Source: http://www.stb.dot.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/c3a87112fe95456785257491006d06a2/e0c19099f77073b3852565410070cb9d
Timestamp: 2016-02-08 14:47:44
Document Index: 98832417

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1105', 'art 1105', 'arts 171', 'art 1105', 'arts 171', 'arts 171', 'arts 85']

Docket Number: FD_33388_6
Case Title: NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY--CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION--CONNECTING TRACK WITH CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION AT ALEXANDRIA, IN
Decision Notes: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.
28334.pdf 231 KB
CSX Corporation and CSX Transportation, Inc., Norfolk Southern Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company
Norfolk Southern/Conrail Rail Connection­Alexandria, Indiana
FOR THE PROPOSED CONNECTION AT ALEXANDRIA,
ES-1	Summary of Potential and Environmental Impacts Proposed Rail Connection at
Alexandria, Indiana	ES-2
3-4	1990 Racial and Economic Composition of the City of Alexandria and the Area
Surrounding the Proposed Connection	3-4
3-5 Norfolk Southern Train Accident Rates per Million Train Miles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 4-1	Estimated System-wide Decreases in Emissions as a Result of the Proposed
APPENDICES	A - Railroads' Request for Expedited Process	A-1
B - STB Response to Railroads' Request. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exhibit 4	U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Louisville District	C-7
Exhibit 8	U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service	C-12
Exhibit 9	U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service	C-13
Exhibit 13	Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology	C-23
Exhibit 14	Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology	C-24
This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by the Surface Transportation Board's (Board) Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) in accordance with the Board's orders in
Decision No. 9, served on June 12, 1997, and Decision No. 12, served on July 23, 1997, in
Finance Docket No. 33388. This EA consists of five chapters. The EA describes the potential
environmental impacts of a proposed new connection between the existing Norfolk & Western
Railway Company, a subsidiary of Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS), and Conrail (CR)
rail lines in Alexandria, Indiana to be constructed by NS (see Figure 1.1). The proposed
connection would include approximately 1,052 feet of new rail line and would require 2.3 acres
of urban land for the construction site. The proposed construction site is surrounded by existing
CR and NS lines. Rail traffic on this connection is anticipated to average seven trains per day.
According to NS, this connection would provide a new, more efficient train route between
points in the upper Midwest and points in the southeastern United States, would increase rail
traffic capacity, improve service to shippers, and reduce train delays in Chicago, Illinois and rail
traffic congestion in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
After providing an overview of the proposed construction plan, this EA describes various
aspects of the existing environment at the site of the proposed connection. It then addresses the
potential environmental impacts of construction of the proposed connection. Next, the different
alternatives considered in developing the proposed construction plan are discussed. Finally, a
summary is provided of agency comments which relate to the project, along with NS' response
to agency comments and explanations of mitigation measures proposed by NS and SEA's
recommended mitigation measures. As shown in Table ES-1, potential environmental impacts related to the proposed project are
insignificant or nonexistent. Based on its independent analysis of all the information available
at this time, SEA concludes that the proposed project is not expected to have any significant
adverse impact on land use, water resources, biological resources, or air quality. Nor would the
proposed project have significant adverse impacts on safety, electric transmission facilities,
cultural resources, or on minority and low-income groups. Overall transportation and energy
efficiency of the NS system will be improved by the construction of the connection.
Any increase in noise levels during construction would be limited to normal work hours and
would only occur during the three- to six-month construction period. Noise level increases
related to future operation on the connection would be minor. SEA concludes that the construction of the proposed rail line connection would not significantly
affect the quality of the environment with the implementation of the mitigation measures set
forth in this EA. Accordingly, Sea recommends that the Board impose the mitigation measures
set forth in Section 5.3 as conditions in any final decision approving construction at Alexandria,
Indiana. Table ES-1
Length of Proposed Connection
Effect on Parks, Forest Preserves, Refuges and Sanctuaries
1,052 feet
Effect on Threatened or Endangered Species
Impact to Air Quality due to Construction
Affected Sensitive
Affected Sensitive Noise Receptors Within Ldn 65 Noise Contour
Train Movement Over Connection
Effect on Transportation of Hazardous Materials
Effect on Sites Listed on the NRHP
Effect on Archaeological Sites
Changes in Fuel Consumption due to Construction
Effect on Transportation of Energy Resources and Recyclable
Rail to Motor Carrier Diversions
High and Disproportionate Impact on Minority and Low-Income
SEA specifically invites comments on all aspects of this EA including the scope and adequacy
of the recommended mitigation. SEA will consider all comments received in response to the
EA in making its final recommendations to the Board. Comments (an original and 10 copies
should be sent to: Vernon A. Williams, Secretary, Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street,
NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20423. Mark the lower left corner of the envelope: Attention:
Dana White, Environmental Comments, Finance Docket No. 33388 (Sub Nos. 1-7). You may
also direct questions to MS. White at this address or by telephoning (888)869-1997)
CSX Corporation and CSX Corporation Inc. (CSX), Norfolk Southern Corporation and Norfolk
Southern Railway Corporation (NS), and Conrail Inc. and Consolidated Rail Corporation
(Conrail) have filed a joint application with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) seeking
authorization for the acquisition of Conrail by CSX and NS. The fundamental objective of the
proposed acquisition is to divide existing Conrail assets and operations between CSX and NS. As a result, certain Conrail facilities and operations would be assigned individually to either
CSX or NS through operating agreements or other mechanisms, and certain other existing
Conrail facilities would be shared or operated by both CSX and NS. As a part of their joint
application, CSX and NS have petitioned the Board to grant waivers which would allow the
railroads to begin construction on a limited number of connections following an environmental
review and approval of the constructions, but in advance of a final ruling on the primary
transaction. A connection at Alexandria, Indiana is proposed to integrate the Conrail lines into the NS
system. This Environmental Assessment has been prepared by the Board's Section on
Environmental Analysis (SEA) to determine whether early construction of the proposed
connection would have any significant impacts to the human environment.
Alexandria is approximately 74 miles northeast of Indianapolis. The new project would
connect NS' current main line between Marion, Indiana and Anderson, Indiana to CR's main
line between Muncie, Indiana and Lafayette, Indiana. The connection would provide a new,
more efficient train route between points in the upper Midwest and points in the southeastern
United States, would increase rail traffic capacity, improve service to shippers, and reduce train
delays in Chicago and rail traffic congestion in Fort Wayne, Indiana. According to NS, without
the proposed connection, the NS traffic would have to be routed via the CSX line from Muncie,
through Anderson, Indiana, before reaching destinations in the upper Midwest, which is a more
circuitous route that adds an additional 16 miles.
The proposed action at Alexandria, Indiana would involve the construction, operation, and
maintenance of a new connection between existing CR and NS rail lines. The proposed design
includes 1,052 feet of new rail line and would require approximately 2.3 acres of new land. Approximately 1.3(1) acres would be utilized by track. The proposed Alexandria, Indiana connection would be located 250 feet northeast of the existing
CR/NS intersection. The proposed construction site is located in the south-central part of the
City of Alexandria, southwest of the intersection of Berry and Curve Streets (Figure 1.1). The
site is bordered on the north by Berry Street, on the east by Curve Street, on the west by the
existing CR Marion to Anderson line and on the south by NS' existing Frankfort to Muncie line. The proposed construction site is primarily used today for a scrap yard operation. The west and
south sides of the site are bordered by 30-foot strips of vegetation dominated by weeds and
grasses, characteristic of disturbed areas. A buried AT&T fiber-optic cable is located along the
east side of the CR line. A small woodland exists south of the proposed site along the south side
of the NS line. An electrical substation, owned by Indiana & Michigan Electric, is located 500 feet west of the proposed construction. Residences are located to the north and south of
proposed construction site. NS' objectives are to construct a connection which will permit safe
and efficient train operations while maximizing safety and minimizing potential impacts on area
The proposed track would connect two through routes that carry all general commodities. Since
new territory is not being opened, any more specific traffic information is not available at this
time. Traffic on the new connection would average 7 trains per day. Traffic is expected to
predominantly consist of general merchandise trains, with one local train each day, each way,
and one grain train once a week. The CR track north of the proposed connection will have an
increase in trains per day from 5 to 7. The NS track east of the proposed connection will have
an increase in trains per day from 3 to 12. 1.1.3	Construction Requirements
The proposed construction site is located in the south-central part of the City of Alexandria,
Indiana. The proposed connection site is southwest of the Berry and Curve Street intersection,
and would occupy approximately 2.3 acres. Berry Street crosses the northern portion of the
proposed construction site. The site is bordered on the east by Curve Street and Black Street,
on the west by the existing CR line and on the south by the existing NS line. The proposed
construction site consists primarily of property used today for a scrap yard operation. The west
and south sides of the site are bordered by 30-foot strips of vegetation dominated by weeds and
grasses, characteristic of disturbed areas. A buried AT&T fiber-optic cable runs along the east
side of the CR line. A small woodland exists south of the proposed site along the south side of
the NS line. An electrical substation is 500 feet west of the proposed construction. Residential
properties are located to the north and south of the project area.
NS' construction specifications and procedures meet or exceed the practices recommended by
the American Railway Engineering Association (AREA). The entire length of the proposed
connection would involve new construction. New rails, ties, subgrade, subballast and ballast
materials would be used for the roadbed. Recycled rail may be used where practical. The
design specifications for the project are set out in Table 1-1 below. A typical cross-section is
provided in Figure 1.2.
12 degrees, 0 minutes
136 pounds per yard
Grade of ties
Ties per mile
Minimum subballast depth
Minimum subgrade width
Minimum depth of ditches
1 foot, 0 inches
Maximum side slopes
2 feet horizontal : 1 foot vertical
The topography along the proposed connection is level. Only general surface grading of the area
would be necessary. In Alexandria, only minor grading would be required to construct the
roadbed and side ditches. All required grading, drainage and erosion control permits would be
obtained prior to work. Grading activities typically consist of the following:
excavation and compaction of existing material to achieve desired subgrade elevation
in cut sections,
placement and compaction of borrow material as required to achieve desired subgrade
elevation in fill sections,
The property on which the proposed connection would be located is rectangular-shaped and is
not a uniform right-of-way corridor. The proposed track right-of-way would utilize a strip
approximately 40-feet wide, centered on the existing rail line in most areas.
The proposed connection would not cross any streams or wetlands, and no residences would
need to be moved as a result of the proposed project. A scrap yard (or portions thereof) would
need to be relocated. The at-grade crossing of Berry Street would be expanded to accommodate
the proposed track and would be upgraded by adding gates and flashing lights. Black Street
would not be impacted by the project.
Exact numbers for the labor force and duration of the construction period are not available, but
the project is expected to require 10 to 15 people and three to six months to complete. It is
expected that the work would be done during normal working hours. It is planned that the
majority of the construction activities would be performed by qualified contractors working for
NS. The project would be advertised in recognized trade journals and bids would be solicited
in accordance with NS' Corporate Standard Procedures. The contractor could hire new or
additional employees specifically for the project. Portions of the track and signal work would be performed by NS' existing Maintenance of Way
and Structures (MW&S) and Signal and Electrical Department maintenance and construction
crews. No new NS positions are anticipated to be created specifically for this project.
1.1.4 Operation The proposed track would connect two through routes that carry all general commodities. Since
and one grain train once a week.
Track inspections would be performed as outlined in NS' MW&S Standard Procedure #380 and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Track Safety Standards. According to the standards,
all connections would be classified and maintained as main track, meaning they would be
inspected at a minimum of two times per week as specified by the FRA. Additional inspections
would be performed whenever specific conditions warrant. Track inspections would be
performed only by qualified personnel who meet the requirements set forth by the FRA in
section 213.7 of the Track Safety Standards. NS maintains its track so that it meets or exceeds
all FRA safety standards. NS uses scheduled maintenance programs for the continual
maintenance of all track segments based on tonnage handled. These programs are supplemented
by additional "spot" maintenance activities to correct any deficiencies from the NS maintenance
standards should they develop.
As part of NS' track maintenance program, the zone consisting of the rail, ties and the
immediately adjacent ballast section is treated with herbicides on a yearly basis. The elimination
of vegetation from the track structure and roadbed section is desirable for track maintenance
reasons and to provide a safe working environment for NS transportation and maintenance
employees. NS uses only EPA-approved general use herbicides (i.e., herbicides approved by EPA as safe
for use by the general public). Application is performed by fully-licensed personnel provided
to NS by licensed firms working under multi-year contracts. NS personnel familiar with specific
locations accompany these contractors at all times. Application is by spray-bars mounted on rail
bound equipment or hy-rail vehicles. The application width is normally 12 feet on either side
of the centerline of the track. This width is reduced or eliminated as required by local conditions
such as water courses, protected vegetation or structures.
The purpose of this environmental review is to identify, analyze, and disclose the environmental
issues and potential impacts associated with the early construction of the rail line connection at
Alexandria, Indiana. Based on the Application filed by CSX and NS, this connection would
serve to improve the service capabilities and operating efficiencies of each railroad. These
efficiencies include enhanced single-line service, reduced travel times, and increased utilization
of equipment. NS intends to begin operations on this connection immediately after the approval
of the entire acquisition transaction. This EA is being prepared to determine whether the Board
should grant approval to construct the connection before there is a decision on the entire
transaction. If approved by the Board, this connection would be constructed in anticipation of
the Board approval (or disapproval) of the acquisition of Conrail by CSX and NS. If the entire
transaction is approved by the Board, this connection would be available for service
immediately. If the transaction is not approved, or approved with conditions which preclude the
use of this connection, operation on this connection would not be allowed. NS accepts the risk
that use of this connection is predicated on Board approval of the entire transaction.
On April 10, 1997 CSX, NS, and Conrail filed their notice of intent to file an application
seeking the Surface Transportation Board's authorization for: (1) acquisition by CSX and NS
of control of Conrail, and (2) the division of Conrail's assets. On May 2, 1997, CSX and NS
filed petitions seeking a waiver of the Board's regulations that provide that all "directly related
applications, e.g., those seeking authority to construct or abandon rail lines..." be filed at the
same time (Appendix A 49 CFR 1180.4(c)(2)(vi). The waiver would allow CSX and NS to seek
the Board's authority to construct and operate seven rail line connections (four for CSX and
three for NS) prior to the Boards' decision on the acquisition and division of Conrail.
The seven constructions are each relatively short connections between two rail carriers and which have a total length under 4 miles. According to the railroads, Much of the construction
on these short segments would take place within existing rights-of-way. CSX and NS stated that
these seven connections must be in place before the Board's decision on the primary application
in order for them to provide efficient service in competition with each other. Without early
authorization to construct these connections, CSX and NS contended, each railroad would be
severely limited in its ability to serve important customers.
In Decision No. 9 served June 12, 1997, the Board granted CSX's and NS's petitions (Appendix
B). The Board stated that it understood the railroads' desire to "be prepared to engage in
effective, vigorous competition immediately following consummation of the [acquisition]". In
granting the waiver, the Board noted that the railroads were proceeding at their own risk. If the
Board were to deny the primary applications, any resources expended by CSX and NS in
building the connections would be of little benefit to them.
Both the railroads and the Board recognized that no construction could occur until the Board
completed its environmental review of each of the construction projects. Thus, the Board stated
that it would consider the environmental aspects of these proposed constructions and the
railroads' proposed operations over these lines together in deciding whether to approve the
physical construction of each of these lines. The operational implications of the merger as a
whole, including operations over the roughly 4 miles of line embraced by the seven connections
projects, will be examined in the Environmental Impact Statement being prepared for the overall
merger. That document will be available for a 45-day public comment period in late November
In order to fully consider the environmental aspects of the seven proposed constructions, the
Board required both CSX and NS to file certain information on the environmental effects of the
construction and operation of these projects. The railroads complied with this requirement on
September 5, 1997 and submitted detailed Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessments
(PDEA) for each of the seven projects.
The Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) has independently verified the
information contained in each PDEA, conducted further independent analysis, and developed
appropriate environmental mitigation measures. Its findings are set forth in this EA. SEA is
now seeking your comments on this EA. Comments must be submitted to the Board by October
This EA is necessary to ensure that the proposed action complies with the statutory
requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Board's environmental
regulations (49 CFR 1105), and other applicable rules and/or regulations. The Board's SEA
is responsible for conducting NEPA environmental review.
The Board has adopted the former ICC environmental regulations (49 CFR Part 1105) that
govern the environmental review process and outline procedures for preparing environmental
documents. Section 1105.6(b) of these regulations establish the criteria which identify the types
of actions for which an Environmental Assessment (EA) would be prepared. The construction
of rail line connections, like the action proposed here, are classified under the Board's
regulations as normally requiring preparation of an EA. SEA reviewed the proposed rail
construction and determined that because the connection is not expected to result in significant
environmental impacts, an EA should be prepared. In preparing the EA, SEA identified issues and areas of potential environmental impact,
analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed rail line construction project,
reviewed public comments, and developed mitigation measures to avoid or reduce anticipated
impacts on the environment. To assist it in conducting the NEPA environmental analysis and
in preparing the EA, SEA selected and approved HDR Engineering , Inc. to act as the Board's
independent third party consultant as provided for in 49 CFR Part 1105.10(d). NS retained the
independent third party consultant who worked solely under SEA's direction and supervision
and assisted SEA in conducting environmental analyses related to the proposed merger. SEA analyzed the Environmental Report and Operating Plan that accompanied the transaction
application, technical studies conducted by NS environmental consultants, and the Preliminary
Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) prepared as a part of the waiver application. In
addition, SEA conducted its own independent analysis of the proposed construction, which
included verifying the projected rail operations; verifying and estimating noise level impacts;
estimating air emission increases; performing land use, habitat, surface water, and wetland
surveys; conducting ground water analyses; assessing impacts to biological resources; and
performing archaeological and historic resource surveys. In addition, SEA and/or its
independent third party consultant conducted consultations with NS and their environmental
consultants and made site visits to the proposed rail line construction site to assess the potential
This chapter outlines the alternatives considered for the proposed connection. 2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
In its environmental review, SEA considered a "no-action" alternative. Under this alternative,
current operations would continue to move over existing NS and Conrail rail lines. However,
as outlined below, access between the two lines would be limited to existing connections,
interchanges, or terminals. If the no-action alternative were implemented, the proposed rail line
connection would not be constructed and trains would not be rerouted. None of the potential
environmental impacts associated with construction would occur. However, neither would the
benefits of the project be realized. According to NS, in the absence of the proposed connection,
trains from Chicago to the southeastern United States would have to be routed from Muncie
through Anderson, Indiana which is a more circuitous route by 16 miles. The no-build
alternative would not provide the full operational, environmental and economic benefits,
including added rail capacity and improved service to shippers, expected to be realized as a
result of the proposed connection.
SEA identified no feasible alternatives to the proposed rail line construction project. An
alternative alignment for the connection, Alternative B, was analyzed, but rejected because of
the need to remove 2 to 4 residences (Figure 2.1). Alternative B would also require 2 expanded
grade crossings. The proposed rail line would be the most direct connection between the
existing rail lines and would minimize the use of new land outside the NS and Conrail rights-of-way. There are no construction, operational, or environmental features that would render
another alignment of the proposed rail line connection more reasonable than the proposed
location. Alternative B would diverge from the existing east/west NS track about 300 feet east of
Alternative A and about 100 feet east of Black Street. This alternative would extend west across
Black Street, creating an expanded grade crossing, and then curve northwest. This alignment
would require displacing one residence while passing within 40 feet of other residences. Continuing northwest, this alignment would then cross the east side of the scrap yard before
heading north and crossing Berry Street, resulting in yet another expanded grade crossing. It
would then connect with the north/south CR line 250 feet north of Berry Street. Alternative B
would pass under Indiana & Michigan Electric's transmission lines. Again, the lines are high
enough to accommodate trains and would not need to be raised.
Alternative A, the preferred connection, would diverge from the existing east/west NS track
approximately 115 feet west of Black Street. Alternative A would head west, passing through
a scrap yard where it would curve northwest. It would then cross Berry Street, creating an
expanded grade crossing. This alignment, now heading north, would connect with the
north/south oriented CR line approximately 250 feet north of Berry Street. Alternative A would
pass under Indiana & Michigan Electric's transmission lines. However, the lines are high
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a more efficient route from Chicago to
Cincinnati, Atlanta and the southeastern United States; to increase rail capacity; and to improve
service to shippers. The project would also reduce rail congestion in Fort Wayne. The "no-build" alternative would not allow these benefits, and it was therefore eliminated from
consideration. The "build" alternative is the preferred action.
Under the "build" alternative, two alternative alignments for rail construction were evaluated.
Any other alternatives would have required acquiring a greater amount of land, crossing streams,
clearing forested areas and directly impacting several residences. Preliminary studies
determined that both alternatives were feasible from economic and engineering perspectives. The evaluation also addressed the social and environmental impacts of these alternatives. Both
alternatives would affect the same community, i.e. the same census block. Consequently, there
would be no difference between the alternatives in the racial or economic composition of the
population affected. Table 2-1 summarizes the environmental criteria investigated as part of the
The most significant differences between the two alternatives are the number of residences that
would have to be removed and the number of grade crossings affected. No residences would
have to be removed for Alternative A. Two to four residences would have to be removed for
Alternative B. Alternative A would require only one expanded grade crossings, Alternative B
would require two expanded grade crossings. As shown in Table 2-1 and Figure 2.1, the two
alternatives differ relatively little in many other evaluation categories.
Private Property Crossed
Forested Wetland Crossed
100-year Floodplain Crossed
Endangered Species Habitat Crossed
Critical Habitat Crossed
Expanded Grade Crossings
Sensitive Noise Receptors Within the Extended Ldn 65
dBA Contour number
Loaded School Bus Traffic at Crossings
Transmissions Corridor Crossings
Known Cultural Resource Sites
Nearest Recreational Area
Nearest Hazardous Waste Site
Alternative A would not require the relocation of any residences. Alternative B
would require the relocation of two to four residences.
Alternative A is farther away from residences. Alternative A creates fewer expanded grade crossing (one for Alternative A, two for
Alternative B), thus minimizing potential safety impacts.
Alternative A crosses less private property (2.3 acres compared to 4.0 acres for
Alternative B).
This chapter provides an overview of the existing environment in the vicinity of the proposed
The proposed project would be located in the urban area of Alexandria, Indiana. The area
around the proposed construction site is dominated by rail, transportation and utility uses to the
south and west. Residences are to the north and east of the proposed construction area. A
buried AT&T fiber-optic cable is located along the east side of the CR line. A scrap yard,
owned by Azimow and Culbertson Scrap Company and used for recycling batteries, scrap and
other metals, is on the property which is needed for the proposed right-of-way. Other existing
land uses surrounding the proposed site include a mixture of commercial properties, interspersed
with low density residential properties. A small undeveloped wooded area is located southeast
of the intersection of the existing NS and CR rail lines.
There was no response from Alexandria city or Madison county on planning conflicts that would
arise with the construction of the preferred alignment. 3.1.3	Prime Farmlands and Coastal Zones
The proposed rail alignment would cross Fox silt loam (2 to 6 percent slopes) and Westland
soils. The surface layer of the Fox silt loam is 9 to 12 inches thick with a brown clay loam
subsoil 24 inches thick. This soil has a medium available moisture capacity and runoff is slow.
The potential of erosion is slight to moderate. The Westland soil surface layer is 14 inches thick
with a 35 inch thick underlay of dark-gray silty clay loam. Westland soil is considered a hydric
soil and is found in low-lying depressions. The proposed project is in an urbanized area,
therefore, the land does not meet criteria for prime farmland. (S.C.S. Madison County, 1967). The project area is not in a coastal zone.
Impacts to the local population will be minimal. No residences will be removed. Minor
increases in revenues to local commercial businesses may occur during the short construction
period. City services would not be affected and no school bus routes would cross the new
There would be no significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the construction and
operation of the proposed connection, eliminating concerns about potentially high adverse
environmental impacts to the surrounding population. Moreover, the population in the area of
the proposed construction has a lower percentage of minority residents than the City of
Alexandria as a whole. Data on economic levels in the area are somewhat mixed. The
population of the relevant census block is only slightly less prosperous than that of the city as
a whole (census data indicates that median household incomes in the relevant census block are
about two percent lower than the city average). A somewhat larger number of people in the
census block than the city as a whole live below the Federal poverty level. However, since there
would be no potentially significant adverse environmental effects as a result of the construction
and operation of the proposed connection, no high and disproportionate impacts on minority or
low-income communities would occur.
The proposed project would be within the city limits of Alexandria, Indiana an incorporated city
with a 1994 population of 6,004. Population data for Alexandria is provided below in Table 3-1. The population remained fairly constant from 1960-1994, increasing only 7.5 percent
Population, employment and income trends from 1970 to 1990 for Madison County and the
State of Indiana are provided in Table 3-2. The population of Indiana increased 6.7 percent
from 1970 to 1990. The population in Madison County decreased 5.6 percent during the same
period. The average number of persons in each household in Madison County in 1990 was 3.06
(1990 US Census Data, Summary Level).
The 1994 median household income in Madison County was $18,719 (U.S. Department of
Commerce News, November 7, 1996). In 1990, the unemployment rate in Madison County was
6.5 percent, slightly higher than the state unemployment rate of 5.9 percent. Table 3-2
Population, Employment and Income Trends for Madison County and the State of Indiana
2,113,282
2,798,000e
2,632,000e
166,000e
1 = County and City Data Book, 1972; 2 = State and Metropolitan Area Data Book, 1982, 3 = County and City
Data Book, 1994; 4 = Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1992; e = 1991
Agricultural production is important to the economy of Madison County. About 77 percent of
Madison County's total acreage is farmland. The principal crops in Madison County are corn,
wheat, oats, soybeans, hay-alfalfa and vegetables. Livestock consists mainly of beef cattle,
swine and chickens. Manufacturing and service-oriented trades are also important to the
economy of Madison County. Employment in the county by industry, in 1990, is listed below
(Table 3-3) Table 3-3
As seen in table 3-4 below, the area surrounding the proposed connection, i.e. on average, the
relevant census block, has a lower percentage of minority residents than the City of Alexandria
does on average. Data on economic levels in the area indicate that the population of the relevant
census block is only slightly less affluent than that of the city as a whole; census data indicates
that median household incomes in the relevant census block are about two percent lower than
the city average and that there are a larger number of people living below the federal poverty
level in the same area.
1990 Racial and Economic Composition of the City of Alexandria and the Area Surrounding the Proposed Connection City of Alexandria
Percent below Federal
3.3.1 Existing Rail Transportation Network	The existing rail transportation network consists of the NS and CR rail lines that intersect in
Alexandria. Traffic on the existing CR line north of the NS/CR intersection is five trains per
day. Traffic on the existing NS line east of the NS/CR intersection is three trains per day.
Major roads in Alexandria include State Highways 9 and 28 and some local roads. The
proposed connection would cross Berry Street, creating an expanded crossing to accommodate
a second track. 3.3.2	Grade Crossings
In the proposed project vicinity the CR line crosses Berry Street, north of the CR/NS
intersection. The existing east/west NS line crosses Black Street, just east of the CR/NS
intersection. Berry and Black Street are both single track crossings protected by cross bucks and
stop signs. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for Berry Street is 1,407 vehicles per day. The
ADT for Black Street was not available but is expected to be lower than the ADT on Berry
Street because Black Street is a dead-end street on the south side of the existing NS rail line. 3.4	SAFETY
A database search by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) did not identify any hazardous
waste sites (e.g., National Priorities List (NPL); Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS); Treatment, Storage, or Disposal
Sites (TSD); Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS); State Priority List (SPL); State
Inventory of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST); or State Inventory of Solid Waste
Facilities (SWF/LF)) or other sites of environmental concern in the vicinity of the proposed rail
line construction. The search revealed seven unmappable sites, two within the city limits of
Alexandria and five within Madison County. These sites could not be located because of poor
address or geocoding information provided to the state and/or federal databases. Based on
observations made during the site visit, these sites are not in or adjacent to the proposed right-of-way.
The scrap yard on the proposed construction site was not listed in any of the searched
environmental databases. However, the potential for environmental contamination at the site
cannot be eliminated. The scrap yard accepts batteries for recycling, in addition to scrap steel
and other metals. If contamination is encountered during construction, proper response and
remediation would be implemented.
System-wide, approximately 5.6 percent of NS traffic is composed of hazardous materials. Train
operation always involves a possibility for train accidents or incidents. However, NS' track and
equipment inspection and maintenance programs, employee training programs and the low speed
of trains over the connection would minimize this potential. 3.4.2.1 Carrier's Safety Practices
Train accidents involving damage as low as $6,300 must be reported to the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA). The number of FRA-reportable train accidents per million train-miles
for NS for 1991 through 1995 is listed in Table 3-5.
In 1995, NS' train accident rate was 1.93 accidents per million train miles, approximately half
the average rate of 3.71 accidents per million miles for all Class I railroads combined. The
probability of a train accident on the proposed connection is approximately one in four million. Safe transportation protects the resources of the customers and communities served as well as
the resources of the railroad. NS has independently adopted proactive programs to improve the
safety of hazardous materials transportation. This action has resulted in superior safety records
for NS compared to industry averages. As part of its efforts to continually improve safety
performance in transportation, NS is involved in Responsible Care® Partners. The Responsible
Care® program was established by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) in 1988 as
a proactive self-regulating approach to improving health, safety and environmental performance.
The Responsible Care® Partnership program extends Responsible Care® requirements to non-CMA members including transportation companies which apply to join. Partners must align
internal management practices to meet or continuously improve toward meeting established
codes. The codes include: Community Awareness and Emergency Response; Process Safety;
Pollution Prevention; Safe Distribution; Employee Health and Safety; and Product Stewardship. NS has committed to this proactive effort in connection with its CMA customers to improve the
safe transportation of chemicals and hazardous materials. NS would continue to transport all
hazardous materials in compliance with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal
Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171 to 180 as applicable).
NS' environmental policy requires employees to understand and comply with environmental
requirements. To assure that NS employees are aware of individual and corporate
responsibilities for protection of the environment, NS implemented environmental awareness
training for all employees. NS regularly provides hazardous materials training for all employees
with duties related to hazardous materials transportation. NS is also involved with local
communities in providing training for fire, police and emergency response departments. In
addition, NS is involved in community outreach programs. The railroad has received numerous
safety and service awards, including the Harriman Gold Safety Award, the highest safety honor
for railroads, for the last eight years.
Currently, 5.6 percent of NS' System-wide traffic consists of hazardous materials, representing
a total of about 255,000 carloads in 1996. During the same year, NS had a company-record low
total of 90 reportable incidents (mostly minor in nature) as defined under Department of
Transportation (DOT) F 5800.1. Over 99.96 percent of the hazardous materials shipments
arrived at their destination without incident. These hazardous material shipments moved
primarily on routes designated as key routes. (NS defines these as routes with annual hazardous
materials traffic exceeding 9,000 carloads. This definition is more restrictive than the Inter-Industry Task Force Recommendations). In 1995, NS key routes consisted of 6,423 miles of
trackage. Neither the east/west oriented NS rail line nor the north/south oriented CR rail line through the Alexandria, Indiana is a key route. 3.4.2.3	Emergency Action Plans
NS developed and maintains corporate and divisional Emergency Action Plans based on the
principles of Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Remediation. In the event of a hazardous
material incident, NS implements its Emergency Action Plans. The proposed connection at
Alexandria, Indiana, and both the CR and NS existing rail lines, would be covered by the NS
Emergency Action Plans. Prevention
Prevention of incidents is the primary challenge, with a goal of zero incidents. Prevention
efforts include: hazardous materials training of employees; compliance with regulations,
operating rules, safety rules and industry recommended operating practices; maintenance of the
railroad's infrastructure and equipment; and risk assessment to target and prioritize opportunities
Preparedness to respond includes: distribution and maintenance of the written response plans,
instructions, guidelines and contact lists of agencies, personnel and contractors; training
employees, fire departments and other public emergency response personnel on how to handle
hazardous materials incident responsibilities; conducting emergency response exercises; and
conducting hazardous materials audits.
Response efforts are taken to prevent or minimize any detrimental effects to health, safety and
the environment. Response efforts include: safe initial assessment of an incident; a structured
system for reporting the response to government agencies, the shipper(s) and company
personnel; and an established network of qualified emergency response contractors across the
NS system which are mobilized as indicated by the location and nature of incidents. Ten full-time NS Environmental Operations Engineers, including one in Louisville, Kentucky, are
located strategically throughout the NS system to respond to incidents, supervise the response
and remediation efforts of contractors and coordinate with regulatory agencies.
Remediation efforts bring the incident to a close and restore the environment in the area. Remediation tasks include assessment of the site, contamination and risks; development of a
corrective action plan; corrective action; and confirmation assessment. Remediation of serious
incidents is typically performed in cooperation with and under the supervision of regulatory
authorities. 3.4.3	Electric Transmission Facilities
There is one electric transmission substation, owned by Indiana & Michigan Electric, 400 feet
northwest of the existing NS/CR intersection. This Facility provides electricity to the area. A transmission line passes over the proposed construction site. 3.5	WATER RESOURCES
National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps did not indicate the presence of wetlands within the
proposed construction right-of-way. Two wetlands were indicated within 500 feet south of the
proposed construction site and may potentially receive surface water runoff from the site. These
wetland areas are in the southeast corner of the existing CR/NS intersection.
No surface waters are found on the proposed construction site. The nearest surface water, Pipe
Creek, is a small intermittent stream which is located approximately 1,000 feet south and
slightly downgradient of the proposed construction site. 3.5.3	Floodplain
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps for the area show that the proposed
construction site is not within a 100-year floodplain.
Surficial aquifers in north-central Indiana consist of unconsolidated glacial material in the form
of Quaternary sand and gravel deposits (USGS, Groundwater Atlas of the U.S., #10, 1995). These surficial aquifer systems are approximately 100 to 200 feet thick and supply more than
50 percent of the fresh ground water withdrawn in north-central Indiana. In the vicinity of the
proposed construction site, groundwater moves through the surficial aquifer system from
northern upland recharge areas toward southern discharge areas near Pipe Creek, approximately
1,000 feet to the south. In rural areas surrounding Alexandria, a good supply of drinking water
is supplied by shallow wells. Five deep wells used by the City of Alexandria had an average
depth of 280 feet and yielded 1,180 gallons per minute (SCS, Madison County, 1967).
Most of the land in Madison County is in agricultural production. Approximately 77 percent
of all land in Madison County is farmland with only about 2.3 percent being woodland (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, USA Counties, 1996). Native vegetation has generally been replaced by
agricultural crops. Currently, vegetation in Madison County is dominated by corn, wheat,
soybeans and other cultivated crops. Uncultivated areas are limited to roadsides, drainage
ditches, transportation and utility rights-of-way, fence-rows and windbreaks around residences. Vegetation observed at the site was typical of disturbed urban settings and included a
cottonwood tree (Populus deltoides), Queen Anne's Lace (Daucus carota), Kentucky bluegrass
(Poa pratensis), Indian grass (Sorghastrum nutans), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus) and other
weedy annuals and grasses.
The area surrounding the proposed construction site is primarily industrial and residential. Land
bordering the existing rail rights-of-way is vegetated by deciduous trees, weedy annuals, and
grasses. Two strips of vegetation consisting of weedy annuals and grasses border the south and
west edges of the site. Because the proposed site is within an area dominated by urban and
railroad use, much of the area has previously been disturbed. A small undeveloped woodland
is located 200 feet south of the proposed site on the south side of the NS rail line. Vegetation
within existing transportation and utility rights-of-way and adjacent areas consists of weedy
annuals, grasses, and early successional species. Deciduous trees, grasses, and annual and
perennial garden species are planted and maintained on residential properties. This vegetation
is not unique or limited to the area. In summary, the proposed project area and vicinity has limited biological diversity and is similar
to disturbed areas throughout the region.
Because most of the proposed construction is in a developed area used as a scrap yard, little
wildlife habitat is available. The only existing habitat near the proposed construction site
consists of weedy annuals, grasses, deciduous trees, and annual and perennial introduced species
in railroad rights-of-way or residential yards. The potential for wildlife use of these areas is low. Wildlife would mainly be limited to the common species of birds and small mammals that have
adapted to developed urban areas. Habitat for small mammals and birds is provided by the small
(0.1 acre) woodland tract south of the site. Species identified during a site visit include fox
squirrel (Sciurius niger), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), blue jay (Cyanocitta
cristata), American robin (Turdis migratorius), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and field
sparrow (Spizella pusilla). Other species expected to occur include the deer mouse (Peromyscus
maniculatus), house mouse (Mus musculus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and the
American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) were contacted regarding threatened and endangered species in the area. The USFWS
and the Indiana DNR did not identify any threatened or endangered species of concern in the
project area. None are anticipated because the area is heavily disturbed.
There are no records of any state or Federally-listed threatened or endangered species in the
project area. Nor are there any records of unique or sensitive natural communities in the area. However, Federally-listed species that could potentially be in the project vicinity include the
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), Karner blue butterfly
(Lycaeides melissa samuelis), Mitchell's satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii), dune thistle
(Cirsium pitcheri) and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus lucocephalus) (US Department of Interior,
letter). The proposed right-of-way and adjacent lands consist of disturbed land, most of which
contains no vegetation. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that habitat for any of these threatened
and endangered species is present in the project area. Additionally, none were observed during
a site visit and none are expected to occur in this disturbed urban area.
3.6.4	Parks, Forest Preserves, Refuges and Sanctuaries	No forest, preserves, refuges, or sanctuaries are located within 1,000 feet of the proposed
construction site. The nearest park is a city park that is approximately 0.5 miles east of the
proposed construction. The park is adjacent to the existing NS rail line.
According to 40 CFR 81, Madison County is classified as an "attainment area" with regard to
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Automobiles, trucks and locomotives
are the primary sources of emissions in the project area.
In 1996, NS carried fewer than 800 loads system-wide of commodities listed by the Clean Air
Act as ozone-depleting. This quantity represents less than 0.017 percent of the total traffic, a
Rail, automobile and truck traffic are also the primary sources of noise in the proposed project
area. Noise-sensitive receptors are defined as residences, schools, churches, hospitals, retirement homes and libraries. In the vicinity of the proposed project, 15 residences currently
are located within the Ldn 65 dBA noise contour for the existing NS and CR rail lines. The
existing Ldn 65 dBA contour for the NS line extends 50 feet perpendicular from the centerline
(150 feet at grade crossings). The existing Ldn 65 dBA contour for the NS line extends 115 feet
perpendicular from the centerline (270 feet at grade crossings). No retirement homes, schools,
churches, libraries or hospitals are within 500 feet of the site. An elementary school, a
secondary school and a church are within 0.5 miles of the site.
Records at the Indiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in Indianapolis were reviewed
to determine if previously identified cultural resources are in the project area. No sites listed on
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or other archaeological or historical sites have
been recorded in the vicinity of the proposed construction. The construction would cross a
portion of a scrap yard. The structures associated with the scrap yard do not meet the criteria
for inclusion on the NRHP. The STB initiated consultation with the Indiana SHPO in a meeting
on July 18, 1997 where all of the pertinent cultural resources issues were discussed. Subsequently a letter dated July 24, 1997 was submitted to the SHPO requesting a finding of no
historic properties. In a letter dated September 19, 1997, the Indiana SHPO (Appendix C,
Exhibit 21) concurred with the STB's finding that no known properties listed in or eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places would be affected by the proposed project. The Indiana
SHPO also concluded that the Section 106 review process is complete; however, state law
requires that work most be stopped if archaeological artifacts or human remains are uncovered
during construction activities. 3.10	ENERGY
northwest of the existing NS/CR intersection. This facility provides electricity to the area. A
This chapter provides an overview of the potential environmental impacts from the proposed rail
line connection between NS and CR in Alexandria, Indiana. This connection would involve the
construction of a new rail line segment in new right-of-way to connect existing tracks to other
existing rail lines, sidings, and/or yard facilities. As with any construction of new railroad
tracks, the steps required to build a new connection include site preparation and grading, railbed
preparation, ballast application, track installation, and systems (e.g., signals, communications)
installation. Although the construction zone required will vary depending on site conditions,
most work would be completed within 250 feet of the new rail line.
In conducting its analysis, SEA considered the following environmental impact areas in
accordance with the Board's environmental rules at 49 CFR Part 1105.7(e) and other applicable regulations:
Land Use Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
4.1.1	Land Use 4.1.1.1 Evaluation Criteria
The severity of visual, air quality and noise impacts on sensitive land uses. Interference with the normal functioning of adjacent land uses.
Alteration of flood water flow that could increase flooding in adjacent areas.	Consistency and/or compatibility with local land use plans and policies. Prime Agricultural Land
The proposed connection would result in minimal impacts to land use. Approximately 2.3 acres
of industrial land would be obtained for the connection, of which 1.3 acres would be converted
to railroad right-of-way. The majority of the required acreage is scrap yard. The buried AT&T
fiber-optic cable east of the CR line would potentially have to be relocated prior to construction. No other land use impacts are expected from the construction of the proposed connection. Consistency with Local Plans
There was no response from the city of Alexandria or Madison County on planning conflicts
that would arise with the construction of the preferred alignment. Prime Farmlands and Coastal Zones
The proposed construction would be compatible with surrounding land uses and the soil at the
site is not classified as prime farmland. Finally, the proposed site is not in a coastal zone
The following criteria was used to determine impacts from the proposed project to
socioeconomics and environmental justice:
Reviewed demographic and income data from the 1990 Census to compare the
population of the area of the proposed construction with that of the City of
A environmental justice effect is determined to be significant if an adverse effect of
the proposed construction falls disproportionately on low-income or minority
populations. 4.1.2.2 Potential Impacts
U.S. Census data indicate that both the proposed connection site, as well as the alternative
alignment considered (since it is in the same census block) contain a lower percentage of
minority residents than the City of Alexandria on average. These data indicate that construction and operation of the proposed connection would not have
a high and disproportionate impact on minority groups. This conclusion is further supported by
the absence of significant adverse environmental impacts related to the proposed connection.
Data on economic levels in the area indicate that the population of the relevant census block is
only slightly less affluent than that of the city as a whole (median household incomes in the
same area are only two percent lower than the city average and the percentage of people living
below the federal poverty level in the census block is higher than the city average).
These data indicate that construction and operation of the proposed connection would not have
a high and disproportionate impact on low income groups. This conclusion is further supported
by the absence of significant adverse environmental impacts related to the proposed connection.
Train Operation Neither the east/west oriented NS rail line nor the north/south oriented CR rail line through the
City of Alexandria is a key route. The potential for train-automobile or train-truck accidents on
the proposed connection is expected to be minimal because of the low train speed
(approximately 10 miles per hour), the low level of rail traffic (7 trains per day) and the minimal
number of at-grade crossings (one expanded crossing at Berry Street). The average train is
expected to be 5,000 feet long.
Train operation always involves a possibility for train accidents or incidents. However, NS'
track and equipment inspection and maintenance programs, employee training programs and the
low speed of trains would minimize this potential. The probability of a train accident on the
proposed connection is approximately 1 in 4 million.
No new grade crossings are associated with the proposed project; however, the crossing at Berry
Street would be modified to accommodate double tracks. The modifications would include
upgrading of protective devices to include gates and flashing lights. Some temporary vehicular
delays could result from the construction and operation of the proposed connection. The ADT
at the Berry Street crossing is 1,407 vehicles per day.
The database search by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) did not identify any
hazardous waste sites or other sites of environmental concern in the vicinity of the proposed
connection. The database search did reveal seven unmappable sites, two within the city limits
of Alexandria and five within Madison County. However, these sites could not be located
because of poor address or geocoding information provided to the state and/or Federal databases. No evidence of these sites was observed within or adjacent to the proposed construction area
during the site visit.
A portion of a scrap yard is located within the proposed construction site. The scrap yard
accepts used batteries, scrap steel and other metals. Observations of the scrap yard could not
be made during the site visit because the yard is surrounded by a high fence. The site is not
listed on any of the databases searched by EDR. However, the potential for environmental
contamination cannot be eliminated. If any contamination is excavated or disturbed during
construction activities, such contamination would be properly contained and disposed of in
a total of about 255,000 carloads in 1996. During the same year, NS had a company record low
primarily on routes designated as key routes (NS defines these as routes with annual hazardous
trackage. Neither the east/west oriented NS rail line nor the north/south oriented CR rail line
through the City of Alexandria is a key route. With the low probability of a train accident and small percentage of hazardous material
shipments, no significant impact is expected.
4.1.5.1 Evaluation Criteria The following criteria were used to assess the potential impacts to surface water resources and
wetlands that could result from the proposed construction project:
Alteration of creek embankments with rip-rap, concrete, and other bank stabilization
Temporary or permanent loss of surface water area associated with the incidental
deposition of fill.
Downstream sediment deposition or water turbidity due to fill activities, dredging,
and/or soil erosion from upland construction site areas.
Direct or indirect destruction and/or degradation of aquatic, wetland, and riparian
vegetation/habitat.
Alteration of water flow that could increase bank erosion or flooding, uproot or
destroy vegetation, or affect fish and wildlife habitats.
The extent and duration of impacts to surface water resources and wetlands resulting from the project would depend primarily on the type of work to be completed and the size of the project. The overall effect could be lessened by avoiding important resources and minimizing impacts
to the extent practicable, and by implementing the mitigation measures. Prior to initiating construction, regulatory agencies would be consulted regarding the need to obtain permits, such
as U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (COE) Section 404 permits, National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits, and state-required permits or agreements, as appropriate.
The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map of Alexandria, Indiana was used to identify
potential wetlands in the project area. According to the NWI map, two wetlands 500 feet south
of the proposed construction site could potentially receive surface water runoff from the site. NS does not anticipate impacting these wetland areas because of their relative distance from the
construction site and their location in the southeast corner of the existing CR/NS intersection. Westland and Fox silt loam soils are crossed by the proposed construction. The Westland soil
is classified as a hydric soil (SCS Crawford County, 1979). While hydric soils indicate the
potential for wetlands, no indications of wetlands were noted on the proposed construction site
during the site visit. Surface Water
No surface waters or wetlands would be crossed by the proposed connection. Storm water
drainage patterns are not anticipated to be altered by the proposed project. Pipe Creek, a small
intermittent stream approximately 1,000 feet south and slightly down gradient from the proposed
construction site, is not anticipated to be impacted by runoff and soil erosion. Any surface water
runoff will drain to storm inlets in the project vicinity and, therefore, will not affect the wetland
area. Potential impacts from soil erosion resulting from cleared vegetation and disturbed soil
would be insignificant with Best Management Practices (BMPs) used to control runoff and soil
erosion. In addition, NS would restore disturbed areas of soil through reseeding. Floodplain
The construction of the proposed rail line would not have any adverse impacts on groundwater
resources. Only a small amount of fuels and oils would be present on the site during
construction activities. Potential leaks or spills would involve only small amounts and would
be cleaned up immediately.
Groundwater quality could only be affected if a sufficient amount of a contaminant from a
potential spill were released and if it were able to leach to the aquifer prior to implementation
and completion of clean-up procedures. The circumstances under which this could happen
would be unusual considering the low speed of the trains, the low level of rail traffic, the depth
to groundwater (greater than 250 feet) and NS' transportation safety performance record,
emergency action procedures, inspections and maintenance programs. (The probability of a
train accident on the proposed connection is approximately one in four million.) Response to
a contaminant release is expected to be timely and sufficient to clean up the release. Any spill
or contaminant release would be reported and cleaned up in accordance with all Federal and
state statutes and regulations. 4.1.6	Biological Resources
The following significance criteria were utilized to assess the potential impacts to biological
resources resulting from the proposed projects:
Harm to or loss of individuals or populations of rare, threatened or endangered plants
Disturbance of nesting, breeding or foraging areas of threatened or endangered
Loss or degradation of wildlife sanctuaries, refuges or national, state or local
parks/forests.
Sensitive animal species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the project may be impacted
by construction activities. A determination as to the level of impact will depend on many factors
including the availability of suitable habitat, previous surveys, and comments from agencies. Parks, forest preserves, refuges and sanctuaries were identified within one mile of the proposed
construction. Impacts to these areas were determined based on their distance from the proposed
construction and the degree to which rail construction, operation and maintenance would disturb
or disrupt activities at these areas. 4.1.6.2 Potential Impacts
The following sections discuss potential impacts to wildlife and vegetation within the proposed
Vegetation that would be lost due to construction of the proposed project would include
primarily common grasses and weeds. This vegetation is typical of disturbed urban areas and
common along the existing rail rights-of-way. The loss of this vegetation is not considered
significant because this vegetation is not unique or limited in the area. No cropland would be
disturbed during the construction or operation of the proposed line. Following construction, NS
would reseed bare soils outside the subgrade slope.
No adverse impacts to wildlife populations are anticipated. The proposed connection site is
small and contains only limited wildlife habitat. The limited wildlife within the project area
would be subject to sporadic disturbance because of noise and human activity generated during
construction activities, subsequent train operations and maintenance activities. The minimal loss
of habitat due to this construction would be insignificant. Outside of NS' property, the construction site would require approximately 2.3 acres. This area
is occupied by the scrap yard. These areas contain poor-quality wildlife habitat. Following
construction, all cleared areas outside the right-of-way subgrade slope would be reseeded with
grasses or other vegetation. Overall, minimal impact to wildlife would result from construction
and operation of the proposed connection.
The USFWS and the Indiana DNR did not identify any threatened or endangered species of
concern in the project area. There are no records of any state-or Federally-listed threatened or
endangered species in the proposed project area. Nor are there any records of unique or
sensitive natural communities in the area. No threatened or endangered species or their potential
habitat were observed during the site visit. None are anticipated because the area is heavily
The nearest park is a city park approximately 0.5 mile east of the proposed connection,
immediately adjacent to the existing NS rail line. No forest, preserves, refuges or sanctuaries
are within 500 feet of the proposed connection. Construction of the proposed connection would
not have significant impacts on the park. No significant increase in noise at the city park would
result from the additional trains on the proposed connection. 4.1.7	Air Quality
The following criteria were used to assess the potential effects on air quality that could result
from the proposed construction project:
Increase in levels of pollutant emissions (e.g., hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter) from the operation of
construction equipment and vehicles.
Effects related to train operations over the NS and CR line segments adjoining the
connection, to the extent they meet the Board's thresholds for analysis.
Air quality effects are considered to be adverse if the proposed construction would
lead to long-term increases in pollutant emissions or excessive fugitive dust
Madison County is an air quality attainment area. No significant, if any, shipments
of ozone-depleting commodities are expected over the proposed connection. Only minor
impacts to air quality are expected as a result of construction, operation and maintenance of the
proposed project, many of which would be temporary. The operation of heavy equipment would
be the primary source of pollutant emissions during construction activities. Such pollutants vary
by the source as described below:
Particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), and
nitrogen oxide (NO) resulting from the combustion of diesel fuel
Fugitive dust along the right-of-way and unimproved roads resulting from the operation
of heavy equipment.	The train traffic on the proposed rail line would not meet or exceed STB thresholds for air
quality analysis, and thus air impacts were not required to be quantified. Any air quality impacts
are not expected to be significant.
Because rail traffic over the proposed connection would not meet STB thresholds for air quality,
air emissions were not quantified. As previously stated, the proposed connection would shorten
the route NS trains would have to travel by approximately 16 miles and save as much as 314,000
gallons of fuel per year. The estimated System-wide decreases in emissions as a result of the
proposed connection in Alexandria, Indiana are presented below in Table 4-1.
During the construction phase, grading, excavation and placement of ballast and subgrade could
result in a temporary increase of fugitive dust. However, with appropriate mitigation measures,
such effects are expected to be minimal. Mitigation measures would include spraying road
surfaces with a water truck or covering truck beds with tarps as necessary. Emissions from
construction and maintenance equipment engines would be localized and temporary during the
construction period and during maintenance activities. They are not expected to reduce air
quality. Table 4-1
Estimated System-wide Decreases in Emissions as a Result of the Proposed Connection in Alexandria, Indiana (tons per year) VOC
Identification of noise-sensitive land uses where changes in operation could result in
noise exposure increases.
Noise levels in the project areas are expected to increase temporarily during construction. Temporary noises would be generated by operation of vehicles and heavy machinery used for
grading, rail construction, etc. The duration of these impacts would only be short-term, lasting
from approximately 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. and occurring only during the three- to six-month
construction period. Since construction noise would occur during daylight hours and would be
short-term in nature, noise impacts from construction are not expected to be significant.
Train operation over the proposed connection would not likely cause any significant increase
in ambient noise levels. In the vicinity of the line, the potential noise receptors are mainly urban
residences. No schools, libraries, hospitals, retirement homes or churches are within 500 feet
of the proposed alignment. At a maximum operating speed of 10 miles per hour, increases in
noise levels at any given location should not occur for more than approximately 5.7 minutes
while the train passes.
Approximately 7 trains per day are expected to travel over the proposed connection. This
increase does not meet or exceed STB thresholds for noise analysis. Available noise data does
show, however, that 20 residential noise receptors would be within the post construction Ldn
65 dBA contour, which extends 50 feet perpendicular from the centerline (250 feet at grade
crossings). Fifteen of the 20 residential noise receptors are within the existing Ldn 65 dBA
contour created by current train operations on the existing NS and CR rail lines. After train
operations over the proposed connection begin, the 5 additional residences within the post
construction Ldn 65 dBA contour would experience an increase in noise levels of only two dBA,
while the 15 residences already within the existing Ldn 65 dBA contour would experience an
increase in noise levels of only three dBA. NS would regularly lubricate the 12 degree curve
of the proposed connection to minimize the friction which causes both rail wear and wheel
Impacts to historic and archaeological resources would be considered adverse (as defined in 36
CFR 800.9) if any site listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP would experience destruction
of the site; alteration of site characteristics or setting; neglect resulting in deterioration or
destruction; or transfer, lease, or sale of the property on which the site occurs if adequate
restrictions or conditions are not included to ensure preservation of the property's significant
historic features. 4.1.9.2 Potential Impacts
The Indiana DNR, Division of Historic Preservation and Archeology (Division), stated that no
known historical or architectural sites would be impacted by the proposed construction. In a
letter to the Division dated July 24, 1997, the STB requested a finding of no historic properties. In a letter dated September 19, 1997, the Indiana SHPO (Appendix C, Exhibit 21) concurred
with the STB's finding that no known properties listed in or eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places would be affected by the proposed project. The Indiana SHPO also concluded
that the Section 106 review process is complete; however, state law requires that work most be
stopped if archaeological artifacts or human remains are uncovered during construction
activities. 4.1.10	Energy Resources
The following criteria was used to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project on
The effect of the proposed project on the transportation of energy resources and
recyclable commodities.
Construction of the proposed connection would have no impacts to Indiana & Michigan
Electric's transmission lines or power substation.
As previously stated, the proposed connection would shorten the route NS trains would have to
travel by approximately 16 miles and save as much as 314,000 gallons of fuel per year.
4.1.11	Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those impacts on the environment which result 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. As shown above, potential environmental impacts related to the construction and operation of
the proposed connection are insignificant or nonexistent. The proposed project is not expected
to have any significant adverse impact on land use, water resources, biological resources, or air
quality. Nor would the proposed project have significant adverse impacts on safety, electrical
transmission facilities or cultural resources. Any noise increases during construction would be
limited to normal work hours and would only occur during the construction period. Increases
in noise from ongoing operation on the connection would be minor. The proposed expanded
grade crossing (at Berry Street) would be protected by flashing lights and gates to mitigate
potential safety concerns. There would not be any significant environmental impacts on any
group regardless of race or economic status as a result of the proposed project. The community
potentially affected has a lower percentage of minority residents than the city average and is
only slightly less prosperous than the city as a whole. Consequently, and because of the absence
of significant adverse environmental impacts related to the proposed connection; there would
not be any high and disproportionate environmental justice impacts as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed connection.
The operation of the proposed connection would result in a reduced fuel consumption of
approximately 314,000 gallons per year and associated reductions in air emissions.
Based on a review of the transaction Application and the proposed Operating Plan supplied by
CSX, no other rail construction projects are underway of planned in the vicinity of the proposed
connection . Therefore, the effects outlined above represent the cumulative effects of the
proposed construction project. The cumulative effects of the entire acquisition transaction, which
could result from increased rail segment, rail yard and intermodal facility activity,
abandonments, and other construction projects, will be addressed in the EIS.
If the "no-action" alternative were implemented, the proposed rail line connection would not be
constructed or operated. Therefore, the current land use and other existing environmental
conditions would remain unchanged. However, if the related transaction is approved, the
absence of this rail line connection would result in less efficient rail service. The capacity
constraints, delays, and slower operating speeds that would result without the new connection
would cause additional fuel consumption and increase pollutant emissions from locomotives.
As discussed in Section 2.2, SEA identified no feasible "build" alternatives to the proposed rail
line construction project. Potential environmental impacts related to the construction and
operation of the proposed connection are insignificant or nonexistent. The proposed project is
not expected to have any significant adverse impact on land use, water resources, biological
resources, or air quality. Nor would the proposed project have significant adverse impacts on
safety, electrical transmission facilities or cultural resources. Any noise increases during
construction would be limited to normal work hours and would only occur during the
construction period. Increases in noise from ongoing operation on the connection would be
minor. The proposed expanded grade crossing (at Berry Street) would be protected by flashing
lights and gates to mitigate potential safety concerns. There would not be any significant
environmental impacts on any group regardless of race or economic status as a result of the
proposed project. The community potentially affected has a lower percentage of minority
residents than the city average and is only slightly less prosperous than the city as a whole. Consequently, and because of the absence of significant adverse environmental impacts related
to the proposed connection, there would not be any high and disproportionate environmental
justice impacts as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed connection.
This chapter summarizes comments received from Federal, State and local agencies or officials
about the proposed construction, and outlines SEA's recommended mitigation measures.
Burns & McDonnell sent letters to various Federal, state and local agencies seeking their
comments on the construction and operation of the proposed connecting track (See Appendix
C, Exhibit 2 for the list of agencies that were contacted and Appendix C, Exhibit 1 for a sample
of the letter). The letters were distributed to these agencies in January and February, 1997. The
agency responses to the letter are provided in Appendix C, Exhibits 3 through 19. This chapter
summarizes comments received from these agencies and the mitigation proposed by NS.
Comments: The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (Appendix
C, Exhibits 10 and 11) stated that there are no federally-recognized Indian tribes or Indian
reservation trust lands in Indiana. Comments: The United States Department of Agriculture (Appendix C, Exhibit 8) stated that
the Alexandria construction would not impact resources within their area of concern. Comments: The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (Appendix C, Exhibit 16) stated this
proposal will require the formal approval of their agency.
No comments were received from governmental agencies concerning socioeconomic and or
environmental justice issues. 5.1.3 Transportation
Comments: The Mayor of the City of Alexandria (Appendix C, Exhibit 20) commented on his
concerns regarding blockage of crossings in the city and regarding the desire for upgraded
warning devices at Washington Street, Broadway and Berry Street.
Petitioner's Response: NS is evaluating various options related to operation of the rail crossing
to address the Mayor's concerns regarding blockage of grade crossings.
Comments: The Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Office of Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management (Appendix C, Exhibit 17) does not believe the site is or
represents an environmental problem, based on information provided. Comments: The Mayor of the City of Alexandria (Appendix C, Exhibit 20) commented on his
warning devices at Washington Street, Broadway and Berry Street. The Mayor stated that if NS
can address these public safety concerns, then he believes that the proposed connection track
project would improve the overall operation of city functions and address public safety concerns
Petitioner's Response: NS would upgrade the crossing at Berry Street and is considering signal
upgrades at other streets. NS is also evaluating various options related to operation of the rail
crossing to address the Mayor's concerns regarding blockage of grade crossings.
Comments: The Louisville Corps of Engineers (Appendix C, Exhibit 5) stated that a
Department of The Army permit does not appear to be needed. If any dredged or fill material
would be discharged in any waters or wetlands, plans should be submitted for their review.
Comments: The Office of Water Management (Appendix C, Exhibit 17) does not anticipate any
unacceptable water quality problems.
Petitioner's Response: No construction in or on waterways is anticipated. 5.1.6 Biological Resources
Comments: The Indiana Department of Natural Resources (Appendix C, Exhibit 16) stated the
Natural Heritage Program's data have been checked and, to date, no plant or animal species
listed as state or federally threatened, endangered or rare have been reported to occur in the
project vicinity. Comments: No significant direct impacts on fish and wildlife resources are anticipated from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Appendix C, Exhibit 13). 5.1.7 Air Quality
Comments: The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (Appendix C, Exhibit 17)
stated that the project must comply with all Indiana Air Pollution Control Board rules. Petitioner's Response: NS would comply with all Indiana Air Pollution Control Board rules. 5.1.8 Noise
Comments: The Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation
and Archeology (Appendix C, Exhibit 14), stated that no known historical or architectural sites
would be impacted by the proposed construction. Comments: In a letter dated September 19, 1997, the Indiana SHPO (Appendix C, Exhibit 21)
concurred with the STB's finding that no known properties listed in or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places would be affected by the proposed project. The Indiana SHPO also
concluded that the Section 106 review process is complete; however, state law requires that
work most be stopped if archaeological artifacts or human remains are uncovered during
construction activities. 5.1.10 Energy Resources No comments were received from governmental agencies concerning energy resources.
No comments were received from governmental agencies concerning Indiana & Michigan
Electric's transmission facilities.
The following mitigation measures were suggested for the proposed construction project by the
various parties consulted in the process of preparing the EA:	A list of the agencies consulted during the environmental review process and copies of
agency correspondence related to this rail construction are provided in Appendix B.
The Berry Street road crossing, currently protected by cross bucks, would be expanded to
a double track crossing as a result of the proposed construction. The protection at this
crossing would be upgraded to include flashing lights and gates.
Petitioner would maintain all rail line and warning devices according to Federal Railroad
Petitioner would use Best Management Practices (BMP's) to control erosion, runoff and
surface instability during construction. After the new rail line is constructed, the petitioner
would reseed outside the subgrade slope to provide permanent cover and prevent potential
Petitioner would control temporary noise from construction equipment by ensuring all
machinery has properly functioning muffler systems and by work hour controls.
Petitioner would transport all hazardous materials in compliance with the U.S. Department
of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR parts 171-174 and 177-179).
In the case of a spill, the petitioner would follow appropriate emergency response procedures
outlined in its emergency response plans.
Petitioner would restore all roads disturbed during construction to the conditions required
by state or local regulations.
Petitioner would comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local regulations regarding
fugitive dust and open burning.
Petitioner would observe all applicable regulations for handling and disposing of waste
materials, including hazardous waste.
SEA recommends that the Board impose the following mitigation measures in any decision
approving the construction waiver for the proposed rail/connection construction in Alexandria,
SEA's recommendations include, but are not limited to, the following general mitigation
Land Use	1.	NS shall restore any adjacent properties that are disturbed during construction activities
to their pre-construction conditions.
2.	Before undertaking any construction activities, NS shall consult with any potentially
affected American Indian Tribes adjacent to, or having a potential interest in the right-of-way.
Transportation Systems	1.	NS shall use appropriate signs and barricades to control traffic disruptions during
2.	NS shall restore roads disturbed during construction to conditions as required by state
1.	NS shall observe all applicable Federal, state, and local regulations regarding handling
and disposal of any waste materials, including hazardous waste, encountered or
generated during construction of the proposed rail line connection.
2.	NS shall dispose of all materials that cannot be reused in accordance with state and local
solid waste management regulations.
3.	NS shall consult with the appropriate Federal, state and local agencies if hazardous waste
and/or materials are discovered at the site.
4.	NS shall transport all hazardous materials in compliance with U.S. Department of
Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171 to 180). NS shall
provide, upon request, local emergency management organizations with copies of all
applicable Emergency Response Plans and participate in the training of local emergency
staff for coordinated responses to incidents. In the case of a hazardous material incident,
NS shall follow appropriate emergency response procedures contained in their
Emergency Response Plans.	Water Resources
1.	NS shall obtain all necessary Federal, state, and local permits if construction activities
require the alteration of wetlands, ponds, lakes, streams, or rivers, or if these activities
would cause soil or other materials to wash into these water resources. CSX/NS shall
use appropriate techniques to minimize impacts to water bodies and wetlands.
1.	NS shall use Best Management Practices to control erosion, runoff, and surface
instability during construction, including seeding, fiber mats, straw mulch, plastic liners,
slope drains, and other erosion control devices. Once the track is constructed, NS shall
establish vegetation on the embankment slope to provide permanent cover and prevent
potential erosion. If erosion develops, NS shall take steps to develop other appropriate
2.	CSX/NS shall use only EPA-approved herbicides and qualified contractors for
application of right-of-way maintenance herbicides, and shall limit such application to
the extent necessary for rail operations.
1.	NS shall comply with all applicable Federal, state, and local regulations regarding the
control of fugitive dust. Fugitive dust emissions created during construction shall be
minimized by using such control methods as water spraying, installation of wind
barriers, and chemical treatment.
1. NS shall control temporary noise from construction equipment through the use of work
hour controls and maintenance of muffler systems on machinery.
1.	In those cases where historic resources would be adversely affected, CSX/NS shall not
undertake construction activities until the Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f., as amended) review process is completed. If
previously undiscovered archaeological remains are found during construction, NS shall
cease work and immediately contact the SHPO to initiate the appropriate Section 106
SEA does not identify any specific mitigation measures, in addition to the general mitigation
measures identified above, that the Board impose for means of approval of the construction
waiver for the proposed rail connection construction in Alexandria, Indiana. SEA has no other
specific mitigation measure for the Board.
RAILROAD'S REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED PROCESS
The following environmental impact areas were evaluated for the proposed Alexandria
connection project: land use, socioeconomics environmental justice, transportation, safety,
surface water resources, wetlands, biological resources, air quality, noise, cultural resources,,
and energy. The methods utilized in the assessment of impacts for each of these categories, with
an explanation of the significance criteria, are provided below. Environmental scientists visited the site to assess land use, vegetation and other characteristics
of the area. Cultural resource specialists also visited the site. During the site visits the scientists
and cultural resource specialists took photographs of the proposed construction site and
surrounding area. Information was also obtained from published reference materials and from
Land use information was obtained from site visits, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic
maps and from aerial photographs. Land use within and adjacent to the proposed construction
area was determined. Buildings (such as residential and commercial buildings, schools and
churches) near the proposed construction site were also noted due to possible sensitivity to noise
disturbance or incompatibility with construction. Contacts were made with the county planning
agency to obtain information on local planning and zoning requirements to determine if rights-of-way would be consistent with any such requirements. Contacts were made with the U.S.
Bureau of Indian Affairs to determine the presence of any officially recognized Native American
tribes or reservations near the site. USGS Topographic Maps
USGS topographic maps were utilized during the site visits for notation of land use, and for
preparation of the figures presented. Proper place names of roads, creeks, and water bodies not
readily evident during the site visits were developed from information on these maps.
The United States Department of Agricultural Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS,
formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service) has created a national database of prime
farmland. The local NRCS office was contacted and requested to provide soil surveys, maps
or drawings indicating the location of prime farmland at or in the vicinity of the project. These
maps or drawings were reviewed, and the areas of prime farmland adjacent to or within 500 feet
of the center line of the railway were inventoried to determine approximate areas or lengths of
prime farmland in the area.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes maps showing areas subject
to flooding. These maps were previously published and distributed by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (USDHUD) and are periodically updated and revised. Maps
that cover each proposed project area were obtained and reviewed to determine which portions
of the line would be located within the 100-year and 500-year flood plains.
Executive Order 12898, entitled "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Population and Low-Income Populations," directs federal agencies to analyze the environmental
effects of their actions on minority and low-income communities. Significant and adverse
effects which have a high and disproportionate impact on these communities should be identifies
In this EA, potential impacts of the proposed construction of a rail line connection in
Alexandria, Indiana on minority and low-income communities were considered, along with the
potential impacts associated with an alternative alignment. One of the primary goals in selecting
between alternative alignments for the proposed project was to minimize impacts on surrounding
residents. Information was obtained through site visits and demographic research. While the
"no-build" alternative would have no change in potential impacts on the community in the
vicinity of the proposed connection, neither would it provide any of the anticipated benefits of
the connection described. In order to study the effects of the proposed construction on the population in the vicinity of the
project, information on racial composition and average income level in the area was obtained
from the U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line files and other statistical sources. From the Census
files, the proposed construction was determined to be located in one census block. Using the
census block number, Summary Tape Files were utilized to determine and analyze the poverty
status, race and income for the relevant block.
The proposed project area and an alternative alignment for the project were studied to determine
the number of new residences and other sensitive receptors within the Ldn 65 dBA contour
around the connection affected by an increase of two dBA, since noise would be the
predominant potential impact on nearby sensitive receptors. The assessment also considered
whether any of these sensitive receptors would be subject to additional noise from the proposed
connection, and whether they are currently affected by equal or greater noise from existing
operations. Safety concerns were also taken into consideration. Potential increases in the
number of grade crossings were examined, as were the nature and operation of the proposed
grade crossings and the potential traffic they would experience. TRANSPORTATION AND SAFETY
Potential impacts on local transportation systems are discussed for the proposed project. Railroad safety precautions during construction work are also discussed. Safety impacts are
discussed in the following general categories:
Railroad operations affect public health and safety when accidents occur. Delays also occur at
grade crossings (which could affect the time required to respond to an emergency, or affect the
judgment of motorists concerning their ability to cross the tracks safely); and releases of
hazardous materials sometimes occur.
Delays at grade crossings are a function of the number of trains per day passing over a crossing,
the time it takes for a train to pass the crossing, and the type of crossing warning device. Delays
at grade crossings will only be quantified if the ADT exceeds 5,000 vehicle.
Railroad records or information databases were examined to determine if there are known
hazardous waste sites or sites where there have been hazardous materials spills at the proposed
construction site. The information searches of federal and state environmental databases were
used to identify known sites of environmental concern within 500 feet of the proposed
construction. EDR searched the following databases:
System (CERCLIS)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System - Treatment, Storage, or
Disposal (RCRA-TSD) sites
The reports were reviewed to determine if any of these sites would be impacted by the proposed
construction. Site visits noted any obvious indications of potential hazardous waste sites within
The existing lines were evaluated to determine if they are hazardous material key routes. NS'
current train accident ratio (1.93 train accidents per million train miles) was applied to the
annual number of trains projected to operate over the connection and the length of the
connection to calculate the probability of a train accident on the connection.
Identification of the types and extent of surface water features occurring within 500 feet of the
center line along the proposed Alexandria construction was completed using a variety of
information sources. Surface water resources were primarily identified from site inspection and interpretation of
hydrologic features delineated on USGS topos and NWI maps. The other information sources
described below were used to confirm and/or refine the locations of these features.
USGS topographic maps indicate, among other items, the types and extent of water features on
the landscape. These features include permanent and intermittent streams, water bodies,
wetlands, tidal channels, mudflats, sewage-treatment ponds, channels, culverts, and ditches. Water resources located within and immediately adjacent to the railroad right-of-way were
assessed for this project. Each crossing of a water resource was counted as required by 33 CFR
Section 330.2 (I).
NWI maps show various water features with a focus on wetland resources. The inventory was completed by USFWS through a stereoscopic analysis of high altitude aerial photography and
delimitation of wetland types on USGS topos. Wetlands are classified by USFWS in accordance
with Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. A particular
wetland is located and classified in detail on NWI maps by a sequence of alphabetical and
numerical symbols based on the attributes of the wetland. A comprehensive explanation of the
classification system is provided in the map legend. This classification system includes a broad
range of the types and extent of wetland resources, as well as other water features. However,
for this evaluation, wetlands were identified as rivers, lacustrine (reservoirs, lakes) or palustrine
(any vegetated wetland). Palustrine wetlands were further identified as forested, shrub/scrub,
or emergent (containing herbaceous vegetation) wetlands. There are often differences between
the USFWS definition of a "wetlands" and the definitions of various federal, state, and local
regulatory agencies. All NWI wetlands that occur within 500 feet of the proposed construction are depicted on figures. Soil Survey Maps
Soil surveys have been completed by NRCS for a large number of counties in the United States. Maps have been prepared for each survey that show the types and extent of soil types. A subset
of the soils mapped by NRCS is classified as "hydric;" that is, soils subjected to prolonged
periods of flooding, ponding or saturation. The occurrence of a hydric soil provides an
indication that an area may be a wetland. Information from the soil survey maps was used to
cross-reference other sources of information to better understand the soils and hydrologic
conditions at select locations.
The proposed construction site was inspected and reviewed in the field by environmental
scientists. Information about surface water resources and other areas of interest was collected
during the inspections. Field notes and photographs taken during the inspections were retained
for later review and utilized to amend and refine information derived from other sources.
The following criteria were used to assess the potential impacts to surface water resources and
Alteration of water flow that could increase bank erosion or flooding, uproot or destroy
vegetation, or affect fish and wildlife habitats.
Information regarding biological resources potentially occurring at or in the immediate vicinity
of the proposed project (within 500 feet of the center line) was collected from a variety of
sources, including USGS topographic maps, NRCS soil survey maps, lists of threatened and
endangered species, reference books on regional flora and fauna, and information databases. In addition, federal and state agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Indiana
Department of Natural Resources were consulted, and specific information concerning the
potential occurrence of sensitive plants and animals in the vicinity of the proposed project was
solicited. Site visits were conducted at the project site to evaluate biological resources. These evaluations
included determinations as to the occurrence or potential occurrence of sensitive species and
habitat for sensitive species, overall value to wildlife, and use of the area as a migration corridor
The following evaluation criteria were utilized to assess the potential impacts to biological
Harm to or loss of individuals or populations of rare, threatened or endangered plants or
constructions and the degree to which rail construction, operation and maintenance would
disturb or disrupt activities at these areas. AIR QUALITY
Emissions from trains have the potential to impact air quality. STB regulations contain
thresholds for air quality evaluations related to rail traffic increases. If STB thresholds would
be met or exceeded, the effects on air pollutant emissions must be analyzed. The air quality
methodologies contained in this section were used to calculate the air pollutant emissions from
the proposed construction. Analyses were conducted for areas with activity increases above the
following STB thresholds, as specified in 49 CFR 1105.7(e):
Rail line segment
Increase of 8 trains/day or 100% as measured
in gross tons miles annually
The increase in emissions for the proposed connection was calculated using the total gross ton
increase expected on the connection and the length of the connection. These values, when
multiplied together, will provide the gross ton-mile increase for that connection. Next, the
increase in total gallons of diesel fuel consumed for the connection will be obtained by dividing
the gross ton-mile increase by the fuel efficiency factor 702.9 gross ton-miles per gallon on the
NS system. The corresponding annual emission increases will be estimated by multiplying the
annual fuel consumption for the connection by emission factors. Criteria pollutant emission
factors were obtained from emission rates provided in USEPA's "Emission Standards for
Locomotives and Locomotive Engines; Proposed Rule"(2) dated February 11, 1997. This
proposed rule provides emission rates for line haul and switch locomotives which were used by
USEPA to determine the emission standards in the proposed rule. The emission rates for line
haul locomotives were converted to units of pounds of pollutant per 1000 gallons of diesel fuel
consumed, and are provided below:
Lead (Pb)3 0.0012 This methodology will be employed for all criteria pollutants on this proposed connection since
it will experience an increase in activity equal to or greater than the STB thresholds.
The following sample calculation for a rail line segment illustrates the emission estimation
procedure for hydrocarbons:
Emission Calculation Assumptions: A fuel efficiency factor of 702.9 gross ton-miles per gallon will be used on the NS system. The density of the fuel is 7.05 lbs per gallon.
Emission factors for HC, CO, NOx, and PM10 are based on emission rates provided in
USEPA's proposed rule on locomotive emission standards. It is conservatively assumed that
all particulate matter emissions represent PM10.
Lead emissions are based on the AP-42 emission factor of 8.9 lbs of lead per 1012 Btu. Potential impacts to air quality are discussed below.
During construction, the air quality in the vicinity of the proposed construction could be effected
by fugitive dust and vehicle emissions. Increases in fugitive dust could occur due to grading and
other earthwork necessary for rail bed preparation or removal activities. Emissions from heavy
equipment and construction vehicles would also occur. These effects on air quality would be
temporary and limited to the period of construction or abandonment. Additionally, the
emissions from the small number of vehicles and equipment would be insignificant compared
to the overall train and vehicle emissions in the project areas. Potential impacts would be
minimized by good construction practices that would include dust control and vehicle
The amount of train traffic operating over the proposed project site meets or exceeds STB
thresholds for air quality; therefore pollutant emission were evaluated.
Right-of-way maintenance activities would result in emissions from vehicles and equipment
used to perform maintenance activities. Maintenance activities would be confined to the rail line
and occur sporadically for short periods throughout the year. Emissions during maintenance
activities would be insignificant compared to the existing emissions in the area and would not
significantly impact air quality. NOISE
The proposed project would consist of construction activities that last for, at most, a few months.
Temporary increases in noise level would occur during these operations, but the noise level
would be similar to that of normal track maintenance procedures. Thus, the construction
activities are not expected to result in significant adverse noise impacts.
The STB regulations specify that noise studies be done for all connections where traffic will
increase by at least 100% as measured by annual gross tons miles or at least 8 trains per day.
The noise increase is to be quantified for all sensitive receptors (schools, libraries, residences,
retirement communities and nursing homes) that are in the project area where these thresholds
will be surpassed.
The Day-Night Sound Level, abbreviated Ldn or DNL, represents an energy average of the
A-weighted noise levels occurring during a complete 24-hour period. An increase in Ldn of 3
dBA could result from a 100 percent increase in rail traffic, a substantial change in operating
conditions, changed equipment, or a shift of daytime operations to the nighttime hours. Nighttime noise often dominates Ldn because of a weighting factor added to nighttime noise to
reflect most people being more sensitive to nighttime noise. In calculating Ldn, the nighttime
adjustment makes one event, such as a freight train passby, occurring between 10 p.m. and 7
a.m., equivalent to ten of the same events during the daytime hours. There are some track segments where the STB threshold for a noise study is exceeded, but the
total change in noise exposure would be insignificant. The approach taken was to analyze those
areas where the projected increase in train volume or change in train mix would be expected to
cause: (1) more than a marginal change in noise exposure, and (2) cause a significant increase
in the number of noise sensitive receptors within the Ldn 65 contour. For this study, any increase
in Ldn less than 2 dBA was considered insignificant. A 2 dBA threshold was selected because:
1.	Near railroad facilities, a plus or minus 2 dBA variation in Ldn is common because of the
normal variation in factors such as: operating condition, operating procedures, weather,
time of day, and equipment maintenance.
2.	In most cases, a 2 dBA increase in noise exposure would cause only a small change
(approximately 10%) in the number of residences within the Ldn 65 contour. This is
because noise impacts from train operations tend to be localized to the residences closest
to the tracks. The acoustic shielding provided by the first row or two of residences is
usually sufficient to keep noise exposure below Ldn 65 at residences that are farther
3.	Although a 2 dBA increase in noise exposure is often considered an insignificant change,
it was selected as a conservative screening level for this study and for previous studies. Approach
The overall goal of the noise study is to identify noise sensitive land uses where the projected
change in operations could result in noise exposure increases that meet or exceed the STB
thresholds. This assessment provides estimates of the number of noise-sensitive receptors where
there will be a significant increase in noise exposure and the STB thresholds will be exceeded. Following is an outline of the approach that has been used for the assessment of potential noise
1.	Develop noise models: Models for estimating rail line noise have been defined for
significant noise sources. For connections, the dominant noise sources are the normal
noise from freight and passenger train operations and the audible warning signals at
grade crossings. Curves with small enough radii for substantial wheel squeal are
normally lubricated to control wear and noise.
2.	Identify sensitive receptors and existing noise conditions: Noise sensitive land uses were
identified through review of USGS maps, aerial photographs and site visits. 3.	Project existing and future noise exposure: Information on distances and propagation
paths to sensitive receptors and existing and future operation plans have been used to
estimate noise exposure in terms of the Ldn. Instead of doing noise projections for each
sensitive receptor, Ldn 65 contours were drawn on the maps or aerial photographs. For
all of the rail segment noise projections, the average train was assumed to be 5000 feet
long. It was assumed that train horns are sounded starting ¼ mile before all grade crossings
and continuing until the locomotive is through the grade crossing. 4.	Count noise sensitive receptors: Approximate counts were made of the number of
residences, schools, and churches within the Ldn 65 contour for both the pre- and post-construction train volumes using site visits. The final result of this analysis is an
estimate of the total number of sensitive receptors likely to be affected by increased
noise exposure by projected NS operations.
Noise measurements of existing NS equipment were taken to provide a solid basis for the noise
projections. The measurements included train noise from line-haul rail lines, and noise near
grade crossings to document noise levels due to sounding train horns prior to grade crossings. Controlled noise tests were conducted on NS using a level stretch of track in China Grove, NC. This single track has high freight traffic and is located next to an open level field. Noise
measurements were made over a four-day period while trains were operated at a speed specified
for the day, i.e., 20, 35, and 50 mph. Speeds were verified with a radar gun for each train.
Measurements were made at a second location on the fourth day to measure the influence of
grade. Engineers were allowed to operate their trains at their normal speed and a radar gun was
used to clock the train speed.
All instruments are state-of-the-art. The entire measurement setup was properly field calibrated
prior to measurements.
Noise levels of the entire train were measured at four perpendicular distances from the track
using an array of microphones at 50, 100, 150, & 200 feet from the track centerline. Microphones were mounted on tripods and their AC outputs were cabled to a nearby trailer
where a four-channel Hewlett Packard Dynamic Analyzer was used to measure the Leq of each
train. This microphone array was used to determine the wavefront spreading rate [rate of noise
reduction versus distance]. This rate was used in conjunction with a reference location to predict
the distance from the track to the Ldn 65 dBA contour.
This microphone array was supplemented with two precision sound level meters that measured
the Leqs and SELs of the locomotives and also of the cars at 150 feet from the track. This was
a supplementary measurement that was not used in the model but it was used for cross-checks
on the train noise data.
The Leq represents the average sound pressure level that contains the same equivalent energy as
the fluctuating sound level of the event. In simple terms, the high and lows of the fluctuating
noise are characterized by a single average number. For example, as a train passes by, the noise
will vary as the locomotives and cars go by. This fluctuating noise is characterized by a single
sound level that is representative for the entire train. This averaging process is done on a
logarithmic basis since decibels are involved.
The SEL represents the total energy contained in the event. For example, a train can be
characterized by the Leq and the amount of time that it takes to pass a measurement point. When
the SEL is computed, it represents the total energy of the train. For example if two otherwise
identical trains passed by, but one was longer than the other, the longer one would have a larger
SEL. If one train was twice the length of another train, the SEL would be 3 dBA larger. This
assumes that all locomotives and individual cars produce the same noise level. Again, the
logarithmic averaging process is involved, i.e., a doubling produces a 3 dBA change.
The Leq corresponds to the loudness of the event whereas the SEL does not. The effects of
speed, loudness, time duration, and fluctuating level are conveniently represented by a single
number. The SEL is convenient for the computation of the Ldn. Alternately, the Leq and time
duration could be used with equal ease and their combination would yield the same Ldn result.
Measurements were made by the firm of William R. Thornton, Ph.D., P.E. in association with
Earshen & Angevine Acoustical Consultants Inc. All work was done by two noise control
engineers who are full members of the Institute of Noise Control Engineers, INCE.
Horn noise was measured at a rail crossing in another part of China Grove at a distance of
150 feet from the track. Measurements were made at the midpoint between the ¼-mile marker
and the rail crossing. The SEL and Leq of the horn were measured as the train approached and
departed this measurement station. This situation represents the worst case for noise for a
person living near a crossing.
Measurements were also made at a nearby section of 0.9 percent grade to determine the effects
of grade on noise emissions.
The detailed results of the train passby noise measurements at the four microphone positions are
given in Table N-1. Measurement results of the 0.9 percent grade train passbys and the train
horn measurements are listed in Tables N-2 and N-3, respectively. Finally, all measured NS
noise levels are summarized in Table N-4, energy-averaged and normalized to a distance of 100
feet from track centerline. The results from the noise survey of NS trains showed that the average attenuation rate was 4.8
dBA per doubling of distance. In other words, the noise level from a train passby 200 feet from
the track would be 4.8 dBA less than the noise level 100 feet from the track. This represents the
attenuation of noise caused by the dissipating effects of the atmosphere and ground. This is
consistent with the attenuation rate that would be expected for train noise propagating over soft
Noise from train horns were found to be relatively consistent for the six trains that were
measured. At 150 feet from the track, the average Leq was 93 dBA, the average duration was
15.6 seconds, and the energy average SEL was 108 dBA.
No. of Rail
Measured Leq at Distance from Tracks
Measured Leq at Distance from Tracks (dBA)
Energy Average Sound
Level, dBA
Train Passby on level track, 20 mph (no horn)
Train Passby on level track, 35 mph (no horn)
Train Passby on level track, 50 mph (no horn)
Train Passby up 0.9% grade, 31 mph (no horn)
Train Passby down 0.9% grade, 45 mph (no
The NS noise model was based on SEL and Ldn levels measured in the field at different speeds,
train lengths, numbers of locomotives, different grades, and train horns. Noise from rail line construction and operation has the potential to impact noise receptors along
the rail line. Sensitive noise receptors include residences, schools, churches, libraries and
hospitals. Residences within 500 feet and other sensitive noise receptors (schools, churches,
hospitals, libraries) within 1,250 feet (0.25 mile) of the proposed project were identified since
these would be the most likely affected by noise from construction activities and any subsequent
rail operations. For construction projects expected to exceed STB noise thresholds, the number
of noise receptors experiencing average daily noise levels (Ldn) of 65 decibels or greater was
In order to evaluate the potential impacts to historic and cultural resources, the Indiana State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) was sent a letter requesting information on known historic
properties or archaeological sites potentially affected by the project. The SHPO was asked to
indicate whether further actions are needed to identify historic properties. Documentation of
historic and cultural resources in the project area was requested and a determination of the
potential impacts of the project on any NRHP eligible structures was requested.
In accordance with 49 CFR 1105.8, the proposed construction is shown on USGS topographic
maps on which urban or rural characteristics of the surrounding areas are depicted, as well as
the location, if available, of documented historic properties.
historic features. ENERGY
The proposed project would allow NS to use shorter rail routes between destinations, increasing
the efficiency of their systems. Shorter, more direct routes would reduce the overall fuel
consumption of locomotives. The tonnage expected to operate over the connection was
estimated assuming 5400 trailing tons per train. This was multiplied by the reduction in route
length that would be realized from the connection to determine the reduction in ton miles. Multiplying ton miles by the fuel consumption per ton-mile provides the number of gallons of
fuel saved. The proposed project would have an overall positive impact on energy use and
encourage diversion of truck traffic to more fuel efficient rail transport.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1982. State and Metropolitan Area Data Book: 1982. Washington, D.C. USGPO. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1992. Statistical Abstract of the United States,1990.	Washington, D.C. USGPO. U.S. Bureau of the Census. "Time Series of Resident Population of Places: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1994." Population Distribution and Population Estimates Branches. Washington, D.C. USGPO.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Wetlands Inventory Map 1989, Geographic Area:
Alexandria, IN. Washington, D.C. U.S. Geological Survey, Alexandria Quadrangle, Indiana - Madison Co. 7.5 min. Topo.
Map, 1960 Denver, Colorado
2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, February 11, 1997. 40 CFR Parts 85,
89 and 92. Emission Standards for Locomotive and Locomotive Engines; Proposed Rule. The
emission factors incorporate a fuel efficiency of 0.37 lbs of fuel per HP-hr and a density of 7.05
lbs per gallon.