Hammond Governors Parkway project passes environmental review
Despite some residents' concerns, the city of Hammond's Governors Parkway project has received approval under the National Environmental Policy Act.
'The rigorous environmental review process is complete,' Mayor Tom McDermott said in a Friday news release. 'We have mitigated for all environmental aspects of the project including tree replacement, wetland mitigation, identification and protection of endangered species, among others. I'm happy to finally move forward with improving safety (responses) for our residents and solving the decades old problem of stopped trains in Hessville.'
NEPA established a national policy for the environment and provided for the establishment of the Council on Environmental Quality, according to the act's website. The act requires federal agencies to assess environmental effects of proposed major federal actions before making decisions.
Governors Parkway is a multimillion-dollar project that's an overpass linking 173rd Street and 169th Street between Parrish and Grand avenues.
The project first had its public hearing two years ago, according to the city's news release.
Hammond was the subject of a 2023 ProPublica article that found children would climb over or under stopped trains to get to school. According to Post-Tribune archives, McDermott said in May 2023 that Governors Parkway 'solves about 80% of the problem.'
The overpass is about a mile away from where pedestrians were regularly crossing trains. In May 2023, McDermott was looking into the possibility of building an additional pedestrian bridge, which some residents said would cost more than $7 million.
Governors Parkway was awarded more than $7 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Railroad Administration through the Railroad Crossing Elimination grant program.
In 2018, the project received $5.45 million from Indiana's Local Trax Program, providing state matching funds for rail crossing safety improvements.
Terry Steagall, a member of opposition group Save Briar East Woods, reached out to the Indiana Department of Transportation with concerns about the project.
Members of the Save Briar East Woods group are against the Governors Parkway project because it would go through the forest. Briar East Woods is a 4,000-year-old forest in Hammond's Hessville neighborhood and one of the last surviving remnants of the High Tolleston Dunes, according to Just Transition Indiana's website.
Residents have argued the forest is a resource for all Northwest Indiana community members, and the city will struggle environmentally without it. Advocates also feel the city hasn't been transparent with residents about the project.
On March 13, the city announced it would install a boundary fence around Briar East Woods, a city-owned, 18-acre parcel, according to Hammond's website. The fence was complete by March 18.
'The city needs to begin preparations for the Governors Parkway project. By fencing this area off, we are making sure that the trespassing, illegal motorized vehicle use, illegal drug and alcohol use, and illegal dumping that has been occurring in this area is minimized,' McDermott said in a March announcement.
Lyndsay Quist, commissioner for the Indiana Department of Transportation, said in a message to Steagall that 'many alternatives were considered,' but Governors Parkway was determined to be the best option by the city of Hammond and INDOT. Steagall provided the Post-Tribune with Quist's May 1 message.
'Regarding environmental impacts, INDOT works hard to minimize environmental impacts from its projects and often provides mitigation when impacts are unavoidable,' Quist said. 'In this case, exhaustive studies of the soil were performed, and an in-depth analysis was conducted to determine if the wetlands are being affected. Trees are being removed as part of this project, but to mitigate those removals, more than $200,000 worth of trees are being added in other areas of the city.'
McDermott had previously told the Post-Tribune that the city will replant two trees for each that is torn down in Briar East Woods. Residents have expressed concerns for that strategy because new trees won't help flooding concerns, as they aren't as large as Briar East Woods' oak trees and won't be in the same location.
Quist told Steagall in her message that the project's environmental document was recently approved and is expected to be released in a few weeks.
'While we respect your concerns about the environmental impact of this project, as stated above, much has been done to mitigate those impacts while the public has had many chances to further influence the impacts from this project,' the message said. 'In addition, once constructed, this project will have a positive impact on the community and keep everyone safe.'
The Governors Parkway project is expected to start construction in summer 2026 and be completed by the end of 2027, according to Hammond's news release.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Conservation groups, Forest Service, argue merits and harms of Big Belts logging operation
(Photo courtesy of Pixabay | Public domain). Conservation groups argued in federal court that a forest management project comprising 1,241 acres of timber harvest east of Helena may violate several federal statutes, but the government lawyers said rules were followed and the timber sale has economic and public interest benefits. Three conservation groups, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Native Ecosystems Council and the Council on Fish and Wildlife filed suit against the U.S. Forest Service in the U.S. District Court in Missoula against the Wood Duck Project and seek a preliminary injunction to halt work. On Tuesday, they argued their case before Judge Dana Christensen, alleging the project violates the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act, that the government had failed to include data showing possible negative impact on wildlife, and that the Forest Service had ignored points of concern from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 'This is not just a procedural claim. It is a hard look at substantive environmental protections,' Rebecca Smith, counsel for the conservation groups, said during arguments on June 3. Smith argued two species in particular would be harmed by the logging project — elk and grizzly bears — due to an increased density of temporary roads constructed. As part of the forest management project, two companies were awarded timber sales. One company, Sun Mountain Lumber, which was awarded 356 acres of timber sale, filed as a party to the lawsuit, claiming substantial harm if the project is halted. Sun Mountain Lumber began its operations on the sale last fall, constructing several miles of temporary road and cutting 199 acres of lumber, according to court documents. Its operations are expected to resume around mid-June. Judge Christensen raised the timing of the lawsuit as a potential issue to the plaintiff's claims. 'I don't understand, when we've got an (environmental assessment) that was issued in April of 2024, a contract that was awarded to Sun Mountain on September 17 of 2024, why we had to wait until logging activities are about to resume up there… and come into this court and seek temporary relief?' Christensen said. 'That concerns me.' The Wood Duck Project is located in the Townsend Ranger District of the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest in the Big Belt Mountains. The total project area is roughly 70,000 acres, of which there will be 1,241 acres of commercial logging, 15 miles of temporary road construction, 10 miles of road reconstruction and 8 miles of road reconditioning. A portion of the temporary roads will be constructed in elk wintering grounds, according to the project plan, which the plaintiffs argue will decrease elk habitat effectiveness. '90 to 95% of the elk in this hunting district are already being displaced from public National Forest lands because of poor (habitat) elk security. And these are areas that would otherwise provide good elk habitat if there was security,' Smith said, quoting from comments made by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks about the project. 'There is nowhere in the project (environmental assessment) that the Forest Service disclose to the public that the current status of this area is that already 90 to 95% of elk are being displaced.' The plaintiffs also challenged the logging project on the basis of affecting grizzly bear habitat connectivity. Although there is no known population of grizzlies in the Big Belts, the area provides a possible route between grizzlies in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem, centered around the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area, and Yellowstone National Park. The plaintiffs argued that increased road density harms that connectivity. '(Part of the project area) already has a road density of 2.6 miles per square mile. That is far and away, a road density level that is too high for grizzly bears,' Smith said. '…It's not really possible for the Forest Service to say that it's maintaining connectivity for grizzly bears in this area.' But Assistant U.S. Attorney Abby Nordhagen Cziok, said the plaintiffs were mischaracterizing their arguments as a 'false choice between logging, and elk and grizzly bears.' 'Really this entire case is meant to work towards vegetative desired conditions, and that means ensuring that there's health in the forest, making sure that the trees are resilient to changes in the environment, like fires, drought, disease,' Cziok said, adding that the species of concern would ultimately benefit. In her arguments, Cziok said the plaintiffs had failed to show they would suffer irreparable harm from the logging, the last-minute timeline showed a lack of urgency, and the Forest Service's environmental assessment had correctly weighed possible harms to wildlife. Cziok added the logging project was substantially changed during the public processes that accompany an environmental assessment, including in response to comments by FWP, cutting it from a 3,000-acre logging operation to one half that size. 'Really, the project we are considering today is not the same project that Fish, Wildlife and Parks wrote to the Forest Service about. It's a very different project,' she told the court. 'Importantly, at the beginning of that letter Fish, Wildlife and Parks said, 'We are generally in favor of this project.' That's because this project seeks to maintain a healthy, diverse forest.' Tyson McLean, attorney for Sun Mountain Lumber, said the company has made significant investment in the Wood Duck sale, could lose up to $3 million in revenue if the sale is halted, and that the harvested lumber would support operations of the company's lumber mills for months. At a time where lumber mills in Montana have been closing due to labor shortages and low lumber prices, timber sales like Wood Duck are essential to the remaining mills, McLean said. 'Sun Mountain employs approximately 65 people at its Livingston mill whose livelihoods would be jeopardized by the delay or cancellation of harvest activities,' he told the court. 'Sun Mountain is unable to pivot and find another viable option to replace the raw material that they are planning on or the volume of timber from the Wood Duck timber sale.' 'It's too late,' McLean said. Smith, on behalf of the conservation groups, said at the end of arguments that because the Sun Mountain timber sale was partially completed, the plaintiffs would be open to allowing the remaining 143 acres to be logged, and would seek an injunction against the remaining timber sales. Christensen said he would work to deliver an expedient ruling due to the impending restart of Sun Mountain's operations, but again took issue with the plaintiff's last-minute actions in the case. 'I do not like getting motions for temporary restraining orders days or weeks before a project is to recommence where logging has already taken place, when this claim could have been brought 10 months ago,' Christensen said. 'I am getting overwhelmed with requests for temporary restraining orders — overwhelmed — and every time a temporary restraining order is filed … that takes priority over everything else that I'm doing. And when I have a case where the issues could have been brought before me months ago that now has found its way into a temporary restraining order, I'm concerned.' Two of the conservation groups were previously successful in halting a large-scale logging project near Townsend in 2024, settling a suit with the Forest Service. The settlement allowed the government to proceed with a project tens of thousands of acres smaller than originally proposed. Wood Duck preliminary injunction brief U.S. Forest Service opposition to motion for injunction
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court changes the game on federal environmental reviews
Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisions – until now. In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game. Whether the effects are good or bad depends on the viewer's perspective. Either way, there is a new interpretation in place for the law that is the centerpiece of the debate about permitting – the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, known as NEPA. NEPA requires federal agencies to document and describe the environmental effects of any proposed action, including construction of oil pipelines, renewable energy and other infrastructure projects. Only after completing that work can the agency make a final decision to approve or deny the project. These reports must evaluate direct effects, such as the destruction of habitat to make way for a new highway, and indirect effects, such as the air pollution from cars using the highway after it is built. Decades of litigation about the scope of indirect effects have widened the required evaluation. As I explain it to my students, that logical and legal progression is reminiscent of the popular children's book 'If You Give a Mouse a Cookie,' in which granting a request for a cookie triggers a seemingly endless series of further requests – for a glass of milk, a napkin and so on. For the highway example, the arguments went, even if the agency properly assessed the pollution from the cars, it also had to consider the new subdivisions, malls and jobs the new highway foreseeably could induce. The challenge for federal agencies was knowing how much of that potentially limitless series of indirect effects courts would require them to evaluate. In recent litigation, the question in particular has been how broad a range of effects on and from climate change could be linked to any one specific project and therefore require evaluation. With the court's ruling, federal agencies' days of uncertainty are over. On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court – minus Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had recused himself – decided the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the first major NEPA dispute before the court in 20 years. At issue was an 85-mile rail line a group of developers proposed to build in Utah to connect oil wells to the interstate rail network and from there transport waxy crude oil to refineries in Louisiana, Texas and elsewhere. The federal Surface Transportation Board reviewed the environmental effects and approved the required license in 2021. The report was 637 pages long, with more than 3,000 pages of appendices containing additional information. It acknowledged but did not give a detailed assessment of the indirect 'upstream' effects of constructing the rail line – such as spurring new oil drilling – and the indirect 'downstream' effects of the ultimate use of the waxy oil in places as far flung as Louisiana. In February 2022, Eagle County, Colorado, through which trains coming from the new railway would pass, along with the Center for Biological Diversity appealed that decision in federal court, arguing that the board had failed to properly explain why it did not assess those effects. Therefore, the county argued, the report was incomplete and the board license should be vacated. In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and held that the agency had failed to adequately explain why it could not employ 'some degree of forecasting' to identify those impacts and that the board could prevent those effects by exercising its authority to deny the license. The railway developers appealed to the Supreme Court, asking whether NEPA requires a federal agency to look beyond the action being proposed to evalutate indirect effects outside its own jurisdiction. Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a ringing, table-pounding lecture about courts run amok. Kavanaugh did not stop to provide specific support for each admonition, describing NEPA as a 'legislative acorn' that has 'grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development.' He bemoaned the 'delay upon delay' NEPA imposes on projects as so complicated that it bordered 'on the Kafkaesque.' In his view, 'NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents.' He called for 'a course correction … to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense.' His opinion reset the course in three ways. First, despite the Supreme Court having recently reduced the deference courts must give to federal agency decisions in other contexts, Kavanaugh wrote that courts should give agencies strong deference when reviewing an agency's NEPA effects analyses. Because these assessments are 'fact-dependent, context-specific, and policy-laden choices about the depth and breadth of its inquiry … (c)ourts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.' Second, Kavanaugh crafted a new rule saying that the review of one project did not need to consider the potential indirect effects of other related projects it could foreseeably induce, such as the rail line encouraging more drilling for oil. This limitation is especially relevant, Kavanaugh emphasized, when the effects are from projects over which the reviewing agency does not have jurisdiction. That applied in this case, because the board does not regulate oil wells or oil drilling. And third, Kavanaugh created something like a 'no harm – no foul' rule, under which 'even if an (environmental impact statement) falls short in some respects, that deficiency may not necessarily require a court to vacate the agency's ultimate approval of a project.' The strong implication is that courts should not overturn an agency decision unless its NEPA assessment has a serious flaw. The upshot for the project at hand was that the Supreme Court deferred to the board's decision that it could not reliably predict the rail line's effects on oil drilling or use of the oil transported. And the fact that the agency had no regulatory power over those separate issues reinforced the idea that those concerns were outside the scope of the board's required review. Although Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that she would have reached the same end result and upheld the agency permit, her proposed test is far narrower. By her reading, the federal law creating the Surface Transportation Board restricted it from considering the broader indirect effects of the rail line. But her finding would be relevant only for any federal agencies whose governing statutes were similarly restrictive. By contrast, Kavanaugh's 'course correction' applies to judicial review of NEPA findings for all federal agencies. Though the full effects remain to be seen, this decision significantly changes the legal landscape of environmental reviews of major projects. Agencies will have more latitude to shorten the causal chain of indirect effects they consider – and to exclude them entirely if they flow from separate projects beyond the agency's regulatory control. Now, for example, if a federal agency is considering an application to build a new natural gas power plant, the review must still include its direct greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on the climate. But emissions that could result from additional gas extraction and transportation projects to fuel the power plant, and any climate effects from whatever the produced electricity is used for, are now clearly outside the agency's required review. And if the agency voluntarily decided to consider any of those effects, courts would have to defer to its analysis, and any minor deficiencies would be inconsequential. That is a far cry from how the legal structure around the National Environmental Policy Act has worked for decades. For lawyers, industry, advocacy groups and the courts, environmental review after the Eagle County decision is not just a new ballgame; it is a new sport. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: J.B. Ruhl, Vanderbilt University Read more: Why the federal government must act cautiously on fast-tracking project approvals Will faster federal reviews speed up the clean energy shift? Two legal scholars explain what the National Environmental Policy Act does and doesn't do Supreme Court could narrow the scope of federal environmental reviews, with less consideration of how projects would contribute to climate change J.B. Ruhl does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Chicago Tribune
5 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Burke joins Lake County bench
As Daniel W. Burke Jr. recited his oath to become the latest Lake County Superior Court Judge late Wednesday afternoon, he wasn't alone. Surrounded by his family – wife Catherine held the Bible his maternal great-grandmother gave him when he was young — two small voices joined in the moment, as oldest son Jonathan, 11, and daughter Lilian, 9, repeated the oath as well as held their dad's new judicial robe that was taller than they are. Youngest son Benjamin, 7, wasn't quite as interested, however, and marched around his family anticipating dinner. Burke, 38, a former Lake County Deputy Prosecutor who up until Wednesday served as a Court Referee in Circuit Court Judge Marissa McDermott's court, was appointed by Governor Mike Braun as the newest Superior Court Judge earlier in May. He replaces Judge Stephen Scheele, who former Governor Eric Holcomb tapped for the State Appellate Court in December. 'Daniel Burke is an exceptional lawyer who will bring his years of experience in the courtroom to his new role on the Lake County Superior Court,' Braun said in a release. 'He is hard working, dedicated to the rule of law and will do Lake County proud.' The oldest of six kids who grew up in Crown Point, Burke studied Classics at DePauw University in Greencastle before heading to Valparaiso Law School in 2010, he said. He started his career at Lucas, Holcomb and Medrea before heading the Lake County Prosecutor's office in 2015. 'Lake County is a really special place,' Burke said. 'My dad worked as a welder, and I remember delivering the Chicago Tribune with my mom, especially on Sundays. 'I've been a part of this community my whole life, so this (judgeship) is extraordinarily special. I've learned from some of the best — Marissa, and then Bernie (Carter, Lake County Prosecutor), and I'll continue to (serve as judge) as long as you'll have me.' McDermott chose Burke to join her office in 2022 as a circuit court referee, where he presided over civil cases. She was thrilled to swear in her friend. 'I couldn't be prouder of Dan,' McDermott said. 'He had a wonderful reputation that preceded him, and I was impressed at how intellectually robust he is. He has a wonderful demeanor for the bench — always patient, always kind — and he goes that extra step to make sure that unrepresented litigants feel comfortable in the courtroom. 'And when it comes down to it, he's got a great heart, and I think that's really, really important for a judicial officer.' Burke said his prosecutorial experience has been immensely helpful in his referee role, and it'll serve him well in his new role. 'Never let your bad day be the parties' bad day,' Burke said. 'They're here for their case. It's important. They're probably a little nervous, maybe a little scared. No matter what happens outside of this room, once you put on the robe, it has to all go out the window and you start fresh.' Burke will preside over some of the county's bigger cases, such as the East Chicago lead case, he said.
