Chicago‐Milwaukee

Amtrak Hiawatha Service

Draft Environmental Assessment

Appendix G

Documentation of Coordination with US Fish

and Wildlife Service
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

United States Department of the Interior 

US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGION 3
 

Chicago Ecological Services Field Office
 

230 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2938
 

Chicago, IL 60604
 

Phone: (312) 216-4722 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

FWS/AES-CIFO/ 

September 13, 2016 

Andrea Martin 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

This letter responds to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA), the Wisconsin Department 

of Transportation’s (WisDOT), and the Illinois Department of Transportation’s (IDOT) requests 

for comments on the preparation of the Chicago to Milwaukee Hiawatha Service Environmental 

Assessment (EA). The proposed action would increase trains for the Hiawatha Service between 

Chicago, IL and Milwaukee, WI. FRA specifically requested that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) review and provide comments on Natural Resources Reviews (NRRs) prepared 

by WisDOT and IDOT, to determine if there are agency concerns related to Federally listed 

species. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) reviewed the information provided by FRA. With 

respect to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, we offer the following comments and 

recommendations. 

More detail should be provided about the proposed increase in rail trips, including frequency of 

roundtrips (three additional round trips in what time period?) and any additional construction or 

track and right-of-way maintenance that would occur as a result of increase rail use. This 

information is necessary to determine the level of impacts, if any, that could affect listed species. 

FRA and the DOTs used our Information Planning and Conservation System (IPaC) project 

planning tool to identify Federally listed species which could be impacted by the proposed 

project. Additionally, information was provided by the DOTs (including surveys that were 

conducted) to create the NRRs. Based on our review of the NRRs, the eastern prairie fringed 

orchid (EPFO) could be adversely affected by the proposed project. The IDOT NRR identified a 

population of the EPFO located at Middle Fork Savanna and Nature Preserve, where an 

individual orchid has been observed 15 feet from the rail line. There are at least four other known 

populations of the EPFO occurring along the rail line, either in private or public ownership, some 

of which are in close proximity to the rail line. Any new construction or increased maintenance 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 

in these areas could adversely affect suitable habitat for the EPFO, both directly and indirectly, 

or impact the EPFO itself. Indirect impacts from rail maintenance include: vegetation clearing, 

herbiciding, and hydrologic alterations. The IDOT NRR noted the observed EPFO was “growing 

within an area with evidence of herbicide drift damage on its associated vegetation.” Because no 

rail work is proposed in this area, which is not clear from the submittals provided, IDOT 

determined that there would be “no adverse affect” on the EPFO. The FRA concurred with the 

DOT’s effect determinations. We are not certain if IDOT’s determination was a “No Effect” 

determination or a “May Affect, Not likely to Adversely Affect” determination. FRA should 

clarify the intended effect determination for the EPFO. Indirect impacts from herbicides would 

result in take of the species; therefore, at least a “May Affect, Not likely to Adversely Affect” 

determination is appropriate for EPFO impacts at this location. Because there is suitable habitat 

for the species adjacent to the rail line, the FRA should also consider that there may be additional 

locations where impacts to the EPFO could occur along the rail line. 

In order for us to provide further guidance on whether EPFOs located within suitable habitat near 

the rail line could be impacted, we recommend that you provide detailed maps for all areas 

where EPFO populations currently exist (near the rail line). The Service can work with FRA staff 

to address these possible areas. The IDOT NRR noted that due to time constraints and the 

amount of area that met EPFO survey criteria, searches were restricted to portions of a site that 

were within the project boundary along with a small buffer outside of the project boundary. 

Comparisons of information of known EPFO locations with the areas that were outside of the 

survey limits would assist us in determining if indirect effects (e.g., from herbiciding) are likely 

to occur. In addition, we recommend that maps depicting all wetlands located adjacent to the rail 

line, in both Wisconsin and Illinois, be provided for our review. It appears that we received maps 

depicting wetlands for only certain sections of the project in both states. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. This letter provides comment under the 

authority of, and in accordance with, the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (83 Stat. 852, as amended P.L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1956 (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (40 Stat. 755, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). 

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Shawn Cirton at (312) 216-4728. 

Sincerely, 

Louise Clemency 

Field Supervisor 

cc: TCFO, Peter Fasbender