Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

i | Page

Table of Contents

Figures .................................................................................................................iv

Tables ..................................................................................................................iv

Glossary ...............................................................................................................iv

I. Introduction................................................................................................. 1

A. Executive Summary.............................................................................1

B. Proposed Action Context .....................................................................7

1. Indiana Gateway Project ...........................................................7

2. Indiana Gateway Project # 7 .....................................................8

3. Proposed Action........................................................................8

C. Regulatory and Procedural Background ..............................................9

1. Mitigation Measures................................................................10

a. Dune and Swale ....................................................... 11

b. State Protected Species ........................................... 11

c. Fragmentation of Habitat .......................................... 11

d. Wetlands................................................................... 11

e. Wetland Mitigation Plan............................................ 12

f. Mitigation Monitoring................................................. 12

g. Construction Impacts................................................ 12

h. Construction Related Erosion Control....................... 12

II. Purpose and Need ................................................................................... 13

III. Alternatives............................................................................................... 14

A. Pine Yard Lead Track Design ............................................................14

B. Stormwater Management System Design..........................................17

C. Construction Measures......................................................................17

D. Alternative Track Alignments .............................................................17

1. No-Build Alternative ................................................................18

2. Preferred Alignment ................................................................19

3. Alternative A............................................................................19

4. Alternative B............................................................................19

5. Alternative C ...........................................................................19

6. Alternative D ...........................................................................20

7. Alternative E/Proposed Alternative..........................................20
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

ii | Page

IV. Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation................................... 22

A. Physical Environment ........................................................................22

1. Air Quality and Energy ............................................................22

2. Flood Plains ............................................................................24

3. Noise and Vibration................................................................. 24

4. Visual Resources ....................................................................26

5. Agriculture26

B. Ecological Systems............................................................................26

1. Wetlands and Waters of the United States .............................27

2. Water Quality and Water Resources.......................................33

3. Threatened and Endangered Species.....................................33

4. Special Lands, including 4(f) Properties..................................34

C. Human Environment ..........................................................................34

1. Transportation.........................................................................34

2. Land Use and Socioeconomics, including 

Environmental Justice............................................35

3. Public Health and Safety.........................................................38

4. Hazardous Materials and Waste .............................................39

5. Cultural Resources..................................................................39

D. Construction Impacts .........................................................................40

E. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts........................................................40

F. Permits and Mitigation .......................................................................41

1. Mitigation 41

a. Mitigation Objectives................................................. 42

b. Mitigation Debits and Credits.................................... 42

c. Mitigation Area.......................................................... 42

d. Performance ............................................................. 45

e. Monitoring Plan......................................................... 45

f. Legal Protection........................................................ 46

g. Adaptive Management Plan...................................... 46

h. Financial Assurances................................................ 47

V. Comments and Coordination.................................................................... 47

A. Coordination ......................................................................................47

VI. Distribution of this EA............................................................................... 48

VII. References ............................................................................................... 48
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

iii | Page

VIII. Appendices............................................................................................... 51
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

iv | Page

FIGURES

Figure 1 - Proposed Action Vicinity 

Figure 2 - Proposed Action Vicinity

Figure 3 - East End of Pine Yard showing Existing Siding to be Extended

Figure 4 - Pine Yard Indiana Gateway Schematics Existing and Proposed

Figure 5 - Alternative E/Proposed Alternative alignment for Pine Yard Lead Track to 

permit access to Pine Yard from the East

Figure 6 - Overview Map of Wetlands and Alternative Centerlines

Figure 7 - Overview Map of Alternative E/Proposed Alternative

Figure 8 - National Wetland Inventory Mapped Wetlands within the Proposed Action 

Vicinity 

Figure 9 - National Wetland Inventory Mapped Wetlands within the Proposed Action 

Area

Figure 10 - Two and Three Mile Radius from Project Area

Figure 11 - Demographics, Census Block 103.04, Lake County, Indiana, compared to 

State and Federal Demographics

TABLES

Table 1 - Screening Distance for Noise Assessments 

Table 2 - Wetland Summary Table

Table 3 - Alternatives Impact Summary 

Table 4 - Mitigation Debits and Credits

GLOSSARY

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative – The alternative the INDOT and FRA propose be 

selected. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

v | Page

Preferred Alignment – The alignment proposed on March 25, 2015 as submitted to the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a Section 404 permit. This alignment included 

modifications to the original plans submitted by NSRC and approved by FRA in the 

2009 Categorical Exclusion. 

Project – The Indiana Gateway Project # 7. This Environmental Assessment addresses 

a modification to the original Indiana Gateway Project # 7. That modification will be 

referred to as the “Proposed Action.” 

Proposed Action – The movement of the existing access road and stormwater 

management ditch several feet to the north of the previously approved Pine Yard 

Siding Extension and the addition of a Pine Yard Lead Track to Pine Yard. 

Proposed Action Area – The geographical location of the Proposed Action.

Proposed Action Vicinity – The geographical area within which impacts of the Proposed 

Action are analyzed in this document. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

1 | Page

I. INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to address two minor 

modifications related to previously approved plans proposed for the Indiana Gateway

Project # 7 (Project), specifically the (1) movement of the existing access road and 

stormwater management ditch several feet to the north of the previously approved Pine 

Siding Extension, and (2) addition of a Pine Yard Lead Track to allow for access from the 

new Pine Siding Extension and two existing mainlines to the existing Pine Yard

(Proposed Action). 

Several alternatives, including a no action alternative, are assessed in this EA. Direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects are also analyzed.

A. Executive Summary

The Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT), in coordination with other private and 

public entities, proposes modifying one component, Indiana Gateway Project # 7, of the 

Indiana Gateway Project. The Indiana Gateway Project addresses congestion on the 

Chicago Line in Northwest Indiana, one of the most delay-prone intercity rail passenger 

corridor in the country and an important passenger route providing service to and from the 

Chicago metropolitan area and critical passenger destinations in Northern Indiana. The

Indiana Gateway Project will provide both stand-alone congestion relief benefits, as well 

as a path towards development of the corridor as a high-speed corridor within the 

Chicago Hub Network. 

The Indiana Gateway Project, a Public Private Partnership between Norfolk Southern 

Railway Company (NSRC), Amtrak, INDOT, and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 

received federal funding under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), 

Pub. L. 111-5, in 2009. NSRC is a Class I freight railroad company operating in interstate 

commerce and the owner of the Chicago Line. Through a trackage rights agreement, 

Amtrak operates 14 scheduled passenger trains each day on the Chicago Line. NSRC 

serves as developer and contractor for the Indiana Gateway Project # 7 and the Proposed 

Action for INDOT. 

As proponents of an action supported by federal funds, INDOT and FRA must comply 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. NEPA 

requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on the natural, social, 

economic, and cultural environment and to disclose considerations in a public document. 

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

understanding of the environmental consequences and to take actions that protect, 

restore, and enhance the environment. 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1. 

FRA approved construction of the Indiana Gateway Project # 7, one component of the 

Indiana Gateway Project, in 2009. The Indiana Gateway Project # 7 plans included a fourmile segment of signalized third track to serve as a passing and holding track and provide 

connection improvements at the east and west ends of Pine Yard. These previously 

approved plans are not assessed in this EA, as FRA approved those plans under a 

categorical exclusion on August 21, 2009 in accordance with NEPA (2009 Categorical 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

2 | Page

Exclusion).1 This EA analyzes only (1) the addition of the Pine Yard Lead Track and (2) 

the movement of the existing access road and stormwater management ditch four to six 

feet to the north. The Pine Yard Lead Track and movement of the access road will 

hereinafter be referred to as the Proposed Action. 

The Proposed Action is necessary to effectively accomplish the purpose and need for the

Indiana Gateway Project # 7. The Proposed Action, along with the Indiana Gateway 

Project # 7, will mitigate congestion and improve the reliability of passenger rail service on 

one of the most highly congested passenger and freight rail corridors in the United States. 

The location of the Proposed Action is adjacent to NSRC’s Chicago Line, located 

between Porter, Indiana and the Indiana/Illinois state line. The Proposed Action’s 

boundaries are within the city of Gary in Lake County, Indiana and extend from CP-479 

(just east of Porter at railroad milepost CD 479.3) to Clark Road (Proposed Action Area).

The Proposed Action is located within an industrialized area. Land use consists mostly of

railroads, steel mills, industrial facilities, and roads. Figures 1 and 2 show the 

geographical area within which impacts of the Proposed Action are analyzed in this 

document (Proposed Action Vicinity). 

 

1 Pursuant to the Council of Environmental Quality’s NEPA regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4: "’Categorical 

exclusion’ means a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a 

Federal agency in implementation of these regulations (Sec. 1507.3) and for which, therefore, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. An agency may decide in its 

procedures or otherwise, to prepare environmental assessments for the reasons stated in Sec. 1508.9 even 

though it is not required to do so. Any procedures under this section shall provide for extraordinary 

circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant environmental effect.”
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

3 | Page

Figure 1– Proposed Action Vicinity

Lake Michigan

Grand Calumet 

River

Lake Michigan

Grand Calumet River

Pine Station Nature 

Preserve (Mitigation 

Area)
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

4 | Page

Figure 2 – Proposed Action Vicinity

The Proposed Action is approximately 900 feet from the Grand Calumet River and 6,000 

feet from Lake Michigan. For over a century, the area has served industrial purposes, 

and the specific property involved has been operating rail property used by Class I freight 

rail in interstate commerce. The property was part of an acquisition of a portion of Conrail 

assets by NSRC in 1997, as approved by the Surface Transportation Board on July 23, 

1998. Figure 3 is a current aerial view of the eastern half of Pine Yard. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

5 | Page

 

Figure 3: East end of Pine Yard showing existing siding to be extended

(The extension has been previously approved and not subject to this EA analysis) 

This EA assesses seven alternatives. All direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental 

effects of these alternatives are analyzed in this EA. Impacts of concern associated with 

the alternatives identified by resource agencies and the public are described in Section 

I.C, Regulatory Background, below. Resource agencies and public groups identified the 

potential presence of dune and swale habitat in the Proposed Action Area, including state 

protected upland plant species, and mitigation for impacts to waters of the United States

(WOTUS), as issues of concern associated with the Proposed Action. Alternative E, 

described in detail in Section III, is identified as the Proposed Alternative. For this reason, 

this EA refers to Alternative E as “Alternative E/ Proposed Alternative.” 

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative was an outgrowth of the Section 404 permitting 

process for the Proposed Action under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Generally, the 

production of an EA occurs prior to the CWA permitting process. NSRC began the 

Section 404 permitting process for the Proposed Action in March 2015. As part of its 

application, NSRC described the Proposed Action and the original Indiana Gateway 

Project # 7 plans as complying with NEPA under a categorical exclusion. Although FRA 

approved the Indiana Gateway Project # 7 as a categorical exclusion under NEPA and 

INDOT, NSRC, and FRA discussed approving the Proposed Action as a categorical 

exclusion in 2015, FRA did not approve the Proposed Action as a categorical exclusion. 

Instead, because of comments received during the Section 404 permitting process, FRA 

and INDOT determined that the Proposed Action should be evaluated under this EA. 

As part of its application for a Section 404 permit under the CWA, NSRC identified a 

preferred alignment for the Pine Yard Lead Track that would have impacted 0.153 acre of 

higher quality wetland area, following minimization and avoidance activities including 

placement of the lead track on existing rail roadbed. This original alignment selected by 

NSRC is referred to in the permitting application and documents and this EA as the 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

6 | Page

“Preferred Alignment.” The Preferred Alignment, however, is not the alternative which 

FRA and INDOT (as joint lead agencies for this EA) believe would fulfill their statutory 

missions and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical, 

and other factors.2 As a result of consultation with the agencies and receipt of agency 

and public comments as part of the Section 404 permitting process and this EA, the 

alignment FRA and INDOT believe would fulfill their statutory missions and 

responsibilities is the alignment identified as Alternative E during the Section 404 

permitting process, and referred to as Alternative E/Proposed Alternative in this EA. 

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative is the southerly and easterly most alignment feasible 

in light of railroad engineering requirements and constraints and avoids upland areas 

which the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) identified as having the 

presence of upland state protected plant species. Agencies and public commenters 

involved in the Section 404 permitting process preferred Alternative E/Proposed 

Alternative over the Preferred Alignment. Alternative E/Proposed Alterative would

increase the total impacts to higher quality wetlands by 0.436 acre over the Preferred 

Alignment, for a total impact to higher quality wetlands of 0.589 acre. 

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative would impact a total of 1.352 acres of features 

identified as WOTUS in this EA and in permit processes. The majority of these identified 

impacts to WOTUS are 0.763 acre related to the placement of the stormwater 

management rail ditch within the southern boundary of the Proposed Action Area for the 

Pine Siding Extension.3

 The existing stormwater management rail ditch was developed 

for stormwater management and assessed in 2009 and 2015 as having low floristic and 

environmental quality, dominated by Phragmites australis (Common Reed) and Typha x 

 

2 The Council on Environmental Quality’s Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National 

Environmental Policy Act Regulations, defines an “agency’s preferred alternative” as “the alternative which 

the agency believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, 

environmental, technical and other factors.” Question 4a. This EA uses the phrase Proposed Alternative to 

refer to the alternative the joint lead agencies, FRA and INDOT, believe would fill their statutory missions 

and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and other factors, in order 

to reduce confusion with the term Preferred Alignment. 

3 During the pendency of this project, the Corps and EPA proposed significant revisions to the regulatory 

definition of waters of the United States (“WOTUS”). In order to avoid regulatory uncertainty and potential 

project delay which, due to federal funding restrictions would preclude completion of this ARRA project, 

NSRC identified all possible features as WOTUS for the purpose of permitting, and proposed mitigation for 

all features at a high quality dune and swale mitigation site location, IDNR’s Pine Station, where NSRC 

proposes enhancement, restoration, and rehabilitation of 45 acres of high quality and rare dune and swale 

habitat. NSRC’s request for preliminary non-binding jurisdictional determination included the rail ditch as a 

WOTUS, and accordingly the proposed WOTUS rule and associated litigation has no effect on the 

regulatory status or NEPA analysis for the Proposed Action. The rail ditch, which was identified in the 

preliminary jurisdictional determination request and is identified in this EA as a WOTUS, is part of a 

stormwater management system exempt from the definition of WOTUS. See 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a)(8) and 40 

C.F.R. 122.2(g); see also 48 Fed. Reg. 41,217 (Nov. 13, 1986); see also Clean Water Rule: Definition of 

Waters of the United States, Final Rule; 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054 (June 29, 2015) (identifying transportation 

ditches as exempt from the Definition of Waters of the United States)(suspended on October 9, 2015, State 

of Ohio et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 15-3799/3822/3887 (6th Cir. Oct. 9, 2015)). As 

discussed in greater detail below, assessment of the ditch indicated a low Floristic Quality Index (FQI) of 

15.7 and 15.3 for 2015 assessments and a mean C of 2.7 and 3.7. Assessments of the same area in 2009 

indicated FQIs of 15.9, 24.8, and 13.1 for the rail ditch. These FQIs represent very low quality floristic 

communities, consistent with stormwater management features. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

7 | Page

glauca (Hybrid Cattail). The existing stormwater management ditch and existing access 

road are proposed to be moved four to six feet to the north to accommodate the Pine 

Siding Extension along the existing two mainline tracks. The majority of the proposed 

grading for the access roadbed is situated on the existing access road. No comments or 

concerns have been raised during consultation or the comment processes regarding 

impacts related to the access road or the stormwater management rail ditch. The 

remaining 0.589 acre of impacts to WOTUS are associated with the addition of the Pine 

Yard Lead Track, as described above. 

In addition to the WOTUS impacts, Alternative E/Proposed Alternative would impact a 

total of 0.281 acre of upland area considered dune and swale habitat. 

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative would avoid, to the extent practicable, areas 

considered dune and swale habitat by placing the Pine Yard Lead Track at the most 

southerly and easterly location permissible under engineering and safety constraints, 

while still meeting the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. Additionally, Alternative 

E/Proposed Alternative would address impacts to WOTUS through a mitigation plan

(Wetland Mitigation Plan or Mitigation Plan) that uses ratios provided by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) Chicago District and in consultation with IDEM. 

The Mitigation Plan would address impacts associated with the stormwater management 

rail ditch and result in 45 acres of enhancement, restoration and rehabilitation at IDNR’s 

Pine Station Nature Preserve. See Attachment A - October 26, 2015, IDNR Division of 

Nature Preserves Letter of Support. This 45 acres represents ratios ranging from 15 to 1 

to 60 to 1, with a 10% margin included to address IDNR’s recommended acreage for Pine 

Station. 

In December 2015, the Corps issued a Section 404 permit for the Alternative E/Proposed 

Alternative. If, at the conclusion, of this EA, FRA selects a Proposed Action alternative 

other than the Alternative E/Proposed Alternative, the selected alternative would be 

required to comply with the Section 404 permitting process. 

B. Proposed Action Context

1. Indiana Gateway Project

The Indiana Gateway Project was selected by the FRA, with financial assistance from the 

INDOT and other federal and state entities, as a recipient of ARRA funds for national 

transportation improvements. The purpose of the Indiana Gateway Project is to optimize 

and promote rail efficiency in the Indiana Gateway area, specifically to provide for 

passenger (Amtrak) use of existing freight rail lines in the Indiana/Chicago corridor and 

improve freight rail transportation. This corridor is recognized as one of the most 

congested rail corridors in the United States. Passenger and rail freight delays are well 

known and recognized. See Attachment B, 2009 Categorical Exclusion.

The Indiana Gateway consists of independent infrastructure improvement projects at 

seven locations on the NSRC Chicago Line, and one location on the Amtrak Michigan 

Line at Porter, Indiana. The eight independent projects are each designed to provide 

improved operational flexibility within each location, thus enabling intercity passenger and 

freight traffic to be routed in a more efficient and fluid manner than currently possible on 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

8 | Page

this highly congested line segment. Congestion-related train delay will be reduced in 

each location and the intercity passenger service; on-time performance will also be 

improved.

Improvements include: relocation, reconfiguration, and addition of high-speed crossovers 

and related signal system improvements, minor rail line additions at two locations 

achieved by lengthening and rehabilitation of existing sidings, and the creation of a new 

parallel passing siding. All construction work, including the minor rail line additions, will 

take place within the existing railroad right-of-way. No use of public lands or property will 

be required. The improvement elements will have independent utility and can be 

constructed and placed into service on an individual and independent basis, thus 

providing immediate benefits in each proposed location as full implementation 

progresses. 

2. Indiana Gateway Project # 7 

The Indiana Gateway Project # 7 is one component project of the larger Indiana Gateway 

Project. The original Indiana Gateway Project # 7 plans consisted of a series of 

improvements to NSRC’s Pine Yard, including:

• Rebuilding signals and installing a high speed turn out to Pine Yard Extension;

• Extending existing siding track by two-miles;

• Installing a power turnout to access Pine Yard; and

• Adding a new passing siding extension and high speed turnout. 

The purpose of the Indiana Gateway Project # 7 is to reduce overall rail congestion and 

promote more efficient and fluid routing of passenger and freight trains along the lines 

adjacent to Pine Yard by providing track and access for passing / temporary storing of 

multiple trains of up to 11,000 ft. in length and creating additional capacity on the Chicago 

Line segment, adjacent to Pine Yard, by allowing for passing of passenger trains around 

stopped freight traffic. With the improvements, two tracks can be utilized for through traffic 

movement at any time should one of the tracks – the existing two mainlines plus the new 

four mile Pine Siding Extension – be out-of-service or blocked for maintenance. 

3. Proposed Action

In 2015, NSRC proposed two modifications to the Indiana Gateway Project # 7 to support 

the Project’s purpose. The first modification includes moving the existing access road 

serving the Pine Siding Extension and an existing stormwater management ditch four to 

six feet to the north of its current location. This shift is necessary to allow the construction 

of part of the new, two-miles of the Pine Siding Extension on the existing access road and 

to still have an access road to provide access to the adjacent lines for maintenance 

activities. The second modification is the addition of the Pine Yard Lead Track, which will 

connect the Pine Yard Siding Extension to the east side of the Pine Yard. This addition 

will allow trains to access the Pine Yard from the east and will create more capacity for 

passing/temporary storage and additional capacity on the Chicago Line. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

9 | Page

C. Regulatory and Procedural Background

This EA is developed in accordance with NEPA to assess two modifications to the 

previously approved and authorized Indiana Gateway Project # 7. This EA supplements 

the 2009 Categorical Exclusion for the Indiana Gateway Project # 7, comprised of

improvements to Pine Yard.

4 See Attachment B, August 21, 2009 Categorical Exclusion. 

As discussed in detail below, the modifications are necessary to meet the purpose and 

need for the Indiana Gateway Project # 7. 

Both the Project and the Proposed Action, require permits and authorizations for 

construction, specifically related to construction stormwater discharges regulated under

the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program. NSRC has received authorization 

under Section 402 of the CWA from the Indiana Department of Environmental 

Management (IDEM), the state entity authorized to implement the CWA NPDES 

permitting program.5

 This authorization applies to both the Indiana Gateway Project # 7 

and the Proposed Action. Attachment C, IDEM Rule 5 NPDES Authorization.

Because the Proposed Action will result in discharge of fill material into WOTUS, it also 

requires authorization from the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 

1344(a). A Section 404 permit is required for any action that will result in a discharge of 

dredged or fill material into WOTUS. Section 404 authorization also requires a Section 

401 Water Quality Certification and a consistency determination regarding impacts to 

coastal areas, discussed below. Because the Project approved by the 2009 Categorical 

Exclusion did not discharge dredge or fill material to WOTUS, it did not require a Section 

404 permit. NSRC applied for authorization for a Section 404 permit for the Proposed 

Action on March 25, 2015. 

Consultation and public comment received in relation to the CWA Section 404 permit 

application for the Proposed Action identified dune and swale habitat in the Proposed 

Action Area and adequate mitigation for impacts to WOTUS as issues of concern. In 

July and August of 2015, NSRC and its consultants responded to these issues by 

conducting additional site studies, exploring alternative alignments, developing detailed 

engineering design revisions for the Proposed Action and additional detail regarding 

alignment alternatives, performing soil borings, additional wetland boundary surveys, and 

inventory of upland and aquatic species on site and at an alternative mitigation site 

identified by IDNR in August, the Pine Station Nature Preserve. On August 27, 2015, the 

Corps provided information regarding desired mitigation ratios, and NSRC submitted 

revised final Mitigation Plans and supporting data and analysis to IDEM, the Corps, and 

IDNR on September 4, 2015, October 9, 2015, and October 30, 2015. The October 9, 

 

4 The Pine Yard improvements proposed by the Indiana Gateway Project # 7 were assessed under NEPA 

and qualified for treatment as a categorical exclusion. The 2009 Categorical Exclusion was approved by 

the FRA in accordance with NEPA and in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and 

the Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR).

5 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) authorization under the CWA for construction 

stormwater discharges under Section 402 has been obtained under IDEM Rule 5, which is a General 

Permit. See 325 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 15-1 et seq.
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

10 | Page

2015 final Mitigation Plan was developed in consultation with the IDNR, which provided 

comment and has issued a letter in support of the proposal which provides for restoration, 

enhancement and rehabilitation of 45 acres located within IDNR’s Pine Station Nature 

Preserve, an area of high quality and important dune and swale habitat protected by the 

State of Indiana and located adjacent to the Proposed Action Area. See Attachment D - 

Mitigation Plan (October 9, 2015). As a result of these efforts, Alternative E/Proposed 

Alternative received a Section 404 permit from the USACE on December 21, 2015. See

Attachment E, December 21, 2015 Corps Authorization LRC 2015-213. Although the 

Mitigation Plan specifically corresponds with Alternative E/Proposed Alternative as 

permitted by the Corps, any alternative selected for the Proposed Action would likely 

include similar mitigation. 

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative has also received Water Quality Certification in 

accordance with Section 401 of the CWA. See Attachment F, December 10, 2015 

Section 401 Water Quality Certification 2015-592-45-MTM-A. Alternative E/Proposed 

Alternative has also received a determination that it is consistent with the Coastal Zone 

Management Act from the Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Program. See Attachment G, 

January 26, 2016 Federal Consistency Review under Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal 

Program. 

If, at the conclusion, of this EA, FRA selects a Proposed Action alternative other than the 

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative, the selected alternative would be required to comply 

with the Section 404 permitting process.

Based upon consultation with state and federal resource agencies and numerous 

assessments and studies of the site, no other authorizations are required for the 

Proposed Action. No federally protected species of concern or their critical habitat have 

been identified as impacted by the Proposed Action, as confirmed by the USFWS and 

IDNR. No historic resources have been identified as impacted by the Proposed Action or 

existing within the area of potential effect governed by the 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.

(known as the Section 106 process under the National Historic Preservation Act), also 

confirmed by the Indiana Historic Preservation and Archeology Division. NSRC has 

avoided impacts to state protected resources, and included mitigation and protection as 

part of the Proposed Action.

Comments received and information shared during consultation associated with these 

regulatory processes are included in this EA. Issues regarding potential presence of dune 

and swale habitat in the Proposed Action Area were raised and are assessed in this EA. 

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative, inter alia, addresses these concerns through 

movement of the Pine Yard Lead Track away from identified areas of concern; design and 

construction measures; avoiding and minimizing impacts; and mitigation which includes 

enhancement of 45 acres of dune and swale habitat in partnership with the IDNR at its 

Pine Station Nature Preserve located adjacent to the Proposed Action Area. 

1. Mitigation Measures

The Proposed Action would not have significant adverse effects on the human or natural 

environment if adequate mitigation measures are followed. As noted below, the Proposed 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

11 | Page

Action would have positive effects in providing for optimized and increased rail 

transportation efficiency, reducing congestion, increasing passenger rail capabilities, 

reducing greenhouse gas and other emissions through enhancements to passenger rail 

and freight rail. The following mitigation measures would be included in Alternative 

E/Proposed Alternative to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts to the human and 

natural environment associated with construction and implementation of the Proposed 

Action. Although the mitigation measures described below specifically correspond with 

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative permitted by the Corps, any alternative selected for 

the Proposed Action would likely include similar mitigation. 

a. Dune and Swale

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative would avoid and minimize impact to potential dune 

and swale habitat. Regarding upland dune habitat, the Preferred Alignment would impact 

0.636 acre of upland area which resource agencies identified as remnant dune habitat. 

See Section IV, Table 3. The Alternative E/Proposed Alternative would impact 0.281 acre 

of upland area. See Section IV, Table 3; see also Attachment H – Alternatives Analysis 

(November 4, 2015). The Alternative E/Proposed Alternative was developed in response 

to comments regarding impact to upland areas which were considered dune and swale. 

b. State Protected Species

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative would avoid and minimize impact to state protected 

species through minimization and avoidance of both aquatic and upland state protected 

species. Specifically with regard to upland state protected plant species, the Alternative 

E/Proposed Alternative would impact 0.281 acre of upland area. See Attachment H – 

Alternatives Analysis (November 4, 2015); see also Section IV, Table 3. In contrast, the 

Preferred Alignment would impact 0.636 acre of upland area, specifically an existing 

railroad bed upon which state protected plant species had colonized. The Alternative 

E/Proposed Alternative was developed in response to comments regarding impact to 

upland areas which contained state protected plant species. There are no federally 

protected species or their critical habitat in the Proposed Action Area or in the Proposed 

Action Vicinity (See Attachments L and O). 

c. Fragmentation of Habitat

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative would avoid and minimize fragmentation of habitat to 

the extent possible. To address potential concerns regarding fragmentation of dune and 

swale habitat, Alternative E/Proposed Alternative moves to the most southerly and 

westerly location permissible under engineering and safety constraints while still meeting 

the purpose and need for the Proposed Action. Alternative E/Proposed Alternative 

reduces impacts to dune and swale habitat from 0.636 acre to 0.281 acre. 

d. Wetlands

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative would avoid wetlands where possible and minimize 

impacts to the extent practicable. Wetlands were avoided in Alternative E/Proposed 

Alternative design and alignment to the maximum extent possible, in light of concerns 

raised by the public and resource agencies regarding preservation of upland state 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

12 | Page

protected plant species. Where impacts are necessary, NSRC has narrowed the 

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative footprint to the maximum extent possible, within rail 

safety and geotechnical constraints. Additional proposed mitigation for wetland impacts is 

part of the Wetland Mitigation Plan. 

e. Wetland Mitigation Plan

The Wetland Mitigation Plan associated with Alternative E/Proposed Alternative would

mitigate the unavoidable impacts to wetlands as required by permitting agencies. As onsite mitigation is impractical, in accordance with EPA and Corps guidelines a suitable 

location with more preferable existing and future land uses and permanent protections 

has been proposed. NSRC will enhance, restore, and rehabilitate 45 acres of wetlands at 

the Pine Station Nature Preserve, which represents in-kind, permittee-responsible 

mitigation, at ratios ranging from 15:1 to 60:1. See Attachment D - Mitigation Plan 

(October 9, 2015). The Mitigation Plan responds to comments regarding adequacy of 

mitigation. IDNR supports the proposed mitigation, and the Mitigation Plan has been 

approved by the Corps and IDEM. See Attachment A - October 26, 2015, IDNR Division

of Nature Preserves Letter of Support; Attachment F - December 10, 2015 Section 401 

Water Quality Certification 2015-592-45-MTM-A Attachment E - December 21, 2015 

Corps Authorization LRC 2015-21.

f. Mitigation Monitoring

NSRC, through a consultant, would monitor the mitigation site annually for five (5) 

continuous years to determine if it is meeting identified success criteria. See Attachment 

D – October 9, 2015 Mitigation Plan.

g. Construction Impacts

In order to minimize disturbance from construction, Alternative E/Proposed Alternative

would require completion of all approved construction related discharges to wetlands no 

later than two (2) years of the date of issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification (December 10, 2015) (Attachment F), subject to a one (1) year extension by 

submittal of a written request ninety (90) days prior to the deadline. 

h. Construction Related Erosion Control

NSRC would install erosion control methods prior to any soil disturbance to prevent 

soil from leaving the construction site. Appropriate erosion control methods are 

identified in the stormwater pollution prevention plan and in accordance with Indiana 

Rule 5, 327 IAC 15-5 in administration of the CWA’s NPDES requirements for 

discharges of stormwater from construction sites. 40 C.F.R. § 450; 40 C.F.R. § 

122.26. NSRC does not anticipate producing any dredged material, but any deposit of 

dredged material will be contained within an upland disposal area to prevent sediment 

runoff.
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

13 | Page

II. PURPOSE AND NEED

This EA assesses modifications of design plans developed and previously approved for 

construction under the August 21, 2009 Categorical Exclusion to (1) include Pine Yard 

Lead Track and (2) move the existing access road and stormwater management ditch 

several feet to the north of the previously approved Pine Siding Extension. This EA does 

not reassess features previously approved by the 2009 Categorical Exclusion.

Minor modifications to the 2009 Indiana Gateway Project # 7 plans are required to meet 

the purpose and need for that Project. The need for the Indiana Gateway Project # 7 is to 

address traffic congestion and constrained operational fluidity on the Chicago Line

located adjacent to Pine Yard. The Chicago Line currently experiences traffic congestion 

and constrained operational fluidity because freight and passenger train traffic share this 

track and must navigate around each other to operate. 

The purpose of Indiana Gateway Project # 7 is to mitigate traffic congestion and improve 

operational fluidity on the Chicago Line adjacent to Pine Yard by improving switching 

operations at Pine Yard, providing track and access for passing / temporary storing of 

multiple trains of up to 11,000 ft. in length and enabling Pine Yard to be more easily 

accessed, creating additional capacity on the adjacent line segment by allowing for 

passing of passenger trains around stopped freight traffic. With the Proposed Action, two 

tracks can be utilized for through traffic movement at any time should one of the tracks – 

the existing two mainline tracks or the new four mile Pine Siding Extension – be blocked 

for maintenance or out-of-service. 

Additionally, movement of the existing access road and stormwater ditch will provide an 

access road to for the maintenance of the two mainline tracks to the east of Pine Yard 

and the Pine Siding Extension. An access road is essential for maintaining tracks in good 

repair. 

 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

14 | Page

III. ALTERNATIVES

The Proposed Action consists of two modifications to the Indiana Gateway Project # 7 

plans. The original Indiana Gateway Project # 7 plans approved by the 2009 Categorical 

Exclusion did not provide access to Tracks # 6-10 from the east end of Pine Yard. Those 

plans proposed upgrading an existing yard turnout just west of Clark Road to a power 

turnout to improve switching operations. 

Due to signal and electrical complications associated with placing a power turnout close 

to a road crossing with active warning devices, the layout of the Proposed Action has 

been revised to eliminate this power turnout and include a Pine Yard Lead Track. The 

addition of the Pine Yard Lead Track will allow access to these tracks from the east end 

of Pine Yard. Without the addition of the Pine Yard Lead Track, switching operations 

would occupy Main Track #1 at the west end of Pine Yard. The addition of the Pine Yard 

Lead Track increases capacity for switching operations. 

The Indiana Gateway Project # 7 plans reviewed by the 2009 Categorical Exclusion also 

did not include movement of the existing access road and existing stormwater 

management ditch several feet to the north for the Pine Siding Extension. An access 

road is required for rail operations, and access is necessary for delivering crews to trains, 

maintenance access, and emergency access on the railroad corridor. In order to ensure 

the Project includes an appropriate access road, the Proposed Action proposes moving 

an existing rail stormwater ditch and access road four to six feet to the north for portions 

of the Proposed Action. The stormwater management ditch is necessary to provide 

adequate drainage, which is required under federal transportation regulations for safety 

and maintenance reasons. The land underlying the existing access road will be used as 

the roadbed for the Pine Siding Extension. Figure 7 shows the Alternative E/Proposed 

Alternative alignment for Pine Yard. The access road and stormwater management ditch 

would be located between the Pine Siding Extension and the Pine Lead Track. 

Study and analysis of the alternatives for the Pine Yard Lead Track alignment and various 

impacts is included in this section. Additional construction design related alternatives to 

mitigate, avoid, or minimize impacts are also discussed in this section. Finally, analysis of 

the movement of the access road and stormwater ditch is also discussed in this section.

A. Pine Yard Lead Track Design

Design features of the Pine Yard Lead Track include the roadbed supporting the new 

track and the width of the roadbed. 

NSRC standard roadbed sections provide adequate geotechnical support for new tracks 

to be constructed on various types of soil. To minimize the wetland impacts of the 

Proposed Action, NSRC considered use of alternative roadbed sections. Alternatives 

considered included standard NSRC roadbed sections; precast concrete T-Wall, precast 

concrete block wall, cast-in-place concrete wall, steel sheet pile wall, gabion basket wall, 

and steep side slopes with rip-rap armor.
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

15 | Page

Figure 4 – Pine Yard Indiana Gateway Schematics, Existing and Proposed
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

16 | Page

Figure 5 - Alternative E/Proposed Alternative alignment for Pine Yard

Lead Track to permit access to Pine Yard from the East

The use of T-wall, precast concrete block wall, and retaining measures such as steel 

sheet pile was determined to be unnecessary due to topographic features and alignment. 

In some instances, use of these features would require temporary construction impacts in 

wetland areas, and extensive de-watering during construction. Also, existing buried fiber 

optic cable ducts are present in the construction area. Protection or relocation of this 

infrastructure would result in temporary wetland disturbances. Of all the roadbed section 

alternatives considered, a steepened side slope with rip rap armor was found to have the 

least wetland impacts.

Alternatives for the width of Pine Yard Lead Track roadbed within the adjacent wetland 

areas have also been evaluated. In order to mitigate impacts to wetlands and upland 

areas, including remnant dune and swale, NSRC applied minimum track widths within 

engineering safety and operational constraints. Specifically, NSRC narrowed the 

walkway shoulder from the standard NSRC rail sections, which in turn narrows the 

footprint of the Proposed Action in both upland and wetland areas. Upland impacts were 

minimized to 0.281 acre within upland area for the Proposed Action Alternative 

E/Proposed Alternative for the Pine Yard Lead Track. Wetland impacts applying this 

approach were reduced to 0.636 acre. 

All roadbed, sub ballast, and ballast material will consist of clean material in accordance 

with Section 404 and IDEM requirements. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

17 | Page

B. Stormwater Management System Design

Railroad facilities are required to maintain drainage through a system of stormwater 

management measures, which include extensive use of rail ditches. Standard rail ditch 

design requires capacity to handle 100-year rainfall events, which prevents saturation of 

the track roadbed. 

NSRC has attempted to use existing stormwater management features to the maximum

extent possible. In addition, for the Pine Siding Extension, NSRC has proposed moving 

the existing stormwater management rail ditch the minimum distance possible, 

approximately 4 to 6 feet from the existing stormwater management rail ditch. This in turn

minimizes footprint as well as disturbance during construction.

C. Construction Measures

Stormwater features, appurtenances, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been 

designed to comply with applicable local, state, and federal stormwater and erosion 

control rules and regulations while avoiding impacts to WOTUS. Construction stormwater

discharge will be compliant with the requirements of CWA, Section 402 as set forth by the 

IDEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit Rule for 

Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity under the NPDES 

(General Permit Rule 327 IAC 15-5 (Rule 5)), as well as with the applicable Gary Storm 

Water Management District rules, regulations, and erosion control measures as 

practicable. 

Adjacent wetland areas will be marked in the field with high-visibility orange construction 

fencing to locate the areas for the contractor to keep equipment, access points, and 

stockpiled material from inadvertently impacting these wetland areas.

Construction planning and design has minimized and avoided temporary wetland impacts. 

D. Alternative Track Alignments

NSRC considered six (6) alignments for the configuration of the Pine Yard Lead Track

alignment and the no action alternative (No-Build Alternative). The six alternatives are 

based on alternatives previously designed as part of the Section 404 permitting process 

in 2015. Those alternatives did not address the movement of the existing access road 

and stormwater ditch. For the purposes of this EA, the six alternatives described below 

include the movement of the existing access road and stormwater management ditch 4-6 

feet north of its current location. The No Build Alternative does not contemplate the

addition of the Pine Yard Lead Track or the movement of the existing access road and 

stormwater management ditch. 

Figure 6 depicts the wetlands and alternative centerlines of each of the six alternative 

alignments. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

18 | Page

Figure 6 - Overview Map of Wetlands and Alternative Centerlines

1. No-Build Alternative

The No‐Build Alternative was considered in lieu of adding the Pine Yard Lead Track and 

the movement of the access road and stormwater management rail ditch. The No-Build 

Alternative does not achieve the purpose and need of the Proposed Action. Without the 

Pine Yard Lead Track, switching operations would occupy Main Track #1 at the west end 

of Pine Yard and congestion would continue and could increase due to the inability to 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

19 | Page

hold and pass trains clear of the two main tracks. The east end of the yard could not be 

efficiently accessed. Without moving the access road and the stormwater rail ditch, the 

Pine Siding Extension would be constructed on top of the existing access road and ditch

and no replacement access road or ditch would support the Pine Siding Extension. 

2. Preferred Alignment

This is the original alignment that NSRC generated for the Pine Yard Lead Track in March 

2015. The proposed track follows a former track roadbed, and has the least amount of 

impacts to wetlands at 0.153 acre. This alignment meets the purpose and need of the 

Proposed Action while minimizing impacts to WOTUS. As noted below, however, based 

upon resource agency comments and comments from the public, a preference for 

protection of upland state protected plant species resulted in a preference for Alternative 

E/Proposed Alternative.

The Preferred Alignment also includes moving the existing access road and stormwater 

ditch 4-6 feet north of its current location.

3. Alternative A

Alternative A has optimal track geometry from a track design standpoint. The track 

extends as a straight line from the turnout near the main line, and minimizes track 

curvature. The yard turnout is shifted as far west along the Canadian National Railway

(CN) track as possible. There are greater wetland impacts associated with this alignment 

as compared to the Preferred Alignment. Alternative A impacts wetlands W-1, W-2, W-3, 

and W-4, which have state listed species identified in the Floristic Quality Analysis (FQA) 

performed in October 2015. 

Alternative A also includes moving the existing access road and stormwater ditch 4-6 feet 

north of its current location. 

4. Alternative B

Alternative B avoids disturbance of the former track roadbed area. The proposed track 

parallels the main line until wetland impacts are encountered. Then, the track diverges 

from the main lines and crosses wetlands in order to reach the CN track. There are 

significant wetland impacts associated with this alignment as compared to the Preferred 

Alignment. Alternative B impacts wetlands W-1 and W-4, which have state listed species 

identified in the FQA analysis. 

Alternative B also includes moving the existing access road and stormwater ditch 4-6 feet 

north of its current location.

5. Alternative C

Alternative C avoids the former track roadbed area. The track parallels the main line, 

impacts the edge of a wetland area, and curves to meet the location of the turnout in the 

CN track. There are significant wetland impacts associated with this alignment as 

compared to the Preferred Alignment. Alternative C impacts wetlands W-1 and W-4, 

which have state listed species identified in the FQA analysis. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

20 | Page

Alternative C also includes moving the existing access road and stormwater ditch 4-6 feet 

north of its current location.

6. Alternative D

Alternative D parallels the main line, impacts the edge of a wetland area, and diverges to 

meet the turnout in the CN track. The yard turnout is shifted as far west along the CN 

track as possible. There are significant wetland impacts associated with this alignment as 

compared to the Preferred Alignment. Alternative D would still impact wetlands W-1 and 

W-4, which have state listed species identified in the FQA analysis. 

Alternative D also includes moving the existing access road and stormwater ditch 4-6 feet 

north of its current location.

7. Alternative E/Proposed Alternative

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative is shifted as far south and west as possible, to address 

concerns of bisecting dune and swale terrain on railroad right-of-way. There are greater 

wetland impacts associated with this alignment as compared to the Preferred Alignment. 

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative impacts wetlands W-1 and W-4, which have state 

listed species identified in the FQA analysis. Although wetland impacts are increased by 

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative, the wetlands that would be impacted are of lower 

quality than those impacted by the Preferred Alignment as identified in FQA scores and 

indices developed for the Proposed Action. Although this alignment does not minimize

impacts to WOTUS, interested agencies and stakeholders prefer Alternative E/Proposed 

Alternative because it avoids state protected plant species located on the rail roadbed. 

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative also includes moving the existing access road and 

stormwater ditch 4-6 feet north of its current location.

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative is the alternative favored by the USACE, IDNR, 

stakeholders, and public commenters. Based upon avoidance of impact to state protected 

species, the Alternative E/Proposed Alternative is the Least Environmentally Damaging 

Practicable Alternative (“LEDPA”), as defined in EPA’s Section 404 guidelines, 40 C.F.R. 

§ 230.10(a), meeting the purpose and need for this Proposed Action. See Attachment D, 

Mitigation Plan, at Appendix C, Floristic Quality Assessment (CARDNO, July 2015). See

also Attachment I, March 25, 2015 Application for Authorization pursuant to Section 404 

of the CWA; Attachment J – June 23, 2015 Supplement to March 25, 2015 Application for 

Authorization pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA; Attachment K – August 10, 2015 

Waters of the U.S. Summary Report – Pine Siding Extension, Lead Track and Tail Track. 

Figure 9 below shows details of Alternative E/Proposed Alternative in relation to the 

wetlands identified.
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

21 | Page

Figure 7 - Overview Map of Alternative E/Proposed Alternative

To address the concerns of commenting agencies and organizations, Alternative E is the 

Proposed Alternative. 

Following minimization and avoidance in accordance with IDEM regulations and 

guidance, as well as USACE’s requirements at 40 C.F.R. Part 230 and 33 C.F.R. 

Part 325, total impacts to WOTUS resulting from Alternative E/Proposed Alternative are 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

22 | Page

1.352 acres. Of this total impact, 0.763 acre results from the movement of the access 

road the stormwater ditch. The remainder, 0.589 acre, results from the addition of the 

Pine Yard Lead Track. 

Attachment H - Alternatives Analysis provides conceptual plans for the Preferred 

Alignment, Alternatives A-D, and Alternative E/Proposed Alternative. 

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

This section describes the existing environmental resources within the Proposed Action 

Vicinity and analyzes the potential beneficial and adverse impacts to these resources 

from the alternatives described in Section III. The Proposed Action Area is the area of 

direct effects (e.g. construction and placement of fill, land disturbance). The Proposed 

Action Vicinity includes the geographical locations surrounding the Proposed Action Area. 

The Proposed Action Vicinity differs depending upon the resource being analyzed and 

physical characteristics of the area. For example, noise and vibration is analyzed to 

Federal Transit Authority baseline screening levels, which are closer to the Proposed 

Action Area than Environmental Justice analysis which extends further from the Proposed 

Action Area. The geographic scope of analysis is identified in each resource area, below.

In this section, the Preferred Alignment, Alternatives A-D, and Alternative E/Proposed 

Alternative will be referred to as the Proposed Action or Proposed Action alternatives. The 

No-Build Alterative is considered individually. The environmental resources and impacts

have been categorized into three groups: the physical environment, ecological systems, 

and the human environment. The resource categories of timber and mineral resources 

are not applicable to this analysis due to the geographic location and physical aspects of 

the Proposed Action and Proposed Action Vicinity and are therefore not included in the 

following sections.

A. Physical Environment

1. Air Quality and Energy

In accordance with the federal Clean Air Act, EPA has classified the Lake County area as 

in attainment for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants including 

sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide (Unclassifiable/Attainment), and particulate matter (PM10 

and PM 2.5). 40 C.F.R. § 81.315.

The Lake County Area was previously designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone 

standard. At the time the 8-hour ozone standard became effective, however, the 1-hour

ozone standard was revoked effective June 15, 2005. U.S. EPA issued a finding of 

attainment on January 29, 2009 and the area was effectively redesignated to attainment 

under the 8-hour ozone standard on May 10, 2010.

See http://www.in.gov/idem/airquality/2339.htm. See Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 

Indiana; Redesignation of Lake and Porter Counties to Attainment of the 2008 Eight-Hour 

Ozone Standard, Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 26113 (Tuesday, May 11, 

2010); http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-05-11/html/2010-11009.htm. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

23 | Page

EPA regulations identify the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area as in marginal 

nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. See 40 C.F.R. § 81.315.

The purpose of the Proposed Action is to reduce congestion and improve operational

fluidity on the Chicago Line adjacent to Pine Yard. The Proposed Action has been 

identified as reducing passenger rail congestion by improving switching operations and 

promoting transportation by passenger rail. Therefore, implementation of any of the 

Proposed Action alternatives would reduce air emissions through greater operational 

efficiency and increased utilization of rail as compared to personal vehicles and truck 

traffic, which will decrease emissions of airborne pollutants. 

Improving operational efficiency includes increasing on-time performance and service 

reliability of the 14 daily Amtrak trains using this corridor, which would result in 

environmental benefits due to the retention of existing Amtrak ridership and increase 

diversion of new riders from private automobiles. Analysis of the Proposed Action by Rail 

Traffic Controller (RTC) modeling software indicates that these improvements would

collectively reduce fuel consumption of Amtrak trains by 332 gallons per week 

(cumulative) and fuel consumption of freight trains by 430 gallons per week (cumulative). 

These decreases in consumption would also result in emission reductions (which have 

not been quantified).

Air emissions may also indirectly benefit from increased utilization of passenger rail in lieu 

of automobile travel, causing reduction in (1) greenhouse gas emissions, (2) fuel and 

energy usage, and (3) associated emissions. Average passenger automobile emissions 

of carbon dioxide are 0.964 pounds CO2/passenger mile. For passenger rail, emissions 

of carbon dioxide range average 0.239 pounds CO2/passenger mile. See Public 

Transportation’s Role in Responding to Climate Change, Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA, 2007).

The Proposed Action will have no significant adverse impacts on air quality. There is no 

direct impact on air quality or air emissions from the Proposed Action. The Proposed 

Action will not result in additional freight or passenger train traffic or trips. By relieving 

congestion and increasing operational fluidity, the Proposed Action will result in reduced

air emissions due to reduced diesel locomotive idling time, reduced train movements, and 

increased track downtime. 

The Proposed Action would have no significant cumulative effects on air quality and air 

emissions.6

 Past, present, and future improvements to the rail transportation will have 

similar incremental beneficial impacts on air emissions as the Proposed Action. The net 

cumulative impact from future actions, which may include additional passenger rail 

utilization, would displace greenhouse gas emissions through more efficient and lower 

emitting passenger rail. Similarly, any future improvements to freight rail system and 

 

6 The President’s Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) defines a cumulative impact as: “...the impact 

on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or 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 C.F.R. § 1508.7.
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

24 | Page

utilization would displace greenhouse gas emissions from other non-rail modes of freight 

transportation.

The No-Build Alternative would not achieve the emissions reductions that would occur 

with the Proposed Action alternatives. 

2. Flood Plains

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate 

Map (“FIRM”) Community Panel Number 180132 0017C, the Proposed Action is located 

in a Zone C or upland area. There are no floodplains within the limits of the Proposed 

Action Vicinity. (See Attachment B, 2009 Categorical Exclusion). The Proposed Action

alternatives, including the No-Build Alternative, will not have any indirect or cumulative 

impacts on floodplains. 

3. Noise and Vibration

FRA relies on the Federal Transit Administration’s guidance on assessing noise and 

vibration impacts for the evaluation of improvements to conventional passenger rail lines 

and stationary rail facilities. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-

1003-06, Federal Transit Authority May 2006 (“FTA 2006”). These guidelines require 

screening for three categories of noise- and vibration-sensitive uses: highly sensitive 

(locations requiring exceptional quiet, such as outdoor theaters, recording studios, 

concert halls, or national historic landmarks), residential (residences and buildings in 

which people would be sleeping), and institutional (facilities with primarily daytime use, 

such as houses of worship and educational facilities). FTA guidance indicates that in 

commercial or industrial use area, the activities within buildings are compatible with 

higher noise levels. 

As indicated in Table 1, noise screening distances for improvement to conventional 

passenger rail lines and stationary rail facilities, including commuter and rapid transit rail 

projects extend to a maximum of 1,600 feet. For vibration, the screening distances are 

600 feet for highly vibration-sensitive buildings, 200 feet for residential buildings, and 120 

feet for institutional buildings. The guidelines assume that if any noise- or vibrationsensitive locations are within the screening distances, impacts are likely to occur and a 

minimum of a general assessment is required.

The Proposed Action Area is located within NSRC’s Pine Yard in Gary, Indiana, north of I90 near the Gary-Chicago International Airport. The areas adjacent to Pine Yard are 

characterized by dense industrial development. See Attachment B, 2009 Categorical 

Exclusion. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

25 | Page

Table 1: Screening Distance

for Noise Assessments (FTA, 2006)

No noise sensitive receptors exist 

within the applicable screening 

distances. There are no known 

residential receptors of noise and 

vibration within one mile of the 

Proposed Action location. One 

industrial building is located 

approximately 1,500 feet to the 

north, on the other side of 

Canadian National Railway’s Kirk 

Yard, part of the U.S. Steel Gary 

Steel Works. A second industrial 

building is located 2,100 feet to 

the south, part of the Central 

Illinois Steel Company property. 

Other potential receptors include 

the Gary Airport, nearly one mile 

from the Proposed Action Area, 

construction companies, and other 

industrial areas.

 

The Proposed Action would not have significant impacts with respect to noise or sound 

exposure. The Pine Yard Lead Track would serve as a low speed access point for trains, 

with minimal noise and vibration. Additionally, due to a lack of receptors, and the 

surrounding area’s industrial use, the Proposed Action would not have a significant effect 

on noise and vibration. Environmental Protection Agency, "Information on Levels of 

Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate 

Margin of Safety," Report No. 550/9-74-004, Washington DC, March 1974. 

Indirect and cumulative effects on noise and vibration also would be insignificant. The 

Proposed Action is intended to address existing passenger and freight rail traffic, and 

accordingly is not intended to increase passenger and freight rail traffic and associated 

noise and vibration. Even without the Proposed Action, this area currently experiences 

and will continue to experience rail traffic from passenger and freight rail. The Proposed 

Action will not result in an increased number of train operations or increased speeds or 

new stationary noise sources.
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

26 | Page

Because the Indiana Gateway Project purpose is to reduce rail congestion and increase 

use of passenger rail with associated reduction in highway utilization, indirect effects in 

terms of reduction of noise and vibration may be realized in highway areas. 

The No-Build Alternative would not result in noise and vibration impacts. 

4. Visual Resources

The Proposed Action will be located within existing rail right-of-way at Pine Yard in Gary, 

Indiana. The areas adjacent to Pine Yard are characterized by dense industrial 

development. See Attachment B, 2009 Categorical Exclusion. The Proposed Action will 

not change the viewshed or aesthetic nature of the area. 

The Proposed Action is intended to address existing passenger and freight rail traffic, and 

accordingly is will not increase passenger and freight rail traffic or result in associated 

visual effects. The Pine Yard Lead Track will provide a location for ingress and egress at 

the east end of Pine Yard, in addition to the access point at the west end of Pine Yard.

Having two access points is expected to reduce time required for train movements. 

Reduction in rail congestion might result in shorter residence time for trains in the area.

No indirect or cumulative impacts to visual resources are expected to result from the 

proposed action. 

The No-Build Alternative would not result in impacts to visual resources. 

5. Agriculture

No farmland soils or active farmlands were identified in the Proposed Action Area or 

Proposed Action Vicinity. All work is confined within the existing NSRC right-of-way and 

does not have the potential to impact farmland. The Proposed Action will not have any 

indirect or cumulative impacts on farmland. 

The No-Build Alternative would not result in impacts to agricultural land. 

B. Ecological Systems

The Proposed Action is located within the Calumet River – Frontal Lake Michigan HUC: 

0404000106 watershed. The Proposed Action Area is approximately 900 feet from the

Grand Calumet River which is across I-90 to the South and 6,000 feet from Lake 

Michigan. There are no Designated Salmonid Waters, Outstanding National Resource 

Waters, or Outstanding State Waters within the Proposed Action Vicinity 

The Proposed Action is located in Northern Indiana, where the USACE conducted a 2006 

Study which determined that 2,000 acres of dune and swale still exist within the 30,000 

acres of strandplain. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2006. Status, Trends, and Potential 

of Biological Communities of the Grand Calumet River Basin (Moye et al, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers Environmental and Social Analysis Branch Chicago District). 

The USFWS has confirmed that the Proposed Action is not likely to affect federally 

protected species or their critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

27 | Page

1531 et seq. See August 6, 2015 Comments from USFWS, attached hereto as 

Attachment L.

As discussed below, IDNR identified the potential presence of state protected plant 

species as an issue of concern. NSRC consultants performed additional studies, including 

FQA analysis (see below) to identify potential state or federal, protected plant species. 

NSRC consultants also assessed geotechnical conditions for the original alignment. As 

noted in Attachment M, August 10, 2015 NSRC Comment Letter to USACE, geotechnical 

borings found presence of fill material, slag, stone, and other typical material utilized for 

rail roadbed in the Proposed Action Vicinity at the original Preferred Alignment for the 

Pine Yard Lead Track. See Attachment N – Geotechnical Report (August 10, 2015). 

1. Wetlands and Waters of the United States

Figure 10 depicts the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Mapped Wetlands within the 

Proposed Action Vicinity. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

28 | Page

Figure 8 - National Wetland Inventory Mapped Wetlands within the Proposed Action Vicinity
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

29 | Page

Figure 9 - National Wetland Inventory Mapped Wetlands within the Proposed Action Area

In order to verify and confirm wetland areas, WOTUS, and their boundaries, the Proposed 

Action Vicinity was inspected on June 6 and August 7, 2014 by Shannon & Wilson and 

June 5 and July 21, 2015 by CARDNO. Additional site visits for the purpose of assessing 

environmental conditions, including presence of WOTUS, were conducted with resource 

agencies in March 2015, July 2015 and September 2015. The USACE was present at the 

July 21, 2015 site visit and the boundaries presented in this revised supplemental report 

represent boundaries marked as directed by the USACE. The boundary markings 

directed by the USACE were surveyed for the purpose of producing a summary report of

all jurisdictional boundaries. The methods and data collected have been analyzed and 

submitted to the USACE and IDEM. See Attachment K, Waters of the U.S. Summary 

Report - Pine Siding Extension, Lead Track and Tail Track, Gary, Indiana (August 10, 

2015).

Based upon site visits by NSRC consultants, subsequent site visits by IDEM, IDNR, and 

USACE, six wetlands were identified within the Proposed Action Vicinity.

No streams or channels with ordinary high-water mark and/or bed and bank were 

determined to be present within the Proposed Action Vicinity. No ponds or other open 

waters were observed within the Proposed Action Vicinity. 

Table 2 summarizes the wetlands in the Proposed Action Vicinity. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

30 | Page

Table 2 – Wetland Summary Table

Table 3 presents the earthwork excavation, total stone fill, wetland impact, nonwetland/upland impact, and the total fill impact as a result of each of the alternative 

alignments, with descriptions of each of the alternatives.

Table 3 – Alternatives Impact Summary

Alternative

Earthwork 

Excavation

(CY)

Total 

Crushed 

Stone Fill 

(CY)

Wetland 

Impact

(Acre)

Upland 

Impact

(Acre)

Total Impact 

(Acre)

Preferred

Alignment 405 1,722 0.153 0.636 0.789

A 671 3,551 0.412 0.805 1.217

B 1,079 1,877 0.326 0.522 0.848

C 978 1,958 0.491 0.309 0.800

D 868 2,194 0.660 0.282 0.942

Alternative 

E/Proposed 

Alternative

995 2,573 0.589 0.281 0.870
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

31 | Page

All of the alternatives considered, except the No-Build Alternative, would result in impacts 

to wetlands, and state-listed wetland and upland species. The original Preferred 

Alignment minimized wetland impact areas and was located on an existing rail roadbed 

which was the former location of a lead track to Pine Yard. However, public comments 

indicated concern that this alternative would bisect upland plant species and habitat and 

indicated that Alternative E/Proposed Alternative would satisfy concern regarding 

bisection of plant communities. Comments were raised regarding upland plant species 

quality. After receipt of comments from the public, interested groups and resource 

agencies, NSRC proposes Alternative E/Proposed Alternative instead of the original 

Preferred Alignment. Wetland impacts associated with this alignment are greater as 

compared to the Preferred Alternative, however, selecting Alternative E/Proposed 

Alternative satisfies concerns for upland impacts raised by commenters and resource 

agencies.

Attachment H provides detailed information including Floristic Quality Assessment of 

wetlands and WOTUS in the Proposed Action Vicinity. Attachment H - Alternatives 

Analysis, dated November 4, 2015. 

Following minimization and avoidance in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Part 230 and 33 

C.F.R. Part 325, Alternative E/Proposed Alternative would impact 1.352 acres of waters 

identified as WOTUS. Impacts would be limited to Wetlands 1, 4, 5A, and 5 are discussed 

in further detail below:

Wetland 1 (0.247 acre of impact) is a forested wetland located at the northwestern edge 

of the Proposed Action. Wetland 1 has a heavy shrub/forest layer of Populus deltoides 

(Cottonwood), Salix spp, (Willows), and Cornus spp (Dogwood), likely suppressing most 

of the herbaceous layer, which was dominated by Calamagrostis canadensis (Blue Joint 

Grass). A few diverse and high C-value pockets are sprinkled among the thickets, but 

Lythrum salicaria (Purple Loosestrife), Phragmites australis (Common reed), and 

Rhamnus frangula (Glossy Buckthorn) are starting to dominate these thickets. State 

listed species observed include: Carex aurea (Golden Sedge, Rare), Hypericum 

kalmianum (Kalm’s St. John’s Wort, Watch List), Juncus balticus var. littoralis (Lake 

Shore Rush, Rare), and Rhus aromatica var. arenaria (Dwarf Fragrant Sumac, Rare). 

Wetland 1 has a native mean C value of 4.1 (3.5 with adventives) and a native FQI of 

21.9 (20.2 with adventives). A total of 33 species were identified with 28 (84%) being 

native to the Chicago Region.

Wetland 4 (0.342 acre of impact) is a complex of scrub-shrub, emergent wetland, and 

panne. Large patches of Phragmites australis (Common Reed) and Rhamnus frangula 

(Glossy Buckthorn) are present. A high quality panne is present at the northern-end of 

this wetland. Several state listed species were observed (mostly in the panne). These 

include, Aster ptarmicoides (Stiff Aster, Rare), Betula papyrifera (Paper Birch, Watch 

List), Buchnera americana (Blue Hearts,State Endangered), Carex aurea (Golden Sedge, 

Rare), Carex crawei (Early Fen Sedge, Threatened), Hypericum kalmianum (Kalm’s St. 

John’s Wort, Watch List), Juncus balticus var. littoralis (Lake Shore Rush, Rare), 

Sisyrinchium montanum (Mountain Blue-Eyed Grass, State Endangered). Wetland 4 has 

a native mean C value of 5.7 (5.3 with adventives) and a native FQI of 44.2 (42.8 with 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

32 | Page

adventives). A total of 65 species were identified with 61 (94%) being native to the 

Chicago Region.

Wetland 5A (0.049 acre of impact) is a linear wet ditch running adjacent to the access 

road and railroad, approximately 4 to 8 feet wide and 3⁄4 mile long. It is almost completely 

dominated by Phragmites australis (Common Reed), but a few individual specimens of 

higher quality native plants are still present. No state listed species were observed. 

Wetland 5A has a native mean C value of 2.7 (2.0 with adventives) and a native FQI of 

15.7 (13.4 with adventives). A total of 45 species were identified with 33 (73%) being 

native to the Chicago Region.

Wetland 5 (0.714 acre of impact) is a linear ditch that was considered an “Exempt Ditch” 

in a 2010 delineation. The wetland is a low quality linear ditch dominated by Phragmites 

australis (Common Reed) and Typha x glauca (Hybrid Cattail). No state listed species 

were observed in wetland 5. Wetland 5 has a native mean C value of 3.7 (3.3 with 

adventives) and a native FQI of 15.3 (14.5 with adventives). A total of 19 species were 

identified with 17 (90%) being native to the Chicago Region. 

Wetland W-5 and W-5A are within the Pine Siding Extension portion of the Proposed 

Action, and are part of a manmade drainage ditch for the two main line tracks East of 

Pine Yard. This wetland coincides with Shaw Environmental Inc.’s 2010 Routine Wetland 

Assessment wetlands #37, #38, and #39 which describes the wetlands as constructed 

ditch and “exempt” wetlands. NSRC identified W-5 and W-5A as waters of the United 

States out of an abundance of caution, has mitigated for impacts as dune and swale 

impacts at the Pine Station mitigation bank.

Graphic depictions of impacted areas of Waters of the United States are found in 

Attachment H, Alternatives Analysis, and Attachment K - Waters of the United States 

Summary Report – Pine Yard Siding Extension, Lead Track and Tail Track. 

Following minimization and avoidance, and as the result of alternatives analysis and 

comments from the public regarding the Section 404 permit LRC-2015-213, the Proposed 

Action will have no impacts to wetland W-3 and W-4. 

Wetland 3 (No impact) is a small wetland with a tiny “upland” island/hummock running 

through. East side is dense with Phragmites australis in standing water. West side is 

dense with shrubs, very diverse, and has some standing water. A single specimen of the 

wetland shrub Hypericum kalmianum was noted, it is located in the portion of the wetland

to be impacted. H. kalmianum (Kalm’s St. John’s Wort) is on Indiana state watch list. 

Rhus aromatica var. arenaria (Beach Sumac), a state rare plant, was also observed. 

Wetland 3 has 36 total species, 33 native. Native Mean C = 5.1. FQI = 29.4.

Wetland 4 (No impact) is a complex of scrub shrub, emergent wetland, and panne. 

Large patches of Phragmites australis and Rhamnus fragula were present. A high quality 

panne is present at the northern end of this wetland. Several state listed species were 

observed (mostly in the panne): Aster ptarmicoides (Stiff Aster, Rare), Betula papyrifera 

(Paper Birch, Watch List), Buchnera americana (Blue Hearts,State Endangered), Carex 

aurea (Golden Sedge, Rare), Carex crawei (Early Fen Sedge, Threatened), Hypericum 

kalmianum (Kalm’s St. John’s Wort, Watch List), Juncus balticus var. littoralis (Lake 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

33 | Page

Shore Rush, Rare), Sisyrinchium montanum (Mountain Blue-Eyed Grass, State 

Endangered). Wetland 4 has 65 total species, 61 native. Native Mean C = 5.7. Native FQI 

= 44.2.

2. Water Quality and Water Resources

The Proposed Action is approximately 900 feet from the Grand Calumet River and 6,000 

feet from Lake Michigan. There are no Designated Salmonid Waters, Outstanding 

National Resource Water, or Outstanding State Waters within the Proposed Action

Vicinity. 

No streams or channels with ordinary high-water mark and/or bed and bank were 

determined to be present within the Proposed Action Vicinity. No ponds or other open 

waters were observed within the Proposed Action Vicinity. No impacts to jurisdictional 

channels, streams, or open waters are anticipated for this Proposed Action. 

None of the Proposed Action alternatives, once completed, would result in additional 

water runoff, generation of wastewater, or change the existing drainage or groundwater 

recharge patterns of the area. Therefore, no long-term negative impact on local 

groundwater or surface water quality will occur as a result of the Proposed Action. There 

are no streams or other watercourses located within the Proposed Action Vicinity. The 

Proposed Action will have no effect on essential fish habitats. Accordingly, the Proposed 

Action will have no indirect or cumulative impacts on water quality. 

The No-Build alternative would have not impacts on water quality or water resources. 

3. Threatened and Endangered Species

The USFWS determined that no federally listed species exist within the Proposed Action

Vicinity, including the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) or Northern Long-Eared bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis). See the August 6, 2015 Comments from USFWS, attached hereto as 

Attachment L. The USFWS has confirmed that the Proposed Action is not likely to 

directly or indirectly jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered 

species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal 

Endangered Species Act, or directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify the critical 

habitat of such species. Therefore, no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts are 

expected to result to federally listed species or their critical habitat as a result of the 

Proposed Action.

Coordination letters were also sent to the Bloomington Field Office of the USFWS and to 

the IDNR Environmental Review Coordinator. State protected plant species are identified 

in the Proposed Action Area. According to the IDNR Natural Heritage Data Center, there 

are 43 species which have some level of state protection potentially located within the 

vicinity of the Indiana Gateway Project # 7. Other than one state endangered mammal 

(Spermophilus franklinii) and one state endangered turtle (Emydoidea blandingii), the

potentially impacted species are all plants or insects, including six state endangered

species, 10 state threatened species, and 25 state rare species. All the Proposed Action 

alternatives would involve relocating the access road and stormwater management ditch 

and constructing a portion of the Pine Yard Lead Track adjacent to the existing track and 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

34 | Page

within rail right-of-way, minimizing impact to these species. See March 18, 2015 IDNR’s 

response dated (Attachment O). However, all the Proposed Action alternatives have the 

potential to impact these state protected species. 

In consultation with the USACE, IDNR, and IDEM, the Alternative E/Proposed Alternative 

was identified as minimizing potential impacts to these upland state protected plant 

species. Despite the potential presence of state protected species, IDNR’s Division of 

Natural Preserves has expressed its support for the Alternative E/Proposed Alternative. 

See October 26, 2015, IDNR Division of Nature Preserves Letter of Support (Attachment 

A). In the Division of Natural Preserves’ view, Alternative E//Proposed Alternative impacts

wetlands of lower quality than the other alternatives and avoids bisecting areas IDNR 

considers significant. The Division of Natural Preserves and NSRC have worked closely 

to develop the Alternative E/Proposed Alternative design and mitigation options that 

conserve natural resources in this area. The potential impacts to state endangered or 

threatened species resulting from Alternative E/Proposed Alternative have been 

minimized to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, any impacts to state endangered or 

threatened species or their critical habitat connected with the Alternative E/Proposed 

Alternative would not be significant. Further, it is not expected that the Alternative 

E/Proposed Alternative will have any indirect or cumulative impacts on state threatened or 

endangered species or their critical habitat.

The No-Build Alternative would not have any impacts on federally listed species or state 

protected species at the Proposed Action area. The benefits associated with the 

mitigation associated with Alternative E/Proposed Alternative would not be realized with 

the No-Build Alternative. 

4. Special Lands, including 4(f) Properties

No Section 4(f) or 6(f) properties were identified within the Proposed Action Vicinity. The 

Proposed Action will not impact any Section 4(f) or 6(f) properties. The Proposed Action

is located within a designated coastal zone (Lake Michigan) pursuant to the Coastal Zone 

Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1451-1464. NSRC has received coastal zone consistency 

certification under the Coastal Zone Management Act for Alternative E/Proposed 

Alternative. See Attachment G - Federal Consistency Review under Indiana Lake 

Michigan Coastal Program January 26, 2016.

C. Human Environment

1. Transportation

As previously discussed, it is anticipated that the Proposed Action alternatives would

have a positive impact on transportation, most importantly ameliorating congestion issues 

experienced in the rail corridor. The Proposed Action alternatives would increase

passenger and freight transportation capacity, accessibility, and mobility for all rail travel. 

It would not negatively impact road traffic. See Section II: “Purpose and Need for 

Proposed Action” above. 

As discussed in Section II, the project will have beneficial effects on transportation. The 

Proposed Action is designed to relief passenger and freight rail congestion. The project 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

35 | Page

will specifically permit freight trains to be moved to the siding extension track, made 

possible by the movement of the access road. This movement of freight trains from the 

mainline will allow the faster passenger trains to pass, meeting passenger transportation 

scheduling and transportation goals. 

The project will also benefit freight transportation, providing for access to Pine Yard. As 

previously discussed, Pine Yard is located in one of the most congested portions of the 

national rail system. The lead and tail track are designed to provide access to Pine Yard 

facilitating ingress and egress.

The No-Build Alternative would have no positive impacts on transportation and would 

result in continued congestion on the Chicago Line. 

2. Land Use and Socioeconomics, including Environmental Justice

The Proposed Action Vicinity is identified as industrial, with properties to the north 

including railroad, current and former steel, and manufacturing facilities. IDNR owns and 

manages the Pine Station Nature Preserve, located adjacent from the Proposed Action 

Area (see Figure 2). The Proposed Action is consistent with the current and future use of 

the Proposed Action Vicinity. The Proposed Action Vicinity is home to industrial activities 

including U.S. Steel, the Gary-Chicago International Airport, Gary Jetport, Olympic Steel, 

South Shore Slag, and Canadian National Railway’s Kirk Yard. 

Socioeconomic impacts of the Proposed Action are limited because the Proposed Action 

would not disrupt existing surrounding uses, including the industrial use of the area and 

existing businesses. The Proposed Action may increase the number of jobs in the area. 

Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”) guidance estimates one man-year of 

employment results from each $100,000 investment in infrastructure construction.

7

 

Proposed Action parameters indicate that this Indiana Gateway Project # 7, including the 

Proposed Action, would result in the estimated creation of 703 jobs during the 

construction phase. 

Direct, indirect and cumulative socioeconomic benefits including increased efficiency of 

passenger and freight rail transportation, associated reductions in economic costs for 

regional transportation, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, 

reductions in highway traffic congestion, and reduced highway maintenance are 

anticipated benefits of the Indiana Gateway Project. As noted above in Section II, 

Purpose and Need, the Proposed Action is a central and critical component for achieving 

the clearance necessary for passenger and freight rail in the Northern Indiana area to 

achieve national transportation policy goals, and the Proposed Action is also critical to 

efficient passenger rail operations and achieving high speed passenger rail goals set forth 

by INDOT, FRA, and Congress in accordance with the ARRA. The INDOT describes the 

Indiana Gateway Program (including the Proposed Action) as a program to improve 

intercity passenger rail service.8

 The INDOT states that each individual project is 

coordinated to provide train dispatchers with additional alternatives when planning train 

 

7 http://www.in.gov/indot/files/IndianaGatewayHSIPRApplicationTrack1a.pdf

8 http://www.in.gov/indot/3373.htm. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

36 | Page

meetings and passings in and out of Chicago. In addition to passenger service, the 

INDOT specifies the following Program benefits:

• Improved fluidity in Northwest Indiana for both train traffic and the travelling public;

• A reduction in lengthy crossing blockages because the train dispatchers will have 

alternatives to keep trains moving; and

• Improvements in passenger service to the east, towards South Bend, Elkhart, and 

Waterloo, Indiana, and beyond for Amtrak Capitol Limited to/from Washington and 

Lake Shore Limited to\from New York and Boston.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 addresses discrimination issues associated with 

federally funded projects. No groups or individuals have been or will be excluded from 

participation in public involvement activities, denied the benefit of the project, or subjected 

to discrimination in any way on the basis of race, color, age, sex, national origin, disability, 

or religion. 

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Low-Income Populations (1994), directs federal agencies to "promote 

nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment, and provide minority and low-income communities access to public 

information on, and an opportunity for public participation in matters relating to human 

health or the environment." The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) responded to 

this order by issuing guidance for agencies on how to address environmental justice 

under NEPA. The Department of Transportation (DOT) issued an update to Departmental 

Order 5610.2(a) (Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations) (originally published April 15, 1997) on May 2, 2012. The Order 

updates and clarifies environmental justice procedures for the DOT in response to the 

Memorandum of Understanding on Environmental Justice signed by heads of Federal 

agencies on August 4, 2011, DOT’s revised environmental justice strategy issued on 

March 2, 2012, and Executive Order 12898. 

The Proposed Action would not have disproportionately high or adverse impacts on 

minority or low impact populations.

The total percentage of minority populations within a one mile radius of the study area is

97%, compared to 45.3% for Lake County, and 19% for the State of Indiana. The total 

residential population in this heavily industrialized area is low, however, with a total of 

three residences identified within the one mile radius, 4,140 within a two mile radius, and 

29,824 within the 3 mile radius which includes a portion of East Chicago.9

 Figure 12. 

 

9 https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

37 | Page

Figure 10: Two and Three Mile Radius from Proposed Action Area

The Proposed Action will be located in Census Block 103.04, Lake County, Indiana. 

Census Block 103.04, Lake County, Indiana population of 3,149 has the following 

demographic characteristics (Figure 13): 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

38 | Page

Figure 11: Demographics, Census Block 103.04, Lake County, Indiana

compared to State and Federal Demographics10

Total low income populations are 59% for the one mile radius from the Project Area, 59% 

for the two mile radius from the Project Area, and 61% for the three mile radius for the 

Project Area, compared to 34% for the State of Indiana.11 

Although the local environmental justice populations examined were higher than the 

county or state averages, none of the populations would be impacted by the Proposed 

Action, primarily due to the distance between these populations and the Proposed Action 

Area. No acquisitions would be required and no community resources would be impacted 

or displaced. Native American tribes (either federally recognized or other) are not located 

within the Proposed Action Vicinity. The Proposed Action would not result in any property 

acquisitions of residences or businesses or relocations, and no temporary or permanent

road or crossing closures would be associated with the Proposed Action. Accordingly, no 

disproportionate or adverse impact on minority or low-income populations are anticipated. 

3. Public Health and Safety 

No safety or security concerns were identified in the Proposed Action Vicinity. As noted 

in Section I, the area is currently heavy industrial with substantial rail operational traffic. 

Rail safety provisions and requirements will apply to the Pine Yard Lead Track in the 

same manner as applied to the current Mainline # 1 and # 2, and Pine Yard operational 

areas. 

NSRC safety provisions and personnel will serve in the same capacity for the Proposed 

Action as other portions of the rail system. Public access is prohibited in operating rail 

property areas. Passenger rail safety matters will be addressed by Amtrak. The location 

for proposed facilities has avoided crossings to the maximum extent possible, and will not 

result in increased crossings from current baseline conditions.

The Proposed Action is expected to have positive indirect and cumulative effects on 

public health and safety. By increasing efficiency and capacity of passenger rail 

transportation, the Proposed Action will substantially reduce roadway congestion. 

Reducing roadway congestion is associated with improvements in safety and fuel 

efficiency.12 

 

10http://www.usboundary.com/Areas/Census%20Tract/Indiana/Lake%20County/Census%20Tract%20103.0

4/456667#Data

11 https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/ 12 Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2005. Traffic Congestion and Reliability: for the FWHA, September 1, 2005. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

39 | Page

The No-Build Alternative would have no impact on the current, safe operation of Pine 

Yard and would not realize the positive indirect and cumulative effects on public health 

and safety. 

4. Hazardous Materials and Waste

Construction of the Proposed Action alternatives would not involve the use or handling of 

hazardous materials. All wastes would be properly handled in accordance with the 

requirements of applicable law. 

NSRC is a common carrier with respect to materials. The Proposed Action will not affect 

the type of materials transported. The Proposed Action addresses current freight and rail 

passenger traffic congestion and constrained operational fluidity, as discussed in Section 

II. Purpose and Need.

A site visit and EPA enviromapper database review indicated that no hazardous materials 

were present on or adjoining to the Proposed Action Vicinity. The BMI facility located at 

1100 North Clark Street is listed as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

generator of hazardous waste and is located more than 1,000 feet to the south of the 

central portion of the Proposed Action. Due to the relative distance of this facility and 

based on no evidence of contamination, it is unlikely that this site represents a concern. 

The BMI property will not be impacted by the Proposed Action and no acquisition of rightof-way is required. No indication of violations, corrective actions or enforcement actions 

exists for this facility. See Attachment B, 2009 Categorical Exclusion. 

This Proposed Action is not expected to have either indirect or cumulative impacts 

relating to hazardous materials and wastes.

The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts on hazardous materials and waste.

5. Cultural Resources

The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) database maintained by the Department 

of the Interior/National Park Service indicates there are no cultural, historic, or 

archaeological resources properties listed on the NRHP in proximity to the Proposed 

Action Vicinity, and therefore on December 4, 2015, the IDNR Division of Historic 

Preservation and Archaeology (“DHPA”) confirmed the absence of known archeological 

or historic resources in the area. See Attachment P. The Proposed Action will be 

completed entirely within NSRC right-of-way. The IDNR’s finding is supported by the 

2009 determination that no cultural, historic, or archaeological resources were located in 

the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Action. See Attachment B, 2009 Categorical 

Exclusion. Therefore, the Proposed Action will not have any indirect or cumulative 

impacts on cultural or historical resources. 

 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/congestion_report_05.pdf. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

40 | Page

D. Construction Impacts

Construction impacts would be of a relatively short duration during active construction. 

Depending upon the finalization of this NEPA process, impacts will occur in spring of 

2016 and be completed within three months. 

The Proposed Action alternatives may result in temporary construction-related increases 

in vehicle exhaust and emissions, and airborne particulate matter during equipment 

operation and the hauling of material. Construction dust associated with exposed soils 

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

palliatives. Any hydrocarbons, NO2, SO2 emissions, as well as airborne particulates 

created by fugitive dust plumes, would be rapidly dissipated. Overall, there could be a 

short-term, temporary degradation of local air quality during construction activities. 

Standard best management practices (BMPs) would be utilized during the construction 

process in order to minimize dust. Construction of the Build Alternative could improve air 

quality in the region in the long-term, if fewer automobiles are utilized in the region and 

more people choose rail as a transportation option. 

During construction of the improvements, additional energy would be expended beyond 

what would be used for normal operations. This additional energy would be consumed on 

a short-term basis as required for movement of the access road and stormwater 

management ditch, and construction of the new lead track. Energy by vehicles in the 

Proposed Action Vicinity where the proposed improvements would take place may 

increase during construction due to possible traffic delays. However, once the Proposed 

Action is operational, long-term energy savings are expected from more energy-efficient 

operations throughout the Proposed Action Vicinity.

A NPDES permit authorization for the construction work has been obtained from the 

IDEM. The NPDES permit includes a stormwater pollution prevention plan with best 

management practices for erosion and sediment control, construction, and dust and noise 

suppression have been developed and will be implemented as part of the construction. 

Debris and spoil disposal, if generated, will be removed according to state and local 

regulations. If contaminated soil is encountered, it will be segregated and sampled prior 

to disposal. Accordingly, no long-term indirect effects are expected to result from the 

construction of this Proposed Action. No cumulative effects are expected to result from 

the construction of this Proposed Action. 

E. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

Indirect impacts are impacts caused by the action that occur later in time or farther 

removed in distance from the action, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative 

impacts are impacts on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Indirect and cumulative impacts analysis is provided in each resource area in Section IV, 

Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation. Except for impacts to WOTUS and 

associated dune and swale habitat, which would be mitigated at an IDNR preserve, the 

Proposed Action has no indirect or cumulative impacts.
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

41 | Page

CN owns and operates a rail yard to the north of the Project Area, Kirk Yard. A separate 

project, the Kirk Yard project, includes construction of rail tracks and bridges. The project 

affects 7.17 acres of wetlands identified as significantly degraded. The USACE, USFWS, 

IDEM and other resource agencies assessed the environmental effects of the Kirk Yard 

project. A permit was issued in 2013 authorizing the project with conditions including 

recreation of over 7 acres of wetlands at the yard location. Additionally, offsite mitigation 

was included for a total of 41.5 acres of mitigation. The impacts of the Kirk Yard project 

when added to the Proposed Action could result in cumulative effects primarily to areas 

identified as jurisdictional Waters of the United States and dune/swale habitat. However, 

with regulatory agency and public involvement in both projects, mitigation as a condition 

of authorization, cumulative effects to wetland and dune/swale habitat would be

effectively mitigated (see discussion below regarding mitigation for the Proposed Action). 

Indirect and cumulative effects to other resources are not anticipated. The location of the 

Kirk Yard project is in a heavily industrialized area near U.S. Steel facilities with very low 

residential population. Kirk Yard ingress and egress run on different rail lines. As noted, 

the Proposed Action does not include grade crossings, property acquisition, or other 

potential effects relating to transportation. The Proposed Action also includes passenger 

rail components, which are not present with the Kirk Yard project.

F. Permits and Mitigation

NSRC has obtained authorization from IDEM for discharge of stormwater from 

construction activities under Section 402 of the CWA. NSRC has also obtained 

authorization from the USACE for impacts to WOTUS under Section 404 of the CWA, 33 

U.S.C. § 1344. See Attachment E, December 21, 2015 Authorization LRC 2015-213. 

IDEM issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the Proposed Action on 

December 10, 2015. Attachment F – December 10, 2015 Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification 2015-592-45-MTM. No additional permits are required for the Proposed 

Action. 

This EA addresses the mitigation of environmental and community impacts, and all 

reasonable steps taken to minimize adverse effects in accordance with NEPA and the 

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. 64 Fed. Reg. 28545. In 

addition, mitigation options discussed herein for a particular type of impact, as well as any 

comments received on a particular impact and its mitigation have been considered in 

order to select appropriate mitigation options. 

1. Mitigation

NSRC prepared a detailed Mitigation Plan per the USACE and IDEM associated with 

Alternative E/Proposed Alternative, discussed in greater detail below. The final Mitigation 

Plan is attached hereto as Attachment D. 

The proposed alternative, Alternative E/Proposed Alternative, will impact 1.352 acres of 

wetlands. As mitigation, 45 acres of habitat with similar or greater value than the impacted 

wetlands will be enhanced. The enhancement of critical dune and swale at the Pine 

Station Nature Preserve serves to enhance and protect a declining critical habitat type 

through the proposed strategically selected compensatory mitigation site.
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

42 | Page

If this EA does not result in the selection of Alternative E/Proposed Alternative, similar 

mitigation measures may be prepared and adopted in association with the selected 

alternative. 

a. Mitigation Objectives

The goal is to institute an ecologically sound, well-developed and feasible wetland 

mitigation plan that fulfills compensatory mitigation requirements and the 

environmental/ecological objectives of the USACE13 and IDEM14 to enhance, restore and 

rehabilitate critical dune and swale habitat.

b. Mitigation Debits and Credits 

To compensate for 1.352 acres of impact due to construction activities, NSRC proposes 

to receive credit for enhancing 45 acres of dune and swale habitat at the Pine Station 

Nature Preserve. Table 4 shows wetland impacts and corresponding required mitigation:

Table 4 - Mitigation Debits and Credits

c. Mitigation Area

This Mitigation Plan is developed in accordance with USACE’s Final Mitigation Rule 

(http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/final_mitig_rule.pdf; 

USACE/EPA, Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule, 73 

Fed. Reg. 19,594 (Apr. 10, 2008)) (“2008 Mitigation Rule”).15 USACE’s 2008 Mitigation 

Rule provides that the District Engineer consider the likelihood for ecological success and 

sustainability of the mitigation site selection, the location of the compensation site relative 

to the impact site and their significance within the watershed, and the costs of the 

compensatory mitigation project. 33 C.F.R. § 332.3(a). The plan provides for permitteeresponsible, in-kind mitigation for the difficult-to-replace dune and swale habitat totaling 

0.589 acre (Wetlands 1 and 4). 

The 0.763 acre of impacts associated with the stormwater managment ditch (Wetlands 5 

and 5a), which does not show evidence of remnant dune and swale habitat (mean C 2.7, 

 

13 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 19,594 (April 10, 

2008); see also http://www.lrc.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/MitigationRequirements.aspx. 

14 http://www.in.gov/idem/wetlands/2352.htm, 327 IAC 17-1-5 Compensatory mitigation.

15 Message from Corps Chicago District, August 27, 2015.
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

43 | Page

3.7; FQI 15.3, 15.7), is also being mitigated as if it were dune and swale as a 

conservative mitigation approach. USACE Chicago District guidance provides that 

compensatory mitigation will be accomplished by establishing a minimum ratio of 1.5 

acres of mitigation for every 1.0 acre of impact to WOTUS.16 IDEM guidance references 

a maximum 4 to 1 ratio for higher quality wetlands. 

See http://www.in.gov/idem/wetlands/2352.htm. 

USACE Chicago District personnel provided some general guidance regarding mitigation. 

A recent project included a 1.5 acre to 1 (15:1) mitigation ratio for impacts to low quality 

wetlands, 3:1 for high-quality or forested wetland impacts, and 6:1 for wetlands with statelisted species and exhibiting exceptionally high mean C-values and FQI values for in-kind 

restoration of dune and swale.17 These ratios provided by USACE Chicago District 

assumed that the mitigation will be an in-kind restoration project, involving grading and 

hydrologic modification. Less credit is given to preservation and enhancement. Based 

upon a recent Mitigation Banking Interagency Coordination Agreement (ICA), credit of 10-

15% was provided for preservation versus restoration or creation.18 USACE Chicago 

District indicated that enhancement activities, which are included in this plan, can 

potentially generate more credit. An amount of 10-25% credit was identified as 

appropriate and within the range of the ICA.19 NSRC applied the more conservative 10% 

credit figure to total impacts of 1.352 acres of WOTUS, including rail transportation 

ditches.20

Mitigation will be performed at the Pine Station Nature Preserve. The Pine Station Nature 

Preserve is a 253 acre nature preserve owned and managed by the State of Indiana 

under its system of nature preserves.

21 The Pine Station Nature Preserve is a resource 

which is located within the watershed, in close proximity to the impact area, but outside of 

rail operational properties. As existing dune and swale habitat, the Pine Station Nature 

Preserve represents in-kind mitigation for difficult-to-replace resources. Land use for the 

 

16 http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/Portals/36/docs/regulatory/pdf/RPP20 12.pdf. 

17 Message from USACE Chicago District, August 27, 2015. This document is available upon request.

18 http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/Portals/36/docs/regulatory/pdf/MBICAJun2008.pdf. 

19 For example, where state protected species are involved and where the mitigation site involved 

preservation and enhancement, a 6:1 mitigation ratio is required. Where the mitigation is enhancement and 

preservation, USACE indicated a 15% credit should be given for preservation and 25% for enhancement 

(giving NSRC a 40% total credit). Under this example, USACE indicated that if six acres of restoration were 

required, then 15 acres of preservation and enhancement would be the final required mitigation ratio (i.e. 

6/0.40 = 15).

20 The USACE and EPA recently confirmed that rail transportation ditches are exempt from the definition of 

WOTUS. As set forth in the preamble to the CWA Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States," 80 Fed. 

Reg. 37,054 (Jun. 29, 2015), the USACE and EPA stated that exclusions included in the final rule address 

the vast majority of roadside and other transportation ditches. The agencies go on to state that ditches 

"associated with modes of transportation, such as roadways, airports, and rail lines" are intended to be 

exempt from the definition of WOTUS. 80 Fed. Reg. at 37,098. The WOTUS rule has been challenged, 

and on October 9, 2015 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit suspended the WOTUS rule. State of 

Ohio et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 15-3799/3822/3887 (6th Cir. Oct. 9, 2015).

21 http://www.state.in.us/dnr/naturepreserve/4698.htm.
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

44 | Page

Pine Station Nature Preserve is consistent with long-term successful mitigation. Adequate 

acreage is available for enhancement, restoration, and rehabilitation to achieve policy 

goals regarding consolidation of compensatory mitigation projects and support IDNR 

financial planning and scientific expertise. 

The Pine Station Nature Preserve already serves as an USACE-approved mitigation 

location for other permittee responsible mitigation, specifically for the same type of 

resources (i.e. dune and swale) potentially impacted by Alternative E/Proposed 

Alternative. IDNR has indicated that the enhancement, restoration, and rehabilitation 

activities under this plan are necessary and IDNR has assisted in the development of this 

plan through provision of baseline data and information and identification of appropriate 

resource management needs. This plan satisfies USACE mitigation requirements and 

policies and also supports IDNR policies, IDNR land management objectives and goals, 

and develops a partnership between NSRC and IDNR.

Common reed (Phragmites australis) and cattail (Typha spp.) will be treated throughout 

the 45 acre mitigation area over a period of five years. Herbicides shall be applied by 

state licensed applicators or licensed operators working under the direct supervision of a 

licensed applicator. The contractor shall demonstrate that all persons applying herbicides 

will have a current herbicide applicator/operator license. Target species will be treated as 

follows:

Herbicide Products

• Target species will be treated with AquaNeat® or an approved equal

• 5% solution for foliar applications 

• 10% solution for hand-wicking solutions

• 2% non-ionic surfactant, such as Invade 90 or approved equal

• 0.5% Tracer dye, such as Trail Lite 264 or approved equal

Herbicide Storage

• Herbicides may not be stored onsite. They are allowed to be delivered to 

and from the site each day by the contractor.

• Herbicides may be mixed onsite within areas designated by the IDNR 

property manager.

• Herbicides must be adequately secured while onsite so as not to allow 

public exposure.

Treatment Timing

• A minimum of two treatments will be made during each year of the 

mitigation.

• The initial treatment for all species will be made between June 1 and July 31 

of each year.

• A second follow-up treatment for all species will be made between August 1 

and August 31 of each year.

• Additional treatments may be needed to ensure performance standards are 

met.
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

45 | Page

Application Techniques

• All species will be hand-wicked to avoid collateral damage to native 

vegetation.

• If the contractor believes an area can be foliar treated without causing 

collateral damage, foliar treatment can occur only following consultation and 

receiving permission for the IDNR property manager.

• American reed (Phragmites americana) occurs within the mitigation area 

and within population of common reed. Care will be taken to minimize 

damage to American reed populations onsite.

d. Performance 

The following standards will be used to determine the success of the enhancement area:

• Target species will be reduced from current levels (baseline) by 97% by the 

end of the monitoring period.

• Target species should be reduced by 90% by the end of year 1.

• Common reed (Phragmites australis) and cattail (Typha spp.) will have a 

combined coverage of less than 5% areal cover with 10m square area(s) of 

the mitigation area by the end of the monitoring period.

e. Monitoring Plan

A qualified wetland scientist will monitor the enhancement areas once annually 

(September), for a period of five years. A baseline sampling visit will be performed during 

the first year and prior to treatment, and a report will be submitted to the USACE, IDEM, 

and IDNR by December 31 of the calendar year.

Prior to commencement of the enhancement work a sampling visit will be made to 

establish baseline conditions for which the subsequent sampling visits will be compared. 

During the baseline visit all populations of the target species will be mapped. Within 

sparse populations (less than 10% areal coverage) stem counts will be made for target 

species. Within dense population (more than 10% areal coverage) permanent transects 

will be established. Along each transect permanent 1m2 quadrats will be placed, and 

quadrats will be set at measured intervals (with a measuring tape) along each transect. 

Within each quadrat the percent areal coverage of each target species will be recorded 

and stem counts for each target species will be made and recorded. Permanent photo 

stations will be established to visually record the progress of enhancement work and

photographs will be taken from the beginning of each permanent transect. During

subsequent visits the monitoring inspections will include the following:

• Mapping of populations of target species. 

• Transect/quadrat sampling of dense populations of target species to 

determine percent coverage.

• Stem counts in sparse population of target species. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

46 | Page

• Photographs from the beginning of each transect and from established 

photo stations.

Annual monitoring reports will provide a discussion of enhancement based on percent 

cover and/or stem counts of target plant species and other aforementioned success 

criteria. The report will also include location and site maps, and representative site 

photographs.

f. Legal Protection

The mitigation area is currently owned and managed by the IDNR Division of Nature 

Preserves and will continue to be managed as one of their properties following 

restoration. A long-term maintenance plan through the monitoring period will be followed 

for the proposed mitigation area. Maintenance may include any combination of selective 

herbicide applications. Additional management tools and procedures may be considered 

as the site develops and adaptive strategies evolve. 

Maintenance shall be provided for a period of five consecutive years. Maintenance shall 

be provided by the applicant until regulatory signoff is received, and will be conducted 

beyond the regulatory monitoring period by the landowner, if necessary. Only under force 

majeure conditions, such as tornado damage, major flood damage, and other Acts of

God, shall the applicant deviate from the mitigation and maintenance plan.

Party Responsible for Site Protection and Maintenance through Monitoring Period:

Norfolk Southern Railway Company

1200 Peachtree Street NE, Box 7-142

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

ATTN: Mike M. Wigley

404-529-1332

Party Responsible for Long-Term Preservation and Maintenance of the Site:

Indiana Department of Natural Resources

402 West Washington Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

g. Adaptive Management Plan

The applicant will promptly notify the USACE, IDEM, and IDNR if the mitigation project 

cannot be performed as detailed in the Mitigation Plan. Significant modification to the 

plan will require approval from the USACE, IDEM, and IDNR. In addition, NSRC will 

notify these agencies if monitoring or other site information indicates that additional 

measures are recommended to address performance standards. The USACE, IDEM, 

and IDNR, in consultation with NSRC, will evaluate if the mitigation is meeting the 

objectives as detailed in the Mitigation Plan and assist in determining the appropriate 

measures to correct any deficiencies. Corrective measures will be designed to provide 

ecological functions and values comparable to those described in the Mitigation Plan. 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

47 | Page

Performance standards may be revised to reflect any changes in management strategy or 

objectives. No other revisions to performance standards will be allowed by the agencies 

except in the case of natural disasters.

Responsible Party:

Norfolk Southern Railway Company

1200 Peachtree Street NE, Box 7-142

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

ATTN: Mike M. Wigley

404-529-1332

h. Financial Assurances

Due to the funding source for this Proposed Action, financial assurances and other 

assurances and restrictions will be applied in accordance with funding source 

requirements and limitations. Consideration will be given to construction, monitoring, 

long-term remedial actions, maintenance, and potential replacement mitigation. Following 

the site’s release from monitoring by the regulatory agencies, it is anticipated that 

responsibility for management of the site will be transferred to the IDNR.

Responsible Party:

Norfolk Southern Railway Company

1200 Peachtree Street NE, Box 7-142

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

ATTN: Mike M. Wigley

V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

A. Coordination

Development of the Proposed Action alternatives was coordinated through a number of 

resource agencies. The Indiana Gateway Project # 7 received authorization in 2009 from 

the INDOT and FRA and in consultation with the Corps, USFWS, IDEM, IDNR, and other 

resource agencies. See Attachment B, Categorical Exclusion. The Pine Yard Lead Track 

and movement of the access road and stormwater management ditch represent 

modifications to the original design, as discussed in Section I. Due to impacts upon 

WOTUS resulting from these modifications, NSRC consulted with and applied for 

appropriate authorizations from IDEM and the Corps. NSRC has worked closely with 

these agencies, and the IDNR, in the development of the Proposed Action, specifically 

analysis of alternatives and the Alternative E/Proposed Alternative. This consultation 

included development of additional data and factual information regarding impacts of the 

Proposed Action. NSRC worked closely with IDNR to develop a suitable mitigation 

approach, which was approved by IDEM and the Corps. See December 10, 2015 Section 

401 Water Quality Certification (Attachment F) and December 21, 2015 Authorization 

LRC 2015-213 (Attachment E). 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

48 | Page

During the public notice for the Corps Permit LRC-2015-213, three agencies (IDNR, 

IDEM, and U.S. EPA) and two environmental organizations (Save the Dunes and The 

Nature Conservancy) commented on the Proposed Action. The comments are attached 

as Attachment Q. Comments were directed to the Pine Yard Lead Track and raised 

issues relating to dune and swale, protected state species, and inquired regarding 

alternative alignments. The Alternative E/Proposed Alternative is a direct outgrowth of 

these comments and responds and addresses the concerns through movement of the 

alignment to a southerly location. Correspondence has been received from the EPA 

concerning the impacts to wetlands, which can be found in Attachment R (August 10, 

2015 Swenson Correspondence). Correspondence was received from the IDNR, which 

can be found at Attachments S and T (May 15, 2015 Early Coordination/Environmental 

Assessment and August 7, 2015 Correspondence from IDNR (Emily Stork), respectively). 

VI. DISTRIBUTION OF THIS EA

This EA will be made available to the public on the FRA website. Based on the extensive 

consultation undertaken as part of the Section 404 permitting process for the Proposed 

Action, however, FRA will not solicit comments on this EA. The EA will also be distributed 

to the following agencies who commented on the USACE permit and the development of 

the Proposed Action alternatives: 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Chicago District

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Indiana Department of Environmental Management

• Indiana Department of Natural Resources – Division of Nature Preserves

• Indiana Department of Natural Resources - Division of Historic Preservation 

and Archaeology

• Save the Dunes

• The Nature Conservancy

VII. REFERENCES

Technical references used in describing key elements of the affected environment and 

impact analyses include the following:

Conservation Research Institute/Conservation Design Forum. October 2000. Floristic 

Quality Assessment Program, Version 1.0.

Council on Environmental Quality, NEPA Implementation Procedures for the Regulatory 

Program; Reissuance of Nationwide Permits, 77 Fed. Reg. 10,184 (Feb. 21, 2012). 

CEQ 2012.
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

49 | Page

Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+. Flora of North America North of 

Mexico. 16+vols. New York and Oxford. 

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Floristic Quality Assessment for Plant 

Communities of Indiana: Species List and Coefficients of Conservatism. IDNR 2012.

Indiana Department of Natural Resources – Division of Nature Preserves. April 2013. 

Endangered Threatened, Rare and Extirpated Plants of Indiana. Available at 

http://www.in.gov/dnr/naturepreserve/files/np-etrplants042513.pdf. (Accessed October 

2013).

Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Grand Calumet River Area of Concern Habitat 

Restoration Summary Report. IDNR 2014

NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web 

application]. Version 7.0.

NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. 

Perdue University, Calumet Research Summit Proceedings. Perdue 2006.

Rothrock, P.E. June 2004. Floristic Quality Assessment in Indiana: The Concept, Use, 

and Development of Coefficients of Conservatism. Final Report for ARN A305-4-53, 

EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01. Rothrock 2004.

Swink, F. and G. Wilhelm. 1994. Plants of the Chicago Region. 4th ed. Indianapolis: 

Indiana Academy of Science. Swink 1994.

Taft, J.B., G.S. Wilhelm, D.M. Ladd, and L.A. Masters. November 1997. Floristic Quality 

Assessment for Vegetation in Illinois: A Method for Assessing Vegetation Integrity. 

Erigenia. Number 15, pp. 4-95. Taft 1997.

Taft, et al 2008. Floristic Quality Assessment for Vegetation in Illinois, A Method for 

Assessing Vegetation Integrity. Taft 2008. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2006. Status, Trends, and Potential of Biological 

Communities of the Grand Calumet River Basin (Moye et al, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Environmental and Social Analysis Branch Chicago District). Corps 2006.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Floristic Quality Assessments, Technical Bulletin 200-2-

65. Corps 2009.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Chicago District 2015. Mitigation 

Guidelines. http://www.lrc.usace.army.mil/Portals/36/docs/regulatory/pdf/RPP2012.pdf

. Corps Chicago 2015.

United States Environmental Protection Agency / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Mitigation Rule. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule, 

70 Fed. Reg. 19,594 (Apr. 10, 2008) (USEPA 2008).

United States Environmental Protection Agency / U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Clean 

Water Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States, Final Rule; 80 Fed. Reg. 37,054 
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

50 | Page

(June 29, 2015), suspended State of Ohio et al. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 

15-3799/3822/3887 (6th Cir. Oct. 9, 2015) (USEPA 2015).

United States Environmental Protection Agency Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; 

Indiana; Redesignation of Lake and Porter Counties to Attainment of the 2008 EightHour Ozone Standard, Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 26113 (Tuesday, May 11, 

2010); http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-05-11/html/2010-11009.htm (USEPA 

2010).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. "Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of 

Safety," Report No. 550/9-74-004, Washington DC, March 1974 (USEPA 1974).

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Department 

of Transportation (DOT). Notice of Updated Environmental Assessment Procedures 

64 Fed. Reg. 28545 (May 26, 1999) (FRA 1999). 

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Public 

Transportation’s Role in Responding to Climate Change, Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA 2007). 

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise 

and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA-VA-90-1003-06, Federal Transit Authority May 

2006 (FTA 2006).
Modifications to Indiana Gateway Project No. 7 Environmental Assessment

51 | Page

VIII. APPENDICES

Attachment A - Indiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Nature Preserves 

Letter of Support (J. Bacone, October 26, 2015).

Attachment B - August 21, 2009 Categorical Exclusion 

Attachment C – IDEM Rule 5 NPDES Authorization

Attachment D - Mitigation Plan, dated October 9, 2015

Attachment E - December 21, 2015 Corps Authorization LRC 2015-213

Attachment F - December 10, 2015 Section 401 Water Quality Certification 2015-592-45-

MTM-A 

Attachment G - January 26, 2016 Federal Consistency Review under Indiana Lake 

Michigan Coastal Program 

Attachment H - Alternatives Analysis, dated November 4, 2015

Attachment I - March 25, 2015 Application for Authorization pursuant to Section 404 of 

the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, under the Indiana Regional General Permit No. 001 

Attachment J - June 23, 2015 Supplement to March 25, 2015 Application for Authorization 

pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, under the Indiana Regional 

General Permit No. 001 (June 23, 2015)

Attachment K - August 10, 2015 Waters of the U.S. Summary Report- Pine Yard Siding 

Extension, Lead Track and Tail Track, Gary IN (August 10, 2015)

Attachment L - Comments from United States Fish and Wildlife Service (August 6, 2015)

Attachment M - August 10, 2015 NSRC Comment Letter to USACE

Attachment N - Geotechnical Report, dated August 10, 2015

Attachment O - Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center Response (March 18, 2015)

Attachment P - December 4, 2015 Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of 

Historic Preservation and Archaeology Correspondence

Attachment Q – Public Notice Comments from IDNR, IDEM, U.S. EPA, Save the Dunes 

and The Nature Conservancy

Attachment R - Comments received from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(Swenson Correspondence, August 10, 2015)

Attachment S - Indiana Department of Natural Resources Correspondence: Early 

Coordination/Environmental Assessment (May 15, 2015)

Attachment T - Correspondence from Indiana Department of Natural Resources 

(August 7, 2015)