept

Purple Milkweed Asclepias purpurascens T Mid June-Aug

Hairy Fruited Sedge Carex trichocarpa SC Mid May-June

White Gentian Gentiana flavida E Mid Aug-Sept

Hairy Angelica Angelica venonsa SC July-Mid Sept 

Blue Eye Grass Sisyrinchium strictum SC July 

Wahoo Euonymus atropurpurea SC Mid June-Sept 

Broad Leaved Puccoon Lithospermum latifolium T Mid May-July 

Water Willow Justicia americana T Aug-Sept 

Green Violet Hybanthus concolor SC Mid May-July

________________________________________________________________________ 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have no impact on state listed plant 

species. 
28

A more detailed review at each site location indicates several species would not be 

impacted by the Proposed Improvement Alternative. The last six species on the list 

above would not be impacted due to their distant proximity to the rail line (more than 

1500 feet). Many of these same species at their locations also have a natural vegetative 

buffer that would protect them from potential impacts. These species include: Angelica

venonsa, Sisyrinchium strictum, Euonymus atropurpurea, Lithospermum latifolium, 

Justicia Americana, and Hybanthus concolor. No further field survey work or 

coordination with the MDNR is required to clear these species for environmental 

impacts. 

It is understood that plants can grow within the existing ballast and track facilities, 

especially where the ballast has not been maintained. MDOT will complete three-season 

field plant surveys at various locations in and around proposed rail ballast and track 

improvements to better understand the potential impacts to the state endangered (E), 

threatened (T), or special concern (SC) species and their habitats listed by the MDNR. 

These field surveys would provide the location of the plants, the general site ecology, 

population structure, and number of plants impacted and the loss of suitable habitat. This 

information can then be analyzed against the proposed scope of work to determine and 

quantify environmental impacts to the potential plant species. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative may impact state listed endangered, threatened or 

special concern plant species and/or the loss of habitat. The impacts would be 

documented and addressed, and the effects would be reconsidered in a re-evaluation of 

the Environmental Assessment, if necessary. The results of any potential impacts would 

be fully mitigated as determined in conjunction with MDNR. Mitigation measures would 

include restoration or management of existing special communities adjacent to the 

railway section.

During the design process, MDOT would show areas requiring protection on plans with 

instructions for the installation of protective fencing. This fencing would prohibit all 

work within these areas to avoid impacts to the species. If work restrictions cannot be 

used effectively during the design process to eliminate impacts to a species then, 

minimization strategies would be employed. These strategies would reduce impacts to 

the species and their habitats. Often this requires small design changes or different 

construction techniques that minimize the overall impact to the species. 

If listed species would be impacted then a State of Michigan Endangered Species Permit 

is required from the MDNR. This permit would require the applicant to identify the 

purpose and need for the proposed project as well as avoidance and minimization 

strategies that have been utilized to lessen impacts. If individuals of protected species 

cannot be avoided then, impacts would be documented within the permit application. 

These applications often take one month to prepare and two months to clear with the 

MDNR. Work cannot proceed in these areas until a permit has been issued. 

Coordination with the MDNR was initiated in October 2010 and would continue 

throughout the design and construction. 
29

If appropriate, MDOT would use habitat restoration activities to mitigate for impacts to 

the habitats as well as losses of individuals of listed plant species. Conditions included in 

the MDNR permit may require plants to be transplanted by MDOT (when feasible) to a 

neew location to protect them. If required, MDOT would complete follow-up 

monitoring for three years after construction. The monitoring would document the post 

construction changes to the remaining plants, populations, and sites. It would also be 

used to document the effectiveness of the transplanting efforts, habitat restoration or 

management activities performed as mitigation for the Project. 

See Appendix E for MDNR and US Fish and Wildlife Service letters. 

Wildlife 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have no impact on Wildlife. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would not impact wildlife beyond the existing 

conditions, as there are no impacts to streams, rivers, or wetland. Suitable upland habitat 

for terrestrial vertebrate species beyond the existing ROW would not be affected as 

potential impacts to streams and wetlands would be temporary. Suitable upland habitat 

for vertebrate species beyond the existing ROW would not be affected. 

3.8 Floodplains 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have no impact on floodplain areas. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would have no impact on floodplain areas, as 

described below. 

All of the major rivers and their tributaries that cross this rail section have 100-year 

floodplain areas associated with them (see Figure 3.1 through 3.14 at the end of Chapter 

3). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps along many of the rivers. The federal protection of floodplains is 

afforded by Executive Order 11988 “Floodplain Management,” and by implementation of 

FEMA regulations under 44 CFR 9.00. 

The elevation of the existing railroad embankment is above the 100-year flood elevation. 

Although 1.5 to 2 inches of new ballast would be added to prepare the railbed for the 

proposed track improvements, this addition of ballast would not occur within the 100-

year floodplain. The existing footprint of the roadbed within the NS Railway Section

would not be expanded. There would be no alteration of any existing structures and no 

direct or indirect impacts to floodplains. 

The proposed work would not result in an impact to natural and beneficial floodplain 

values, specifically, flood attenuation and storage, water quality, groundwater recharge, 
30

biological productivity of fish and wildlife, and agricultural and forestry resources. The 

project would not directly or indirectly support new development in floodplains because 

existing local ordinances are sufficient to prevent new development from proceeding in 

floodplains, and there is no shortage of available development sites outside the floodplain 

limits. The proposed improvements would not occur within the limits of the 100-year 

flood, would not change the opening beneath any structures or culverts, and would not 

result in flooding of a community’s sole evacuation route. Therefore, the project would 

not increase the risk of flooding and would not result in impacts to human safety, health, 

and welfare. 

During final design, MDOT would review the project to ensure that the proposed 

improvements do not extend beyond the existing railroad embankment. If staging areas, 

temporary access roads, or other temporary features are identified during final design, 

MDOT will determine whether floodplains are impacted, and ensure that practicable 

measures are evaluated to avoid and minimize such impacts. If temporary impacts are 

identified, but they cannot reasonably be avoided, these impacts will be identified and 

appropriate steps taken to reduce any increase in the risk of flooding during construction. 

By special provisions of the construction contract, the contractor will be required to 

evaluate the potential for floodplain impacts when considering his construction sequence, 

access points, maintenance of traffic, and methods of construction. If temporary impacts 

are identified, the contractor will coordinate with MDOT to determine whether there are 

practicable alternatives that do not result in floodplain impacts, and will not proceed 

without authorization from MDOT. See Figures 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9 and 3.13 at the 

end of Chapter 3 for the location of all floodplains in the project corridor. 

3.9 Coastal Zone

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would not impact coastal resources. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would not impact coastal resources, as described 

below. 

The NS Railway Section is outside of the Michigan Coastal Zone Management 

Boundary. Therefore, no federal consistency review with the DNRE- Land and Water 

Management Division (LWMD) - Shoreland Management Unit is required. 

There are no coastal barrier resources, critical dunes or high risk erosion areas 

immediately adjacent to the NS rail line section. 

3.10 Navigable Waterways 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 
31

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would not impact navigable waterways in 

Michigan.

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would not impact navigable waterways in 

Michigan, as described below. 

The NS Railway Section traverses three major Michigan rivers and their tributaries: the 

River Rouge, the Huron River, and the Kalamazoo River. Currently, Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act is delegated to the State of Michigan. According to the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) Detroit District List of Navigable Waters of the U.S. 

updated in 2010, the upper limit of navigability, and the jurisdictional cut-off for USACE 

on the River Rouge is the Michigan Central Railroad/Penn Central Railroad bridge near 

Schafer Road in Melvindale, upriver from the Turning Basin. This jurisdictional cut-off 

is downstream of the easternmost limit of the NS Railway Section. The jurisdictional 

cut-off for the Huron River is the US-24 bridge at Flat Rock, which is also downstream 

of the NS Railway Section in this watershed. 

Jurisdictional authority for the Kalamazoo River extends from Lake Michigan 

approximately 31.5 miles upriver to the Allegan Dam, which is many miles downstream 

of the westernmost limit of the NS Railway Section. Since all of the watercourses 

affected by the NS Railway Section are located upstream, or outside of the jurisdictional 

boundaries of the USACE, they do not fall under the definition of navigable waters under 

the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Therefore, coordination with the USACE will not 

be required. 

3.11 Transportation 

Rail infrastructure improvements would reduce congestion caused by passenger and 

freight trains sharing rail lines along the NS Railway Section. Travel times for both 

passenger and freight would be reduced and on-time arrival rates would improve due to 

increased train speeds and fewer delays. Improvements to the existing signal system 

would safeguard and improve efficient flow of passengers and freight, and reduce delays 

by 12 minutes for passenger rail. Freight traffic that travels through this area would also 

benefit from these proposed improvements. By separating passenger and freight 

movements through this area, delays would be minimized if not eliminated, making 

passenger and freight rail travel more reliable and predictable. Reductions in travel time 

and increased reliability could result in a moderate reduction in shipping costs and attract 

new rail freight shipments to the corridor as well as new businesses that rely on rail for 

freight shipment. The beneficial effects on freight shipment could extend throughout 

Michigan and into the Midwest. 

 

The resulting increase in rail ridership is anticipated to reduce traffic congestion and 

travel demand in the adjacent I-94 highway corridor from Dearborn to Kalamazoo. The 

proposed rail improvements would not be expected to delay vehicular traffic at rail 

crossings or increase traffic congestion, since train speeds would eventually increase, 

reducing the delay time at rail crossings. 
32

The safety of pedestrians and bicyclists would not be impacted by higher speed trains, as 

the railroad crossings would be marked with signals and four-quadrant gates. 

Furthermore, pedestrians and motorists would not experience any permanent change in 

travel patterns because all of the proposed crossing locations already exist. 

During construction, there would be some impact on both rail traffic and vehicular traffic. 

Current freight service on this section of the corridor is very low (8 trains per day). 

Intercity passenger rail includes six trains per day. Working with the local communities 

and stakeholders, MDOT would direct track crews to be flexible and to complete work 

during non-peak times to minimize the impact to existing services. Passenger and freight 

rail traffic would be slowed through each construction site, temporarily increasing travel 

time, but the number of trains would not be reduced. 

Vehicular traffic will need to be detoured. MDOT would work closely with each 

community to ensure impacts are minimized when the work is being done. The duration 

of grade crossing upgrades will be minimized with accelerated work force crews, and 

scheduled at non-peak time for rail, motorized vehicles, pedestrian, and bicycles. This 

type of grade crossing work can be completed in a relatively short time period, usually in 

3 to 4 days. MDOT would obtain permits for detours needed on the grade crossing 

upgrades. Signage would be provided to direct vehicles along the detour route, and to 

advise of the expected duration of the detour. 

3.12 Land Use 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have no impact on land use. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would not directly change the land use patterns 

along the NS Railway Section. The acquisition of the NS track by MDOT will change the 

ownership of the track operations, however the land use would not change as a result, and 

the track would continue to operate in its current capacity as a rail transportation corridor. 

The existing Norfolk Southern Railway Section between Dearborn and Kalamazoo in 

southern Michigan is approximately 135 miles in length and runs adjacent to multiple 

land use types. A review of city, township, and county master plans and zoning maps, 

and aerials of the project area based on 2009 data were used to determine the land use 

types. These land use types include: agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential, and 

recreational (See Figures 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 3.10, 3.12 and 3.14 at the end of Chapter 3

for mapping of land use types). Most of the existing track runs through rural/agricultural 

areas with the stations being located in urban areas. The proposed improvements include 

the placement of new ballast and trackage to repair, rehabilitate, and maintain the existing 

facilities in the existing right-of-way. The proposed improvements to the NS Railway 

Section would not directly change land use in the project corridor, nor would it change 

the land use patterns in the region or affect future development patterns beyond what is 

already existing or planned. 
33

The improvements in reliability and travel time could indirectly affect land use by 

providing a stimulus to new development, particularly in the vicinity of stations that are 

located within a reasonable commuting time of employment centers, and on sites where it 

would be feasible to construct a railroad spur. See Section 3.13 for a discussion of the 

anticipated economic benefits of the project, and Section 3.20 for a discussion of 

potential indirect and cumulative effects resulting from project construction.

3.13 Socioeconomic Conditions 

The No Build Alternative would hinder employment opportunities (both temporary and 

permanent), travel options (passenger rail and auto), and new business opportunities, as 

discussed below. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would have a positive effect on the communities 

along the corridor by generating construction jobs, allowing for new employment 

opportunities, reducing congestion on highways, reducing air and noise pollution by 

removing conflict points between passenger and freight, and improving train speeds. 

These proposed improvements would also compliment the other proposed improvements 

in southern Michigan, Indiana and Illinois by reducing delays, and increasing train 

speeds.

3.13.1 Community Facilities 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have no impact on community 

facilities. 

A number of community facilities and services are found along the NS Railway Section, 

however construction of the Proposed Improvement Alternative would not adversely 

affect any community facilities in the project corridor. 

3.13.2 Demographics

The NS Railway Section traverses through many large metropolitan areas as well as rural 

areas in southern Michigan. The U.S. Census Data Estimated 2009 Total Population for 

each county within the NS Railway Section varies from over 1.9 million people in Wayne 

County to 135,616 people in Calhoun County. The population for each county is shown 

below in Table 6. 
34

Table 6. Estimated 2009 Total Populations. 

Unit of Government Total Population

(Estimated 2009)

Kalamazoo County 248,407

Calhoun County 135,616

Jackson County 159,828

Washtenaw County 347,563

Wayne County 1,925,848

State of Michigan 9,969,727

Source: 2008 Census Data, U.S. Census Bureau. 

Under the No Build Alterantive, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No-Build Alternative would not impact population or housing. 

Construction of the Proposed Improvement Alternative would not displace any 

businesses or residences and would not adversely affect the demographics of the study 

area. Population trends would continue with or without the Proposed Improvement 

Alternative. 

3.13.3 Economic Resources 

Currently, Michigan has one of the highest unemployment rates in the Country. 

Michigan’s statewide average is almost 11 percent, while the national average is 

approximately 9 percent7. 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on economic 

resources.

The proposed improvements to the NS Railway Section would generate 265 construction 

jobs and 1770 permanent jobs after the first year of the improvements being completed. 

The number of jobs generated after five years would be 2,650 permanent jobs that would 

be generated as a result of these improvements on the NS Railway Section8

 

7 US Census Bureau, January 2011. 

. New 

employment opportunities would be generated at the new stations or with businesses in 

the area that may wish to expand their operations or open new businesses to 

accommodate people who seek services within close proximity to the stations and along 

the NS Railway Section. Construction jobs and permanent employment opportunities 

would help the state and local economy as well improve the commodity flow at national 

and international levels. The rail infrastructure improvements being proposed for the NS 

8 Midwest Regional Railroad System Service Development Plan, Project Notebook, Chapter 11. 
35

Railway Section would reduce travel times for both passenger and freight users and ontime arrival rates would improve due to increased trains speeds and fewer delays. 

3.13.4 Community Cohesion 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate of the 

degrading rail line. The No-Build Alternative would not change existing community 

cohesion patterns. The No-Build would not result in increased opportunities for 

community cohesion through increased connectivity. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would have temporary impacts on communities 

that are adjacent to the NS Railway during construction of the proposed improvements. 

There would be temporary delays at crossings, temporary change in traffic patterns, and 

additional construction noise and dust during the construction. 

MDOT would implement the following mitigation measures to address temporary 

impacts: minimizing disruption of traffic in the construction area by coordinating with 

local agencies and the community; placing signs in all of the construction areas notifying 

motorists and pedestrians; require construction equipment to have mufflers in good 

working order and portable compressors must meet federal noise-level standards for 

equipment; and require that contractors during construction will be responsible for 

adequate dust-control measures. 

As stated previously in Section 3.11, grade crossing upgrades will require working very 

closely with each community to ensure impacts are minimized when the work is being 

done. Working with the local communities and stakeholders, the duration of grade 

crossing upgrades will be minimized with accelerated work force crews, and scheduled at 

non-peak time for rail, motorized vehicles, pedestrian, and bicycles.

3.13.5 Safety and Security 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would not improve safety along the NS 

Railway Section. There would be no additional crossing gates or signals. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would improve safety along the NS Railway 

Section by adding additional crossing gates and signals. 

The installation of signalization and grade crossing improvements along the NS Railway 

Section would benefit passenger and freight users by increased reliability, reduced travel 

times, and the installation of four-quadrant crossing gates which would block all highway 

lanes during train crossings. 
36

Existing security cameras and lighting at each of the train stations and crossings would 

continue to be in operation. No additional security measures would be implemented as 

part of this project.

3.13.6 Possible Barriers to the Elderly and Handicapped

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No-Build Alternative would not alter conditions associated with 

the existing passenger and freight rail services, and thus would not provide any additional 

improvements for or barriers to access and use by the elderly and the handicapped. 

No barriers to use by the elderly or the handicapped have been identified in the Proposed 

Improvement Alternative. The proposed improvements would be done in accordance 

with the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and implementing regulations and 

guidance. 

3.14 Environmental Justice

 

The purpose of Executive Order 12898 on Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority and Low-income populations is to identify, address, and avoid 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 

and low-income populations. 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have an impact on minorities and 

low-income populations as well as non-minority population groups by not improving 

accessibility to other modes of transportation, i.e. passenger rail, opportunities to generate 

temporary and permanent jobs would be lost, noise and air pollution would increase 

rather than decrease because train delays would increase over time because of stop orders 

issued by NS to reduce train speeds which would cause further delays. 

The proposed acquisition and infrastructure improvements for the proposed NS Railway 

Section would not cause a disproportionately high and adverse affect on minority and 

low-income population groups. The Proposed Improvement Alternative would have a 

positive effect on minorities and low-income populations by improving accessibility, 

mobility and generating construction jobs as well as permanent jobs for these 

communities. Noise and air pollution would be reduced; passenger and freight train 

conflict points would be significantly reduced, if not totally eliminated in southern 

Michigan.

An analysis of the U.S. Census Data for 2008 and Estimated 2009 Total Population for 

each of the five counties and the State of Michigan along with field reviews determined 

that minority populations and low-income populations reside in the urban and rural areas 

of the five counties (See Table 7). 
37

Table 7. Census Information.

Unit of 

Government

Total 

Population

(Estimated 2009 

Estimate)

Percentage of

Minority 

Populations

(2008)

Percentage of 

persons below the 

poverty level (2008) 

Kalamazoo County 248,407 17.8% 15.9%

Calhoun County 135,616 18.4% 16.2%

Jackson County 159,828 13.2% 13.2%

Washtenaw County 347,563 26.1% 13.7%

Wayne County 1,925,848 49.7% 20.5%

State of Michigan 9,969,727 22.5% 14.4%

Source: 2008 Census Data, U.S. Census Bureau. 

Many of the communities such as Dearborn, Jackson, Battle Creek and Kalamazoo have 

been identified as Economically Distressed Areas (EDA) in Michigan. Approximately 91 

percent of Michigan’s populations live in areas considered economically distressed 

according to the federal definition, making Michigan one of the states most impacted by 

the recent recession. It is anticipated that proposed improvements would improve 

accessibility, mobility and generate construction jobs as well as permanent jobs for these 

communities. 

There would be no displacements of minority and low-income residents or minority 

owned businesses. The proposed improvements would have a positive effect on minority 

and low-income population groups. The proposed improvements would generate 

construction jobs and other permanent jobs. The infrastructure improvements would 

improve the environment in southern Michigan in the following areas that are also 

discussed in Section 3: Air Quality (3.1), Noise and Vibration (3.2) and Safety and 

Security (3.13.5). 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would have temporary impacts on minority and 

low-income populations that are adjacent to the NS Railway Section. There would be 

temporary delays at crossings, temporary change in traffic patterns, and additional 

construction noise and dust during the construction of the proposed improvements. 

MDOT would implement the following mitigation measures to address temporary 

impacts: minimizing disruption of traffic in the construction area by coordinating with 

local agencies and the community, placing signs in all of the construction areas notifying 

motorists and pedestrians; ensure that all lane closures, traffic shifts, short term detours, 

and changes in travel patterns are clearly marked; require construction equipment to have 

mufflers in good working order and portable compressors must meet federal noise-level 

standards for equipment; require that contractors during construction would be 

responsible for adequate dust-control measures so as not to cause detriment to the safety, 

health, welfare, or comfort of any person or cause damage to any property, residence or 

business. 
38

3.15 Cultural Resources

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have no effect on Historic 

Resources.

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would have no adverse effect on Historic 

Resources.

3.15.1 Historic Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR Part 800), as 

amended, requires that federal actions be reviewed for their impact to potentially 

significant historic resources. A significant historic resource is one that is either listed or 

determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

There are multiple above-ground cultural and historic resources in the immediate vicinity 

of the rail corridor. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) consists of the rail corridor itself, 

existing crossings, and 500 feet in any direction of NRHP-eligible or listed stations. A 

list of 40 known and identified eligible, already listed, or potentially eligible aboveground historic resources can be found in Appendix F. These 40 sites, many of which 

are located outside but adjacent to the APE, were identified using the “Sites Online” 

database maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), other on-line 

tools, and professional knowledge. 

MDOT submitted a letter with accompanying maps to the SHPO in 2009 requesting 

concurrence with a no adverse effect determination for the proposed Railroad Corridor 

improvements from Pontiac to the Indiana State line, which also included the NS Railway 

Section (see MDOT letter dated September 3, 2009 in Appendix G). The scope of work 

for the current NS Railway section is the same scope of work sent to the SHPO in 2009 

as part of the Pontiac to Indiana State line project. The SHPO has determined that the 

proposed improvements to the corridor, including the NS Railway Section, would have 

no adverse effect on historic properties if the conditions noted below are followed (See 

SHPO letter dated September 22, 2009 in Appendix G).

The no adverse effect determination under 36 CFR 800.5(b) concurred upon by the 

SHPO was possible due to the limited scope of work and conditions outlined in the letter 

sent to the SHPO by MDOT on September 3, 2009 in Appendix G. The conditions are 

listed below: 

• The railroad work will have no effect if the work is in the existing right of way. 

This railroad corridor has existed historically, been an active rail line since its 

original construction and historically had double track. 

• No existing public crossing will be closed. 
39

• No permanent easement or fee right-of-way is acquired from historic aboveground resources. Proximity will be assumed as within 500 feet from the 

resource.

• All decorative fence installation is approved by an MDOT Historian. The 

decorative fence is proposed for a limited number of locations. While the woven 

wire and/or chain link fence is unobtrusive, the decorative fence is meant to stand 

out and may not be appropriate in some situations. 

• No rehabilitation work on railroad bridges will occur aside from normal 

maintenance.

• No masonry culverts are replaced. 

• All track work off existing ballast, or work involving crossing closures, crossing 

installation or improvements, pedestrian crossing installation or improvements, 

ADA compliance, and/or platform installation or improvements, within 500’ in 

any direction of eligible or NRHP-listed depots, freighthouses, express buildings, 

coaling stations, interlocking towers, etc. must be approved by an MDOT 

Historian.

3.15.2 Archaeological Resources

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have no impact on archaeological 

sites. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would have no impact on archaeological sites, as 

described below. 

For the review of possible impacts to archaeological/cultural resources, MDOT 

determined that the Area of Potential Effects (APE) is confined to the existing NS 

Railway right of way, which has existed historically, been an active rail line since its 

original construction, and historically had a double track. MDOT also reviewed the state 

archaeological site files to analyze the possible impacts to previously recorded 

archaeological/cultural sites in or adjacent to the NS Railway right of way in the 

Dearborn to Kalamazoo section. The site file search identified 17 archaeological sites 

that possibly overlap the existing NS Railway Section between Dearborn and Kalamazoo. 

Ten of these sites have either been determined not eligible for listing on the National 

Register or are 1) sites referenced by Hinsdale (1931) or other historical references that 

lack accurate locational information, 2) reported collections that lack accurate locational 

data that have never been field verified, or 3) sites that have been destroyed or otherwise 

disturbed. The seven remaining sites include four lithic scatters, two findspots, and one 

site that may be the result of glacial action on a bedrock outcrop. However, based on the 

proposed project’s impacts, which would not extend outside the existing right of way, it 

is MDOT's opinion that the project would have no adverse effect on these seventeen sites 

or any other archaeological/cultural sites possibly located along the rail corridor. MDOT 

consulted with the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA)/State Historic Preservation 

Office and reviewed the APE and this analysis of possible impacts. MDOT and the OSA 
40

agreed that the project in its entirety would have no effect on archaeological sites (See 

Appendix G). 

3.15.3 Section 4(f) Properties

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have no impact on Recreational or 

Historic Section 4(f) Properties.

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would have no impact on Recreational or 

Historic Section 4(f) Properties, as described below. 

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

amended) prohibits the use of publicly-owned land from any park, recreation area or 

wildlife/waterfowl refuge or land from a historic site of national, state, or local 

significance for transportation projects unless (1) there is no prudent and feasible 

alternative to the use; and (2) the proposed project includes all possible planning to 

minimize harm.

 

Recreation Areas

A review of aerials and topography maps indicate that there are 27 public recreational 

properties (Appendix H) that include parks, athletic fields, nature areas, and a golf 

course located adjacent to or in the vicinity of the NS Railway Section from Dearborn to 

Kalamazoo. However, no temporary or permanent right of way or easements would be 

required from any public recreational property, and access would be maintained to the 

public recreational properties, including trails, during construction. 

Temporary impacts such as construction noise and dust may occur, however these 

construction activities would be limited as construction activities would be for short 

periods of time (2-3 days). Mitigation measures to address these temporary impacts 

include: requiring construction equipment to have mufflers in good working order and 

portable compressors must meet federal noise-level standards for equipment; require that 

contractors to be responsible for adequate dust-control measures so as not to cause 

detriment to the safety, health, welfare, or comfort of any person, or cause damage to the 

public recreational properties. Additionally, the contractors would not park any vehicles 

or store any materials on the public recreational properties. 

Historic Properties

There are numerous historic properties, both above-ground and archaeological, along the 

NS Railway Section as noted in Section 3.15.1. Use of a Section 4(f) property occurs 

when there is a permanent incorporation of that property into a transportation project. 

This permanent incorporation can be through fee-simple acquisition or permanent 

easement. Temporary occupancies that are adverse in terms of the statute’s preservation 

purpose are also considered uses. 23 CFR 774.13(d) contains criteria that must be 

examined to determine if the temporary occupancy would be considered a Section 4(f) 
41

use. A “no historic properties affected” or “no adverse effect” determination is made in 

accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, with concurrence 

in writing from the State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO) and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) (if participating in the Section 106 

consultation). 

Based on the proposed project’s impacts, which would not extend outside the existing 

right of way, it is MDOT's opinion that the project would have no adverse effect on any 

historic sites located along the rail corridor. MDOT consulted with the Office of the 

State Archaeologist (OSA) and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), who reviewed 

the APE and the analysis of possible impacts resulting from project construction. MDOT 

and the OSA and the SHPO agreed that the project in its entirety would have no effect on 

above ground and below ground historic sites (See Appendix G). 

3.16 Hazardous Materials 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have no impact on hazardous 

materials.

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would have no impact on Hazardous Materials, 

as described below. 

Hazardous materials are substance (products, ingredients, etc) that, by their nature, are 

hazardous to health and the environment if misused or mishandled. Hazardous materials 

are not expected to be encountered during project construction, and bulk transport of 

hazardous materials is not expected to occur as a result of this project. However, the 

project may result in the movement of limited quantities of hazardous materials, such as 

transport of material needed by an individual for medical reasons. All hazardous 

materials would be transported in accordance with federal Hazardous Materials 

Regulations found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Additionally, the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT) enacts and enforces all hazardous material shipping 

laws. Compliance with DOT requirements would be overseen by the owners of the trains 

or trucking companies. 

3.17 Hazardous Waste 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have no impact on hazardous waste. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would not likely encounter hazardous waste. 

However, if hazardous waste is encountered, MDOT/contractor would coordinate with 

the Michigan DEQ regarding the appropriate treatment and disposal options, consistent 

with Part 111 of Public Act 451 of 1994, and amendments. In addition, proper 
42

precautions would be taken during construction to ensure that construction workers are 

not exposed to hazardous materials. 

As defined in Part 111 (Hazardous Waste Management) of the Michigan Natural 

Resources and the Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, hazardous waste is: 

“waste or a combination of waste and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, 

semisolid, or contained gaseous material that, because of its quantity; quality; 

concentration; or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may cause or 

significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible 

illness or serious incapacitating but reversible illness, or may pose a substantial present or 

potential hazard to human health or the environment if improperly treated, stored, 

transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed”. 

A preliminary assessment of the rail corridor in Michigan which included the NS 

Railway Section indicates limited quantities of contaminated media (soil, debris) may be 

encountered/generated during construction. The exact location of contaminated media 

would not be known until encountered/generated by construction activities. Based on 

past sampling of this type of media, levels of contamination are not expected to have 

hazardous characteristics as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 

therefore would not be classified as hazardous waste. All contaminated media generated 

during construction would be disposed of in accordance with state and federal laws at a 

licensed disposal facility.

The proposed improvements in the rail section would not result in impacts to either 

shallow aquifers or deeper drinking water sources. A review of the DNR database 

revealed no areas of ground water contamination or leaking under storage tanks (LUST 

sites).

A Phase I site assessment is not required because the proposed excavation would not go 

deeper than 15 feet below the existing surface elevation; there would no significant 

amount of below ground utility work; and there would be no new land purchases outside 

of the existing railroad right of way (See Figures 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 3.10, 3.12 and 3.14 at 

the end of Chapter 3 for mapping of Hazardous Waste Site Locations). 

3.18 Construction Impacts 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would not impact vehicular or rail traffic 

during construction. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative would impact vehicular traffic during 

construction by detouring vehicular traffic to the next crossing during construction. 

However these impacts would be short-term and coordination with the locals will need to 

occur in order to notify motorists and non-motorists of the detour routes. This detour 

would also have temporary impacts on residents or business owners that live adjacent or 
43

near the construction area. The impacts to motorists, non-motorists, residents, and 

business owners include: longer travel times, changes in traffic patterns, increase in 

ambient noise levels; and fugitive dust during the construction of the proposed 

improvements to the NS Railway Section. 

Track improvements and grade crossing upgrades will require working very closely with 

each community to ensure impacts are minimized when the work is being done. It is 

expected that there will not be any detours required for track improvements. Proper 

permits will be obtained for detours that will be needed for the grade crossing upgrades. 

These impacts will be minimized with accelerated work force crews, scheduled at low 

peak traffic count intervals for both rail, motorized vehicles, pedestrian, and bicycles. 

During the construction of the proposed improvements to the NS Railway Section, 

MDOT would need to close each of the railroad crossings and divert vehicular traffic to 

the nearest crossing that would remain open during construction. Work on each of the 

crossings will take 3 to 4 days. Track infrastructure improvements and train control and 

signal improvements would be done over three construction seasons. 

Mitigation measures to address the temporary impacts to the residents, traveling public 

and businesses in and around the construction and detour routes include minimizing 

disruption of traffic in the construction area by coordinating with local agencies and the 

community, and placing signs in all of the construction areas notifying motorists and 

pedestrians. Access for passenger and freight traffic would be maintained at all times. 

The contractor would be responsible for clearing the track each time a passenger or 

freight train needed to access the area under construction. However, trains speeds would 

be reduced through the construction areas. MDOT would continue to coordinate with 

local officials, residents, and business owners regarding construction schedules, signage 

and detours for vehicle traffic.

The proposed construction would result in a temporary increase in the ambient noise 

level at certain locations within the NS Railway Section. MDOT will ensure that the 

construction contract specifications require that the selected construction contractor will 

adhere to all federal, state, and local noise abatement and control requirements. Noise 

will be controlled by measures such as, but not limited to, ensuring construction 

equipment is in good repair and fitted with manufacturer recommended mufflers. 

MDOT will also encourage measures that reduce engine activity or reduce emissions per 

unit of operating time. Construction equipment will be kept clean and in good operating 

condition. MDOT’s Standard Construction Specification Sections 107.15(A) and 107.19 

apply to control fugitive dust during construction and cleaning of haul roads. All MDOT 

vehicles and equipment must follow MDOT Guidance #10179 Vehicle and Equipment 

Engine Idling. Additionally, sediment and erosion control measures will be used to 

minimize any water quality impacts during construction. 

The concurrent construction period for each of the separate proposed improvements 

throughout the railway section would last 1 1⁄2 to 3 years; therefore, air quality 

construction mitigation is not required, but measures may be taken to include strategies 

that reduce engine activity or reduce emissions per unit of operating time. Construction 
44

equipment should be kept clean, tuned-up, and in good operating condition. MDOT’s 

Standard Construction Specification Sections 107.5 (A) and 107.19 would apply to 

control fugitive dust during construction and cleaning of haul roads. All MDOT vehicles 

and equipment must follow MDOT Guidance #10179 (02/15/2009) Vehicle and 

Equipment Engine Idling. 

MDOT will enforce the Michigan Standard Specifications for Construction9, which

specify implementation of the following control measures on construction projects: 

 1. The contractor shall locate all active underground utilities prior to starting

work, and shall conduct his operations in such a manner as to ensure that those utilities 

not requiring relocation will not be disturbed. Relocated utilities may be temporarily 

interrupted for short time periods.

 2. Accelerated erosion and sedimentation caused by construction would be 

controlled before it enters a water body or leaves the highway right-of-way by the 

placement of temporary or permanent soil erosion and sedimentation control measures as 

discussed in Section 3.3. The design plans would describe the erosion and sedimentation 

controls and their locations.

 3. All regulations of the MDEQ governing disposal of solid waste must be 

complied with. When surplus or unsuitable material is to be disposed of outside the 

right-of-way, the contractor shall obtain and file with MDOT written permission from the 

owner of the property on which the material is to be placed. If federal funds are used for 

corridor improvements, Executive Order 11990 states that no surplus or unsuitable 

material is to be permanently disposed of in any public or private wetland area, regardless 

of size. In addition, no material is to be temporarily disposed of in any wetland, 

watercourse or floodplain without prior approval (and permit) by the appropriate resource 

agencies.

 4. Disruption of traffic in the construction area will be minimized to the greatest 

extent possible. Although control of all construction-related inconveniences is not 

possible, motorist and pedestrian safety will be ensured by placing signs in all 

construction areas. All lane closures, traffic shifts, short term detours, and changed travel 

patterns will be clearly marked. Access will be maintained to adjacent properties during 

construction to the extent possible. 

 5. Construction noise would be minimized by measures such as requiring 

construction equipment to have mufflers in good working order, that portable 

compressors meet federal noise-level standards for that equipment, and that all portable 

equipment be placed away from or shielded from sensitive noise receptors if at all 

possible. All local noise ordinances would be adhered to unless otherwise granted 

exception by the responsible municipality. 

 6. During the construction, the contractor would be responsible for adequate dustcontrol measures so as not to cause detriment to the safety, health, welfare, or comfort of 

any person, or cause damage to any property, residence or business. 

 7. All bituminous and Portland cement concrete proportioning plants and crushers 

 

9 Michigan Standard Specifications for Construction, Michigan Department of Transportation, 2003.
45

must meet the requirements for the rules of Part 55 of Act 451, Natural Resource and 

Environmental Protection. Any portable bituminous or concrete plant or crusher must 

meet the minimum 250 foot setback requirement from any residential, commercial, or 

public assembly property. The contractor may be required to apply for a permit-to-install 

or a general permit from the MDEQ. The permit process including any public comment 

period, if required, may take up to six months. 

 

In addition, design plans would be reviewed by MDOT prior to contract letting in order 

to incorporate any additional social, economic, or environmental protection items. The 

active construction site would be reviewed to ensure that the above measures are carried 

out, and to determine if additional protection is required. More control measures may be 

developed if additional concerns are identified. If the review of design plans indicates 

that temporary impacts are sufficient to warrant additional controls to minimize impacts, 

specific measures would be included on the design plans and permit applications, and 

coordinated with appropriate state, federal and local agencies. 

 

3.19 Permits 

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would not require permits. 

A new MDEQ NPDES permit is issued to MDOT every five years. Because this project 

would disturb more than one acre, it would be required to comply with the conditions of 

the current NPDES permit related to management of stormwater runoff from the 

construction site as well as management of stormwater from the completed project. 

Because this project would disturb more than one acre, a Notice of Coverage must be 

filed with DEQ, including a copy of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control (SESC) 

permit, a location map, a copy of the SESC plan for the project, the name and 

certification of the responsible stormwater operator, and the filing fee. The contractor 

will have a documented program and adequate procedures to comply with applicable soil 

erosion and sedimentation control regulations and shall control erosion and prevent 

sediment related to the project from entering waters of the State of Michigan or leaving 

the right of way. MDOT must ensure that the site is inspected by a certified construction 

stormwater operator once per week, and within 24 hours after every precipitation event 

that results in a discharge from the site, to ensure that any needed corrective actions are 

carried out. 

3.20 Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, no additional maintenance activities or construction 

would occur and the passenger and freight rail services would continue to operate on the 

degrading rail line. The No Build Alternative would have an indirect effect and 

cumulative impact on the existing NS Railway Section and the entire rail corridor in 

southern Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois. The No Build Alternative would not improve 
46

the level and quality of passenger rail service in Michigan. Travel times for passengers 

traveling between Detroit/Pontiac and Chicago would be expected to increase up to 56 

minutes. Train delays of up to 25 minutes for passenger and freight trains would 

continue and probably worsen over time making train service less reliable and effecting 

on-time performance over the whole Chicago Hub Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac High Speed 

Rail Corridor including the NS Railway Section. 

The No Build Alternative would not only contribute to the degradation of the NS Railway 

Section but also to the entire rail corridor between Chicago, Illinois and Detroit/Pontiac, 

Michigan including those projects outlined in Section 1.3. Benefits from these projects 

along the corridor outlined below would be offset by the degradation in the NS Railway 

Section. 

The Proposed Improvement Alternative consists of a series of infrastructure investments 

to the NS line between MP 7.5 to 143.7 including upgrading the existing signal system, 

adding PTC, grade crossing improvements, and replacing track, ties and ballast to bring 

the line into a state of good repair and allow 110-mph passenger operations. The 

Proposed Improvement Alternative will involve maintenance to the existing rail facility 

by improving and/or rehabilitating the ballast and the track, and train control/signal 

improvements in the existing right-of-way. The Proposed Improvement Alternative will 

not include any other upgrades or improvements to the rail facility that would increase 

the capacity of the rail system. Direct impacts to natural, cultural, or socio-economic 

resources are discussed in Section 3.0 of this document. Temporary impacts to resources 

resulting from project construction are addressed in Section 3.18. 

Proposed improvements to the existing NS Railway Section and related improvement 

projects to the entire Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac High Speed Rail Corridor would 

collectively provide benefits to the communities along the NS Railway Section and the 

entire Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor. These benefits include: improved level and 

quality of passenger rail service (mobility) for everyone including the elderly and people 

with disabilities, and reduction of congestion and travel times. See Section 3.13 for a 

discussion of the anticipated economic benefits of the project. 

The proposed improvements to the facility for continued use of the track does not, by 

itself, increase capacity. However, the proposed improvements to the NS Railway Section 

may, over time, see an increase in ridership, new businesses and employment 

opportunities and economic growth associated with the improved mobility of the facility. 

The improvements in reliability and travel time could indirectly affect land use by 

providing a stimulus to new development, particularly in the vicinity of stations that are 

located within a reasonable commuting time of employment centers, and on sites where it 

would be feasible to construct a railroad spur. Indirect and cumulative impacts resulting 

from the economic benefits of growth may further result in impacts to natural, cultural or 

socio-economic resources. These impacts can be mitigated for effectively by early 

coordination, planning and integration of all potential infrastructure improvements 

resulting from growth induced by the project into the overall regional, state and local 

project planning programs by MPOs and other organizations. 
47

Figure 3.1. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 7.5-20 

48

Figure 3.2. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 7.5-20
ÆÅÃ ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ ÆÅÃ ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ ÆÃÅ ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅÆÅÃ ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ ÆÅÃ ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

v®ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

Rouge River Rouge River

Rouge River Lower

Rouge River Lower

Willow Creek Willow Creek

Vealy Drain Vealy Drain

Ecorse River

Sexton Kilfoil Drain Sexton Kilfoil Drain

Sutliff Kenope Drain Sutliff Kenope Drain

Fellows Creek Fellows Creek

Black Creek

Black Creek

Snow Drain Snow Drain

Zink Drain

Zink Drain

McClaughrey Drain

McClaughrey Drain

Middle Rouge River Middle Rouge River

Harrison Drain Harrison Drain

Butler Drain Butler Drain

Deer Drain Deer Drain

Tonquish Creek S Branch Tonquish Creek S Branch

Belleville Lake Belleville Lake

Red Run Drain

Red Run Drain

Wilson Drain

Wilson Drain

Morgan Drain Morgan Drain

Freeman Drain

Reeck Drain

Reeck Drain

Long Drain

Long Drain

Packard Drain

Packard Drain

Straight Drain Straight Drain

Sloss Ganong Drain Sloss Ganong Drain

Boice Drain

Leng Drain Leng Drain

Huron River Huron River

Tyre Drain Tyre Drain

Strong Drain Strong Drain

Tyler Drain Tyler Drain

Post Drain Post Drain

Hunter Drain Hunter Drain

Hand Drain Hand Drain

Wiles Drain Wiles Drain

Allen Drain Allen Drain

Rawson Drain Rawson Drain

Wright Drain Wright Drain

Bahan Drain

Bahan Drain

Edmund Creek Edmund Creek

McKinstry Drain McKinstry Drain

Asmey Drain Asmey Drain

Bondie Drain

Bondie Drain

Grassy Island Grassy Island

Delaney Drain

Perrin Drain Perrin Drain

Frank and Poet Drain Frank and Poet Drain

Carver Drain Carver Drain

German Drain

German Drain

Douglas Kelly Drain

Douglas Kelly Drain

McPhee Drain McPhee Drain

Cooper Counts Drain

Hannan Drain

Hannan Drain Bingell Drain Bingell Drain

Bills Drain

Bills Drain

Rouge River

Rouge River

Bills Drain Bills Drain

Perrin Drain Perrin Drain

Middle Rouge River

Middle Rouge River

Ecorse River Ecorse River

Rouge River Rouge River

Post Drain

Post Drain

Carver Drain Carver Drain

Red Run Drain

Ecorse River

Taylor

Romulus Romulus

Detroit Detroit

Dearborn Dearborn Westland Westland

Inkster Inkster

Wayne

Livonia Livonia

Allen Park Allen Park

Dearborn Heights Dearborn Heights

Wyandotte Wyandotte

Ecorse

Ecorse

Garden City Garden City

Southgate Southgate

Lincoln Park Lincoln Park

Melvindale Melvindale

WAYNE

Belleville Lake Belleville Lake

Newburgh Lake Newburgh Lake

Nankin Lake Nankin Lake

10

NS RAILWAY SECTION (DEARBORN TO KALAMAZOO)

Global Mile Point (GMP) 7.98 - 20

Dearborn GMP 7.98

![ Superfund_Sites

!? Part_111- Hazardous Waste

kj Part_115- Solid Waste Disposal

GF Part_201- Environ. Contam.

^_ Part_615- Hydrocarbon Contam.

LUST Site - Closed

LUST Site - Open

v® HOSPITAL

ÆÅÃ SCHOOL

/ Global Mile Posts

Track Improvements

Railroad Track

Hydrography

Lakes

City

Produced by

Project Planning Divisioin

Environmental Section

Michigan Dept. of Transportation

May 2011  ̄ www.michigan.gov/mdot

0 1 2

Miles

/// /// /

MICHIGAN

INDIANA OHIO

NS Railway Section

(Dearborn to Kalamazoo)
49

Figure 3.3. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 20-40 
/

/

/

Ann Arbor Ann Arbor

Ypsilanti Ypsilanti

Wayne

WAYNE

WASHTENAW WASHTENAW

Ford Lake Ford Lake Belleville Lake Belleville Lake

Barton Pond Barton Pond

Geddes Pond Geddes Pond

Argo Pond Argo Pond

Superior Pond Superior Pond

No Name No Name

Geddes Pond Geddes Pond

Frain Lake Frain Lake Murray Lake Murray Lake

40

30

20

NS RAILWAY SECTION (DEARBORN TO KALAMAZOO)

Global Mile Point (GMP) 20 - 40

D

/ Global Mile Posts

Track Improvements

Railroad Track

Hydrography

Lakes

FEMA DFIRM Floodway

Floodplains

Wetlands (NWI 24K)

City

/// ///// /

/

MICHIGAN

INDIANA OHIO

NS Railway Section

(Dearborn to Kalamazoo)

Produced by

Project Planning Divisioin

Environmental Section

Michigan Dept. of Transportation

May 2011  ̄ www.michigan.gov/mdot

0 1 2

Miles
50

Figure 3.4. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 20-40 
ÆÅÃ ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

v® v®

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ v®

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

Huron River Huron River

Stream

Ford Lake Ford Lake

Willow Creek Willow Creek

Fleming Creek Fleming Creek

Harrison Drain Harrison Drain

Belleville Lake Belleville Lake

Rouge River Lower

Rouge River Lower

Head Drain Head Drain

Green Drain

Green Drain

Paint Creek Paint Creek

Fowler Drain

Fowler Drain

Griggs Drain

Mott Drain

Mott Drain

Fellows Creek Fellows Creek

Sines Drain

McClaughrey Drain

McClaughrey Drain

Jewett Drain Jewett Drain

Bunton Drain Bunton Drain

Strong Drain Strong Drain

Parks Drain

Parks Drain

Goodell Drain

Goodell Drain

Throop Drain No 1

Throop Drain No 1

Crippen Drain Crippen Drain

Wiles Drain Wiles Drain

Denton Drain

Robinson Drain Robinson Drain

McKinstry Drain McKinstry Drain

Lower River

Lower River

Bazley and Foster Drain

Post Drain Post Drain

Fowler Creek Fowler Creek

Apple Run Drain

Apple Run Drain

Cooper Counts Drain

Fowler Creek

Fowler Creek

Apple Run Drain

Apple Run Drain

Stream Stream

Huron River

Huron River

Huron River Huron River

Huron River

Huron River

Huron River

Fellows Creek Fellows Creek

Stream Stream

Stream Stream

Ann Arbor Ann Arbor

Ypsilanti Ypsilanti

Wayne

WAYNE

WASHTENAW WASHTENAW

Ford Lake Ford Lake

Belleville Lake Belleville Lake

Barton Pond Barton Pond

Geddes Pond Geddes Pond

Argo Pond Argo Pond

Superior Pond Superior Pond

No Name No Name

Geddes Pond Geddes Pond

Frain Lake Frain Lake Murray Lake Murray Lake

40

30

20

NS RAILWAY SECTION (DEARBORN TO KALAMAZOO)

Global Mile Point (GMP) 20 - 40

![ Superfund_Sites

!? Part_111- Hazardous Waste

kj Part_115- Solid Waste Disposal

GF Part_201- Environ. Contam.

^_ Part_615- Hydrocarbon Contam.

LUST Site - Closed

LUST Site - Open

v® HOSPITAL

ÆÅÃ SCHOOL

/ Global Mile Posts

Track Improvements

Railroad Track

Hydrography

Lakes

City

Produced by

Project Planning Divisioin

Environmental Section

Michigan Dept. of Transportation

May 2011  ̄ www.michigan.gov/mdot

0 1 2

Miles

/// ///// /

/

MICHIGAN

INDIANA OHIO

NS Railway Section

(Dearborn to Kalamazoo)
51

Figure 3.5. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 40-60 
/

/

/

Ann Arbor Ann Arbor

Chelsea Chelsea

Dexter

WASHTENAW WASHTENAW

Fourmile Lake Fourmile Lake

West Lake West Lake

Barton Pond

Barton Pond

Mill Lake Mill Lake

Cavanaugh Lake Cavanaugh Lake

Winnewana Impoundment Winnewana Impoundment

Island Lake Island Lake

Green Lake Green Lake

Sutton Lake Sutton Lake

Cedar Lake Cedar Lake

Long Lake Long Lake

Riker Lake Riker Lake

Sugarloaf Lake Sugarloaf Lake

Gorman Lake Gorman Lake

Cassidy Lake Cassidy Lake

Pierce Lake Pierce Lake

Clarks Lake Clarks Lake

Spring Lake Spring Lake

Doyle Lake Doyle Lake

Argo Pond Argo Pond

Nordman Lake Nordman Lake

Mill Pond Mill Pond

Winnewana Lake Winnewana Lake

Walsh Lake Walsh Lake Green Oak Lake Green Oak Lake

Bridgeway Lake Bridgeway Lake

Hankard Lake Hankard Lake

Little Cedar Lake Little Cedar Lake

Clark Lake Clark Lake

Fisk Lake Fisk Lake

Canfield Lake Canfield Lake

Burkhart Lake Burkhart Lake

McLaughlin Lake McLaughlin Lake

Mud Lakes Mud Lakes

60

50

40

NS RAILWAY SECTION (DEARBORN TO KALAMAZOO)

Global Mile Point (GMP) 40 - 60

D

/ Global Mile Posts

Track Improvements

Railroad Track

Hydrography

Lakes

FEMA DFIRM Floodway

Floodplains

Wetlands (NWI 24K)

City

/// /// ///

MICHIGAN

INDIANA OHIO

NS Railway Section

(Dearborn to Kalamazoo)

Produced by

Project Planning Divisioin

Environmental Section

Michigan Dept. of Transportation

May 2011  ̄ www.michigan.gov/mdot

0 1 2

Miles
52

Figure 3.6. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 40-60 
ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

v®

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

Mill Creek

Mill Creek

Huron River

Huron River

North Fork North Fork

Barton Pond

Mill Creek Fork Mill Creek Fork

North Fork Creek North Fork Creek

Mill Lake Mill Lake

Fourmile Lake Fourmile Lake

Island Lake Island Lake

West Lake West Lake

Green Lake Green Lake

Cavanaugh Lake

Cavanaugh Lake

Lake

Lake

Long Lake

Long Lake

Cedar Lake

Cedar Lake

Sutton Lake Sutton Lake

Riker Lake Riker Lake

Lake

North Fork

North Fork

Mill Creek

Huron River Huron River

Mill Creek

Mill Creek Fork Mill Creek Fork

Ann Arbor Ann Arbor

Chelsea Chelsea

Dexter

WASHTENAW WASHTENAW

Fourmile Lake Fourmile Lake

West Lake West Lake

Barton Pond

Barton Pond

Mill Lake Mill Lake

Cavanaugh Lake Cavanaugh Lake

Winnewana Impoundment Winnewana Impoundment

Island Lake Island Lake

Green Lake Green Lake

Sutton Lake Sutton Lake

Cedar Lake Cedar Lake

Long Lake Long Lake

Riker Lake Riker Lake

Sugarloaf Lake Sugarloaf Lake

Gorman Lake Gorman Lake

Cassidy Lake Cassidy Lake

Pierce Lake Pierce Lake

Clarks Lake Clarks Lake

Spring Lake Spring Lake

Argo Pond Argo Pond

Nordman Lake Nordman Lake

Mill Pond Mill Pond

Winnewana Lake Winnewana Lake

Walsh Lake Walsh Lake Green Oak Lake Green Oak Lake

Bridgeway Lake Bridgeway Lake

Hankard Lake Hankard Lake

Little Cedar Lake Little Cedar Lake

Clark Lake Clark Lake

Fisk Lake Fisk Lake

Canfield Lake Canfield Lake

Burkhart Lake Burkhart Lake

McLaughlin Lake McLaughlin Lake

Mud Lakes Mud Lakes

60

50

40

NS RAILWAY SECTION (DEARBORN TO KALAMAZOO)

Global Mile Point (GMP) 40 - 60

![ Superfund_Sites

!? Part_111- Hazardous Waste

kj Part_115- Solid Waste Disposal

GF Part_201- Environ. Contam.

^_ Part_615- Hydrocarbon Contam.

LUST Site - Closed

LUST Site - Open

v® HOSPITAL

ÆÅÃ SCHOOL

/ Global Mile Posts

Track Improvements

Railroad Track

Hydrography

Lakes

City

Produced by

Project Planning Divisioin

Environmental Section

Michigan Dept. of Transportation

May 2011  ̄ www.michigan.gov/mdot

0 1 2

Miles

/// /// ///

MICHIGAN

INDIANA OHIO

NS Railway Section

(Dearborn to Kalamazoo)
53

Figure 3.7. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 60-80 
/

/

/

Jackson Jackson

JACKSON JACKSON

Center Lake Center Lake

Wolf Lake Wolf Lake

Goose Lake Goose Lake

Gilletts Lake Gilletts Lake Grass Lake Grass Lake

Stony Lake Stony Lake

Brill Lake Brill Lake

Brown Lake Ackerson Lake Ackerson Lake Brown Lake

Tims Lake Tims Lake

Welch Lake Welch Lake

Vandercook Lake Vandercook Lake

Swezzey Lake Swezzey Lake

Norwell Lake Norwell Lake

Little Wolf Lake Little Wolf Lake

Cranberry Lake Cranberry Lake

Price Lake Price Lake

Bessey Lake Bessey Lake

Round Lake Round Lake

Olcott Lake Olcott Lake

Pond Lily Lake Pond Lily Lake

Lehman Lake Lehman Lake

Notten Lake Notten Lake

Cobb Lake Cobb Lake

Mud Lake Mud Lake

Schoolhouse Lake Schoolhouse Lake

Eagle Lake Eagle Lake

Sharp Lake Sharp Lake

Leoni Millpond Leoni Millpond

Crooked Lake Crooked Lake

Tucker Lake

Tucker Lake

Goose Lake Goose Lake

Cove Lake Cove Lake Little Olcott Lake Little Olcott Lake

Williams Lake Williams Lake

Flinton Lake Flinton Lake

Dollar Lake Dollar Lake

Green Lake Green Lake

Locker Lake Locker Lake

Riley Lake Riley Lake

Peterson Lake Peterson Lake

No Name No Name

Wyckoff Lake Wyckoff Lake

Saint John Lake Saint John Lake

Mercedes Lake Mercedes Lake

Hammer Lake Hammer Lake

O'Leary Pond O'Leary Pond Mud Lake Mud Lake

Smith Lake Smith Lake

Mud Lake Mud Lake

Kryst Pond Kryst Pond

Jackson Prison Pond Jackson Prison Pond

Ferguson Lake Ferguson Lake

Peter White Lake Peter White Lake

Sherman Lake Sherman Lake

Schoolhouse Lake Schoolhouse Lake

80

70

60

NS RAILWAY SECTION (DEARBORN TO KALAMAZOO)

Global Mile Point (GMP) 60 - 80

D

/ Global Mile Posts

Track Improvements

Railroad Track

Hydrography

Lakes

FEMA DFIRM Floodway

Floodplains

Wetlands (NWI 24K)

City

/// /// ////

MICHIGAN

INDIANA OHIO

NS Railway Section

(Dearborn to Kalamazoo)

Produced by

Project Planning Divisioin

Environmental Section

Michigan Dept. of Transportation

May 2011  ̄ www.michigan.gov/mdot

0 1 2

Miles
54

Figure 3.8. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 60-80 

55

Figure 3.9. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 80-100 
/

/

/

Albion

Concord Concord

CALHOUN CALHOUN JACKSON JACKSON

Lime Lake Lime Lake

Halls Lake Halls Lake

Reynolds Lake Reynolds Lake

part of Lime L. part of Lime L.

Spectacle Lake Spectacle Lake

Mill Pond (Upper) Mill Pond (Upper)

Montcalm Lake Montcalm Lake

Winnipeg Lake Winnipeg Lake

Cross Lake Cross Lake

Mill Pond (Lower) Mill Pond (Lower)

Spring Arbor Lakes Spring Arbor Lakes

Kesler Lake Kesler Lake

Wolcott Lake Wolcott Lake

90

80

100

NS RAILWAY SECTION (DEARBORN TO KALAMAZOO)

Global Mile Point (GMP) 80 - 100

D

/ Global Mile Posts

Track Improvements

Railroad Track

Hydrography

Lakes

FEMA DFIRM Floodway

Floodplains

Wetlands (NWI 24K)

City

////// //// /

MICHIGAN

INDIANA OHIO

NS Railway Section

(Dearborn to Kalamazoo)

Produced by

Project Planning Divisioin

Environmental Section

Michigan Dept. of Transportation

May 2011  ̄ www.michigan.gov/mdot

0 1 2

Miles
56

Figure 3.10. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 80-100
ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

North Branch Kalamazoo River North Branch Kalamazoo River

Mayette Drain Mayette Drain

Sandstone Creek Sandstone Creek

Spring Brook

Spring Brook

McCain Drain McCain Drain

Albion

Concord Concord

JACKSON JACKSON

CALHOUN CALHOUN

Lime Lake Lime Lake

Halls Lake Halls Lake

Reynolds Lake Reynolds Lake

part of Lime L. part of Lime L.

Spectacle Lake Spectacle Lake

Mill Pond (Upper) Mill Pond (Upper)

Montcalm Lake Montcalm Lake

Winnipeg Lake Winnipeg Lake

Cross Lake Cross Lake

Mill Pond (Lower) Mill Pond (Lower)

Spring Arbor Lakes Spring Arbor Lakes

Kesler Lake Kesler Lake

Wolcott Lake Wolcott Lake

90

80

100

NS RAILWAY SECTION (DEARBORN TO KALAMAZOO)

Global Mile Point (GMP) 80 - 100

![ Superfund_Sites

!? Part_111- Hazardous Waste

kj Part_115- Solid Waste Disposal

GF Part_201- Environ. Contam.

^_ Part_615- Hydrocarbon Contam.

LUST Site - Closed

LUST Site - Open

v® HOSPITAL

ÆÅÃ SCHOOL

/ Global Mile Posts

Track Improvements

Railroad Track

Hydrography

Lakes

City

Produced by

Project Planning Divisioin

Environmental Section

Michigan Dept. of Transportation

May 2011  ̄ www.michigan.gov/mdot

0 1 2

Miles

////// //// /

MICHIGAN

INDIANA OHIO

NS Railway Section

(Dearborn to Kalamazoo)
57

Figure 3.11. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 100-120 
/

/

/

Marshall Marshall

CALHOUN CALHOUN

Cedar Lake Cedar Lake

Beadle Lake Beadle Lake

Stuart Lake Stuart Lake

Potter Lake Potter Lake

Lyon Lake Lyon Lake

Upper Brace Lake Upper Brace Lake

Long Lake Long Lake

Lee Lake Lee Lake

Winnipeg Lake Winnipeg Lake Mud Lake Mud Lake

Fish Lake Fish Lake

Hyde Lake Hyde Lake

Cole Lake Cole Lake

Maynard Lake Maynard Lake

Mill Pond (Upper) Mill Pond (Upper)

Cotton Lake Cotton Lake

Chapin Lake Chapin Lake

Rothrick Lake Rothrick Lake

Hall Lake Hall Lake

Dexter Lake Dexter Lake

Mud Lake Mud Lake

Wilders Pond Wilders Pond

Squaw Lake Squaw Lake

Bear Lake Bear Lake

Buckhorn Lake Buckhorn Lake

Mud Lake Mud Lake

Crystal Lake Crystal Lake

Pout Lake Pout Lake

Gardner Lake Gardner Lake

Brigham Lake Brigham Lake

Thomas Lake Thomas Lake

120

110

100

NS RAILWAY SECTION (DEARBORN TO KALAMAZOO)

Global Mile Point (GMP) 100 - 120

D

/ Global Mile Posts

Track Improvements

Railroad Track

Hydrography

Lakes

FEMA DFIRM Floodway

Floodplains

Wetlands (NWI 24K)

City

//////// //

MICHIGAN

INDIANA OHIO

NS Railway Section

(Dearborn to Kalamazoo)

Produced by

Project Planning Divisioin

Environmental Section

Michigan Dept. of Transportation

May 2011  ̄ www.michigan.gov/mdot

0 1 2

Miles
58

Figure 3.12. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 100-120
ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

v®

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

Kalamazoo River

Kalamazoo River

Bear Creek

Nottawa Creek Nottawa Creek

Rice Creek

Rice Creek

Crooked Creek

Harper Creek Harper Creek

Pigeon Creek

North Branch Rice Creek

North Branch Rice Creek

Yost Francisco Drain

Yost Francisco Drain

Squaw Lake Drain Squaw Lake Drain

South Branch Rice Creek South Branch Rice Creek

Nottawa Drain

Nottawa Drain

Wilder Creek

Wilder Creek

Huckleberry Drain

Stuart Lake

Kalamazoo River Kalamazoo River

Bear Creek Bear Creek

Wilder Creek

Marshall Marshall

CALHOUN CALHOUN

Cedar Lake Cedar Lake

Beadle Lake Beadle Lake

Stuart Lake Stuart Lake

Potter Lake Potter Lake

Lyon Lake Lyon Lake

Upper Brace Lake Upper Brace Lake

Long Lake Long Lake

Lee Lake Lee Lake

Winnipeg Lake Winnipeg Lake Mud Lake Mud Lake

Fish Lake Fish Lake

Hyde Lake Hyde Lake

Cole Lake Cole Lake

Maynard Lake Maynard Lake

Mill Pond (Upper) Mill Pond (Upper)

Cotton Lake Cotton Lake

Chapin Lake Chapin Lake

Rothrick Lake Rothrick Lake

Hall Lake Hall Lake

Dexter Lake Dexter Lake

Mud Lake Mud Lake

Wilders Pond Wilders Pond

Squaw Lake Squaw Lake

Bear Lake Bear Lake

Buckhorn Lake Buckhorn Lake

Mud Lake Mud Lake

Crystal Lake Crystal Lake

Pout Lake Pout Lake

Gardner Lake Gardner Lake

Brigham Lake Brigham Lake

Thomas Lake Thomas Lake

120

110

100

NS RAILWAY SECTION (DEARBORN TO KALAMAZOO)

Global Mile Point (GMP) 100 - 120

![ Superfund_Sites

!? Part_111- Hazardous Waste

kj Part_115- Solid Waste Disposal

GF Part_201- Environ. Contam.

^_ Part_615- Hydrocarbon Contam.

LUST Site - Closed

LUST Site - Open

v® HOSPITAL

ÆÅÃ SCHOOL

/ Global Mile Posts

Track Improvements

Railroad Track

Hydrography

Lakes

City

Produced by

Project Planning Divisioin

Environmental Section

Michigan Dept. of Transportation

May 2011  ̄ www.michigan.gov/mdot

0 1 2

Miles

///////// //

MICHIGAN

INDIANA OHIO

NS Railway Section

(Dearborn to Kalamazoo)
59

Figure 3.13. Wetlands, Hydrography, Floodway, Floodplains GMP 120-143.7 
/

/

/

Battle Creek Battle Creek

Springfield Springfield

Climax

KALAMAZOO KALAMAZOO CALHOUN CALHOUN

Gull Lake Gull Lake

Morrow Lake Morrow Lake

Goguac Lake Goguac Lake

Sherman Lake Sherman Lake

Campbell Lake Campbell Lake

Portage Lake Portage Lake

No Name No Name

East Lake East Lake

Saint Marys Lake Saint Marys Lake

Eagle Lake Eagle Lake

Stony Lake Stony Lake

Harts Lake Harts Lake

Blue Lake Blue Lake

Three Lakes Three Lakes

Lyons Lake Lyons Lake

Sonoma Lake Sonoma Lake

Mill Pond Mill Pond

Potter Lake Potter Lake

Grassy Lake Grassy Lake

Wood Lake Wood Lake

Hamlin Lake Hamlin Lake

Butterfield Lake Butterfield Lake

Pond Lily Lake Pond Lily Lake

Whitford Lake Whitford Lake

McGinnis Lake McGinnis Lake

Grass Lake Grass Lake

Mill Pond (Upper) Mill Pond (Upper)

Pearl Lake Pearl Lake

Spring Lakes Spring Lakes

Graham Lake Graham Lake

Mud Lake Mud Lake

Kirby Lake Kirby Lake

Oatman Lake Oatman Lake

Emerald Lake

Emerald Lake

Whitman Lake Whitman Lake

Lawrence Lake Lawrence Lake

Graham Lake

Graham Lake

Lower Mill Pond

Lower Mill Pond

Goose Pond Goose Pond

Grass Lake Grass Lake

Kellogg Forest Pond Kellogg Forest Pond

140

130

120

NS RAILWAY SECTION (DEARBORN TO KALAMAZOO)

Global Mile Point (GMP) 120 - 143.7

D

/ Global Mile Posts

Track Improvements

Railroad Track

Hydrography

Lakes

FEMA DFIRM Floodway

Floodplains

Wetlands (NWI 24K)

City

// //// / ////

MICHIGAN

INDIANA OHIO

NS Railway Section

(Dearborn to Kalamazoo)

Produced by

Project Planning Divisioin

Environmental Section

Michigan Dept. of Transportation

May 2011  ̄ www.michigan.gov/mdot

0 1 2

Miles
60

Figure 3.14. Land Use and Contaminated Sites GMP 120-143.7 
ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

v®

ÆÅÃ ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃÆÃÅ

v®

ÆÅÃ

v®

ÆÅÃ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÃÅ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ

ÆÅÃ Kalamazoo River Kalamazoo River

Morrow Lake Morrow Lake

Gull Creek Gull Creek

Sperry Drain

Gull Lake

Gull Lake

Battle Creek

Seven Mile Creek

Seven Mile Creek

Portage Lake Portage Lake

Harper Creek Harper Creek

Augusta Creek Augusta Creek

Minges Brook

Davis Creek Davis Creek

Campbell Lake Campbell Lake

Big Marsh Drain Big Marsh Drain

Brickyard Creek

St Marys Lake

St Marys Lake

Mill Pond Mill Pond

West Morrow Creek West Morrow Creek

Three Lakes

North Comstock Creek

Sherman Lake Sherman Lake

Durnin Creek

Graham Lake

East Lake

Whitford Lake Whitford Lake

Eagle Lake

Romans Drain

Romans Drain

Potter Lake

Comstock Creek Comstock Creek

Burns Creek Burns Creek

Wood Lake Wood Lake

Pond Lily Lake Pond Lily Lake

Harper Creek

Kalamazoo River

Morrow Lake

Morrow Lake

Minges Brook Minges Brook

Kalamazoo River

Battle Creek Battle Creek

Springfield Springfield

Climax

KALAMAZOO KALAMAZOO

CALHOUN CALHOUN

Gull Lake Gull Lake

Morrow Lake Morrow Lake

Goguac Lake Goguac Lake

Sherman Lake Sherman Lake

Campbell Lake Campbell Lake

Portage Lake Portage Lake

No Name No Name

East Lake East Lake

Saint Marys Lake Saint Marys Lake

Eagle Lake Eagle Lake

Stony Lake Stony Lake

Harts Lake Harts Lake

Blue Lake Blue Lake

Three Lakes Three Lakes

Lyons Lake Lyons Lake

Sonoma Lake Sonoma Lake

Mill Pond Mill Pond

Potter Lake Potter Lake

Grassy Lake Grassy Lake

Wood Lake Wood Lake

Hamlin Lake Hamlin Lake

Butterfield Lake Butterfield Lake

Pond Lily Lake Pond Lily Lake

Whitford Lake Whitford Lake

McGinnis Lake McGinnis Lake

Grass Lake Grass Lake

Mill Pond (Upper) Mill Pond (Upper)

Pearl Lake Pearl Lake

Spring Lakes Spring Lakes

Graham Lake Graham Lake

Mud Lake Mud Lake

Kirby Lake Kirby Lake

Oatman Lake Oatman Lake

Emerald Lake

Emerald Lake

Whitman Lake Whitman Lake

Lawrence Lake Lawrence Lake

Graham Lake

Graham Lake

Lower Mill Pond

Lower Mill Pond

Goose Pond Goose Pond

Grass Lake Grass Lake

Kellogg Forest Pond Kellogg Forest Pond

140

130

120

NS RAILWAY SECTION (DEARBORN TO KALAMAZOO)

Global Mile Point (GMP) 120 - 143.7

Kalamazoo GMP 143.77

![ Superfund_Sites

!? Part_111- Hazardous Waste

kj Part_115- Solid Waste Disposal

GF Part_201- Environ. Contam.

^_ Part_615- Hydrocarbon Contam.

LUST Site - Closed

LUST Site - Open

v® HOSPITAL

ÆÅÃ SCHOOL

/ Global Mile Posts

Track Improvements

Railroad Track

Hydrography

Lakes

City

Produced by

Project Planning Divisioin

Environmental Section

Michigan Dept. of Transportation

May 2011  ̄ www.michigan.gov/mdot

0 1 2

Miles

// //// / /////

MICHIGAN

INDIANA OHIO

NS Railway Section

(Dearborn to Kalamazoo)
61

4.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION

4.1 Public Involvement 

The proposed improvements to the NS Railway Section in Michigan are part of the 

Chicago to Detroit/Pontiac Corridor and part of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative 

(MWRRI), for which information has been made available to the public through 

MDOT’s public web site for several years. Most recently, the concepts of high speed rail 

and the MWRRI have been presented to the citizens of Michigan through the 

development of Michigan’s State Long Range Transportation Plan. The results of public 

involvement for the State Long Range Transportation Plan revealed solid interest on the 

part of the public for increased choices in the modes of available transportation choices, 

and improvement in connectivity among the different modes. Long range planning at the 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) level has also included public involvement 

and dissemination of information to the public about the MWRRI and local sections of 

the larger Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor such as the link between Dearborn to 

Kalamazoo. 

MDOT also developed a State Rail Plan that will be finalized in late Summer 2011. 

During the development of this plan, several public meetings were held throughout the 

state in the Fall 2010 and in Spring 2011 to seek public input on the proposed rail plan. 

A Service NEPA EA was prepared in October 2009 for the entire rail corridor, which 

included the NS Railway Section. This document was made available for public 

reviewing on MDOT’s public website and copies of the document were placed at various 

locations in Southern Michigan. MDOT received numerous comments supporting the 

improvements to NS Railway Section as well as other sections of the Chicago to 

Detroit/Pontiac Corridor.

4.2 Agency Coordination 

MDOT has coordinated with several resource agencies that include: the State Historic 

Preservation Office (SHPO), the Office of State Archaeologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the Department of Natural Resources regarding the proposed improvement 

to the NS Railway Section in Michigan. Correspondence from Michigan’s Department 

of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are included in Appendix E. 

Correspondence from Michigan’s State Historic Preservation Office and the Office of 

State Archaeologist are included in Appendix G. 
APPENDIX A 

A List of Proposed Improvements 

And Aerial Maps 

 

 
Intentionally left Blank
Dearborn to Inkster Track Infrastructure Improvements (GMP 7.5 - GMP 13.68)

 Tie and surface line 

 Switch tie renewal 

 Rebuild highway grade crossings 

 Increase superelevation of 3 curves 

 Patch rail installation 

 Installation of the Positive Train Control 

 Renew signal 

 Installation of fiber optics 

 Extend crossing starts (warning devices) 

 
Inkster to Willow Run Track Infrastructure Improvements (GMP 12.91 – GMP 25.80) 

 Tie and surface line

 Switch tie renewal

 Installation of the Positive Train Control

 Renew signal

 Installation of fiber optics

 Extend crossing starts (warning devices)
Willow Run - Ann Arbor Track Infrastructure Improvements (GMP 25.30– GMP 39.84) 

 Tie and surface line

 Switch tie renewal

 Rebuild highway grade crossings

 Increase superelevation of 19 curves including curve modification for 1 curves 

 Patch rail installation

 Installation of the Positive Train Control

 Renew signal

 Installation of fiber optics

 Extend crossing starts (warning devices)

 Upgrade 3 public crossing
Ann Arbor to Chelsea Track Infrastructure Improvements (GMP 39.16 – GMP 53.26 

 Tie and surface line

 Switch tie renewal

 Rebuild highway grade crossings

 Increase superelevation of 16 curves including curve modifications for 8 curves

 Patch rail installation

 Installation of the Positive Train Control

 Renew signal

 Installation of fiber optics

 Extend crossing starts (warning devices)

 Upgrade 6 public crossings

 Upgrade 2 private crossings
Chelsea-Grass Lake Track Infrastructure Improvements (GMP 52.45 – GMP 66.33)

 

 Tie and surface line

 Switch tie renewal

 Rebuild highway grade crossings

 Increase superelevation of 10 curves including curve modifications for 5 curves

 Patch rail installation

 Installation of the Positive Train Control

 Renew signal

 Installation of fiber optics

 Extend crossing starts (warning devices)

 Upgrade 3 public crossings

 Upgrade 4 private crossings
Grass Lake to Jackson Track Infrastructure Improvements (GMP 66.17 – GMP 79.40) 

 Tie and surface line

 Switch tie renewal

 Rebuild highway grade crossings

 Increase superelevation of 13 curves including curve modifications for 6 curves

 Patch rail installation

 Installation of the Positive Train Control

 Renew signal

 Installation of fiber optics

 Extend crossing starts (warning devices)

 Upgrade96 public crossings

 Upgrade 3 private crossings
Jackson to Concord Track Infrastructure Improvements (GMP 79.11 – GMP 93.24) 

 Tie and surface line

 Switch tie renewal

 Rebuild highway grade crossings

 Increase superelevation of 12 curves including curve modifications for 4 curves

 Patch rail installation

 Installation of the Positive Train Control

 Renew signal

 Installation of fiber optics

 Extend crossing starts (warning devices)

 Upgrade 7 public crossings

 Upgrade 5 private crossings
Concord to Marengo Track Infrastructure Improvements (GMP 92.83 – GMP 106.76) 

 Tie and surface line

 Switch tie renewal

 Rebuild highway grade crossings

 Increase superelevation of 13 curves including curve modifications for 5 curves

 Patch rail installation

 Installation of the Positive Train Control

 Renew signal

 Installation of fiber optics

 Extend crossing starts (warning devices)

 Upgrade 8 public crossings

 Upgrade 8 private crossings
Marengo to Battle Creek Track Infrastructure Improvements (GMP 105.59 – GMP 119.74) 

 Tie and surface line

 Switch tie renewal

 Rebuild highway grade crossings

 Increase superelevation of 13 curves including curve modifications for 6 curves

 Patch rail installation

 Installation of the Positive Train Control

 Renew signal

 Installation of fiber optics

 Extend crossing starts (warning devices)

 Upgrade 6 public crossings

 Upgrade 2 Private crossings
Battle Creek to Galesburg Track Infrastructure Improvements (GMP 119.56 – 

GMP 134.03) 

 Tie and surface line

 Switch tie renewal

 Rebuild highway grade crossings

 Increase superelevation of 14 curves including curve modifications for 4 curves

 Patch rail installation

 Installation of the Positive Train Control

 Renew signal

 Installation of fiber optics

 Extend crossing starts (warning devices)

 Upgrade 2 public crossings

 Upgrade 3 private crossings
Galesburg to Kalamazoo Track Infrastructure Improvements (GMP 133.37 – GMP 143.7) 

 Tie and surface line

 Switch tie renewal

 Rebuild highway grade crossings

 Increase superelevation of 9 curves including curve modifications for 3 curves

 Patch rail installation

 Installation of the Positive Train Control

 Renew signal

 Installation of fiber optics

 Extend crossing starts (warning devices)

 Upgrade 4 public crossings

 Upgrade 1 private crossing
Intentionally left Blank 

 
APPENDIX B 

 Aerial Location Maps of the 3 Rail Stations 
Intentionally left Blank

Proposed Fuller Station in Ann Arbor, Michigan – Conceptual Plan
APPENDIX C

Air Quality Conformity Analysis
Intentionally left blank
1 

Appendix C. 

This Appendix includes additional information on the methodology used to calculate criteria pollutant 

emissions for the railroad maintenance and improvement activities planned for the 135 miles of railway 

from Dearborn (GMP 7.5) to Kalamazoo (GMP 143.7) in Michigan. This proposed improvements will 

result in maximum speed increases in this section of railway to 79 miles per hour (mph) initially, while 

positioning this section for speed increases to 110 mph after all of the improvements to the existing track 

and signals have been completed.

The proposed improvements extend through five counties in Michigan; Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Jackson, 

Washtenaw, and Wayne. Table C.1 provides the estimated length of the NS railway that runs through 

each county. Since Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties are in attainment/maintenance 

for ozone and Washtenaw and Wayne counties are in nonattainment for PM2.5, it was important to 

evaluate the emissions per county to determine if General Conformity de minimis thresholds, as per 40 

CRF 93.153 were exceeded.

 

Table C.1. Estimated Railway Length per County. 

County County Length 

(Miles)

Kalamazoo 16

Calhoun 40

Jackson 27

Washtenaw 35

Wayne 17

Emissions were estimated for the following activities that will occur as part of the railway maintenance 

and improvement activities for the Proposed Improvement Alternative. 

 

• Tie Replacement

• Track Resurfacing

• Rail Replacement 

• Switch Tie Replacement

• Signal and Train Control Renewal

• Warning Device Installation

• Grade Crossing Repair

• Positive Train Control (PTC) Installation

• Installation of Fiber Optic Cable

The methodologies used to estimate emissions and resulting emissions are discussed in additional detail 

in this Appendix.

C.1 Tie Replacement Emissions Analysis

Emissions from total tie replacement were calculated using the number of railway maintenance 

equipment, horsepower of the equipment, and operating time multiplied by an emission factor. Emission 

factors were obtained from EPA’s NONROAD model1

 

1 For specialty equipment used for track replacement/resurfacing and tie replacement, emission factors for railway 

maintenance/railroad equipment were obtained from EPA’s NONROAD model. 

. Information pertaining to the number of 
2 

equipment and horsepower was provided by Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), as 

indicated below in Table C.2. 

Table C.2. Anticipated Equipment Needed for Tie Replacement. 

Equipment Description No. of 

Units Horsepower Fuel Type Fuel Usage(gallons/day)

Spike Puller 1 80 Diesel 30

Tie Handler 2 80 Diesel 40

Spiker 1 80 Diesel 40

Scarfier 1 80 Diesel 40

Ballast Regulator 1 120 Diesel 60

Tie Extractors 2 160 Diesel 40

Tamper 1 275 Diesel 120

Hirail pickup 2 290 Diesel 10

The number of days the operation would occur in each county was estimated based on an assumption that 

one mile of ties can be replaced in one day2

. Table C.3 shows the total number of days required for tie 

replacement in each county.

Table C.3. Days Required to Replace Ties.

County

Estimated Track 

Length 

(Miles)

Days of Operation

Kalamazoo 16 16

Calhoun 40 40

Jackson 27 27

Washtenaw 35 35

Wayne 17 17

Emissions were calculated using Equation 1 below and the emission factors in Table C.4. 

Table C.4. Tie Replacement Emissions Factors. 

Equipment Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Spike Puller 7.80 6.35 1.23 1.19 0.15 1.46

Tie Handler 7.80 6.35 1.23 1.19 0.15 1.46

Spiker 7.80 6.35 1.23 1.19 0.15 1.46

Scarfier 7.80 6.35 1.23 1.19 0.15 1.46

Ballast Regulator 4.38 6.34 0.78 0.75 0.13 1.06

Tie Extractors 4.38 6.34 0.78 0.75 0.13 1.06

Tamper 3.87 6.04 0.68 0.66 0.13 0.97

 

2 Email from Eric Almquist to Vincent Bonifera Jr, Andrea Finn and Gretchen Campbell RE: Papers on August 18, 

2011. 
3 

Hirail pickup 3.87 6.04 0.68 0.66 0.13 0.97

Equation 1: Tie Replacement Emissions = N x HP x (Hr x D) x EF x 0.0000011023 

Where,

N=number of equipment used

HP=horsepower 

Hr=hours per day 

D=days

EF=emission factor (g/hp-hr)

0.0000011023=conversion from grams to tons

Table C.5 shows the calculated emissions for the Proposed Improvement Alternative using the provided 

inputs.

Table C.5. Estimated Tie Replacement Emissions for the Proposed Improvement Alternative.

County

Emission (tons)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Kalamazoo 1.33 1.66 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.30

Calhoun 3.31 4.16 0.56 0.54 0.09 0.74

Jackson 2.24 2.81 0.38 0.37 0.06 5.85

Washtenaw 2.90 3.64 0.49 0.48 0.08 0.65

Wayne 1.41 1.77 0.24 0.23 0.04 0.32

Total 11.18 14.05 1.89 1.84 0.31 7.86

C.2 Track Resurfacing Emission Analysis

The methodology used to estimate emissions for track resurfacing was similar to the methodology used to 

estimate total tie replacement emissions. The operating time for the equipment was calculated using the 

rail length per county shown in Table C.1 assuming two miles of track per day could be resurfaced3

. 

Total time to resurface the entire track length is 67 days (i.e., 135 miles at 2 miles per day). 

Table C.6 shows the total number of days required to resurface the track in each county and Table C.7 

shows the equipment anticipated to be used for this operation.

Table C.6. Days Required to Resurface the Track by County.

County

Estimated Track 

Length

 (Miles)

Days Of 

Operation 

Kalamazoo 16 8

Calhoun 40 20

Jackson 27 13.5

 

3 Email from Eric Almquist to Vincent Bonifera Jr, Andrea Finn, and Gretchen Campbell, RE: Papers, August 18,

2011.
4 

Washtenaw 35 17.5

Wayne 17 8.5

Table C.7. Anticipated Equipment Needed for Track Resurfacing. 

Equipment 

Description # of Units Horsepower Fuel Type Fuel Usage(gallons/day)

Ballast Regulator 1 120 Diesel 60

Tamper 1 275 Diesel 120

Emissions were calculated using Equation 1 (above) and the emissions factors in Table C.8 from EPA’s 

NONROAD model.

Table C.8. Track Resurfacing Emissions Factors. 

Equipment 

Description

Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Ballast Regulator 4.38 6.34 0.78 0.75 0.13 1.06

Tamper 3.87 6.04 0.68 0.66 0.13 0.97

Table C.9 shows the calculated emissions associated with track resurfacing for the Proposed 

Improvement. 

Table C.9. Estimated Track Resurfacing Emissions for the Proposed Improvement Alternative.

County

Emissions (tons) 

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Kalamazoo 0.13 0.19 0.02 0.02 0.004 0.03

Calhoun 0.32 0.48 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.08

Jackson 0.21 0.32 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.62

Washtenaw 0.28 0.42 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.07

Wayne 0.13 0.20 0.02 0.02 0.004 0.03

Total 1.06 1.62 0.19 0.18 0.04 0.83

C.3. Rail Replacement Emission Analysis

Emissions from rail replacement were calculated in a similar fashion as those from tie replacement and 

track resurfacing using equation 1 above for the equipment shown in Table X.10. The main difference in 

methodology is how operating time was estimated. MDOT estimates 3,200 linear feet of rail can be 

replaced in one day4 and 100,000 linear feet total will be replaced throughout the NS rail line as part of 

the Proposed Action. The length of rail to be replaced in each county was determined by prorating the 

100,000 linear feet by the percentage of track run length in each county (see Equation 2). 

Equation 2: Percent County Length = ((L x 5,280)/TL) x 100 

Where,

 

4 Email from Eric Almquist to Vincent Bonifera Jr, Andrea Finn, and Gretchen Campbell, RE: Papers, August 18,

2011.
5 

L=length of track run in each county

5,280=conversion of miles to linear ft

TL=total linear feet of the entire NS line (e.g., 135 miles)

100=conversion to percent

The number of days required to complete the rail replacement per county is calculated by first multiplying 

the 100,000 linear feet of rail scheduled for replacement by the percent county length estimated using 

Equation 2 and then dividing by 3,200 (see Equation 3). 

Equation 3: Days to Complete Rail Replacement By County = (PCL/100*100,000)/3,200 

Where, 

PCL=percent county length

100,000=linear feet of rail being replaced

3200=linear feet of track that can be replaced per day 

Table C.10. Anticipated Equipment Needed for Rail Replacement. 

Equipment 

Description

No. of 

Units Horsepower Fuel Type

Fuel Usage

(gallons/day)

Cribber 1 40 Diesel 30

Adzer 1 40 Diesel 20

Spiker 1 80 Diesel 40

Spike Puller 1 80 Diesel 40

Speed Swing 2 125 Diesel 40

Hirail pickup 1 290 Diesel 10

The results from estimating the time needed for track replacement by county are shown in Table C.11

below.

Table C.11. Days Required for Rail Replacement by County. 

County

Estimated 

Track 

Length 

(Miles)

Estimated 

Track 

Length 

(LF) 

Length 

Per 

County 

(%) 

Replaced 

Track Per

County

(LF) 

Days 

Per

County

Kalamazoo 16 84480 11.85% 11,852 3.7

Calhoun 40 211200 29.63% 29,630 9.3

Jackson 27 142560 20.00% 20,000 6.3

Washtenaw 35 184800 25.93% 25,926 8.1

Wayne 17 89760 12.59% 12,593 3.9

Emissions for the Rail Replacement were the calculated using Equation 1 and the emission factors shown 

in Table C.12 obtained from EPA’s NONROAD model. The estimated emissions associated with Rail 

Replacement for the Proposed Improvement Alternative are shown in Table C.13. 
6 

Table C.12. Rail Replacement Emissions Factors.

Equipment 

Description

Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Cribber 4.82 5.44 0.81 0.79 0.15 1.09

Adzer 4.82 5.44 0.81 0.79 0.15 1.09

Spiker 7.80 6.35 1.23 1.19 0.15 1.46

Spike Puller 7.80 6.35 1.23 1.19 0.15 1.46

Speed Swing 4.38 6.34 0.78 0.75 0.13 1.06

Hirail pickup 3.87 6.04 0.68 0.66 0.13 0.97

Table C.13. Estimated Rail Replacement Emissions for the Proposed Improvement Alternative.

County

Emissions (tons) 

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Kalamazoo 0.14 0.18 0.02 0.02 0.004 0.03

Calhoun 0.36 0.44 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.08

Jackson 0.24 0.30 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.63

Washtenaw 0.31 0.38 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.07

Wayne 0.15 0.19 0.03 0.02 0.004 0.03

Total 1.19 1.49 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.84

C.4. Switch Tie Replacement Emission Analysis

The methodology for estimating switch tie replacement emissions is similar to the methodology used for 

estimating emissions from rail replacement with the only difference being the method used to calculate 

the time required to complete the switch tie replacement. MDOT stated switch ties could be replaced at a 

rate of 40 ties per shift5

. Based on this rate, the switch tie replacement would require 65 days. In the 

Proposed Action, 3,600 ties would be replaced throughout the NS line undergoing maintenance/upgrade. 

At a rate of 40 ties per shift, 90 shifts would be required to replace 3,600 switch ties. The number of ties 

to be replaced in each county and how long the replacement will take within each county are unknown 

and were estimated using the two equations below. The results are shown in Table C.14. 

Equation 4: Shifts per County Length = (L/135) x 90 

Where,

L=length of each county (miles)

135=total length of the entire NS track run (miles)

90=total numbers of shifts required to complete the installation of 3,600 switch ties

 

5 Email from Eric Almquist to Vincent Bonifera Jr, Andrea Finn, and Gretchen Campbell, RE: Papers, August 18,

2011.
7 

The number of days the operation would occur in each county was determined by dividing the number of 

shifts per county by the total number of days to complete the switch tie replacement. 

Equation 5: Days to Complete Switch Tie Replacement By County= S/(90/65) 

Where,

S=the number of shifts per county 

65=days required to complete the entire switch tie replacement

90=total numbers of shifts required to complete the installation of 3,600 switch ties

Table C.14. Total Number of Days Required to Replace Switch Ties. 

County

Estimated 

Track 

Length 

(Miles)

Length 

Per 

County 

(%)

Shifts 

per 

County

Days of 

Operation 

Kalamazoo 16 11.85% 10.67 8

Calhoun 40 29.63% 26.67 19

Jackson 27 20.00% 18.00 13

Washtenaw 35 25.93% 23.33 17

Wayne 17 12.59% 11.33 8

Total 135 100% 90 65

The equipment anticipated to be used for switch tie replacement is shown in Table C.15. The emissions 

factors for this equipment were obtained from EPA’s NONROAD model (see Table C.16). Using the 

emission factors from EPA’s NONROAD model and the operating time estimated in Table C.14, 

emissions associated with switch tie replacement for the Proposed Improvement Alternative were 

calculated using Equation 1. The estimated emissions for the Proposed Improvement Alternative are 

shown in Table C.17. 

Table C.15. Anticipated Equipment Needed for Switch Tie Replacement.

Equipment 

Description

No. of 

Units Horsepower Fuel Type 

Fuel Usage

(gallons/day)

Tie handler 1 80 Diesel 40

Spiker 1 80 Diesel 40

Spike Puller 1 80 Diesel 40

Tie extractors 2 160 Diesel 40

Tamper 1 275 Diesel 120

Hirail pickup 1 290 Diesel 10
8 

Table C.16. Rail Replacement Emissions Factors.

Equipment 

Description

Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Tie handler 7.80 6.35 1.23 1.19 0.15 1.46

Spiker 7.80 6.35 1.23 1.19 0.15 1.46

Spike Puller 7.80 6.35 1.23 1.19 0.15 1.46

Tie extractors 4.38 6.34 0.78 0.75 0.13 1.06

Tamper 3.87 6.04 0.68 0.66 0.13 0.97

Hirail pickup 3.87 6.04 0.68 0.66 0.13 0.97

Table C.17. Estimated Switch Tie Replacement Emissions for the Proposed Improvement 

Alternative.

County

Emissions (tons) 

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Kalamazoo 0.43 0.55 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.10

Calhoun 1.03 1.31 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.23

Jackson 0.70 0.90 0.12 0.12 0.02 1.86

Washtenaw 0.92 1.17 0.16 0.15 0.03 0.21

Wayne 0.43 0.55 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.10

Total 3.52 4.49 0.60 0.58 0.10 2.49

C.5. Renewing Signal and Train Control Emission Analysis

Emissions from renewing signals and train controls were calculated using the methodology shown in 

Equation 1 and diesel engine emission standards6

. SO2 emissions were estimated assuming the vehicles 

burn ultra low sulfur diesel fuel with a sulfur content of 15 ppm and all sulfur is converted to SO2 - See 

Equation 5. 

Equation 5: SO2 Emission Factor= (((15)*3.79)/453,592)*FR 

Where,

15= sulfur content of diesel is 15 ppm or mg/L

3.79=Conversion of liters to gallons

453,592=Conversion of mg to lbs

FR=Fuel consumption rate of 1 gal/hr for bucket truck7

 

The units for the SO2 emission factor are in lb/hr instead of g/hp-hr, therefore Equation 1 was modified 

to calculate SO2 emissions from Renewing Signal and Train Control: 

Equation 6: Renewing Signal and Train Control Emissions (SO2 only) = N x Hr x EF x 0.0005 

 

6 Tables 1 and 4 of http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php#y2004. 7 Fuel consumption rate for bucket truck from http://www.next100.com/2011/03/pges-electrifying-solution.php
9 

Where,

N=number of equipment used

Hr=hours 

EF=emission factor (lb/hr)

0.0005=conversion from pounds to tons

In addition, the operating time for the signal and train control replacement was calculated using the 

number of public and private crossings per county not currently being updated by NS, and the number of 

hours estimated for each repair. It was assumed that the work at each crossing would take approximately 

four (4) hours to complete. Table C.18 shows the number of crossings in each county and the total 

number of hours estimated to complete the signal and train control renewals. The only anticipated 

equipment needed for this work is a Bucket Truck. For purposes of calculation, 1 unit was assumed with 

250 horsepower using Diesel fuel type. 

Table C.18. Total Hours for Renewing Signals and Train Controls. 

County Total 

Crossings

Hours per 

Signal 

Replacement

Total Hours Required 

for Signal Replacement

Kalamazoo 19 4 76

Calhoun 47 4 188

Jackson 63 4 252

Washtenaw 14 4 56

Wayne 25 4 100

Using the emission factors in Table C.19 and the operating time shown in Table C.18, emissions were 

calculated for renewing signal and train control using Equation 1 for criteria pollutants except SO2 and 

Equation 6 for SO2. The estimated emissions associated with renewing signals and train controls for the 

Proposed Improvement Alternative are shown in Table C.20. 

Table C.19. Renewing Signal and Train Control Emissions Factors. 

Equipment 

Description

Emission Factors

CO

(g/hp-hr)

NOx

(g/hp-hr)

PM10

(g/hp-hr)

PM2.5

(g/hp-hr)

SO2 

(lb/hr)

VOC

(g/hp-hr)

Bucket truck 15.50 2.00 0.10 0.10 1.25E-04 0.50

Table C.20. Estimated Signal and Train Control Renewal Emissions for the Proposed Improvement 

Alternative.

County

Emissions (tons) 

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Kalamazoo 0.32 4.19E-02 2.09E-03 2.09E-03 4.75E-06 1.05E-02

Calhoun 0.80 0.10 5.18E-03 5.18E-03 1.18E-05 0.03

Jackson 1.08 0.14 6.94E-03 6.94E-03 1.58E-05 0.03

Washtenaw 0.24 0.03 1.54E-03 1.54E-03 7.72E-09 0.01

Wayne 0.43 0.06 2.76E-03 2.76E-03 1.38E-08 1.38E-02

Total 2.87 0.37 0.02 0.02 3.23E-05 0.09
10

C.6. Warning Device Installation Emission Analysis

The methodology used for estimating emissions from the installation of warning devices was the same as 

the methodology used for calculating the emissions for renewing signals and train controls. The only 

minor difference was the addition of two pieces of equipment (e.g., backhoe and boring machine) – see 

Table C.21. The emission factors for those two pieces of equipment were obtained from EPA’s 

NONROAD model and are shown in Table C.22. Using the emission factors in Table C.22 and the 

operational time estimated in Table C.18, emissions were calculated using Equation 1 for criteria 

pollutants except SO2 and Equation 6 for SO2. The results are shown in Table C.23. 

Table C.21. Anticipated Equipment Needed to Install Warning Devices. 

Equipment Description No. of 

Units

Horsepower Fuel Type

Bucket truck 1 250 Diesel

Backhoe 1 75 Gasoline

Boring Machine 1 25 Gasoline

Table C.22. Warning Device Installation Emission Factors. 

Equipment 

Description

Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)* 

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Bucket truck 15.50 2.00 0.10 0.10 1.25E-04 

(lb/hr) 0.50

Backhoe 41.54 2.58 0.07 0.06 0.15 1.08

Boring Machine 358.61 3.60 0.12 0.11 0.22 7.12

*Units for the emission factors are g/hp-hr unless otherwise indicated.

Table C.23 shows the estimated emissions associated with warning device installation for the Proposed 

Improvement Alternative using the provided inputs.

Table C.23. Estimated Warning Devices Installation Emissions for the Proposed Improvement 

Alternative. 

County

Emissions (tons)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Kalamazoo 1.34 0.07 2.78E-03 2.72E-03 1.39E-03 3.218E-02

Calhoun 3.31 0.16 6.87E-03 6.74E-03 3.44E-03 0.08

Jackson 4.43 0.22 9.21E-03 9.03E-03 4.61E-03 0.11

Washtenaw 0.98 0.05 2.05E-03 2.01E-03 1.02E-03 0.02

Wayne 0.34 0.02 5.76E-04 5.30E-04 1.22E-03 8.939E-03

Total 10.4 0.52 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.25

C.7. Grade Crossing Repair Emission Analysis

Following the methodology used for other activities in the Proposed Action, emissions for grade crossing 

repair were estimated using Equation 1. MDOT stated that the repair of the grade crossings would 
11

require an average of two days8

, however, it was assumed the equipment would only operate for an 

average of four hours total. The total operating time per county was estimated by multiplying the 

assumed average hours (e.g., four) per crossing completion by the number of crossings – see Table C.18). 

Emission factors for the anticipated equipment needed for repairing grade crossing (see Table C.24) were 

derived from EPA’s NONROAD model and are shown in Table C.25. The estimated emissions from this 

activity are shown in Table C.26. 

Table C.24. Anticipated Equipment Needed for Grade Crossing Repair. 

Equipment Description No. of 

Units Horsepower Fuel Type 

Dump Truck 1 300 Diesel

Backhoe 1 75 Gasoline

Front end loader 1 75 Gasoline

Asphalt Paver 1 75 Gasoline

Asphalt Roller 1 75 Gasoline

Generator 1 100 Diesel

Table C.25. Grade Crossing Repair Emission Factors. 

Equipment 

Description

Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Dump Truck 1.13 3.35 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.25

Backhoe 41.54 2.58 0.07 0.06 0.15 1.08

Front end loader 41.54 2.58 0.07 0.06 0.15 1.08

Asphalt Paver 81.52 5.18 0.07 0.06 0.16 2.29

Asphalt Roller 46.65 2.90 0.07 0.06 0.15 1.23

Generator 1.86 5.58 0.37 0.36 0.11 0.50

Table X.26. Estimated Grade Crossing Repair Emissions for the Proposed Improvement 

Alternative. 

County

Emission (tons)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Kalamazoo 6.22 1.12 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.22

Calhoun 15.39 2.77 0.15 0.14 0.09 0.55

Jackson 20.63 3.72 0.20 0.19 0.12 24.86

Washtenaw 4.59 0.83 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.16

Wayne 8.12 1.27 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.27

Total 55.0 9.71 0.51 0.50 0.32 26.1

 

8 Email from Eric Almquist to Vincent Bonifera Jr, Andrea Finn, and Gretchen Campbell, RE: Papers, August 18, 

2011.
12

C.8. Positive Train Control (PTC) Installation Emission Analysis

Emissions from installing the fiber optic cable associated with the Positive Train Control (PTC) system 

were estimated using equation 1. MDOT stated that the locomotive used to install the cable would move 

at a rate of 1.3 miles per hour9

. The total hours the locomotive would be in each county was estimated by 

dividing the county length for each county by the rate of travel (see Table C.27). 

Table C.27. Total Hours to Install PTC per County. 

County County Length 

(miles)

Hours per 

County

Kalamazoo 16 12

Calhoun 40 31

Jackson 27 21

Washtenaw 35 27

Wayne 17 13

Emission factors were obtained from Table 22 in EPA's Emission Factors for Locomotives: Tier 1+ 

emission factors and are shown in Table C.28.

10 The estimated emissions are shown in Table C.29. 

Table C.28. Emission Factors for Calculating PTC Installation. 

Equipment Description Emission Factors (g/hp-hr)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Cable plow pulled by locomotive 

(both diesel) – GP-38-2 Locomotive 1.83 9.90 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.60

Table C.29. Estimated PTC Installation Emissions for the Proposed Improvement Alternative. 

County

Emission (tons)

CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC

Kalamazoo 0.07 0.40 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02

Calhoun 0.19 1.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.06

Jackson 0.13 0.68 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.04

Washtenaw 0.16 0.88 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.05

Wayne 0.08 0.43 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03

Total 0.63 3.40 0.08 0.08 0.04 0.21

 

9 Email from Eric Almquist to Vincent Bonifera Jr, Andrea Finn, and Gretchen Campbell, RE: Papers, August 18, 

2011.

10 EPA’s Technical Highlights “Emission Factors for Locomotives”, Table 2 Tier 1+ emission factors
13

References

NONROAD2008. Computer software. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. 

<http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm#model>. 

Almquist, Eric. “Re: Papers.” Message to Vincent Bonifera Jr, Andrea Finn, and Gretchen Campbell. 18 

August 2011. E-mail.

“Heavy-Duty Truck and Bus Engines.” DieselNet.com. 24 August 2011. 

<http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php#y2004> 

Marshall, Jonathan. “PG&E's Electrifying Solution.” Next100. 29 August 2011. 

<http://www.next100.com/2011/03/pges-electrifying-solution.php> 
APPENDIX D

 Waters of Special Concern 
Intentionally left Blank
Waters of Special Concern: 

•Rouge River (near Mile Post (MP) 16) - Not meeting State Water Quality 

 Standards for Biota 

•Rouge River (~2500 feet SW of MP 9) - Not meeting State Water Quality 

 Standards for Biota and E. Coli 

•Geddes Pond / Huron River (~500 feet NE of MP 34 to ~1400 feet SE of 

 MP 37) - Not meeting State Water Quality Standards for E. Coli 

•Huron River (~500 feet NW of MP 37 and from 1450 feet to 2450 feet SE 

 of MP 38) - Not meeting State Water Quality Standards for E. Coli 

•Grand River (~2700 feet NW of MP 76) - Not meeting State Water Quality 

Standards for E. Coli or Dissolved Oxygen 

•Rice Creek (~180 feet SW of MP 108) – TROUT STREAM 

•Augusta Creek (~3900 SW of MP 108) – TROUT STREAM 

•Canal Race (~1750 feet NE of MP 131) – TROUT STREAM 
Intentionally left Blank 
APPENDIX E

Michigan Department of Natural Resources & 

Environment

& 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Letters of Concurrence
Intentionally left Blank



Intentionally left Blank


APPENDIX F

List of known and identified eligible, already listed, or 

potentially eligible above-ground Historic Resources
Intentionally left Blank
The following is a list of known and identified eligible, already listed or 

potentially eligible above-ground historic resources. Please note that 

this list is not all inclusive. 

West Detroit Junction (MP 3.43SW) to Town Line Interlocking (MP7.98SW): 

Historic bridges are present in the project corridor area. These bridges are located within 

the Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal (DIFT) project limits and are covered by the 

DIFT Record of Decision. The bridges, which will not face adverse impacts from the 

DIFT, are: 

(1) The Southern Avenue Twin Warren Truss Bridges (between Miller Road and 

Wyoming Road). The western-most through-girder bridge is not historic. 

(2) X03, Conrail crossing Livernois (south of John Kronk). The two southern-most of 

the bridges, X02, Norfolk Southern crossing Livernois (north of Toledo Street) are not 

historic. 

Dearborn: 

1. In Dearborn the tracks run adjacent to the north boundary of the Henry Ford 

Museum/Greenfield Village. There is a historic power plant or factory located at the 

southwest quadrant of the RR tracks and the Elm Street at-grade crossing. Numerous 

historic buildings, including a historic roundhouse and associated rolling stock are 

located adjacent to the tracks. 

1. RR Bridge over US-24/Telegraph (X03-82052). 

2. RR Bridge over West Outer Drive. 

3. RR Bridge over Military Street. 

4. RR Bridge over Oakwood Boulevard. 

5. RR Bridge over M-39/Southfield Freeway. 

6. RR Bridge over Greenfield Road. 

Inkster: 

1. RR Bridge over Middlebelt Road. 

2. RR Bridge over Inkster Road. 

Ypsilanti: 

1. The Freighthouse north of Cross Street west of the railroad tracks is eligible for listing 

on the National Register. 

2. The Depot north of Cross Street east of the railroad tracks is potentially eligible for 

listing on the National Register. 
3. The Depot Town Historic District is located on Cross Street adjacent to the tracks is 

listed on the National Register. 

Ann Arbor: 

1. Potentially historic house located in the southwest quad of the railroad crossing at East 

Delhi road (Scio Township). 

2. The Depot (Gandy Dancer restaurant) east of the Broadway Street Bridge on the south 

side of the railroad tracks is listed on the National Register. 

Dexter: 

1. Island Lake Road Bridge. 

2. Mill Creek Bridge. 

3. RR Bridge over Dexter-Pinckney Road. 

Chelsea: 

1. The Depot at 150 Jackson Street east of M-52 and on the north side of the railroad 

tracks is listed on the National Register. 

2. A factory complex (tourist destination, shops and offices), and historic districts 

(residential and commercial) are located adjacent to the existing right-of-way. The Jiffy 

Mix complex, which may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places, straddles the right-of-way. 

Grass Lake: 

1. The Depot at 210 East Michigan Avenue on the south side of the railroad tracks is 

eligible for listing on the National Register. 

2. Between Grass Lake Village east limits and North Lake Street the rail line runs directly 

north of (behind) historic residential and commercial historic districts. 

Jackson: 

1. The Depot at 501 Michigan Avenue on the north side of the railroad tracks is listed on 

the National Register. The Express Building is also listed on the National Register. 

2. Temple Beth El Cemetery is located south of the tracks adjacent to the West Street 

Bridge and is listed on the National Register. 

3. Historic properties abut the railroad right-of-way on the north side from a line parallel 

with Ingham Street to Steward Street, and flank the RR from Steward Street to West 

Street. 

4. Factory complex, south side of tracks, east of South Elm Street. 
5. Power house associated with the Airmaster Fan complex at Falahee Road, East 

Jackson Interlock). 

6. F P Miller factory at 420 Ingham Street. 

Parma: 

The Parma Mill-Hardware facility located south of the tracks and north of Mill Street. 

Albion: 

1. The Depot east of North Eaton Street on the south side of the railroad tracks is eligible 

for listing on the National Register. 

2. The Superior Street Commercial Historic District is adjacent to the railroad corridor; 

the brick roadway is a contributing element in the significance of the district and crosses 

the railroad. 

Marshall: 

Marshall has numerous historic resources but no impacts are anticipated as the proposed 

siding is located within the existing right-of-way, south of River Street. 

Battle Creek: 

1. The Grand Trunk Depot is located on the north side of the RR tracks at or near the 

Baron Interlocking (MP 120.54). 

2. The Battle Creek No.4 Fire House is located at 174 South Kendall Street (the northeast 

quadrant of South Kendall Street). 

Augusta: 

Coal Dock in the Augusta vicinity. 

Kalamazoo: 

1. The Depot between Burdick and Rose Streets on the south side of the railroad tracks is 

listed on the National Register. 

2. Stuart Neighborhood Historic District (Henderson Park); roughly bounded by Elm 

Street, North Street, Ransom, Westnedge, and Michigan is listed on the National 

Register. 

3. RR Bridge over M-43/East Michigan Avenue (X01-39082). 

4. Switch Tower, east of Porter Street. 
Intentionally left Blank
APPENDIX G

Coordination with the State Historic Preservation 

Office and the Office of State Archaeologist
Intentionally left Blank


 


From: Anderson, Dean (MSHDA) 

To: Robertson. James 

Date: 8/3/2010 2:31PM 

Subject: RE: High Speed Rail - Dearborn to Kalamazoo 

Jim, 

Based on our review of the High Speed Rail project information, and our discussion of the prospects for the 

project to affect archaeological sites, I agree with MDOT's opinion that the project will have no adverse 

effect upon any archaeological sites within the project corridor. 

Dean 

Dean L. Anderson, Historical Archaeologist 

Office of the State Archaeologist 

MSHDA 

Michigan Historical Center 

Box 30740 

702 West Kalamazoo St. 

Lansing, MI 48909-8240 

andersond15@michigan.gov 

(517) 373-1618 

-----Original Message----- 

From: Robertson, James [mailto:RobertsonJ3@michigan.gov] 

Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 3:30 PM 

To: Anderson, Dean (MSHDA) 

Subject: High Speed Rail - Dearborn to Kalamazoo 

Dear Dr. Anderson: 

For the review of impacts to archaeological/cultural resources, MDOT reviewed 

the descriptions of the Proposed Improvement Alternative and Affected 

Environment. These sections of the environmental document, which include the 

fact that the project will not require fee right of way or grading permits, 

were provided to you for your review as well. MDOT also reviewed the state 

archaeological site files to analyze the possible impacts to previously 

recorded archaeological/cultural sites. The site file search identified 17 

archaeological sites that possibly overlap the existing rail corridor between 

Dearborn and Kalamazoo. Ten of these sites have either been determined not 

eligible for listing on the National Register or are 1) sites referenced by 

Hinsdale (1931) or other historical references that lack accurate locational 

information, 2) reported collections that lack accurate locational data that 

have never been field verified, or 3) sites that have been destroyed or 

otherwise disturbed. The seven remaining sites include four lithic scatters, 

two findspots, and one site that may be the result of glacial action on a 

bedrock outcrop. However, based on the proposed project*s impacts, which will 

not extend outside the existing right of way, it is MDOT's opinion that the 

project will have no adverse effect on these seventeen sites or any other 

archaeological/cultural sites along the rail corridor. 
(8/3/2010) James Robertson - RE: High Speed Rail - Dearborn to Kalamazoo Page 2 

Please reply whether you concur with our analysis of possible impacts or 

provide me with your comments if you do not concur at this time. Thank you 

for your assistance on this project. 

jar 

James A. Robertson, Ph.D. 

Staff Archaeologist 

Environmental Section 

Project Planning Division 

Michigan Department of Transportation 

425 West Ottawa 

P.O. Box 30150 

Lansing, MI 48909 

Phone: 517-335-2637 

Fax: 517-373-9255 

E-Mail: RobertsonJ3@Michigan.gov
Intentionally left Blank
APPENDIX H

List of 4(f) Recreational Properties
Intentionally left Blank
4(f) properties adjacent or in the vicinity of Norfolk Southern Rail line between 

Dearborn and Kalamazoo, Michigan 

Wayne County: 

Clinton Street Recreation Area 

Crowley Park 

Geer Park 

H. Craig Walz Quadraplex 

King Boring Park 

Treadwell Street Recreation Area 

Washtenaw County: 

Alpine Street Park 

Ball fields (West of S. Ford Blvd.) 

Bandemer Park 

Barton Hills Village Park 

Delhi Metropolitan Park 

Dexter-Chelsea Rd. area property 

Forest Park 

Frog Island Park 

Geddes Pond Area 

Huron Hills Golf Course 

Huron River Area near Depot Street 

Kuebler Langford Nature Area 

Mitchell Field 

Parker Mill County Park 

Quackenbush Dr. green space (Dexter) 

Wheeler Park 

Jackson County: 

Jackson High School athletic fields and property 

Calhoun County: 

Kimball Pines County Park 

Kalamazoo County:

Fort Custer Park 

MLK Memorial Park 

Peer Park