Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

74 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Introduction

Chapter 3 discusses the existing social, economic, and environmental (SEE) conditions for each affected 

resource within the “Area of Analysis”, which is described in Section 3.1.2. The Program’s potential 

environmental consequences are discussed by individual resource and mitigation measures that could be 

used to avoid or minimize the impacts are presented. This chapter describes the potential impacts of each 

of the Build Alternatives serving 10 DRTs between Chicago and Detroit with seven DRTs traveling on to 

Pontiac, Michigan at speeds up to 110 mph (also called the “Build Alternatives”) as well as the No Build 

Alternative in 2035.

3.1.1 Regulatory Requirements

The methodology for conducting the review and evaluation of the SEE resources is in accordance with 

federal regulations and guidelines, including NEPA (42 USC 4321-4347); FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (Environmental Procedures) (64 FR 28545) 50; and regulations 

published by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) on implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-

1508).

The SEE resources addressed in this document, as required by MDOT and FRA’s environmental 

procedures, are listed in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: List of Social, Economic and Environmental Resources Addressed in this Document

Topic Section that Covers the Topic

Impacts on all modes of transportation 3.2

Mobility of elderly and handicapped 3.2

Land use 3.3

Impacts on the socio-economic environment 3.5

Environmental Justice 3.6

Public health 3.7

Public safety 3.7

Noise and vibration 3.8

Air Quality 3.9

 

50 Federal Railroad Administration. FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. May 26, 1999. 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02561. Accessed November 25, 2013.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 75

Topic Section that Covers the Topic

Solid waste disposal 3.10

Site of historical, archeological, architectural, or cultural significance 3.11

Use of 4(f) protected properties (recreation areas and wildlife refuges) 3.12

Recreation areas and opportunities 3.12 and 3.13

Aesthetic environment and scenic resources 3.14

Flood hazards and floodplain management 3.15

Water Quality 3.16

Impacts on wetland areas 3.17

Coastal zone management 3.18

Natural ecological systems 3.19

Impacts on endangered species or wildlife 3.19

Use of natural resources other than energy 3.9, 3.12, 3.13, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 

3.18, 3.19, and 3.20

Use of energy resources 3.21

Construction period impacts 3.26

Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. May 26, 1999.

3.1.2 Determining the Program Area of Analysis

The Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program is approximately 300 miles long, 

beginning in Chicago, traveling through northern Indiana and southern Michigan, to Detroit/Pontiac (see

Figure 1-1). This Tier 1 EIS analyzes multiple reasonable routes through Illinois and Indiana. It includes

the existing Amtrak route in Michigan and new stations at locations to be determined in northwest

Indiana, Ann Arbor, Michigan and Detroit (in the New Center area) as well as one new maintenance 

facility in Pontiac, Michigan. Other existing stations along the route may also be improved. Station 

locations and improvements will be determined during service development planning and during Tier 2 

NEPA analysis. See Chapter 2 (Alternatives Considered) for a thorough description of the route selection 

process and Figure 2-6 for a flow chart summarizing the route selection process. Chapter 2 also contains 

maps of the alternatives and descriptions of potential improvements.

The railroad right of way along the Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Corridor is assumed to be approximately 100 

feet wide; however, the actual right of way varies in isolated locations, especially urban areas, where the 

right of way line may show slight irregularities. On the ground, the vast majority of the existing right of 

way is a uniform 100 feet wide, with the exception in the South of the Lake (SOTL) area of Route 4 

where there is a 7-mile stretch that is 66 feet wide. As shown in Figure 3-1, the 100 foot width therefore

represents a conservative, reasonable average right of way width.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 76

Figure 3-1: Typical Build Cross-Section within a 100-Foot Right of Way

Source: HNTB Corporation. August 2013.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 77

The Area of Analysis covers 250 feet on each side of the existing rail centerline for a total width of 500 

feet for each of the Build Alternatives and the No Build Alternative, which follows the existing Amtrak 

route. This 500-foot Area of Analysis is expected to accommodate any additional right of way that may 

be needed for track maintenance and to reduce operating disruptions, including track construction and 

improvements. This conservatively wide Area of Analysis accounts for the maximum anticipated future 

right of way needs and therefore overestimates the area that in reality would be directly impacted by the 

Program. It also allows flexibility in future design to accommodate future design constraints that may be 

identified.

The boundaries of the Area of Analysis are shown in the series of maps contained in Appendix D. The 

Area of Analysis comprises nine counties in Michigan (Berrien, Cass, Van Buren, Kalamazoo, Calhoun, 

Jackson, Washtenaw, Wayne and Oakland), three counties in Indiana (Lake, Porter, LaPorte) and one 

county in Illinois (Cook).

This Tier 1 EIS is examining a conceptual level of design. More detail about specific affected areas will 

be examined in Tier 2 NEPA analyses.

Service development planning is also being completed as part of the development of this Tier 1 EIS and 

includes the development of conceptual site plans for all new stations and the maintenance facility. More 

detail about the affected areas for stations and maintenance facility needs will be examined more closely 

in future Tier 2 NEPA analysis if a Build Alternative is selected. The Service Development Plan being 

prepared for the Selected Program Alternative will also include detailed study of operations, benefits, 

costs and revenue forecasts. The final Service Development Plan will be adopted after the EIS Record of 

Decision is issued.

3.1.3 Overview of Alternatives Discussed within Chapter 3

This chapter evaluates the impacts of each of the four Build Alternatives currently under consideration by 

the Program Sponsors. These include Route 2, Route 4, Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2, and Route 9 

Option 1 and Option 2. These alternatives are mapped and fully described in Section 2.2.3.2.

The No Build Alternative will also be discussed within this chapter. Included in the No Build Alternative 

analysis are a number of improvements that have been committed to be constructed regardless of whether 

future higher-speed rail service is implemented under this Program. Appendix B includes the list of these 

improvements.

3.1.4 General Outline of Chapter 3

In this Tier 1 EIS, the following general outline is used for each affected SEE resource. Where 

appropriate, the detailed analysis is presented on a state-by-state basis.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

78 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section summarizes the analysis methodology and applicable regulatory requirements, including the 

government agencies involved in the regulation of each particular SEE resource.

Affected Environment

This section describes the environment of the areas to be affected by the Build Alternatives. Sometimes 

this is referred to as the “existing conditions”. Features and/or demographics currently present in the Area 

of Analysis are explained. The intent is to define the social, economic, or environmental conditions of 

each topic analyzed.

Impacts of the No Build Alternative

This section evaluates the potential impacts of the No Build Alternative. The No Build Alternative serves 

as a baseline for comparison of the Alternatives against not implementing the Program.

Impacts of the Build Alternatives

This section evaluates the potential impacts of the four Build Alternatives that were selected for review in 

the EIS as they are proposed to be fully implemented. Chapter 2 (Alternatives Considered) describes how 

these four alternatives were selected for further study. See Figure 2-6 for a summary of the alternatives 

selection process.

Potential Mitigation Measures

This section describes potential mitigation measures that could be taken to avoid and minimize impacts. 

For the Tier 1 EIS, mitigation measures include typical measures that can be taken and applied broadly 

for the overall Corridor and not specific to a particular Build Alternative. It is anticipated that 

implementation of mitigation measures would the responsibility of each partnering state. Until detailed 

design plans are available, many specific mitigation measures cannot be identified. Specific mitigation 

measures would be identified in Tier 2 NEPA analysis. Tier 2 NEPA analysis would be conducted on the 

Selected Program Alternative (See Chapter 5 – Next Steps).

3.1.5 Qualitative vs. Quantitative Analyses

The impact assessments in this Chapter are quantified for the social, economic and environmental 

resources where quantitative data are readily available that allow for a numerical comparison of the 

impacts of the various Build Alternatives. Other resources, for example visual and aesthetic resources, are 

analyzed qualitatively.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 79

3.1.6 Geographic Information System (GIS) Data

Appendix D contains maps showing the Area of Analysis as well as the resources present within 0.5 mile 

of the rail corridor. Discussions and analyses are consistent with a Tier 1 level analysis, which does not 

involve detailed design and field surveys. Analyses in this Chapter use existing GIS data that is readily 

available within the Area of Analysis. Available GIS data layers were provided by a number of different 

sources including federal, state and local government agencies. A list of the source maps is contained in 

the References section. The maps in Appendix D were derived using the most recent GIS data layers 

available at the time of the analysis. This Tier 1 NEPA analysis did not include independent collection 

and mapping of new resource data.

3.2 Transportation

This section reviews the existing transportation networks and the Program’s effects on the various modes 

of transportation providing service between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac, Michigan. 

3.2.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Coordination has taken place with MDOT, INDOT, IDOT, and regional Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPOs) and Councils of Government (COGs) to obtain readily available long-range 

transportation plans (including information related to air travel) in the Corridor. A list of sources is 

included in the References section. Major existing and planned transportation facilities for each 

transportation mode have been identified, including existing locations with substantial levels of 

congestion. Information regarding vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for major highways in the Corridor have 

been collected from MDOT, INDOT, and IDOT. Information regarding intercity bus and passenger rail 

services has been collected from MPOs, COGs, and appropriate state long-range transportation plans. As 

appropriate, local transit services have been identified along each of the Build Alternatives, including at 

potential station areas.

The affected environment as it pertains to the ridership data included in this section includes a “Study 

Area Zone” presented in Appendix E.

The transportation Area of Analysis includes considerations of all passenger and freight transportation 

modes of the regional transportation network. The transportation modes discussed below include 

automobile, air, bus, navigation, and rail.

3.2.2 Affected Environment

The modes of intercity transportation within the Corridor include travel by automobile, airplane, bus and 

passenger rail. Among all four modes of travel, approximately 104 million trips were made between 

Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac in 2012. Table 3-2 provides the 2012 total trips by travel mode along the 

Corridor. These numbers reflect the existing 2012 travel mode split and do not account for any future 

Build Alternative improvements to passenger rail service between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

80 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-2: Total Trips by Mode for the Base Forecasting Model Year 2012

Mode of Travel Total Trips

Automobile 99,990,000

Air 2,560,000

Bus 660,000

Passenger Rail 500,000

Total 103,710,000

Source: TEMS Michigan Passenger Rail Study Ridership and Revenue Forecasts-Preliminary Results, June 2014

As shown in Figure 3-2, cars are the most common mode of travel in the travel market. The source of this 

data, the Michigan Passenger Rail Study Ridership and Revenue Forecasts-Preliminary Results can be 

found in Appendix E.

Figure 3-2: Travel Market Share by Mode for the Base Forecasting Model Year 2012

Source: TEMS Michigan Passenger Rail Study Ridership and Revenue Forecasts-Preliminary Results, June 2014

3.2.2.1 Automobile Travel (Interstate Highway Network)

In 2035, without improved passenger rail service, nearly 96 percent of all travel within the Corridor is 

estimated to be by personal automobile. The primary travel route is Interstate 94 or Interstate 90 (Chicago 

Skyway) between Chicago Union Station and Gary, Indiana, and Interstate 94 from Gary, Indiana to 

Detroit; and Interstate 75 from Detroit to Pontiac, Michigan. The total distance between Chicago and 

Pontiac, Michigan is 308 miles by car. A one-way trip by automobile between downtown Chicago to 

Pontiac, Michigan at posted interstate speeds takes approximately 4 hours, 44 minutes.51

 

51 www.travelmath.com. Accessed August 23, 2013.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 81

As noted in the Illinois’ long-range transportation plan, Illinois State Transportation Plan 2012, VMT in 

the State of Illinois grew 23 percent between 1990 and 2000, and dropped to less than 3 percent growth 

between 2000 and 2010. The plan attributes the slower rate of growth to a number of factors including a 

decline in the economy, higher fuel prices, and attitudinal changes toward driving. However, the Plan 

estimates the annual VMT to grow by 23 percent by the year 2040, based on population growth forecasts 

for the State of Illinois. Illinois’ transportation plan also states that truck traffic is expected to continue 

growing and will handle 67 percent of all freight traffic in the state by the year 2040.52

Indiana’s Future Transportation Needs Report states that as of 2010, nearly 78.6 billion vehicle miles 

traveled are logged annually in Indiana. Indiana has historically experienced high VMT growth, however 

VMT began leveling off in the early 2000’s. Currently, Indiana has seen an increase in VMT as the 

economy recovers. However, the Report indicates that Indiana does not expect VMT growth to reach high 

levels such as those experienced from the late 1980’s through the 1990’s because of fuel prices and weak 

economic growth. Truck traffic is expected to increase more rapidly than passenger traffic due to a variety 

of reasons including the increased dispersion of population and employment.

53

Michigan logged 97.6 billion vehicle miles traveled in 2010. Similar to Indiana, VMT in Michigan 

leveled off in the mid-2000’s before declining in 2008 and 2009.54 VMT growth increased in 2010 and is 

expected to continue into the future. Michigan’s long range plan, MI Transportation Plan: Moving 

Michigan Forward, indicates that overall employment growth, though at slower than historical rates, is 

expected to increase VMT. Population growth is expected to place greater demands on Michigan’s 

existing transportation system that may lead to increased congestion and in urban and suburban regions. 

Additionally, as Michigan’s employment continues to decentralize, commute time and distance will likely 

increase, resulting in increases in VMT and extended peak commuting periods.55

As indicated in the purpose and need, I-94 between Chicago and Detroit currently experiences high peakperiod congestion and capacity issues in the Chicago and Detroit metropolitan areas. By 2040, if no 

capacity improvements are made, larger sections of the I-94 corridor between Chicago and Benton 

Harbor, Michigan, Kalamazoo and Battle Creek, Michigan and Ann Arbor and Detroit, Michigan will be 

experiencing a volume/service flow ratio56 greater than 0.95 indicating a highly congested highway with 

stop-and-go traffic conditions in the peak-period.57

 

52 Illinois State Transportation Plan 2012. www.illinoistransportationplan.org. Accessed September 1, 2013. 53 Indiana’s 2013-2035 Future Transportation Needs Report: Keeping Indiana Moving. 

http://www.in.gov/indot/files/LRP_FutureNeedsReport_041513.pdf. Accessed September 2, 2013. 54 Michigan Department of Transportation. Michigan and Surrounding States Comparison of Fatalities and VMT. 

http://publications.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org/2010/10yr_15.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2013. 55 MI Transportation Plan: Moving Michigan Forward. 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_2035MIPlan4approval_398932_7.pdf?20130902201533.

Accessed September 2, 2013.

56 The volume/surface flow ratio represents the relationship between actual traffic volumes and the maximum 

capacity of the roadway. No roadway congestion is present when the volume/surface flow ratio is 0.0. Roadways 

are considered congested when the volume/surface flow ratio is between 0.75 and 0.95. A roadway with a 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

82 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.2.2.2 Air Service

Air service is currently available between major cities in the Area of Analysis. Commercial passenger air 

service is provided in Chicago (Chicago O’Hare International Airport and Chicago Midway International 

Airport), Gary, Indiana (Gary/Chicago International Airport), Kalamazoo/Battle Creek, Michigan

(Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport), and Detroit (Coleman A. Young International Airport

and Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County International Airport).

As stated in the purpose and need, Chicago O’Hare International Airport is the second busiest airport in 

the nation in aircraft movements. The airport accommodates nearly 2,400 aircraft movements per day58

and is ranked among the worst airports in the U.S. for on-time departure performance, with 76.58 percent 

of departures on-time in 201259.

Other major airports near the Corridor include South Bend Airport, Oakland-Troy Airport and Willow 

Run Airport.

Typical gate-to-gate flight times are presented in Table 3-3. These travel times are the time spent in flight 

and don’t include time spent in processing and waiting at the gate. Airports typically suggest passengers 

to arrive an additional 60 to 90 minutes at the airport before their flight to get through security and meet 

their required minimum times to be at the gate to check in.

Table 3-3: Typical Gate-to-Gate Flight times

Service Gate-to-Gate Flight Time

Chicago to Detroit 65 minutes

Chicago to Kalamazoo/Battle Creek 40 minutes

Kalamazoo/Battle Creek to Detroit 56 minutes

3.2.2.3 Bus Service

This section describes the various bus services that operate within the Area of Analysis. There are 

regional services for longer trips, shuttle buses that provide service to the major airports, city buses for 

intra-city travel and dial-a-ride services for curb-to-curb service.

 

volume/surface flow ratio of 0.95 to 1.0 has traffic volumes approaching or equal to the surface flow and is 

considered to be highly congested, and experiences stop-and-go traffic conditions. 57 Federal Highway Administration. November 2010. Freight Facts and Figures 2010. Retrieved August 27, 2014. 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/docs/10factsfigures/index.htm. 58 AirportIQ. Airport Master Records and Reports. July 24, 2014. Retrieved August 27, 2014. 

http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=ORD&AptSecNum=2

59 U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Table 6 - Ranking of Major Airport OnTime Departure Performance Year-to-date through December 2012. Retrieved August 27, 2014. 

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/subject_areas/airline_information/airline_ontime_tables/2012_12/table_06
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 83

Greyhound provides bus service within the Area of Analysis between downtown Chicago, and Pontiac, 

Michigan The service features stops in a number of cities in between Chicago and Pontiac along Interstate 

94, including stops in Chicago; in Hammond, Indiana; and in Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Albion, Jackson, 

and Ann Arbor, Michigan Typical bus service includes seven trips per day from Chicago and six trips per 

day from Detroit. Typical travel time by bus between Chicago and Detroit ranges from 5 hours and 20 

minutes for “Express” service to 8 hours and 15 minutes where numerous local stops are provided.60

Greyhound offers competitive amenities including Wi-Fi service, power ports at each seat, and on-board 

restrooms.

Megabus.com, a subsidiary of Coach USA, offers express bus service that operates daily between 

Chicago and Detroit with stops in Grand Rapids, East Lansing and Ann Arbor, Michigan. Megbus.com 

provides 8 round-trips per day between Chicago and Detroit. The full one-way trip from Chicago to 

Detroit takes from 5 hours, 25 minutes to 6 hours, 40 minutes. Megabus.com offers competitive amenities 

including Wi-Fi service, power ports at each seat, and on-board restrooms. However, Megabus.com does 

not always provide traditional sheltered station stops. In Chicago, the station stop is located adjacent to 

Chicago Union Station. In downtown Detroit, the station stop is in the Rosa Parks Transit Center.61

Tri State/United Limo, another subsidiary of Coach USA, provides bus service to O’Hare, Midway, and 

South Bend Airports from Northwest Indiana and the South Chicago Suburbs. 

Indian Trails operates bus services for airport transfers and daily scheduled routes throughout Michigan, 

northern Indiana, and into Chicago, Milwaukee and Duluth. Indian Trails also offers competitive 

amenities including Wi-Fi service, power ports at each seat, and on-board restrooms.

City buses are also available to existing and proposed stations in the Corridor, in the larger cities 

including the Chicago and its suburbs, and Hammond, East Chicago, Gary, and Michigan City, Indiana,

as well as Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Jackson, Ann Arbor, Detroit and its suburbs, and Pontiac, Michigan.

Dowagiac and Niles, Michigan have Dial-A-Ride transportation systems. Dial-a-Ride systems provide, 

typically free of charge, curb-to-curb bus service for residents with special needs. Other Dial-a-Rides 

include the North Township Dial-a-Ride based in Hammond, Indiana. Pace, a transit provider for 

suburban Chicago, also has a number of Dial-a-Ride services in both Cook and Lake Counties within the 

Area of Analysis.

 

60 www.greyhound.com. Accessed August 23, 2013. 61 www.megabus.com. Accessed August 23, 2013.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

84 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.2.2.4 Passenger Rail Service

Intercity Passenger Rail

Intercity passenger rail service to Detroit/Pontiac currently includes three daily round trips from Chicago 

(Amtrak Wolverine Service). In 2011, 503,290 passenger-trips were made between Chicago and Detroit 

using Amtrak’s Wolverine line. The maximum train speed on most of this corridor is 79 mph, with the 

exception of the 97-mile Amtrak-owned section between Porter, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan,

where passenger trains operate at speeds up to 110 mph. Wolverine trains take approximately 6 hours 30 

minutes to travel the approximately 300 miles between Chicago and Pontiac, an average speed of 47 mph.

Amtrak’s Pere Marquette and Blue Water services operate on the same route as the Wolverine trains, 

however the services exit the Corridor at Porter, Indiana and Battle Creek, Michigan respectively. The 

Pere Marquette continues on the CSX Grand Rapids Subdivision from Porter, Indiana to Holland and 

Grand Rapids, Michigan and provides one roundtrip per day. The Blue Water continues on the CN Flint 

Subdivision from Battle Creek to Port Huron, Michigan and also provides one daily roundtrip. See the 

existing Amtrak routes in Figure 3-3. The Midwest Regional Rail System Executive Report indicates that 

under the proposed Midwest Regional Rail System (MWRRS) the Pere Marquette service would be 

routed through Kalamazoo, Michigan to Grand Rapids and Holland, Michigan, instead of following the 

existing route along the shore of Lake Michigan.62 A decision on the preferred route for the Pere 

Marquette service will be addressed in a separate future MDOT study.

Annual ridership for all of Amtrak’s Michigan Services (Wolverine, Pere Marquette and Blue Water 

Services) in 2010 was 739,398 passengers, an increase of 49.8% from the 493,474 passengers carried in 

2000. Comparatively, in a time period where Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan have seen decline or a 

leveling off in annual VMT, passenger rail has experienced a large increase in ridership within the 

Corridor. The 29-mile section of Norfolk Southern Railway’s Chicago Line between Porter, Indiana, and 

the Indiana/Illinois state line that is utilized by Amtrak’s Michigan Services is the single most delayprone intercity passenger rail corridor in the country. The primary cause of delay on Amtrak’s Michigan 

Services can be attributed to train interference; track quality and signaling that restrict speed; and 

equipment malfunctions. Improvements to track and signaling infrastructure between Kalamazoo and 

Dearborn, Michigan has been funded and is expected to alleviate some delay along the route in the near 

term as passenger trains will be able to increase speed to 79 to 110 mph along portions of the track. 

Passenger service on the NS Chicago Line also includes long distance service on Amtrak’s Capitol 

Limited and Lake Shore Limited services. In total, Amtrak’s Michigan Services and long distance 

services account for fourteen daily passenger trains that currently share the NS Chicago Line with NS 

freight service on one of the busiest freight lines in the country.

 

62 Midwest Regional Rail System Executive Report. September 2004.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 85

Figure 3-3: Existing Amtrak Service in the Midwest

Source: Amtrak website. http://www.amtrak.com/midwest-train-routes. Accessed December 16, 2013.

The Capitol Limited (Chicago to Washington D.C.) and the Lakeshore Limited (Chicago to Boston/New 

York) travel along the Amtrak route between Chicago and Porter, Indiana. At Porter, Indiana, both 

services continue east through northern Indiana. Each service provides one round trip per day. Other 

Amtrak service that utilizes the NS Chicago Line includes the Hoosier State (Chicago to Indianapolis) 

and the Cardinal (Chicago to Cincinnati to New York); however, these services travel on the NS Chicago 

Line only for a short distance in Chicago to access Chicago Union Station.

The Amtrak Illini (Chicago to Carbondale), Saluki (Chicago to Carbondale), and City of New Orleans 

(Chicago to New Orleans) services are also provided on the CN Chicago Subdivision in Illinois, which is 

under consideration as a Build Alternative in Route 9 (Option 1 and Option 2).
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

86 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Other Amtrak services that utilize Chicago Union Station include:

• Lincoln Service (Chicago to St. Louis)

• Texas Eagle (Chicago to San Antonio to Los Angeles)

• Southwest Chief (Chicago to Albuquerque to Los Angeles)

• California Zephyr (Chicago to Denver to San Francisco)

• Carl Sandburg (Chicago to Quincy, Illinois)

• Illinois Zephyr (Chicago to Quincy, Illinois)

• Empire Builder (Chicago to Minneapolis to Portland/Seattle)

• Hiawatha (Chicago to Milwaukee)

The Wolverine Amtrak service offers on-board amenities including food service, quiet cars, and free 

wireless internet service.

Commuter Rail

Metra, the commuter rail division of the Regional Transportation Authority of northeastern Illinois,

operates two commuter rail services in the Corridor. One of the commuter rail services is the Metra 

SouthWest Service (15 weekday round trips) which utilizes the NS Chicago Line right of way for 

approximately 2.5 miles from just south of Chicago Union Station to Control Point (CP) 518 in the 

Canaryville neighborhood on the south side of Chicago, where it switches to Union Pacific right of way 

and runs further south to NS right of way and then proceeds southwest to Manhattan, Illinois. Metra’s 

SouthWest Service would be relocated from the NS Chicago Line to Metra’s Rock Island District under 

the proposed 75th Street Corridor Improvement Project, a sub-project of the CREATE program. A Tier 1 

FEIS for the 75th Street Corridor Improvement Project is anticipated to be published in early 2014 with a 

Record of Decision in fall 2014. The 75th Street Corridor Improvement Project is not currently funded, 

however the construction of this project would benefit commuter operations as well as ChicagoDetroit/Pontiac intercity operations by freeing up capacity on the NS Chicago Line and at Chicago Union 

Station.

Metra’s Heritage Corridor (3 weekday round trips) and BNSF Railway (47 weekday round trips) services 

are also within the Program Corridor and access Chicago Union Station from the south. The Heritage 

Corridor connects to Amtrak mainlines that run into Chicago Union Station just south of the 21st Street 

Bridge that crosses the South Branch of the Chicago River. Metra’s BNSF Railway service connects to 

the same Amtrak mainlines just north of 16th Street near the St. Charles Air Line.

The other commuter rail service in the Corridor is the Metra Electric District (174 weekday round trips of 

various distances), which runs alongside the CN Chicago Subdivision for approximately 30 miles from 

the St. Charles Air Line (SCAL) in downtown Chicago, south to University Park, Illinois There are no 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 87

current plans to extend this service. Metra operates additional trains which serve Chicago Union Station 

from the north and three additional stations in downtown Chicago.

The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) also offers heavy rail passenger service, but this service does not 

operate on or along any of the Build Alternatives under consideration.

The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) provides commuter rail service in 

northern Indiana. NICTD operates 20 westbound and 21 eastbound trains each weekday between South 

Bend, Indiana and Millennium Station in downtown Chicago during the weekdays. Service is reduced to 

10 westbound and 11 eastbound trains on weekends and holidays. Some trains do not run the full length 

of the system. NICTD is currently investigating a potential reroute of its existing line through Michigan 

City, Indiana. The route through Michigan City, Indiana presently runs on 11th Street, where tracks are 

embedded in the street. Potential alternatives for NICTD’s new route include running on the existing 

Amtrak-owned track that currently accommodates the Michigan Services and is the proposed route for all 

Build Alternatives.63 Adding NICTD trains to the Amtrak line in Michigan City would limit track 

capacity for Amtrak service and potentially require reconfiguration of station facilities to accommodate 

and limit conflicts between both services.

Light Rail/Streetcar

Illinois and Indiana currently do not have existing light rail or streetcar operations and have no plans for 

future light rail operations.

MDOT is in the process of working with M-1RAIL, a 501c3 non-profit agency, and the Federal Transit 

Administration to deliver a 3.3 mile streetcar project in Detroit. The streetcar project will provide 

premium transit service along Woodward Avenue between Congress Street and Grand Boulevard and 

includes a proposed stop adjacent to the existing Detroit (New Center) Amtrak station. Early construction 

activities for the project began in 2013. Completion of the entire system and subsequent start of 

operations is anticipated in late 2016.

3.2.2.5 Freight Rail Service

Freight rail service currently uses the rail corridors that are being studied for the Build Alternatives. In the 

Corridor in Illinois, freight service is provided by NS, CN, and the Indiana Harbor Belt (IHB). In Indiana, 

freight service is provided by NS, CSX, and IHB. Along the proposed route in Michigan, freight service 

is provided by NS, Conrail Shared Assets Organization (CSAO), CSX and CN. Freight traffic varies from 

 

63 Indiana State Rail Plan. November 2011. http://www.in.gov/indot/files/Rail_JanFinal_Report_011712.pdf.

Accessed September 2, 2013.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

88 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

light to heavy with various commodities, including intermodal containers.64 The Area of Analysis 

contains a combination of grade separated and at-grade highway/rail crossings.

The most substantial freight planning effort in the Program Corridor is in Michigan. MDOT’s 

Environmental Impact Study of the Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal (DIFT) involves consolidating 

intermodal operations of the CSX, NS, and Canadian Pacific (CP) railroads in southwest Detroit into one 

yard at the Livernois-Junction Yard.

65 These proposed improvements to freight rail in the Detroit area are 

intended to provide benefits to intercity passenger rail by improving freight operations that would result 

in fewer passenger and freight rail conflicts.

3.2.3 Impacts of No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program would not be implemented. The benefits cited in the project 

Purpose and Need (see Chapter 1) would not be realized, primarily because trips would not be diverted 

from other modes of travel (see Figure 3-6). Some safety and reliability improvements, as well as 

localized reduced conflicts between intercity passenger rail service and freight rail service will be seen in 

the Corridor. This is due to the implementation of the No Build improvement projects identified above 

and in Appendix B. The No Build projects are expected to improve passenger and freight operations and 

address existing problems. The improvements specifically address safety and reliability by reducing 

conflicts between passenger and freight rail operations by installing track and providing minimum 

separation distances between freight and passenger rail track centerlines, which helps to promote safety. 

These related benefits are not anticipated to extend beyond a localized area.

Table 3-4 shows the total number of projected trips by travel mode along the Corridor based on the No 

Build condition in 2035. These projections show that in 2035, without implementing the full Program, 

passenger train trips will increase by 550,000 from the 500,000 riders in 2012. The increase in passenger 

rail trips is a result of the decreased travel time between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, Michigan that will be 

realized once improvements enabling increased train speeds are constructed. Those improvements are 

discussed in the description of the No Build in Section 2.4.1.2. Figure 3-4 shows the travel market share 

in 2035 for each mode under the No Build condition. The passenger rail mode’s share in the travel market 

will increase from 0.48% to 0.78%.

 

64 Intermodal freight is a shipping method used to send products from manufacturers to where people buy them. It 

is called “intermodal” because it employs two “modes,” trucks and trains, using special containers or trailers. 65 Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal Project Summary. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_07-

5493_TerminalLocs_182923_7.pdf?20130902220644. Accessed September 2, 2013.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 89

Table 3-4: Total Trips by Mode Projected to the Year 2035 for the No Build Alternative

Mode of Travel Total Trips

Automobile 129,820,000

Air 3,610,000

Bus 820,000

Passenger Rail 1,050,000

Total 135,300,000

Source: TEMS Michigan Passenger Rail Study Ridership and Revenue Forecasts-Preliminary Results, June 2014

Figure 3-4: Intercity Travel Market Share: Base Year 2012 and No Build in 2035

Existing Conditions (2012) No Build (2035)

Source: TEMS Michigan Passenger Rail Study Ridership and Revenue Forecasts-Preliminary Results, June 2014

The No Build Alternative does not meet the stated purpose and need described in Chapter 1, and therefore 

the following modes of travel would be affected as described in the following sections.

3.2.3.1 Automobile Travel

Under the No Build Alternative, it is expected that travel between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac would 

continue to be predominantly by automobiles along the existing Interstate Highway network. The 

diversion of trips from automobiles to the train would not occur and it is expected that highway 

congestion and increased safety risks would remain the same or increase along some portions of the 

highway network. There would be continued travel delays and conflicts with truck freight traffic. 

Travel forecasts indicate that under the no-build scenario, annual person trips by automobile within the 

Corridor will increase from 99,990,000 in 2012 to 129,820,000 in 2035, indicating an increase in 

congestion if no roadway capacity improvements are constructed. Negative impacts of congestion include 

motorists time lost, wasted fuel consumption, raised travel costs, increased air pollution, delays for 

emergency vehicles and increased traffic on parallel road networks as the highway system becomes more 

congested.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

90 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.2.3.2 Air Service

The lack of a competitive alternative mode of travel could potentially result in greater congestion at 

airports and higher ticket fares. Without improved intercity passenger rail, the benefits of a reliable 

alternative travel mode that avoids increasingly congested airports, specifically Chicago O’Hare Airport,

would not be realized.

3.2.3.3 Bus Service

It is assumed under the No Build scenario that bus service traveling between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac 

may have greater ridership than what would be realized if the Program was implemented. Intercity bus 

service, such as service between Chicago and Detroit would likely increase as the need for transit between 

the cities increases as projected. However, local bus service in the No Build scenario along the proposed 

routes would not benefit from the projected increases in intercity passenger rail ridership that would 

directly result from the increased need for public transportation to and from stations in the Build 

condition.

3.2.3.4 Passenger Rail Service

It is assumed that intercity passenger rail services that currently operate within the area, including 

Amtrak’s Midwest corridor service and long distance service as well as Illinois’ state-supported service, 

would continue to operate, but would likely face increased freight rail congestion and increased delay as 

freight rail traffic is anticipated to grow in the future. Higher rates of freight rail congestion and delay 

would most likely occur in the SOTL area where the goal of a dedicated double track passenger railroad 

that would separate freight from passenger traffic would not be implemented under the No Build 

Alternative.

Projected ridership for Amtrak’s Wolverine Service between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac is anticipated to 

increase without the implementation of the Program, however at a slower rate. Forecasted ridership for 

the No Build condition between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac is projected to reach 1,050,000 passengers 

in 2035.66 Detailed information about the ridership projections and methodology can be seen in Appendix 

E.

3.2.3.5 Freight Rail Service

Under the No Build Alternative it is anticipated that freight rail service would face increased congestion 

along portions of the existing Amtrak route between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac as freight traffic 

continues to grow and passenger trains continue to operate under existing conditions. Specifically, 

improvements that would reduce congestion by separating freight and passenger rail traffic in the SOTL 

due to the proposed construction of a dedicated double track passenger alignment would not be realized. 

 

66 Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc., June 2014.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 91

Additionally, freight trains permitted to use track between Kalamazoo, Michigan and Pontiac, Michigan 

would also not benefit from the proposed track improvements needed to run passenger trains at 110 mph. 

These improvements include enhancements to the physical infrastructure that benefit freight operations as 

well as passenger trains, such as rail, ballast, ties, and signaling as well as operational improvements that 

include reconfiguration of the Beaubien and Milwaukee Junction interlockers.

3.2.3.6 Navigation

The existing route crosses the South Branch of the Chicago River and Calumet River in Chicago, the

Indiana Harbor Canal in East Chicago, Indiana, and Trail Creek in Michigan City, Indiana at points 

utilized for major commercial shipping. Under the No Build scenario, commercial shipping at these 

locations is expected to operate as it currently does today. Vessel traffic at these locations have 

precedence over railroad operations, therefore navigation on these waterways is not expected to be 

impacted if the No Build Alternative is selected as the Preferred Alternative. Passenger rail and freight 

rail traffic using the bridges that cross each river could however be delayed in the event of a vessel 

passing through.

3.2.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives

3.2.4.1 Impacts Common to all Route Alternatives

The impacts discussed in this section are shared by all of the Build Alternatives and are relevant to all 

three states.

Ridership and Travel Market Share

Development of the proposed passenger rail service would provide an improved and competitive mode of 

travel (see Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need). Despite differences between the Build Alternatives being 

considered in the SOTL area, all of the alternatives have similar impacts to transportation.

Table 3-5 shows the total number of projected trips by travel mode along the Corridor based on a full 

build-out of any one of the Build Alternatives. These projections show that in 2035, with the Program 

implemented, passenger train trips will increase by 2,330,000 from the 500,000 riders in 2012. Figure 3-5

shows the travel market share in 2035 for each mode. The passenger rail mode’s share in the travel 

market will increase from 0.48% to 2.09%.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

92 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-5: Total Trips by Mode Projected to the Year 2035 for all Build Alternatives

Mode of Travel Total Trips

Automobile 128,740,000

Air 3,260,000

Bus 630,000

Passenger Rail 2,830,000

Total 135,460,000

Source: TEMS Michigan Passenger Rail Study Ridership and Revenue Forecasts-Preliminary Results, June 2014

Figure 3-5: Intercity Travel Market Share: Base Year 2012 and Full Build-out in 2035

Existing Conditions (2012) Full Build-out (2035)

Source: TEMS Michigan Passenger Rail Study Ridership and Revenue Forecasts-Preliminary Results, June 2014

Travel demand and diversion forecasts for 2035 for the Build Alternatives were performed, as shown in 

Figure 3-6. A large percentage of the growth in the rail trips are due to diversion from auto, bus, and air 

trips. With improved intercity passenger rail service, reliability and amenities, it is projected that

approximately half of the passengers will divert from cars, 6.0% from bus service, and 10.6% from air 

service. The Build Alternatives are also expected to induce demand for the service, accounting for 6.2% 

of all forecasted riders.

Figure 3-6: Sources of Rail Trips – Build Alternative – 2035

Source: TEMS Michigan Passenger Rail Study Ridership and Revenue Forecasts-Preliminary Results, June 2014
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 93

Railroad Crossings

To safely accommodate increased intercity passenger rail service speeds and frequencies, existing atgrade crossings would be closed or upgraded as necessary with gates, lights, median-barriers and other 

safety devices. Traffic patterns may be altered in areas where existing crossings are closed, and delays at 

remaining at-grade crossings may become more frequent as additional train frequencies are added to the 

route. Delays due to passenger rail service would be limited to the time it would take for a passenger train 

to safely pass through the at-grade crossing.

Grade-separated crossings are proposed in some cases to improve the safety, traffic flow, and efficiency 

of the transportation system and to meet the FRA safety standards. Existing grade separated crossings 

would be retrofitted or reconstructed in areas where new track would be constructed. More detailed 

analysis of infrastructure needs at specific crossings would be provided in Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

Construction activities related to grade crossing improvements could result in temporary impacts on the 

transportation system, including changes to travel patterns in the area of closures, automobile traffic 

congestion, delays, detours, disrupted access to properties and neighborhoods, and potential conflicts with 

construction equipment. During Tier 2 NEPA analysis, there would be further evaluation of the need for 

crossing closures or grade separations. Specific construction impacts would also be evaluated in more 

detail in Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

Local Road Networks and Parking

Impact to local traffic patterns at the existing and proposed station locations can be expected as traffic 

volumes and parking demand increase at the stations. Traffic patterns may also be altered in areas where 

existing crossings are closed, and delays at remaining at-grade crossings may become more frequent as 

additional train frequencies are added to the route. Delays due to passenger rail service would be limited 

to the time it would take for a passenger train to safely pass through the at-grade crossing. Details on such 

impacts to the local road network and parking facilities would be discussed in future Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis.

Integrating with Other Rail Transportation

If the proposed higher-speed passenger rail service is implemented, it would need to integrate with the 

existing and planned Amtrak, commuter rail, and light rail operations at the stations. It would also be 

beneficial to coordinate schedules with intercity buses and provide common ticketing procedures to 

provide an efficient and consumer friendly intermodal service.

Increased passenger rail frequency and speed could further congest and increase associated conflicts and 

delays in freight service on those rail lines that currently carry passenger and freight rail traffic. Conflicts 

could be minimized through proposed safety upgrades and capacity improvements. These effects would

be further addressed in Tier 2 NEPA analysis.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

94 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Navigable Waterways

The Build Alternatives cross many rivers and streams, including some notable navigable commercial 

shipping channels. The maps in Appendix D show the locations of notable navigable commercial 

shipping channels in the Corridor. All Build Alternatives cross the South Branch of the Chicago River in 

Chicago and Trail Creek in Michigan City, Indiana.

Shipping channels are used by container ships and require moveable bridges. According to U.S. Coast 

Guard regulations, (33 CFR 117), vessel traffic on the South Branch of the Chicago River and Trail Creek 

at the existing bridges have precedence over railroad operations. Therefore, the Build Alternatives are not 

expected to impact navigation on these waterways. Passenger rail and freight rail traffic using the bridges 

could however be delayed in the event of a vessel passing through. Construction of new bridges at these 

locations would be required: to comply with the applicable construction standards set forth in the Code of 

Federal Regulations and by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for crossings at commercially 

navigable waterways; and to obtain permits from the USACE and the Coast Guard for crossings at 

commercially navigable waterways, if they have not been previously obtained. These permits are 

discussed further in Section 3.25. There is potential for construction-related delays of vessel traffic at 

these locations. Potential construction-related impacts would last the duration of construction. 

Additionally these bridges, if reconstructed as a movable type bridge, pose a constraint to achieving 

higher speeds and reliability of service within the Corridor. Potential construction-related impacts would 

last the duration of construction. These impacts would be further assessed and mitigation developed 

during future Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

In addition to the transportation impacts described above, the following sections, Sections 3.2.4.2 through

3.2.4.7 discuss transportation impacts that are specific to each route.

There are no additional impacts specific to the Michigan part of the Corridor where all Build Alternatives 

are on the same route. However there are some potential impacts that are route specific in the SOTL area 

in Illinois and Indiana. These potential effects are discussed by route in the following sections.

3.2.4.2 Route 2 Impacts

Illinois and Indiana

Increased passenger rail frequency and speed could further congest and increase associated conflicts and 

delays in freight service on those rail lines that currently carry both passenger and freight rail traffic

between Chicago Union Station and the Englewood Flyover. On Route Alternative 2, between Chicago 

Union Station and the Englewood Flyover in Chicago (see Figure 2-13, Map Node A - S), a new parallel 

track would need to be installed to provide a dedicated double-track passenger route in this area. In 

addition to the new track and upgrade of the existing track, other improvements associated with 

accommodating increased intercity passenger service could include upgrades to existing crossings and 

signals. Such upgrades could also benefit the existing freight rail service along the NS Chicago Line.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 95

From the Englewood Flyover to the Buffington Harbor area (see Figure 2-13, Map Node S - Ab) two new 

dedicated passenger tracks would be constructed adjacent to existing tracks, within the existing ComEd 

utility right of way, for approximately 13.5 miles. See Section 2.4.2.2 in Chapter 2 for a complete 

description of these improvements. Two new dedicated passenger tracks would also be constructed 

between the Buffington Harbor area and Porter, Indiana (see Figure 2-13, Map Node: Ab - An) within the 

existing NS Chicago Line right of way, which is a high-density, double-track operation. Providing two 

new dedicated passenger tracks from the Englewood Flyover through Buffington Harbor to Porter, 

Indiana will allow for removal of all existing passenger rail traffic from the NS Chicago Line, benefiting 

NS freight operations. Preliminary analysis assumes that the existing NS Chicago Line right of way can 

accommodate the existing NS freight tracks, two new dedicated passenger tracks and one future freight 

track for future growth. Given the assumption that the NS Chicago Line right of way can accommodate 

up to five total tracks, dedicating two of the five tracks for passenger service could constrain future freight 

growth on the NS Chicago Line, one of the busiest freight corridors in the country. Norfolk Southern 

Corporation has stated that their Chicago Line would not support two dedicated passenger tracks as the 

right of way owned by NS along their Chicago Line is limited and is needed for NS to meet increasing 

freight capacity needs.67 Impacts to future freight growth on the NS Chicago Line will be further assessed 

and mitigation developed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

In addition to the crossings of the South Branch of the Chicago River and Trail Creek as described above, 

Route 2 crosses two other commercially navigated waterways on moveable bridges. The route crosses the 

Calumet River in Chicago as well as the Indiana Harbor Canal in East Chicago, Indiana. As described 

under “Navigable Waterways” in Section 3.2.4.1, vessel traffic at these crossings has precedence over the 

railroad operations. Passenger rail and freight rail traffic using the bridge could be delayed in the event of 

a vessel passing through. The Route 2 alternative proposes that the existing Amtrak-owned bridge at the 

Calumet River and the abandoned drawbridge at the Indiana Harbor Canal be reconstructed. Construction 

of new bridges at these locations would be required to obtain permits as described above under 

“Navigable Waterways” in Section 3.2.4.1.

3.2.4.3 Route 4 Impacts

Illinois and Indiana

Generally, the impacts of Route 4 are the same as the impacts described for Route 2 with the exception of 

the area between the Buffington Harbor area and Burns Harbor, Indiana (see Figure 2-14,Map Node: Ab -

Am). In this location, Route 2 and Route 4 diverge from each other and use different alignments. Route 4 

utilizes the CSX Barr Subdivision and NICTD rights of way between the Buffington Harbor area and 

Burns Harbor, Indiana and Route 2 uses the NS Chicago Line right of way.

 

67 Norfolk Southern Corporation. "Chicago, IL to Detroit-Pontiac, MI Regional Passenger Rail Program Comments on 

Preliminary Route Analysis." Message to Michigan Department of Transportation. May 21, 2013. Print.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

96 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Preliminary engineering analysis indicates that the existing double-tracked CSX Barr Subdivision right of 

way between the Buffington Harbor area and Miller (see Figure 2-14, Map Node: Ab - Aj) can continue 

to accommodate the existing freight tracks, construction of two new tracks and one future freight track for 

future growth. The CSX Barr Subdivision is a high-density freight operation with nearly 50 freight trains 

per day. 68 Using right of way owned by CSX, and adding dedicated passenger service could constrain 

their future freight rail growth on the busiest CSX line in the Chicago area. Constraining future freight 

growth along the CSX Barr Subdivision may result in a less efficient freight operation as the lack of 

freight capacity will require CSX to re-route trains and potentially invest in a less direct route to and from 

the Chicago terminal area. CSX has stated that they require any passenger train operating at speeds above 

90 mph be on its own dedicated tracks and right of way, separated by at least 30 feet from freight rail 

service.69

As described in Chapter 2, Route 4 would require construction of a new track in the NICTD corridor 

between Miller (see Figure 2-14, Map Node: Aj - Am) and Burns Harbor, Indiana. The existing commuter

service would comingle with the proposed intercity passenger rail operation. The current NICTD 

operations run over 40 passenger trains per day plus additional local freight service in this location. The 

existing volume of passenger rail traffic and its strict scheduling could cause scheduling conflicts. Route 4 

would require close coordination of schedules so as to avoid such conflicts between the proposed intercity 

service and the existing NICTD and freight operations that utilize the line if this alternative were carried 

forward for further evaluation.

Route 4 crosses the Calumet River in Chicago and the Indiana Harbor Canal in East Chicago, Indiana. 

See the “Navigable Waterways” discussion in 3.2.4.1 for details about potential construction and 

operational impacts. 

3.2.4.4 Route 5 Option 1 Impacts

Illinois and Indiana

Generally, the analysis of impacts for Route 5 Option 1 is the same as those impacts described in Route 2. 

However, between the Buffington Harbor area and Porter, Indiana, Route 5 Option 1 utilizes the NS 

Sugar Track, the abandoned IHB Dune Branch, and CSX Porter Subdivision rights of way to construct 

two new dedicated passenger tracks instead of the NS Chicago Line right of way, minimizing the amount 

of impact to future freight growth on these lines. Preliminary analysis assumes that the existing singletrack NS Sugar Track and CSX Porter Subdivision rights of way can accommodate the existing freight 

track, the two new dedicated passenger tracks and also accommodate up to two future freight tracks for 

future growth. Using right of way for a dedicated double-track passenger service could constrain future 

 

68 FRA Grade Crossing Inventory. http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/crossing/xingqryloc.aspx. 

Accessed June, 2012.

69 CSX Transportation. "CSX feedback to the proposed "Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program." 

Message to Michigan Department of Transportation. May 20, 2013. Email.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 97

freight rail growth on these lines. However, these two lines currently see approximately three freight 

trains per day. Route 5 Option 1 uses the abandoned IHB Dune Branch. As such, it would not have an 

impact on existing freight operations in the area of the abandoned track since it is not currently in 

operation.

Construction of a flyover at Willow Creek in Portage, Indiana could also benefit freight traffic on the 

CSX Barr and Porter Subdivisions. The flyover at Willow Creek would carry the existing CSX Porter 

Subdivision freight track, two passenger tracks and space for one future freight track over the CSX Barr 

Subdivision. Grade separating the existing diamond could eliminate the potential for rail conflicts and 

slowdowns as crossing rail traffic would not have to be dispatched allowing greater efficiency on both 

lines by decreasing congestion. A flyover that would carry two passenger tracks over the NS Chicago 

Line would also be constructed at Porter, Indiana so as to not interfere with NS freight operations.

Route 5 Option 1 also crosses the Calumet River in Chicago and the Indiana Harbor Canal in East 

Chicago, Indiana. See the “Navigable Waterways” discussion in Section 3.2.4.1 for details about potential 

construction and operational impacts.

3.2.4.5 Route 5 Option 2 Impacts

Illinois and Indiana

Route 5 Option 2 would have the same impacts as described in Route 5 Option 1 with the exception that it 

would not utilize the abandoned IHB Dune Branch. The route would utilize the CSX Porter Subdivision 

for approximately 1.5 miles more, and not take advantage of the abandoned IHB Dune Branch that is 

currently not in operation. Freight traffic on the CSX Porter Subdivision along this 1.5 mile stretch of 

track is very light and accommodates approximately 3 freight trains per day. Conflicts with freight 

operations are anticipated to be relatively minimal. However, by not utilizing the abandoned IHB Dune 

Branch, Route 5 Option 2 would be subject to addressing safety concerns at seven more grade crossings 

than Route 5 Option 1.

Route 5 Option 2 also crosses the Calumet River in Chicago and the Indiana Harbor Canal in East 

Chicago, Indiana. See the “Navigable Waterways” discussion in Section 3.2.4.1 for details about potential 

construction and operational impacts.

3.2.4.6 Route 9 Option 1 Impacts

Illinois and Indiana

From Chicago Union Station, a new St. Charles Air Line (SCAL) bridge across the South Branch of the 

Chicago River in Chicago is proposed to be constructed to provide a better connection to the CN Chicago 

Subdivision. Construction of a new SCAL bridge would require grade separating the existing 16th Street 

Junction where the SCAL and the Metra Rock Island Division currently cross at-grade on the east side of 

the South Branch of the Chicago River. Grade separating the existing diamond could eliminate the 

potential for rail conflicts and slowdowns as crossing rail traffic would not have to be dispatched,
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

98 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

allowing greater efficiency on both lines by decreasing congestion. Construction of a new SCAL could 

also potentially cause the abandonment of the CN Freeport Subdivision between 21st Street and 16th Street 

Junctions. Conceptual engineering indicates that the existing CN Freeport connection at 16th Street will be 

eliminated under the preliminary design concept. Currently this section of the CN Freeport Subdivision is 

used to shuttle freight trains between CN yards and as a relief route for Amtrak’s Carbondale, Illinois and 

City of New Orleans services when the existing SCAL cannot be used. The impacts of this improvement 

would need to be analyzed in Tier 2 NEPA analyses.

From the SCAL Bridge to Kensington Junction the two new tracks would be constructed within currently 

unused CN right of way for approximately 13 miles within the CN Chicago Subdivision. It would then 

follow the IHB Main Line, the abandoned IHB Dune Branch, and previously discussed CSX Porter 

Subdivision rights of way. Preliminary analysis shows that the existing rail rights of way from the SCAL 

Bridge to Kensington Junction are wide enough to accommodate two new passenger tracks with enough 

space remaining for one future freight track. Space would exist for only one additional freight track, using 

right of way owned by CN, IHB, and CSX for a dedicated passenger service, which could constrain future 

freight growth. Constraining future freight growth along each of these freight railroads may result in a 

less efficient freight operation as decreasing freight capacity will require routing trains and potentially 

investing in a less direct route to and from the Chicago terminal area. The IHB Main Line is the most 

heavily used freight railroad along Route 9 and therefore is expected to have the most difficulty in 

accommodating an additional two passenger tracks as portions of the IHB are triple tracked within 100 

feet of right of way. The CN Chicago Subdivision currently has double track along the route and space for 

two additional tracks within 100 feet right of way. The CSX Porter Subdivision provides the best 

opportunity among the three railroads to provide two dedicated passenger tracks as it currently 

accommodates one freight track within 100 feet of right of way, therefore the greatest amount of right of 

way for future freight growth in comparison to the other railroads.

Route 9 would require structures to separate passenger and freight service, while providing benefits to 

existing freight operations at certain locations. Flyovers would need to be constructed at Hammond 

Diamonds over NS track in Hammond, Indiana, Ivanhoe over CN track in Gary, Indiana, and at Willow 

Creek over CSX track in Portage, Indiana. At each of these diamonds a flyover would be constructed to 

carry the existing freight track(s), two passenger tracks and space for one future freight track over the 

crossing freight-railroad. Grade separations at these locations could eliminate the potential for rail 

conflicts and slowdowns as crossing rail traffic would not have to be dispatched and enable greater 

efficiency on all tracks by decreasing congestion. Flyovers would also be constructed at Gibson Junction 

over the IHB Railroad in Hammond, Indiana and at Porter, Indiana over the NS Chicago Line. The 

flyovers would carry two passenger tracks over the crossing freight railroad so as to not interfere with 

freight operations.

Additionally, the construction of two new dedicated passenger tracks between the SCAL and Porter, 

Indiana will reduce passenger rail traffic on the NS Chicago Line, benefiting NS freight operations.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 99

3.2.4.7 Route 9 Option 2 Impacts

Illinois and Indiana

The analysis of Route 9 Option 2 is the same as those impacts described in Route 9 Option 1 with the 

exception that it would not utilize the abandoned IHB Dune Branch. The route would utilize the CSX

Porter Subdivision for approximately 4.75 miles more, and not take advantage of the abandoned IHB 

Dune Branch that is currently not in operation. Freight traffic on the CSX Porter Subdivision along this 

4.75 mile stretch of track is very light and accommodates approximately 3 freight trains per day. Conflicts 

with freight operations are anticipated to be relatively minimal. However, by not utilizing the abandoned 

IHB Dune Branch, Route 9 Option 2 would be subject to addressing safety concerns at 10 more grade 

crossings than Route 9 Option 1.

3.2.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Within the SOTL, the Program goal is to provide two tracks dedicated for passenger service, which could 

avoid many potential conflicts and delays associated with mixing passenger and freight rail service. The 

construction of proposed flyovers at diamonds with large amounts of freight activity could also improve 

safety and freight and passenger operations at those locations. Additionally, conceptual engineering 

efforts will continue to assume the need to accommodate one additional freight track in all freight owned 

right of way as to not preclude future freight growth.

The Build Alternatives are all largely within existing and former passenger and freight rail corridors, 

minimizing the impact on surrounding residential, commercial and industrial development as well as the 

surrounding natural environment. Respective state Departments of Transportation would be responsible 

for implementing the following mitigation measures.

• East of Porter, Indiana where passenger rail service would continue on the existing Amtrak alignment 

and share the facility with freight, signal upgrades and infrastructure improvements would be made to 

decrease passenger and freight conflicts. Upgrades to at-grade road crossings would also be necessary 

to improve safety for rail and motorized travelers.

• Prior to construction at grade crossings, a construction stage traffic control and safety plan would be 

typically developed for implementation during construction. The plan would include measures such 

as alternate routes, detours, portable message signs, and public outreach to shift roadway traffic away 

from the work zones during construction periods. This could minimize construction-related delays on 

all modes of transportation.

• Impacts to existing freight and passenger rail can be expected during construction of track 

improvements. Typical mitigation measures include coordinating with freight and passenger rail 

operators and performing construction activities at off peak times.

• Permits related to any construction on bridges over navigable waterways would be required as set 

forth in Section 3.25 (Permits). This would include permits from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

100 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

U.S. Coast Guard and the various state agencies that regulate work in wetlands and navigable 

waterways.

• During Tier 2 NEPA study, planning and design of the station improvements will consider potential 

traffic and parking impacts in the vicinity of stations and will develop potential mitigation measures

as needed to provide a safe environment and address potential traffic congestion issues.

• Specific Program mitigation measures, to the extent required will be identified in the Tier 1 Final EIS. 

Specific project mitigation measures to the extent required will be identified in future Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis.

3.3 Land Use

The assessment of land use includes consideration of the Program’s impact on existing and future land 

uses and potential areas of property acquisitions where additional right of way may be required.

3.3.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

FRA’s Environmental Procedures Section 14(n)(15) states that an EIS should assess the impacts of each 

alternative on local land use controls and comprehensive regional planning as well as on development 

within the affected environment, including, where applicable, other proposed Federal actions in the area. 

This Tier 1 assessment of land use impacts focuses on areas where the existing use is converted to 

transportation land use, specifically where new facilities are anticipated. Other land use changes are also 

discussed here and in Section 3.24 – Indirect and Cumulative Impacts. The impacts on local land use 

controls and comprehensive regional plans would be evaluated during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

The statutory framework pertaining to relocations of residents and businesses is the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended.

For this Tier 1 EIS, the land use data collection was limited to available statewide satellite land cover data 

in GIS format and was supplemented by aerial and satellite photography. Relevant land use planning 

maps in a usable GIS format and public zoning data from regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs) and Council of Governments (COGs) would be reviewed more thoroughly in Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis. Land uses were separated into the general categories of agricultural, rural-undeveloped, ruralresidential, and urban-developed categories. The Program’s compatibility with existing and proposed land 

uses along each Build Alternative and adjacent to existing and proposed station locations was evaluated.

3.3.2 Affected Environment

The Area of Analysis is a long-established passenger and freight rail corridor. In 1852, the rail line span 

between Detroit and Chicago was first completed. Historically, the introduction of railroads into an area 

would spur development that took advantage of the faster, safer means of transportation that railroads 

provided. Many of the lands surrounding the Build Alternative routes have existing land use pattern that 

were heavily influenced by the location of the rail lines, stations and industrial access points.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 101

Today the Corridor traverses three states, 13 counties, and 61 cities, villages and townships over 

approximately 300 miles. The Corridor passes through all types of land uses from urban-industrialized to 

agricultural. An aerial view of the Area of Analysis is shown in the map book in Appendix D. Different 

land uses are readily identifiable in the aerial photographs. Throughout the Area of Analysis, there is a 

full range of land use types, patterns, and densities. Within urban areas, the predominant land use types 

are residential, industrial and commercial. Within rural areas, the predominant land use type is 

undeveloped and agricultural, with a few scattered rural residences. There are also natural areas including 

forests, wetlands, and grasslands/prairies.

Illinois

In Illinois, the western terminus of the Corridor includes the urban-industrialized areas of Chicago 

including Chicago, Calumet City and Burnham Village. The predominant land uses in this area are urbanindustrial, commercial, and to a lesser extent, urban.

Indiana

The Indiana portion of the Area of Analysis consists of rural communities and mid-to-large cities. There 

are a few commercial and service uses with modest concentrations of residential uses. The mid-to-large 

cities include Gary and Hammond. The Area of Analysis also borders the Lake Michigan shoreline, 

which includes the Indiana Dunes State Park and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.

Michigan

In Michigan, much of the Area of Analysis is located within rural, agricultural, and undeveloped areas. 

The route will intersect with a number of small, medium and large cities, and stations are proposed to be 

located in these existing urbanized areas, at existing station locations. The eastern end of the Corridor

traverses the highly developed urban/suburban metropolitan areas of Detroit and Pontiac. See Section 3.5

(Socioeconomic Resources) for population data of the impacted communities. 

3.3.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program would not be implemented. There would be no impact to 

existing or future land use. Any currently planned and/or programmed changes to land use would 

continue with the exception of the Program. Economic and transportation opportunities and associated

benefits that are expected to be gained from any development around station locations would not happen. 

3.3.4 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

The Build Alternatives utilize existing rail corridors that serve established communities. Mainline 

improvements would occur within or close to existing right of way in areas of new parallel tracks and 

spurs. Improvements are needed at existing stations to accommodate higher speed trains and increased 

frequencies and ridership, as well as the construction of a new station in northwest Indiana and a new 

maintenance facility in Pontiac, Michigan. As a result, direct changes in land use are anticipated as areas 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

102 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

of right of way are converted from their existing uses to transportation uses. Larger areas of acquisition 

would occur to accommodate a new station, maintenance facility, and associated parking facilities. Land 

acquisition is also anticipated in areas where new connections would need to be made between two 

separate railroad rights of way and for the construction of major infrastructure improvements, such as 

flyovers, see Section 2.4.2.2. A Tier 2 NEPA analysis will be conducted to determine specific impacts.

The indirect impact on land use and development would be a function of: land available for development 

or redevelopment; regional and local markets; and the plans, zoning ordinances, and economic

development programs of local government. These types of changes in land use would most likely occur 

in each of the cities where there would be a station stop for high‐speed rail service, see Section 3.24

(Indirect and Cumulative Impacts).

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 3.5 (Socioeconomic Resources) for a discussion of the anticipated economic benefits of the 

Program, and Section 3.24 (Indirect and Cumulative Effects) for a discussion of potential indirect and 

cumulative effects resulting from construction of Program-related infrastructure.

The specific routes and potential impacts on existing land uses are discussed in the following sections.

3.3.4.1 Impacts Common to All Route Alternatives

Common impacts for this topic are relevant only to the portion of the Area of Analysis in Michigan.

Michigan

Track improvements proposed to implement the Program would be largely within the existing rail 

corridor. The improvements required would be determined as design details are developed; however, it is 

anticipated that such improvements would not fundamentally change any land use patterns. The Program 

proposes using existing stations in New Buffalo, Niles, Dowagiac, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Albion, 

Jackson, Ann Arbor, Dearborn, Detroit, Royal Oak, Troy/Birmingham and Pontiac. Within the Area of 

Analysis through Michigan, no major changes in land use patterns are expected.

The potential new station location in northwest Indiana and the maintenance facility properties may need 

to be rezoned through the local development process. Existing stations that are approved for the Program 

during final site selection may need rehabilitation and/or upgrading to provide modern amenities and to 

meet accessibility requirements. For the most part, improvements to stations would be limited to the 

existing station’s boundaries. However, additional property may need to be acquired for maintenance 

facility and station area parking or other improvements. Impacts of the use adjacent to stations and 

maintenance facility would be analyzed further during Tier 2 NEPA analyses, when more specifics are 

known about the station areas and station plans. The maintenance facility location, size, and other 

Program needs would be defined during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 103

3.3.4.2 Route 2 Impacts

Illinois

Route 2 travels through Illinois on the existing Amtrak route to Detroit/Pontiac. Anticipated track 

improvements, most of which are currently planned to be completed under other projects or within the 

existing right of way, are not expected to result in a change in land use. The portion of the Corridor 

between Englewood and Buffington Harbor would include construction of two new tracks in the Com Ed 

right of way next to the NS tracks. However, because Route 2 would follow the same rail corridor and be 

parallel and adjacent to the existing line, no land use changes are expected in surrounding areas.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 2 continues along the existing Amtrak route to Detroit/Pontiac. The area is fully 

developed in urban and industrial uses from the Illinois border, east past Gary, Indiana to a point where it 

enters the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. From this point to the LaPorte County line it travels 

through or along the National Lakeshore property, which is interspersed with smaller communities. 

Through LaPorte County, Route 2 runs through a number of smaller communities and into Michigan. 

Although Route 2 is on existing tracks, there would be limited right of way acquisition in the National 

Lakeshore as needed to achieve a double track. This would result in a change from natural areas to a 

transportation use (railroad) (a potential Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) impact, see also Section 3.12

(Section 4(f) Resources)). However, the adjacent land uses and patterns of development are not likely to 

change because as a unit of the National Park System it is protected and managed by the National Park 

Service for this specific use. The potential new suburban station in northwest Indiana would likely be 

compatible with the uses already present within this urbanized area.

3.3.4.3 Route 4 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 4 is the same as Route 2 and therefore the effects would be the same as Route 2 as 

discussed above.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 4 is very similar to Route 2. The only difference is a slight variation in the section 

between Gary and Burns Harbor near the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. The land use changes 

discussed above under Route 2 would be similar and have an impact on Section 4(f) property.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

104 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.3.4.4 Route 5, Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Both Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 are the same as Route 2 and therefore the land use 

changes discussed would be the same as that for Route 2.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 follow a different route than the current Amtrak route between 

Gary, Indiana and Porter, Indiana. Route 5 is roughly parallel and south of the existing route and travels 

through different areas of the cities of Gary, Chesterton, Lake Station and the towns of Burns Harbor and 

Porter. Route 5 would result in some new railroad facilities including additional track and flyovers at 

Willow Creek and Porter; however, land use would not change because it follows the existing railroad 

corridor. Adjacent land use is not likely to change. Route 5 continues along the same track as Route 2 to 

the Michigan border and as such land use impacts would be the same. The small variation in Build 

Alternatives Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 would not impact existing land uses. 

3.3.4.5 Route 9, Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 9 Option 1 and Route 9 Option 2 are the same. This route varies considerably from the 

other alternatives. It travels east out of Union Station to Lake Shore Drive where it follows Lake Shore 

Drive to approximately 51st Street where it turns south and then west to the Indiana Border. It travels 

through sections of Chicago, Calumet City and the Village of Burnham. Although this route is different 

than the others through the Illinois portion, there would similarly be no changes to existing land use 

because it follows existing rail routes. No change in land use patterns in the region is anticipated.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 9 is similar to Route 5 except between the Illinois state line to the middle of Gary near 

Ivanhoe Junction. The route travels through the southern portion of the city of Chesterton, and then meets 

Route 5 and continues along the same route. This alternative also follows existing rail corridors and is not 

likely to change adjacent land uses. The small variation in Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 similarly would

not directly change local land use or regional land use patterns.

3.3.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 

NEPA analysis after design details are known. The extent of land use, zoning, and property acquisition 

impacts would be analyzed and potential mitigation measures would be identified through coordination 

with impacted property owners, local communities and agencies. Mitigation would be recorded in Tier 2 

NEPA analysis documents.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 105

Future design plans would be reviewed to determine whether direct and indirect changes in land use are 

compatible with locally adopted comprehensive plans and zoning policies. These analyses would be 

reported and specific project-level mitigation measures developed in Tier 2 NEPA analysis documents.

Potential Programmatic-level mitigation measures include minimizing the footprint of the Preferred 

Alternative’s improvements to existing right of way, maintenance facility, and station areas to the greatest 

extent possible. When the acquisition of adjacent land cannot be avoided and/or relocations prove to be 

unavoidable, the partnering states would follow the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and 

Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended to ensure fairness in the acquisition and 

relocation process.

3.4 Agriculture

The agricultural resources assessed in this Tier 1 EIS include land with soils designated by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as prime farmland 

and farmland of statewide importance, as defined in the following section. This section reviews the 

Program’s potential to impact agricultural production.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7CFR 658) defines farmland and separates it into three 

categories, as follows:

• Prime Farmland – “Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for 

producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, 

fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary” 

of USDA (7 USC 4201(c)(1)(A)). These are soils that occur on slopes less than 6 percent.

• Unique Farmland – “Land other than prime farmland that is used for production of specific highvalue food and fiber crops, as determined by the Secretary....Examples of such crops include citrus, 

tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits, and vegetables” (7 USC 4201(c)(1)(B)).

• Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance – “Farmland, other than prime or unique farmland, that is 

of statewide or local importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, or oilseed crops, as 

determined by the appropriate State or unit of local government agency or agencies, and that the 

Secretary determines should be considered as farmland” (7 USC 4201(c)(1)(C)). These are soils that 

generally can also be highly productive for cropland, but occur on slopes greater than 6 percent or 

have limitations in drainage or flood control that are more difficult to overcome.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

106 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.4.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The federal regulatory framework pertaining to farmland is the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 198170

(7 CFR 658). State-level regulations that pertain to farmland include the Illinois Farmland Preservation 

Act (IFPA)71 and the Michigan Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act.72 Indiana does not have 

farmland preservation legislation. Locally adopted planning and zoning policies also protect farmland in 

many of the communities within the Area of Analysis and would be addressed during Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis.

This analysis is qualitative in nature and is based upon readily available, mapped data within the Area of 

Analysis. General maps were collected from the NRCS website for prime farmland. Information 

regarding Unique Farmland and Farmland of statewide importance was collected from state websites. The 

agricultural resources assessed in this Tier 1 EIS include land with soils designated by the NRCS as prime 

farmland and farmland of statewide importance. 

The municipal limits of cities, villages and towns within the Area of Analysis were generally excluded 

from the farmland assessment for a lack of farmland acreage in these locations. It should be noted 

however that some urban areas and the Area of Analysis have embraced urban farming and community 

gardening. Community gardens are often allowed within city limits. Community garden produce is sold at 

local farmers’ markets or donated to food pantries. Such programs are often used to promote education, 

sustainability and community, while urban farms grow food that is intended to be sold commercially. 

Chicago and Detroit both have zoning ordinances that provides for community gardens and urban farms 

in certain zoning districts. These ordinances allow a number of different types of agricultural operations 

as a conditional use.

A more detailed investigation of farmlands within the Area of Analysis would be performed during Tier 2 

NEPA analysis to identify specific traditional farmlands, urban farms, and community gardens and 

determine impacts to these operations.

3.4.2 Affected Environment

The following summarizes the types of farmland present in each state along the Corridor.

 

70 Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 USC Section 4201. Final rules and regulations were published in the 

Federal Register on June 17, 1994.

71 Illinois Farmland Preservation Act (IFPA) (505 Illinois Compiled Statutes [ILCS] 75) 72 Michigan Farmland and Open Spaces Preservation Act Part 361 of the Natural Resources and Environmental 

Protection Act, Act 451 of 1994
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 107

Illinois

In Illinois there are designated Prime Farmlands and Farmlands of Statewide Importance but no Unique 

Farmlands73. The Area of Analysis is located in urban, built-up areas in and surrounding metropolitan 

Chicago, and there are no farmlands of this type present. However, Chicago has embraced urban 

agriculture and community gardening through the Advocates for Urban Agriculture74. Specific locations 

of urban agricultural lands would be identified in Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

Indiana

Review of statewide and county websites did not indicate any Unique Farmland within the Area of 

Analysis. Per the NRCS mapping, there are areas of soils that are highly suitable for growing crops that 

are considered Prime Farmland. Porter County’s County-Wide Goals include encouraging preservation of 

Prime Agricultural lands in the County.75 The presence of potentially impacted agricultural lands would

be verified during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

Michigan

There is designated Prime and Unique Farmland in the rural Michigan portion of the Area of Analysis per 

the definition above. In addition, food is grown in urban community gardens and urban farms, which is 

most often sold or traded at community farmers’ markets or donated to food pantries. Such lands may be 

present in the Area of Analysis, although none have currently been identified. Specific locations of such 

agricultural lands would be identified in coordination with stakeholders during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

3.4.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program would not be implemented and any associated passenger rail 

improvements would not be built. Impacts on farmland resources are not anticipated beyond those that 

could occur due to other development projects in the Area of Analysis including highway expansion.

3.4.4 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

3.4.4.1 Impacts Common to All Route Alternatives

The impacts to agricultural operations in the Area of Analysis are essentially the same for all route 

alternatives. In general, construction of the Build Alternatives would directly impact farmland only in 

those areas where additional right of way would be acquired. The amount of land converted from 

 

73 Illinois Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA), Illinois Department of Agriculture, August 2001. 

http://www.agr.state.il.us/Environment/LandWater/LESA.pdf. Accessed online January 2014. 74 Advocates for Urban Agriculture. http://auachicago.org/. Accessed online January 2014. 75 Porter County, Indiana. Porter County Corridor Plan. http://www.porterco.org/index.aspx?NID=409. Accessed 

online November 2013.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

108 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

agricultural land to a transportation use would not be substantial because in those locations, only minor 

strips of land may be needed to construct new track and siding. Another potential impact would be how 

agricultural lands are accessed should existing rail crossings in rural areas of the Corridor need to be 

closed to facilitate higher speeds and more frequent intercity passenger rail service. Specific access 

changes and associated impacts would be identified and documented in Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

The potential new suburban station in northwest Indiana would not impact farmland because it would be 

in an existing urbanized area. Other planned stops are at stations that are also currently in urbanized areas 

and so it is not expected that farmland would be impacted due to any improvements to the existing 

stations. No severances of existing farmland would occur.

The following summarizes farmland impacts identified for the Build Alternatives.

Illinois

The Build Alternatives are all expected to stay within designated rail right of way and not expected to 

impact agriculture lands. Specific locations and potential impacts on urban agricultural lands would be 

verified in Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

Indiana

A review of the Build Alternatives indicates that there are farmlands within the Area of Analysis in 

Indiana. Although Build Alternatives run adjacent to existing farmland, they would either stay within 

existing right of way or are not expected to extend into existing farmed lands.

Michigan

A review of the Area of Analysis in Michigan indicates that there are Michigan Farmland and Open 

Space Public Act 361 of 1994 (commonly known as PA116) parcels in the rural areas. No right of way is 

anticipated to be acquired for the Build Alternatives in the rural areas of Michigan. If future design plans 

warrant acquisition of farmland within farm enrolled under PA116, a PA116 review of such acquisitions 

would be required. 

Impacts to potential urban agricultural lands are also not anticipated. However, specific locations and 

potential impacts of urban agricultural lands would be verified in coordination with stakeholders in Tier 2 

NEPA analysis.

3.4.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

It is not expected that any of the Build Alternatives would result in impacts on farmland. A detailed 

assessment would be conducted once the final infrastructure features are determined and impacts to 

farmland can be quantified during Tier 2 NEPA analyses.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 109

Coordination would take place with NRCS as part of Tier 2 NEPA analysis. Attempts would be made to 

avoid or minimize adjacent farmland impacts.

During Tier 2 NEPA analyses, the presence or absence of urban agriculture and community garden lands 

would be verified in coordination with local stakeholders. If potential impacts are identified, measures to 

avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts would be implemented.

Should there be any impacts to farmlands, the requirements of the Illinois Farmland Preservation Act 

(IFPA) in Illinois, the requirements of the Indiana Coastal Zone Management Plan in Indiana, and the 

requirements of Public Act 116 in Michigan shall be adhered to.

3.5 Socioeconomic Resources

The evaluation of the social and economic environment considers population, employment, demographic 

shifts, community cohesion, effects on commerce, and general state, regional, and local economies. In 

addition to assessing potential adverse impacts to communities, the assessment considers likely benefits 

resulting in any potential increase in economic activity in and near the Area of Analysis shown in the 

maps in Appendix D.

3.5.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The applicable livability principles from the Partnership for Sustainable Communities – a joint initiative 

from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) – were considered. In 

addition, socioeconomic considerations were evaluated in accordance with FRA’s Environmental 

Procedures section 14(n)(16).

The area evaluated for population and economic evaluation considers not only data within the 500 footwide Area of Analysis shown in the maps in Appendix D, but also examines these issues on a more 

region-wide scale. This section discusses data related to municipal, county, state and even nationwide 

scales because the socio-economic effects of a region-wide transportation system can be far-reaching.

Social and economic characteristics were gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Census and the 

American Community Survey (ACS). Data collected include population and employment statistics, 

demographic shifts, and community services, such as schools, places of worship, and emergency services. 

Major social communities and economic centers along the Area of Analysis were identified from GIS 

data. Demographic data were collected at the county level within rural areas and at the city level within 

urban areas (that is, communities with population greater than 50,000).

3.5.2 Affected Environment

This section describes the social and economic characteristics of the communities along the Corridor. It 

includes discussion of the built environment, public facilities, population characteristics and 

characteristics of industry and employment.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

110 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.5.2.1 Community Character and Resources

The Corridor passes through all types of communities from major urban centers to small towns and rural 

areas, each having its own character and make-up. Community character is largely defined by the built 

environment and is affected by existing and future social and economic conditions (see also Section 3.3

(Land Use)). Each community can be expected to have differing needs and desires related to passenger 

rail service and other modes of transportation, economic development, and quality of life characteristics. 

Station areas will be especially important and will be closely analyzed in Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

The built environment near or within the Area of Analysis is shown in the maps in Appendix D. Buildings 

and land uses comprising the socioeconomic environment within the cities and small towns include 

businesses, schools, places of worship, parks, community centers, hospitals, emergency facilities, and 

other public buildings. Public outreach and more specific identification of these types of facilities will be 

identified and impacts assessed at the Tier 2 level of NEPA analysis when design plans are developed for 

specific Program improvements, such as station area improvements.

Public facilities such as schools, medical centers, places of worship, fire stations, police stations, and 

recreational areas serve the daily needs of the residents. Fire stations and police stations are located within 

all the Area of Analysis communities, and it is likely that their service would need to cross the Corridor. 

The operational boundaries for public services often extend beyond the limits of municipalities and covers 

vast agricultural areas. Typically, municipal governments would be responsible for those services within 

the communities while the county would manage services outside of communities. Access to and from the 

public facilities plays a critical role in providing these resources; and current railroad lines do not limit or 

restrict access. Furthermore, coordination will be conducted to make sure that public services are not 

affected by crossings and blocked crossings are minimized.

The population characteristics of the Area of Analysis were analyzed to establish the demographic 

character and to see the trends for future growth. The demographics here will help provide a better 

understanding of the communities that are being served. Different groups of people will have varying 

needs and desires. Demographic patterns reported here may assist with planning and implementation of 

the Program.

Appendix F contains summaries of population and economic data. A summary of population trends for all 

counties in the Area of Analysis is included in Table 3-6. As indicated in the tables, the nine counties 

identified in the Area of Analysis have a combined 2010 population of 10,166,316 (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2010). The total population within these counties decreased by 3.4 percent between 2000 and 2010. This 

compares to a 52.2 percent increase in the overall U.S. population, a 3.3 percent increase for the state of 

Illinois, a 6.6 percent increase for the state of Indiana, and a 0.6 percent decrease for the state of Michigan 

over the same time period.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 111

Table 3-6: County Population Counts and Projections

20001 20101 2015 2020 % Change 

2000 – 2010

% Change 

2010 – 2020

Illinois2 12,419,293 12,830,632 13,748,695 14,316,487 3.3% 11.6%

Cook County 5,376,741 5,194,675 5,562,950 5,707,832 -3.4% 9.9%

Indiana3 6,080,485 6,483,802 6,677,751 6,852,121 6.6% 5.7%

Lake County 484,564 496,005 502,228 507,724 2.4% 2.4%

Porter County 146,798 164,343 172,563 179,751 12.0% 9.4%

LaPorte County 110,106 111,467 112,111 112,471 1.2% 0.9%

Michigan4 9,938,444 9,883,640 10,285,000 10,454,700 -0.6% 5.8%

Berrien County 162,453 156,813 159,700 158,900 -3.5% 1.3%

Calhoun County 137,985 136,146 146,400 147,200 -1.3% 8.1%

Cass County 51,104 52,293 50,400 50,200 2.3% -4.0%

Jackson County 158,422 160,248 162,000 163,400 1.2% 2.0%

Kalamazoo County 238,603 250,331 244,500 247,500 4.9% -1.1%

Oakland County 1,194,156 1,202,362 1,385,100 1,444,100 0.7% 20.1%

Van Buren County 76,263 76,258 91,500 95,800 -0.01% 25.6%

Washtenaw County 322,895 344,791 340,400 351,200 6.8% 1.9%

Wayne County 2,061,162 1,820,584 1,864,500 1,821,800 -11.7% 0.1%

Total of all Counties 10,521,252 10,166,316 10,794,352 10,987,878 -3.4% 8.1%

US Total5 281,421,906 308,745,538 321,363,000 333,896,000 9.7% 8.4%

Sources: 1 2010 U.S. Census 2

Illinois Projection Data: data.illinois.gov/Economics/DCEO-County-Population-Projections, Accessed 3/25/2014 3

Indiana Projection Data: www.stats.indiana.edu/pop_proj, Accessed 3/25/2014

4

Michigan Projection Data: Michigan Counties Preliminary Projections to the year 2020, 

Michigan.michigan.gov/cgi, Accessed 3/25/2014

5

US Census 2012 National Population Projections: Summary Tables.

Between 2000 and 2010, the population of the Area of Analysis counties in Indiana, (Lake, Porter and 

LaPorte) increased and the population of Cook County, Illinois declined by 3.4 percent. During the same 

time period there was an increase in the population of five counties in Michigan (Cass, Kalamazoo, 

Jackson, Washtenaw, and Oakland), while the population of three counties (Berrien, Calhoun and Wayne) 

declined. Van Buren County’s population remained nearly steady.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

112 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The single largest gain in population by percent was Porter County, Indiana, which experienced a twelve

percent increase between 2000 and 2010. The next largest population change by percentage was 

Washtenaw County, Michigan, with a 6.8 percent increase. The largest population decline by percentage 

in the counties in the Area of Analysis is Wayne County, Michigan at -11.7 percent.

There are 61 cities, villages and towns in the Area of Analysis. Twelve of the 61 cities (Ann Arbor, Battle 

Creek, Dearborn, Detroit, Kalamazoo, Pontiac, Royal Oak, Troy City and Westland City, Michigan; Gary 

and Hammond, Indiana; and Chicago) are classified as urban. The total population of these urban areas 

represents almost 90 percent of the total population of all cities and villages within Area of Analysis. 

Chicago alone comprises 57 percent, with a 2010 population of 2,695,598. The city of Detroit comprises 

the next highest with 15 percent, with a 2010 population of 713,777. These two cities themselves 

comprise 72% of the total population in the Area of Analysis. Outside of the Chicago and Detroit 

metropolitan areas, the largest urban areas are Hammond and Gary, Indiana, and Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, 

and Battle Creek, Michigan.

Although Wayne County, which contains the city of Detroit, has experienced substantial population 

decline since 1970, its two adjacent counties (Washtenaw and Oakland) experienced substantial

population growth, 47.3 percent and 34.2 percent respectively. The remaining cities, villages and towns 

with populations of less than 50,000 comprise approximately 9.5 percent of the total population of all 

areas within the Area of Analysis. These places have a median population of 9,093.

Population projections done by each state for their counties were reviewed. The figures reported in Table 

3-6 show that future population growth is expected to vary throughout the Area of Analysis with Oakland 

and Van Buren counties in Michigan projected to see the greatest population growth. Other areas within 

Indiana and Michigan will see very little growth or even population decreases. Although the growth rate 

over the 2000 to 2010 period was negative in the Area of Analysis counties (-3.4%); there is a projected 

increase between 2010 and 2020 (8.1%).

Oakland, Michigan is expected to continue to grow while Wayne County is expected to continue to see 

very little growth (.1%). However, Wayne County’s growth will improve from the past decade’s decrease 

in population (-11.7%). Cook County, likewise saw a decrease in population between 2000 and 2010 (-

3.4%), but is projected to see gains in the coming decade (9.9%).

3.5.2.2 Economy

There are a number of industry employment sectors within the Area of Analysis. The employment sectors 

are very diverse and relatively consistent between counties throughout the Area of Analysis. Overall, the 

industry sectors for all counties are education, health care, and social assistance; manufacturing; retail 

trade; arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services; and professional, scientific, 

management and administrative, and waste management. This is consistent with the statewide averages. 

The trend of employment demographics is similar across all counties within the Area of Analysis. 

However, in general there are higher percentages of agriculture, hunting, fishing and mining industries in 

the rural counties (LaPorte, Indiana, and Berrien, Cass, Calhoun, Jackson, Kalamazoo and Van Buren, 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 113

Michigan) and a higher percentage of the professional, scientific, management, administration and 

finance, and insurance and real estate in the urban counties (Cook, Illinois, and Oakland, Washtenaw and 

Wayne, Michigan) Table 3-7 provides a detailed summary of industrial employment sectors for each 

county in the Area of Analysis.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 114

Table 3-7: Industry Types and Percentages by State and County

Illinois Indiana Michigan

Industry Cook 

County

Lake 

County

LaPorte 

County

Porter 

County

Berrien 

County

Calhoun 

County

Cass 

County

Jackson 

County

Kalamazoo 

County

Oakland 

County

Van 

Buren 

County

Washtenaw 

County

Wayne 

County

Agriculture, fishing, hunting and 

mining 0.17 0.4 1.3 0.53 2.2 1.3 2.4 1.0 1.2 0.2 4.8 0.4 0.3

Construction 5.4 6.7 7.7 8.0 5.9 5.0 7.4 5.5 4.5 4.4 6.1 3.2 4.0

Manufacturing 11.3 15.6 24.6 17.6 19.6 22.9 26.8 18.8 17.2 17.7 19.9 11.4 16.7

Wholesale Trade 3.1 2.6 2.8 2.4 23.0 1.8 2.9 3.0 2.6 3.2 3.1 1.9 2.7

Retail Trade 9.8 11.6 12.3 12.2 10.6 11.6 10.7 11.8 11.9 10.5 11 9.1 11.1

Transportation and 

warehousing, & Utilities 6.3 7.2 5.6 5.4 6.0 4.7 5.5 5.1 3.0 2.8 5.7 2.8 5.8

Information 2.6 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.7 1.6 2.4 1.5 2.6 2.2

Finance, Insurance, Real 

Estate, 8.9 5.4 4.0 4.8 4.1 4.7 3.7 4.7 6.0 8.1 4.1 4.7 6.0

Professional, scientific, and 

management and administrative 

and waste management

13.2 7.8 6.4 8.0 7.4 7.1 6.0 7.4 7.8 13.7 7.2 11 9.8

Education, Healthcare, and 

social assistance 21.3 22.2 18.9 22.5 23.2 21.6 19.8 23.1 26.4 21.9 22 37.4 22.5

Arts, entertainment, recreation 

and accommodation and food 

services

9.22 10.0 9.7 8.9 9.2 7.8 7.8 7.5 10.2 8.7 5.8 9.2 10.3

Other Services except Public 

Administration 4.9 5.3 4.0 4.4 5.5 6.0 3.9 4.8 5.0 4.1 3.8 4.0 4.6

Public Administration 3.4 3.7 4.2 3.3 2.6 4.4 2.3 5.5 2.6 2.8 3.57 2.6 4.0

Source: Social Explorer – U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2006 -- 2010 (5-Year Estimates)
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 115

The Census uses data from the ACS to estimate labor force statistics, including unemployment rates. Only 

one county, Washtenaw in Michigan has an ACS 5-year estimate (2006 – 2010) unemployment rate lower 

than the state average (8.0 percent compared to 8.5 percent). The rest of the counties have higher 

estimated unemployment rates than their respective state averages. The highest 5-year estimate 

unemployment rate (16.2 percent) is in Wayne County, Michigan, which contains the metropolitan area of 

Detroit. Data were also collected from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which provides the latest 

unemployment rates. Per this data, Cook County in Illinois, Lake and LaPorte Counties in Indiana and 

Oakland and Wayne counties in Michigan all have unemployment rates higher than their state averages. 

Table 3-8 provides a summary of employment statistics by county and state within the Area of Analysis.

Table 3-8: Employment Statistics

Employed1 Unemployed1 Unemployment 

Rate1

Unemployment 

Rate August 20132

Illinois 6,062,848 316,527 6.6% 9.2%

Cook County 2,438,989 267,681 9.9% 9.9%

Indiana 2,999,570 152,143 6.3% 8.1%

Lake County 217,015 23,926 9.9% 9.7%

Porter County 77,701 6,286 7.5% 7.8%

LaPorte County 48,968 5,191 9.6% 9.9%

Michigan 4,369,785 323,025 8.5% 9%

Berrien County 69,977 8,092 10.4% 8.8%

Calhoun County 58,865 7,670 11.5% 7.4%

Cass County 23,405 2,432 9.4% 7.2%

Jackson County 67,946 8,089 10.6% 8.6%

Kalamazoo County 117,835 14,149 10.9% 7.1%

Oakland County 583,107 58,655 9.1% 9.6%

Van Buren County 33,682 4,069 10.8% 8.8%

Washtenaw County 168,393 14,614 8.0% 6.0%

Wayne County 726,108 140,459 16.2% 12.3%

Total County 4,631,991 561,313 10.3% 8.7%

US Total n/a n/a 7.6% 7.3%

Sources: 1 American Community Survey 2006-2010 (5-Year Estimates) 2 Bureau of Labor Statistics
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

116 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended (PWEDA) indicates that an area 

is considered economically distressed if it has an unemployment rate that is at least 1 percent greater than 

the national average unemployment rate (7.3 percent, August 2013). Utilizing the current Bureau of Labor 

Statistics data, currently eight out of the thirteen counties in the Area of Analysis meet this criterion

(Cook County in Illinois; Lake and LaPorte counties in Indiana; and Berrien, Jackson, Oakland, Van 

Buren and Wayne counties in Michigan).

3.5.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be built, and effects on 

socioeconomic conditions are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects in the 

Area of Analysis.

The No Build Alternative would not provide the socio-economic benefits described in the purpose and 

need statement for the Program. Not implementing the Program could hinder the expected benefits of 

employment opportunities (both temporary and permanent), travel options (passenger rail and auto), and 

new business opportunities and economic development. These benefits are fully discussed in Chapter 1, 

Purpose and Need.

3.5.4 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

The Build Alternatives would have an overall positive effect on the communities along the Corridor in 

terms of generating construction jobs, allowing for new employment opportunities, reducing congestion 

on highways, and improving train speeds. These proposed improvements would also complement the 

other proposed improvements (discussed in Chapter 2) in Illinois, Indiana and southern Michigan by 

reducing delays, and increasing train speeds. The following sections describe these anticipated socioeconomic effects. Displacements of businesses and residences resulting from the Preferred Alternative

would be identified in Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

3.5.4.1 Effects on Community Character and Resources

Implementation of higher-speed passenger rail service could promote existing and potential future 

development that may occur around stations served throughout the Corridor. If such development were to 

occur, it would change or enhance the existing land use around stations served.

There would be temporary vehicular and pedestrian access impacts during construction and long-term 

impacts for travel across at-grade crossings by the public and community service vehicles. Temporary 

access and safety impacts would include the potential for disruption of vehicular traffic to existing 

businesses and community facilities including schools, places of worship, parks, community centers, 

hospitals, emergency services, and other public buildings along the route alternative during construction, 

which may make it difficult to access these facilities. Appropriate safety measures would be taken and are

described in Section 3.7 (Public Health and Safety). Overall, the Program would result in safety and 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 117

access improvements across the at-grade crossings, resulting in long-term net benefit to community 

services in the Area of Analysis.

3.5.4.2 Economic effects

The regional transportation investment that the Program would provide would impact the regional 

economy; in the short term construction phase and in the long term. Short-term economic benefits would 

be derived from the Build Alternatives through an increase in employment for construction-related jobs, 

and increased economic activity from those employees patronizing local businesses and service 

establishments along the Corridor and in areas of future rail stations.

Long-term economic impacts along the Corridor would be beneficial because the Chicago to 

Detroit/Pontiac service would provide easier and quicker connections to major markets in the Area of 

Analysis. This would improve mobility and expand employment opportunities over a large geographic 

area, which would benefit employers by expanding the labor market and offering employees more choices 

of where to live.

A measure of the level of benefit of the Program’s passenger rail service depends on the frequency and 

speed of service. On a local level, station areas may see the greatest benefits, while areas between stations 

would see less economic benefit. Long-term economic benefits would include the potential for increased 

economic activity within cities along the Corridor near proposed existing stations.

The MWRRI conducted an economic cost benefit analysis that showed the economic value of the 

MWRRS. The data presented in that study indicates that within the Area of Analysis, the Program could 

be expected to create 35,710 jobs; joint development potential is expected to increase property values by 

over $3 million; and urban household income is estimated to increase by over $7 billion. Table 3-9 shows 

the study’s economic rent analysis by state.

Economic benefit can also be derived from the proposed safety improvements at at-grade crossings by 

reducing the costs associated with fatalities, injuries and property damage resulting from crashes between 

trains and vehicles or pedestrians. The overall financial and social impact of a crash has not been 

quantified76 and the magnitude of the economic effects of improving crossing has not been assessed for 

this Tier 1 EIS. However, there are several known costs that could be avoided to some extent including 

but not limited to damage to rail equipment and infrastructure, damage to motor vehicles, injuries to 

employees, passengers and vehicle operators and pedestrians, delays for both rail and highway traffic, 

clean-up costs from any hazardous spills and legal costs.

 

76 Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences. NCHRP Report 755. Comprehensive Costs of 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Crashes. 2013. 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

118 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-9: Economic Rent Analysis by MWRRI State

State Employment Value

(# of Jobs)

Household Income

(in Millions)

Joint Development 

Potential (Millions)

Illinois 24,200 $480 $2,227

Indiana 4,540 $86 $350

Michigan 6,970 $138 $680

Total in Area of Analysis 35,710 $704 $3,257

Total in MWRRS* 57,450 $1,096 $4,911

* Excludes benefits in Kentucky and Kansas.

Source: Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Benefit Cost & Economic Analysis, TEMS, Inc. in association with HNTB. 

November 2006

While the Chicago to Detroit/Pontiac service would cause some temporary disruptions to existing 

businesses and neighborhoods during construction, appropriate measures would be taken to mitigate these 

temporary impacts. These measures are described in Section 3.26 (Construction Impacts) and Section 3.8

(Noise and Vibration).

The Build Alternatives are expected to be contained within existing right of way for most of the Corridor, 

and where right of way is acquired, there is not expected to be substantial relocation of residences or 

businesses. A minor loss of tax base may be seen from right of way acquisition. Upon refinement of 

specific features and locations, specific impacts to businesses and residences would be determined during 

Tier 2 NEPA analysis and potential displacements would be quantified and documented.

Detailed economic benefits and impacts of Program improvements and locations of stations would be 

identified during Tier 2 studies after coordination with local communities, agencies and property owners.

3.5.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Specific infrastructure features and locations would be further defined and delineated in Tier 2 NEPA 

analyses, and potential impacts on socioeconomic conditions would be identified along with strategies to 

avoid, minimize or mitigate these impacts. In addition, public involvement and agency coordination 

activities may result in identification of potential mitigation needs at a local level. Specific mitigation 

measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 NEPA analyses after 

design details are known and as specific impacts are identified, and implemented.

Where the acquisition of adjacent land cannot be avoided, the provisions of the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 would be followed.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 119

Grade-crossing upgrades would require working very closely with each community to ensure impacts are 

minimized when the work is being done. Access to properties would be maintained to the extent possible. 

Working with the local communities and stakeholders, the duration of grade-crossing upgrades could be 

minimized using accelerated work crews, and scheduled at non-peak time to minimize rail, motorized 

vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle movement conflicts.

The following mitigation measures could be implemented 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 that 

meet federal noise-level standards for equipment

• require that contractors will be responsible for applying dust-control measures during construction

See Section 3.26 (Construction Impacts) for more detailed discussion.

3.6 Title VI and Environmental Justice

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, and national 

origin. Specifically, 42 USC 2000d states that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of 

race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected 

to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Executive Order 12898 requires Federal agencies to “make achieving environmental justice part of its 

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations.”

This section summarizes the findings of an evaluation of the Program’s potential effects on disadvantaged 

populations, including low-income and minority populations. An assessment is conducted to determine 

whether minority or low‐income communities are present within or adjacent to the Area of Analysis. 

Minority populations may include, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, 

and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Data and information about populations of Hispanic origin 

(of any race) was also gathered. The Department of Transportation defined low-income as a person whose 

median household income is at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty 

guidelines.77 The assessment also addresses people with Limited English Proficiency (LEP). A more 

detailed assessment of these populations would be conducted during Tier 2 NEPA analysis when a higher 

level of design is available and more specific impacts can be assessed.

 

77 U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5610.2(a) Final DOT Environmental Justice Order. May 2, 2012.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

120 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.6.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The review and evaluation of minority and low-income populations is done in accordance with federal 

regulations and guidelines, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; FRA’s Environmental 

Procedures; Environmental Justice Guidance (CEQ, December 10, 1997); Executive Order 12898, 

Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; 

and USDOT Order 5610.2(a). LEP populations are evaluated in accordance with Executive Order 13166, 

Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.

Demographic data from the 2010 U.S. Census, including total population, minority and poverty status, is

compiled at the tract and county levels within and adjacent to the Area of Analysis. Population and 

minority racial data are reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, and income and language (LEP) data are 

reported by the ACS. The LEP Data is obtained through the USEPA Environmental Justice website. 

State-level data are also gathered as a basis for comparison.

To help determine if a low income or minority population would incur disproportionately high and 

adverse impact by the Program, the Program Sponsors first determined where minority or low-income 

populations existed within the Area of Analysis. Within the Area of Analysis, both minority and lowincome populations tend to be concentrated in the larger urban areas. Population data tables are contained 

in Appendix F. As defined in the CEQ guidelines, low-income or minority populations include 

populations where either the percentage of low-income or minority populations is greater than 50 percent 

of the affected area’s total population, or where the percentage exceeds the statewide and/or citywide 

percentage by more than 50 percent.78

Using GIS data as well as spatial and demographic data from the 2010 U.S. Census, the counties and 

communities in the Area of Analysis were analyzed. Areas of substantial minority populations and/or 

low-income populations were identified. Counties, cities, and/or census designated places within the Area 

of Analysis were then designated as containing potential low-income and minority populations.

3.6.2 Affected Environment

Low-income, minority and Title VI populations are present in various locations along the Corridor. 

Census data were collected for the Area of Analysis to identify potential minority and low-income

populations, see Appendix F. There are 13 counties transected by the Area of Analysis (1 in Illinois, 3 in 

Indiana, and 9 in Michigan). The Area of Analysis crosses through 61 cities and villages (3 in Illinois, 17 

in Indiana, and 41 in Michigan).

A summary of the minority, poverty, and LEP population percentages are shown for the county level in 

Table 3-10. Detailed data for the cities within the Area of Analysis is included in Appendix F.

 

78 Federal Transit Administration. Environmental Justice: Final Circular. Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 137, July 

17, 2012.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 121

3.6.2.1 Minority Populations and Ethnic Groups

Three counties (Cook in Illinois; Lake, in Indiana; and Wayne in Michigan), 13 cities and villages 

(Chicago, Burnham Village, and Calumet City, in Illinois; East Chicago, Gary, Hammond, and Whiting 

in Indiana; and Albion, Detroit, Hamtramck, Highland Park, Inkster, and Pontiac in Michigan), have a 

minority population that is greater than 50 percent of their respective statewide total. Burnham Village, 

Calumet City, East Chicago, Gary, Detroit, Highland Park, Inkster and Pontiac all have a minority 

population in excess of 50 percent of their total state-wide population. Table 3-10 shows a summary of 

minority and LEP populations of the various states and counties through which the Build Alternatives 

pass. Appendix F shows more details including the 2010 population by race, ethnicity, and poverty for the 

municipalities through which the Build Alternatives pass.

There are substantial African American populations in and near Chicago and Detroit, including, as shown 

in Appendix F, Burnham Village and Calumet City in Illinois, Gary in Indiana, and Detroit, Highland 

Park, and Inkster in Michigan.

A review of ancestry data from the 2010 US Census shows that some ethnic populations are concentrated 

in various locations within the Area of Analysis, especially the more urban areas. For example, Dearborn 

has a large Arab population. The Build Alternatives pass through both Oakland and Wayne Counties 

where most of Michigan’s Arab-American population resides. Based on US Census ancestry data, there 

are over 101,000 people who identify themselves as Arab in Oakland and Wayne County. This is a total 

of over two percent of the population in Oakland County and over four percent in Wayne County.79

Other ethnic groups are present along the corridor, including those who identify themselves as being of 

Hispanic and Latino ancestry, see Appendix F. Whiting, Indiana (40.7%) and East Chicago, Indiana 

(50.9%) have the highest percentage of Hispanic and Latino populations of the municipalities along the 

Corridor.

3.6.2.2 Low-Income Populations

There are no counties in the Area of Analysis that have a population of people below the poverty level 

that is 50 percent greater than their respective statewide poverty levels. However there are 21 cities that 

have poverty levels 50 percent greater than their respective statewide poverty level. A summary of these 

low-income populations for all municipalities within the Area of Analysis is provided in Appendix F. In 

Tier 2 NEPA analyses, the Department of Health and Human Services poverty level data will be 

examined at the tract level. This review will take place closer in time to actual construction. Currently the 

2014 Poverty Guidelines show that the poverty level is $23,850 annual income for a household of four 

persons.

 

79 US Census Bureau. American Community Survey 2008-2012 Five Year Estimates.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

122 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.6.2.3 Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Populations

An analysis of LEP populations for counties is presented in Table 3-10. Cook County, Illinois has the 

highest population percentage of low English speaking proficiency at 5 to 10%. Lake County Indiana, and 

Wayne and Oakland Counties in Michigan have the next highest percentage at 2 to 5%. These same 

counties also have the highest minority populations in the Corridor counties. The cities with substantial 

minority populations are listed in Appendix F.

Table 3-10: Summary of Minority, Poverty, and LEP Populations at the County Level

County/State

2010 Total 

Population

Minority 

Population

Percentage of 

Minority 

Populations

Percentage 

Population 

Below 

Poverty Level

Percentage of 

Limited 

English 

Proficiency

Illinois 12,830,632 3,652,755 28.5 12.6

Cook County 5,194,675 2,317,463 44.6 15.3 5-10%

Indiana 6,483,802 1,015,896 15.7 13.5

Lake County 496,005 176,593 35.6 16.1 2-5%

Porter County 164,343 14,348 8.7 9.4 0-1%

LaPorte County 111,467 17,680 15.9 13.8 1-2%

Michigan 9,883,640 2,080,520 21.1 14.8

Berrien County 156,813 34,009 21.7 16.4 1-2%

Calhoun County 136,146 24,231 17.8 16.7 1-2%

Cass County 52,293 5,797 11.1 13.9 0-1%

Jackson County 160,248 19,741 12.3 14.9 0-1%

Kalamazoo County 250,331 45,687 18.3 18.4 0-1%

Oakland County 1,202,362 273,450 22.7 8.7 2-5%

Van Buren County 76,258 10,129 13.3 15.8 1-2%

Washtenaw County 344,791 87,911 25.5 13.7 1-2%

Wayne County 1,820,584 868,648 47.7 21.4 2-5%

Total County 

Population 10,166,316 3,895,687

US Total Population 308,143,815 85,192,273 14.3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey 2010 Five Year Estimates.

State data from U.S. Census 2010.

3.6.2.4 Community Character Analysis

The communities where there are higher levels of minority and low-income and Title VI populations can 

be affected by the provision of new transportation choices and the subsequent development it may 

stimulate in station areas. It is anticipated that at station areas, the communities will see increased access 

activities related to boarding’s and alighting’s and thus the potential for economic development that could 

be of benefit to these communities. Communities stand to benefit from the Program in ways such as 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 123

reducing congestion, improving livability through station-area economic activity and development, 

retaining and generating new job opportunities, and other benefits cited in the Program’s Purpose and 

Need (see Chapter 1).

Community character can also be affected by physical improvements to be made. Construction of new 

structures such as flyovers or bridges, or grade crossing improvements could affect the character of the 

immediate surrounding by introducing new views, see Section 3.14 (Visual and Aesthetic Quality).

Noise and vibration can also affect quality of life in a community. Increases in noise and vibration events 

are expected to occur in various locations along the corridor as reported in Section 3.8 (Noise and 

Vibration).

In the Tier 2 NEPA analyses, both the beneficial and negative effects of the Program on individual 

community characteristics would be analyzed based on the Selected Program Alternative. Public 

Outreach efforts would solicit input from affected community members to review the Program’s effects. 

Citizen input is expected to inform planners about ways to minimize adverse effects as well as inform 

communities so they can take advantage of the potential benefits expected from implementation of the 

Program.

3.6.2.5 Outreach Efforts and Expected Results

The Program’s formal Public Involvement Plan80 describes the approach for Title VI and Environmental 

Justice outreach. Outreach focused on two distinct steps including first identifying populations using 

Census data that provides an overview for the entire corridor. Next, the Census data were supplemented 

by reaching out to organizations that represent Title VI and minority and low-income populations. Local 

advocacy groups including but not limited to Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice, Urban 

League of Northwest Indiana, Chicago’s Center for Urban Transformation, social service agencies, and 

transit organizations were contacted to:

• Identify more specific neighborhoods and business districts along the Corridor that could be affected.

• Help determine additional outreach efforts that most effectively engage traditionally underserved 

populations.

• Serve as third-party communicators to distribute information to their members.

The Program Sponsors sought to include organizations that represent traditionally underserved Title VI 

and minority and low-income populations to send these organizations all meeting notices and Program 

updates. In addition, the Program Sponsors are committed to engaging media that serves traditionally 

underserved populations. All public meeting locations have been and will continue to be ADA accessible

(compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act) and accessible by public transportation. Upon 

 

80 Michigan Department of Transportation. Chicago-Detroit/Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program Public 

Involvement Plan September 2012
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

124 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

request, the Program Sponsors provide resources, such as bilingual interpreters and translated materials 

for meetings to ensure that the information and services are readily available in the languages clearly 

understood by persons with limited English proficiency. Interpretation services for hearing impaired and 

visually impaired individuals will also be provided upon request. No requests for interpretation services 

have been made at any previous meetings, however interpretation services will continue to be available at 

future meetings as requested.

As part of stakeholder outreach, meetings were conducted with advocacy groups to discuss the Program, 

identify potential impacts and benefits, and appropriate mitigation as needed.

Title VI and Environmental Justice outreach would continue throughout Program planning and 

construction.

3.6.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be built, and impacts on minority 

and low-income populations would not be anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. 

There would be no direct impacts from Program improvements to low‐income or minority populations.

The long‐term socioeconomic benefits for the Build Alternatives would not be realized under the 

No‐Build Alternative. The opportunities and benefits of the Program, as discussed in the Purpose and 

Need Statement in Chapter 1 would not be realized.

3.6.4 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

The Build Alternatives may result in direct and indirect impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

The 2010 Census data were analyzed for the census tracts transected by and adjacent to the Area of 

Analysis. The demographic, race, and poverty level information for all of the affected census tracts for 

each route through Gary are provided in Appendix F. The impacts on populations throughout the Corridor 

are essentially the same for all Build Alternatives. The Outreach program described in Section 3.6.2.5

would help to identify and verify Program impacts and whether they may disproportionately affect 

environmental justice populations.

3.6.4.1 Impacts Common to all Route Alternatives

Direct impacts to Title VI, minority, and low-income populations include the potential displacement of 

residents and businesses in areas of right of way acquisition. Acquisitions are possible where 

improvements would be made outside of existing right of way, which are limited to areas where new track 

would be constructed, new alignment connections, station and maintenance facility locations, and 

potentially for safety improvements at crossings.

Adjacent Title VI, minority, and low-income populations may also be temporarily impacted by increased 

traffic congestion and delays at at-grade public roadway crossings during construction. Noise and 

vibration during construction would also be felt by adjacent property owners. Since improvements would 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 125

be within existing right of way or on property that is currently designated as rail or adjacent to the rail, the 

effects would be incremental.

Noise and vibrations would be caused by the operation of new higher speed rail service along all of the 

alternative routes between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac. There would also be increased noise and 

vibrations due to the potential added frequencies of service that would occur along all routes from end to 

end. See Section 3.8 (Noise and Vibration) for detailed information about potential noise and vibration 

impacts.

A more detailed evaluation of moderate and severe noise and vibration impacts for specific areas within 

the Area of Analysis would be conducted during Tier 2 NEPA analysis when specific right of way 

requirements and improvements are known, see also Section 3.7 (Public Health and Safety).

A new suburban station would be located in northwest Indiana. Many of the communities in this area 

have high minority and low income populations. Therefore, construction of a new station in this area 

could potentially affect these populations. Specific impacts would be evaluated and addressed during Tier 

2 NEPA analysis once the station location is selected.

Other direct and indirect impacts relate to safety at rail crossings and traffic delays due to increased train 

speeds and volumes through counties, cities, and villages with Title VI and minority and low-income 

populations. 

A detailed assessment of anticipated indirect impacts is presented in Section 3.24 (Indirect and 

Cumulative Effects), and construction impacts are described in Section 3.26 (Construction Impacts).

The expected benefits of passenger rail are detailed in the Program’s Purpose and Need Statement (see 

Chapter 1). These benefits include meeting existing and future travel demand in the corridor and reducing 

congestion across all travel modes, which in turn provides environmental benefits by shifting traffic from 

other, less environmentally-friendly, modes. The Program is expected to benefit travelers and increase the 

economic benefits of tourism by increasing travel efficiencies and by providing direct connections to 

other passenger rail corridors. Stimulation of localized station area economic development is also possible 

from the improvements to intercity passenger rail service and convenience. The Program improvements 

are expected to help retain employment and generate new job opportunities as a result of improved access 

and spin-off economic development opportunities. Finally, the Program will make rail infrastructure 

improvements that would benefit both freight and passenger rail operations. The likelihood of these 

benefits would be analyzed in greater detail in Tier 2 NEPA analyses.

3.6.4.2 Routes 2 and 4

Routes 2 and 4 are not anticipated to have route-specific impacts beyond those discussed above that are in 

common with all Build Alternatives.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

126 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.6.4.3 Routes 5 and 9 (Options 1 and Options 2)

Route 5 (Options 1 and 2) in Indiana and Route 9 (Options 1 and 2) in both Illinois and Indiana do not 

follow the existing passenger rail route, rather they follow routes that already carry freight rail traffic. Due 

to the existing presence of heavy freight traffic, there is expected to be minimal change in noise and 

vibration effects to neighborhoods along the Corridor.

Minority populations within the Area of Analysis may include populations with LEP. During Tier 2 

NEPA analysis, these affected populations would be identified in impacted areas and specific approaches 

to providing access to services and for additional public involvement would be documented as 

appropriate.

The higher speed passenger rail service under the Build Alternatives would provide economic and quality 

of life benefits to minority and low-income populations through improved mobility and access to an 

alternative transportation mode serving multiple destinations throughout the Corridor. However, these 

benefits would be limited to the area near the identified station stops. Some of these populations would 

also be impacted through potential displacements, noise, increased congestion, and other impacts. 

Specific impacts would be evaluated and addressed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

3.6.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Specific mitigation measures would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 NEPA analyses after design 

details of the Selected Program Alternative are known and recorded in NEPA documents as specific 

impacts are identified, and implemented.

Further outreach to minority and low income populations would be completed during Tier 2 NEPA 

analyses to identify specific needs of affected populations and to work with neighborhoods and 

individuals to avoid or minimize impacts or relocations.

When the acquisition of adjacent land cannot be avoided, the provisions of the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 would be followed.

3.7 Public Health and Safety

This section discusses considerations related to the health and safety of residents and communities and the 

level of protection that would be provided in relation to future construction activities as well as the longterm operations associated with the Program. This section identifies and discusses potential increased and 

reduced health and safety risks. An overview of existing public crossings in each alternative route is also 

presented here. General, brief recommendations are included for any specific safety issues that may 

require further Tier 2 NEPA analysis.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 127

3.7.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory requirements associated with public health and safety includes the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and its 

amendments, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970. Public health and safety 

considerations were evaluated in accordance with FRA’s Environmental Procedures section 14(n)(17) and 

(18).

Publications and resource materials from FRA and other USDOT agencies were also reviewed for general 

safety requirements including, but not limited to, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, HighSpeed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy (FRA, 2009), the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Public 

Law 110-432), and the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) (49 USC §20101 et seq.). During Tier 2 

NEPA analysis, coordination would take place with the host railroads to obtain information regarding the 

level of protection afforded the public in regard to health and safety issues.

3.7.2 Affected Environment

The Area of Analysis currently contains common safety and security issues associated with conflicts that 

typically occur between pedestrians, vehicles, bicyclists, and trains at railroad crossings. Streets within 

the Area of Analysis are equipped with typical traffic safety controls, including traffic lights, signage and 

lane markings.

One safety issue inherent to passenger rail is that the passenger trains must cross paths with other vehicles 

or with pedestrians. Throughout the approximately 300-mile long Area of Analysis, the Build 

Alternatives cross numerous public and private roads, sidewalks, bike routes, and state, local and federal 

highways at at-grade and grade-separated crossings. The total number of existing crossings varies 

between each Build Alternative. A breakdown of crossings by route, state, and type is shown in Table 

3-11. Depending on the route, the total number of at-grade and grade-separated crossings range from 592 

to 625 roadway crossings for an average of approximately two crossings per mile. Between 58 and 64 

percent of the roadway crossings are at-grade and currently have various forms of warning devices 

ranging from active gates and flashing signals, to passive protective lights and bells, to simple cross-buck 

warning signs at rural and private crossings. FRA has established train control requirements for train 

movements above 79 mph (49 CFR 236). For crossings with train speeds between 80 and 110 mph, which 

is the highest speed being considered for the Program, FRA recommends the installation of the most 

sophisticated warning or traffic control devices that fit the location. Examples include dispatchercontrolled electrically locked gates, bells, flashing lights, and constant warning time devices.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

128 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-11: Total Existing At-Grade and Grade Separated Roadway Crossings by State

Route Illinois Indiana Michigan* Area of Analysis

At-Grade

Grade 

Separated At-Grade

Grade 

Separated At-Grade

Grade 

Separated

Total 

Crossings

Percent AtGrade

Route 2 1 83 34 24 313 150 605 58%

Route 4 1 83 37 22 313 150 606 58%

Route 5 Option 1 1 83 52 26 313 150 625 59%

Route 5 Option 2 1 83 57 20 313 150 624 59%

Route 9 Option 1 5 49 50 25 313 150 592 62%

Route 9 Option 2 5 49 59 16 313 150 592 64%

Source: Data was obtained from existing track charts, where available, and supplemented with aerial imagery.

Norfolk Southern Railway, Amtrak, Canadian National, CSX Transportation, Northern Indiana Commuter 

Transportation District, Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad

*The route in Michigan is the same for all alternatives. 

Within the Area of Analysis, freight and passenger operations would travel on, parallel to, or across the 

proposed Build Alternatives at various points along each route. Table 3-12 includes information on the 

number of existing diamonds (at-grade rail crossings) and flyovers (grade-separated rail crossings) along 

each route.

Table 3-12: Total Existing Railway Crossings by State

Route Illinois Indiana Michigan Area of Analysis

Diamonds Flyovers Diamonds Flyovers Diamonds Flyovers

Total 

Diamonds

Total 

Flyovers

Route 2 1 5 2 2 5 3 8 10

Route 4 1 5 2 1 5 3 8 9

Route 5 Option 1 1 5 4 0 5 3 10 8

Route 5 Option 2 1 5 4 1 5 3 10 9

Route 9 Option 1 2 3 8 1 5 3 15 7

Route 9 Option 2 2 3 8 0 5 3 15 6

3.7.3 Impacts of No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program would not be built, and impacts on public health and safety 

are not anticipated beyond those that would occur under existing conditions or could occur due to other 

projects. Consequently, the safety and operational benefits of improvements to public/private crossings, 

and improvements in air quality as described under the Build Alternatives would not be realized.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 129

3.7.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives

3.7.4.1 Pedestrian, Vehicle, and Bicycle Safety

Conflicts between passenger train traffic and pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles could potentially increase 

due to increased passenger train frequencies and proposed speeds, especially at grade crossings81. 

Trespassing incidents and incidents at railroad grade crossings accounted for approximately 95 percent of 

all fatalities on railroads nationally in 2013.82 The FRA approximates that there are 270 deaths that occur 

at railroad grade crossings per year in the United States. Trespassing along railroad rights-of-way is the 

leading cause of rail-related deaths in America. Nationally, more than 431 trespass fatalities occur each 

year, and nearly as many injuries.83 However, accidents involving passenger trains make up a small 

percent of all train accidents. Approximately three percent of all train accidents in 2013 involved 

passenger trains.84 Safety improvements made at grade crossings as part of the Build Alternatives are 

expected to reduce these types of trespassing incidents and fatalities in the Area of Analysis.

3.7.4.2 Accessibility

All future Build Alternative passenger rail cars and stations would comply with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) to accommodate the safety of disabled passengers. The passenger cars would

provide allocated space and/or priority seating for individuals who use wheelchairs. Also, stations would 

be designed to minimize physical barriers that prohibit or restrict access.

3.7.4.3 Passenger Safety at Stations and On Board

Relative to traveling by automobile, passenger rail is a much safer way to travel. Passenger rail 

(commuter and long-haul) experiences 0.43 fatalities per billion passenger miles compared to automobiles 

that see 7.28 fatalities per billion passenger miles. Buses and airplanes have lower fatality rates with 0.11 

and 0.07 deaths per billion passenger miles, respectively.85

Passenger safety considerations include passengers possibly injuring themselves getting on and off 

standing trains, crossing tracks, or stumbling aboard trains. Precautions that would protect the safety of 

passengers waiting for their train would be considered at stations and crossings. Standard safety 

precautions such as textured warning strips along platform edges, public address systems designed to 

 

81 A grade crossing is a location where a public highway, road, street, or private roadway, including associated 

sidewalks, and pathways, crosses railroad tracks at grade

82 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. National Accident/Incident Overview, 2013 

www.safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety. Accessed November 25, 2013. 83 Federal Railroad Administration. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespass Prevention. 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0040. Accessed November 25, 2013. 84 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis. National Accident/Incident Overview, 2013 

www.safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety. Accessed November 25, 2013. 85 Savage, Ian. July 2013 Comparing the fatality risks in United States transportation across modes and over time. 

The Economics of Transportation Safety, 43(1), 9-22.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

130 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

articulate announcements in a noisy environment, properly designed lighting and adequate platform depth 

to allow passengers to stand away from active tracks will all be considered. Grade separated pedestrian 

crossings would be provided at all stations to allow passengers to safely cross live tracks while being able 

to access all station platforms. Other station improvements that promote safety may include designating 

pedestrian and vehicle space, and adding passenger pick-up and drop-off zones.

FRA's Passenger Rail Division provides technical expertise and direction in the development and 

implementation of rail safety programs applicable to Commuter and Passenger Railroads, as well as 

advice and oversight in system safety, emergency preparedness, and safety related to shared use with 

freight rail.86

3.7.4.4 Air Quality

According to the USEPA, current scientific evidence links certain air pollutant exposures to adverse 

respiratory system effects.87 Exposure would be of particular concern for susceptible individuals, 

including asthmatics, children and the elderly. The Program’s impacts on air quality are discussed in 

detail in Section 3.9.4, where it is shown that trip diversion from other transportation modes to trains is

expected to result in reduced emissions in all types of the studied pollutants except NOx, which increase is 

due to the use of diesel fuel by trains. Health benefits may therefore be an expected result from the 

reduced exposure by individuals in proximity to other travel modes (such as near highways). Additional 

study would be conducted as part of Tier 2 NEPA analysis to determine the significance of the impacts 

and benefits both regionally and locally.

3.7.4.5 Noise and Vibration

Noise and vibration would be caused by the operation of new higher speed rail service along all of the 

alternative routes between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac. There would also be increased noise and 

vibration due to the potential added frequencies of service that will occur along all routes from end to end. 

See Section 3.8 (Noise and Vibration) for detailed information about potential noise and vibration 

impacts.

Noise pollution can have physiological and psychological health effects on people.88 The noise and 

vibration effects analyzed in the Noise and Vibration Section are based on certain criteria that identify 

levels that would impact human health. The noise and vibration analyses conducted for the Program 

indicates that the Program will have noise and vibration impacts in certain sections of the Corridor.

 

86 Federal Railroad Administration. Passenger Rail Division. http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0046. Accessed 

November 25, 2013.

87 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Six Common Air Pollutants webpage. 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/. Accessed January 6, 2014. 88 Federal Railroad Administration. Cynthia S.Y. Lee and Gregg G. Fleming. General Health Effects of Transportation 

Noise Final Report. June 1, 2002.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 131

3.7.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 

NEPA analysis after design details are known.

There are a number of safety measures and strategies that would be considered by each partnering state to 

protect the health and safety of passengers as well as motor vehicles and pedestrians at existing or new atgrade crossings. The following safety measures and strategies may be used:

• At public and private at-grade crossings, install the most sophisticated traffic control/warning device 

appropriate for that location. At a minimum, crossings would meet FRA safety standards set forth 

under the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 236). These improvements may include flashing 

lights, median barriers, special signage, four-quadrant gates, etc. Construction of additional grade 

separations, road closures, and railroad crossing upgrades would further minimize the potential for 

collisions.

• Consolidate public and private grade crossings where practical. Redundant and/or unsafe crossings 

should be eliminated where alternate access can be reasonably provided.

• For private crossings that serve industrial developments and cannot be closed, consideration should 

be given to providing a locking device for when the crossing is not in use.

• Maintain existing Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) and install Incremental Train Control System 

(ITCS) infrastructure throughout the Corridor.

• Active warning systems for pedestrians should be installed where rail lines cross existing pedestrianways or bikeways.

Health effects related to Noise and Vibration would be mitigated as set forth in Section 3.8.5 (Noise 

Mitigation) and 3.8.10 (Vibration Mitigation).

Education and public outreach are important to prepare road users for the challenges that higher-speed rail 

will present. The public would need to be informed that the proposed service travels at higher speeds than 

existing trains in the area of the Program. Exclusively relying on visual and/or audible cues to judge the 

arrival of higher-speed trains can be extremely dangerous.

3.8 Noise and Vibration

3.8.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements Regarding Noise

The FRA’s High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual89

provides background information on high-speed ground transportation noise and vibration, establishes 

 

89 Federal Railroad Administration. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 

Final Report. September 2012
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

132 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FRA’s noise and vibration impact criteria, and presents methodologies for assessing noise and vibration 

impacts. The majority of the Area of Analysis presently is served by transit, freight, or Amtrak service or 

combinations of the three services. Given the diversity of the rail services along the study corridor, the 

Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual 

and a “supplemental freight rail analysis spreadsheet tool....developed for the Chicago Rail Efficiency 

And Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) program using the FTA procedures” were used to develop the 

existing and future noise and vibration levels in the Area of Analysis. The following assessment focused 

on determining the distance from the right of way to the potential onset of moderate and severe noise 

impacts and potential vibration impacts using FRA criteria. Areas identified with moderate or severe 

noise impacts or vibration impacts would be further evaluated for noise and vibration analysis and if 

needed, assess potential mitigation measures during the Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

3.8.1.1 Noise Background

Noise is a form of vibration that causes pressure variations in elastic media such as air and water. The ear 

is sensitive to this pressure variation and perceives it as sound. The intensity of these pressure variations 

causes the ear to discern different levels of loudness. These pressure differences are most commonly 

measured in decibels.

The decibel (dB) is the unit of measurement for noise. The decibel scale audible to humans spans 

approximately 140 dB. A level of zero decibels corresponds to the lower limit of audibility, while 140 

decibels produces a sensation more akin to pain than sound. The decibel scale is a logarithmic 

representation of the actual sound pressure variations. Therefore, a 26 percent change in the energy level 

only changes the sound level one dB. The human ear would not detect this change except in an acoustical 

laboratory. A doubling of the energy level would result in a three dB increase, which would be barely 

perceptible in the natural environment. A tripling in energy sound level would result in a clearly 

noticeable change of five dB in the sound level. A change of ten times the energy level would result in a 

ten dB change in the sound level. This would be perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the apparent 

loudness.

The human ear has a nonlinear sensitivity to noise. To account for this in noise measurements, electronic 

weighting scales are used to define the relative loudness of different frequencies. The “A” weighting scale 

is widely used in environmental work because it closely resembles the nonlinearity of human hearing. 

Therefore, the unit of A-weighted noise is dBA.

Time-varying characteristics of environmental noise are analyzed statistically to determine the duration 

and intensity of noise exposure. The single number descriptors, Leq(h) and Ldn, are used to assess train 

noise. The Leq(h) is the equivalent steady-state sound having the same A-weighted sound energy as that 

contained in the time-varying sound over a one-hour period. The Leq correlates reasonably well with the 

effects of noise on people. The Day-Night Sound Level, Ldn, is based on the A-weighted equivalent 

sound level for a 24-hour period, with an additional 10 decibels added to the actual or projected noise 

levels during the nighttime hours (10 pm to 7 am). All noise levels in this assessment will be A-weighted 

sound levels.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 133

There are four basic sources of railroad wayside noise:

• Diesel-engine exhaust

• Cooling fans

• Wheel/rail noise (The noise that is radiated directly from the vibrating wheels and rails)

• Horns and crossing bells

There are two types of wheel/rail noise:

• Roar noise caused by small-scale roughness of wheel- and rail-running surfaces that produces 

fluctuations in the interaction forces between wheels and rail

• Impact noise created by discontinuities such as rail joints, wheel flats, or shelled or spalled areas on 

the wheel- and rail-running surfaces

The factors considered in developing the existing and future Ldn noise levels include:

• Distance between track and receptors

• Train type – transit, freight, Amtrak

• Operation speed

• Number of locomotives

• Number of transit cars

• Number of empty/full hopper cars

• Number of freight cars

• Number of Amtrak passenger cars

• Track condition

• Number of train operations during the day, 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

• Number of train operations during the night, 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

3.8.1.2 Noise Criteria

The FRA noise impact criteria are based on a comparison of existing and future outdoor noise levels. The 

criteria were developed to address potential annoyance in a residential environment using Ldn as the 

noise descriptor. The Ldn noise level descriptor is defined as the 24-hour Leq where the nighttime noise, 

10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., is increased by 10 decibels prior to including the noise levels in the 24-hour 

calculation. Noise mitigation is considered when measures are necessary to mitigate adverse impacts. The 

graphical representation of the FRA criteria, which is based on three land use categories identified as 

Category 1, 2, and 3, is presented in Figure 3-7. The categories are:

Category 1: “Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose,
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

134 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Category 2: Residences and buildings were people normally sleep, and

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use.” 90

Figure 3-7: FRA Noise Impact Criteria for Higher-Speed Rail Projects91

 

90 High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Table 3-2. 91 High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Page 3-3.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 135

Another way to look at the criteria is based on the allowable increase in cumulative noise exposure when 

the Program noise is added to existing noise levels as is shown in Figure 3-8 for Category 1 and 2 land 

uses.

Figure 3-8: Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed by Criteria (Land Use Cat. 1 & 2) 92

3.8.2 Noise Affected Environment

Using the methods discussed above, the existing Ldn noise levels in the Area of Analysis, at a 50 foot 

right of way offset from the rail centerline were determined to range from 64 to 81 dBA for the freight 

trains and 56 to 75 dBA for commuter and passenger trains. The total Ldn noises for all existing rail 

operations ranged from 64 to 81 dBA. The noise levels decreased 4 to 5 decibels each time the distance 

from the track was doubled.

3.8.3 Noise Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Build Alternative improvements would not be built, and the noise 

levels would remain in the same range as presently exists and as projected for the future without the 

Program. No additional maintenance activities or construction would occur, however greater degradation 

of the rail bed may increase the likelihood of increased rail joint noise.

 

92 High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Figure 3-2.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

136 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.8.4 Noise Impacts of the Build Alternative

Using the methods discussed above, the future right of way Ldn noise levels along the Corridor would 

range from 68 to 81 dBA. The noise levels would decrease 4 to 5 decibels each time the distance from the 

track was doubled. The cumulative total rail operations noise level increases would range from no change 

in some areas to a 4-decibel increase for the receptor being an average of 400 feet from the track, along 

one nine-mile section of track in Gary, Indiana, that presently only serves four freight trains per day.

There are between 348 and 377 at-grade crossings in the Area of Analysis, depending on the proposed 

routes. The FRA Horn Model was used to determine the existing and future width of the 67 dBA Ldn 

contour at the crossings. The existing contour distances range from 320 feet to 788 feet on each side of 

the track. The proposed future operations increase these distances to between 491 feet and 802 feet. 

Impact distances, which are based on the increase over existing would range 235 feet to 1,056 feet from 

the crossing on each side of the track.

The primary source of impacts along the study corridor would be the horn noise at the crossings. There 

are no existing “quiet zones” along the corridor.93 In a quiet zone, railroads do not routinely sound their 

horns at highway-rail grade crossings. Train horns may still be used in emergency situations or to comply 

with other Federal regulations or railroad operating rules. To establish a quiet zone the locality must first 

mitigate the increased risk caused by the absence of a horn, by having other crossing safety measures.

94

Exploration of opportunities to review the applicability, design and funding of “quiet zones” as a 

mitigation measure would be done during Tier 2 NEPA analyses.

The entire Corridor was analyzed to determine the areas within the Area of Analysis that may experience 

cumulative increases in noise levels at moderate or severe impact levels, see Figure 3-8. The discussion of 

impacts by alternative in the following sections, lists the areas projected to experience a moderate or 

severe impact at the railroad right of way, 50 feet from the centerline of the track, based on the 

cumulative Category 2 land use FRA Criteria in Figure 3-8. With typical first row shielding of second 

row properties, the moderate and severe impact areas only extend to the first row properties. The 

remaining areas within the Corridor that are not indicated below are expected to have no impacts.

3.8.4.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Construction of the Build Alternative would result in a temporary increase in the ambient noise level in 

the vicinity of the project.

 

93 Federal Railroad Administration. Quiet Zone Locations by City and State, Report Date 1/16/14. 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04912. Accessed January 24, 2014. 94The Train Horn Rule and Quiet Zones. http://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0104. Accessed February 9, 2014.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 137

Michigan

Impacts in common with all of the Build Alternatives are relevant to the portion of the Area of Analysis 

in Michigan. Within the Michigan portion, the proposed track improvements and increased passenger 

train frequency and speed along Route 2 would create a moderate impact along three relatively long 

sections of track: from the Indiana/Michigan border to Harrison St. in Kalamazoo; from 30 Mile Road, 

east of Albion to a point due north of the intersection of North Parker Road and Dexter Chelsea Road, 

west of Dexter; and from North Maple Road on the northwest side of Ann Arbor to Clay Street in Detroit.

3.8.4.2 Route 2 Impacts

Illinois

The analysis shows that the proposed Route 2 improvements through the Illinois portion of the Corridor 

would result in a moderate impact in the areas between Chicago Union Station to the 21st Street Bridge 

and from the South Branch of the Chicago River to 43rd Street.

Indiana

For Route 2 within Indiana, the analysis showed that the program would create moderate impacts for all 

the Category 2 land uses in the portion of the Corridor between Buffington Harbor Drive and the 

Indiana/Michigan border.

3.8.4.3 Route 4 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 4 is the same as Route 2. Therefore, the locations where moderate impacts would be 

created are the same as those for Route 2.

Indiana

The analysis showed that there would be moderate impacts in a few locations within Route 4 in Indiana. 

Moderate impacts were projected for all the Category 2 land uses between Buffington Harbor Drive and 

Broadway Street and from the East Dunes Highway to the Indiana/Michigan border along the proposed 

Route 4 improvements, which impacts are the same as Route 2.

3.8.4.4 Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

In the Illinois portion of the Corridor, Route 5 is the same as Routes 2 and 4. Therefore, the areas 

identified that would have moderate impacts would be the same as those for Routes 2 and 4.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

138 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Indiana

Within the Indiana portion of the Corridor, severe impacts were projected for all the Category 2 land uses 

between Buffington Harbor Drive and West 9th Avenue in Gary. Moderate impacts would be experienced 

by residences abutting the right of way between West 9th Avenue and the junction with Routes 2 and 4.

The areas of moderate impacts reported under Routes 2 and 4 would also be created.

3.8.4.5 Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

The proposed Route 9 improvements through Illinois would create a moderate impact between Chicago 

Union Station to the 21st Street Bridge and from Clark Street to East Cermak Road.

Indiana

Route 9 merges with Route 5 at the railroad junction southeast of the Gary/Chicago Airport. Route 9 is 

the same as Route 5 from the junction east to the Indiana/Michigan border. Therefore, the areas of 

moderate impacts would be the same as those for Route 5.

3.8.5 Noise Mitigation Measures

FRA criteria recommend the review of noise mitigation for areas exposed to a moderate or severe impact. 

Opportunities to review the applicability, design and funding of “quiet zones” as a mitigation measure

would be explored. The Build Alternative would upgrade the existing rails from jointed to continuous 

welded rail which would eliminate the clacking noise typically associated with trains. In addition, the 

Build Alternative will benefit from the purchase of new lighter and quieter cars and engines that can aid 

in the reduction of noise impacts. 

MDOT, IDOT, and INDOT would implement mitigation measures for temporary construction impacts, 

which may include construction contract specifications that require that the contractor adhere to all 

federal, state, and local noise abatement and control requirements. Construction activities may be limited 

to daytime hours so as to confine the timespan of temporary noise impacts. Noise may also be controlled 

by measures such as, but not limited to ensuring construction equipment is in good repair and fitted with 

manufacturer recommended mufflers.

Additional mitigation strategies would be reviewed once a preferred Route is selected and Tier 2 noise 

analyses are conducted. The avoidance or minimization of noise impacts would be accomplished in 

appropriate areas by the use of best management practices (BMPs).
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 139

3.8.6 Vibration Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

3.8.6.1 Vibration Background

Ground-borne vibration and noise are caused by vibrations originating at the wheel/rail interface and 

propagating from the rails through the intervening soil and rock to nearby buildings. The resulting 

vibration may be perceptible as mechanical motion (windows rattling, dishes on shelves rattling, etc.) and 

the acoustic radiation by the building components may cause an audible low-frequency rumble.

Airborne noise from trains on at-grade or aerial structures generally overpowers the ground-borne noise 

and vibration. However, there is potential for cumulative impacts of ground-borne vibration in 

conjunction with noise.

Ground-borne vibration and noise inside buildings are often near the threshold of human sensitivity. In 

this range, a small increase in vibration or noise levels can cause increases in human response. 

Unfortunately, variability in soil and rock conditions and building designs make prediction more difficult 

than for airborne noise levels.

Vibration can be described in terms of the displacement, velocity or acceleration of a vibrating surface. 

The peak velocity of a vibration is used to assess building damage. However, it is not appropriate for 

human response to vibration. One single number descriptor, VdB, is used to assess transit vibration. 

Vibration velocity in decibels is ratio of the root mean square velocity amplitude to the reference velocity 

amplitude. All the vibration levels in this assessment will be referenced to 1x10-6 in./sec.

Ground-borne noise is the rumbling sound created by the vibration of a room’s surfaces. The descriptor 

used is the A-weighted sound level, dBA. Ground-borne noise from rail facilities has a considerably low 

frequency component. Therefore, the rumbling noise created ground-borne noise sounds louder than

broadband noise with the same dBA level.

3.8.6.2 Vibration Criteria

Ground-borne vibration and noise are typically not every day experiences to most people. However, in the 

Area of Analysis freight, commuter and passenger trains are the source of most perceptible outdoor 

ground-borne vibration velocity levels. Typical background vibration velocity levels in residential 

neighborhoods not exposed to rail traffic are usually 50 VdB or lower. The human threshold is around 65 

VdB.95 The FRA criteria for ground-borne vibration and noise are presented in Table 3-13.

96

The criteria presented in Table 3-13 are for new rail alignments or when existing freight lines in joint use 

corridors are moved closer to sensitive receptors to accommodate future higher speed passenger rail. 

More appropriate to this Tier 1 assessment are the FRA guidelines on how to account for improved 

 

95 High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Page 6-38. 96 High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Table 7-1.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

140 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

passenger rail operations in a rail corridor that has existing operations. When the proposed passenger rail 

vibration levels exceed the existing vibration levels by 5 VdB, the existing operations are not included in 

the impact assessment and the future operations are compared to the criteria in Table 3-13.

Following are some representative scenarios for addressing vibration impact in joint use corridors:

Infrequently used rail corridor (fewer than five trains per day)

• The general vibration criteria in Table 3-13 is used when the existing rail traffic consists of four or 

less trains per day.

Moderately used rail corridor (5 to 12 trains per day)

• There will be no impact from vibration levels if the existing train vibration levels using FRA 

procedures exceed the impact criteria in Table 3-13 and the future proposed operations are at least 

5VdB less than the existing train vibration levels.

• Otherwise, the vibration criteria in Table 3-13 apply.

Heavily used rail corridor (more than 12 trains per day)

• If the existing train vibration exceeds the impact criteria given in Table 3-13, the Program will cause 

additional impact if the Program significantly increases the number of vibration events. A significant 

increase is when the existing number of trains plus the proposed trains approximately doubles the 

existing operations.

• If there is not a significant increase in vibration events, there will be additional impact only if the 

vibration, estimated using FRA procedures, will be 3 VdB or more than the existing vibration. When 

the Program will cause vibration more than 5 VdB greater than the existing source, the existing 

source can be ignored, and the vibration criteria in Table 3-13 can be applied.97

 

97 High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Pages 7-4 to 7-5. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 141

Table 3-13: Ground-Borne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria for General Assessment

Ground-Borne Vibration Impact Levels, VdB Ground-Borne Noise Impact Levels, dBA

Land Use Category

Frequent 

Events1

Occasional 

Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Frequent 

Events1

Occasional 

Events2

Infrequent 

Events3

Category 1: Buildings 

where low ambient 

vibration is essential for 

interior operations.

65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5

Category 2: Residences 

and buildings where 

people normally sleep.

72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 35 dBA 38 dBA 43 dBA

Category 3: Institutional 

land uses with primarily 

daytime use.

75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA

Notes:

1

“Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. 2

“Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events per day.

3

“Infrequent Events” is defined at fewer than 30 vibration events per day.

4

This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical 

microscopes. 5

Vibration-sensitive equipment is not sensitive to ground-borne noise.

3.8.7 Vibration Affected Environment

Using FRA’s general vibration assessment procedures, the existing freight, commuter and passenger rail 

vibration levels in the Area of Analysis, at a 50 foot right of way offset from the rail centerline were 

determined to range from 70 to 91 VdB. These levels dropped 6 VdB at 100 from the rail center line.

Ground-borne noise levels at the right of way line range from 20 to 41 dBA throughout much of the 

Corridor. In areas where soil conditions are a little more clayey: New Buffalo, Three Oaks, Buchanan, 

southeast of Sunrise Heights, Marshall, Albion, and Sylvan Center, Michigan, ground-borne noise levels 

would range from 35 to 56 dBA. As with the vibration levels, the ground-borne noise levels would also 

decrease by 6 decibels 100 feet from the track centerline. Except for very slow moving trains, the 

majority of existing trains exceed the criteria in Table 3-13.

3.8.8 Vibration Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be built, and the vibration levels 

would remain in the same range as presently exists.

3.8.9 Vibration Impacts of the Build Alternative

Using FRA’s general assessment procedures, the future right of way vibration levels along the Area of 

Analysis would range from 70 to 91 VdB. The vibration levels would decrease into the 64 to 85 VdB 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

142 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

range at 100 feet. The proposed passenger rail speeds would create a 1 to 2 VdB increase over the 

majority of the existing freight lines.

Ground-borne noise levels throughout the Area of Analysis will be in the same ranges for the same 

locations as identified for the existing conditions, see Section 3.8.7.

The following description of impacts by alternative addresses only those areas where operations could 

potentially double or more, creating a significant increase in events.

3.8.9.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Construction of the Build Alternative may result in a temporary increase in vibration levels in the vicinity 

of the project.

Michigan

Common impacts for this topic are relevant only to the portion of the Area of Analysis in Michigan. The 

proposed track improvements and increased passenger train frequency and speed along the route in 

Michigan would create a significant increase in events (double or more) from the Indiana/Michigan 

border to North 48th Street, west of Springfield and from Main Street in Battle Creek to Central Street in

Detroit.

3.8.9.2 Route 2 Impacts

Illinois

The proposed Route 2 improvements through Illinois would not create a significant increase in events.

Indiana

Significant increases in events would occur from Buffington Harbor Drive to Broadway in Gary and from 

Porter to the Indiana/Michigan border along the Route 2 proposed improvements.

3.8.9.3 Route 4 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 4 is the same as Route 2. Therefore, there would not be a significant increase in events.

Indiana

Significant increases in events would occur from Buffington Harbor Drive to Broadway Street and from 

the East Dunes Highway to the Indiana/Michigan border along the proposed Route 4 improvements 

which are the same as Route 2.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 143

3.8.9.4 Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 5 is the same as Routes 2 and 4. Therefore, there would not be a significant increase in 

events.

Indiana

Significant increases in events would occur from Buffington Harbor Drive to the Indiana/Michigan 

border.

3.8.9.5 Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

The proposed Route 9 improvements through Illinois would create a significant increase in events from 

West 116th Street to the Illinois/Indiana border.

Indiana

Significant increases in events would occur from Illinois/Indiana border to the railroad junction southeast 

of the Gary/Chicago Airport where Route 9 merges with Route 5. Route 9 is the same as Route 5 from the 

junction east to the Indiana/Michigan border.

3.8.10 Vibration Mitigation Measures

Each state would review vibration mitigation to minimize the adverse effects that the ground-borne

vibration would have on sensitive land uses. Because ground-borne vibration is not as common a problem 

as environmental noise, the mitigation approaches have not been as well defined. The Build Alternative 

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

vibration impacts.

MDOT, IDOT, and INDOT would implement mitigation measures for temporary construction impacts. 

Construction activities may be limited to daytime hours so as to confine the timespan of temporary 

vibration impacts.

Additionally, the vibration assessment would be reviewed on the Selected Program Alternative during 

Tier 2 NEPA analysis. During the Tier 2 NEPA analysis it would also be possible, as recommended in the 

FRA manual, to measure existing rail operations throughout the Selected Program Alternative route 

refining existing vibration levels, which might also lead to a refinement in the projections and impact 

determination. Additional mitigation strategies would be reviewed at that time, and avoidance or 

minimization of vibration impacts would be accomplished in appropriate areas by the use of best 

management practices (BMPs).
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

144 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.9 Air Quality

3.9.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Air Quality is evaluated in accordance with FRA’s Environmental Procedures Section 14(n)(1). The 

analytical steps used to identify and evaluate potential effects on air quality from the No Build and Build 

Alternatives are described in the following sections. The air quality analysis for this Tier 1 EIS is focused 

on regional air quality impacts associated with the Build Alternatives. Local impacts including analysis of 

air quality impacts at stations, intersections, and/or grade crossings (hot-spot analysis) will be included in 

Tier 2 NEPA analyses if required.

3.9.1.1 Criteria Pollutants

The regulatory framework pertaining to air quality is the Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended) (CAA). 

Primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the CAA are 

used as a basis for the review of potential air quality impacts. Each of the states have adopted the NAAQS 

and standards have been established for the following pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in 

diameter (PM10), and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Areas of the 

country where air pollution levels persistently exceed the NAAQS are designated as “nonattainment” 

areas. Areas of the country that meet the NAAQS are designated as “attainment” areas, and areas of the 

country that were formerly nonattainment, but now meet the standards are designated as “maintenance” 

areas.

Based on the monitored levels of air pollutants, USEPA has designated each county as attainment, 

nonattainment, or maintenance with respect to the NAAQS. The current attainment status of each county 

within the Area of Analysis is shown in Table 3-14.

3.9.1.2 General Conformity

In those counties designated nonattainment or maintenance, FRA, in coordination with USEPA, must 

make a determination that a federal action conforms to one or more applicable state implementation plans 

(SIPs) to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. The General Conformity Rule (40 CFR 93 Subpart B) is 

designed to ensure that projects using Federal funds or requiring Federal approval not:

• Cause or contribute to any new violation of a NAAQS,

• Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation, or

• Delay the timely attainment of any standard, interim emission reduction, or other milestone.

A conformity applicability analysis is the first step of a conformity evaluation and this process assesses if 

a Federal action must be supported by a conformity determination. This is typically done by quantifying 

the direct and indirect emissions from the Federal action. If the results of the applicability analysis 

indicate that the total emissions would not exceed de minimis emission thresholds of the Program 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 145

improvements, then the conformity evaluation process is completed. If emissions of one or more of these 

compounds exceed the de minimis threshold, the agency must demonstrate conformity under one of the 

methods outlined in the General Conformity Rule.

The applicable General Conformity de minimis thresholds are:

• CO, 100 tons per year

• O3, 100 tons per year of either NOX or VOC

• Pb, 25 tons per year

• PM2.5, 100 tons per year

• PM10, 100 tons per year

3.9.1.3 Hazardous Air Pollutants and Mobile Source Air Toxics

USEPA also regulates hazardous air pollutants (also referred to as air toxics). Air toxics originate from a 

wide variety of sources including mobile sources (such as cars, airplanes, and locomotives) and stationary 

sources (such as factories or refineries). Air toxics are those pollutants that are known or suspected to 

cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse 

environmental effects. Research into the health impacts of air toxics is ongoing and USEPA is in the 

process of assessing the risks of exposure to these pollutants.

Diesel particulate matter is another class of pollutants that has also been recently studied for its 

contribution to human health effects. Diesel particulate matter is part of a complex mixture that makes up 

diesel exhaust, which is composed of both a gas phase and a particle phase, both of which contribute to 

the health risk. Diesel exhaust is emitted from a broad range of diesel engines including on-road diesel 

engines of trucks, buses and cars and off-road diesel engines that include locomotives, marine vessels and 

heavy duty equipment.

USEPA has direct regulatory authority over emissions from mobile sources, and has established both 

criteria and Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emission standards for newly manufactured and 

remanufactured diesel locomotive engines. These emission standards were finalized in March 2008 and 

are projected to reduce particulate emissions from locomotives by 90 percent and NOX emissions by as 

much as 80 percent when fully implemented. The standards are based on the application of highefficiency catalytic after-treatment technology for engines built in 2015 and later. USEPA standards also 

apply to existing locomotives when they are remanufactured.

98 Based on these recently passed standards, 

USEPA is projecting that emissions from the national passenger locomotive fleet will continue to 

decrease over time as older locomotives are replaced with newly manufactured engines.

 

98 USEPA, 2013b, Locomotives website, Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/locomotives.htm. Accessed 

September 16, 2013
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

146 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.9.1.4 Data Collection and Government Agency Coordination

Air quality data and the current attainment status of the counties through which the four remaining Build 

Alternative routes would pass was obtained from the USEPA’s Green Book, the Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency (Illinois EPA), the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (Indiana 

DEM), and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

3.9.2 Affected Environment

Of the 14 counties through which the Build Alternative routes would pass, only Jackson County, 

Michigan has been in full attainment of the NAAQS (never designated non-attainment). The only current 

nonattainment areas within the Area of Analysis are Cook County, Illinois (PM2.5, Pb, and 8-hour O), and 

Lake and Porter counties, Indiana (8-hour O). All of the other counties are designated maintenance for 

one or more of the criteria pollutants.

The attainment statuses of the 13 counties designated either nonattainment or maintenance for one or 

more of the criteria pollutants are presented in Table 3-14.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 147

Table 3-14: Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas within the Area of Analysis

Criteria Pollutants County State Status

Particulate matter less than 10 

microns in diameter (PM10)

Cook County – Lyons Township and 

Southeast Chicago IL Maintenance

Lake County IN Maintenance

Wayne County MI Maintenance

Particulate matter less than 2.5 

microns in diameter (PM2.5)

Cook County IL Nonattainment

Lake County IN Maintenance

Porter County IN Maintenance

Macomb County MI Maintenance2

Oakland County MI Maintenance2

Washtenaw County MI Maintenance2

Wayne County MI Maintenance2

8-hour ozone (O3) (2008 Standard)1

Cook County IL Nonattainment 

(Marginal)

Lake County IN Nonattainment 

(Marginal)

Porter County IN Nonattainment 

(Marginal)

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Lake County IN Maintenance

Macomb County MI Maintenance

Oakland County MI Maintenance

Wayne County MI Maintenance

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Lake County IN Maintenance

LaPorte County IN Maintenance

Lead (Pb) Cook County IL Nonattainment

Source: USEPA, 2013a

Table Notes: 

1 In addition, Cook County (Illinois), Lake, Porter, and LaPorte counties (Indiana), and Berrien, Calhoun, Cass, 

Kalamazoo, Oakland, Van Buren, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties (Michigan) are designated “maintenance” 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 2 Redesignated “maintenance” on 8/29/2013.

Lead and SO2 are not discussed further in the conformity analyses found later in this section because none 

of the transportation modes considered emit lead or SO2 in substantial quantities from operation.

3.9.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be built, and impacts on air quality 

are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. Over time, emissions from 

vehicles will decrease due to technological improvements, but air quality will not be as good as it could 

be due to vehicle congestion increases on the roads and highways between Chicago and Detroit. There 

could also be more delays at at-grade railroad crossings as vehicular traffic congestion increases, which 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

148 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

would worsen local air quality. Intercity bus service between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac may have 

greater ridership under the No Build Alternative, and this could result in greater emissions from buses. 

Overall, the No Build Alternative would have a minor to moderate negative impact on local and regional 

air quality.

3.9.4 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

Regional air quality impacts under each of the Build Alternatives would be essentially identical as there is 

only a two percent difference in length between the shortest route (Route 2 at 304.7 miles) and the longest 

route (Route 9 at 310.2 miles). Therefore, regional air quality impacts are presented for a single Build 

Alternative, as described below.

Table 3-15, Table 3-16 and Table 3-17 show the pollutants evaluated under the general conformity 

analysis for the Build Alternatives. Emissions are estimated for full implementation by the year 2035 

based on ridership forecasts for the Build Alternatives. Given that 13 of 14 counties through which the 

alternative routes would pass are designated either maintenance or non-attainment, the conformity 

determination was conducted on a state-by-state basis, rather than on a county-by-county basis.

Along the Corridor, there would be a reduction in all types of emissions with the exception of NOX

emissions, which would increase slightly due to the additional diesel fuel burned as a result of the 

increase in passenger train traffic by switching passengers from other modes of travel to rail. Total 

emissions diverted for each state presented in Table 3-15, Table 3-16 and Table 3-17, includes the 

calculated reduction in passenger vehicles, bus, and plane emissions from trips diverted to trains. Trip 

diversion and ridership information can be found in Appendix E and detailed emission calculations are 

presented in Appendix G. Although NOX emissions would increase within each state as shown in the 

Tables, the emission increases within each nonattainment or maintenance county would be below the 

General Conformity de minimis threshold. In order to assess the potential regional impact of this increase 

in NOX emissions, additional regional analysis may need to be conducted as part of Tier 2 NEPA analysis

or as part of the Regional Transportation Planning process. Construction-related emissions would need to 

be addressed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis. Construction related impacts are described in Section 3.26.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 149

Table 3-15: Summary of General Conformity Determination for the Build Alternatives in 2035 -

Illinois

Pollutant

Route in 

miles in 

State

De Minimis 

Threshold

(tons/year)

Train 

Emissions 

Increase 

(tons/year)

Illinois 

(Cook 

County)

Total 

Emissions 

Diverted 

(tons/year)

Illinois

Statewide 

Net 

Emissions 

Change

(tons/year)

Number of 

Counties 

Crossed

*Average 

Net 

Emissions 

Change 

(tons/year) 

per County

HC 14 100 3.82 6.86 -3.04 1 -3.04

CO 14 100 25.10 53.54 -28.44 1 -28.44

NOX 14 100 86.32 57.97 28.34 1 28.34

PM-10 14 100 2.24 2.65 -0.41 1 -0.41

PM-2.5 14 100 2.17 2.20 -0.03 1 -0.03

Notes: All emission numbers are in tons per year. Totals may not add due to rounding.

* A negative net change indicates that the implementation of the Build Alternative will result in an overall decrease 

in emissions as the additional rail service is replacing passenger vehicle, bus, and plane trips along a similar 

route, and produce fewer emissions per passenger then other modes of transportation.

Table 3-16: Summary of General Conformity Determination for the Build Alternatives in 2035 –

Indiana

Pollutant

Route in 

Miles in 

State

De Minimis 

Threshold

(tons/year)

Train 

Emissions 

Increase 

(tons/year) 

Indiana

Total 

Emissions 

Diverted 

(tons/year) 

Indiana

Statewide 

Net 

Emissions 

Change

(tons/year)

Number of 

Counties 

Crossed

*Average 

Net 

Emissions 

Change 

(tons/year) 

per County

HC 44 100 11.68 2.97 -9.30 3 -3.1

CO 44 100 76.71 163.59 -86.89 3 -28.96

NOX 44 100 263.74 177.13 86.61 3 28.87

PM-10 44 100 6.85 8.10 -1.25 3 -0.42

PM-2.5 44 100 6.64 6.74 -0.10 3 -0.03

Notes: All emission numbers are in tons per year. Totals may not add due to rounding.

* A negative net change indicates that the implementation of the Build Alternative will result in an overall decrease 

in emissions as the additional rail service is replacing passenger vehicle, bus, and plane trips along a similar 

route, and produce fewer emissions per passenger then other modes of transportation.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

150 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-17: Summary of General Conformity Determination for the Build Alternatives in 2035 -

Michigan

Pollutant

Route in 

Miles in 

State

De Minimis 

Threshold

(tons/year)

Train 

Emissions 

Increase 

(tons/year)

Michigan

Total 

Emissions 

Diverted 

(tons/year) 

Michigan

Statewide 

Net 

Emissions 

Change

(tons/year)

Number of 

Counties 

Crossed

*Average 

Net 

Emissions 

Change 

(tons/year) 

per County

HC 246 100 65.39 117.45 -52.06 8 -6.51

CO 246 100 429.56 916.12 -486.56 8 -60.82

NOX 246 100 1,476.97 991.96 485.01 8 60.63

PM-10 246 100 38.33 45.34 -7.01 8 -0.88

PM-2.5 246 100 37.18 37.73 -0.54 8 -0.07

Notes: All emission numbers are in tons per year. Totals may not add due to rounding.

* A negative net change indicates that the implementation of the Build Alternative will result in an overall decrease 

in emissions as the additional rail service is replacing passenger vehicle, bus, and plane trips along a similar 

route, and produce fewer emissions per passenger then other modes of transportation.

As shown in Table 3-15, Table 3-16, and Table 3-17, with the exception of NOX, emissions of all criteria 

pollutants would decrease under the Program. The NOX emission increase would be the greatest for 

counties in Michigan; however, the average increase per county would be approximately 61 tons/year 

which is less than the General Conformity de minimis threshold.

Because the alternatives include new train service, impacts from the Build Alternatives on air quality are 

unavoidable due to the use of diesel fuel. However, with the exception of NOX, overall emissions would 

be less than the No Build Alternative because the additional rail service is replacing passenger vehicles, 

bus, and plane trips along a similar route, and trains require fewer BTUs per passenger mile than other 

modes of transportation.

As shown in Table 3-18, operation of the Build Alternatives between Chicago and Detroit would increase 

NOX emissions along the entire corridor by 600 tons/year. However, within the Corridor, there would be a 

reduction of 64 tons/year of HC emissions, a reduction of 602 tons/year of CO emissions, a reduction of 

8.7 tons/year of PM10 emissions, a reduction of 0.7 tons/year of PM2.5 emissions, a reduction of 3.5

tons/year of SO2 emissions and a reduction of 10,284 tons/year of CO2 emissions. Detailed emission 

calculations are shown in Appendix G, and trip diversion and ridership information can be found in

Appendix E.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 151

Table 3-18: Build Alternatives – 2035 Estimated Changes in Corridor Air Pollutants from Diversion 

of Passenger Vehicle, Bus, and Plane Trips (Tons per Year)

Pollutant

Additional 

Train 

Emissions

(tons/year) Reduction in Emissions (tons/year)

*Net Change

(tons/year)

Vehicles Buses Planes

Total 

Emission 

Reduction

HC 80.89 131.86 9.01 4.43 145.29 -64.40

CO 531.37 1,033.01 72.45 27.82 1,133.25 -601.88

NOX 1,827.03 1,063.93 73.97 89.15 1,227.06 599.97

PM-10 47.42 52.42 3.67 0 56.08 -8.67

PM-2.5 46.00 43.56 3.11 0 46.67 -0.67

SO2 1.34 2.20 0.14 2.75 4.86 -3.52

CO2 141,687.56 113,850.34 17,929.77 21,965.59 151,971.06 -10,283.51

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

* A negative net change indicates that the implementation of the Build Alternative will result in an overall decrease 

in emissions as the additional rail service is replacing passenger vehicle, bus, and plane trips along a similar 

route, and produce fewer emissions per passenger then other modes of transportation.

3.9.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Although average NOX emissions per county are below the de minimis thresholds, as demonstrated in 

Table 3-15, Table 3-16, and Table 3-17, general air quality conformity analysis modeling may be required 

during Tier 2 NEPA analysis to verify these findings and demonstrate that the Program would not have an 

adverse impact on air quality across the 3-state area. During Tier 2 NEPA analysis, mitigation to reduce 

NOX emissions may be considered and investigated. Potential NOX reduction measures could include 

converting fleet vehicles from diesel to alternative fuels, implementing idling restrictions for locomotives 

and buses at station stops, and other appropriate measures.

3.10 Hazardous Waste and Waste Disposal

This section discusses hazardous materials and waste sites, either from the presence of stored materials or 

due to past spills or leaks. A hazardous material or waste is any chemical, biological, or physical 

substance (liquid, solid, gas, or sludge) that can be potentially harmful to public health or the 

environment. Hazardous materials or wastes can be substances such as solvents, pesticides, or discarded 

commercial, industrial, or medical waste.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

152 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.10.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework governing activities potentially affecting hazardous materials and waste sites 

include the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended, the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

USEPA is the federal agency overseeing hazardous waste management. State agencies’ regulatory 

frameworks include the Illinois EPA’s Hazardous Waste Program (35 Illinois Administrative Code 700-

739), Indiana’s Department of Environmental Management’s hazardous waste management rules (329 

IAC 3.1), and Michigan DEQ’s Hazardous Waste Management Program (Part 111, Hazardous Waste 

Management, Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451). Solid waste disposal is 

evaluated in accordance with FRA’s Environmental Procedures Section 14(n)(4).

The Area of Analysis was reviewed using recent aerial and satellite high-resolution photographic 

imagery; maps of hydrography, and other features; and the most recent GIS data for a variety of 

environmental resources. For this Tier 1 EIS, field visits for resource review were not conducted. This 

would be done during Tier 2 NEPA analysis. As data gathered from various GIS databases have 

overlapping coverage and many sites have multiple record associations; the effort focused on records 

associated with the types of sites most likely to require additional screening due to the presence of special 

waste. These are listed in Table 3-19.

Table 3-19: Environmental Databases by Site Type

Site Type Illinois* Indiana Michigan* Comments

Superfund Sites IEPA IDEM

Brownfield Sites USEPA IDEM

LUST IEPA IDEM

Sites with Institutional Controls IDEM

Contaminated site with controls 

to restrict use, activity or access

Hazardous Waste Sites IDEM MDEQ

Called Treatment Storage 

Disposal for IDEM (treat, store 

or generate) 

Solid Waste (Illegal Dump Sites, 

Tires Dumps, Solid Waste Landfills) IDEM MDEQ

Industrial Waste IDEM

(hazardous, non-hazardous, 

solid waste)

Clean-up Sites IDEM

State sites pose threat to 

human health. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 153

Site Type Illinois* Indiana Michigan* Comments

RCRA Corrective Action Sites USEPA IDEM

Former Manufactured Gas Plants IDEM

Toxic by product wastes at 

former gas plants

Voluntary Remediation Program 

Sites IEPA IDEM

Voluntary remediation site 

locations (VRP)

*Blank spaces indicates that there was not readily available GIS Data for the category

Data were gathered from USEPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Information System (CERCLIS) list of final National Priorities List (NPL) hazardous material 

sites. According to the USEPA, the NPL is “...a list of national priorities among the known releases or 

threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United 

States...”99 The NPL list includes Superfund sites, which can pose a severe contamination risk or threat to 

public health and/or the environment. Other less severe sites (not on the NPL list) that store or generate 

hazardous materials are described as “brownfield” sites, which are lands that are contaminated because 

they were previously used for industrial or certain commercial uses, but have the potential to be reused or 

redeveloped once they are appropriately cleaned up. Data were compiled for leaking underground storage 

tank (LUST) locations, and other solid wastes sites using the Michigan DEQ, Indiana DEM, and Illinois 

EPA websites.

3.10.2 Affected Environment

The data gathered for hazardous material and waste sites within the Area of Analysis were reviewed, and 

a general description of those areas was prepared. It was determined that there are no NPL (Superfund) 

sites located within or adjacent to the Area of Analysis.

Other less severe (non-NPL) hazardous material sites within the Area of Analysis include brownfield 

sites, industrial waste sites, old landfills and other solid waste sites, hazardous waste sites, LUST sites, 

RCRA corrective action sites, sites with institutional controls (contaminated site with controls to restrict 

use, activity or access) and former manufactured gas plant sites. RCRA hazardous material sites include 

industrial facilities dealing with plastics, metals, agricultural products, and building materials; and 

commercial sites such as automotive repair/maintenance facilities, dry cleaners, and petroleum 

companies. There are several non-NPL hazardous material sites within the Area of Analysis for each 

route. The state listings of LUST sites within the Area of Analysis include up to 202 in Michigan, 10 in 

Indiana, and 19 in Illinois. There likely are more sites in Indiana and Illinois but the available databases 

maintained by these two states are relatively smaller than Michigan.

 

99 USEPA. USEPA NPL website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htm. Retrieved on February 15, 

2013.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

154 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.10.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be built. Continual maintenance 

activities are contained within existing right of way and hazardous materials are not expected to be 

encountered. Hazardous waste impacts from the programmed projects are/or will be addressed separately 

and will follow environmental requirements in accordance with federal and respective state laws.

3.10.4 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

3.10.4.1 Impacts Common to all Route Alternatives

Table 3-20 presents the number of hazardous material and waste sites within the Area of Analysis, listed 

by state and Build Alternative.

Specific site limits, contamination boundaries, and impacts would be performed as part of the Tier 2

NEPA analysis. Within the estimated areas of additional right of way acquisition, there may be instances 

where demolition of existing structures or buildings would be required. Some of these materials may be 

recycled. However, some of these buildings or structures may include small amounts of hazardous waste; 

especially in older industrial areas that are prevalent in the developed portions of the Area of Analysis 

fronting existing rail lines, and in some cases, testing of hazardous waste may be required.

There was substantially more readily available data from Indiana than from Illinois and Michigan so 

Illinois and Michigan may be underrepresented and the data may not present all of the potential hazardous 

or waste sites within the Area of Analysis.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 155

Table 3-20: Number of Hazardous Material and Waste Sites within Area of Analysis

Route Alternatives

Site Type 2 4 5 Option 1

5 Option 

2

9 Option 

1

9 Option 

2

Illinois

Brownfields

Hazardous

Solid Waste

LUST 10 10 10 10 19 19

Manufactured Gas Plants

Clean-up 

Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP)

Institutional Controls

RCRA 21 21 21 21 43 43

Industrial

Indiana

Brownfields 1 2

Hazardous 1 1 1 1

Solid Waste 4 4 4 4 2 2

LUST 6 8 9 8 10 9

Manufactured Gas Plants 1 1 1 1 1 1

Clean-up 1 1 1 1 1 1

Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP) 3 3 2 2 2 2

Institutional Controls 1 1 1 1

RCRA 2 2 1 1

Industrial 7 11 7 7 7 7

Michigan

Brownfields

Hazardous 6 6 6 6 6 6

Solid Waste 4 4 4 4 4 4

LUST 202 202 202 202 202 202

Manufactured Gas Plants

Clean-up 

Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP)

Institutional Controls

RCRA

Industrial
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

156 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

As a result of increased train traffic from operation of the Build Alternatives, and in addition to operations 

at maintenance facilities, there could be an increase in the chances of a hazardous material incident during 

refueling, maintenance operations, or from a spill during operation of the trains. Such incidents can affect

water quality if railway contaminants or accidental chemical/fuel spills from operations and maintenance 

activities reach water resources adjacent to or downstream. However, with appropriate permanent best 

management practices (BMPs) in place, water quality impacts from hazardous materials would be 

avoided or minimized.

The construction of the Build Alternatives has the potential to generate waste material from clearing plant 

material, excavation of soil, and removal of existing track and railroad ties where replacement is 

warranted. Other examples of site waste may include construction material packaging, broken 

equipment/parts, and other excess material. Some of these materials may be suitable for recycling. Also, 

if removal of structures is required, such structures may contain asbestos. 

During typical construction activities, small amounts of soil may be contaminated through on-site motor 

or hydraulic oil spills.

Within the limited areas of additional right of way acquisition, there may be instances where demolition 

of existing structures or buildings would be required that may include hazardous waste, especially in older 

industrial areas. Testing for hazardous waste may be required.

Michigan

The route through Michigan is the same for all Build Alternatives. There are 6 listed hazardous sites, 4 

solid waste sites and 202 LUST sites within the Area of Analysis. The majority of the sites are located 

within the Detroit metropolitan area. However, the proposed improvements are anticipated to be within 

the existing right of way through the Michigan corridor. The exception may be at grade crossings, 

potential flyovers, the proposed Pontiac Maintenance Facility and station area improvements. Once the 

specific improvements have been identified and in conjunction with the Tier 2 NEPA analyses, the 

specific hazardous and solid waste sites would be reviewed to determine potential impacts and where it is 

possible and practical to avoid these areas.

Specific impacts for each route are discussed below.

3.10.4.2 Route 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 2 would not potentially affect, and/or be affected by NPL (Superfund) sites or 

CERCLIS sites because no such sites are located within or adjacent to the Area of Analysis in Illinois. 

However, there are 21 RCRA sites and 10 LUST sites that could potentially affect or be affected by this 

route.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 157

Indiana

There are no NPL (Superfund) sites along Route 2 in Indiana. However there are 17 potential various 

types of hazardous sites, 4 solid waste sites and 6 LUST sites located within or adjacent to the Area of 

Analysis in Indiana that could potentially affect or be affected by this alignment.

3.10.4.3 Route 4 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 4 is the same as Route 2. Therefore, impacts to various non NPL, solid waste and LUST 

sites would be similar to those for Route 2.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 4 is very similar to Route 2. However, the total number of sites located within or 

adjacent to the Area of Analysis that could potentially affect or be affected by this alternative is higher 

(31). There are 22 potential various types of hazardous sites, 4 solid waste sites and 8 LUST sites.

3.10.4.4 Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 5, Options 1 and 2 are the same as Route 2. Therefore, impacts to various non-NPL, 

solid waste, and LUST sites would be similar to those for Route 2.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 5 Options 1 and 2 are very similar to Route 2. There is a small area that deviates from 

the Route 2 alignment; however, the number of impacted sites is very similar, just the breakdown of types 

of sites is different. For Route 5 Option 1 there are 14 potential various types of hazardous sites, 4 solid 

waste sites and 9 LUST sites. The only difference in Route 5 Option 2 is that it has one more LUST site 

than Route 5 Option 1.

3.10.4.5 Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 9 Options 1 and 2 would not potentially affect and/or be affected by NPL (Superfund) 

sites or CERCLIS sites as none are located within or adjacent to the Area of Analysis in Illinois. 

However, there are 43 RCRA sites and 19 LUST sites that could potentially affect or be affected by this 

route.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

158 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 9 Options 1 and 2 are very similar to Route 5. However, the route does deviate from 

Route 5 in the west end of the state. For Route 9 Options 1 and 2 there are 11 potential various types of 

hazardous sites, 2 solid waste sites, and 10 LUST sites. The only difference between Route 9 Options 1 

and 2 is that Option 1 has one more LUST site.

3.10.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

In areas of additional right of way acquisition or excavation, there is a potential for exposure to hazardous 

materials from adjacent sites during construction. However, the level of risk and potential mitigation 

measures cannot be determined in this Tier 1 NEPA analysis given the current level of design detail. A 

more detailed investigation of specific site limits, contamination boundaries, and impacts would be 

performed on the Selected Program Alternative as part of the Tier 2 NEPA analysis, and specific 

mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed after design details are 

known.

Requirements for safety procedures and protection of human health and the environment would be 

established to help ensure that there would be no further contamination of adjacent sites and to provide a 

safe working environment during construction. See also Section 3.7 (Public Health and Safety).

All solid waste materials generated during construction should be recycled or properly disposed of in 

accordance with the provisions of each state’s solid waste management statutes and regulations, and local 

regulations. Handling, collection, and disposal of hazardous waste materials would be performed 

according to federal, state, and local regulations.

It is possible that some of the soil material could be reused for fill material in other construction areas or 

other nearby construction projects. Recyclable construction materials should be taken to recycling 

facilities that are in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. Construction debris that cannot 

be recycled should be disposed of in permitted landfills following proper disposal procedures and in 

compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. State and local regulations may include prohibitions 

or limitations on burning of construction debris, and control measures to limit pollution if tree trunks and 

limbs are permitted to be burned on site.

Appropriate permanent best management practices (BMPs) put in place would avoid or minimize impacts 

to water quality for potential hazardous material incident during refueling, maintenance operations, or 

from a spill during operation of the trains. Accidental spills of hazardous materials and wastes during 

construction or operation of the transportation system require special response measures. Occurrences 

will be handled in accordance with local government response procedures. Refueling, storage of fuels, or 

maintenance of construction equipment will not be allowed within 100 feet of wetlands or water bodies to 

avoid accidental spills impacting these resources.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 159

3.11 Cultural Resources and Section 106 Coordination

This section discusses the Program’s potential impacts to cultural resources including archaeological 

resources, architectural resources, and traditional cultural properties.

3.11.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Sites of historical, archeological, architectural, or cultural significance are evaluated in accordance with 

FRA’s Environmental Procedures Section 14(n)(21). Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to determine whether their undertakings have adverse 

impacts on historic properties (any site, structure, or other property listed in or eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)) and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment in the event that there is disagreement on 

adverse effect determination made by the Federal agency and reviewed by a State Historic Preservation 

Office (SHPO). Regulations promulgated from the NHPA are codified under 36 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 800.

Cultural resources include a variety of heritage- or culture-related resources that are the subject of certain 

Federal and state laws, regulations, executive orders, and other requirements. Archaeological sites are 

places on the landscape where prehistoric or historic human activity has left physical evidence of those 

activities. In general, these traces of human activity must be at least 50 years old to qualify as 

archaeological sites that are potentially eligible for nomination to the NRHP. Architectural resources 

include standing buildings, bridges, and other structures. In general, architectural resources must be at 

least 50 years old to qualify for nomination to the NRHP. Newer structures might warrant protection if 

they have the potential to gain significance in the future or if they meet exceptional significance criteria. 

A historic district consists of a definable geographic area that possesses a substantial concentration, 

linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan 

or physical development. Also potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP are historic landscapes. A 

designed historic landscape is a geographically bound area that was developed according to academic or 

professional design standards, theories, or philosophies of landscape architecture; that is associated with a 

historically significant person, trend, or event; or that is recognized for its design or artistic merit. A rural 

historic landscape is a geographical area that has been used by or modified by people historically and that 

possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of areas of land use, vegetation, buildings and 

structures, roads and waterways, and natural features.

Traditional cultural properties are a special category of cultural resources that hold traditional cultural 

significance to a group such as a Native American Tribe. This category of resources can encompass 

archaeological resources, structures, neighborhoods, prominent topographic features, habitat, plants, 

animals, and minerals that people consider essential for the preservation of a traditional culture.

Cultural resources are evaluated for eligibility for listing in the NRHP based on four criteria. Eligible 

resources may be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of 

our history (criterion a); they may be associated with the lives of historically significant people (criterion 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

160 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

b); they may embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent 

the work of a master, or possess high artistic values (criterion c); or they may have yielded, or may be 

likely to yield, important information on prehistory or history (criterion d). In addition, eligible resources 

must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Potential impacts on cultural resources were evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR 1500 et seq., and 

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545). No field studies were 

conducted for this Tier 1 NEPA analysis; field efforts would occur as needed during the Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis. The analytical methods are briefly summarized below:

• Prior to development of the Tier 1 EIS, the Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan SHPOs were consulted 

concerning the definition of the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The APE is defined below under the 

description of the affected environment.

• Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan SHPOs were consulted concerning the Program, seeking their advice 

regarding the identification of consulting parties with an interest in the Program.

• SHPOs, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) and other appropriate entities were consulted 

to determine if the proposed preliminary APE for the Tier 1 NEPA analysis is reasonable.

• Using a variety of sources, the known cultural resources within the preliminary APE was identified. 

The Tier 1 level of effort focused on the known record of properties listed in state and national 

registers as well as known National Register-eligible properties identified through the data sources 

listed below.

• The preliminary location for stations, facilities, and potential capacity improvements were identified.

• Physical changes to the rail line and rail traffic resulting from the alternatives were identified and 

evaluated for the potential to impact known historic properties.

• A discussion on the level of conceptual design information was prepared, which helped clarify the 

preliminary nature of the information and the opportunity for more detailed evaluations in Tier 2.

• The analysis will be provided to SHPOs and THPOs for review and comment.

Data was gathered from several sources during Tier 1 identification of resources near the Area of 

Analysis and within the identified APEs. Potential impacts on historic properties were identified. Data 

sources included the following:

• The National Register of Historic Places maintained by the National Park Service

• Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan State Historic Preservation Office files and databases (geographic 

information system (GIS), PDF, Excel, paper, and other formats), including:

o The Illinois Inventory of Archaeological Sites online GIS database maintained by the Illinois 

State Museum

o A list of potentially affected historic resources provided to FRA by the Illinois DOT Cultural 

Resources Unit
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 161

o The Historic and Architectural Resources Geographic Information System (HARGIS) 

maintained by the Illinois SHPO

o the Indiana State Historic Architectural and Archaeological Research Database (SHAARD)

o Paper records maintained by the Michigan SHPO 

o Previous NEPA evaluations of projects in the same corridor as the Program:

o The 2011 EA for the acquisition of the Dearborn-Kalamazoo portion of the Area of Analysis

by MDOT

o The 2009 EIS for the Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal

o The 2008 EA for the CN—Control—EJ&E project in Illinois

• Lists of potentially affected resources provided by the Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan DOTs 

• Information obtained from public scoping and the consulting parties

• Historic maps provided by local governments and others

• Literature on the history of the existing rail systems

• Other consulting parties’ information, including lists of those properties that may be of religious and 

cultural significance to Indian tribes (known as traditional cultural properties or TCPs)

As the lead federal agency, FRA initiated coordination with Native American tribes with ties to Illinois, 

Indiana, and Michigan during the Tier I EIS process. After the Tier 1 EIS Record of Decision has been 

obtained, formal Section 106 consultation and compliance with the appropriate federal and state agencies 

and Native American tribes will occur during Tier 2 analyses.

3.11.2 Affected Environment

In the absence of details about the locations and site improvements that would be used for any new 

stations, maintenance facilities and layover facilities, the data gathering area (preliminary Area of 

Potential Effect) for the Tier 1 EIS includes a corridor of 500 feet on either side of the rail centerline of all 

Build Alternatives. Data was gathered from sources identified in Section 3.11.1 above and compiled in 

suitable GIS and database formats.

It is assumed that as part of formal consultation during Tier 2 NEPA analysis, the state DOTs and FRA in 

consultation with the appropriate SHPOs, THPOs, and tribes, and other consulting parties, may further 

define the APE to include only those areas that could reasonably be affected by the Program, which may 

include but not be limited to:

• Sites for construction of new rail lines

• Sites for new stations or improvements to existing station

• Sites for new rail facilities, such as a layover facility or a maintenance facility

• Locations for rail line capacity improvements which would encroach outside the existing ballast 

surfaces
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

162 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.11.2.1 Cultural Resource inventory

The preliminary APE includes 126 historic resources listed on the NRHP or eligible for listing on the 

NRHP, including buildings (residential, commercial, and industrial), historic districts, and bridges and 

other structures. Several of these properties are related to the operation of the railroad such as depots and 

stations. The density of cultural resources is highest in urban areas. The 126 properties are listed in Table 

3-22. The APE also includes 21 known archaeological sites. Information concerning the nature and 

locations of any archaeological resources are confidential to protect artifacts and sites from theft and 

vandalism.

Table 3-21: Count of National Register Listed and Eligible Historic Resources within the APE by 

Alternative

Alternatives

2 4 5

Option 1

5

Option 2

9

Option 1

9

Option 2

Illinois 23 23 23 23 35 35

Indiana 5 5 5 5 7 7

Michigan 68 68 68 68 68 68

TOTAL 98 98 98 98 110 110

Source: See Table 3-22.

Table 3-22: National Register Listed and Eligible Historic Resources within the APE

NRHP Site Number* County and State Site Name Routes Site Type

Illinois

None Cook County, Illinois Union Station 2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Cook County, Illinois Structure #016-6026, 

Jackson Ave. over S. 

Branch Chicago River 

2, 4, 5, 9 Structure

1000868 Cook County, Illinois United States Post 

Office

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Cook County, Illinois Chicago Park 

Boulevard System 

Historic District

2, 4, 5, 9 District

2001347 Cook County, Illinois Fuller Park District 2, 4, 5 District

78001130 Cook County, Illinois South Loop Printing 

House Row Historic 

District

2, 4, 5, 9 District

80001350 Cook County, Illinois Sheridan Plaza Hotel 2, 4, 5 Building

82000392 Cook County, Illinois St. Luke’s Hospital 

Complex

9 Building

84001052 Cook County, Illinois Soldier Field 9 Building
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 163

NRHP Site Number* County and State Site Name Routes Site Type

78001128 Cook County, Illinois Schoenhofen Brewery 

Historic District

2, 4, 5 District

72000452 Cook County, Illinois Prairie Avenue Historic 

District

9 District

71000291 Cook County, Illinois William W. Kimball 

House

9 Building

12000243 Cook County, Illinois Cermak Road Bridge 

Historic District

2, 4, 5 District

99001072 Cook County, Illinois Raymond M. Hilliard 

Center Historic District

9 District

99000975 Cook County, Illinois Wheeler-Kohn House 9 Building

03000783 Cook County, Illinois Reid House 9 Building

None Cook County, Illinois American Book 

Company Building

9 Building

83000308 Cook County, Illinois R.R. Donnelly & Sons 

Company

2, 4, 5 Building

None Cook County, Illinois A. Brandwein & Co. 

Warehouse

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Cook County, Illinois James Ward 

Elementary School

2, 4, 5 Building

None Cook County, Illinois Prairie Shore 

Apartments

9 Building

None Cook County, Illinois Structure #016-6173, 

31st St. over ICG RR 

2, 4, 5 Structure

03000789 Cook County, Illinois Armour Square 2, 4, 5 District

05000871 Cook County, Illinois Illinois Institute of 

Technology Academic 

Campus

2, 4, 5 District

01001049 Cook County, Illinois S.R. Crown Hall 2, 4, 5 Building

None Cook County, Illinois Lake Meadows 

Apartments

9 Building

None Cook County, Illinois Soldier’s Home 9 Building

76000689 Cook County, Illinois Douglas Tomb State 

Memorial

9 Structure

None Cook County, Illinois Structure #016-6174, 

Oakwood Blvd. over 

ICG RR

9 Structure

86001091 Cook County, Illinois Overton Hygienic 

Building

2, 4, 5 Building

86001090 Cook County, Illinois Chicago Bee Building 2, 4, 5 Building

2001347 Cook County, Illinois Fuller Park 2, 4, 5 Structure

79000824 Cook County, Illinois Hyde Park-Kenwood 

Historic District

9 District

05000107 Cook County, Illinois The Narragansett 9 Building
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

164 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

NRHP Site Number* County and State Site Name Routes Site Type

86001193 Cook County, Illinois Chicago Beach Hotel 9 Building

69000054 Cook County, Illinois Pullman Historic 

District

9 District

86001197 Cook County, Illinois East Park Towers 9 Building

70000233 Cook County, Illinois John J. Glessner 

House

9 Building

86001195 Cook County, Illinois Hotel Del Prado 9 Building

86001198 Cook County, Illinois Mayfair Apartments 9 Building

86001199 Cook County, Illinois Poinsetta Apartments 9 Building

82000391 Cook County, Illinois Hotel Windermere East 9 Building

72001565 Cook County, Illinois Jackson Park Historic 

Landscape District and 

Midway Plaisance

9 District

11000848 Cook County, Illinois Parkway Garden 

Homes

2, 4, 5 District

None Cook County, Illinois Oak Woods Cemetery 2, 4, 5, 9 District

95000487 Cook County, Illinois Hamilton Park 2, 4, 5 District

06000678 Cook County, Illinois Grand Crossings Park 2, 4, 5, 9 District

03000788 Cook County, Illinois Calumet Park 2, 4, 5 District

None Cook County, Illinois Trumball Park Homes 2, 4, 5, 9 District

07000855 Cook County, Illinois Palmer Park 9 District

None Cook County, Illinois Altgeld Gardens 9 District

Indiana

11000118 Lake County, Indiana Hohman Avenue 

Commercial Historic 

District

9 District

6001290 Lake County, Indiana State Street 

Commercial Historic 

District

9 District

91000793 LaPorte County, 

Indiana

Washington Park 2, 4, 5, 9 Structure

8000565 LaPorte County, 

Indiana

Washington Park 

Historic District

2, 4, 5, 9 District

678 Porter County, Indiana Porter Town Hall 2, 4, 5, 9 Building

4000208 Porter County, Indiana Bartlett Real Estate 

Office

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

89000411 Porter County, Indiana Beverly Shores South 

Shore Railroad Station

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

Michigan

72000596 Berrien County, 

Michigan

Union Meat Market 2, 4, 5, 9 Building

85002152 Berrien County, 

Michigan

Old US Post Office 2, 4, 5, 9 Building
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 165

NRHP Site Number* County and State Site Name Routes Site Type

None Berrien County, 

Michigan

Niles Railroad Depot 2, 4, 5, 9 Building

99001612 Cass County, Michigan Thompson Road--Air 

Line Railroad Bridge

2, 4, 5, 9 Structure

93001349 Cass County, Michigan Michigan Central 

Railroad Dowagiac 

Depot

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

222 Van Buren, Michigan Houppert Winery 

Complex (Lawton 

Heritage Community 

Center)

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

90001230 Kalamazoo, Michigan Western State Normal 

School Historic District

2, 4, 5, 9 District

95000447 Kalamazoo, Michigan South Street Historic 

District

2, 4, 5, 9 District

83000874 Kalamazoo, Michigan Stuart Area Historic 

District

2, 4, 5, 9 District

75000949 Kalamazoo, Michigan Michigan Central 

Depot

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

75000949 Kalamazoo, Michigan Depot, Kalamazoo 2, 4, 5, 9 Building

83000874, 95000448 Kalamazoo, Michigan Stuart Neighborhood 

District (and increase), 

Kalamazoo

2, 4, 5, 9 District

None Kalamazoo, Michigan RR Bridge over M43/East Michigan 

Avenue (X01-39082), 

Kalamazoo

2, 4, 5, 9 Structure

None Kalamazoo, Michigan Switch Tower, east of 

Porter Street, 

Kalamazoo

2, 4, 5, 9 Structure

None Kalamazoo, Michigan Coal Dock in the 

Augusta area

2, 4, 5, 9 Structure

None Kalamazoo, Michigan Grand Trunk Depot, 

Battle Creek

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

83000867 Kalamazoo, Michigan Old Fire House No. 4, 

Battle Creek

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

96000367 Calhoun County, 

Michigan

Van Buren Street 

Historic District

2, 4, 5, 9 District

71000384 Calhoun County, 

Michigan

Penn Central Railway 

Station

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

97000626 Calhoun County, 

Michigan

Superior Street 

Commercial Historic 

District

2, 4, 5, 9 District

None Calhoun, Michigan Depot east of North

Eaton Street, Albion

2, 4, 5, 9 Building
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

166 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

NRHP Site Number* County and State Site Name Routes Site Type

2001504 Jackson County, 

Michigan

Michigan Central 

Railroad Jackson 

Depot

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Jackson, Michigan Parma Mill-Hardware, 

Parma

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Jackson, Michigan F. P. Miller factory, 

Jackson

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Jackson, Michigan Power house, 

Airmaster Fan 

complex, Jackson

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Jackson, Michigan Factory complex, south 

side of tracks, east of 

South Elm Street, 

Jackson

2, 4, 5, 9 District

None Jackson, Michigan 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 railroad from 

Steward Street to West 

Street, Jackson

2, 4, 5, 9 Structures

9000474 Jackson, Michigan Temple Beth El 

Cemetery, Jackson

2, 4, 5, 9 Site

None Jackson, Michigan Depot at 210 East 

Michigan Avenue, 

Grass Lake

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Jackson, Michigan Commercial and 

residential historic 

districts between 

Grass Lake Village 

east limits and North 

Lake Street

2, 4, 5, 9 Districts

11000046 Washtenaw County, 

Michigan

Chelsea Commercial 

Historic District

2, 4, 5, 9 District

87000915 Washtenaw County, 

Michigan

Michigan Central 

Railroad Chelsea 

Depot

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

75000963 Washtenaw County, 

Michigan

Michigan Central Ann 

Arbor Depot/Gandy 

Dancer

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

78001515 Washtenaw County, 

Michigan

Ypsilanti Historic 

District

2, 4, 5, 9 District

None Washtenaw, Michigan Jiffy Mix complex, 

Chelsea

2, 4, 5, 9 District

None Washtenaw, Michigan Island Lake Road 

Bridge, Dexter

2, 4, 5, 9 Structure
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 167

NRHP Site Number* County and State Site Name Routes Site Type

None Washtenaw, Michigan Rail Bridge over 

Dexter-Pinckney Road, 

Dexter

2, 4, 5, 9 Structure

None Washtenaw, Michigan House in the 

southwest quad of the 

railroad crossing at 

East Delhi Road, Scio 

Township

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Washtenaw, Michigan Depot north of Cross 

Street, Ypsilanti

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Washtenaw, Michigan Freighthouse north of 

Cross Street, Ypsilanti

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

69000071 Wayne County, 

Michigan

Greenfield Village and 

Henry Ford Museum

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

80001931 Wayne County, 

Michigan

Woodbridge 

Neighborhood Historic 

District

2, 4, 5, 9 District

1000570 Wayne County, 

Michigan

New Amsterdam 

Historic District

2, 4, 5, 9 District

4000601 Wayne County, 

Michigan

Piquette Avenue 

Industrial Historic 

District

2, 4, 5, 9 District

None Wayne, Michigan Rail bridge over Inkster 

Road, Inkster

2, 4, 5, 9 Structure

None Wayne, Michigan Rail bridge over 

Middlebelt Road, 

Inkster

2, 4, 5, 9 Structure

None Wayne, Michigan Numerous structures 

along tracks, Dearborn

2, 4, 5, 9 Structures

None Wayne, Michigan Southern Avenue Twin 

Warren Truss Bridges, 

Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Structures

None Wayne, Michigan Conrail and Norfolk 

Southern crossings, 

Livernois Ave., Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Structures

80001925 Wayne, Michigan Exhibition Building 

Historic District, 

Michigan State 

Fairgrounds, Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 District

None Wayne, Michigan Band Shell, Michigan 

State Fairgrounds, 

Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Structure

None Wayne, Michigan Grant House, Michigan 

State Fairgrounds, 

Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Building
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

168 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

NRHP Site Number* County and State Site Name Routes Site Type

None Wayne, Michigan Garland Stove, 

Michigan State 

Fairgrounds, Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Wayne, Michigan Michigan Box 

Company/Spranger 

Wire Wheel Company, 

Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Wayne, Michigan Rickenbacker Motor 

Company/Springfield 

Body Corporation

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Wayne, Michigan Conrail and Grand 

Trunk Western 

Railroad Bridges, 

Woodward Avenue, 

Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Structures

None Wayne, Michigan Frederick Wolf and 

Sons historic homes, 

Central at St. John 

Street, Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Buildings

None Wayne, Michigan House, 6332 John 

Kronk Street, Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Wayne, Michigan Tomms House, 3434 

Martin Street, Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Wayne, Michigan Markey House, 3504 

Martin Street, Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Wayne, Michigan Federal Screw Works 

Factory, Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Wayne, Michigan Livernois Avenue Art 

Deco Bridge, Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Structure

None Wayne, Michigan Southern Avenue Twin 

Warren Truss Bridge

2, 4, 5, 9 Structure

None Wayne, Michigan Clippert Brick 

Company office, 10500 

Southern Avenue, 

Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

None Wayne, Michigan Central Avenue Fire 

Station/Engine 

Company No. 37, 2820 

Central Ave., Detroit

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

6000149 Oakland County, 

Michigan

B and C Grocery 

Building

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

85002148 Oakland County, 

Michigan

Grand Trunk Western 

Railroad Birmingham 

Depot

2, 4, 5, 9 Building

99001730 Oakland County, 

Michigan

Derby Street--Grand 

Trunk Western 

Railroad Bridge

2, 4, 5, 9 Building
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 169

Sources:

Illinois DOT Cultural Resources Unit, March 4, 2013, National Park Service National Register of Historic Places 

Spatial Database, Retrieved August 29, 2013, http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html.

The Illinois Inventory of Archaeological Sites online GIS maintained by the Illinois State Museum

A list of potentially effected historic resources provided to FRA by the Illinois DOT Cultural Resources Unit

The Indiana State Historic Architectural and Archaeological Research Database (SHAARD)

Paper records maintained by the Michigan SHPO

Previous NEPA evaluations of projects in the same corridor as the Program:

2011 EA for the acquisition of the Dearborn-Kalamazoo portion of the current project area by MDOT

2009 EIS for the Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal

2008 EA for the CN—Control—EJ&E project in Illinois

*Site number is the NRHP listing number for the resource. Resources eligible for listing are not on the NRHP, and 

thus have no NRHP listing number.

3.11.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

The No Build alternative would have no adverse or beneficial effects to any type of cultural resources.

3.11.4 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

3.11.4.1 Impacts Common to All Route Alternatives

Illinois

The portions of the route shared by all Build Alternatives, primarily in downtown Chicago, could 

potentially have adverse effects to nine known historic structures and districts in Illinois. The Build 

Alternatives would have no adverse effects to known archaeological sites that are listed on, eligible for 

listing on, or not yet evaluated for listing on the NRHP. Effects to previously unidentified archaeological 

sites and architectural resources will be addressed by the inadvertent discoveries plan discussed under 

Section 3.11.5 (Potential Mitigation Measures).

Indiana

The portions of the route shared by all Build Alternatives, primarily in LaPorte and Porter Counties, could 

potentially have adverse effects to five known historic structures and districts in Indiana. The Build 

Alternatives would have no adverse effects to known archaeological sites. Note that most archaeological 

sites in the Indiana SHAARD system lack precise information on their location, making it difficult to 

reliably determine if any sites are in the APE. Additional study would be conducted on the Selected 

Program Alternative during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

170 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Michigan

The portions of the route shared by all Build Alternatives could potentially have adverse effects to 68

known historic structures and districts in Michigan. Of those 68 structures and districts, potential effects 

to 40 were previously evaluated in 2011 for the EA for Michigan DOT’s acquisition of rail lines from 

Kalamazoo to Dearborn.

100 That EA also concluded that the project would have no adverse effects to 17 

archaeological sites in or immediately adjacent to the APE between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, which 

followed the same route as the Kalamazoo to Dearborn portion of all Build Alternatives addressed here.

Because no field work was performed as part of the Tier 1 EIS, there may be additional impacts to 

cultural resources that have not yet been identified. Tier 2 NEPA analyses would require archaeological 

survey as necessary to determine specific impacts of construction of Program improvements.

3.11.4.2 Routes 2, 4, 5 Option 1 and 5 Option 2

Illinois

The portions of the route shared by Routes 2, 4, 5 Option 1 and Option 2 could potentially have adverse 

effects to 16 known historic structures and districts in Illinois. These Build Alternatives would have no 

adverse effects to known archaeological sites that are listed on, eligible for listing on, or not yet evaluated 

for listing on the NRHP.

Indiana and Michigan

The portions of the route shared by Routes 2, 4, 5 Option 1 and Option 2 would have no adverse effects to 

known historic structures and districts in Indiana and Michigan. These Build Alternatives would have no 

adverse effects to known archaeological sites that are listed on, eligible for listing on, or not yet evaluated 

for listing on the NRHP. Note that most archaeological sites in the Indiana SHAARD system lack precise 

information on their location, making it difficult to reliably determine if any sites are in the preliminary 

APE.

3.11.4.3 Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2

Illinois

The portions of the route shared by Routes 9 Option 1 and Option 2 could potentially have adverse effects 

to 26 historic structures and districts in Illinois. These portions of the route would also pass within 250 

feet of four archaeological sites. However, the Illinois DOT Cultural Resources Unit analysis of the Build 

Alternatives states that “No recorded archaeological sites that warrant National Register consideration fall 

 

100 Michigan Department of Transportation. Environmental Assessment, Norfolk Southern Railway Section, 

Improvements from Dearborn to Kalamazoo, Michigan. August 31, 2011.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 171

within the project limits”101 and the four archaeological sites are not in the area that will be directly 

affected by any activity associated with improvements or ongoing operation of the rail lines in Route 9, 

Options 1 and 2.

Indiana

The portions of the route shared by Routes 9 Option 1 and Option 2 could potentially have adverse effects 

to two historic districts in Indiana. The Build Alternatives would have no adverse effects to 

archaeological sites that are listed on, eligible for listing on, or not yet evaluated for listing on the NRHP. 

Note that most archaeological sites in the Indiana SHAARD system lack precise information on their 

location, making it difficult to reliably determine if any sites are in the preliminary APE.

Michigan

The portions of the route shared by Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 would have no adverse effects to 

known historic structures and districts in Michigan. These Build Alternatives would have no adverse 

effects to known archaeological sites that are listed on, eligible for listing on, or not yet evaluated for 

listing on the NRHP.

3.11.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

During Tier 2 NEPA analysis, FRA would consult with the SHPOs, THPOs and local agencies to identify 

any additional parties who meet the regulatory criteria of being consulting parties pursuant 36 CFR 800.2. 

Mitigation measures may be developed in accordance with the terms of a programmatic agreement (PA) 

between FRA and consulting parties including the SHPOs and/or THPO and ACHP. The timing of the PA 

would be determined based on input from the consulting parties. The PA would focus on commitments

for the Selected Program Alternative, documentation of the qualities that contribute to the historic 

significance of resources, review procedures, and products to be produced for mitigating adverse effects 

during the preparation of Tier 2 NEPA analyses prepared for the Selected Program Alternative. In 

addition, all ground-disturbing construction activity would follow an inadvertent discoveries plan 

developed in consultation with the Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan SHPOs and the Tribes to ensure proper 

treatment of archaeological materials encountered during construction.

3.12 Section 4(f) Resources

This section identifies and discusses potential impacts to Section 4(f) properties and ways to avoid and/or 

minimize potential Program impacts to them.

 

101 Illinois Department of Transportation memorandum from John D. Baranzelli. Passenger Rail Improvement 

Project – Property Avoidance. March 4, 2013.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

172 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.12.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act (49 USC 303(c)) governs the protection of publicly owned parks, 

recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state or local significance. It also protects 

lands of a publicly or privately held historic site of national, state or local significance. All of these types 

of properties are referred to as Section 4(f) properties. Significance of the property is determined by the 

federal, state or local officials that have jurisdiction over the property.

Section 4(f) dictates that FRA cannot implement any program or project that uses102 a Section 4(f) 

property unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land. The program or project 

must also include all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property.

Sources of data and information for determining the potential use of Section 4(f) properties included state, 

local and national websites, published GIS data layers containing information about public parks and 

potential wildlife refuges as well as a review of recent aerial photographic imagery and noted park and 

recreation sites on Google Maps. Wildlife and waterfowl refuges that were identified on websites or maps 

were listed as potential Section 4(f) properties. Historic properties were identified as described in 

3.11.2.1of this document and include properties on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

A distinction was made between resources that are directly adjacent to the rail corridor, and therefore 

having a greater possibility of being impacted; or resources within the 500-foot Corridor, but not abutting 

the track. Resources further removed from the track would not be directly impacted, however they could 

be determined to incur a “constructive use” during Tier 2 NEPA analysis (see footnote).

3.12.2 Affected Environment

Table 3-23 presents of a summary of potential Section 4(f) properties that are within the Area of Analysis

of the various alternatives. The listed parks and recreation resources (Table 3-24) include community, 

neighborhood, county, and state parks as well as recreational trails and public school playfields. (Note 

that the requirements of Section 4(f) would apply to public school property only if the recreational area of 

the property permits visitation of the general public at any time during the normal operating hours.)

103

Wildlife and waterfowl refuges listed in Table 3-25 include properties designated by the officials with 

jurisdiction over them as nature preserves or publicly owned wildlife management areas. Historic or 

archaeological properties are listed in Section 3.11 (Cultural Resources) in Table 3-22 and include 

 

102 “Use” in the context of Section 4(f) is defined in 23 CFR 774.17 (FHWA/FTA regulations, which are often 

followed by FRA) and the term has very specific meanings. It can mean that land is permanently incorporated into 

the transportation facility, such as when land is purchased for right of way, or it can mean a temporary occupancy 

during project construction. It can also be designated a “constructive use” where there is no actual physical use, 

but due to the proximity of the project, it results in substantial impairment to features that qualify it as a Section 

4(f) property. Constructive uses are very rare.

103 US Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration Section 4(f) Policy Paper (Question 14). July 

20, 2012.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 173

properties that are on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or that are eligible for listing on 

the NRHP.

Table 3-23: Summary of Numbers of Potential Section 4(f) Properties within the Area of Analysis

Alternatives

2 4 5

Option 1

5

Option 2

9

Option 1

9

Option 2

Illinois

Parks/Rec 9 9 9 9 17 17

Wildlife Refuges 0 0 0 0 2 2

National Register Listed 

or Eligible Historic

Resources

24 24 24 24 33 33

Indiana

Parks/Rec 12 13 17 17 11 11

Wildlife Refuges 5 5 7 7 6 6

National Register Listed 

or Eligible Historic 

Resources

5 5 5 5 7 7

Michigan

Parks/Rec 61 61 61 61 61 61

Wildlife Refuges 9 9 9 9 9 9

National Register Listed 

or Eligible Historic 

Resources

68 68 68 68 68 68

TOTAL 192 193 200 200 216 216

Table 3-24: Public Parks and Recreation Areas within the Area of Analysis

State and 

County Site name Location

Route

Corridors

with site 

directly 

adjacent to

track

Route

Corridors 

with site not 

adjacent to 

tracks*

Illinois

Cook Ping Tom Memorial Park 300 W. 18th St., Chicago 2, 4, 5 9

Cook Fuller Park 331 W. 45th Street, Chicago 2, 4, 5

Cook Armour Square Park 3309 S. Shields Avenue 2, 4, 5

Cook Malus Playlot Park (Malus 

Neighborhood Park

5426 S. Shields Avenue 2, 4, 5

Cook Sherwood Park 5701 S. Shields Avenue 2, 4, 5
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

174 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

State and 

County Site name Location

Route

Corridors

with site 

directly 

adjacent to

track

Route

Corridors 

with site not 

adjacent to 

tracks*

Cook Englewood High School 

Athletic Fields

6201 South Stewart Avenue 2, 4, 5

Cook Unimproved Park No. 527 6200 S LaSalle Street, Chicago 2, 4, 5

Cook Calumet Citywide Park 9801 S. Avenue G, Chicago 2, 4, 5

Cook Battle of Fort Dearborn 

Passive Park

1801 S. Calumet Ave., Chicago 9

Cook Lake Meadows Community 

Park

3113 S. Rhodes Ave., Chicago 9

Cook Burnham Park 5491 South Shore Drive 9

Cook Groveland Local Park Cottage Grove Avenue, Chicago 9

Cook Woodland Local Park Cottage Grove Avenue, Chicago 9

Cook Oakland Local Park Lake Park Ave., Chicago 9

Cook Williams-Davis Park 4101 S. Lake Park Ave., Chicago 9

Cook Kenwood Academy High 

School Athletic Fields

5015 S. Blackstone Ave., Chicago 9

Cook Jackson Park 6401 S. Stony Island Ave., Chicago 9

Cook Midway Plaisance Citywide 

Park

5950 S. Woodlawn Ave., Chicago 9

Cook Debow Playlot Park S. University and E. 8th St., 

Chicago

9

Cook Lorraine Dixon Park S. Dauphin Ave. and 89th Street, 

Chicago

9

Cook Dauphin Park S. Dauphin Ave. and 87th Street, 

Chicago

9

Cook Gately Park 744 E. 103rd Street, Chicago 9

Cook Pullman Playlot Park E. 111th Pl., Chicago 9

Cook Burnham Prairie Nature 

Preserve

E. State St. and S. Torrence Ave., 

Chicago

9

Indiana

Lake Brunswick Local Park between Burr St and Clark Road 9

Lake Hammond Marina Lake 

Front Park and Sanctuary

Hammond 2, 4, 5

Lake Wolf Lake/Forsyth Park Trail overpass near Lakefront Park, 

Whiting

2, 4, 5

Lake Whihala Beach County Park on Lake Michigan in Whiting 2, 4, 5
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 175

State and 

County Site name Location

Route

Corridors

with site 

directly 

adjacent to

track

Route

Corridors 

with site not 

adjacent to 

tracks*

Lake Whiting Trail/ Whihala

Beach Bike Trail

on Lake Michigan in Whiting 2, 4, 5

Lake Atchison Avenue Tot Lot & 

Whiting Horseshoe Club

1500 Atchison Ave. Whiting 2, 4, 5

Lake Whiting Park Front Street, Whiting 2, 4, 5

Lake Phase 2 - Bridge St. to Clark 

Street

Longitudinal with a crossing at W. 

2nd Street, Gary

5

Lake Phase 1 - Union Station to 

Bridge Street Trail

Tyler Street to Indiana Harbor Belt 

RR (crossing into Indiana Dunes), 

Gary

2, 4

Lake Van Buren Street Tot Lot 16th Ave. and Van Buren, Gary 5, 9

Lake Clark and Pine Nature 

Preserve

West of Clark Road , Gary 4

Lake Carolina Local Park 14th Avenue & Carolina St., Gary 4, 5, 9

Lake Gibson Fields/Earl Buck 

Weaver Memorial Field

400 S. Gibson, Gary 2

Lake Four Winds Local Park/Lake 

Station Senior League Field

Marquette Road, Lake Station 5, 9

Lake and 

Porter 

Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore, various 

associated wildlife refuge 

and park facilities

Lake Michigan shoreline 2, 4 5, 9

Porter Park (name not determined) Off Blake Road just east of 

Lake/Porter County Line

5, 9

Porter Woodland Park Willow Creek Road, Porter County 5, 9

Porter State Park Little League 

Park

Woodlawn Ave. and Waverly Rd., 

Porter

2, 4, 5, 9

Porter Iron Horse Heritage Trail 

(Portage Park and Rec)

Crossing from Woodland Park to 

Willow Creek Road

5, 9

LaPorte Washington Park Center Street, Michigan City 2, 4, 5, 9

LaPorte Pottawattamie Park East of Michigan City 2, 4, 5, 9

Michigan

Berrien Grand Beach Municipal Golf 

Course

Grand Beach 2, 4, 5, 9
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

176 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

State and 

County Site name Location

Route

Corridors

with site 

directly 

adjacent to

track

Route

Corridors 

with site not 

adjacent to 

tracks*

Berrien Galien River County Park 

Preserve Acquisition & 

Development

New Buffalo Township 2, 4, 5, 9

Berrien Red Arrow Corridor Bike 

Route crossing

New Buffalo Township 2, 4, 5, 9

Berrien Buffalo Township Memorial 

Park

US 12, New Buffalo Township 2, 4, 5, 9

Berrien McCoy Creek Recreation 

Area

Buchanan 2, 4, 5, 9

Kalamazoo Knollwood City Park 1500 Greenwood Ave. Kalamazoo 2, 4, 5, 9

Kalamazoo Lovell Park Greenspace 1101 W. Lovell Street, Kalamazoo 2, 4, 5, 9

Kalamazoo College Park Greenspace 840 W. Michigan Ave, Kalamazoo 2, 4, 5, 9

Kalamazoo W. Main Park Greenspace 800 W. Main Street, Kalamazoo 2, 4, 5, 9

Kalamazoo Peer Park Comstock Twp.

Kalamazoo Martin Luther King Jr. 

Memorial Park

507 N. Rose Street, Kalamazoo 2, 4, 5, 9

Kalamazoo River Oaks County Park Galesburg 2, 4, 5, 9

Kalamazoo Fort Custer Recreation Area 5163 Fort Custer Drive, Augusta 2, 4, 5, 9

Calhoun Kimball Pines County Park E. Michigan Ave., Battle Creek 

(Emmett Township)

2, 4, 5, 9

Jackson Jackson High School 

athletic fields and property

544 Wildwood Ave., Jackson 2, 4, 5, 9

Jackson Beech Tree City Park 406 N Blackstone St., Jackson 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Beech Middle School Chelsea 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Mill Creek Park (formerly 

Warrior Park)

Alpine Street, Dexter 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Dexter Huron Metropark Dexter 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Quackenbush Dr. Green 

Space (Dexter)

Dexter 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Delhi Metropolitan Park Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Bird Hills Nature Area Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 177

State and 

County Site name Location

Route

Corridors

with site 

directly 

adjacent to

track

Route

Corridors 

with site not 

adjacent to 

tracks*

Washtenaw Barton Hills Village 

Park/Barton Nature Area

Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Huron Bridge Park Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Bandemer Park 1331 Lake Shore Dr., Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Bluffs Nature Area 1099 Main Street, Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Wheeler Park Depot Street, Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Broadway Park Broadway Street, Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Riverside Park Canal St. and Island Dr., Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Fuller Park Fuller Street, Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Furstenburg Park/Nature 

Area

Fuller Road, Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Mitchell Field 2100 Fuller Road, Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Gallup Park Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Devonshire Devonshire Road, Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Huron Hills Golf Course 3465 Huron River Dr., Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw South Pond Nature Area E. Huron River Service Drive, Ann 

Arbor

2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Forest Nature Area Stark Strasse St., Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Parker Mill County Park 4650 Geddes Road, Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Border to Border Trail/ 

Gallup Park Pathway

Along Huron River from Bird Road 

to Mitchell Field to Gallup Park to 

Parker Mill County Park, Ann 

Arbor. Along EMU Campus, 

Ypsilanti

2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Frog Island Park Ypsilanti 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Harris Park Ypsilanti 2, 4, 5, 9

Wayne Treadwell Street Recreation 

Area

2, 4, 5, 9

Wayne H. Craig Walz Quadraplex 32500 Forest St., Wayne 2, 4, 5, 9

Wayne Crowley Park 2600 Westwood St., Dearborn 2, 4, 5, 9

Wayne King Boring Park 3901 Greenfield Rd., Dearborn 2, 4, 5, 9

Wayne Geer Park Elementary 

School

14767 Prospect Rd., Dearborn 2, 4, 5, 9

Wayne Harry Ranch City 

Park/Playground

Earl Street, Wayne 2, 4, 5, 9
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

178 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

State and 

County Site name Location

Route

Corridors

with site 

directly 

adjacent to

track

Route

Corridors 

with site not 

adjacent to 

tracks*

Wayne St. Hedwig Playfield 

(Memorial Park)

Junction Street, Detroit 2, 4, 5, 9

Wayne Coventry Park Coventry Street, Highland Park 2, 4, 5, 9

Wayne Michigan State Fairgrounds Woodward Avenue, Detroit 2, 4, 5, 9

Wayne Hunt Playground Fayette Street, Detroit 2, 4, 5, 9

Oakland Gainsboro Park Gainsboro Avenue, Pleasant Ridge 2, 4, 5, 9

Oakland Meininger Park Maxwell & Farnum Ave., Royal 

Oak

2, 4, 5, 9

Oakland Royal Oak Middle School 

athletic fields

Upton Street, Royal Oak 2, 4, 5, 9

Oakland Lions Club Park 

(Woodsboro Park)

1501 Hilldale Drive, Royal Oak 2, 4, 5, 9

Oakland Clawson Park Ferncliff Ave., Royal Oak 2, 4, 5, 9

Oakland Royal Oak Golf Club Don Soper Drive, Royal Oak 2, 4, 5, 9

Oakland Normandy Oaks Golf Club Delemere Blvd, Royal Oak 2, 4, 5, 9

Oakland Manor Park Big Beaver Road, Bloomfield 

Township

2, 4, 5, 9

Oakland Springdale Park Golf Course Strathmore Road, Birmingham 2, 4, 5, 9

Oakland Stonycroft Hills Golf Club Opdyke Road, Bloomfield Hills 2, 4, 5, 9

*The last column lists routes affecting parks that are not adjacent to the track, but still within the Area of Analysis.

Table 3-25: Wildlife Refuges and Nature Preserves within the Area of Analysis

County and 

State Site name Location

Routes

Corridors 

with site

directly 

adjacent to

track

Route 

Corridors 

with site not 

adjacent to 

tracks*

Illinois

Cook Beaubien Woods Forest 

Preserve

1 W. Doty Ave. S., Chicago 9

Cook Burnham Prairie Nature 

Preserve

2866 E 142nd St, Burnham 9
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 179

County and 

State Site name Location

Routes

Corridors 

with site

directly 

adjacent to

track

Route 

Corridors 

with site not 

adjacent to 

tracks*

Indiana

Lake Burnham Nature Sanctuary, 

47th Street Habitat Garden

4700 S Lake Shore Dr., Chicago 9

Lake Clark and Pine Nature 

Preserve

Gary 5

Lake Pine Station Nature 

Preserve (DNR)

Gary 5

Lake Ivanhoe South (Dune and 

Swale) (Shirley Heinze 

Environmental Fund)

Gary 9

Lake Grand Lake Recreation Area 

(East Gary Park Board)

East Gary 5

Lake Portage (Woodland) Park 

(Portage Parks and 

Recreation)

Portage 5, 9

Lake Clarke Junction West Site Gary 2, 4, 5

Lake Tolleston Nature Preserve Gary 9

Lake Clarke and Pine Gen. 

Refractories Addition Site

Gary 5

Lake Brunswick Center Savanna 

Site

Gary 9

Lake/Porter Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore

Lake Michigan Shoreline 2, 4 5, 9

LaPorte Washington Park Michigan City 2, 4, 5, 9

Michigan

Berrien Grand Beach Preserve 

(Nature Conservancy)

Grand Beach 2, 4, 5, 9

Berrien Bakertown Fen Preserve 

(Nature Conservancy)

Buchanan 2, 4, 5, 9

Kalamazoo Fort Custer State Recreation 

Area

5163 Fort Custer Drive, Augusta 2, 4, 5, 9

Jackson Grass Lake State Game 

Area/Schlee Waterfowl 

Production Area

Grass Lake 2, 4, 5, 9
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

180 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

County and 

State Site name Location

Routes

Corridors 

with site

directly 

adjacent to

track

Route 

Corridors 

with site not 

adjacent to 

tracks*

Washtenaw Chelsea State Game Area 

(DNR)

Chelsea 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Albert J. Miller and Robert & 

Nancy Smith Preserve and 

Trail

Dexter 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Burns-Stokes Preserve and 

Trail

Dexter 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Osborne Mill Preserve and 

Trail

Dexter 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Barton Nature Area Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

*The last column lists routes affecting parks that are not adjacent to the track, but still within the 500-foot Area of 

Analysis.

3.12.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build alternative, the Program would not be implemented and so the potential Programrelated uses of Section 4(f) resources described in Section 3.12.3 would not occur.

3.12.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives

The greatest potential use of Section 4(f) properties lies within the Indiana and Illinois sections between 

Chicago Union Station and Porter, Indiana. In these locations, there may be a need to acquire right of way 

in areas where additional tracks are needed and for constructing new connections between railroads. 

Bridges may also be necessary in some locations. These improvements are described in Chapter 2 

(Alternatives Considered). As engineering and design is refined, these impacts can be assessed more 

fully, which would occur during the Tier 2 NEPA analyses.

Table 3-24 summarizes which alternatives may affect each potential Section 4(f) park property and Table 

3-25 lists potential wildlife refuges. See Section 3.11 (Cultural Resources), Table 3-22 for an analysis of 

each of the alternatives’ potential effects on historical and archaeological properties. See Section 3.19

(Natural Habitats and Wildlife) for a discussion of potential impacts to wildlife refuges. Most of the 

resources listed in Table 3-24 and Table 3-25 are adjacent to the tracks and could be impacted in places 

where additional right of way will be acquired for the Program. The property list also included properties 

located within 250 feet, but not abutting the track, as indicated. These properties are not expected to be 

acquired by the Program, however due to their proximity, should be analyzed for potential “constructive 

use” during the Tier 2 NEPA analyses, see Footnote 102 on Page 172 for the definition of “Section 4(f) 

use”.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 181

All of the Build Alternatives in each of the states have Section 4(f) properties either directly adjacent to or 

within 250 feet of the existing rail centerline (the Area of Analysis). Potential impacts on Section 4(f) 

properties would be evaluated in accordance with the requirements set forth in 49 USC 303 and FRA will 

coordinate with the officials with jurisdiction over the properties to determine each affected property’s 

significance and potential use during Tier 2 NEPA analysis. Note that throughout the Corridor no field 

work was performed as part of the Tier 1 EIS. Tier 2 NEPA analyses would require archaeological 

surveys as necessary to determine specific impacts where construction of Program improvements may 

involve ground disturbing activities.

The following discussion describes the various types of Section 4(f) properties within the Area of 

Analysis for each alternative.

3.12.4.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Michigan

Within the Area of Analysis in Michigan, which is common among all Build Alternatives, there are 61

park and recreation areas, 9 wildlife and waterfowl refuges and 68 historic properties that may potentially 

be affected.

3.12.4.2 Route 2 Impacts

Indiana Dunes, community parks, public school athletic fields, playgrounds, recreational trails, nature 

preserves and a number of historic and archaeological resources are located within the Route 2 Area of 

Analysis. Most of the resources in Route 2 are adjacent to the tracks and could be impacted in places 

where additional right of way will be acquired for Route 2.

Within the Area of Analysis of Route 2 there are 81 park and recreation areas, 14 wildlife refuges and 54

historic sites that may potentially incur a Section 4(f) use.

Illinois

Within the Route 2 Area of Analysis in Illinois there are 9 park and recreation areas, no wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges, 24 historic sites that may incur a Section 4(f) use.

Indiana

Within the Route 2 Area of Analysis in Indiana there are 12 park and recreation areas, 5 wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges and 5 historic sites that may potentially incur a Section 4(f) use.

3.12.4.3 Route 4 Impacts

Indiana Dunes, community parks, public school athletic fields, playgrounds, recreational trails, nature 

preserves and a number of historic and archaeological resources are located within the Route 4 corridor. 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

182 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Within the Area of Analysis of Route 4 there are 82 park and recreation areas, 14 wildlife refuges and 54 

historic sites that may potentially incur a Section 4(f) use.

Illinois

Within the Route 4 Area of Analysis in Illinois there are 9 park and recreation areas, no wildlife refuges, 

and 24 historic sites that may potentially incur a Section 4(f) use.

Indiana

Within the Route 4 Area of Analysis in Indiana there are 13 park and recreation areas, 5 wildlife refuges 

and 5 historic sites that may potentially incur a Section 4(f) use.

Route 4 would impact the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore more than other alternatives because it 

would require the acquisition of additional right of way for additional track on the NICTD line between 

Miller and Burns Harbor, Indiana Acquisition of property within this section would be a use of Section 

4(f) property and would require further Section 4(f) analysis avoidance.

3.12.4.4 Route 5 Option 1 and 2 Impacts

Indiana Dunes, community parks, public school athletic fields, playgrounds, recreational trails, nature 

preserves and a number of historic and archaeological resources are located within the Route 5 Corridors. 

Most of the resources are adjacent to the tracks and could be impacted where additional right of way will 

be acquired. Others are located within 250 feet and are not expected to be impacted.

Within the Area of Analysis of Route 5 Option 1 and 2 there are 87 park and recreation areas, 16 wildlife 

refuges and 54 historic sites that may potentially incur a Section 4(f) use.

Illinois

Within the Route 5 Area of Analysis in Illinois there are 9 park and recreation areas, no wildlife refuges, 

and 24 historic sites that may potentially incur a Section 4(f) use.

Indiana

Within the Route 5 Area of Analysis in Indiana there are 17 park and recreation areas, 7 wildlife refuges 

and 5 historic sites that may potentially incur a Section 4(f) use.

Route 5 avoids potential land acquisition from the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. The route skirts 

alongside the park for approximately three miles between Chesterton, Indiana and Beverly Shores, 

Indiana where the National Lakeshore property is buffered from the railroad by US Highway 20.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 183

3.12.4.5 Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Community parks, public school athletic fields, playgrounds, recreational trails, nature preserves and a 

number of historic and archaeological resources are located within the Route 9 corridors. Most of the 

resources are adjacent to the tracks and could be impacted where additional right of way would be 

acquired. Others are located within 250 feet and are not expected to be impacted.

Within the Area of Analysis of Route 9 Option 1 and 2 there are 89 park and recreation areas, 17 wildlife 

refuges and 65 historic sites that may potentially incur a Section 4(f) use.

Illinois

Within the Route 9 Area of Analysis in Illinois, there are 17 park and recreation areas, 2 wildlife refuges 

and 33 historic sites that may potentially incur a Section 4(f) use.

Indiana

Within the Route 9 Area of Analysis in Indiana, there are 11 park and recreation areas, 6 wildlife refuges 

and 7 historic sites that may potentially incur a Section 4(f) use.

Route 9, like Route 5 avoids potential land acquisition from the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. The 

route skirts alongside the park for approximately three miles between Chesterton, Indiana and Beverly 

Shores, Indiana where the National Lakeshore property is buffered from the railroad by US Highway 20.

3.12.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

The next steps in the assessment of affected Section 4(f) properties will include whether there are impacts 

that constitutes a “use” of a Section 4(f) resource and then the evaluation of feasible and prudent 

avoidance alternatives and evaluation of all possible planning to minimize harm to the affected properties. 

Identification of potential impacts to Section 4(f) resources will be identified as preliminary engineering 

for each route is completed and will be used to help identify the Preferred Alternative.

Where the use of Section 4(f) property cannot be avoided, all possible planning must be done to minimize 

harm. Ways to minimize use of Section 4(f) properties include designing improvements in a way to avoid 

the acquisition of right of way from Section 4(f) properties. Minimization of harm could also include 

design that lessens the impact or agreeing on ways to compensate for impacts.

Specific mitigation measures, where required, would be developed in future Tier 2 NEPA analysis when 

design details are known and specific impacts to Section 4(f) properties are identified. Measures would be 

identified in consultation with the officials with jurisdiction over the resources. These mitigation 

measures would be implemented prior to construction when practical and possible.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

184 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Additional potential mitigation measures for historic properties are detailed in the discussion of potential 

mitigation measures for Cultural Resource impacts. This would include any measures stipulated in a 

Section 106 programmatic agreement, see Section 3.11.5 above.

There is also the potential for “de minimis” impacts. SAFETEA-LU Section 6009 part (a)104 provides a 

simplified approval process of projects that are found to have de minimis impacts on Section 4(f) 

property. This means, in general, that the Section 4(f) use will not adversely affect the activities, features, 

and attributes of the Section 4(f) property. When a de minimis impact determination is made, an analysis 

of avoidance alternatives is not required. A de minimis impact determination requires agency coordination 

with the officials have jurisdiction over the property and opportunity for public involvement.

A de minimis impact, after considering measures to minimize harm, can result where a Section 106 

determination of “no adverse effect” or “no historic properties affected” has been made. For other types 

of Section 4(f) properties (parks, recreation areas and refuges), a de minimis finding may be made when 

all three of the following criteria are satisfied:

• The transportation use of the Section 4(f) resource, together with any impact avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation or enhancement measures incorporated into the project, does not 

adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the resource for protection under 

Section 4(f)

• The public has been afforded an opportunity to review and comment on the effects of the project on 

the protected activities, features, and attributes of the Section 4(f) resource

• The officials with jurisdiction over the property are informed of the FRA’s intent to make the de 

minimis impact determination based on their written concurrence that the project will not adversely 

affect the activities, features, and attributes that qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f).

Findings of de minimis impacts would take place as part of future Tier 2 NEPA analysis if a Build 

Alternative is identified as the Selected Program Alternative.

3.13 Section 6(f) Properties

This section identifies parks and recreation areas that are subject to the protections afforded under Section 

6(f) and discusses potential impacts to any identified properties.

3.13.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The federal Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF or LAWCON) provides grants to assist in 

the planning, acquisition, development or rehabilitation of park facilities.105 Section 6(f)(3) of the LWCF 

Act provides legal protection for grant-assisted recreation sites by disallowing conversion of any part of 

 

104 109th Congress. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEALU). Public Law 109-59. August 10, 2005. 105 36 CFR 59, Land and Water Conservation Fund Program
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 185

these properties to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The intent of the law is to ensure that 

investments in park resources are not casually discarded.

Any proposed conversions of Section 6(f) lands for transportation uses must first be approved by the 

Secretary of Interior or the state responsible for compliance and enforcement of the provisions of the 

LWCF Act. If a conversion is approved, conditions may be applied, such as replacing the lands with other 

comparable recreation lands.

Section 6(f) properties were identified by comparing the list of Section 4(f) park and wildlife refuge 

properties (Table 3-24 and Table 3-25) to a list of LWCF funded properties. This list of LWCF properties 

is available on the National Park Service’s website.106 In future Tier 2 NEPA analysis, the list of 

identified properties along the Selected Program Alternative will be reviewed and updated and local 

jurisdictions will be contacted to determine the effects of each Program improvement project on 

qualifying parks.

3.13.2 Affected Environment

See Table 3-26 for a summary of properties that were identified as having received Section 6(f) funding 

for park improvements or acquisition. Future Tier 2 NEPA analysis will update this information and 

include coordination with park officials to determine with certainty whether they received funding for any 

affected parks.

Table 3-26: Section 6(f) Properties within the Area of Analysis

State and 

County Site name Location

Route 

Corridors 

with site 

directly 

adjacent to 

track

Route 

Corridors 

with site not 

adjacent to 

tracks*

Illinois

No Section 6(f) properties 

identified in Illinois

Indiana

Porter Woodland Park Willow Creek Road 5, 9

Lake Four Winds Park Marquette Road, Lake Station 5, 9

Porter and 

Lake 

Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore Lake Michigan shoreline 2, 4 5, 9

Michigan

 

106 National Park Service Land and Water Conservation Fund website. http://wasolwcf.ncrc.nps.gov/public/index.cfm. 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

186 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

State and 

County Site name Location

Route 

Corridors 

with site 

directly 

adjacent to 

track

Route 

Corridors 

with site not 

adjacent to 

tracks*

Kalamazoo River Oaks County Park Galesburg 2, 4, 5, 9

Kalamazoo Fort Custer Recreation Area 5163 Fort Custer Drive, Augusta 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Parker Mill County Park 4650 Geddes Road, Ann Arbor 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Border to Border 

Trail/Gallup Park Pathway

Along Eastern Michigan University 

Campus, Ypsilanti 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Frog Island Park Ypsilanti 2, 4, 5, 9

*The last column lists routes affecting parks that are not adjacent to the track, but still within the Area of Analysis.

3.13.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build alternative, the Program would not be implemented and so the potential Programrelated uses of Section 6(f) resources would not occur.

3.13.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives

The following sections describe the Section 6(f) properties within the Area of Analysis of each of the 

Alternatives.

3.13.4.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Michigan

Common impacts for this topic are relevant only to the portion of the Area of Analysis in Michigan. 

Within Michigan there are a number of parks including River Oaks County Park and Fort Custer 

Recreation Area in Kalamazoo County, which were funded using the LWCF Act. In Washtenaw County, 

LWCF funded parks include Parker Mill County Park, Frog Island Park in Ypsilanti and the Border to 

Border Trail/Gallup Park Pathway. The Border to Border Trail/Gallup Park Pathway connects several 

parks including Gallup Park, Parker Mill County Park, and Mitchell Field. It is anticipated that the Build 

Alternatives would not require acquisition of right of way in these locations, however if right of way 

would be required, additional coordination would be necessary to determine the impacts and mitigation 

measures.

Illinois

There are no Section 6(f) properties identified in Illinois within the Area of Analysis.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 187

3.13.4.2 Route 2 Impacts

Indiana

Route 2’s alignment is located on existing rail alignment that travels through over five miles of Indiana 

Dunes National Lakeshore property. Additionally, it directly abuts about 3.5 miles of National Lakeshore 

lands. Areas within the 500-foot corridor for Route 2 are comprised primarily of wooded and wetland 

preservation areas. No facilities such as buildings or trails are expected to be affected by railroad 

improvements because they are too far from the rail line. Facilities located within the 500-foot corridor 

include the Paul H. Douglas Center for Environmental Education and Miller Woods property where there 

are wetlands, open water and trails, parking areas and buildings devoted to environmental education. 

Also, the Tolleston Dunes Overlook structure is located on the south side of the US 12. Picnic areas are 

also present within the 500 foot corridor. Any right of way acquisition from the National Lakeshore 

would constitute a Section 6(f) impact and require additional evaluation during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

3.13.4.3 Route 4 Impacts

Indiana

Route 4’s alignment is located on existing rail line that travels through about 3.75 miles of Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore property. Additionally, it abuts approximately 3.75 miles of the property. Areas 

within the 500-foot corridor for Route 4 are similar in character as described above for Route 2 for the 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.

3.13.4.4 Route 5 – Options 1 and 2 and Route 9 – Options 1 and 2 Impacts

Indiana

The Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore lies just north of the Route 5 and 9 routes for about two miles. 

The National Lakeshore property is within the 500-foot corridor, but not directly adjacent to the tracks. In 

addition, a buffer is created by US 20, a two lane US Highway that runs parallel to and between the tracks 

and the Indiana Dunes’ property line. It is expected that no right of way acquisition from the National 

Lakeshore would be required.

The wooded southeast corner of Woodland Park in Porter County, Indiana lies adjacent to the route at the 

Willow Creek Road crossing. Any necessary crossing improvements at this location could possibly 

require acquisition of right of way. This would need to be further analyzed in final design.

Four Winds Park lies within the 500-foot corridor, but is not directly adjacent to the tracks. A buffer is 

created by Marquette Road, a two lane rural highway that runs parallel to and between the tracks and the 

park property. It is anticipated that any acquisition of this property can readily be avoided.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

188 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.13.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Coordination would be done with the Department of Interior and Section 6(f) property agencies along the 

Selected Program Alternative to verify if potentially impacted lands were improved using LWCF funding.

Impacts to LWCF funded lands would be addressed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis, when greater design 

detail is available to assess the effects.

In general, Section 6(f) lands will be avoided to the extent practicable. As required under 36 CFR Part 59 

(Land and Water conservation Fund Program) all practical alternatives to the proposed conversion of 

LWCF lands will be evaluated. For LWCF lands that cannot be avoided, replacement property would be 

provided that is of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness for recreation 

purposes as the land proposed to be taken. Specific conversion requirements detailed in Section 

36 CFR 59.3 will be followed to ensure that the Federal investments in LWCF assistance are maintained 

in public outdoor recreation use.

3.14 Visual and Aesthetic Quality

This resource includes both natural and built visual scenic resources along the Area of Analysis and the 

general aesthetic quality of the visual environment, including the track facility, trains, stations, and 

maintenance facility.

3.14.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to visual resources and aesthetic quality is FRA’s Environmental 

Procedures Section 14(n)(12). To determine which visual resources are unique and have potential scenic 

qualities, a review of GIS data to find public parks, recreation areas, national register-listed historic sites,

and designated natural areas (including conservation areas, forest and nature preserves, wildlife refuges, 

and wildlife management areas) as these sites often possess aesthetic and visual qualities.

There are two distinct categories of views to be considered in discussing the visual environment: 1) views 

from the train, which are views of visual/scenic resources; and 2) views of the railroad facilities (sidings 

and track, trains, maintenance facilities and stations) from an adjacent vantage point, by people in 

adjacent areas who are sensitive to those views.

Potential visual/scenic resources within or adjacent to the Area of Analysis were divided into five 

categories

• Public parks and recreational areas

• Natural areas

• Major perennial river corridors with riparian woodlands

• Historic sites

• City/small town areas
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 189

3.14.2 Affected Environment

Visual/scenic resources including historic properties, public parks, recreational areas, and natural areas 

within the Area of Analysis are shown on the maps in Appendix B. The maps also readily portray a view 

of rural and urban areas.

3.14.2.1 Views from the Train

Potential visual/scenic resources within or adjacent to the Area of Analysis include 86 parks and 

recreation areas, 20 natural areas, 14 major perennial rivers with riparian woodlands, 81 historic resources 

listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP, and 56 built-up environments of the cities (including 

suburbs) and small communities.

Illinois

The Illinois portion of the Area of Analysis travels through the urban built-up environment of the major 

metropolitan area of Chicago. The landscape includes the high-rises of downtown Chicago, transportation

corridors including highways, city streets, freight and passenger rail facilities and trains, heavy industrial 

areas as well as commercial districts that the route passes through. There are also some natural, open 

space areas including Burnham Prairie Nature Preserve and Beaubien Woods Forest Preserve.

Indiana

Through Indiana the visual environment is characterized by both urban built-up environment through East 

Whiting, Gary, Michigan City, and the environs of the smaller communities located between these larger 

cities. The Corridor passes through heavy industrial zones of these communities. The landscape includes 

wetlands and woodlands as it transitions to the less developed areas surrounding the Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore. The East Fork of the Little Calumet River, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

contains wooded areas, manicured open fields, and/or water bodies, which can provide visual interest.

Michigan

Through Michigan the Area of Analysis changes over to more rural landscapes interspersed with urban 

built-up environments of the larger cities of Kalamazoo, Jackson, Ann Arbor, Detroit and Pontiac as well 

as a number of smaller communities located along the Corridor. The majority of the visual environment 

through which the route alternatives travel in Michigan is characterized by flat to gently sloping plains of 

open agricultural cropland, interspersed with areas of gently rolling hills.

Although the agricultural cropland and pastureland in the Area of Analysis can exhibit visual qualities of 

their own, the river corridors contain woodlands and surface water that provide visual contrasts to the 

open areas of the countryside, and contrasts with the built environments within the cities. The numerous 

river corridors and their tributaries including St. Joe River, River Rouge, the Huron River, Galien River, 

and the Kalamazoo River provide scenic views as the passenger trains travel on bridges over these water 

resources.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

190 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Many of the parks/recreation areas and natural areas including the Chelsea State Game Area, Fort Custer 

Recreation Area in Michigan, contain wooded areas, manicured open fields, and/or water bodies, which

can provide visual interest.

In addition, historic buildings and structures scattered within the cities and towns, possess unique 

architectural elements that can provide scenic qualities for on-looking passengers. In some instances, the 

remainder of the buildings in the urban areas and small towns can possess aesthetic qualities and provide 

views of urban and small town character.

3.14.2.2 Views of the Railroad Facilities

Individuals located in the adjacent residential areas of municipalities (cities, suburbs, and towns) who 

would have the potential for undesirable views of the railroad facilities are considered to be sensitive 

visual receptors. There are 56 municipal areas along the rail line that have potential sensitive visual 

receptors. Existing views of the railroad sidings and track will not change substantially throughout the 

Area of Analysis. Although the sidings and track are low-profile visual elements in the landscape, the 

current trains are vertical elements that are periodically seen by sensitive viewers. Currently, views of 

passenger and freight trains occur frequently throughout the urbanized areas of the Corridor. The 

residential areas within the cities and villages along the Corridor currently experience periodic views of 

passenger and freight trains. Existing train stations and depots are also visible to residents in adjacent 

neighborhoods. However, the architecture of some of the depot buildings is typically considered 

aesthetically pleasing.

3.14.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be constructed. The routes 

between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac would continue to be used for freight and/or passenger trains. No 

new Program-related trains and facilities would be added to the landscape. Views to and from the 

Corridor would not be altered beyond what would occur with implementation of other projects.

3.14.4 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

The proposed Build Alternatives, include tree and brush clearing, placement of fill material for additional 

track and siding, new track and siding, new flyovers, culvert, replacement or extensions, bridge 

replacement or additions, a new suburban station in northwest Indiana and new maintenance facility in 

Pontiac, Michigan, as well as the added train frequencies could have the potential to impact visual/scenic 

resources and affect sensitive visual receptors present in the Area of Analysis. A summary of the type and 

number of visual receptors that may be affected along each Build Alternative route is shown in Table 

3-27 below. Proposed major infrastructure improvements are shown in Table 2-11 in Chapter 2

(Alternatives Considered).
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 191

Table 3-27: Summary of Sensitive Visual Receptor Sites

Alternative

2 4 5

Option 1

5

Option 2

9

Option 1

9

Option 2

Illinois

Parks/Rec 9 9 9 9 17 17

Natural Areas 0 0 0 0 2 2

Major River Corridors 2 2 2 2 2 2

City/Small Towns 1 1 1 1 3 3

Historic 23 23 23 23 35 35

TOTAL ILLINOIS 35 35 35 35 59 59

Indiana

Parks/Rec 12 13 17 17 11 11

Natural Areas 5 5 7 7 6 6

Major River Corridors 5 5 5 5 4 4

City/Small Towns 12 12 12 12 11 11

Historic 5 5 5 5 7 7

TOTAL INDIANA 39 40 46 46 39 39

Michigan

Parks/Rec 61 61 61 61 61 61

Natural Areas 9 9 9 9 9 9

Major River Corridors 7 7 7 7 7 7

City/Small Towns 39 39 39 39 39 39

Historic 68 68 68 68 68 68

TOTAL MICHIGAN 184 184 184 184 184 184

TOTAL AREA OF ANALYSIS 258 259 265 265 282 282

Specific impact areas will be identified for the Selected Program Alternative during Tier 2 NEPA analysis

when more specific project facility limits and designs are identified.

3.14.4.1 Impacts Common to All Route Alternatives

Michigan

Through Michigan the route is exactly the same for all alternatives. The majority of the work that could 

include visual changes is anticipated to be in the Dearborn to Pontiac section of the Corridor and possibly 

minor changes at the proposed station locations. It is expected that most of this work would be within the 

existing right of way and along current train routes, thus little to no visual changes would be seen along 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

192 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

this section. The view from the train along the Corridor in Michigan would follow the existing route and 

therefore views from the train would be largely the same as they are currently.

Views of the railroad facilities along the Michigan segment is exactly the same for all alternatives. The 

views of the railroad facilities would be similar to existing because most work is anticipated to be within 

the existing right of way. There may be additional track siding, station improvements, crossing 

improvements as well as the new maintenance facility in Pontiac. Also, in order to reach a total of twenty 

daily trains, an additional fourteen daily trains would be added.

3.14.4.2 Route 2

Illinois

Through Illinois, Route 2 travels along the existing Amtrak route on the way to Detroit/Pontiac. 

Construction of new facilities is minimal and would be within or immediately adjacent to existing right of 

way. The exception is the portion between Englewood and Buffington Harbor, which would install two

new tracks in the Com Ed right of way next the NS tracks. However, since this follows the same general 

route, the views from the train are expected to be the same. Views of the facility would include new track 

in existing utility right of way. The existing right of way currently contains high tension power lines

along wide, undeveloped, vacant lots, covered in pavement, gravel, scrub brush and weeds. This area is 

bound by the Chicago Skyway (Interstate 90 Toll road) on the southwest and S. South Chicago Avenue

on the northeast. New tracks and train traffic along this corridor would not be a noticeable visual change.

The proposed reconstruction of the existing Amtrak-owned bridge at the Calumet River may create visual 

changes depending on the design. Such a change would be analyzed in Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 2 travels along the existing Amtrak route on the way to Detroit/Pontiac. Between the 

Illinois border and Gary, the landscape includes urban residential neighborhoods, views of Lake Michigan 

and lakeside parks, heavy industry, train yards, and multi-lane highways. Just east of Gary, the route 

enters the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. From this point to LaPorte County line it travels through or 

along the National Lakeshore’s woodlands and wetlands, interspersed with small residential communities. 

Through LaPorte County it runs through, Michigan City. Between Michigan City and the Michigan state 

line, the route travels adjacent to a golf course community, wooded areas and suburban/rural residential 

type developments. Although the route follows the existing passenger train route, there would be some 

right of way acquisition in the National Lakeshore to achieve double track. Views to and from the train in 

this area will not change, except with a minor increase in frequency of passenger train traffic.

In northwest Indiana, there would be a new suburban station. Views of the station should be consistent 

with the existing urban landscape. Design of the facility would be reviewed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 193

In addition the proposed Indiana Harbor Belt flyover in East Chicago and the abandoned drawbridge at 

the Indiana Harbor Canal would also create visual changes to be analyzed for the Selected Program 

Alternative in Tier 2 NEPA analyses.

3.14.4.3 Route 4

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 4 is the same as Route 2 and therefore the views would be the same as described for 

Route 2, above.

Indiana

In Indiana, the only difference from Route 2 is a slight variation near the Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore. Route 4 skirts a portion of the park to the south for a short length, rather than running through 

it. It then continues to follow the same path as Route 2. Views to and from the trains would be very 

similar to Route 2 and very similar to existing conditions as well.

In Burns Harbor, Route 4 would require a new flyover to pass over US Highway 12 as well as the Indiana 

Harbor Belt flyover in East Chicago. The addition of structures in these areas would change views.

In northwest Indiana, there would be a new suburban station. Views of the station should be consistent 

with the urban landscape. Design of the facility would be reviewed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

3.14.4.4 Route 5, Option 1 and Option 2

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 5 is the same as Route 2 and therefore the views would be the same as reported above 

for Route 2.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 5 follows a different route than the existing Amtrak route between Gary and Porter. The 

new route is parallel and approximately two miles south of the existing route between Buffington Harbor 

and Michigan City. It travels through different areas of Gary, Chesterton, Burns Harbor and Porter and 

through Lake Station. It does not go through the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in this segment but 

does travel past other natural areas including Clark and Pine Nature Preserve, Pine Station Nature 

Preserve, Grand lake Recreation. Route 5 also crosses Willow Creek and Salt Creek. The landscape along 

Route 5 is more residential than Route 2. East of Porter, Route 5 follows the same route as Route 2 to the 

Michigan border and as such views would be the same as described above for that portion.

This route would result in new railroad facilities including new structures at Buffington Harbor, Willow

Creek and Porter as well as the addition of up to 24 additional passenger train trips through this section 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

194 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

that currently has none. There is currently limited freight traffic along this route so these changes could 

change the views and character of the area.

In northwest Indiana, there would be a new suburban station. Views of the station should be consistent 

with the urban landscape. Design of the facility would be reviewed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

3.14.4.5 Route 9, Option 1 and Option 2

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 are the same. This route varies substantially from the other 

alternatives. It heads east out of Chicago Union Station to Lake Shore Drive where it follows Lake Shore 

Drive to approximately 51st Street where it turns south and then west to the Indiana border. Route 9 

travels through sections of Chicago, Calumet City, and the village of Burnham. Although this route is 

different than the others through the Illinois portion, the landscape and views are similarly urban built-up 

environments. It does however pass through more natural areas, parks, rivers, and historic properties than 

it would for the other Build Alternatives.

From Chicago Union Station to Kensington Junction, currently has substantial freight and passenger train 

traffic. Therefore views of train traffic would not be different from the existing views. From Kensington 

Junction to the Calumet Park, this route is currently inactive with no traffic. From Calumet Park to the 

Indiana border does currently carry freight traffic. As such, there would be some passenger train traffic 

where currently there is none.

There would be a new structure at Kensington Junction that would alter views. This structure would be 

analyzed further in Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 9 is similar to Route 5 except from the Illinois border to Tolleston. The route travels 

through the southern portion of the city of Chesterton, through the Tolleston Nature Preserve, Ivanhoe 

South natural area, and adjacent to the Gibson Woods Nature Preserve. Route 9 then joins Route 5 and 

continues along the same route to Michigan. Although the views will be different than Route 5 they are of 

similar type. Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 are similar to one another in terms of the view from the train.

There would need to be new tracks constructed adjacent to existing tracks. The view of these facilities 

would be similar to existing. Currently there is freight traffic along this section of the route. However 

there would be an increase in train traffic due to the addition of the passenger trains.

The addition of bridge structures at Hammond Junction, Gibson Yard and Willow Creek would create 

new views in these areas that would need to be further analyzed during Tier 2 studies.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 195

3.14.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Through continued public involvement, residents’ concerns about the potential views of the railroad 

facilities would be identified. Mitigation and impact minimization efforts would be addressed in more 

detail for the Selected Program Alternative in the Tier 2 NEPA documents and could include 

consideration of potential measures such as appropriate re-vegetation of disturbed areas of the scenic 

resources, visual screening of railroad facilities from adjacent residential areas, and appropriate design of 

structures with aesthetic features and landscaping that would complement and blend with the context of 

the surrounding visual environment. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be 

identified and discussed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis after design details of the Selected Program 

Alternative are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented 

prior to construction when practical and possible.

3.15 Water Body Crossings and Floodplains

This section discusses water body crossings including perennial and intermittent streams, lakes and ponds 

as designated on USGS maps and USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps for deep water lakes 

and open water ponds.

3.15.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Regulatory Framework

The regulatory framework pertaining to water resources includes the following laws and regulations:

• Section 401 (Water Quality Certification) and Section 404 (regarding discharge of fill into navigable 

waters) of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended)

• Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 403, as amended and supplemented)

• FHWA regulations on Bridges and Structures (23 CFR 650, subparts D and H)

• Federal Navigation Regulations (33 CFR 114-115)

• U.S. Coast Guard’s Section 9 General Bridge Act of 1946

• Applicable state regulations for construction in floodways and floodplains

• FRA’s Environmental Procedures Section 14(n)(8)

Data Collection

The USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) for Illinois and Indiana was used to compile GIS data 

for locations of water bodies, in the form of lakes, rivers and perennial and intermittent streams. The City 

of Chicago Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database was also used to compile GIS data for 

locations of waterways in the form of rivers and streams in Illinois. Waterway information was 

supplemented by the Lake Michigan Basin parkways and scenic rivers database, Illinois Natural 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

196 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Resources Geospatial Data Clearinghouse, Illinois State Geological Survey streams data, and the Indiana 

NRC for “Outstanding Rivers” data, and wetlands data were obtained from the USFWS NWI maps. GIS 

hydrology and hydrography data from the Michigan Department of Technology, Management and Budget 

was used to compile waterway, stream, and lake information in Michigan.

The National Park Service’s Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) list was reviewed and properties within 

the Area of Analysis were identified. This is a list that contains free-flowing river segments “...that are 

believed to possess one or more ‘outstandingly remarkable’ natural or cultural values judged to be of 

more than local or regional significance” (NPS, August 19, 2011).

Areas of 100-year floodplain (areas with a one percent annual chance of flooding) as defined by the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in accordance with 44 CFR 59.1. The regulatory 

framework pertaining to floodplains is Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (42 FR 26951), 

which requires consideration of avoidance and minimization to floodplains. As stated in this policy, 

federal agencies are required “... to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts 

associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains, and to avoid direct and indirect support of 

floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative”. In addition, the State Emergency 

Management Agencies (SEMAs) have floodplain management programs in each of the affected states. 

Floodplain mapping was obtained from FEMA GIS National Flood Hazard Layer Web Map Service.

Analysis Methodology

The potential impacts on streams, lakes, and ponds were evaluated using GIS tools by quantifying the 

length and number of stream crossings and/or longitudinal encroachments, and the area and number of 

lakes and ponds within the Area of Analysis, see Table 3-28. In addition, potential effects on floodplains 

were evaluated by quantifying the acres of perpendicular and/or longitudinal encroachments, based on the 

intersection of floodplain areas within the Area of Analysis. Data for wetlands as designated on NWI 

maps were reviewed and a general description of those areas was prepared. Additional information on 

wetlands is discussed further in Section 3.17 (Wetlands).

A more detailed impact analysis of waterways and water bodies would be conducted in conjunction with 

the Tier 2 NEPA analysis, including field surveys, at which time there is the potential for additional 

waterways and water bodies to be identified. Smaller streams with an Ordinary High Water Mark 

(OHWM) and connections to jurisdictional streams (see Section 3.25.4.1) that were not included in the 

databases studied may also be identified. Coordination would take place with the USACE and state 

resource agencies will identify what water resources are under the purview of the Section 404 permitting 

and Section 401 water quality certification processes. 

3.15.2 Affected Environment

Railroad lines are often located along the valleys of rivers and creeks to take advantage of the level and 

nearly level terrain, thereby minimizing cut and fill construction operations. Consequently, the Area of 

Analysis is located parallel to and perpendicular to waterways throughout the Area of Analysis. The 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 197

waterways and water bodies near or within the Area of Analysis are shown on the maps in Appendix B. 

The 62 major named streams in the Area of Analysis are listed in Appendix I by state and county. There 

are also a number of other perennial and intermittent streams as well as unnamed smaller streams 

throughout the Area of Analysis. Some segments of a particular stream run perpendicular, parallel, or 

skewed to the Area of Analysis, and often cross it in more than one location.

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

associated with them. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps along many of the rivers. The floodplains within the Area of Analysis are shown in 

the maps in Appendix D.

Illinois

The South Branch of the Chicago River and Calumet River in Illinois are considered navigable 

waterways. These rivers would be crossed on existing bridges. There are no segments of NRI-listed 

streams within the Area of Analysis in Illinois.

Indiana

The Indiana Harbor Canal, Grand Calumet River, Burns Waterway and Trail Creek in Indiana are 

considered navigable waterways. In addition, the Natural Resource Commission of Indiana has rated the 

East Fork of the Little Calumet River in Porter County, Indiana as an Outstanding River. It is considered 

to be a Blue Ribbon Trout Stream with outstanding fishing value, a state-designated canoe/boating route, 

and it is designated as a Salmonoid Stream. All these rivers would be crossed on existing bridges. There 

are no segments of NRI-listed streams within the Area of Analysis in Indiana.

Michigan

Michigan’s NRI-listed rivers include the Grand River in Jackson, Huron River in Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo 

River and Portage Creek in Kalamazoo, and the St. Joe River in Niles. In addition Rice Creek, East 

Branch Paw Paw River, Pokagon Creek, McKinzie Creek, Galien River, and Canal Race are designated 

trout streams by Michigan DNR.

There are 144 acres of water designated as deep water lakes (lacustrine) on the NWI maps in the Area of 

Analysis as well as an additional 37 – 47 acres of open water ponds (palustrine unconsolidated bottom) 

within the Area of Analysis. (See maps in Appendix D).

3.15.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative 

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be built, and no impacts on 

waterways, water bodies, and floodplains are anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other 

projects in the Corridor.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

198 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.15.4 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

Impacts from Build Alternatives on waterways are unavoidable since some stretches of the existing 

railroad were originally built along waterways and floodplains. These waterways would be impacted by 

construction activities including placement of fill material for additional track and siding, culvert 

replacement or extensions, and bridge replacement or additions. Table 3-28 provides a summary of the 

total stream length, total lake area and floodplain crossing area within the Area of Analysis for each state 

and Build Alternative. Wetland areas and impacts are discussed in Section 3.17 (Wetlands).

Table 3-28: Summary of Waterbodies and Floodplains in the Area of Analysis

Route Stream Length (feet) Lake/Pond Area (Acres)** Floodplain Area (Acres)

IL IN MI* Total IL IN MI Total IL IN MI Total

2 683 7660 258,000 266,343 0 15 172 187 8 100 822 930

4 683 8128 258,000 266,811 0 10 172 182 8 100 822 930

5

Option 1 683 8731 258,000 267,414 0 19 172 191 8 168 822 998

5

Option 2 683 8731 258,000 267,414 0 19 172 191 8 168 822 998

9

Option 1 1038 6819 258,000 265,857 3 8 172 183 10 146 822 978

9

Option 2 1038 6819 258,000 265,857 3 9 172 184 10 146 822 978

Notes:

* GIS Calculated length may include both sides of stream thereby inflating the actual stream intersect length.

** Calculated from NWI wetland data for Lacustrian, Limnotic, and Palustrian Unconsolidated Bottom categories.

Temporary construction impacts on waterways and water bodies would occur as a result of soil erosion 

and potential construction pollutant loading of stormwater runoff, fill material placed in water resources, 

and construction of bridges and culverts or culvert extensions. These effects would cease after 

construction is completed. The avoidance or minimization of sediment pollution would be accomplished 

in appropriate areas by the use of BMPs as discussed below for potential mitigation measures. 

Specific Impacts for each route are discussed below.

3.15.4.1 Impacts Common to All Route Alternatives

Michigan

The route through Michigan is the same for all alternatives. In Michigan, the Build Alternatives cross 

multiple rivers, streams and floodplains; however, proposed improvements are not anticipated to impact 

streams, rivers, or wetlands beyond the temporary impacts during construction. The proposed work is not 

anticipated to result in an impact to natural and beneficial floodplain values, specifically, flood 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 199

attenuation and storage, water quality, groundwater recharge, biological productivity of fish and wildlife, 

and agricultural and forestry resources.

The existing railroad embankment is above the 100-year floodplain and the proposed improvements are 

not expected to occur within the limits of the 100-year floodplain, change the opening beneath any 

structures or culverts, nor would they result in flooding of a community’s sole evacuation route. 

Therefore, the Build Alternative would not increase the risk of flooding and would not result in impacts to 

human safety, health, and welfare in Michigan.

Once the specific improvements have been identified and in conjunction with the Tier 2 NEPA analysis, 

the waterways would be reviewed to determine potential impacts and where it is possible and practical to 

avoid or minimize impacts. If a project would impact water bodies, stream crossings, floodplains and 

wetlands, then mitigation measures would be required. If temporary impacts are identified, but they 

cannot reasonably be avoided, these impacts would be identified and appropriate mitigation steps taken to 

reduce any increase in the risk of flooding during construction. Specific mitigation measures would be 

identified in the Tier 2 NEPA analysis. 

3.15.4.2 Route 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, impacts from the construction of Route 2 would directly impact the South Branch of the 

Chicago River and the Calumet River segments, totaling approximately 680 linear feet, as well as 

encroaching upon approximately eight acres of the 100-year floodplains associated with these rivers. 

These waterway segments would be impacted by construction activities including placement of fill 

material for additional track and siding, culvert replacement or extensions, and bridge replacement or 

additions at these locations. Additional review of these effects would be done during Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis, based on additional design details.

Indiana

The major river crossings in Indiana for Route 2 include Grand Calumet River, Indiana Harbor Canal, 

Portage Burns Waterway, East Fork of the Little Calumet River, and Trail Creek. Total stream length 

within the Area of Analysis is 7,660 feet. There are approximately 15 acres of lakes and ponds within the 

Area of Analysis. This includes the Kinzele Ditch and Tributaries, Trail Creek and associated floodplains. 

The Area of Analysis encroaches on 100 acres of 100-year floodplains associated with the streams/rivers. 

See the maps in Appendix D. It is not expected that any streams/rivers, lakes/ponds or floodplains would 

be impacted in Indiana because there are only minor limited infrastructure improvements planned for this 

segment. There are floodplains present in northwest Indiana where a station may be located. The exact 

location of the new suburban station in northwest Indiana, and potential impacts to the floodplain would 

need to be determined during Tier 2 NEPA analysis and station planning.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

200 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.15.4.3 Route 4 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 4 is the same and would cross the same rivers and floodplains as Route 2. Therefore, 

impacts to waterways, water bodies, and floodplains would be similar to those for Route 2.

Indiana

In Indiana Route 4 is very similar to Route 2 and therefore impacts to waterways, water bodies, and 

floodplains would be similar. There would be the same stream/major river crossings as well as the same 

floodplains affected. However, the level of impacts would vary due to the slight variation in the route 

from Route 2. Within the Area of Analysis the total stream length is 8,130 feet, total lakes/ponds area is 

approximately ten acres and floodplain is approximately 100 acres.

3.15.4.4 Route 5 Option 1 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 5, Option 1 is the same and would cross the same rivers and floodplains as Route 2. 

Therefore, impacts to waterways, water bodies, and floodplains would be similar to those for Route 2.

Indiana

In Indiana Route 5, Option 1’s major river crossings include Grand Calumet River, Indiana Harbor Canal, 

Portage-Burns Waterway, Salt Creek and Willow Creek, East Fork of the Little Calumet River, and Trail 

Creek. Total stream length within the Area of Analysis is approximately 8,730 feet. There are 

approximately of 19 acres of lakes and ponds within the Area of Analysis. The Area of Analysis 

encroaches on approximately 170 acres of 100-year floodplains, associated with the streams/rivers. From 

Porter, Indiana to the Michigan border Route 5 Option 1 is the same as Route 2.

3.15.4.5 Route 5 Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 5, Option 2 is the same and would cross the same rivers and floodplains as Route 2. 

Therefore, impacts to waterways, water bodies, and floodplains would be similar to those for Route 2.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 5, Option 2’s alignment is nearly identical to Route 5, Option 1 and would cross the 

same rivers and floodplains. Therefore, impacts to waterways, water bodies, and floodplains would be 

similar to those for Route 5, Option 1.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 201

3.15.4.6 Route 9 Option 1 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, impacts from Route 9 Option 1 on waterways are unavoidable since some stretches of the 

existing railroad were originally built along waterways and floodplains, including the South Branch of the 

Chicago River and the Little Calumet River and the floodplains associated with them. Construction of 

Route 9, Option 1 would directly impact the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Little Calumet 

River segments, totaling approximately 1,040 linear feet. Route 9 Option 1’s Area of Analysis crosses 

and encroaches on these two rivers’ 100-year floodplain for approximately ten acres. There are also 

approximately three acres of lakes/ponds within the Area of Analysis.

Indiana

In Indiana Route 9, Option 1’s major river crossings include Portage Burns Waterway, Salt Creek, 

Willow Creek, East Fork of the Little Calumet River, and Trail Creek. Total stream length within the 

Area of Analysis is approximately 6,800 feet. There are approximately eight acres of lakes and ponds 

within the Area of Analysis. The Area of Analysis encroaches on approximately 145 acres of 100-year 

floodplains associated with the streams/rivers. From Porter, Indiana to the Michigan border is the same as 

Route 2.

3.15.4.7 Route 9, Option 2

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 9 Option 2 is the same as Route 9 Option 1 and would cross the same rivers and 

floodplains as Route 9 Option 1. Therefore, impacts to waterways, water bodies, and floodplains would 

be similar to those for Route 9 Option 1.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 9, Option 2 is nearly identical and would cross the same rivers and floodplains as Route 

9, Option 1. The only difference is the approximate area of lakes/ponds, which is nine acres, one acre

more than Route 9, Option 1. This is due to the slight variation in route from Route 9, Option 1.

3.15.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Mitigation requirements would be identified in coordination with the permitting agencies. Permitting 

requirements are further discussed in Section 3.25 (Permits).

In conjunction with the Tier 2 NEPA analyses, the potentially affected waterways would be reviewed

closely to determine where it is possible and practical to avoid or minimize impacts. Specific mitigation 

measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed after design details of the Selected 

Program Alternative are known. During the Tier 2 NEPA analysis, coordination would take place with the 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

202 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

USACE and the appropriate state resource agencies to develop avoidance and mitigation strategies. These 

mitigation measures would be recorded in the Tier 2 NEPA analysis and implemented prior to 

construction when practical and possible. Mitigation measures could include actions such as mitigation 

banking, in-lieu fees, and on-site or off-site Section 404 permittee responsible mitigation, see Section 

3.25.4.1 (Section 404 Permits).

Impacts on the 100-year floodplains and regulatory floodways would also be assessed during Tier 2 

NEPA analysis after design details of the Selected Program Alternative are known. Tier 2 NEPA analysis

would include discussion of the regulatory requirements in floodplains. These discussions would also 

include avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts on the natural and beneficial floodplain 

values, substantial changes in flooding risks or damage, and the potential for incompatible floodplain 

development.

Coordination with the state emergency management agencies, the departments of natural resources of 

each state, and local floodplain administrators would be initiated to discuss floodplain development 

permitting and potential mitigation measures if floodplains cannot be avoided. Mitigation could include 

restoring natural and beneficial floodplain values by seeding with native vegetation, and proper design of 

bridges and culverts so as to not restrict flood flows. Specific floodplain mitigation measures, to the 

extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis after design details of the 

Selected Program Alternative are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, 

and implemented prior to construction when practical and possible.

3.16 Water Quality Resources

This section reviews the Program’s effects on water quality resources. Water quality refers to the extent 

of the effects of sediment erosion and chemical pollution on surface water resources (streams, lakes, 

ponds, wetlands) and on groundwater in relation to karst areas (karst is defined in Section 3.16.2.2).

3.16.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Water quality was evaluated in accordance with FRA’s Environmental Procedures Section 14(n)(2). The 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (later amended to become the Clean Water Act), Section 303(d), 

requires that each state identify and list those waters that are impaired by pollutants and, as a result, are 

not meeting the state’s water quality standards. This list of impaired surface waters is referred to as the 

303(d) List. Other regulations pertaining to water quality include Sections 401 and 402 of the Clean 

Water Act of 1972 (as amended) and Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control 

Standards (43 FR 47707), and Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.

In addition to the above regulations, the Clean Water Act requires that discharge of stormwater from state 

transportation facilities must comply with the respective state’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit issued to the state. A state’s NPDES permit includes post-construction 

requirements of new development, as well as stormwater controls to be used during construction for 

projects that disturb greater than one acre. Each state is required to develop, implement, and enforce 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 203

stormwater management programs designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the drainage 

system to the maximum extent practicable (MEP).

The same surface water data that were compiled for the Water Body Crossings and Floodplains in Section 

3.15 and the Wetlands in Section 3.17 were reviewed for this water quality discussion. To determine 

potential karst regions in the Area of Analysis, information was obtained from Internet data and mapping 

by the USGS and Michigan DEQ, Indiana Geological Survey, Illinois State Geological Survey and 

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (Illinois DNR). The most recent Section 303(d) lists of impaired 

waters were gathered from the websites of the USEPA, the Illinois EPA and Indiana DEM. Mapped well 

locations were compiled from the Illinois Natural Resources Geospatial Data Clearinghouse, Indiana 

DNR geospatial data website and the Michigan DEQ’s center for Shared Solutions and Technology 

Partnerships.

3.16.2 Affected Environment

3.16.2.1 Streams, Rivers and Lakes

As discussed in the Section 3.15 (Water Body Crossings and Floodplains), the Area of Analysis contains 

several waterways, and other surface water resources, all of which can be affected by runoff of pollutants 

from the Program. The maps in Appendix D show the water resources near or within the Area of 

Analysis.

As discussed in Section 3.15 (Water Body Crossings and Floodplains), there are a number of NRI-listed

stream segments located within the Area of Analysis in Michigan and one Natural Resource Commission 

of Indiana-designated high quality stream in Indiana.

Within the Area of Analysis through all states, many of the existing stream crossings are listed as 

impaired under the USEPA’s Section 303(d) impaired waters list. In Michigan there are over 100 such 

impaired stream crossings. This includes all of the major rivers except the Galien River in Berrien 

County, which has the fewest impaired streams within the Area of Analysis. The major rivers that are 

impaired are listed in Table 3-29 and the number of impaired streams by County is shown in Table 3-30.

The East Branch Paw Paw River, Rice Creek, Pokagon Creek, McKinzie Creek, and Canal Race are all 

designated impaired, and are classified by Michigan Department of Natural Resources as Trout Streams.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

204 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-29: Major Streams Listed as Impaired within the Area of Analysis

Impaired Stream Crossings Alternative

2 4

5

Option 1

5

Option 2

9

Option 1

9

Option 2

Illinois 

South Branch Chicago River X X X X X X

Calumet River X X X X

Little Calumet River X X

Indiana

Indiana Harbor Canal X X X X

Grand Calumet River X X X X

Portage Burns Waterway X X

Burns Ditch X X X X

East Fork Little Calumet River (also 

designated an Outstanding River) X X X X X X

Willow Creek X X X X

Salt Creek X X X X

Kinzele Ditch and Tributaries X X X X X X

Trail Creek X X X X X X

Michigan

East Branch Paw Paw River 

(Trout Stream) X X X X X X

Grand River X X X X X X

Kalamazoo River X X X X X X

Huron River & Barton Pond X X X X X X

Rouge River X X X X X X

St. Joe River X X X X X X

Rice Creek (Trout Stream) X X X X X X

McKinzie Creek (Trout Stream) X X X X X X

Canal Race (Trout Stream) X X X X X X
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 205

Table 3-30: Summary of Impaired Stream Crossings by County and Alternative

Alternative

State and County 2 4 5

Option 1

5

Option 2

9

Option 1

9

Option 2

Illinois

Cook County 2 2 2 2 2 2

Indiana 

Lake County 3 3 5 5 2 2

Porter County 7 7 7 7 7 7

LaPorte County 3 3 3 3 3 3

Michigan

Berrien County 10 10 10 10 10 10

Cass County 10 10 10 10 10 10

Van Buren County 10 10 10 10 10 10

Kalamazoo County 12 12 12 12 12 12

Calhoun County 13 13 13 13 13 13

Jackson County 11 11 11 11 11 11

Washtenaw County 28 28 28 28 28 28

Wayne County 11 11 11 11 11 11

Oakland County 4 4 4 4 4 4

TOTAL 124 124 126 126 123 123

3.16.2.2 Groundwater

In addition to runoff of pollutants potentially affecting surface water resources, groundwater can be 

affected by runoff as surface flow can be quickly lost through caves, sinkholes, and open fractures where 

there is minimal, if any, soil cover to act as a filter. Bedrock near the ground surface, composed of easily 

dissolved limestone and dolomite, is referred to as karst terrain and is characterized by fractures, caves, 

sinkholes, springs, and losing (influent) streams.107 Groundwater in karst areas is highly susceptible to 

contamination from any pollutants that could travel with stormwater surface flow and into karst features.

 

107 A losing stream is a stream where flow is reduced as it moves downstream because it infiltrates into the ground, 

recharging groundwater.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

206 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Illinois and Indiana

According to mapping and data available through the Indiana Geological Survey, the Illinois DNR and 

Illinois State Geological Survey websites, the Area of Analysis does not pass through any major karst 

areas in Indiana and Illinois.

Michigan

Per the USGS108, there are potential karst areas in the Area of Analysis throughout Wayne County and a 

small portion of southeast Washtenaw and southeast Oakland Counties in Michigan. However, no known 

karst features have been identified here or in other parts of Michigan or in the remainder of the Corridor.

According to the available GIS data, there are approximately 200 water wells within the Area of Analysis 

in Michigan. Many of these are private wells, and from the GIS data, locations are very approximate. 

These locations and impacts would be further investigated in the Tier 2 studies.

3.16.2.3 Coastal Waters and Shoreland

As discussed in Section 3.18 (Coastal Zone Management Area), each state along the Corridor has a 

Coastal Zone Management Area.

Illinois and Indiana

Much of the Area of Analysis within Illinois and Indiana is within Coastal Zone Management Areas. All 

of the stream crossings in Illinois and Indiana and Lake Michigan along the Indiana shoreline in Lake and 

most of Porter County are on the USEPA 303(d) list of impaired waters.

Michigan

Michigan’s Coastal Zone Management Area includes a small section of the Area of Analysis from the 

Indiana border to New Buffalo, Michigan Sections of the Galien River are within this area and a portion 

is on the 303(d) list, but not in the Area of Analysis.

3.16.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be built, and permanent Programrelated impacts on water quality would not occur beyond those that currently occur or could occur due to 

other projects.

 

108 USGS. Michigan’s Silurian-Devonian aquifer, USGS Online Publications Warehouse. 

Pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_j/jped/J079.jpeg. Accessed online January 30, 2014.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 207

3.16.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives

The Build Alternatives would potentially affect the water quality of several water resources as a result of 

soil erosion from stormwater runoff; fill material placed in water resources; pollutant runoff and spills 

from operation and maintenance activities; and construction of bridges and culverts or culvert extensions. 

Construction activities of the Build Alternatives have the potential to temporarily affect water quality as a 

result of soil erosion and potential construction pollutant loading of stormwater runoff. The avoidance or 

minimization of sediment pollution would be accomplished in appropriate areas by the use of best 

management practices (BMPs) as discussed below under mitigation measures. Table 3-30 provides a 

summary of the number of impaired (Section 303(d)) stream crossings/intersects within the Area of 

Analysis by state, county and Build Alternative.

The construction of the Build Alternatives has the potential to affect groundwater in areas with 

groundwater wells. Although the exact locations of groundwater wells have not been determined as part 

of the Tier 1 NEPA analysis, wells would be investigated in the Tier 2 NEPA analysis, and/or during 

preliminary design, when more specific locations and impacts will be determined for the Selected 

Program Alternative.

Specific route alternatives are discussed below.

3.16.4.1 Impacts Common to All Route Alternatives

Michigan

The route through Michigan is the same for all alternatives. The proposed route crosses multiple rivers, 

streams and waterbodies. Proposed improvements are anticipated to impact any streams, rivers, or 

wetlands that may be altered during construction. These effects are expected to be minimal and BMPs 

would be employed to minimize effects.

Although there are karst regions in the Area of Analysis through Wayne County and small segments in 

Washtenaw and Oakland Counties, there are not anticipated to be any impacts to the groundwater. During 

Tier 2 NEPA analysis, if any specific karst features are identified, the potential direct impacts would be 

determined. Furthermore, BMPs would be used to divert any stormwater or pollution runoff from entering 

karst features.

Locations of groundwater wells have not been determined as part of the Tier 1 NEPA analysis and would 

be investigated during Tier 2 NEPA analyses, and/or during preliminary design, when more specific 

locations and impacts can be determined.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

208 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.16.4.2 Route 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 2 would cross the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Calumet River, both 

included on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and the water quality of these streams could be affected 

during construction.

The potential for Route 2 to adversely affect groundwater in Illinois and Indiana is minimal, since there 

are no major karst areas within the Area of Analysis.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 2 crosses Grand Calumet River, Indiana Harbor Canal, Portage Burns Waterway, East 

Fork of the Little Calumet River, and Trail Creek, all of which are included on the 303(d) List of 

Impaired Waters (water quality limited waters). This alternative would potentially affect the water quality 

of these streams as well as potentially affect the water quality of other water resources.

3.16.4.3 Route 4 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 4 is the same as Route 2. Impacts to water quality are the same as those for Route 2.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 4 is very similar to and would cross the same streams as Route 2. However the actual 

length and total area of water bodies within the Area of Analysis varies slightly. Impacts to water quality 

are expected to be the same as those for Route 2.

3.16.4.4 Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, both Route 5 Option 1and Option 2 are the same as and would cross the same impaired 

streams as Route 2. Therefore, impacts to water quality are the same as those for Route 2.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 cross the same streams as Route 2. In addition these Options 

cross Salt Creek and Willow Creek. All of the streams crossed are included on the 303(d) List of Impaired 

Waters. This alternative would potentially affect the water quality of these streams as well as the water 

quality of other water resources. 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 209

The potential for Route 5 Option 1 or Option 2 to adversely affect groundwater in Illinois and Indiana is 

minimal, since there are no major karst areas within the Area of Analysis. 

3.16.4.5 Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2

Illinois

In Illinois, both Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 would cross the South Branch of the Chicago River and 

the Little Calumet River; both of which are included on the 303(d) List of Impaired Waters. The impacts 

to water quality associated with Route 9 Option 1 would be similar as those described under Route 2, 

above.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 cross Portage Burns Waterway, Salt Creek, Willow Creek, 

East Fork of the Little Calumet River, and Trail Creek, all of which are included on the 303(d) List of 

Impaired Waters. The construction of this alternative would potentially affect the water quality of these 

streams as well as potentially affect the water quality of other water resources within the Area of 

Analysis. From Porter, Indiana to the Michigan border Route 5 Option 1 is the same as Route 2.

The potential for Route 9 Option 1 or Option 2 to adversely affect groundwater in Illinois and Indiana is 

minimal, since there are no major karst areas within the Area of Analysis.

3.16.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

There are a number of ways to address potential water quality impacts during construction activities. 

Typical measures include the development and implementation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans 

(SWPPPs) and the use of temporary and permanent stormwater BMPs to avoid or minimize sediment 

pollution and water quality impacts through reductions in stormwater runoff from the site.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to minimize the volume of stormwater runoff 

discharge. This will result in physical, chemical, or biological pollutant load reduction, increased 

infiltration, and evapotranspiration. Proper soil erosion and sediment control measures will be used to 

minimize erosion and sedimentation from the project. These measures are a condition of Section 404 

Clean Water Act permits, prescribed in design and construction guidance by each state, and will be 

coordinated with the local Soil & Water Conservation Districts (SWCD). Erosion control measures will 

consist of applying mulch, straw, soil tackifier, polymers, erosion control blankets, and vegetative soil 

stabilization. 

Generally, vegetative soil stabilization includes temporary and permanent seeding, sodding, ground cover, 

and dormant seeding. Disturbance of streamside and riparian vegetation will be kept to a minimum. In 

stream construction and soil disturbing activities near streams will be conducted during low or normal 

flow periods in accordance with construction permits obtained prior to construction. Discharge points will 

be protected with rock (or an alternative measure) to minimize scour and erosion.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

210 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Perimeter sediment control devices will be installed before commencing soil disturbing activities. 

Perimeter silt fence, stabilized construction entrances, drainage inlet protection, ditch checks, diversions, 

sediment traps, and other appropriate BMPs will be used to control sediment and runoff and to protect 

receiving waters during construction.

Stream crossings and structure sizing will be performed in accordance with state and federal guidelines 

regarding floodplain encroachment and hydraulic capacity. All new structures will comply with these 

guidelines. Stormwater facilities and discharges will be monitored and managed during and following 

construction in accordance with area requirements per the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES).

Other stormwater control practices may be needed to mitigate water quality impacts. In addition to 

detention facilities, other practices such as vegetated basins/buffers, infiltration basins, and bioswales will 

be evaluated to minimize transport of sediment, heavy metals, and other pollutants. 

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified during Tier 2 NEPA analysis

after design details of the Selected Program Alternative are known. The Tier 2 NEPA analyses would

further determine mitigation measures and control of pollutants and sediments in regard to the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting, SWPPPs, and BMPs.

There are USEPA approved Total Maximum Daily Load plans for various impaired water bodies within 

all nine counties in the Area of Analysis. These plans would be reviewed in detail during Tier 2 analysis 

to ensure that the water quality standards set forth in the plans are met as required.

The Tier 2 NEPA analysis would also address the need for mitigation of impacts on mapped or unmapped 

water wells, including proper abandonment of the wells (such as plugging and sealing) to prevent 

groundwater pollution from construction and from future operations and maintenance. Specific mitigation 

measures would be implemented prior to construction when practical and possible.

3.17 Wetlands

This section discusses the presence of wetlands in the Area of Analysis and the effects the Program may 

have on them.

3.17.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to wetlands includes Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (as 

amended) and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (USDOT Order 5660.14), Preservation of 

the Nation’s Wetlands; and the Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989 (20 ILCS/830/1-2, et seq.) and 

administrative rules promulgated thereunder (17 Illinois Administrative Code Part 1090).The regulatory 

definition of wetlands, as adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, May 11, 2012) 

and USACE to administer the Section 404 permit program is “[Wetlands are] those areas that are 

inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 211

that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in 

saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas.” Wetland 

resources include vegetated wetland areas as designated on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (USFWS 2013).

In conjunction with the Tier 2 NEPA analysis, a more detailed impact analysis of wetlands would be 

conducted, including field surveys, to determine what areas meet the USEPA and USACE regulatory 

criteria and definition of a wetland, and to determine the type and boundaries of those wetland areas. 

There is also the potential for additional wetlands to be found in the course of those surveys. During Tier 

2 NEPA analysis, coordination would take place with the USACE to determine what wetland areas are 

jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional for Section 404 permitting purposes and mitigation requirements, in 

addition to coordination with state resource agencies, see Section 3.25.4.1.

The permitting approach for wetlands follows the Section 404 requirements identified in Section 3.25

(Permits). The USFWS NWI database was used to compile GIS data for locations of vegetated wetland 

areas within the Area of Analysis.

3.17.2 Affected Environment

The regulatory definition of wetlands emphasizes that wetlands must possess three essential 

characteristics before a positive determination of a wetland can be made: hydric soils, a prevalence of 

hydrophytic vegetation, and a persistent wetland hydrology. The NWI maps are based on a classification 

system known as the Cowardin System,

109 which classifies the types of “ecosystems” related to water 

resources. Typical vegetated wetlands in the Midwest include, but are not limited to, emergent 

(herbaceous), scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands. The maps in Appendix D show the NWI wetlands near 

or within the Alternative Analysis Area.

The NWI database was reviewed and it was determined that the vegetated wetland systems present within 

the Area of Analysis include Lacustrian (L) (lakes) Riverine (R) (rivers), Palustrine Freshwater Emergent 

(PEM), Aquatic (PAB), Unconsolidated Bottom(PUB) (ponds) and Forested/Shrub (PFO/PSS) wetlands.

Table 3-31 lists the types of wetlands and their acreage within the 500-foot wide Area of Analysis.

 

109 Cowardin et al., 1979
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

212 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-31: Types and Acreage of Wetlands within the Area of Analysis

Alternative Palustrine Riverine Lake

Aquatic 

Bed (PAB)

Emergent

(PEM)

Scrub 

Shrub

(PSS)

Forested

(PFO)

Ponds

(PUB)

Rivers 

(R) Lake (L) Total 

Route 2

Illinois

# 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Ac 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7

Indiana

# 1 52 0 37 29 6 2 127

Ac 1 139 0 61 15 6 2 224

Michigan

# 16 224 100 173 58 14 13 598

Ac 15 538 207 410 29 75 161 1435

Total Number 17 276 100 210 87 22 15 727

Total Acreage 16 677 207 471 44 88 163 1,666

Route 4

Illinois

# 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Ac 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7

Indiana

# 1 57 0 47 26 7 1 139

Ac <1 114 0 68 10 7 <1 200

Michigan

# 16 224 100 173 58 14 13 598

Ac 15 538 207 410 29 75 161 1,435

Total Number 17 281 100 220 84 23 14 739

Total Acreage 15 652 207 478 39 89 161 1,642

Route 5 Option 1 and 2

Illinois

# 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Ac 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7

Indiana

# 2 43 0 42 26 5 1 119

Ac 1 65 0 72 18 7 1 164

Michigan

# 16 224 100 173 58 14 13 598

Ac 15 538 207 410 29 75 161 1,435

Total Number 18 267 100 215 84 21 14 719

Total Acreage 16 603 207 482 47 89 162 1,606

Route 9 Option 1

Illinois

# 0 7 0 8 2 2 0 19

Ac 0 22 0 27 6 7 0 62

Indiana

# 3 41 1 46 14 3 1 109

Ac 1 70 1 55 7 5 1 140

Michigan

# 16 224 100 173 58 14 13 598

Ac 15 538 207 410 29 75 161 1,435

Total Number 19 271 101 227 74 19 14 726

Total Acreage 16 630 208 492 42 87 162 1,637
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 213

Alternative Palustrine Riverine Lake

Aquatic 

Bed (PAB)

Emergent

(PEM)

Scrub 

Shrub

(PSS)

Forested

(PFO)

Ponds

(PUB)

Rivers 

(R) Lake (L) Total 

Route 9 Option 2

Illinois

# 0 7 0 8 2 2 0 19

Ac 0 22 0 27 6 7 0 62

Indiana

# 3 40 1 46 15 3 1 109

Ac 1 70 1 55 8 5 1 141

Michigan

# 16 224 100 173 58 14 13 598

Ac 15 538 208 410 29 75 161 1,435

Total Number 19 271 101 227 75 19 14 726

Total Acreage 16 630 208 492 43 87 162 1,637

Although there are several wetlands scattered throughout the Area of Analysis, the larger concentrations 

are associated with floodplains adjacent to perennial rivers and streams. Table 3-32 lists the rivers and 

streams by state where wetlands are located.

Table 3-32: Major Perennial Rivers within the Area of Analysis

Stream Name Route 2 Route 4 Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2

Route 9 Option 

1 and Option 2

Illinois

South Branch of the Chicago River X X X X

Calumet River X X

Little Calumet River X X

Indiana 

Indiana Harbor Canal X X

Grand Calumet River X X X

Burns Ditch X X

Portage Burns Waterway X X

East Fork of the Little Calumet River X X X X

Michigan

Galien River X X X X

St. Joe River X X X X

Kalamazoo River X X X X

Grand River X X X X

Huron River X X X X

River Rouge X X X X
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

214 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.17.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be built, and related impacts to 

wetlands would not occur beyond those that may occur due to other projects and routine maintenance.

3.17.4 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

In general, wetlands can be impacted during construction as a result of soil disturbance and potential 

pollutant loading of stormwater runoff from construction sites. These impacts would be a result of 

placement of fill material for additional track and siding, culvert replacement or extensions, and bridge 

replacement or additions.

Impacts to wetlands would most likely occur only where additional right of way is acquired. A more 

detailed wetland impact assessment would be conducted during Tier 2 NEPA analyses, including field 

surveys, to determine the specific impacted areas that meet the regulatory criteria and definition of a 

wetland. Disturbance in the areas indicated in Table 3-31 would be avoided or minimized where 

practicable.

Specific impacts of the various route alternatives are discussed below.

3.17.4.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Michigan

Common wetland impacts are relevant only to the portion of the Area of Analysis in Michigan. There are 

no existing wetlands in the urbanized sections of Michigan between Detroit and Pontiac. The Kalamazoo 

to Dearborn EA indicated that although the original rail bed 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. Any proposed improvements in this segment do not 

include any alterations of existing bridges. Furthermore, all work is anticipated to be restricted to the 

existing railroad embankment. Therefore, no wetlands would be impacted by the Build Alternatives. From 

Kalamazoo to the Indiana border the only infrastructure improvements would be due to increased 

frequencies as this segment is already at speeds of 110 mph. Any proposed infrastructure improvements 

are anticipated to be within the existing right of way and not impact existing bridges and therefore no 

wetlands are anticipated to be impacted.

3.17.4.2 Route 2 Impacts

Illinois

Through Illinois, construction of Route 2 would directly impact approximately seven acres of two riverine 

wetlands associated with the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Calumet River.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 215

Indiana

In Indiana, the Route 2 Area of Analysis contains more wetlands than in the other alternatives. There are 

approximately 224 acres of wetlands, mostly Palustrine Emergent and Forested. Route 2 travels through 

extensive wetland areas in the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore where additional right of way is 

anticipated to be required.

3.17.4.3 Route 4 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 4 is the same as Route 2. Therefore, impacts to wetlands would be the same as those for 

Route 2.

Indiana

In the Indiana Route 4 Area of Analysis there are a total of 200 acres of wetlands, mostly Palustrine 

Emergent and Forested. Route 4 also travels through the wetlands of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 

where additional right of way is anticipated to be required. 

3.17.4.4 Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Build Alternatives 5 Option 1 and Option 2 are the same as Route 2. Therefore, impacts to 

wetlands would be similar to those for Route 2.

Indiana

In the Indiana Route 5 Area of Analysis there are a total of 164 acres of wetlands primarily between 

Porter and the Michigan border. It is not anticipated that right of way acquisition would occur in this 

segment. Areas where Route 5 would most likely impact wetlands is between Buffington Harbor and the 

Tolleston connection where there are a substantial number of wetlands located in the Clark & Pine Nature 

Preserve, Clark Junction West Site, the Clark and Pine General Refractories Site, and the Pine Station 

Nature Preserve.

3.17.4.5 Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2

Illinois

In the Illinois Route 9 Option 1 or Option 2 Area of Analysis there are 19 wetlands, totaling 

approximately 62 acres. The majority of these are associated with the Little Calumet River and the 

Beaubien Woods Forest Preserve, both located in the southern portion of the Area of Analysis. 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

216 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Indiana

In the Indiana Area of Analysis there are a total of 140 acres of wetlands for both Route 9 options. A 

substantial portion of these wetlands are between Porter and the Michigan border where it is not 

anticipated that any right of way would be required. Areas where the Routes would most likely impact 

wetlands are adjacent to the Gibson Woods Nature Preserve and within the Tolleston Ridge Nature 

Preserves and/or the Ivanhoe South natural area between Gibson Junction and Ivanhoe.

3.17.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

During Tier 2 NEPA analysis, wetlands and impacts to them would be identified in greater detail. Where 

it is possible and practical, impacts to wetlands would be avoided or minimized.

Available mitigation options for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would be developed in 

more detail during the Tier 2 NEPA analysis and in conjunction with a Section 404 Permit, see

Section 3.25.4.1. Typical mitigation measures include mitigation banking, in-lieu fees, and on-site or offsite permittee-responsible mitigation. Mitigation strategies identified and ultimately selected would take 

into account that not all mitigation options are available to all states and USACE Districts. During the 

design process, coordination would take place with the appropriate USACE Districts and appropriate 

resource agencies to develop appropriate mitigation strategies for the location of impacts. To the extent 

required, specific mitigation measures, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis

after design details of the Selected Program Alternative are known. These will be recorded in the Tier 2 

NEPA documents as appropriate and implemented as part of the Section 404 permit application and 

approval process when practical and possible. Permit requirements as a result of wetland impacts are 

discussed in Section 3.25 (Permits).

3.18 Coastal Zone Management Areas

This section describes the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and the Program’s compatibility with 

CZMA. The coastal areas of concern in the Area of Analysis include the coastal areas of Lake Michigan.

3.18.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 as amended through Public Law No. 109-58, the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, 16 U.S.C Sections 302 to 319 is administered by NOAA's Office of Ocean 

and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM). The CZMA provides for management of the nation's 

coastal resources, including the Great Lakes, and balances economic development with environmental 

conservation. Coastal zone management is intended to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, 

restore or enhance coastal zones. Coastal zone management areas were evaluated in accordance with 

FRA’s Environmental Procedures Section 14(n)(9).

Each state in the Area of Analysis participates in the Coastal Zone Management Program. The Illinois 

DNR, the Indiana DNR and the Michigan DEQ are the agencies responsible for each state’s participation 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 217

through their respective Lake Michigan Coastal Programs (LMCPs).The federal Coastal Zone 

Management Act requires that each state identify those coastal resources that require management or 

protection.

In January 2012, the Illinois Coastal Management Program (ICMP), enforced by the Illinois DNR, was 

approved. The ICMP’s focus areas include invasive species; habitat, ecosystems, and natural area 

restoration; persistent bioaccumulative toxins; sustainable development; and non-point source pollution, 

among others.110 The Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Program was approved in 2001, relying on existing 

laws and programs as the basis for achieving its purpose and managed by the Indiana DNR. Michigan’s 

coastal program is administered by the Office of Great Lakes (OGL), Michigan DEQ. The program 

includes local pass through grants and administration of coastal related sections of the Natural Resource 

and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451.

The Area of Analysis was reviewed using recent aerial and satellite high-resolution photographic 

imagery; maps of hydrography and other features; and the most recent geographic information system 

(GIS) data for a variety of environmental resources. Coastal zone mapping limits were identified on maps 

provided by the Michigan DEQ and Indiana DNR websites. Coastal Zones in Illinois were obtained from 

the Illinois DNR Illinois Coastal Management Program Geographic Information Systems (GIS).111

3.18.2 Affected Environment

A substantial portion of the Area of Analysis, especially through Illinois and Indiana is within the Illinois, 

Indiana and Michigan Coastal Zone boundary. Figure 3-9 shows the coastal zone boundary within the 

Area of Analysis.

 

110 Illinois DNR, 2013a 111 Illinois DNR, 2013b
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 218

Figure 3-9: Coastal Zone Boundaries within the Area of Analysis
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 219

Illinois

The Coastal Zone in Illinois encompasses both lakeshore and some inland waterways. The primary or 

“lakeshore” coastal zone boundary defines the land area within the present-day Lake Michigan watershed. 

This “present-day watershed” area is roughly 85 square miles. A secondary or “inland waterway” coastal 

zone boundary defines corridors along select segment of rivers that historically flowed to Lake Michigan 

but were engineered in the early 1900s to flow away from the lake. These inland waterways have a 

navigable link to Lake Michigan and are a critical interface between Lake Michigan and the regional river 

system. The inland waterways included in the coastal zone boundary add roughly another 25 square miles 

to the inland portion of Illinois’ coastal zone. The Area of Analysis in the Coastal Zone in Illinois is 

located within the Lake Michigan watershed in addition to corridors along the Chicago River and the 

Calumet and Little Calumet Rivers within Cook County.

Indiana

The Indiana coastal zone, referred to as the Coastal Program Area, includes both inland and lakeside

areas. The Coastal Program Area encompasses a total of approximately 604 square miles of land and 

approximately 241 square miles of Lake Michigan. It covers the northern portions of Lake, Porter, and 

LaPorte Counties. At its greatest extent, the inland boundary is approximately 17 miles from the Lake 

Michigan shoreline and at its narrowest extent; the inland boundary is less than 2 miles inland. The 

Coastal Zone boundary extents encompass all alternative routes in the Area of Analysis through Indiana.

Michigan

Michigan's coastal zone boundary generally extends a minimum of 1,000 feet inland from the Ordinary 

High Water Mark of the Great Lakes and connecting channels, or further to include coastal lakes, river 

mouths and bays, floodplains, coastal wetlands, designated sand dune areas, public parks, recreation and 

natural areas and urban areas. Within the Area of Analysis, the Michigan coastal zone includes a narrow 

strip of the Lake Michigan shoreline east of US Highway 12 approximately a mile wide from the Indiana 

border through New Buffalo. It includes the Galien River in Berrien County.

3.18.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be built, and permanent Programrelated impacts on coastal zones would not occur.

3.18.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives

3.18.4.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

Construction activities associated with implementation of the Build Alternatives would directly impact 

the coastal zones associated with Lake Michigan including potential impacts to the natural habitats and 

wildlife. The coastal zones could be impacted by construction activities including tree and brush clearing, 

placement of fill material for additional track and siding, culvert replacement or extensions, and bridge 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

220 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

replacement or additions. Such impacts may be expected in locations where right of way would be needed 

to perform the work and permits may be required.

The Build Alternatives could also increase the chances of impacts from erosion and sedimentation from 

railroad grades to adjacent aquatic habitat, and potential pollutant runoff and spills from operational and 

maintenance activities, which could affect natural habitats and the water quality of aquatic habitats that 

may be present adjacent to the rail corridor in the coastal zones. However, permanent best management

practices (BMPs) that would hold the soil in place would provide measures to avoid or minimize those 

types of impacts. There is also the potential for temporary construction impacts from future culvert or 

bridge replacements as a part of ongoing maintenance. 

The potential for impacts to coastal zone qualities would be further investigated in the Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis for the Selected Program Alternative. The avoidance, minimization, or mitigation of potential 

impacts on coastal zones would be accomplished, as appropriate, by the use of BMPs as discussed in 

Section 3.16.5 (Water Quality). 

Michigan

The route through Michigan is the same for all alternatives. The route passes through the coastal zone 

management area along the Lake Michigan shoreline from the Indiana Border into New Buffalo, 

Michigan. However, this section of the route is already at the proposed 110 mph speed double track and 

no improvements are proposed with the Program. Therefore, there would be no impact to coastal 

resources in Michigan.

3.18.4.2 Route 2 Impacts

Illinois

Approximately 207 acres of coastal zones are within the Route 2 Area of Analysis through Illinois. 

Construction of Route 2 would directly impact the coastal zones associated with Lake Michigan, the 

South Branch of the Chicago River, and the Calumet River that are located within the Area of Analysis in 

Illinois.

Indiana

Through Indiana, the entire route area is within the Coastal Zone Management Area. Construction of 

Route 2 could potentially impact the coastal zones associated with the Grand Calumet River, Indiana 

Harbor Canal, Burns Waterway, East Fork of the Little Calumet River and natural areas such as the 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, as well as associated floodplains, wetlands and threatened and 

endangered species. The East Fork of the Little Calumet River is rated as an Outstanding River by the 

Indiana Natural Resource Commission. All of these are potential impact areas and are discussed more 

thoroughly under the sections that deal with waterways and wetlands, see Sections 3.15, 3.16 and 3.17.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 221

3.18.4.3 Route 4 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 4 is the same as Route 2. Therefore, impacts to coastal zones would be the same as those 

for Route 2.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 4 is very similar to Route 2 in that the entire route is within the Indiana Coastal 

Management Zone and similar features could be affected. Impacts would be similar to Route 2.

3.18.4.4 Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 are the same as Route 2. Therefore, impacts to coastal zones 

would be the same as those for Route 2.

Indiana

Through Indiana, construction of Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 would directly impact the coastal zone

qualities associated with the Grand Calumet River, Indiana Harbor Canal, and Burns Ditch as well as the 

natural areas including Pine Station Nature Preserve and the Clark and Pine Nature Preserve. Although 

Route 5 takes a different route through Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana, the potential construction 

impacts would be similar to Route 2 and would be as discussed above.

3.18.4.5 Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2

Illinois

Approximately 472 acres of coastal zone are within the Area of Analysis for Route 9 through Illinois. 

Construction of Route 9 would directly impact the coastal zones associated with Lake Michigan, the 

South Branch of the Chicago River, and the Little Calumet River that are located within the Area of 

Analysis. 

Indiana

Through Indiana construction of Route 9 would directly impact the coastal zones associated with the 

Portage Burns Waterway, Willow Creek, Salt Creek and East Fork of the Little Calumet River as well as 

the natural areas including Gibson Woods and Tolleston Ridge Nature Preserves, and the Ivanhoe South 

Natural Area. Although Route 9 takes a different route through Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana, the 

potential construction impacts would be similar to Route 2 and would be as discussed above.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

222 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.18.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

A Coastal Zone consistency determination would need to be made by each partnering state during 

implementation of the Selected Program Alternative as part of the Tier 2 NEPA analysis. If the Program 

is not consistent with the Coastal Management Programs in the states, mitigation measures would need to 

be implemented. The potential of the Program to adversely affect coastal zones during construction 

activities could be mitigated by the development and implementation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention 

Plans (SWPPPs) and the use of temporary and permanent BMPs. The avoidance, minimization, or 

mitigation of sediment pollution could be accomplished by the use of BMPs.

BMPs could be used during construction to control water pollution through the use of temporary 

measures, such as berms, slope drains, sediment basins, straw bales, silt fences, seeding, and mulching. 

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 

NEPA analysis after design details of the Selected Program Alternative are known. The Tier 2 analyses

would further address mitigation measures and control of pollutants and sediments and BMPs.

3.19 Natural Habitats and Wildlife

This resource includes various types of natural terrestrial (land) habitats and the wildlife that uses these 

habitats. Natural areas reported in this Tier 1 EIS include lands designated by Congress or federal or state 

agencies as wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas, wildlife management areas, nature preserves, 

high quality natural communities, natural areas, and wildlife sanctuaries. On the state level, natural areas 

are public lands managed by the Illinois DNR, Indiana DNR, and Michigan DNR. Some private 

properties also contain natural habitat preserved for habitat conservation purposes; for example, Nature 

Conservancy lands or NRCS conservation easements. These lands are not afforded the same protections 

under Section 4(f), see Section 3.12; however many have conservation easements that restrict 

development or that are not subject to eminent domain. These lands have not been inventoried for this 

Tier 1 EIS, however may be considered during the Tier 2 NEPA analyses.

3.19.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Natural habitat and wildlife were evaluated in accordance with FRA’s Environmental Procedures Section 

14(n)(5). The regulatory framework pertaining to natural habitats and wildlife include the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (as amended) (FWCA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (as 

amended) (MBTA), the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, the Wilderness Act of 1964 (WA), and the Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (as amended) (BGEPA). In addition, each state has regulations 

pertaining to wildlife and habitat, such as the Michigan Natural Resource and Environmental Protection 

Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, Part 365 Illinois Wildlife Code (520 ILCS 5/), the Illinois 

Endangered Species Protection Act (520 ILCS 10/11(b)), Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act (525 

ILCS 30/17), and administrative rules promulgated thereunder (17 Illinois Administrative Code Part 

1075). Natural habitats and wildlife are also protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 223

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) were 

implemented to offer protection to avian species. The MBTA makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, 

capture, kill, or sell migratory birds; and the BGEPA prohibits anyone from taking bald or golden eagles, 

including their parts, nests, or eggs, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior. In addition to 

protection from direct harm, the BGEPA also prohibits activities that disrupt eagles at nests, foraging 

areas, and important roosts because loss of these areas can disturb or kill eagles. Among other actions, 

“take” includes disturbance of eagles to the degree that it substantially interferes with breeding, feeding, 

or sheltering behavior, or results in injury, death, or nest abandonment.

The Indiana INMAP website was utilized to obtain the Managed Lands and Natural Communities in 

Indiana and both the Indiana and Michigan DNR websites were utilized to obtain additional information 

on various natural areas and habitats in Michigan and Indiana. The Illinois Department of Transportation 

Bureau of Design and Environment (IDOT BDE) reviewed the GIS Natural Heritage Database for 

information regarding Nature Preserves and Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) sites. Land enrolled 

in Illinois Nature Preserves Commission (INPC) land protection programs (Nature Preserves, Natural 

Heritage Landmarks, and Land and Water Reserves) and general wildlife information was also obtained 

on the website of Illinois DNR. The websites of the Illinois Forest Preserve Districts by county were used 

to obtain forest preserve locations. Information regarding the location of national wildlife refuges was 

obtained from the USFWS. 

3.19.2 Affected Environment

Over the years, intensive agriculture and development have fragmented and reduced the amount of 

woodland and prairie habitat available for wildlife, and have decreased the quality of the wildlife habitat 

areas that remain. Each state has developed a proactive wildlife action plan (comprehensive wildlife 

action strategy) to assess the health of the states’ wildlife and to determine strategies to conserve the 

numerous wildlife species of their states and their associated habitats (Illinois DNR, Indiana DNR, and 

Michigan DNR, 2005). These habitats provide food and shelter for over a thousand species including 

mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, mussels, and snails, as well as several thousands of insect 

species. A list of protected natural areas or natural communities that provide habitat for the region’s 

wildlife population are included in Table 3-33 and shown on the maps in Appendix D. The type of habitat 

that is characteristic within the Area of Analysis includes: woodlands (upland and riparian), savanna, 

prairies/grassland, shrubland, and aquatic habitat (wetlands, lakes and streams). The aquatic resources 

within the Area of Analysis that provide natural habitat for fish, invertebrates, and amphibian species 

include rivers, wetlands, lakes, ponds, and swamp/marshes that are discussed in Section 3.15 (Water 

Body Crossings and Floodplains) and Section 3.17 (Wetlands).
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

224 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-33: Protected Natural Areas and their Habitat Types by County, State and Route

County and 

State Site name Habitat Types Routes Impacted

Illinois

Cook Beaubien Woods Forest Preserve aquatic, riparian, forest and woodland, 

wetland, and prairie/grassland 9

Cook Burnham Prairie Nature Preserve* dry-mesic, wet-mesic, wet prairies, and 

savanna communities 9

Cook Burnham Park Nature Sanctuary, 47th 

Street Habitat Garden woodland/forest, prairie/ grassland 9

Indiana

Lake Clark and Pine Nature Preserve aquatic, wetland and prairie 4, 5

Lake Pine Station Nature Preserve (DNR) aquatic, wetland and prairie 5

Lake Ivanhoe South (Dune and Swale) 

(Shirley Heinze Environmental Fund) savanna 9

Lake Grand Boulevard Lake Recreation 

Area (Gary Park Board) aquatic 5

Porter Woodland Park (Portage Parks and 

Recreation) savanna 5, 9

Lake Clarke Junction West Site wetland and prairie 2, 4, 5

Lake Tolleston Nature Preserve savanna, wetland and prairie 9

Lake Clarke and Pine General Refractories 

Addition Site wetland and prairie 5

Lake Brunswick Center Savanna Site savanna 9

Lake/Porter Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore aquatic, savanna, wetland, forest, dunes 

and prairie 2, 4, 5, 9

Lake Miller Woods Site Savanna and Prairie 2,4

Porter Inland Marsh Site Savanna 2

LaPorte Washington Park Forest 2, 4, 5, 9
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 225

County and 

State Site name Habitat Types Routes Impacted

Michigan

Berrien Grand Beach Preserve (Nature 

Conservancy) wetland 2, 4, 5, 9

Berrien Bakertown Fen Preserve (Nature 

Conservancy) wetland 2, 4, 5, 9

Van Buren None

Cass None

Kalamazoo Fort Custer State Recreation Area aquatic, forest, and prairie 2, 4, 5, 9

Calhoun None

Jackson Grass Lake Wildlife Area (DNR) forest, wetlands and grasslands 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Chelsea State Game Area (DNR) forest, wetlands and grasslands 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw

Albert J. Miller and Robert & Nancy 

Smith Preserve and Trail (Washtenaw 

County Parks)

forest and wetland 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Burns-Stokes Preserve and Trail 

(Washtenaw County Parks) forest, prairie and wetland 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Osborne Mill Preserve and Trail forest, prairie and wetland 2, 4, 5, 9

Washtenaw Barton Nature Area (City of Ann Arbor) forest, prairie and wetland 2, 4, 5, 9

Wayne None

Oakland None

Notes: SGA: State Game Area

*High-quality habitat

The Area of Analysis is located in the north-south bird migration route through the Midwest known as the 

Mississippi Flyway112, which is used annually by land birds, shore birds, and water fowl. Although 

suitable habitat for birds and waterfowl is anticipated to exist in the Area of Analysis, the potential for 

 

112 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Flyways.us. 2008.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

226 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

occurrences of migratory bird nesting, foraging, or roosting areas would be studied further in Tier 2 

NEPA analysis.

General habitat characteristics in the Area of Analysis are described below for each state.

Illinois and Indiana

In the Area of Analysis within Illinois and Indiana, nearly all the vegetation has been replaced by urban 

development or agriculture, except in the scattered areas established and maintained as natural areas. 

Predevelopment vegetation included extensive prairie communities inter-mixed with oak-hickory forests. 

The region’s streams and rivers are intermittent and perennial. Agriculture and urban development has 

affected stream habitat.113

Michigan

In the majority of Michigan’s Area of Analysis, lands not dedicated to agriculture or urban uses within the 

Area of Analysis are comprised of oak-hickory forests, northern swamp forests, and beech forests. White 

oak, red oak, black oak, bitternut hickory, shagbark hickory, sugar maple, and beech are the dominant tree 

species. Streams in the area are perennial and intermittent and there are many small and medium-sized 

lakes. Agriculture and urban development has affected stream habitat. Land uses feature a mix of 

agricultural land, forest and woodland, pasture and urban, suburban and rural residential land uses. Whitetailed deer, coyote, red fox, gray fox, beaver, river otter, mink, Canada warbler, upland sandpiper, 

northern pike, walleye, salmon, steelhead, trout are native to the region. 114

3.19.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be built, and impacts to natural 

habitats and wildlife would not occur beyond those that could occur due to other projects. The wildlife 

species that may be present in the existing corridors have been continually exposed to train traffic in 

varying degrees.

The current rail routes between Detroit/Pontiac and Chicago would continue to be used. Existing 

environmental impacts such as erosion and sedimentation from railroad grades to adjacent water 

resources, and potential pollutant runoff and spills from operational and maintenance activities would 

continue to affect any natural habitat and wildlife species that may be present adjacent to the rail corridor. 

3.19.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives

The construction activities of the Build Alternatives, including tree and brush clearing, placement of fill 

material for additional track and sidings, culvert replacement or extensions, and bridge replacement or 

 

113 Commission for Environmental Cooperation. North American Terrestrial Ecoregions – Level III. April 2011. 114 Commission for Environmental Cooperation. North American Terrestrial Ecoregions – Level III. April 2011.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 227

additions could have the potential to impact terrestrial and aquatic natural habitats of wildlife species 

present in the Area of Analysis. Tree and brush clearing would be necessary to construct additional track 

and embankment, and to improve site distance at crossings for vehicle and train traffic. This clearing 

would impact natural habitats and may consequently impact the wildlife species that inhabit those areas.

Adjacent natural communities were historically fragmented by construction of the existing railroad 

alignment and development of surrounding lands. Since proposed areas where additional right of way 

would be acquired abut existing right of way, impacts would be relatively minimal and linear, and would 

not further fragment remaining large parcels of natural habitat areas. 

Embankment placed in wetlands, lakes, and ponds; culvert replacement or extensions; and bridge 

replacement or additions would directly impact aquatic species habitats. In addition, temporary 

disruptions of aquatic species movement and hydrological flow could occur, thereby affecting in-stream 

habitats both upstream and downstream of construction operations.

The wildlife species that are present along the rail corridor have historically been continually exposed to 

train traffic in varying degrees. Some animal species may become accustomed to the noise and vibration 

generated by trains, while others may not. At this Tier 1 level of analysis, the location and density of 

wildlife is unknown, as are the individual species present along the Corridor. 

It is anticipated that the increase in the frequency of trips and speed of train traffic may increase the 

potential for train collisions with mobile animal species and migratory birds.

The increase in train traffic could also increase operational and maintenance activities and potential spills 

increasing the chances of impacts from erosion and sedimentation from railroad grades to adjacent aquatic 

habitat, and potential pollutant runoff, which could affect natural habitats and the water quality of aquatic 

habitats that may be present adjacent to the rail corridor. There is also the potential for temporary 

construction impacts on water resources from future culvert or bridge replacements along the route, as a 

part of ongoing maintenance.

Land disturbance, wetland disturbance, tree and brush clearing, and culvert and bridge replacements 

(impacts to streams and rivers) could affect potential migratory bird nesting, foraging, or roosting areas 

that may be present in the Area of Analysis. Specific locations requiring clearing or structure removal 

would be identified during Tier 2 NEPA analysis for the Selected Program Alternative. At that time, 

coordination with the Illinois, Indiana and Michigan DNRs would take place to determine potential 

locations of migratory bird occupancy within the affected area, in addition to determining seasonal 

nesting, roosting, and foraging requirements of potentially affected species.

Table 3-34 summarizes the acreages for the sites listed in Table 3-33 for each Build Alternative.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

228 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-34: Summary of Natural Areas within the Area of Analysis by State and Alternative

County and 

State Site name Acreages within Area of Analysis

2 4

5

Opt.

1 & 2

9 Opt. 1 9 Opt. 2

Illinois115

Cook Beaubien Woods Forest Preserve 57 57

Cook Burnham Prairie Nature Preserve* 2 2

Cook Burnham Nature Sanctuary, 47th 

Street Habitat Garden 9 9

TOTAL ILLINOIS 0 0 0 68 68

Lake Clark and Pine Nature Preserve* <1 5

Lake Pine Station Nature Preserve 5

Lake Ivanhoe South (Dune and Swale) 

(Shirley Heinze Environmental Fund) 14 14

Lake Grand Lake Recreation Area (East 

Gary Park Board) 3

Lake Clarke Junction West Site* 3 9 8

Lake Tolleston Nature Preserve (Gibson 

Woods)* 11 11

Lake Clarke and Pine Gen. Refractories 

Addition Site* 16

Lake Brunswick Center Savanna Site* 9 1

Lake/Porter Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore 414 316 17 17 17

Lake - Miller Woods Site* 38 33

Lake - Gary Enterprise Zone Dune and 

Swale Site* 7

Porter - Inland Marsh Site* 7

Porter Portage (Woodland) Park (Portage 

Parks and Recreation) <1 1 1

LaPorte Washington Park* 2 2 2 2 2

TOTAL INDIANA 457 374 56 54 46

 

115 Illinois DNR. Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) Sites. June 2013a.

Illinois DNR. Illinois Nature Preserves Commission (INPC) Protected Areas in Illinois by County. June 2013b.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 229

County and 

State Site name Acreages within Area of Analysis

2 4

5

Opt.

1 & 2

9 Opt. 1 9 Opt. 2

Michigan

Berrien Grand Beach Preserve (Nature 

Conservancy) 3 3 3 3 3

Berrien Bakertown Fen Preserve (Nature 

Conservancy) 6 6 6 6 6

Van Buren State Open Space Land 3 3 3 3 3

Kalamazoo Fort Custer State Recreation Area 26 26 26 26 26

Jackson Grass Lake Wildlife Area 3 3 3 3 3

Jackson State Open Space Land 23 23 23 23 23

Washtenaw Chelsea State Game Area (DNR) 8 8 8 8 8

Washtenaw Albert J. Miller and Robert & Nancy 

Smith Preserve and Trail* 9 9 9 9 9

Washtenaw Burns-Stokes Preserve and Trail 11 11 11 11 11

Washtenaw Osborne Mill Preserve and Trail 5 5 5 5 5

Washtenaw Barton Nature Area 23 23 23 23 23

Washtenaw State Open Space Land 7 7 7 7 7

TOTAL MICHIGAN 127 127 127 127 127

Notes:

SGA: Stage Game Area

*High-quality habitat

The following sections describe the potential impacts specific to the various Build Alternative routes.

3.19.4.1 Impacts to Routes Common to All Alternatives

Michigan

The route through Michigan is constant for all alternatives. The Corridor passes through some 

ecologically sensitive areas. Any improvements within ecologically sensitive areas could potentially 

impact habitat during and after construction. Program improvements are expected to remain within the 

existing right of way through the Michigan corridor. Detailed improvement plans are not developed at this 

stage; however no improvements are currently proposed within ecologically sensitive areas. Potential 

stream, river and wetland impacts are also discussed under Section 3.15 (Water Body Crossings and 

Floodplains) and Section 3.17 (Wetlands). 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

230 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Suitable upland habitat for terrestrial vertebrate species beyond the existing right of way would not be 

altered as no improvements are proposed in natural areas outside the existing right of way. As discussed 

above impacts could be as a result of increased train traffic and those as a result of increased maintenance 

activities. Table 3-34 summarizes the extent of natural areas adjacent to the exiting route. It also 

summarizes the acreage within the Area of Analysis for each site.

Once the specific improvements have been identified during Tier 2 NEPA analysis, those in ecologically 

sensitive areas would require a more detailed review and analysis to determine the impacts. If the 

proposed Program improvements would impact ecologically sensitive areas, avoidance, minimization or 

mitigation measures will be developed.

3.19.4.2 Route 2 Impacts

Illinois

There are no designated natural areas within the Illinois Area of Analysis of Route 2.

Indiana

In Indiana there are a number of natural areas within the Area of Analysis for Route 2 as indicated in 

Table 3-34. The total acreage in this Area of Analysis is 457 acres. A substantial portion of this route (414 

acres) is through the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. However, the specific natural areas within the 

National Lakeshore are much less (38 acres). Some right of way may be required in the National 

Lakeshore, which may potentially impact the natural areas. Other natural areas include the Clarke 

Junction West Site and Washington Park in Michigan City. No work is anticipated in Michigan City and 

therefore this park should not be impacted.

3.19.4.3 Route 4 Impacts

Illinois

There are no designated natural areas within the Illinois Area of Analysis for Route 4.

Indiana

In Indiana the total natural area within the Area of Analysis for Route 4 encompasses approximately 374

acres. As with Route 2, a substantial portion of this area is within the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. 

However the specific natural areas of concern within the park are substantially less at about 47 acres. As 

with Route 2, there is anticipated right of way to be acquired within the National Lakeshore that could 

impact higher quality natural areas. Other areas of potential impact include the Clark and Pine Nature 

Preserve and the Clarke Junction West Site.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 231

3.19.4.4 Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

There are no designated natural areas within the Illinois Area of Analysis for Route 5.

Indiana

In Indiana the overall acreage of natural areas within the Area of Analysis for Route 5 Option 1 is less 

than Route 2 and Route 4 at a total of approximately 56 acres because much less of the route travels 

through the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Also, none of the area in the National Lakeshore is 

through high quality natural areas. However, the route does travel through a few other high quality areas 

including the Clark and Pine Nature Preserve, the Clarke Junction West Site, like Route 4, and the Clarke 

and Pine General Refractories Addition Site for a total of approximately 29 acres that could potentially be 

impacted. As with the other alternatives, Washington Park in Michigan City is not expected to be 

impacted.

3.19.4.5 Route 9 Option 1 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, the Burnham Prairie Nature Preserve and the Beaubien Woods Forest Preserve are both located 

within the Area of Analysis for Route 9, Option 1. It is estimated that these two areas total an area of 

approximately 59 acres of natural habitats that could potentially be impacted, as shown in Table 3-34. In 

addition the Burnham Nature Sanctuary borders this route impacting approximately 9 acres within the 

Area of Analysis. Route 9 Option 1 also includes approximately 1,040 linear feet of stream habitat, 60 

acres of wetland habitat, approximately one-half acre of lakes, and approximately 3 acres of 

swamps/marshes that could potentially be impacted.

Indiana

In Indiana the overall acreage of natural areas within the Area of Analysis for Route 9 Option 1 is less 

than both Route 2 and Route 4 at a total of approximately 50 acres. This is due to much less of the route 

travelling through the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Also none of the area in the National Park is 

through high quality natural areas. Route 9 Option 1 travels through other high quality areas as well, 

including the Tolleston Nature Preserve and the Brunswick Center Savanna Site for a total area of 

approximately 20 acres, which could potentially be impacted by construction. As with the other route 

alternatives, Washington Park in Michigan City is not expected to be impacted.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

232 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.19.4.6 Route 9 Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 9 Option 2 is the same as Route 9 Option 1. Impacts to natural habitats and wildlife 

species would be the same as those reported for Route 9 Option 1.

Indiana

In Indiana the only difference between Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 is the potential impact to the 

Brunswick Center Savanna Site. Route 9 Option 2 could potentially impact approximately 1 acre as 

compared to 20 acres with Option 1. All other potential impacts would be the same as Route 9 Option 1.

3.19.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

After design details are known, data specific to the Selected Program Alternative would be obtained 

through coordination with USFWS, Illinois DNR, Indiana DNR, and Michigan DNR during Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis. The existing information regarding migratory birds and natural terrestrial and aquatic habitat

would be used as background data for conducting field surveys to determine the existence of high quality 

natural communities and migratory bird habitat.

During Tier 2 NEPA analysis, ways to avoid and minimize impacts to habitat would be assessed through 

coordination between the partner states and USFWS and the state resource agencies. If habitat cannot be 

avoided, compliance with regulatory requirements and potential mitigation measures to protect species 

and offset impacts would be applied. These measures typically include restrictions on construction 

activities in specific areas during the breeding/nesting seasons and application of best management

practices to minimize run-off and erosion from construction sites. Mitigation measures may also include 

post-construction measures such as restoration activities or management of the existing special 

communities adjacent to the railway section.

3.20 Threatened and Endangered Species

This evaluation includes threatened and endangered species listed by the USFWS, consideration of statelisted threatened and endangered species as well as critical habitats in which these species may be found. 

3.20.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to threatened and endangered species includes the ESA of 1973, 

administered by USFWS, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (as amended) (MBTA), the PittmanRobertson Act of 1937, the Wilderness Act of 1964 (WA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

of 1940 (as amended) (BGEPA). In addition, state-listed species are regulated by the Illinois Endangered 

Species Protection Act (520 ILCS 10), administered by the Illinois DNR as advised by the Illinois 

Endangered Species Protection Board; by the Indiana Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation 

(IC 14-22-34) administered by the Indiana DNR and by the Natural Resource and Environmental 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 233

Protection Acts of 1994 (Act 451, Part 365 Endangered Species Protection) administered by the Michigan 

DNR. Also in 2009, the Michigan DNR began the process of identifying key wildlife, called featured 

species, that are highly valued, limited by habitat and have been selected for management. Threatened and 

endangered species were evaluated in accordance with FRA’s Environmental Procedures Section 

14(n)(7).

The ESA defines endangered species as those that are “in danger of extinction within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant portion of [their] range,” and defines threatened species as “those 

animals and plants likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their ranges” (16 USC 1531 et seq.).

The USFWS website provides information on federally listed threatened and endangered species and 

designated critical habitats. The Illinois DNR, Indiana DNR, and Michigan DNR websites also provide 

data relating to state-listed threatened and endangered species.

3.20.2 Affected Environment

The compiled data for federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species were reviewed to 

describe the affected environment. Although the presence or absence of these species along the Area of 

Analysis in Illinois, Indiana and portions of Michigan have been previously documented, field surveys 

and coordination with each state resource agency would take place during Tier 2 NEPA analysis to verify 

the presence of state listed species. Likewise, the presence or absence of federally listed threatened and 

endangered species is not known at this time and field surveys and coordination with the USFWS would 

take place during Tier 2 NEPA analysis, when more specific project limits would be identified, specific 

impact areas will be determined, and the potential for avoidance or minimization of impacts on any 

species that may be present. 

3.20.2.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

USFWS lists 19 threatened or endangered species that occur, or have the potential of occurring, in the 

specific counties of the Area of Analysis, as shown in Table 3-35.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

234 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-35: Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List

Common Name Scientific name Habitat

Federal 

Status County

Illinois

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Lakeshore beaches E Cook

Northern long-eared 

bat

Myotis septentrionalis Hibernation occurs in caves 

and mines – swarms in 

surrounding wooded areas in 

autumn. Roosts and forages in 

upland forests during late 

spring and summer

E 

(proposed 

for listing)

Cook

Eastern massasauga Sistrurus catenatus fens, sedge meadows, 

peatlands, wet prairies, open 

woodlands, and shrublands

C Cook

Hine's emerald 

dragonflya

Somatochlora hineana Spring fed wetlands, wet 

meadows and marshes E Cook

Eastern prairie 

fringed orchid

Platanthera 

leucophaea

Moderate to high quality 

wetlands, sedge meadow, 

marsh, and mesic to wet prairie

T Cook

Leafy-prairie clover Dalea foliosa Prairie remnants on thin soil 

over limestone E Cook

Prairie bush clover Lespedeza 

leptostachya

Dry to mesic prairies with 

gravelly soil T Cook

Mead's milkweed Asclepias meadii Late successional tallgrass 

prairie, tallgrass prairie 

converted to hay meadow, and 

glades or barrens with thin soil

T Cook

Rufa Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa Lakeshore beaches, large 

wetlands T Cook

Indiana

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Hibernation occurs in caves 

and mines. Summer habitat 

occurs in wooded stream 

corridors and in bottomland & 

upland forests & woods.

E LaPorte, Lake, 

Porter

Northern long-eared 

bat

Myotis septentrionalis Hibernation occurs in caves 

and mines – swarms in 

surrounding wooded areas in 

autumn. Roosts and forages in 

upland forests during late 

spring and summer

E 

(proposed 

for listing)

LaPorte, Lake, 

Porter
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 235

Common Name Scientific name Habitat

Federal 

Status County

Eastern massasauga Sistrurus catenatus fens, sedge meadows, 

peatlands, wet prairies, open 

woodlands, and shrublands

C LaPorte & Porter

Mitchell's satyr 

butterfly

Neonympha mitchellii 

mitchellii

Fens E LaPorte

Mead's milkweed Asclepias meadii Late successional tallgrass 

prairie, tallgrass prairie 

converted to hay meadow, and 

glades or barrens with thin soil

T Lake

Karner blue butterfly Lycaeides melissa 

samuelis

Pine barrens and oak 

savannas on sandy soils and 

containing wild lupines

E Lake & Porter

Pitcher's thistle Cirsium pitcheri Lakeshores; stabilized dunes 

and blowout areas T Lake & Porter

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Lakeshore beaches E Porter

Rufa Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa Lakeshore beaches, large 

wetlands T LaPorte, Lake, Porter

Michigan

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Hibernation occurs in caves 

and mines. Summer habitat 

occurs in wooded stream 

corridors and in bottomland & 

upland forests & woods.

E

Berrien, Calhoun, 

Cass, Jackson,

Kalamazoo, 

Oakland, 

Washtenaw, 

Wayne

Northern long-eared 

bat

Myotis septentrionalis Hibernation occurs in caves 

and mines – swarms in 

surrounding wooded areas in 

autumn. Roosts and forages in 

upland forests during late 

spring and summer

E 

(proposed 

for listing)

Berrien, Calhoun, 

Cass, Jackson, 

Kalamazoo, 

Oakland, 

Washtenaw, 

Wayne

Eastern massasauga Sistrurus catenatus fens, sedge meadows, 

peatlands, wet prairies, open 

woodlands, and shrublands C

Berrien, 

Kalamazoo, 

Calhoun, Cass, 

Jackson, Oakland, 

Washtenaw, 

Wayne

Mitchell's satyr 

butterfly

Neonympha mitchellii 

mitchellii

Fens

E

Berrien, Cass, 

Jackson, 

Kalamazoo, 

Washtenaw

Poweshiek 

skipperling

Oarisma poweshiek Wet prairie and fens C Jackson, Oakland, 

Washtenaw
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

236 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Common Name Scientific name Habitat

Federal 

Status County

Eastern prairie 

fringed orchid

Platanthera 

leucophaea

Moderate to high quality 

wetlands, sedge meadow, 

marsh, and mesic to wet prairie

T Wayne

Rufa Red Knot Calidris canutus rufa Lakeshore beaches, large 

wetlands T

Berrien, 

Van Buren, 

Wayne

Northern riffleshell Epioblasma torulosa 

rangiana

Large streams and small rivers

in firm sand of riffle areas; also 

occurs in Lake Erie

E Wayne

Rayed Bean Mussel Villosa fabalis Smaller, headwater creeks, but 

they are sometimes found in 

large rivers

E Jackson, Wayne

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Lakeshore beaches E Berrien

Pitcher's thistle Cirsium pitcheri Lakeshores; stabilized dunes 

and blowout areas T Berrien

Small whorled 

pogonia

Isotria medeoloides Dry woodland; upland sites in 

mixed forests (second or third 

growth stage)

T Berrien

Copperbelly water 

snake

Nerodia erythrogaster 

neglecta

Wooded and permanently wet 

areas such as oxbows, 

sloughs, brushy ditches and 

floodplain woods

T Calhoun, Cass

Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra

Small to medium-sized creeks 

in areas with a swift current 

and some larger rivers

E Washtenaw

Source: USFWS 2013, Endangered Species, Illinois County Distribution, Federally Endangered, Threatened, and 

Candidate Species, http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/illinois-cty.html.

Notes:

E = Endangered, T = Threatened, C = Candidate a Designated Critical Habitat (Hine’s emerald dragonfly) – Calcareous (high in calcium carbonate) spring-fed 

marshes and sedge meadows overlaying dolomite bedrock, along and near the Des Plaines River and the 

Calumet Sag Channel in Cook, DuPage, and Will Counties, Illinois.

Although the species listed above have the potential to occur in various suitable habitats in the Area of 

Analysis, their actual presence or absence has not been determined in this Tier 1 study. However, the 

natural areas within the Area of Analysis as listed in Table 3-33 in Section 3.19 (Natural Habitat and 

Wildlife) provide the habitat types that are known to have the potential for suitable habitat for federally 

listed threatened or endangered species.

Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and state resource agencies would be initiated after 

design details of the Selected Program Alternative are known during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 237

3.20.2.2 State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

There are also threatened and endangered species listed for each state that occur or have the potential of 

occurring in the specific areas of analysis as shown in Appendix J.

Illinois

There are 44 threatened and 69 endangered state species listed in Cook County, Illinois, as shown in the 

table included in Appendix J. However, based on the Illinois Department of Natural Resources’ Natural 

Heritage Database information provided by IDOT BDE, there are only one endangered species and two 

threatened species within the Area of Analysis.

As with the federal list, the state species listed per county have the potential to occur in various suitable 

habitats in the Area of Analysis, however their presence or absence has not specifically been determined 

in this Tier 1 study. During Tier 2 NEPA analysis, field surveys at various locations in and around 

proposed rail ballast and track improvements would be conducted to better understand the potential 

impacts to the state endangered (E), threatened (T), or special concern (SC) species and their habitats. 

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

structure, and number of species impacted and the loss of suitable habitat. 

Indiana

In Indiana, GIS data from the Indiana Natural Heritage Center, Indiana DNR was utilized to identify 

various recorded state threatened and endangered species observed within the Area of Analysis, as well as 

the areas in which they have been observed. Data was based on field observations conducted at various 

times. This data is included in the tables in Appendix J. The data indicates that there are 147 state-listed 

animal, plant and insect species within the Area of Analysis. Many of these are located in the natural 

areas listed in Section 3.19 (Natural Habitat and Wildlife). 

Michigan

There are 360 state-listed species in the Michigan counties within the Area of Analysis based on the 

Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI), a cooperative program between Michigan State University 

Extension and Michigan DNR. A detailed list is in Appendix J. The Kalamazoo to Dearborn EA indicated 

that there are potentially seven animal species and 22 plant species listed as threatened, endangered or 

species of concern that are known to be within the EA’s area of analysis.

3.20.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not occur. Impacts on federally or 

state-listed threatened or endangered species would not occur beyond those that could occur due to other 

projects.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

238 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.20.4 Impacts of the Build Alternatives

The construction activities of the Build Alternatives including tree and brush clearing, placement of fill 

material for additional track and sidings, culvert replacement or extensions, and bridge replacement or 

additions—could have the potential to impact terrestrial and aquatic natural habitats of state or federally 

listed threatened or endangered species, if present in the Area of Analysis. Tree and brush clearing would 

be necessary to construct additional track and embankment, and to improve site distance at crossings for 

vehicle and train traffic. This clearing would impact natural habitats and may consequently impact 

threatened or endangered species that inhabit those areas. 

There are potential effects on state and federally listed species that may occur from the increase in noise 

and vibration. More detailed investigations would be performed in Tier 2 NEPA analysis when train 

speed, noise, and vibration can be more accurately calculated, and when field surveys identifying the 

presence or absence of listed species can be performed. The potential for impacts from erosion and 

sedimentation, pollutant runoff and spills, and temporary construction impacts would also be further 

analyzed in Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

The following sections describe the potential impacts specific to the various Build Alternative routes.

3.20.4.1 Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The Build Alternatives have the potential to impact state listed endangered, threatened or special concern 

plant species and/or result in the loss of plant habitat. The Corridor can be a conduit for the spread of 

invasive species because seeds can easily disperse along the open spaces of the corridor and be carried 

further as the air currents draft behind the train traffic. Such effects are already occurring in the existing 

corridors of the Build Alternatives so dispersal is not likely to increase substantially with added train 

traffic. This would be documented and addressed in cooperation with state natural resource agencies 

during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

Species that may be present along the area of Analysis have already been exposed to train traffic in 

varying degrees. The potential for train collisions and the potential effects of noise and vibration on 

threatened and endangered species will be further analyzed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis in coordination 

with state resource agencies.

Michigan

The established route through Michigan is the same for all Build Alternatives. Therefore only the existing 

railroad right of way, including track, stations, and the maintenance facility in Michigan needs to be 

evaluated for potential impacts to state and federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal 

species.

A review of the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) Natural Heritage Database indicated that 

there are 360 state-listed plant and animal species within the nine Michigan counties within the Area of 

Analysis. A detailed list of these state listed species can be found in Appendix J. A phase one (office) 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 239

review of the project was completed which refined these records and the potential for them to exist within 

the project corridor. A total of 117 known records occur within 0.5 mile of the existing railroad tracks in 

Michigan. Based on a review of these individual records, there will probably be impacts to state listed 

species based on the proposed scope of work. However during the Tier 2 NEPA analysis, these locations 

will need phase two (field survey) reviews to evaluate the potential for impacts to both listed species and 

their habitats.

A review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services threatened and endangered species county list indicates 

that there are 14 federally listed plant and animal species occurring in the nine Michigan Counties within 

the Area of Analysis. These species and their preferred habitats are shown in Table 3-35. A phase one 

review of the project was completed which refined these records and the potential for them to exist within 

the project corridor. Based on this review, the list of potential species in the corridor dropped to one. Due 

to the location of this species and the lack of suitable habitat within the project corridor in that area, it 

should not be impacted by the propose improvements. This may require that avoidance and mitigation 

strategies are implemented where species exist within or adjacent to the railway.

Analysis in the Tier 2 document will detail the phase one review including: species location, potential 

impacts, viability of the records and potential for suitable habitat at each location. Based on that 

information, phase two surveys will be required to determine the presence/absence of listed species 

adjacent to the railroad. If species are present, the level of impact and potential mitigation requirements to 

complete the proposed work will also be determined. If state or federally listed species would be impacted 

then, coordination with the MDNR and USFWS would be required. This coordination would determine 

the need for a MDNR Endangered Species Permit and/or the requirement for Informal/Formal Section 7 

Consultation with the USFWS.

3.20.4.2 Route 2 Impacts

Illinois

Route 2 in Illinois would cross the South Branch of the Chicago River at the northern end of the Illinois 

portion of the Area of Analysis and the Calumet River at the southern end. In addition Route 2 would 

potentially impact wetlands associated with rivers (see Table 3-32 for a list of major rivers). However, all 

of these are in an urban area and none contain suitable habitat for the seven Cook County federally listed 

species. Therefore, no impacts on federally-listed species are anticipated to occur. An analysis of the 

state-listed species information indicates that habitat where the banded killifish and peregrine falcon have 

been found may be directly impacted by Route 2. Banded killifish habitat is located near the Calumet 

River crossing and near the South Branch of Chicago River. Peregrine falcon habitat is located 

immediately north of the Calumet River crossing.

Indiana

In Indiana there are a number of natural areas within the Area of Analysis for Route 2 that potentially 

provide suitable habitat for federal and state and threatened species as listed in the tables in Appendix J. 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

240 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The habitat areas where species have been observed include the Clark and Pine Nature Preserve, Pine 

Station Nature Preserve, various sections of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and Furnessville 

Woods. Species have also been observed along the railroad right of way and other miscellaneous 

locations. It should be noted that a substantial portion of this route travels through the Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore where some right of way acquisition is expected that could impact federal or state 

listed species. The Build Alternative would also cross a number of rivers which are potentially suitable 

habitat for the listed species. However it is anticipated that no new bridge structures would be required 

over the suitable habitat river corridors and therefore no direct or adverse impacts on those species would 

occur in these river corridors.

3.20.4.3 Route 4 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 4 is the same as Route 2 so impacts are the same as those discussed above for Route 2.

Indiana

In Indiana, Route 4 is almost identical to Route 2. Impacts would be similar as those for Route 2 with the 

difference being that there is less area impacted in the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and the portion 

of high quality natural area within the park is less, resulting in potentially fewer impacts to listed species.

3.20.4.4 Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois, Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 are the same as Route 2 so impacts are the same as those 

discussed above for Route 2.

Indiana

In Indiana there are a number of natural areas within the Area of Analysis for Route 5 that provide 

potentially suitable habitat for federal and state threatened species as listed in the tables in Appendix J. 

The habitat areas where these species have been observed include the Clark and Pine Nature Preserve, 

Pine Station Nature Preserve, Clarke Junction West Site, Clarke and Pine General. Refractories Addition 

Site, various sections of the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and Washington Park. Species have also 

been observed along the railroad right of way and other miscellaneous locations. There would be little to 

no anticipated disturbance along the portion of the route that travels through the Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore and Washington Park (Porter to Michigan City) and therefore any listed species are not 

expected to be impacted. Route 5 Option 1 and Option 2 would cross a number of rivers which are 

potentially suitable habitat for the listed species (see Table 3-32 for a list of major rivers in the Area of 

Analysis). Any work in the rivers or alterations to any bridge crossings may affect the listed potential 

species. Identification of affected species and potential impacts will be determined in in Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 241

3.20.4.5 Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 Impacts

Illinois

In Illinois Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 would cross the South Branch of the Chicago River and the 

Little Calumet River. However these rivers are not suitable habitat for any of the seven federally-listed 

species with the potential to occur in Cook County. However, there is potential for the remnant prairie 

containing native species in the Beaubien Woods Forest Preserve and the dry to mesic, wet to mesic, and 

wet prairies in the Burnham Prairie Nature Preserve may potentially provide suitable habitat for the 

Eastern Massasauga (Sistrurus catenatus), Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (Platanthera leucophaea), 

Leafy Prairie Clover (Dalea foliosa), and the Prairie Bush Clover (Lespedeza leptostachya). Impacts in 

these locations would be linear and minimal, rather than fragmenting large parcels.

The habitat where the state-listed banded killifish has been found in the Area of Analysis for Route 9 is 

located where Route 9 crosses the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Little Calumet River. The 

state-listed yellow-crowned night-heron is located in the Burnham Prairie Nature Preserve.

Indiana

In Indiana the habitat areas in which listed species have been observed include the Gibson Woods Nature 

Preserve, Tolleston Ridges Nature Preserve, Ivanhoe South, various sections of the Indiana Dunes 

National Lakeshore, and Washington Park. Species have also been observed along the railroad right of 

way. Detailed listing of species is included in the tables in Appendix J. There is little to no construction 

anticipated along the portion of the route that travels through the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and 

Washington Park (Porter to Michigan City) and therefore any listed species’ habitats are not expected to 

be impacted. Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2 cross a number of rivers which are potentially suitable 

habitat for the listed species (see Table 3-32 for a list of major rivers in the Area of Analysis). Any work 

in the rivers or alterations to any bridge crossings may affect the listed potential species. Identification of 

affected species and potential impacts would be determined in in Tier 2 NEPA analysis. There is no 

substantial difference between the impacts of Route 9 Option 1 and Option 2.

3.20.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Section 7 consultation (see Section 3.25.4.4) with USFWS would be conducted during Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis for the Selected Program Alternative to determine potential impacts to the federal listed species 

and their habitat. If it is determined that the Build Alternatives could have the potential to affect a 

federally listed species, a biological assessment would be prepared to determine the Build Alternative’s 

potential effect on one or more species, pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. If a potential impact to a 

federally listed species is identified, formal consultation is required with USFWS, and USFWS would 

prepare a biological opinion on whether the proposed activity would adversely affect (jeopardize the 

continued existence of) a listed species. Modifications to avoid or minimize impacts, or mitigation 

measures for unavoidable adverse impacts would be determined as part of the formal consultation. 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

242 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Potential impacts on state-listed threatened and endangered species would be coordinated with the Illinois 

DNR, Indiana DNR, and Michigan DNR, as appropriate, during Tier 2 NEPA analysis. Database 

information regarding species locations and habitat requirements would be a basis for conducting field 

surveys to determine existence of state-listed species in the Area of Analysis. During Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis, avoidance or minimization of impacts would be identified and be assessed, and unavoidable 

impacts on state-listed species would be coordinated with the state agencies to determine potential 

mitigation measures.

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 

NEPA analysis after design details of the Selected Program Alternative are known.

During design, areas requiring protection would be shown 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 design changes or different construction techniques that 

minimize the overall impact to the species.

3.21 Energy Use and Climate Change

This resource includes the use of fuel and the relative energy use for various modes of transportation. 

Climate change refers to the climate’s possible relationship to changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions.

3.21.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This assessment evaluates potential commitments of energy resources likely to be involved in the 

Program and any potential energy conservation likely to reduce the use of petroleum or natural gas, 

consistent with the policy outlined in Executive Order 12185, Conservation of Petroleum and Natural Gas 

(44 FR 75093). The current regulatory framework affecting greenhouse gases includes the Clean Air Act 

of 1970 (as amended) and CEQ’s NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

3.21.1.1 Data Collection and Government Agency Coordination

Transportation model data were collected from IDOT, INDOT, and MDOT, as well as from regional 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Councils of Governments, and are used in this analysis for 

passenger rail ridership forecast.

Relevant collected transportation data were reviewed, and a general discussion was prepared on the 

relative efficiencies of the various transportation modes used between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac and 

intermediate points in relation to energy consumption and GHG emissions. A more detailed discussion of 

specific modes of transportation within the Corridor is provided in Section 3.2 (Transportation) and a 

more detailed discussion of emissions is provided in Section 3.9 (Air Quality).
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 243

3.21.1.2 Evaluation of Potential Impacts and Potential Mitigation

The potential effects of the Program on energy use were evaluated based on an assessment of increased 

energy use from operation of the train under each alternative, and reductions in energy use associated 

with the anticipated travel mode shift from planes, buses, and private automobiles to the rail system. 

Similar to the air quality impacts analysis, potential impacts on climate included the evaluation of the 

increases in CO2 emissions from operation of the train under each Alternative, and CO2 emission 

reductions associated with the anticipated travel mode shift from planes, buses, and private automobiles to 

the rail system.

3.21.2 Affected Environment

All transportation modes, including new passenger rail service, require various forms of energy resources 

and each of these resources have different implications on energy use and climate change. According to 

the U.S. Department of Energy, typical passenger trains are 31 percent more energy efficient than 

automobiles, and 14 percent more energy efficient than planes based on average British Thermal Units 

(BTUs) per passenger mile, see Section 3.2 (Transportation) for more information. Therefore, diverted 

passenger trips from automobiles, buses, and trains to passenger rail can reduce energy consumption and 

reduce GHG emissions.

GHG emissions, including naturally-occurring water vapor, released into the atmosphere absorb and emit 

radiation within the thermal infrared range. Because part of this radiation is radiated back towards the 

lower atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature. This naturally-occurring 

process (known as the greenhouse effect) is essential to maintaining life on earth; however, the concern is 

that human-caused emissions of GHG may be altering this process and resulting in excess heat being 

retained in the atmosphere, contributing to additional warming of the surface. Carbon dioxide (CO2)

emissions, like those produced by automobiles, are key contributors to GHG emissions.

3.21.3 Impacts of the No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be built, and impacts on energy

use and climate change would not occur beyond those that could occur due to other projects. Under the 

No Build Alternative, passenger train service would not be as readily available, resulting in the continued 

reliance on automobiles, buses, and planes for transportation between Chicago and Detroit. With the 

continued trend of increasing VMT within the Area of Analysis, energy consumption and GHG emissions

related to transportation would likely continue to steadily increase under the No-Build Alternative.

3.21.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives

Energy use under each of the Build Alternatives would be essentially identical as there is only a two 

percent difference in length between the shortest route (Route 2 at 304.7 miles) and the longest route 

(Route 9 at 310.2 miles).
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

244 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

With expanded passenger rail service between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac at speeds up to a maximum of 

110 mph, at ten round-trips per day, with standard-stop service to major and minor destinations in the 

Corridor, the Build Alternatives would provide a competitive transportation alternative compared to 

automobiles, planes, and buses. For example, as noted in Section 3.2, a rail trip from Chicago to 

Detroit/Pontiac under the Build Alternatives would be approximately 4.5 hours, which is about the same 

duration as an automobile trip (assuming an average speed of 65 mph and no congestion).

Energy would be consumed during construction of the Build Alternatives, but reduced energy 

consumption for transportation would be realized over the long-term. Based on a preliminary passenger 

rail forecast and an analysis of energy efficiency by mode, the Build Alternatives would provide a net 

reduction in energy consumption through diverted trips from automobiles, buses, and planes to new 

passenger rail service. The anticipated energy savings in gallons of fuel saved per year is shown in Table 

3-36.

Table 3-36: Build Alternatives – 2035 Estimated Annual Fuel Savings from Diversion of Passenger 

Vehicle, Bus, and Plan Trips (Gallons per Year)

State

Additional 

Train Fuel 

Consumption

Reduction in Fuel Consumption

Total 

Reduction in 

Fuel 

Consumption

*Net 

Change

Vehicles Buses Planes

Illinois 598,284 608,423 75,709 90,426 774,559 -176,275

Indiana 1,828,090 1,859,062 231,335 276,302 2,366,698 -538,608

Michigan 10,237,304 10,410,785 1,295,473 1,547,289 13,253,547 -3,016,243

TOTAL 12,663,678 12,878,269 1,602,517 1,914,016 16,394,803 -3,731,125

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

* A negative net change indicates that the implementation of the Build Alternative will result in an overall decrease 

in fuel consumption as the additional rail service is replacing passenger vehicle, bus, and plane trips along a 

similar route, and use less fuel per passenger then other modes of transportation.

As shown in Table 3-37 implementation of the Build Alternatives has the potential to provide substantial 

energy savings on an annual basis. In spite of increased fuel consumption in locomotives (approximately 

12.7 million gallons/year), the Build Alternatives are expected to result in reduced fuel consumption of 

approximately 16.4 million gallons for an annual reduction in fuel use within the Corridor of 

approximately 3.7 million gallons.

Based on the modal diversions in ridership forecasts, the Build Alternatives would decrease automobile 

traffic by approximately 466.7 million passenger-miles per year and would reduce bus travel by 

approximately 51.8 million passenger-miles per year.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 245

As shown in Table 3-37, the Build Alternatives would result in a decrease in emissions of CO2, the main 

GHG. The net decrease in CO2 emissions is calculated to be approximately 10,284 tons/year.

Table 3-37: Build Alternatives – 2035 Estimated Changes in CO2 Emissions from Diversion of 

Passenger Vehicle, Bus, and Plane Trips (Tons per Year)

Pollutant

Additional 

Train 

Emissions

Reduction in Emissions

Total 

Emission 

Reduction

*Net 

Change

Vehicles Buses Planes

CO2 141,687.56 113,850.34 17,929.77 20,190.96 151,971.06 -10,283.51

Note: totals may not add due to rounding.

* A negative net change indicates that the implementation of the Build Alternative will result in an overall decrease 

in emissions as the additional rail service is replacing passenger vehicle, bus, and plane trips along a similar 

route, and produce fewer emissions per passenger then other modes of transportation.

Detailed emission calculations and fuel consumption information can be found in Appendix G.

3.21.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

As shown in Table 3-36, the Program is anticipated to result in an annual reduction in fuel use within the 

Corridor of approximately 3.7 million gallons. In addition, based on calculated emissions of CO2, the 

Program is anticipated to have beneficial effects on climate change due to a decrease in CO2 emissions 

and an overall reduction of energy use. Therefore, mitigation is not expected to be required for energy use 

and climate change due to the expected reductions in fuel use resulting from diverted trips from other 

modes of transportation within the Corridor. A final assessment of any mitigation requirements would be 

completed in the Tier 2 NEPA analysis once the Selected Program Alternative is identified.

3.22 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments involve the use or destruction of a specific resource (for example, energy or 

natural resources such as water, minerals, or timber) that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time 

frame. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be 

restored as a result of the action (for example, extinction of a threatened or endangered species or 

disturbance of a cultural site).

3.22.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Irreversible and irretrievable impacts were evaluated in accordance with NEPA (42 USC 4332(C)(v)); 

guidelines published by CEQ on implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.16); and FRA’s Environmental 

Procedures Section 14(n)(10), (11) and (22).

Data gathered from the review of all applicable resources analyzed in the Tier 1 EIS were reviewed, 

notably the consumption of energy (as derived from the assessment of air pollutants generated from the 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

246 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

operation of the proposed passenger trains between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac) and natural resources 

(as derived from the assessment of water resources, topography, geology, and soils, natural habitats and 

wildlife, wetlands, and threatened and endangered species). Additionally, land use anticipated to be 

converted to transportation improvements (rail and stations) was reviewed.

3.22.2 Affected Environment 

The maps in Appendix D show various resources within the Area of Analysis, portions of which may be 

disturbed or eliminated, such as farmland, parkland, streams, wetlands, woodlands, wildlife habitat, and 

cultural resources.

Other resources that would not originate directly within the Area of Analysis and would most likely need 

to be acquired from outside the Area of Analysis may include materials such as steel, petroleum, natural 

gas, concrete materials, ballast rock, and wood. The locations of these resources is not ascertainable at 

this time, but would be considered during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

3.22.3 Impacts of No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be made, and new commitments 

of resources would not occur beyond those that could occur related to other projects in the Corridor. Also, 

energy resources would continue to be consumed by automobiles, busses, and airplanes traveling between 

Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac at a slightly higher rate than with the Build Alternatives.

3.22.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives

Construction of the Build Alternatives would result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

land where additional right of way is needed. The land would be converted from its current condition to a 

railroad grade and track. Construction materials would consist largely of steel, concrete, ballast rock, and 

wood. Whereas these materials would be largely irretrievable when used, these resources are not in short 

supply and many of the materials could be recycled for other projects when they no longer meet the 

design needs for passenger rail service.

Several energy resources would be committed to the Program, including petroleum, natural gas, electrical, 

and manpower expenditures for construction, operation, and maintenance. These resources are 

irretrievable.

In addition to the above resources commitments, federal and state financial resources would be 

irreversibly and irretrievably committed to the Program for planning and public review, development of 

Tier 2 NEPA analysis and documentation, design, construction, operation, and maintenance. These 

financial resources would no longer be available for other federal or state projects.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 247

3.22.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

No mitigation measures are proposed at this time. Tier 2 NEPA analyses would assess the extent of 

irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources and to determine if mitigation would be required.

3.23 Short-term Use vs. Long-term Productivity of the Environment

Balancing the relationship between short-term impacts and long-term productivity is an important 

consideration in determining the Program’s feasibility. The following sections discuss short-term impacts 

to and use of resources, and long-term effects and benefits/losses that could be expected under the No 

Build and Build Alternatives.

3.23.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Short-term impacts to and use of resources in relation to long-term productivity were evaluated in 

accordance with NEPA (42 USC 4332(C)(iv)); guidelines published by CEQ on implementing NEPA (40 

CFR 1502.16); and FRA’s Environmental Procedures Section (14)(n)(22). Data were gathered from the 

review of construction impacts and all applicable resources analyzed in this Tier 1 EIS. This analysis 

qualitatively discusses the relationship between short-term impacts to and use of resources, and the longterm benefits and productivity of the environment.

3.23.2 Affected Environment

Various resources within the Area of Analysis are shown in the maps in Appendix D.

3.23.3 Impacts of No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program would not be implemented and impacts would not occur 

beyond those that could occur due to other projects.

3.23.3.1 Short-Term Impacts

Construction of planned projects beyond the proposed Program improvements that would not be 

implemented could contribute to potential short-term construction impacts related to the following:

• Hazardous materials and waste disposal 

• Water quality (erosion and sedimentation, and/or potential fuel and lubricant spills)

• Air quality (equipment emissions and fugitive dust)

• Noise and vibration (construction equipment)

• Property access

• Traffic and pedestrian delays and detours
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

248 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

In addition, short-term employment, use of materials to construct planned projects not in the Program, and 

purchases of goods and services generated by construction could create a short-term increase in the local 

economy that would end once the construction phase is completed.

3.23.3.2 Long-Term Benefits

The introduction of additional passenger rail service in the Chicago to Detroit/Pontiac Corridor would 

contribute to modest improvements in the transportation network, socioeconomic conditions, and at-grade 

crossing safety. Improved air quality and energy efficiency are also anticipated.

3.23.3.3 Long-Term Losses/Impacts

Long-term adverse impacts on the social and natural environment are expected to be minimal because 

most of the construction would be contained within existing right of way. Long-term productivity could 

be minimally affected with some reduction in farmland, slight increases in noise and vibration impacts on 

sensitive receptors, and increased collision impacts with wildlife.

However, traffic congestion could increase, and energy resources may continue to be consumed by other 

modes of transportation between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac, at a slightly higher rate than with the Build 

Alternatives. This, in turn, could result in increased pollutant emissions and decreased air quality.

3.23.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives

Implementation of the Build Alternatives would result in the short-term impacts and use of resources as 

described below, while increasing the long-term benefits and productivity of passenger rail transportation,

land use, and economic systems.

3.23.4.1 Short-Term Effects

The Build Alternatives would contribute to short-term construction impacts similar to those of the No 

Build Alternative, discussed above, but to a greater extent because of a longer corridor and additional 

right of way. In addition, short-term employment, use of materials to construct Program improvements, 

and purchases of goods and services generated by construction could create a short-term increase in the 

local economy that would end once the construction phase is completed.

3.23.4.2 Long-Term Benefits

The addition and enhancement of passenger rail service in the Corridor would contribute to improvements 

in the transportation network and access within the region by providing competitive passenger rail service 

that would meet the needs of increased future travel demand and more efficient travel between major 

urban centers.

A reduction in air pollution emissions would occur as a result of passenger rail service replacing 

automobile, bus, and plane trips, and decreased congestion on local streets and highways. Improved 

accessibility within the region would also result in economic benefits through employment opportunities 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 249

and the potential for development and increased economic activity around station areas. Other long-term 

benefits would include improvements in at-grade crossing safety and providing an accessible alternative 

mode of transportation for minority, low-income, elderly, and disabled populations.

3.23.4.3 Long-Term Losses/Effects

Although the Build Alternatives would result in some permanent impacts to waterways, water bodies, 

wetlands, floodplains, plant communities, natural habitat, and wildlife, coordination with resource 

agencies would be conducted to minimize impacts through appropriate mitigation measures. Other longterm losses/effects on the productivity of the environment would include the following: 

• Removal of existing farmland from productivity

• Reduction of the local tax base as a result of acquiring farmland, commercial, and industrial property 

for additional railroad right of way

• Potential economic impacts on other modes of public transportation

• Potential acquisition of park land, recreation land, and natural areas

• Noise and vibration impacts on sensitive receptors

• Collision impacts on wildlife

These losses would be further defined during Tier 2 NEPA analysis.

With the initial implementation phase, there would also be less long-term benefits and productivity. As 

the Program improvements are extended, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase with 

subsequent implementation phases, more operational-related impacts would occur, and more energy and 

resources would be required. However, there would be more long-term benefits and productivity within or 

adjacent to the Area of Analysis.

3.23.5 Potential Mitigation Measures 

The potential mitigation measures for short-term and long-term impacts are discussed in the previous 

sections for each respective resource in this chapter.

3.24 Indirect and Cumulative Effects

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA define indirect effects as those that are caused by the action and are 

later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may 

include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, 

population density or growth rate, and related effects on air, water, and other natural systems, including

ecosystems (40 CFR 1508.8(b)).

CEQ regulations define cumulative effects as “the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

250 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). Thus, cumulative effects include the direct and indirect impacts 

of a project together with the impacts from reasonably foreseeable future actions of other projects.

Railroad corridors resulted in direct and indirect impacts on the environment in the Midwest commencing 

in the mid-1800s. However, for this analysis, the focus on past actions is limited to approximately the last 

20 years. The time frame for future actions considered is commensurate with the time frame of full 

implementation, estimated to be the year 2040, or information available in current long-range 

transportation plans.

Direct and indirect impacts of the Program, as well as other past, current, or reasonably foreseeable 

regional and state-wide projects, are relevant for review of cumulative effects. Other local projects not 

related to the Corridor improvements could also contribute to cumulative effects on a resource.

3.24.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The methodology for conducting the review and evaluation of indirect and cumulative effects is in 

accordance with federal regulations and guidelines, including NEPA, and CEQ guidelines implementing 

NEPA.

Data from the following sources was used during review of the potential indirect and cumulative impacts 

on the human and natural environment as a result of the Program:

• Identification of other major transportation projects in the Area of Analysis through planning 

documents, including state transportation improvement plans, the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, 

state long-range transportation plans, comprehensive plans developed by regional MPOs and COGs

• Land use information

• Internet sources, such as agency or news websites

• Input from government agencies as part of the scoping process 

Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts are evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.8(b). The potential for other development 

or other changes to the existing land use or environment potentially induced by the Program was assessed. 

The potential indirect impacts include further development of land in the vicinity of the Area of Analysis 

and at rail station locations. Changes in traffic circulation could also modify or require the construction of 

new transportation infrastructure that could cause indirect impacts on the human and natural environment.

The direct impacts on each resource were considered, and the likelihood of the Program to induce 

additional indirect changes was considered.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 251

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects with respect to the Program will be evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.7, 

CEQ guidance on assessing cumulative effects (CEQ, January 1997). Projects that could incrementally 

affect the existing environment along with the Program were characterized. The information acquired for 

Tier 1 NEPA analysis for cumulative effects included the major transportation projects. Coordination with 

planning agencies to acquire specific information about local projects for consideration would occur 

during Tier 2 NEPA analysis. The effects of past actions were included as part of the existing or baseline 

condition for each resource relevant to the analysis.

Resources on which the Program would have no direct or indirect impact are not considered in the 

cumulative effects analysis. Resources will be considered within a resource-appropriate Area of Analysis 

(for example, water resources were considered within a watershed), and the area that would be impacted 

directly and indirectly varies among different resources. Resources to be considered in the Tier 2 

cumulative effects analyses would include all of the social, economic and environmental topics included 

in the NEPA analyses

3.24.2 Affected Environment

Rail projects associated with indirect or cumulative impacts relative to the Build Alternatives include 

other proposed improvements that are part of the Midwest Regional Rail System initiative. Of the 

MWRRS corridors with a terminus in Chicago, currently funded passenger rail projects that are under 

development at various stages of planning and implementation include Chicago to Omaha; Chicago to St. 

Louis; and Chicago to Iowa City.

Other railroad projects in the Area of Analysis include the implementation of other higher-speed intercity 

passenger rail projects. See Figure 1-2 in Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need) to see a map of the MWRRS

routes. Final Design/Construction and Preliminary Engineering/NEPA projects in Illinois, Indiana, and 

Michigan, are presented in Table 3-38.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

252 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3-38: Other Railroad Projects within the Area of Analysis

State Project Name Description

Illinois

Midwest Train Equipment Fleet

This project would provide new rolling stock for the Midwest states 

of Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri.

Chicago Terminal Limits for the 

Midwest Regional Rail System

This project would provide final design and construction for the 

Quad Cities (the terminal station would be in Moline), Milwaukee, 

and Omaha corridors as well as preliminary design and NEPA 

work for the St. Louis, Omaha and Milwaukee corridors.

Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed 

Rail Corridor

This project would complete the first phase of ground work for the 

high-speed rail corridor; it includes final design, rehabilitation and 

construction of existing sidings, new sidings, and development of 

a second main line to accommodate train meet points associated 

with the high-speed rail corridor as well as accompanying signal, 

bridge, and crossing work.

Chicago Union Station Master Plan

The study includes short, medium, and long-term opportunities to 

assist Amtrak, Metra, and other station stakeholders in preparing 

for capacity and station building improvements. Capacity 

improvements that are suggested to accommodate increased 

intercity passenger rail frequencies are included in the mediumterm station improvement ideas and are currently unfunded. 116

The Chicago Region 

Environmental and Transportation 

Efficiency (CREATE) Program’s 

Englewood Flyover

The CREATE program is focused on investing in critically needed 

improvements to increase the efficiency of the region’s passenger 

and freight rail infrastructure in the Chicago area.117

Indiana 

Indiana Gateway Project

This project consists of new crossovers, additional track to reduce 

congestion for existing passenger and NS freight service.

West Lake Corridor Study

NICTD published the West Lake Corridor Study in March of 2011, 

which identified and evaluated alternatives to serve the broader 

portions of Lake and Porter Counties with commuter service to 

downtown Chicago. The study concluded that two separate 

commuter rail lines from Valparaiso, Indiana in Porter County and 

Lowell, Indiana in Lake County to Chicago was the most desirable 

alternative. 118

 

116 Chicago Department of Transportation. Chicago Union Station Master Plan Study: Final Report. May 2012. 117 http://www.createprogram.org. Accessed September 1, 2013. 118 Indiana State Rail Plan. November 2011. http://www.in.gov/indot/files/Rail_JanFinal_Report_011712.pdf.

Accessed September 2, 2013.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 253

State Project Name Description

Michigan

Dearborn to Kalamazoo

This project includes track upgrades that would provide up to 110 

mph speeds between Kalamazoo and Dearborn, Michigan thereby 

providing continual 110 mph service between Porter, Indiana and 

Dearborn, Michigan.

New Passenger Stations

New passenger rail stations located at Troy-Birmingham, 

Dearborn, and Ann Arbor.

Refurbished Passenger Stations Battle Creek

Woodward Avenue Rapid Transit

This is a study reviewing rapid transit options including commuter 

rail between Detroit and Pontiac, Michigan.

Detroit Intermodal Freight Terminal 

(DIFT)

This project includes several improvements to intermodal 

operations in southwest Detroit at the Livernois-Junction Yard, 

and 15 nearby rail locations. 

Ann Arbor to Detroit Regional Rail

This project is a 38-mile route that proposes commuter rail service 

between Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 

International Airport, Dearborn, and Detroit.

Washtenaw and Livingston Line 

(WALLY)

The WALLY Line is a 26-mile service extension that would offer 

commuter rail service between Ann Arbor, Michigan and Howell, 

Michigan with several intermediate stops.

Other planning, design and construction transportation projects that were considered include a planning 

project in Illinois, which consists of studying the feasibility of 220 mph high-speed express passenger 

service between Chicago and St. Louis. 

Chicago’s Metra has planned improvements to help offset the demand from the increasing population in 

northeast Illinois. Metra’s four primary projects are the following (Commuter Rail Division of the 

Regional Transportation Authority, 2012):

• STAR Line – Suburb-to-suburb commuter rail service between Joliet, Illinois, and O’Hare 

International Airport.

• SES – Commuter service in south Suburban Cook and Will counties.

• UP-NW Line – Expansion of service to eastern McHenry County and the addition of express and 

reverse-commute service to northwest Cook County.

• UP-W Line – Capacity, speed, and reliability improvements for Cook, DuPage, and Kane Counties

In addition to the aforementioned projects, Metra has initiated an Environmental Assessment and design 

of an extension of the BNSF line from Aurora to Oswego, Illinois. 

Specific major roadway improvement projects within or crossing the Area of Analysis include the 

following in the addition to the aforementioned projects. These projects are in different phases of 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

254 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

planning and construction; consequently, the availability of information on specific impacts of the 

projects varies.

• The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority is advancing a new interchange connecting Interstates 294 

and 57 on the Tri-State Tollway in the south suburbs near Harvey, Illinois

• The Illiana Corridor Project, a proposed project south of Joliet, Illinois, that would provide a direct 

connection between I-55 in Illinois and I-65 in Indiana. This project is jointly sponsored by IDOT and 

INDOT.

Additionally, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) is currently conducting the 

Woodward Avenue Rapid Transit Alternatives Analysis. The study is evaluating Bus Rapid Transit 

(BRT) options along the 27-mile long Woodward Avenue Corridor, which would parallel the existing 

intercity passenger rail service between Detroit and Pontiac, Michigan119

Major air travel improvement projects in the Corridor include the Master Plan for the Gary/Chicago 

International Airport, located in Lake County, Indiana, anticipates many improvements including a 

runway extension, road acquisition, airspace expansion, improvements to the airport passenger terminal 

and parking facilities, railroad access improvements and the potential for an additional runway. These 

improvements are required for the airport to meet minimum FAA standards. The need for a new 

passenger terminal is not imminent at this time but would be needed if the airport’s master planning 

forecasts are met. The Master Plan anticipates that these improvements will help them to tap into what 

they define as a constrained Chicago aviation market demand. One of the airport’s top priorities is to 

attract passenger traffic.120

This Tier 1 level of NEPA analysis with a 300 mile Area of Analysis, the assessment of cumulative 

effects was a qualitative evaluation of the potential for cumulative effects rather than a detailed 

quantitative analysis of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. If necessary, a more 

detailed review of potential indirect and cumulative impacts of projects would be conducted during Tier 2

analyses for individual Program improvements.

3.24.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program improvements would not be built, and no new indirect

impacts or cumulative effects are anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. The No 

Build Alternative would not provide the total improved level and quality of passenger rail service 

between Chicago and Detroit/Pontiac. The No Build Alternative would have a slight negative contribution 

 

119 2040 Regional Transportation Plan for Southeast Michigan. June 20, 2013. 

http://library.semcog.org/InmagicGenie/DocumentFolder/RTP.Adopted.6-20-13.pdf. Accessed September 11, 

2013.

120 http://www.garychicagoairport.com/masterPlan.asp
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 255

to cumulative effects on transportation by continuing the preference of personal automobiles on highways 

for travel between Detroit/Pontiac and Chicago.

3.24.4 Indirect Impacts of the Build Alternatives

Construction and operation associated with any phase of the Build Alternatives has the potential to cause 

indirect impacts. Currently there are no other development or infrastructure projects that cannot be 

advanced without the Build Alternatives. The following is a list of potential indirect impacts identified 

through evaluation of various environmental resources:

• Operation of passenger trains at speeds up to 110 mph would result in increased noise and ground 

vibration, as well as air emissions, and visual and aesthetic impacts. These direct impacts could 

potentially result in indirect impacts of reduced use of nearby parks, recreation areas, and natural 

areas. Additionally, there could be indirect impacts on wildlife.

• The improved passenger train service would reduce ridership on current transportation services, such 

as intercity bus and flight service, by offering a competitive alternative to these modes. Therefore, the 

project may indirectly impact the viability of these modes in the future.

• At-grade crossing improvements and closures could directly impact traffic patterns resulting in 

additional traffic being re-routed through nearby residential neighborhoods.

• Noise and vibration from passenger rail traffic could cause indirect impacts to cultural resources by 

affecting visitor experience for those sites that are open to the public.

• Land use and economic development could result indirectly from the construction and use of the 

suburban station in northwest Indiana as well as other potential improvements to existing stations.

• Proposed improvements to the existing stations and the new station in northwest Indiana will 

indirectly cause traffic increases in adjacent neighborhoods or business areas due to road closures or 

detours during construction. 

• Passenger rail infrastructure improvements including crossing and signal improvements, track 

upgrades and construction of a dedicated double track railroad in the SOTL may indirectly benefit

existing freight service.

At a Tier 1 NEPA level of evaluation, it is not anticipated that these impacts would be substantial; further 

evaluation of potential indirect impacts would be addressed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis when more 

details of the design and operation are known. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would 

be identified and discussed during Tier 2 NEPA analysis after design details are known, recorded in 

NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction when practical 

and possible.

3.24.5 Cumulative Effects of the Build Alternatives

The majority of projects listed in Section 3.24.2 are linear transportation projects, often occurring either in 

existing right of way or adjacent to existing right of way, which in urban and suburban areas, is land that 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

256 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

has been previously disturbed. Because drainage is often constructed parallel to transportation

improvements, it is likely that these projects would be affecting drainage and could involve impacts to 

wetlands and other waters of the U.S. In rural areas, it is likely that the other projects may be affecting 

farmland, natural areas, and wildlife habitat primarily through expansion of existing corridors.

Given that the majority of construction impacts of the Build Alternatives would be within existing right of 

way and that nearly the entire additional right of way required is adjacent to existing right of way, the 

physical impacts would be localized. Any new impacts outside of the existing track’s footprint and right

of way would be relatively narrow, linear, and distributed over a long distance (approximately 300 miles). 

As a result, the impacts to any given resource (e.g., natural, cultural, agricultural, or socioeconomic) 

within any given area (e.g., ecosystem, watershed, community) is expected to be relatively small and 

would have a negligible contribution to cumulative effect when considered with impacts from other 

projects in those areas.

When considered collectively with the projects listed in Table 3-38, the Build Alternatives would have a 

slight beneficial contribution to cumulative effects by improving overall air quality and reducing roadway 

congestion. Should construction of the Selected Program Alternative occur simultaneously with some of 

the projects in Table 3-38, existing passenger and freight rail services could see temporary increases in 

delays and congestion, but overall train and vehicular traffic would be maintained throughout the 

construction period.

Many of the transportation projects identified in Section 3.24.2 are for improvements along the existing 

alignments, with reconstruction or other modifications occurring either within or adjacent to existing right 

of way. New impacts of the identified transportation projects outside existing right of way would be 

relatively narrow and linear. The geographic distribution of the identified transportation projects further 

reduces the potential for cumulative effects. Consequently, cumulative effects on resources within a 

designated area, such as a watershed or ecosystem, would likely be minor.

The vast majority of the land use along the Corridor has been, currently is, and will continue to be 

farmland. The remainder of the Corridor is mostly comprised of highly developed urban areas that would 

not contribute to the Program’s cumulative effects. The only areas that may be experiencing land use 

changes that could contribute to cumulative effects would be the suburban areas associated with the major 

metropolitan areas such as Chicago, Gary and Detroit. Land use throughout the Corridor is likely to 

remain unchanged with the implementation of the Build Alternatives and other proposed projects.

Section 3.24.4 discusses the various benefits resulting from more efficient and enhanced transportation 

systems. Given the numerous planned transportation projects, air quality, mobility, and safety would 

cumulatively benefit. Minimal negative cumulative effects associated with these projects would likely 

occur on farmland, habitat, wetlands, and streams. 

As Tier 2 NEPA analyses are conducted, additional information on projects with the potential to have 

cumulative effects would be collected, and a more detailed analysis of cumulative effects would be 

conducted, as warranted.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 257

3.24.6 Potential Mitigation Measures

After design details are prepared for the Selected Program Alternative, and required construction 

activities are known, specific indirect impacts and cumulative effects can be identified. Specific 

mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed in Tier 2 analysis

documents.

3.25 Permits

The various construction activities associated with implementation of the Program would require permits 

to be issued by other agencies as described in this section. Permitting is important because it can help to 

avoid, minimize or mitigate environmental impacts.

3.25.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This section discusses anticipated federal, state, and local permits and/or approvals that are likely to be 

required to implement the Program. The list of permits was generated based on a review of federal and 

state government agency databases and the anticipated types of impacts to resources. The presence of 

wetlands, floodplains, navigable waters, and other resources discussed in previous sections were reviewed 

to identify what permits will likely be required prior to construction. There will be several types of 

permits to be obtained prior to construction related primarily to impacts on these types of resources. 

Specific regulatory requirements are discussed in the following sections. Federal agencies with permitting 

authority are also required to comply with NEPA, and may use this Tier 1 EIS and subsequent Tier 2 

NEPA documents to meet their obligations.

3.25.2 Affected Environment

The Build Alternatives are within two USACE regulatory districts: the Chicago District covers the Area 

of Analysis in Illinois and most of the Area of Analysis in Indiana except south of Interstate 80/90 in 

Porter County. The Detroit District covers the entire Area of Analysis in Michigan as well as the 

aforementioned area south of I-80/90 in Porter County, Indiana.

3.25.3 Permits for the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, the Program would not be implemented, and thus would require no 

permits or approvals. However, projects being completed under other programs within the Corridor would 

need to acquire any necessary permits and approvals prior to construction.

3.25.4 Permits for the Build Alternatives

The permits listed in this section would be required prior to construction of the Build Alternatives. These 

permits are associated primarily with the crossing and filling of water resources and wetlands and for 

construction activity in and around streams and floodways and bridge work.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

258 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The need for local permits will be investigated further and discussed in the Tier 2 analysis documents for 

the Selected Program Alternative when specific impacts are determined.

Permits discussed in this section will be obtained following Tier 2 NEPA analysis, during project design 

or before construction.

Construction of the Build Alternatives would likely require permits and approvals described in the 

following sections.

3.25.4.1 Section 404 Permits

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged, excavated, or fill material in 

wetlands, streams, rivers, and other waters of the United States (jurisdictional waters). The U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the federal agency authorized to issue permits under Section 404 for 

certain activities conducted in wetlands or other waters of the United States. Section 404 permits would 

be needed from the USACE if the Program improvements cause the discharge of fill material below the 

ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of jurisdictional waters including wetlands. Generally, any project 

that includes construction activities in new right of way and/or impacts an aquatic resource will require a 

Section 404 Permit.

The USACE issues two types of Section 404 permits: general and individual. General permits include 

“Nationwide Permits” and “Regional General Permits” that are issued periodically for categories of 

activities that result in only minimal adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. “Individual Permits” are 

issued for projects with more substantial adverse impacts on a case-by-case basis. Individual Permit 

authorizations are based on a public interest review that includes a comment period for resource agencies 

and the public.

For a Tier 1 level of analysis, it is difficult to determine the number and type of permits that may be 

needed, not knowing the specific design of improvements. The number and type of permits required 

would depend on the nature of each Program improvement project’s specific construction requirements, 

phasing, and location.

To obtain authorization to disturb regulated aquatic resources, the permit applicant must identify the 

waters present through wetland delineation and/or stream determination, avoid protected resources where 

possible, minimize unavoidable impacts, and if necessary, mitigate any remaining impacts. Wetland 

delineations and stream determinations will be completed for the Selected Program Alternative during 

Tier 2 analyses when design plans are available.

The following potential construction activities may be required to implement the Program and would need 

to be reviewed for possible Section 404 permit requirements:

• Culvert extensions

• Bridge/culvert replacements
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 259

• Riprap placement and/or flood emergency repairs

• Dredging, excavation, and fill in jurisdictional waters

• Any construction in or around streams or wetland areas

3.25.4.2 Section 401 Water Quality Certification

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act gives authority to each state to issue a water quality certification for 

any project that needs a 404 Permit. The 401 water quality certification includes verification by each state 

that the project will not violate water quality standards.

Section 401 water quality certifications for construction would be obtained from each state for Program 

improvement projects during the design phase of the Program and in conjunction with the Section404 

permits.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Natural Resources

Illinois provides a joint permit application form, which is submitted to the Illinois EPA, Illinois DNR, and 

USACE for a floodplain permit, Section 404 permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and public 

waters permits.

USACE provides the applicant’s Section 404 application to Illinois EPA for Section 401 review and 

Water Quality Certification. Additional approvals are also required by the Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources/Office of Water Resources (DNR/OWR) for construction activities within a public body of 

water and within floodways in accordance with the Illinois Wetland Policy Act of 1989.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

In Indiana, water permit applications are separate for the various permits; application to IDEM for Section 

401 Water Quality permit, application to USACE, Chicago and/or Detroit District to obtain a Section 404 

permit, application to the Indiana DNR, Department of Water for public water permits.

If USACE determines that a proposed project will require a Section 404 permit, then the applicant must 

also apply for and obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from Indiana DEM. Indiana DEM 

reviews the proposed activities to determine if they will comply with Indiana law, including state water 

quality standards. In addition, isolated wetlands (those wetlands not regulated under the federal Clean 

Water Act) are regulated under Indiana's State Isolated Wetlands law. Impacts to isolated wetlands 

require a State Isolated Wetland Permit from IDEM. IDEM will determine if any state authorizations are 

needed before an applicant may legally discharge fill materials into wetland, streams, rivers, lakes, and 

other waters.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

260 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

The Michigan DEQ/USACE Joint Permit Application covers permit requirements pursuant to state and 

federal rules and regulations for construction activities in waterways and wetlands. The joint permit 

application process provides coverage for a Wetlands Protection Permit, required under Part 303 of 

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

and Section 401 Water Quality Certification.

Michigan provides a joint application permit, which is submitted to the USACE for Section 404 permit 

and Michigan DEQ for Section 401 Water Quality Certification and public waters permits.

3.25.4.3 Section 9 USCG Bridge Permit

The U.S. Coast Guard’s Section 9 bridge permit would be required for any new bridge structures over 

rivers that are considered navigable by the Coast Guard.

To help enforce the General Bridge Act of 1946, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Bridge Permit, also often 

referred to as a Section 9 Permit, is required to construct a new bridge or reconstruct or modify an 

existing bridge over navigable waters of the United States. The purpose of the General Bridge Act of 

1946 is to preserve the public right of navigation and prevent interference with interstate and foreign 

commerce. USCG policy is to protect the freedom of navigation and the quality of the environment, 

meeting the reasonable needs both of navigation and land traffic.

Typical activities requiring a USCG Bridge Permit are:

• Constructing a new bridge over a canal, channel, stream, river, lake or other navigable body of water

• Modifying an existing bridge or causeway

• Making repairs that alter structural configuration or navigational clearances

• Significantly modifying any substructure or superstructure components

If new bridge crossings or modifications over waterways are required, coordination would commence 

with USCG under the Tier 2 analyses to determine and define permitting requirements.

3.25.4.4 Section 7 Endangered Species Permits

If endangered species are identified during program implementation, all activity in the immediate area 

would cease. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be initiated as required by 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and appropriate state or federal permits would be 

sought. If an incidental take of listed species occurs, then Section 10 of ESA would be applicable.

3.25.4.5 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires that regulated activities conducted below the 

ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of navigable waters of the United States be approved by the 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 261

USACE. Until 1968, the Rivers and Harbors Act was administered to protect only navigation and the 

navigable capacity of the nation’s waters. In 1968, in response to a growing national concern for 

environmental values, the policy for review of Section 10 permit applications was revised to include 

additional factors such as fish and wildlife, conservation, pollution, aesthetics, ecology and general 

welfare. Regulated activities include the placement/removal of structures, work involving dredging, 

disposal of dredged material, filling, excavation, or any other disturbance of soils and sediments, or 

modifications of a navigable waterway. One combined application can be submitted for both Section 404

and Section 10 permits. These permits may be required for any major river crossing improvements.

3.25.4.6 State Resource Agency Floodplain Encroachment Permits

Construction in the floodways and floodplains of the rivers, lakes and streams generally requires a permit 

from the state in which the water body is located. The floodway is the channel and the adjacent portion of 

the floodplain that is needed to safely convey and store flood waters. Permits are required to ensure that 

proposed development projects meet the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 

and each community’s local floodplain management ordinance. Each community reviews proposed 

projects to verify that all required permits required by federal or state law have been received. 

Coordination would take place with each state and local jurisdictions, as appropriate, to determine 

specifics regarding permits for floodplain impacts.

The following state agencies issue construction in a floodway permits for activities within the Area of 

Analysis:

Illinois

Illinois DNR/OWR permits are either regulated under Part 3700 - Construction in Floodways of Rivers, 

Lakes and Streams or Part 3708 if it is in northeast Illinois. For Illinois, this will come under the joint 

permit with application with the USACE, and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency as discussed 

above. It is designed to simplify the approval process for the applicant seeking project authorizations from 

the three agencies.

Indiana

Applicants must submit a Construction in a Floodway Permit State Form 42946 to Indiana DNR/DOW.

Michigan

The Michigan DEQ/USACE Joint Permit Application package would be submitted by MDOT to cover 

permit requirements pursuant to state and federal rules and regulations for construction activities where 

the land meets the water and including wetlands, often referred to as the land/water interface. It is 

intended to prevent duplication of state and federal regulations. The Joint Permit Application process 

provides coverage for the Floodplain Permit. 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). 
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

262 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.25.4.7 Section 402 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit

Discharge of stormwater during construction will be addressed under the NPDES permitting and with 

best management practices (BMPs).

The disturbance of one or more acres of total land area is subject to the requirements of a NPDES permit 

for stormwater discharges from the construction sites.

USEPA regulates non-point source discharges through its stormwater program pursuant to the Clean 

Water Act. The USEPA has given Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan the responsibility to administer the 

NPDES permit to govern stormwater runoff from construction activities that disturb one acre of land or 

greater.

Illinois EPA administers and enforces NPDES permits in Illinois. Illinois EPA uses General Permit No. 

ILR10 for construction activities that will result in the disturbance of 1 or more acres of land subject to 

the Clean Water Act, the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and the Illinois Pollution Board Rules and 

Regulations. In order for stormwater discharges from construction sites to be authorized to discharge 

under this general permit, the applicant must submit a NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) in accordance with 

state requirements. Unless notified to the contrary, 30 days after the date the NOI is received by Illinois 

EPA, applicants who submit a NOI in accordance with the requirements of this permit are authorized to 

discharge stormwater from construction sites under the terms and conditions of this permit.

Indiana DEM administers and enforces NPDES permits in Indiana in accordance with Construction/Land 

Disturbance Storm Water Permitting (327 IAC 15-5, Rule 5). It is designed to reduce pollutants, 

principally sediment that are a result of soil erosion and other activities associated with land-disturbing 

activities.

Michigan DEQ administers and enforces NPDES permits in Michigan. 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.

3.25.4.8 Air Pollution Control Permits

It is expected that much of the concrete needed for construction of the Build Alternatives would be 

sourced from existing batch plants across the region; however, the potential need for project-specific 

concrete batch plants would be discussed in the Tier 2 NEPA analyses. Should project-specific batch 

plants be required for construction, those batch plants would need to obtain air pollution control permits 

from the respective state air pollution control agencies prior to construction or relocation of the batch 

plant.
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 263

3.25.4.9 Coastal Zone Permits

Each state has developed a Coastal Zone Management Program for coastal zone in their respective state, 

see Section 3.18 (Coastal Zone Management Areas). These programs outline the framework in which to 

protect natural resources within the designated Coastal Zones. However none of the states require 

separate permits for work within the coastal zones as permits are required under current authorities for 

protection of natural resources such as air quality, wetlands, and floodplains.

3.25.4.10 National Park Service Permits

If Route 2, Route 4 or Route 5 is selected as the Preferred Alternative, and right of way is required from 

the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore National Park, coordination with the National Park Service would

be required to comply with Section 4(f), see also Section 3.12 (Section 4(f)). Additional permits or 

approvals may be necessary if they have park-specific legislation or policies. If necessary, this review 

would be conducted during the Tier 2 NEPA analysis of the Selected Program Alternative.

3.25.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Specific mitigation measures would be implemented as appropriate per each individual permit and 

approval. For example, Section 404 Permits may require mitigation measures for both temporary and 

permanent impacts to wetlands, streams, rivers, and other waters of the United States. Specific mitigation 

measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed for the Selected Program Alternative

during Tier 2 analyses after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts 

are identified, and implemented.

3.26 Construction Impacts

This section includes a discussion of potential impacts from construction equipment and personnel, 

impacts on the public during construction, as well as impacts to existing rail operations.

3.26.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts121 Section 10 (b) (23) requires impacts 

during the construction period to be considered in the environmental assessment process. The various 

ways in which construction activities can physically affect properties near the construction sites were 

reviewed. The following types of impacts are most often associated with construction activities:

• Waste Disposal – solid and hazardous

• Water Quality – erosion and sediment; fuel and lubricant spills

 

121 Federal Railroad Administration. FRA Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. Federal Register Vol. 

64, No. 101. May 26, 1999.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

264 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• Air Quality – equipment emissions and fugitive dust

• Noise – heavy construction equipment

• Vibration – pounding, drilling and blasting activities

• Access – pedestrian and rail access to facilities, services, businesses, and parking

• Traffic – traffic management, detours

• Safety – public safety around construction sites, emergency vehicle access

3.26.2 Affected Environment

Sensitive resources that are often most affected by construction activities include sensitive land uses such 

as residential neighborhoods, schools, places of worship, parks and recreational areas, and sites that have 

equipment that may be sensitive to vibration. The locations of these resources are described in detail in 

the specific sections dealing with these resources. The specific resources are shown on the maps in 

Appendix D.

Utilities within the Corridor may also be affected by construction activities. Rural areas typically include 

fiber optic and other communication lines sharing right of way along the railroad while utility crossings of 

communication, gas, oil and power utilities typically occur at roadway crossings. Within urban areas, 

many more utility crossings occur including sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, communication, gas, 

electric, and major oil and gas pipelines. Other utilities include petroleum products pipelines. In Indiana 

these include Amoco, Wolverine, Shell, Wabash, Explorer, Buckeye, Phillips, Marathon, ARCO, US 

Steel, and Northern Indiana Public Service Company. Other utility companies include at a minimum 

ComEd, DTE Energy, Consumers Energy, SEMCO, NIPSCO, Peoples Gas, American Water Company, 

AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, and Comcast. During Tier 2 NEPA analyses, utility companies would be 

coordinated with to determine what utilities would be potentially impacted.

3.26.3 Impacts of the No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, construction would be limited to regular maintenance activities, and 

improvements related to other existing and programmed projects. Construction impacts from these 

projects would be addressed separately and follow environmental requirements for construction such as 

stormwater permitting to minimize construction impacts. Impacts to railroad operations from existing 

regular maintenance activities are expected to be the same or similar as currently experienced.

3.26.4 Impacts of Build Alternatives

Typical main line improvements for the Build Alternatives include construction of an additional track 

through much of the Area of Analysis to increase rail capacity and limit conflicts with existing rail 

operations. The areas where additional track is needed are located primarily from Chicago to Porter, 

Indiana. Other construction activities along the mainline include an upgrade of the rails, cross ties, 

signalization, and grade crossing protection throughout the Area of Analysis. Tree and brush clearing 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 265

would be necessary to construct additional track and embankment, and to improve site distance at 

crossings for vehicle and train traffic. In addition to these main line improvements, other potential 

construction activities include a new passenger station in northwest Indiana and new maintenance facility 

in Pontiac, Michigan.

Tree and brush clearing could affect natural habitats and may consequently impact the wildlife species 

that inhabit those areas. Construction may also result in temporary impacts, including increases in waste 

disposal, potential impacts to water quality, air quality, increased noise levels, vibration, dust, traffic 

congestion, visual changes, and disrupted access to properties and neighborhoods. Specific construction 

activities would be described in Tier 2 NEPA analysis documents as the Program improvements and 

future operations are more defined. Specific construction impacts would also be evaluated in more detail 

in Tier 2 NEPA analysis. Typical impacts that can be expected on any of the Build Alternatives are 

discussed in the following sections.

3.26.4.1 Rail Traffic

Rail traffic can be affected as operating speeds are reduced through the construction zones. This may add 

to rail travel time and in turn increase cost to rail operators. There may be temporary cessation of rail 

operations on affected track sections for limited times.

3.26.4.2 Noise and Vibration

Construction activities often involve heavy equipment that generates noise. Some construction activities, 

including pile driving and rock excavation with explosives, would generate noise, and in some cases, 

would cause vibrations that may temporarily affect properties off-site. Areas that could be impacted by 

construction noise and vibration would be identified in Tier 2 NEPA analyses. See Section 3.8 (Noise and 

Vibration Impacts) for more information about potential impacts from noise and vibration.

3.26.4.3 Air Quality

Construction activities would include short-term air emissions from on-site heavy equipment as well as 

fugitive dust and particle debris from demolition and excavation activities. See Section 3.9 (Air Quality) 

for more information about potential air quality impacts.

3.26.4.4 Waste Disposal

The construction of any of the Build Alternatives has the potential to generate waste material from 

clearing plant material, excavation, and removal of existing track and railroad ties where replacement is 

warranted. Other examples of site waste may include construction material packaging, broken 

equipment/parts, and other excess material. It is anticipated that some of the soil material would be reused 

for fill material in other construction areas associated with the Build Alternatives or other nearby 

construction projects. During typical construction activities, small amounts of soil may be contaminated 

through on-site motor or hydraulic oil spills and previously contaminated soils. Groundwater from past 

disposal could also be encountered and need to be properly handled.
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

266 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Within areas of additional right of way acquisition, there may be instances where demolition of existing 

structures or buildings would be required within the areas of additional right of way acquisition. 

However, some of these buildings or structures may include small amounts of hazardous waste; especially 

in older industrial areas that are prevalent in the developed portions of the Area of Analysis fronting 

existing rail lines.

During Tier 2 analyses, affected areas of the Selected Program Alternative would be reviewed for 

potential contamination concerns. Sampling and analysis would be performed as needed to better 

characterize and determine the extent of contamination and to determine ways to mitigate it.

3.26.4.5 Water Quality

It is expected that in some locations, construction activities will occur within, adjacent to, or near streams, 

wetlands, and bodies of open water. As described above, construction debris and potential spills may 

occur that would have the potential to impact water quality from stormwater runoff from the construction 

site. See Section 3.16 (Water Quality Resources) for more information about potential water quality 

impacts.

3.26.4.6 Access

During construction, access to adjacent properties may be impacted on a temporary basis. Within urban 

areas and small communities, existing businesses could experience inconvenience and potential shortterm economic hardship during construction because of access disruptions and traffic delays. 

3.26.4.7 Traffic and Safety

Slow-moving heavy equipment would be entering and exiting the construction sites in the Area of 

Analysis throughout the construction period. In addition, vehicular traffic would be temporarily affected 

at locations where grade crossing will be separated, modified, or improved. While the exact construction 

zones are not known at this time, temporary lane closures or roadway closures will be required to 

construct some of the proposed improvements. If not properly planned and coordinated with local 

jurisdictions, this can cause conflicts with existing traffic and can impact motorized and non-motorized 

safety.

Where impacts to vehicular traffic exists, emergency services, schools, businesses, and other activities 

requiring vehicular access would be affected by potential delays or detours. However, construction related 

impacts on vehicular traffic would be temporary. Traffic maintenance planning would be coordinated 

with schools and emergency service providers.

In general, construction activities for corridor improvements would affect rail traffic by reducing 

operating train speeds through the construction zones, adding to rail travel time and, in turn, cost. This 

would occur when adding new siding tracks, double-tracks, and connection tracks, upgrading signals, and 

modifying grade crossings. The other impact would be schedule adjustments for existing operations to 

create windows of opportunity for temporary shutdown of rail operations on selected track sections, such 
Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | 267

as when the new turnouts are being placed for the passing sections and new sidings, or when there is a 

potentials safety risk, such as during the construction of a flyover. During construction, there may be 

track outages that would interrupt intercity passenger rail service. As necessary bus service would be 

provided along the Corridor to replace intercity passenger rail service lost during construction. Permission 

and participation from the railroad owners would be required for all alternative construction that would 

take place within the railroad right of way.

3.26.4.8 Utilities

All Build Alternatives would require the relocation of utilities in areas affected by construction of 

Program improvements. Most utility impacts are likely to occur at grade crossings, flyovers and stations 

as well as where new construction occurs outside of the existing right of way. Many utilities that cross 

under the railroad may not meet current standards and could be upgraded at the time of construction, such 

as the need for encasement of the utility within the right of way.

All of the Build Alternative routes cross pipelines and all require the acquisition of some right of way 

along the Corridor and at the new station location in northwest Indiana. These would likely result in some 

utility relocations. Potential indirect impacts could result as relocations are made within or outside of the 

right of way including temporary shutdown and/or protection of the utilities during construction.

Routes 2, 4 and 5 (Option 1 and 2) could connect to the Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) utility right of 

way just east of the Englewood Flyover, and travel within the right of way to Indiana. The 100-foot wide 

ComEd corridor is currently used as an overhead utility corridor. This corridor has the ability to 

accommodate rail operations but impacts are expected to the ComEd overhead utilities. Impacts could 

include temporary shutdown and/or protection of the utilities during construction.

Once design features are identified, additional information would be gathered in Tier 2 NEPA analyses to 

locate and identify utilities and to develop ways to avoid or minimize impacts to utilities.

3.26.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Impacts from construction activities would be reviewed and mitigation would be developed during the 

Tier 2 analyses. Information available at this stage is not sufficient to define specific construction noise 

and vibration mitigation measures. It would be appropriate to develop and implement a mitigation plan 

for the final design and construction phases. The objective of such a plan is to minimize damaging 

construction noise and vibration using all reasonable and feasible means available and to outline the 

procedure for establishing threshold and limiting noise and vibration values. The plan should also include 

the development of noise and vibration plans to monitor compliance during construction.

Potential construction impacts are typically mitigated through the following measures:

3.26.5.1 Existing Rail Operations

• Coordinating with railroad owners in order to minimize impacts within the railroad right of way
Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chicago – Detroit / Pontiac Passenger Rail Corridor Program

268 | TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

• Adjusting schedules for operations and limited temporary shutdowns

• Staging construction in a way that limits conflicts

3.26.5.2 Noise and Vibration

• Equipping and maintaining muffling equipment for trucks and other construction machinery to 

minimize noise emissions

• Limiting times and duration of construction activities adjacent to sensitive land uses

• Employing limits and controls on drilling and blasting activities 

3.26.5.3 Air Quality

• Adhering to construction permit conditions and all state and local regulations in regard to emissions 

and exhaust, fugitive dust, and burning of debris

3.26.5.4 Waste Disposal

• Recycling construction debris, if possible, at facilities that are in compliance with federal, state, and 

local regulations

• Testing hazardous waste if encountered

• Handling, collecting, and disposing of waste materials in accordance with federal, state, and local 

regulations

3.26.5.5 Water Quality

• Managing stormwater runoff through NPDES and all other federal, state, and local permitting 

processes

• Implementing BMPs for control of soil erosion and other pollutants

• Properly storing hazardous materials away from water bodies and wetlands in a self-contained upland 

location

3.26.5.6 Access

• Developing a traffic mitigation plan for construction sequencing to maintain reasonable access to 

adjacent properties, including special provisions to accommodate emergency vehicle access to the site 

and adjacent properties, as well as adjacent populations of elderly and disabled persons.

3.26.5.7 Traffic and Safety

• Coordinating with Illinois DOT, Indiana DOT, and Michigan DOT as well as local jurisdictions to 

develop and implement a traffic control and safety plan 

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2

NEPA analyses after design details are known. Specific impacts would be identified, recorded in NEPA 

documents, and implemented during the Program’s construction period(s).