Tier 2

Environmental

Assessment

Kankakee River Bridge and Track

Improvements

(MP 51.88 to MP 53.19)

Will County, Illinois

Supplemental		

April 2016

Kankakee River Bridge iii Supplemental Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ...............................................................................................1-1

1.1 Illinois High Speed Rail Project History ......................................................1-1

1.2 Project Study Area ...........................................................................................1-1

1.3 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................1-1

1.4 Applicable Regulations ...................................................................................1-2

2.0 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................2-1

2.1 No-Build Alternative .......................................................................................2-1

2.2 Build Alternative..............................................................................................2-2

2.2.1 Physical Features ..................................................................................2-2

2.2.2 Construction Period Assumptions ......................................................2-4

2.2.3 Operating Characteristics ....................................................................2-5

2.2.4 Logical Termini and Independent Utility of

the Proposed Project .............................................................................2-5

2.2.5 Grade Separation Alternatives Considered in Wilmington ..............2-8

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

AND MITIGATION ...................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Physical Environment .....................................................................................3-2

3.1.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................3-2

3.1.2 Energy ...................................................................................................3-9

3.1.3 Floodplains and Regulatory Floodways .............................................3-9

3.1.4 Noise and Vibration .............................................................................3-9

3.1.5 Agricultural...........................................................................................3-9

3.1.6 Aesthetic Environment and Scenic Resources....................................3-9

3.2 Ecological Systems ......................................................................................... 3-11

3.2.1 Vegetation and Habitat ...................................................................... 3-11

3.2.2 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. ....................................................... 3-12

3.2.3 Water Quality and Water Resources ................................................. 3-12

3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................ 3-12

3.2.5 Special Lands ...................................................................................... 3-13

3.3 Section 4(f) Resources .................................................................................... 3-13

3.4 Human Environment ..................................................................................... 3-13

3.4.1 Transportation .................................................................................... 3-13

3.4.2 Community and Land Use ................................................................ 3-17

3.4.3 Demographics ..................................................................................... 3-20

3.4.4 Economics and Employment ............................................................. 3-20
Kankakee River Bridge iv Supplemental Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents (concluded)

3.4.5 Environmental Justice and Title VI ................................................... 3-21

3.4.6 Barriers and Accessibility .................................................................. 3-21

3.4.7 Public Health and Safety .................................................................... 3-22

3.4.8 Hazardous Materials and Waste ....................................................... 3-22

3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 3-26

3.6 Construction Impacts and Mitigation ......................................................... 3-26

3.6.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................... 3-26

3.6.6 Invasive Species .................................................................................. 3-27

3.7 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ............................................................ 3-27

3.7.2 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................... 3-27

3.8 Permits ............................................................................................................. 3-27

3.9 Environmental Commitments ...................................................................... 3-27

4.0 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION .............................................................4-1

4.1 Agency Coordination.......................................................................................4-1

4.2 Public Meetings ...............................................................................................4-3

5.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST ...............................................................................................5-1

5.1 Federal ...............................................................................................................5-1

5.2 State ...................................................................................................................5-1

5.3 County ...............................................................................................................5-2

5.4 Local Communities and Jurisdictions ...........................................................5-2

5.5 Other Agencies or Groups ..............................................................................5-2

5.6 Operating Railroads ........................................................................................5-2

6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................6-1

List of Amended and Added Exhibits

Exhibit 2-1 Build Alternative Features ...........................................................................2-3

Exhibit 3-1 CO2 Emissions from Fossil Combustion by Sector and

Fuel Type (2013) .............................................................................................3-6

Exhibit 3-3A. View toward UPRR from North Kankakee Street Looking North........... 3-10

Exhibit 3-11 Potential Hazardous Material Sites ............................................................ 3-23
Kankakee River Bridge v Supplemental Environmental Assessment

List of Amended and Added Tables

Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................................................3-3

Table 3-4. Will County Air Quality Monitored Data (2012-2014) ................................3-4

Table 3 5. Emissions Generated by the Proposed Project within the

Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN Non-Attainment Area .........................3-5

Table 3-6A. Emissions Generated by Construction of the Build Alternative and

Cumulatively with Other Concurrent Construction Projects in 2016

(tons/year).......................................................................................................3-7

Table 3-17. New ROW and Temporary Construction Easements ............................... 3-19

Table 3-24. Potential REC Impacts ................................................................................. 3-24

List of Added Appendices and

Attachments

Appendix C – Public and Agency Comments on August 2015 EA

Appendix D – Response to Public and Agency Comments on August 2015 EA

Appendix E – USFWS Concurrence Letter

Attachment-- Tier 2 Environmental Assessment Kankakee River Bridge and Track

Improvements (MP 51.88 to MP 53.19); August 2015

Abbreviations and Acronyms

This section is unchanged from the August 2015 EA. Any new abbreviations and

acronyms in this Supplemental EA are defined when first introduced.
Kankakee River Bridge vi Supplemental Environmental Assessment

Introduction

Amendments to the Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements Environmental

Assessment (EA) dated August 2015 (see Attachment) are presented in this

Supplemental EA. This Supplemental EA documents environmental impacts resulting

from proposed improvements to North Kankakee Street as it approaches the rail

crossing. This Supplemental EA also addresses comments received from environmental

resource and regulatory agencies, the City of Wilmington, and the public on and after

the August 27, 2015 public meeting. Finally, this Supplemental EA updates descriptions

of project elements and associated environmental impacts based on more detailed

design information.

In response to comments on the August 2015 EA, this Supplemental EA adds an

assessment of impacts from approach road improvements at the North Kankakee Street

grade crossing, as well as documentation of the consideration of grade separation

alternatives at the crossing. It also includes the comments received on the August 2015

EA, responses to those comments and associated refinements to the EA. Updates to the

August 2015 EA include discussions of the project’s logical termini and independent

utility, assessment of air pollutant emissions from construction equipment, the outcome

of informal consultation on impacts to threatened and endangered species, and

documentation of meetings with the City of Wilmington.
Kankakee River Bridge 1-1 Supplemental EA

1.0 Purpose and Need

The list of proposed improvements in the Kankakee River Bridge and Track

Improvements project (the “Project”) presented on page 1-1 of the August 2015 EA is

amended to include the following components:

· At-grade crossing approach improvements at North Kankakee Street.

· At-grade crossing protection improvements at East Kankakee River Drive, North

Kankakee Street, and North 1st Street. A private crossing at Albany Street north of

Forked Creek would be closed and the property it served purchased.

1.1 Illinois High Speed Rail Project History

The list of other Tier 2 documents presented on page 1-5 of the August 2015 EA is

deleted and replaced with the following:

1. Double track from Chicago to Joliet (EIS preparation on hold)

2. Joliet to Dwight Track Improvement Project (CE approved November 2014)—double

track components MP 37.7 to MP 73.0 (Re-evaluation of the 2011 EA)

3. Double track from Elwood to Braidwood MP 45.0 to MP 55.0 (EA in progress)

4. A flyover grade separating two railroads in Springfield, Illinois (EA in progress)

5. Double track from Granite City, Illinois to St, Louis, Missouri (EIS preparation on

hold)

1.2 Project Study Area

This section in the August 2015 EA is unchanged.

1.3 Purpose and Need

Sections 1.3.1 and Sections 1.3.2 in the August 2015 EA are unchanged. The list of

specific needs of the proposed Project presented in Section 1.3.3 beginning on page 1-7 of

the August 2015 EA is amended to add a description of the need for the North Kankakee

Street at-grade crossing approach improvements, including the North Kankakee Street

sidewalk improvements, and include the description of the need for at-grade crossing

protection improvements:

· North Kankakee Street at-grade crossing approach improvements – The existing

North Kankakee Street crossing has substandard stopping sight distances per IDOT
Kankakee River Bridge 1-2 Supplemental EA

and Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) design criteria. The stopping sight

distance is the length of roadway needed to see motor vehicles, pedestrians,

bicyclists, and objects on the road on the other side of the crossing in time to stop if

needed to avoid a crash. The current sight distance is adequate for vehicles traveling

at 15 miles per hour (mph); however, the posted speed limit is 30 mph.

Improvements are expected to increase the safety of the crossing.

· North Kankakee Street sidewalk improvements – There also is a lack of a safe

pedestrian sidewalk along the west side of North Kankakee Street between Canal

Street and the rail crossing. Improvements are expected to increase the safety of the

crossing.

· At-grade crossing protection improvements – Currently, there are no crossing gates

at three of the four existing at-grade crossings in the Project study area (East

Kankakee River Drive, North 1st Street, and one private crossing at Albany Street).

The private crossing at Albany Street (MP 52.42) has stop signs as crossing

protection. The East Kankakee River Drive crossing (MP 51.94) and North 1st Street

(MP 52.99) use flashers with no gates. The North Kankakee Street grade crossing is

protected by two quadrant gates and flashers. With two quadrant gates or no gates,

misjudgment or poor judgment by automobile drivers approaching these crossings

could result in a fatal motor vehicle/train collision. This risk will rise as population

and employment growth in Wilmington increases crossing use and as the number of

freight trains increase. Improvements are expected to increase the safety of the

crossings.

A full list of the proposed improvements associated with these project needs is provided

in Section 2.0.

1.4 Applicable Regulations

The list of applicable regulations beginning on page 1-8 of the August 2015 EA is

amended to include the following four additional applicable regulations:

· Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 USC § 703-712

· Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 USC § 668-668d

· Federal Register, General Provisions; Revised List of Migratory Birds; Final Rule, 50

CFR Parts 10 and 21, November 1, 2013.

· Federal Register, Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter,

Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plants, 50 CFR Part 22 – Eagle Permits.

39 FR 1183, January 4, 1974.
Kankakee River Bridge 2-1 Supplemental EA

2.0 Alternatives

There are two alternatives considered for this proposed Project: the No–Build

Alternative and a Build Alternative, which would provide a double track operation from

north of East Kankakee River Drive to south of North 1st Street, including the Kankakee

River bridge replacement in Wilmington, Illinois. This Supplemental EA adds approach

road improvements at the North Kankakee Street grade crossing as a component of the

Build Alternative. This chapter includes a description of these improvements and

documents the consideration of grade separation alternatives at the crossing.

Documentation of the proposed Project’s logical termini and independent utility also is

added to the chapter. The Build Alternative is IDOT’s and FRA’s Preferred Alternative.

2.1 No-Build Alternative

This section beginning on page 2-1 of the August 2015 EA is amended to include the

following additional information regarding freight train growth and sight distance for

motorists at the North Kankakee Street grade crossing:

With the No-Build Alternative, the number of passenger trains would not increase from

today’s numbers. The number of freight trains is expected to grow at the same rate with

either the No-Build or Build Alternatives.

Freight traffic is more dependent on markets and demand than capacity, and is expected

to grow, influenced in part by growing rail traffic at the Joliet Intermodal facility in

Joliet. Freight train growth is not dependent on the completion of the proposed Project

and can occur with the No-Build Alternative. Future freight train operation

assumptions for the No-Build and Build Alternatives are estimated to be seven morning

trains (7am-10pm) and four night trains (10pm to 7am) with train speeds of 60 mph by

2040. Freight traffic can increase without a second track because freight trains do not

have to meet a timetable schedule with consistent on time performance like passenger

trains. UPRR can adjust freight movements to accommodate increased freight demand

on the existing single track. The second track is only proposed to accommodate future

passenger train growth (additional eight trains per day) at higher speeds and with

greater reliability. The existing single track between Chicago and St. Louis does not have

the capacity to handle additional passenger trains without interfering with UPRR’s

freight operation.

The existing North Kankakee Street crossing has very substandard stopping sight

distances per IDOT and ICC design criteria even with a single track. This substandard

sight distance has nothing to do with drivers seeing the gates coming down or with train

growth. It is the sight distance needed to see motor vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and

objects on the road on the other side of the crossing in time to stop if needed to avoid a

crash. With the No-Build Alternative, the sight distance would not be improved.
Kankakee River Bridge 2-2 Supplemental EA

There are no crossing gates at three of the four existing at-grade crossings in the Project

study area (East Kankakee River Drive, North 1st Street, and one private crossing at

Albany Street). There are two (2) quadrant gates at the North Kankakee Street crossing.

Four-quadrant gates would prevent motorists from driving around lowered gates and

would thus reduce the potential for motor vehicle/train collisions now, as well as in the

future. Improvements to crossing protection, including four-quadrant gates would not

be made with the No-Build Alternative. The private crossing at Albany Street would be

closed and the property it served purchased.

2.2 Build Alternative

Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 of the August 2015 EA are amended as presented below. Two

additional sections have been added under Section 2.2. New Section 2.2.4 discusses

logical termini and independent utility of the proposed Project, and new Section 2.2.5

discusses grade separation alternatives considered in Wilmington.

2.2.1 Physical Features

The description of the physical features of the proposed project is amended to add a

description of the features associated with the improved North Kankakee Street grade

crossing approach and amend the description of grade crossing and culvert

improvements. Exhibit 2-1 is updated to include the North Kankakee Street grade

crossing approach improvements. The planned improvements will require purchase of

approximately 4.35 acres of additional ROW, 1.08 acres of temporary construction

easement, and 8.97 acres of private property that would be isolated by a private crossing

closure (Albany Street). This is an increase of 0.27 acre of ROW and a decrease of 0.74

acre of temporary construction easement from the August 2015 EA. In the August 2015

EA, the closure of the Albany Street crossing was assessed as a possibility. The closure

is now included in the Build Alternative, leaving the 8.97-acre property served by the

crossing without access to a public road, thus necessitating purchase of the property.

Added or amended elements of the Build Alternative found beginning on page 2-3 of

the August 2015 EA are:

· Kankakee River Bridge – Replace the existing single track Kankakee River bridge

and the single bridge approach tracks with a new double track bridge at MP 52.70

with proposed track centers at 20 feet. The existing track would be shifted and

replaced to accommodate a new second track on the west side. The existing north

and south abutments would be retained while new piers and superstructure would

be constructed. The existing Kankakee River bridge is a five-span single track deck

plate girder bridge. The new bridge would have two superstructures: an eight-span

steel beam bridge structure for the west track and a nine-span steel beam structure

for the east track. The new bridge’s vertical water clearance over the 100-year flood

line would be 10.3 feet, 5.33 feet higher than the existing bridge. Portions of the

existing abutments at both ends would be removed and reconstructed.
Culvert Removal

MP 51.94

New Culvert

MP 51.94

New Culvert

MP 51.96

Forked Creek Bridge

MP 52.47

New Bridge

Water Street Bridge

MP 52.66

New Bridge

Kankakee River Bridge

MP 52.70

New Double Track Bridge

New Culvert 

MP 52.92

Culvert Removal 

MP 53.13

North Kankakee Street

MP 52.54

Roadway Improvements

4 Quad Gates

Retaining Walls

North 1st Street

Roadway Improvements

4 Quad Gates

East Kankakee River Dr

Roadway Improvements

4 Quad Gates

Private Crossing

MP 52.42

Closed

UV53

UV102

Kankakee

Illinois

Main

Joliet

1St

Kankakee River

Jackson

Widows

Water

River

East

Outer

Stewart

Park

Bridge

North

Railroad

Davy

Jefferson

Charlotte

Bremer

County

Lafayette

Circle

Mcintyre Milton

Byron Kankakee

Eula

Chicago

School

Washington

Stevens

Shakespeare Buchanan

Hayden

Margarette

Joliet

Washington

FFoorrkkeedd CCrreeeekk

±

Legend

Union Pacific Railroad

Project Study Area

Proposed Track

Proposed ROW 

Proposed Easement

Proposed Fencing

Proposed Access Road

Date: 1/8/2015

BUILD ALTERNATIVE FEATURES

Kankakee River

Exhibit

2-1

0 0.25 0.5 Miles

Albany
Kankakee River Bridge 2-4 Supplemental EA

The four existing 10-foot-wide piers would be replaced with eight new 4-foot-wide

piers reducing the total width of the piers in the river from 40 feet to 32 feet. As with

the existing bridge, stormwater runoff from the new bridge would drain directly into

the Kankakee River.

· At North Kankakee Street, both approaches to the grade crossing would be

reconstructed to lower grades of 4.11 percent on the Canal Street side and 5.82

percent on the Chicago Street side to provide improved stopping sight distance for

safer crossing of the railroad tracks. The intersection of North Kankakee Street and

Canal Street would be raised and drainage sructures would be installed to provide

for improved drainage in the area. Retaining walls would be constructed on either

side of North Kankakee Street with heights varying from one foot near Canal Street

to six feet near the at-grade crossing. Sidewalks would be constructed along both

sides of North Kankakee Street. The sidewalk on the west side of North Kankakee

Street would extend only in front of the Milltown Market. The sidewalk on the east

side would extend across the UPRR tracks as it does currently. Business driveways

would be reconstructed to meet the raised street. Additionally, a parking lane along

the east side of North Kankakee Street near Canal Street would be provided to

replace the existing parking spaces no longer accessible because of the retaining wall.

On the Chicago Street side of the rail crossing, 150 feet of Chicago Street also would

be raised and reconstructed to meet the new profile of North Kankakee Street.

· At-grade crossing protection improvements are proposed at East Kankakee River

Drive (MP 51.94), North Kankakee Street (MP 52.54), and North 1st Street (MP 52.99).

Crossing protection improvements would include installing four quadrant gate

systems, railroad signal upgrades, and pedestrian gates at each crossing. Design and

construction of these improvements would be coordinated with IDOT. The East

Kankakee River Drive crossing (MP 51.94) at the northern end of the proposed

Project limit is a candidate for potential closure in the future because of a separate

rail improvement project. The private crossing at Albany Street would be closed and

the property it currently serves would be purchased.

· Culvert improvements at MP 51.94 (24-inch corrugated steel pipe [CSP]), MP 51.96

(36-inch CSP), and MP 52.92 (48-inch CSP). Two existing culverts on the west side of

the tracks and north of Forked Creek would be removed. A new 36-inch CSP culvert

would be built in the Stewart Street area paralleling the west side of the tracks. All

culverts are associated with stormwater drainage and do not serve streams that carry

fish.

2.2.2 Construction Period Assumptions

Section 2.2.2 is amended as follows and now includes a new Section 2.2.2.3 discussing

construction period assumptions to the North Kankakee Street at-grade crossing

approach improvements:
Kankakee River Bridge 2-5 Supplemental EA

In general during the first construction phase (first phase), the bridge replacement

would occur first, the new single track would then be built, rail traffic would be shifted

to the new single track and then improvements to the rest of the existing single track

would be made. Construction work would be confined to the existing and purchased

railroad ROW, temporary construction easements, and track crossing public road ROW.

The second track will be added during the second construction phase (second phase).

2.2.2.3 North Kankakee Street At-Grade Crossing Approach Improvements

To minimize disruption and compress the construction duration, North Kankakee Street

would be closed to traffic at the crossing temporarily and traffic would be detoured to

East Kankakee River Drive and IL 53. Vehicle access would be maintained during

construction to the businesses on both sides of North Kankakee Street. Emergency

vehicles with heights less than ten feet would use the Water Street underpass during

construction. While the Water Street bridge would be replaced as part of the project, the

underpass would remain open during the closure of the North Kankakee Street and East

Kankakee River Drive would also be kept open during that time to provide higher

clearances for fire engines.

2.2.3 Operating Characteristics

This section in the August 2015 EA is unchanged.

2.2.4 Logical Termini and Independent Utility of the Proposed Project

A comment on the August 2015 EA asked for clarification on the independent utility of

this project. Project termini have not changed since the August 2015 EA. The Kankakee

River Bridge and Track Improvements project:

· Connects logical termini and is of sufficient length to address environmental matters

on a broad scope;

· Has independent utility or independent significance, i.e., is usable and is a

reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the

area are made; and

· Does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable

transportation improvements.

A Tier 1 FEIS and ROD were prepared and issued by FRA for two different HSR

programs between Chicago and St. Louis, one in 2003 and the other in 2012. These two

programs propose: 1) improvements to the existing single track to increase speed and

on-time performance for existing passenger trains (single track program) and 2) the

addition of a second track so that additional passenger trains can be added to support

increased passenger volumes, while still maintaining a high level of on-time

performance (double track program). The impacts of the Kankakee River Bridge and

Track Improvements project in the context of the environmental impacts,
Kankakee River Bridge 2-6 Supplemental EA

utility/significance, and consideration of alternatives for the overall Chicago to St. Louis

programs and their other individual projects were assessed in these Tier 1 documents.

The Elwood to Braidwood Track Construction project (also assessed in the 2012 Tier 1

FEIS) adjoins the Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements project on both the

north and south. The Elwood to Braidwood Track Construction project primarily

proposes to add a second track to the UPRR. The following subsections detail how the

Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements project has logical termini and

independent utility.

2.2.4.1 Connects Logical Termini and is of Sufficient Length to Address

Environmental Matters of a Broad Scope

The first phase of the Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements project, as

defined in Chapter 2 of the August 2015 EA and this Supplemental EA, is focused on

replacing the Kankakee River, Forked Creek, Water Street bridges, and improving the

sight distance of the North Kankakee Street grade crossing. The termini of the proposed

Project are rational end-points in that the area between the termini encompasses the four

improvements, as well as the associated realignment and improvement of the track

approaching these improvements. The termini also encompass grade crossing

protection improvements, culvert improvements, and a maintenance access facility

along the improved track as a part of the proposed Project’s first phase and the addition

of second track as a part of the proposed Project’s second phase.

The track components of the first phase would connect back into the existing UPRR

track within the Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements project study area and

would have no effect on the location and impacts of improvements in the Elwood to

Braidwood Track Construction project study area.

The first phase of the Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements project is

scheduled to be built beginning in 2016. The second phase, which would add a second

track, is scheduled to be built later and at the same time as the Elwood to Braidwood

Track Construction project. Although it would be built in association with the Elwood

to Braidwood Track Construction project, the second phase for the Kankakee River

Bridge and Track Improvements project is independently assessed in this EA so that

environmental matters associated with the combination of the adjusted single track and

the parallel second track can be addressed. Since the Kankakee River Bridge and Track

Improvements project’s second track would be built at the same time as the Elwood to

Braidwood Track Construction project, if adjustments to that second track are needed to

avoid or minimize impacts in the Elwood to Braidwood Track Construction project

study area, such adjustments and consideration of their impacts can and will be made in

association with the Elwood to Braidwood Track Construction environmental impact

documentation.
Kankakee River Bridge 2-7 Supplemental EA

Therefore, it is logical to separate this portion of the HSR Program as its own project.

The project study area for the assessment of potential environment impact was

determined based on the project termini and is consistent with standards used for the

assessment of impacts of railroad improvement projects.

2.2.4.2 Independent Utility

The components of the first phase of the Kankakee River Bridge and Track

Improvements project would be fully functional and achieve the purpose and need

documented in Section 1.3.3 of the August 2015 EA and Section 1.3 of this Supplemental

EA even if the second phase, and the adjoining Elwood to Braidwood Track

Construction project are never built. Specifically, the first phase will improve or replace

deteriorating or functionally obsolete components of three bridges and culverts along

the track, improve access to the track for maintenance, and increase the safety of four atgrade crossings.

If the second phase and the Elwood to Braidwood Track Construction project are not

built, the space for the second track on the new Kankakee River, Forked Creek, and

Canal Street bridges would not be used. However, a second track is a component of the

larger Chicago to St. Louis double track HSR program assessed in the 2012 Tier 1 FEIS.

Therefore, since the addition of the second track is documented as a part of the overall

double track program, and it is more economical and less disruptive from a construction

perspective to build a double track bridge now at each bridge replacement location than

building two separate bridges at each location at different times, building bridges in the

first phase that accommodate the second track is a reasonable expenditure of

transportation funds.

2.2.4.3 Does Not Restrict Consideration of Alternatives

Assessing the impact of the first and second phase of Kankakee River Bridge and Track

Improvements project in this EA and constructing the first phase at this time do not

restrict the consideration of impact avoidance alternatives within the adjoining Elwood

to Braidwood Track Construction project. This includes altering which side of the UPRR

ROW the proposed second track and proposed maintenance access facility are placed.

Reasonable locations for switching the side of the UPRR ROW where the second track is

placed occur both north of the Forked Creek bridge and south of the Kankakee River

bridge, as do opportunities to change the maintenance access facility location.

These reasonable locations for switching the side of the UPRR ROW, while north of the

Forked Creek bridge and south of the Kankakee River bridge, are within the Kankakee

River Bridge and Track Improvements project study area. Therefore, to ensure that the

location for the second track assessed in this EA does not potentially restrict the

consideration of impact avoidance alternatives on the Elwood to Braidwood Track

Construction project, FRA commits to follow its current plan and build the second track

of the Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements project in conjunction with the

Elwood to Braidwood Track Construction project. This commitment will be
Kankakee River Bridge 2-8 Supplemental EA

documented in the Finding of No Significant Impact, if one is released for this project

following public and agency review of this Supplemental EA.

2.2.5 Grade Separation Alternatives Considered in Wilmington

Before finalizing the decision on including the North Kankakee Street grade crossing

(see Section 2.2.1) in the Build Alternative, three grade separation alternatives were

considered during preliminary design development for improvements at North

Kankakee Street. This effort was coordinated with City of Wilmington representatives

both before and after the August 27, 2015 public meetings. Since April 2014, 15 meetings

were held with City of Wilmington representatives related to the North Kankakee Street

grade crossing that included discussions of grade separation options. A listing of the

meetings is provided in Section 4.1.

The three grade separation alternatives considered were:

· Closing North Kankakee Street and improving the existing Water Street grade

separation

· Grade separation that would raise the railroad tracks over existing North Kankakee

Street

· Grade separation that would reconstruct North Kankakee Street under the railroad

tracks

Taking North Kankakee Street over the UPRR was not considered because any increase

in the elevation of North Kankakee Street would further increase the impacts associated

with the proposed grade crossing approach improvement included in the proposed

Project.

2.2.5.1 Closing North Kankakee Street and Improving the existing Water Street

Grade Separation

Closing North Kankakee Street and improving the Water Street grade separation west of

North Kankakee Street was considered. Closing North Kankakee Street would eliminate

the need to improve the approaches to the North Kankakee Street crossing to

accommodate the second track and correct the existing substandard sight distance for

crossing motor vehicles and its associated community impacts. The Water Street grade

separation would be improved to accommodate emergency vehicles with the increased

vertical clearance of 12 feet 6 inches. Pedestrian accommodations also would be added.

This option was originally discussed with City of Wilmington officials on January 8,

2015 and revisited on November 12, 2015. It was mutually agreed that it was not a

reasonable alternative for the following reasons:

· Business Impact of Adding North Kankakee Street Traffic to Water Street. North

Kankakee Street is the main road between the north and south sides of Wilmington.
Kankakee River Bridge 2-9 Supplemental EA

Heavy traffic, including school buses, traverses this road on a daily basis according

to local residents. Closing North Kankakee Street and shifting its traffic to Water

Street would have adverse impacts to businesses and residences along Water Street

because of increased traffic. The existing angled parking on Water Street would

need to be changed to parallel parking, reducing parking capacity in front of

businesses. According to City representatives, the additional traffic would create an

unacceptable risk of crashes involving through traffic and drivers backing out of

angled spaces.

· Increase in Emergency Vehicle Response Times. Closing North Kankakee Street

would increase emergency response times. North Kankakee Street is the City’s

preferred route to respond to emergencies at north side of Wilmington. Using Water

Street or going further north to East Kankakee River Drive would increase

emergency response times. Wilmington Fire Department representatives indicate

they strongly oppose this alternative for the reason noted.

· Flooding. Improving the existing Water Street railroad grade separation by lowering

the roadway to achieve a vertical clearance of 12 feet 6 inches would put Water

Street at the 50 year flood elevation of the Kankakee River. This would potentially

create flooding issues requiring the grade separation to be closed during heavy

storms. The current clearance is 10 feet 1 inch, and cannot be used by all City of

Wilmington emergency vehicles. Thus, without the increased vertical clearance the

closing of North Kankakee Street crossing would create a worse impact on

emergency response times than described in the previous bullet.

2.2.5.2 Grade Separation that Would Raise the Railroad Tracks Over Existing

North Kankakee Street

Raising the railroad tracks to go over North Kankakee Street also was considered. This

alternative also would involve removing the existing rise in North Kankakee Street by

lowering the profile on both approaches to the existing grade crossing to improve the

sight distance.

Raising the railroad tracks profile at North Kankakee Street in combination with

removing the rise in North Kankakee Street to achieve a vertical clearance of 14 feet 9

inches (required by IDOT for new grade separations) would require approximately 4,000

feet or 0.74 miles of the railroad track to be raised. The increase in the track elevation

would begin at North 1st Street south of the Kankakee River and end at East Kankakee

River Drive. Additional railroad ROW would be required for the embankment of the

higher railroad tracks. Slopes for the embankment would be 2:1 (2 feet horizontal for

every 1-foot of increased track elevation). A visual change of large sloped embankments

or retaining walls would occur at the homes and businesses adjacent to the railroad

tracks and along the North Kankakee Street.
Kankakee River Bridge 2-10 Supplemental EA

With this alternative, the proposed new bridges over the Kankakee River and Water

Street would be raised over 7 feet. The proposed new bridge over Forked Creek would

be raised approximately 10 feet. The track elevation through the center of Wilmington

would be raised from 11 feet to 14 feet. Near the Kankakee Street crossing, the tracks

would be 12 feet higher than the existing tracks. To provide for UPRR maintenance

access, extended driveways would be required along the railroad tracks at both east and

west of North Kankakee Street and east and west of Water Street.

It was concluded that this was not a reasonable alternative for the following reasons:

· Displacement of Homes and Businesses. Higher embankments to accommodate the

raised railroad tracks result in displacements of the Wilmington Fire House, the

rental storage facility associated with Milltown Market, the building at the corner of

Water Street and Chicago Street, two structures associated with the business at the

corner of North Kankakee Street and Chicago Street because of the realignment of

Chicago Street.

· New Railroad ROW Requirements. Property purchase for new ROW to

accommodate embankments at residences on the both sides north of North 1st Street

and property impacts on both sides north of Forked Creek.

· Visual Change. The existing track profile between North Kankakee Street and Water

Street is already higher than adjoining residential and business uses. The taller

railroad with associated embankment and retaining walls would create a visual

barrier between the two parts of Wilmington on either side of the tracks.

· Noise. The raised track profile would potentially transmit additional train noise over

a much broader area in the City of Wilmington.

2.2.5.3 Grade Separation that Would Reconstruct North Kankakee Street Under the

Railroad Tracks

Lowering North Kankakee Street so it would pass under the UPRR railroad tracks also

was considered. This alternative would require reconstruction of North Kankakee Street

from 150 feet south of Canal Street to 200 feet north of Chicago Street. The proposed

south approach on North Kankakee Street would transition down at a 5 percent grade

under the railroad bridge and rise back up at a 5 percent grade to Chicago Street. The

Chicago Street and Canal Street intersections would be lowered 15 feet 5 inches and 4

feet 8 inches respectively. Approximately 800 feet of North Kankakee Street, 700 feet of

Canal Street and 500 feet of Chicago Street would need to be reconstructed. Retaining

walls would be built on both sides of these lowered streets between the lowered streets

and surrounding land uses that would remain at the existing elevation. Existing

drainage systems, including storm sewers, would be replaced and relocated to

accommodate the lowered streets. Sidewalks would be reconstructed and lowered to

provide Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant crossings.
Kankakee River Bridge 2-11 Supplemental EA

It was concluded that this was not a reasonable alternative for the following reasons:

· Residential and Business Impact. The retaining walls on the east and west sides of

North Kankakee Street and Canal Street would adversely affect access to businesses

and residences. The new street grade would be approximately 10 feet below the

current street elevation at the north end of the Milltown Market near the UPRR ROW

requiring a retaining wall. The entrance drive to the Milltown Market storage units

would be closed. The lowered Canal Street and North Kankakee Street intersection

would affect access to residences on all approaches to the intersection. Access to

businesses along North Kankakee Street would not be feasible near the railroad

crossing. The existing entrance driveway on the east side to the business closest to

the crossing would require 27 percent grade transition, too steep for motor vehicles.

· Flooding. The intersection of North Kankakee Street and Canal Street would be 10

feet below the 50 year flood elevation of Forked Creek. The intersection of North

Kankakee Street and Chicago Street north of the UPRR would be 7 feet below the 50

year flood elevation.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-1 Supplemental EA

3.0 Affected Environment,

Environmental Consequences and

Mitigation

This section presents the environmental setting of the proposed Project, the impacts of

the No-Build and Build Alternatives, and potential mitigation measures for notable

impacts. The environmental characteristics and impact categories addressed in this

Supplemental EA are:

· Physical Environment

- Air Quality—Amended to add discussion related to potential construction

emission impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, and revised discussion of

air quality mitigation and updates to three tables.

- Energy—Unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

- Floodplains and Regulatory Floodways—Unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

- Noise and Vibration—Unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

- Agricultural—Unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

- Aesthetic Environment and Scenic Resources—Amended to add a description of

visual characteristics, visual changes, and mitigation at the North Kankakee

Street grade crossing approach.

· Ecological Systems

- Vegetation and Habitat—Amended the forest impact acres and amended the

invasive species mitigation commitment.

- Wetlands and Waters of the US—Amended to distinguish causeway and

cofferdam impacts at Forked Creek.

- Water Quality and Water Resources—Amended to clarify that proposed culverts

do not serve streams that carry fish.

- Threatened and Endangered Species—Amended to note the proposed Kankakee

River bridge design reduces the chances of a chemical spill or other catastrophic

event and to present current mitigation agreements related to the northern longeared bat and protected mussels.

- Special Lands—Unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

· Section 4(f) Resources—Unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

· Human Environment

- Transportation—Amended to include additional information related to at-grade

crossing, vehicular traffic, and public parking impacts and associated mitigation.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-2 Supplemental EA

- Community and Land Use—Amended to include a description of the land uses

along the North Kankakee Street crossing approach, update ROW and easement

requirements, residential and business relocations, community service and

facility impacts, other community impacts, and mitigation.

- Demographics—Unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

- Economics and Employment—Amended to include business and parking

impacts associated with improvement of the North Kankakee Street crossing

approach.

- Environmental Justice and Title VI—Unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

- Barriers and Accessibility—Amended ADA discussion.

- Public Health and Safety—Amended mitigation discussion related to emergency

vehicle operation during grade crossing improvement construction.

- Hazardous Materials and Waste—Amended to address the demolition of a

structure, worker and environmental safety during construction, and new

potential recognized environmental condition (REC) sites/acreages, as well as to

provide a more detailed explanation to address potential contamination risks.

· Cultural Resources—Unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

· Construction Impacts and Mitigation—Amended to include revised mitigation

commitments related to air quality emissions and invasive species.

· Secondary and Cumulative Impacts—Amended discussion of cumulative impacts to

threatened and endangered species.

· Permits-- Unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

· Environmental Commitments—Amended commitments related to construction air

quality emissions, threatened and endangered species, and hazardous materials.

3.1 Physical Environment

3.1.1 Air Quality

Section 3.1.1.1 to Section 3.1.1.3 of the August 2015 EA are amended with revised Tables

3-1, 3-4, and 3-5. The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions section is updated along with

Exhibit 3-1. An assessment of construction period emissions is added to the construction

impacts section and the construction and operation mitigation section is also revised.

3.1.1.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

Table 3-1 that appears on page 3-3 of the August 2015 EA is revised to update the ozone

standard. Will County is classified as an attainment area for all pollutants except ozone.

The NAAQS for ozone was strengthened by US Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) on October 1, 2015, and went into effect December 28, 2015. No attainment

determination for the new standard has been yet conducted by USEPA.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-3 Supplemental EA

Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Primary/

Secondary

Averaging

Time Level Form

Carbon Monoxide

(CO) primary

8 hours 9 ppm

Not to be exceeded more than once per year

1-hour 35 ppm

Lead (Pb)

primary

and

secondary

Rolling 3 month

period

0.15

μg/m3 (1) Not to be exceeded

Nitrogen Dioxide

(NO2)

primary 1-hour 100 ppb 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum

concentrations, averaged over 3 years

primary

and

secondary

1 year 53 ppb Annual Mean

Ozone (O3)

primary

and

secondary

8 hours 0.070

ppm (2)

Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-

hour concentration, averaged over 3 years

Particle

Pollution

(PM)

PM2.5

primary 1 year 12.0

μg/m3

annual mean, averaged over 3 years

secondary 1 year 15.0

μg/m3

annual mean, averaged over 3 years

primary

and

secondary

24 hours 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

PM10

primary

and

secondary

24 hours 150 μg/m3

Not to be exceeded more than once per year

on average over 3 years

Sulfur Dioxide

(SO2)

primary 1-hour 75 ppb (3) 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum

concentrations, averaged over 3 years

secondary 3 hours 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year

(1) In areas designated nonattainment for the Pb standards prior to the promulgation of the current (2008)

standards, and for which implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have

not been submitted and approved, the previous standards (1.5 μg/m3 as a calendar quarter average) also

remain in effect.

(2) Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) O3 standards

additionally remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) O3 standards and

transitioning to the current (2015) standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current

standards.

(3) The previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect

in certain areas: (1) any area for which it is not yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the

current (2010) standards, and (2)any area for which implementation plans providing for attainment of

the current (2010) standard have not been submitted and approved and which is designated

nonattainment under the previous SO2 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a SIP call under

the previous SO2 standards (40 CFR 50.4(3)), A SIP call is an EPA action requiring a state to resubmit all

or part of its State Implementation Plan to demonstrate attainment of the require NAAQS.

Source: http://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/criteria.html January 5, 2016
Kankakee River Bridge 3-4 Supplemental EA

3.1.1.1 Existing Conditions

Table 3-4 that appears on page 3-6 of the August 2015 EA is revised to include 2014 Will

County air quality monitored data.

Table 3-4. Will County Air Quality Monitored Data (2012-2014)

Pollutant Time Period

Concentration

Unit Station

2012 2013 2014

Ozone

First Highest 8

hour 0.080 0.070 0.069 PPM (partsper million)

36400 S. Essex

Rd., Braidwood

Second Highest 0.076 0.068 0.068 PPM

Third Highest 0.074 0.067 0.065 PPM

Fourth Highest 0.074 0.066 0.064 PPM

# of Days

Standard

Exceeded

0 0 0

PM2.5

Maximum 24

Hour 24.5 26.9 26.4

μg/m3

(micrograms

per cubic

meter) 36400 S. Essex

Rd., Braidwood Second Highest 24.7 23 19.9 μg/m

98th Percentile 24 23 26 μg/m3

Average Annual 9.3 9.3 9.1 μg/m3

NO2

1-Hour Maximum 69 82 91 PPB (parts

per billion) 1820 S. 51 Street,

Second Maximum 66 76 81 PPB Cicero

98th Percentile 58 64 64 PPB

PM10

Maximum 24

Hour 53 71 98 μg/m3 50th Street and

Glencoe, McCook

Second Highest 41 67 93 μg/m3

SO2

First Highest 1

hour 58 42 44 PPB Hurlburt and

Macarthur,

Peoria Second Highest 54 38 42 PPB

99th Percentile 44 32 38 PPB

Source: http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html, December 15, 2015

3.1.1.3 Potential Impacts

Additions or revisions are made to the discussions of air quality during proposed

project operation, potential regional impacts, GHG emissions, and construction impacts

that appeared in the August 2015 EA.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-5 Supplemental EA

Potential Regional Impacts

The discussion on potential regional air quality impacts on page 3-8 of the August 2015

EA is amended to add the following clarification and an updated Table 3-5. Emissions

presented in Table 3-5 were estimated for 59.8 miles, the full length of the ozone nonattainment area within the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Program corridor. CO2 emissions

were updated from that in the August 2015 EA and the reporting measure was changed

to million tons per year.

Table 3-5. Emissions Generated by the Proposed Project within the Chicago-GaryLake County, IL-IN Non-Attainment Area

Scenario CO

(tons/year)

NOx

(tons/year)

VOC

(tons/year)

PM10

(tons/year)

PM2.5

(tons/year)

CO2

(million

tons/year)

Existing

Conditions 22.1 68.0 3.7 3.2 3.1 0.009

No-Build

Alternative 49.4 38.6 1.7 5.8 5.6 0.020

Build

Alternative 52.9 45.5 1.9 6.8 6.6 0.022

Change 3.5 6.9 0.29 1.04 1.01 0.002

De minimis

Threshold NA 100 100 NA 100 NA

Threshold

Exceeded? NA No No NA No NA

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

The discussion on GHG emissions on page 3-12 of the August 2015 EA is amended to

read as follows with an updated Exhibit 3-1:

The GHG emissions analysis (see Table 3-5) indicates that the Build Alternative would

result in a small increase in regional GHG emissions compared to the No-Build

Alternative. The estimated increase associated with the additional eight high-speed

trains would constitute approximately 11 percent of rail emissions over the No-Build

Alternative and a much smaller increase over the total regional GHG emissions. The

August 2015 EA reported approximately 23 percent of rail emissions over the No-Build

Alternative. In addition, once the full HSR Program is complete, it would reduce car,

bus and airplane trips. This would offset the increase in rail emissions and reduce

regional emissions compared with emissions without the upgrade (see 2012 Tier 1 FEIS,

section 7.7.2, Table 5.7-2). Thefore, the Build Alternative, in combination with the full

HSR Program improvements, would ultimately result in a decrease of GHG emissions

over the No-Build Alternative.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-6 Supplemental EA

Exhibit 3-1. CO2 Emissions from Fossil Combustion by Sector and Fuel Type (2013)

Source: USEPA GHG Inventory, 2015

In addition to changes in rail operation GHG emissions, GHG emissions would be made

by Build Alternative construction equipment. During the construction period of the

Build Alternative, three other HSR Program projects also will be under construction (see

the construction impacts section below). The total CO2 emissions of HSR Program

construction in 2016 within Will and Cook counties would be 4,155.9 tons, of which

2,269.0 tons would be associated with the proposed Project. Construction-related

increase in GHG emissions would constitute less than 0.2 percent of the total GHG

emissions that will be generated within the corridor and less than 0.1 percent of the

current transportation GHG emissions in Will County. This is a small and an

insignificant increase.

Construction Impacts

This section, which appeared on page 3-13 of the August 2015 EA, is augmented in

response to USEPA comments that requested an estimation of construction period

emissions and a determination of whether those emissions would be under General

Conformity de minimis threshold as follows:

Construction air quality impacts are temporary in nature and localized to the area of

construction. As a rule, short-term construction (shorter than three years) on small

projects does not warrant a detailed air quality analysis. Construction of the proposed

Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements project is estimated to take 18 months

to two years. However, in 2016 the Build Alternative would be constructed

simultaneously with three other HSR Program projects in the Chicago-Gary-Lake

County, IL-IN Ozone Non-Attainment and PM2.5 maintenance area. This consideration

led to conducting an analysis to estimate emissions from construction of the combined

projects.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-7 Supplemental EA

Possible air quality impacts from construction may be caused by dust from earthmoving activities such as cut and fill operations, use of unpaved haul roads, exposed

piles, exposed material carried offsite, and by exhaust emissions generated by dieselfueled equipment during construction. The Build Alternative would replace onetracked bridges across the Kankakee River, Water Street and Forked Creek with new

double-tracked bridges, improve at-grade crossings, construct new access roads and

replace culverts, install fencing and add track signaling. The three other concurrent

projects are part of the Joliet to Dwight Track Improvement Project. Emissions from

construction for all of these projects were estimated for 2016, the only year the three

other HSR Program projects in the non-attainment area would be under construction at

the same time as the Build Alternative. These emissions were estimated using the

following conservative assumptions:

· All construction equipment meets Tier 2 emission standards. Tier 2 standards for

non-road equipment were phased in between 2001 and 2006. This means that all

diesel-fueled construction equipment used in the project was considered to be 9

years old or older.

· Diesel trucks would idle at the construction site for 15 minutes within every hour.

Illinois has an anti-idling law and IDOT restricts idling in construction projects to no

more than 10 minutes within a 60 minute period.

· The average trip of a construction truck would be 50 miles. The trucks for this

construction may travel in the 20 to 50 mile radius, but the longest trip was assumed.

Emissions were estimated using the current procedures from the latest USEPA

NONROAD2008a model. The results are presented in Table 3-6A. Table 3-6A

demonstrates that emissions from construction of the Build Alternative combined with

the three other projects for the highest activity year of construction estimated using

conservative assumptions would be below the General Conformity de minimis

thresholds. In addition, as demonstrated in the 2012 Tier 1 FEIS, construction emissions

from the Build Alternative ultimately would be offset by reduction in vehicular, bus and

airplane emissions when the completed HSR Program is in operation.

Table 3-6A. Emissions Generated by Construction of the Build Alternative and

Cumulatively with Other Concurrent Construction Projects in 2016 (tons/year)

Scenario CO NOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 SO2 CO2

Build Alternative 9.26 18.30 1.46 1.05 1.00 0.02 2,269.0

Cumulative

Emissions 17.17 35.97 2.88 2.08 1.98 0.05 4,155.9

De minimis

Threshold NA 100 100 NA 100 100 NA

Threshold Exceeded? NA No No NA No No NA
Kankakee River Bridge 3-8 Supplemental EA

3.1.1.4 Mitigation (Construction and Operation)

This section, which appeared on page 3-13 of the August 2015 EA, is revised in response

to USEPA comments. It now also includes a discussion of health impacts on sensitive

population groups, expansion of the discussion on dust control measures, and strategies

that reduce engine activity and emissions from operations. The revised section is as

follows:

Construction

Potentially, construction emissions could cause serious health impacts especially in

sensitive population groups including elderly and children. Construction impacts on

health could come from the nuisance dust and from the exhaust of construction

equipment and trucks. The health impacts of particulates are directly linked to the size

of the particles; the smaller the size, the more the potential to damage health. Smaller

particles could penetrate deeper into the tissues of lungs and even get into a person’s

bloodstream affecting heart conditions. NOx exhausted by diesel equipment and trucks

is another pollutant of concern from construction. NOx is a precursor for ozone

formation and could aggravate respiratory and heart conditions. Construction activities

also could contribute to the volatile organic compound (VOC) levels. To control local

VOC air pollution impacts during Build Alternative construction, coverage under the

Illinois General Permit could be required for any portable bituminous and concrete

plants that would be used in construction. However, these materials would likely

originate from existing permitted plants and would be delivered to the construction site.

Dust control measures during construction are usually included into specifications and

dust control plans for contractors. The control measures proposed in such plans

typically include minimization of trucking of dirt on public roads, speed reductions on

the unpaved surfaces, requirements to cover the haul vehicles and to stabilize/apply

suppressants to the unpaved roads and exposed surfaces.

Construction mitigation also includes strategies that reduce engine activity or reduce

emissions per unit of operating time, such as reducing the numbers of trips and

extended idling. Illinois has an anti-idling law (IL Public Act 094-0845) that prohibits

diesel vehicles from idling for more than 10 minutes per hour when parked. Additional

measures to reduce fine particle pollution from construction equipment would be to use

newer equipment, either Tier 3 with diesel particulate filters or Tier 4 (newer)

equipment. Maintenance of equipment in good working order also helps to reduce

emissions.

NOx reduction measures would come from the use of select catalyst systems in the

construction equipment and trucks. In 2014, USEPA set standards for a minimum refill

intervals for the diesel exhaust fluid in selective catalyst systems in both non-road

equipment and trucks that will reduce NOx emissions from diesel engines. Reduction of

NOx and VOC emissions has an additional benefit of reducing the potential for ozone

and particulate pollution formation. Reduction of particulate pollution, especially the
Kankakee River Bridge 3-9 Supplemental EA

fine particulates (soot, the black carbon emissions) produces an additional effect of

reducing GHG emissions.

The project construction would follow applicable State and local regulations regarding

dust control and other air quality emission reduction control measures, including

reducing GHG by following energy saving strategies. In addition, Best Management

Practices (BMPs) would be utilized prior to, during, and after construction for dust

suppression. Control measures would be specified in contractor contracts.

Operation

The Build Alternative is part of the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Program. The 2012 Tier 1

FEIS/ROD concluded that the HSR Program would offset an increase in rail emissions

with reduction in the regional vehicular, bus and plane emissions. With the introduction

of the additional high-speed trains, regional rail emissions are expected to increase

insignificantly. Reduction in regional emissions from the operations of the Build

Alternative would include reduction of potential for ozone formation and GHG. The

local air quality impacts of the Build Alternative would not be significant and could be

further reduced by maintaining the locomotives and tracks in good working condition

and locomotives in compliance with the latest USEPA regulations.

3.1.2 Energy

This section in the August 2015 EA is unchanged.

3.1.3 Floodplains and Regulatory Floodways

This section in the August 2015 EA is unchanged.

3.1.4 Noise and Vibration

This section in the August 2015 EA is unchanged except for the mention of the private

grade crossing in the description of existing conditions on page 3-22 where a closure is

now planned in lieu of maintaining crossing gates. This change in the description of the

existing setting does not change the results of the noise and vibration impact assessment.

3.1.5 Agricultural

This section in the August 2015 EA is unchanged.

3.1.6 Aesthetic Environment and Scenic Resources

This section is amended to add a description of visual characteristics and visual change

at the North Kankakee Street grade crossing approach to Sections 3.1.6.1 and 3.1.6.2 of

the August 2015 EA.

A visual change would occur at the one residence on North Kankakee Street where a

retaining wall would be introduced to views from the front of the home. A retaining

wall in front of Milltown Market along North Kankakee Street would also reduce the

visibility of the market from the North Kankakee Street.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-10 Supplemental EA

3.1.6.1 Existing Conditions—North Kankakee Street Grade Crossing Approach

This landscape unit includes residences and businesses along North Kankakee Street

between Canal Street and the at-grade railroad crossing. Some trees are along the UPRR

and in front of the residence at the corner of Canal Street and North Kankakee Street.

The North Kankakee Street existing approach to the crossing rises to the track level.

Views are generally not of high quality within this landscape unit because of the

presence of business uses, as shown in Exhibit 3-3A.

3.1.6.2 Potential Impact—Build Alternative at North Kankakee Street Grade

Crossing Approach Improvements

At the North Kankakee Street grade crossing approach, views of the existing roadway

would be altered to include views of new retaining walls along the street. The retaining

walls would be placed along North Kankakee Street between Canal Street and UPRR.

Residences to the south of Canal Street would not have a notable change in view of the

retaining walls from windows of their homes. Visual change for land uses adjacent to

the approach improvement would be as follows:

· Residence. One residence is north of Canal Street and would have a view of the

retaining wall and associated pedestrian railing from the windows and the front

entrance. The retaining wall height in front of the residence is expected to be

between approximately 2.5 to 4 feet. The current view looks across North Kankakee

Street to the Milltown Market. In addition to the change in what is seen, the new

view would be shorter and of a confined space.

Exhibit 3-3A. View toward UPRR from North Kankakee Street Looking North
Kankakee River Bridge 3-11 Supplemental EA

· Businesses on East Side North Kankakee Street. At the two businesses on the east

side of North Kankakee Street (513 and 515A North Kankakee Street), the street

would be approximately 6 feet higher than it is presently, but views of the businesses

from North Kankakee Street would not be obscured, only the angle of the view

would change because of the increased street height. Driveways would meet North

Kankakee Street and slope down to the businesses for use by customers.

Freestanding signage for the businesses near North Kankakee Street could be raised

with the driveways so the signage also could still be seen from the street.

· Business on the West Side of North Kankakee Street. On the west side of North

Kankakee Street, the street would be raised in front of a business (an antique mall

and self-storage units at 508 North Kankakee Street). The primary customer

entrance for the antique mall is on North Kankakee Street. The raised street and the

associated jersey barrier at the roadway edge would be approximately 6.5 feet high

at the business entrance. The raised road and jersey barrier would partially obscure

the business’ customer entrance from street view. The retaining wall along North

Kankakee Street would be approximately 27 feet from the business, including the

business entrance. Currently customers can walk to the business entrance either

directly from the street’s edge-of-pavement or along the street’s sidewalk. With the

retaining wall, to reach the front entrance, all customers would have to walk on the

sidewalk approximately 50 feet from Canal Street. In addition, rather than the

building on one side and the open street on the other, customers would be walking

within the confined space between the building on one side and the rising street on

the other.

3.1.6.3 Mitigation at North Kankakee Street Grade Crossing Approach

Improvements

During the completion of construction plans and specifications, the UPRR’s Real Estate

team will continue to coordinate with City of Wilmington representatives and

landowners on measures to mitigate visual changes at North Kankakee Street,

particularly as it relates to the exposed surface of retaining walls and replacement

landscaping.

3.2 Ecological Systems

3.2.1 Vegetation and Habitat

The impact to forested areas presented in Section 3.2.1.2 on page 3-35 of the August 2015

EA is revised from 3.92 acres to 2.99 acres because additional track curve design work

reduced the ROW impacts in the Albany Street area. Other vegetation and habitat

impacts presented in this section of the August 2015 EA are unchanged.

The discussion of mitigation in Section 3.2.1.3 on page 3-35 of the August 2015 EA is

amended to add: Specific measures to avoid and minimize introducing invasive species

into the project area will be included in construction contractor contracts.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-12 Supplemental EA

3.2.2 Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

The impacts discussion at Forked Creek in Section 3.2.2.2 on page 3-39 of the August

2015 EA is amended to read:

· Forked Creek

- Permanent New Bridge Pile Impact: 0.03 acre

- Temporary Construction Causeway Fill impacts: 0.14 acre

- Temporary Construction Cofferdam Fill Impacts: 0.06 acre

Impacts to Forked Creek have not changed since the August 2015 EA. The impact list

was revised in response to comments received on the August 2015 EA to identify

temporary impacts by causeway versus cofferdam.

Because of the narrow width of Forked Creek, a temporary partial causeway appears to

be the most practicable way of providing equipment access for the erection of the

superstructure (spans). Final decisions related to the use of a temporary partial

causeway at Forked Creek will be agreed to with USACE during the permit process.

3.2.3 Water Quality and Water Resources

Section 3.2.3.2 of the August 2015 EA is amended to add the following clarification: All

culvert improvements are associated with stormwater drainage and do not serve

streams that carry fish.

3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species

Since the release of the August 2015 EA, threatened and endangered species

consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was completed. Given the

species identified in the project area, a final informal Biological Assessment (BA) was

submitted to USFWS for all listed species in Will County on February 3, 2016. The effects

determination resulted in a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect“ determination for two

species: Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus

cyphyus) and a “no effect” determination for all other listed species in Will County. On

February 4, 2016, the USFWS concurred with the “may affect, not likely to adversely affect”

determination on the northern long-eared bat and sheepnose mussel and a “no effect”

determination for all other listed species in Will County, which concluded the informal

consultation (see Appendix E).

The operational impacts discussion related to the federally listed sheepnose mussel on

pages 3-54 to 3-55 is amended to add the following clarification related to the new

bridge design’s contribution to minimizing the risk of chemical spills: The proposed

bridge design reduces the chances of a chemical spill or other catastrophic event. The

existing bridge has an open deck system, where the ties sit directly on the steel girders.

Gaps between the ties are open to the air below it, therefore, debris and runoff flows

directly into the Kankakee River. The proposed bridge is a closed system, which would
Kankakee River Bridge 3-13 Supplemental EA

have a 5/8-inch thick steel deck plate welded to the steel beam superstructure, with a

steel curb section along the side. To allow rain water to escape the closed system, four

2.5-inch steel drains would be installed on each span. The proposed closed design

would minimize the spill risk compared to the existing conditions.

Section 3.2.4.3 describing threatened and endangered species that begins on page 3-60 is

updated to include the final mitigation program.

Mitigation measures for the northern long-eared bat will include preservation of

approximately 9 acres of riparian forested habitat along Forked Creek. High quality

habitat would be preserved at a greater than 2:1 ratio. In addition, IDOT will perform

two years of northern long-eared bat monitoring, in years 1 and 3. Monitoring will take

place two nights with two nets for a total of four mist net nights. Mist nets would be set

up across Forked Creek if possible, otherwise IDOT will locate a suitable netting site

within or as close to the mitigation site as possible.

Also, efforts would be made to reduce the number of potential roost trees removed, as

well as conducting tree removal activities between October 15 and March 31 from areas

of potential summer bat habitat. Additional surveys to determine if bats are present

would occur if tree removal is required outside of this time-frame.

Prior to construction, all state and federally listed mussels will be moved out of the

impact area in the Kankakee River. Sheepnose mussel were not found within the project

limits. If sheepnose mussels are found during the pre-construction surveys, prior to the

relocation efforts, malacologists would work with the Illinois Department of Natural

Resources (IDNR) and USFWS to develop protocols in the handling, transport, and

relocation of any living sheepnose mussels.

3.2.5 Special Lands

This section is unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

3.3 Section 4(f) Resources

This section is unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

3.4 Human Environment

3.4.1 Transportation

The “At-Grade Crossing” discussion under Section 3.4.1.2 beginning on page 3-67 of the

August 2015 EA, the “Vehicular Traffic” section beginning on page 3-68, “Public

Parking” section beginning on page 3-69, and Section 3.1.4.3 regarding mitigation on

page 3-69 are amended to reflect the impacts of the revised North Kankakee Street

crossing approach.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-14 Supplemental EA

The Build Alternative would have permanent impacts to vehicular traffic by improving

safety elements at grade crossings. Permanent impacts to parking spaces and access

(both vehicular and pedestrian) at North Kankakee Street would occur. As discussed in

Section 3.4.6, no accommodations for bicycles or pedestrians would be impacted.

3.4.1.2 Potential Impacts

At-Grade Crossings

There are three public at-grade crossings: East Kankakee River Drive (MP 51.94), North

Kankakee Street (MP 52.54), and North 1st Street (MP 52.99) and one private road

crossing, Albany Street (MP 52.42). With the No-Build Alternative, at-grade crossing

protection would not be improved and the associated motor vehicle travel safety benefit

would not be achieved. The number of accidents occurring at the existing at-grade

crossings could increase with community growth. Community growth would result in

more travelers using public crossings at their current low level of protection described

below.

The Build Alternative would increase the number of times per day the gates come down

for passenger trains to 18 from the current 10. The number of freight trains and

associated gate down time are expected to grow at the same rate with either the NoBuild or Build Alternatives to 11 trains per day from 5 currently. Because the tracks in

Wilmington are considered mainline tracks, UPRR standard operation typically does not

stop trains on the mainline unless it is an emergency, hence freight train growth would

increase only the number of times the gates go down. There would not be freight trains

stopped at crossings for extended periods.

The existing North Kankakee Street crossing has substandard stopping sight distances

per IDOT and ICC design criteria. This is the sight distance required to see motor

vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and objects on the road on the other side of the crossing

in time to stop if needed to avoid a crash. The current speed limit is 30 miles per hour at

North Kankakee Street; however, the existing stopping sight distance is only sufficient

for travelers going 15 miles per hour. The Build Alternative would increase the sight

distance to 20 mph, while lowering the speed limit on Kankakee Street approaching the

crossing to 20 mph. Attempting to increase the driver sight distance to accommodate

the current 30 mph speed limit would increase the impact on the community by

necessitating changes in North Kankakee Street south of Canal Street.

The private road crossing at Albany Street would be closed and the property it serves

purchased. The East Kankakee River Drive is a potential candidate for closure, but its

closure is not a part of either the No-Build or Build Alternative. Impacts of closure and

associated mitigation would be handled in another environmental document in

association with the City of Wilmington. FRA guidance related to railroad grade

crossing consolidation and closure would be followed. Communication is on-going

with the City of Wilmington related to the East Kankakee River Drive closure.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-15 Supplemental EA

The East Kankakee River Drive crossing currently has flashers and no crossing gates.

With the Build Alternative, four-quadrant gates would be installed, if the crossing is not

closed. The installation of four-quadrant gates would make it difficult for motorists to go

around the gates when they are down, a safety benefit important to the operation of

more frequent and higher speed trains. If the crossing were to be closed, those living

and working along East Kankakee River Drive or in Wilmington west of the railroad

tracks would need to use North Kankakee Street to reach IL 53 either at its intersection

with North Kankakee Street or its intersection with East Kankakee River Drive. IL 53 is

the primary north-south through highway in and out of Wilmington.

The private crossing at Albany Street has stop signs as crossing protection. With its

closure, the private property served by the grade crossing would no longer have access

to a public road. Purchasing the entire property prior to crossing closure will serve as

mitigation.

The North Kankakee Street and North 1st Street grade crossings both have flashers as

existing warning devices and four-quadrant gates would be installed with the Build

Alternative. This is a safety benefit important to the operation of more frequent and

higher speed trains.

Crossings would be equipped with a constant warning time. Currently, crossing gates

are activated approximately 20 to 30 seconds prior to a train reaching the grade crossing.

For high-speed passenger trains, crossing gates would activate 80 seconds before a train

reaches the crossing. This increase in time would cause additional vehicular delay for

motorists using the highway-rail grade crossing. The combination of additional

passenger trains and longer gate down times would increase the amount of time that a

crossing is blocked by approximately 20 minutes per day. This change would not be

notable given that it would be split among 18 passenger trains passing through at

different times of day and the potential for the additional wait time to generate traffic

congestion is negligible given that the crossings are within a small rural city. With the

No-Build Alternative the number of passenger train gate closures would not change.

During construction, each public at-grade crossing and the North Water Street grade

separated crossing would be closed at different times during the installation of the

second track at the crossings. The construction contractor would coordinate the timing

of public crossing temporary closures with the City of Wilmington to minimize impacts

to traffic flow across the tracks. Detours to alternate crossings would be marked. At the

private crossing at Albany Street, the property served would be purchased before the

permanent closure of the crossing. The timing of any full closures would be coordinated

with the property owner. During construction, full closure of the North Kankakee Street

crossing would be coordinated with the Wilmington Fire Protection District because this

crossing is the primary route to the north side of Wilmington for emergency vehicles

(fire and medical). Further discussion regarding this impact and associated mitigation is

presented in Section 3.4.7.2.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-16 Supplemental EA

Vehicular Traffic

The No-Build Alternative would not have any impacts on vehicular traffic.

Vehicular safety at improved grade crossings is addressed in the previous section. The

Build Alternative also would result in temporary impacts to vehicular operations related

to emergency services, schools, businesses, and other local activities during construction.

At-grade crossing improvements would, at a minimum, require traffic to slow down as

it passes through the construction zone. The re-building of the approach to the North

Kankakee Street crossing would have the greatest effect on railroad crossing traffic. To

minimize disruption and compress the construction time required, the North Kankakee

Street crossing would be closed for approximately three to four months to construct the

new roadway. Attempting to maintain traffic through the crossing while the approach

is being rebuilt, would result in a longer construction period and associated

inconvenience. Driveway access would be maintained during construction for the

businesses on the east side of North Kankakee Street. Emergency vehicles with heights

less than 10 feet would use the Water Street underpass during construction. While the

bridge at Water Street will be replaced as part of the project, the underpass will remain

open during the closure of North Kankakee Street. To maintain access for the fire

engines that require higher clearance, the crossing at East Kankakee River Drive would

be kept open while North Kankakee Street is closed. During temporary crossing

closures, temporary diversion of traffic to adjacent crossings along marked detours

would be required. The contractor would coordinate the timing of public crossing

closures with the City of Wilmington to minimize impacts to traffic flow across the

tracks in Wilmington, including travel to the north side of Wilmington by emergency

vehicles. A portion of Railroad Road south of the Kankakee River would be closed

during a part of construction. However, alternate access to homes on Railroad Road is

available. Traffic maintenance planning would be coordinated with the City of

Wilmington, schools, and emergency service providers.

The railroad improvement component of the Build Alternative would have no

permanent impacts to vehicular traffic and no changes to access.

The gradient of the business driveways would increase. On the east side of North

Kankakee Street truck movement to and from a loading dock would be affected,

particularly during icy conditions.

The Build Alternative would have a positive safety impact on bicycle and pedestrian

movement in association with at-grade crossing protection improvements. Fencing

installed along the UPRR ROW at the at-grade crossings would channel pedestrians and

bicyclists wanting to cross the tracks to the improved at-grade crossings.

Overall traveler safety in the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Program corridor would increase

as travelers divert from automobile to rail since rail is a safer mode of travel.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-17 Supplemental EA

Public Parking

There would be no displacements of public parking spaces with the No-Build

Alternative. The improvement to the approach to the North Kankakee Street grade

crossing would affect business parking as follows:

· Business parking in front of 513 North Kankakee Street would change. The

businesses at 513 North Kankakee Street have four perpendicular parking spaces

along the street, which would be removed and replaced by four parallel parking

spaces just south of the businesses. Two parking spaces would remain at a small

parking lot near the building entrance. Businesses at 513 North Kankakee Street

include Brown’s Carpet Care, Brown’s Floor Covering, Brown’s Building

Maintenance, and Puro Clean. The existing parking is used by both employees and

customers.

· The four to six spaces in front of Milltown Market (508 North Kankakee Street)

would be removed. On-site parking and parking along Canal Street would remain.

3.4.1.3 Mitigation

During the construction period, coordination would occur between the contractor and

the railroads, wayside industries, local government and school officials, and the

Wilmington Fire Protection District to minimize construction period transportation

impacts. Additionally, to minimize disruption during construction and to compress the

construction period, North Kankakee Street would be closed to traffic at the crossing

during reconstruction of the approach. Traffic will be detoured to East Kankakee River

Drive and IL 53. Vehicle access would be maintained during construction to the

businesses on the east side of North Kankakee Street. Emergency vehicles with heights

less than 10 feet would use the Water Street underpass during construction. To maintain

access for the fire engines that require higher clearance, the crossing at East Kankakee

River Drive will be kept open while North Kankakee Street is closed to through traffic.

Access to businesses on the east side of North Kankakee Street would be maintained by

raising the driveways for those businesses to meet the higher elevation of North

Kankakee Street. In addition, an alternative access point would be provided from the

north end of Joliet Street.

Four parallel parking spaces along the east side of North Kankakee Street would be built

across from Milltown Market and just south of the businesses on the east side of North

Kankakee Street.

3.4.2 Community and Land Use

This section is amended to reflect the community and land use impacts of the improved

approach to the North Kankakee Street grade crossing. This includes amending the

existing conditions discussion in Section 3.4.2.1 beginning on page 3-69 to include the

list of businesses and residences along North Kankakee Street. Section 3.4.2.2 on
Kankakee River Bridge 3-18 Supplemental EA

potential impacts beginning on page 3-70 is amended with a revised Table 3-17, a

revised discussion on residential and business relocations, community service and

facility impacts, and reference to visual changes associated with the improved North

Kankakee Street grade crossing approach. Section 3.4.2.3 on mitigation on page 3-74

also is amended.

The Build Alternative would involve the acquisition of approximately 4.35 acres of

additional railroad ROW, 1.08 acres of temporary easements, and 8.97 acres isolated by a

private crossing closure (Albany Street) and generally would not result in a notable

change to the surrounding community and existing land use. This is an increase of 0.27

acre of railroad ROW and a decrease of 0.74 acre of temporary construction easements

from the August 2015 EA. In August 2015 EA, the closure of the Albany Street crossing

was assessed as a possibility. The closure is now included in the Build Alternative,

leaving the 8.97-acre property served by the crossing without access to a public road;

thus necessitating the property’s purchase. Primary community impacts include visual

changes along the North Kankakee Street approach and at the neighborhood west of the

UPRR between East Kankakee River Drive and Stewart Street (see Section 3.1.6.2), as

well as changes to vehicular access and public parking along North Kankakee Street (see

Section 3.4.1.2).

3.4.2.1 Existing Conditions

Along the central portion of the Project study area, the Wilmington central business

district is to the south and industrial operations are to the north. Businesses along the

North Kankakee Street approach (the block between Canal Street and UPRR) include

Milltown Market (an antique mall and self-storage units at 508 North Kankakee Street),

Brown’s Carpet Care, Brown’s Floor Covering, Brown’s Building Maintenance, and Puro

Clean (all at 513 North Kankakee Street), and Wilmington Overhead Door (515 North

Kankakee Street). One residence also is on this block at the corner of Canal Street and

North Kankakee Street. Additional residences are located further south of Canal Street

along the east and west sides of North Kankakee Street.

3.4.2.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not affect the Wilmington community or its land use.

As shown in Table 3-17, the Build Alternative would involve the acquisition of

approximately 4.35 acres of additional ROW and 1.08 acres of temporary easements.

This is an increase of 0.27 acre of railroad ROW and a decrease or 0.74 acre of temporary

construction easements from the August 2015 EA.

The closure of the Albany Street private crossing will leave the 8.97-acre residential

property with one home that is currently served by the crossing without access to a

public road; thus necessitating the property’s purchase.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-19 Supplemental EA

Table 3-17. New ROW and Temporary Construction Easements

Land Use Residential Industrial Commercial Total

ROW

(acres, %) 1.96 (45%) 2.23 (51%) 0.16 (4%) 4.35

Temporary

Easement

(acres, %)

0.76 (70%) 0.31 (29%) 0.01 (1%) 1.08

Residential and Business Relocations

No residential or business relocations would occur with the No Build Alternative. One

residential relocation would occur with the Build Alternative as a result of the Albany

Street crossing closure. The residential property served by the crossing would no longer

have access to a public road and the entire property would be acquired. No business

relocations would occur with either the No Build or Build Alternative. One self-storage

shed containing 5 storage units at the Milltown Market property would be displaced in

association with changes in access to North Kankakee Street. Direct driveway access

would be removed and a cul-de-sac would be built to allow vehicles to turn around on

the business’ property and return to the remaining Canal Street access point.

Coordination with the property owners has started and impacts are being considered in

the ROW acquisition process.

ROW and temporary construction easement purchases would be conducted in

compliance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act

of 1970 (Uniform Relocation Act) (42 USC Sections § 4601 et seq.), as amended, and the

USDOT implementing regulations, 49 CFR part 24. The Uniform Relocation Act applies

to all federal or federally assisted activities that involve the acquisition of real property

or the displacement of residences or business. The Uniform Relocation Act would be

followed to allow for fair compensation and relocation of the household displaced.

There is sufficient replacement housing in the Wilmington area (U.S. Census, 2010-2014

American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates).

Community Service and Facility Impacts

There would be no displacement or other direct impacts to City of Wilmington

community services or facilities with either the No-Build or Build Alternatives.

There would be no alteration to traffic patterns along the existing street grid, except for

short-term temporary closures during construction; impacts to these services and

facilities would be minimal. In some cases, temporary diversion of traffic to adjacent

crossings would be required, affecting emergency services, schools, businesses, and

other local activities requiring vehicular movement across the tracks (see Section 3.4.1.2
Kankakee River Bridge 3-20 Supplemental EA

under “Vehicular Traffic”). Construction closure would be longest at the North

Kankakee Street crossing because a notable improvement is being made to the approach

in addition to improving crossing protection devices. North Kankakee Street is the City’s

preferred route to respond to emergencies at the north side of Wilmington. North

Kankakee Street traffic would be detoured to East Kankakee River Drive and IL 53.

Vehicle access would be maintained during construction to the businesses on the east

side of North Kankakee Street. Emergency vehicles with heights less than 10 feet could

use the Water Street underpass during construction. To maintain access for the fire

engines that require higher clearance, the crossing at East Kankakee River Drive would

be kept open while North Kankakee Street is closed to through traffic.

Other Community Impacts

At the North Kankakee Street grade crossing approach, views of the existing roadway

would be altered to include views of new retaining walls along the street. Businesses

and a single residence would be affected. On the west side of North Kankakee Street, a

raised North Kankakee Street would be approximately 6.5 feet high at the business

entrance. The customer entrance would be obscured from drive-by view.

3.4.2.3 Mitigation

Permanent property and temporary construction easement purchases, including the selfstorage sheds at the Milltown Market property and the residential relocation, would be

conducted in compliance with the Uniform Relocation Act. Mitigation measures are

currently being coordinated with property owners to mitigate impacts to residences or

businesses.

Mitigation, in the form of detours, would be provided when at-grade crossings are

closed during construction (see Section 3.4.1.3 of this Supplemental EA and the August

2015 EA [page 3-69]). Mitigation, associated with noise and vibration impacts, is

described in Section 3.1.4.1 of the August 2015 EA under “Noise Impact Abatement

Measures” (page 3-22) and in Section 3.1.4.2 of the August 2015 EA under “Vibration

Mitigation” (page 3-26).

3.4.3 Demographics

This section is unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

3.4.4 Economics and Employment

This section is revised from the August 2015 EA to include impacts on businesses along

the improved North Kankakee Street grade crossing approach, including Section 3.4.4.2

on potential impacts and 3.4.4.3 on mitigation.

The top three major employment industries in the City of Wilmington and Will County

are educational services, health care, and social assistance (grouped together), retail

trade, and manufacturing. The No-Build Alternative would not impact employers or

industries as there would be no change to the existing conditions. With the Build
Kankakee River Bridge 3-21 Supplemental EA

Alternative, businesses along the North Kankakee Street approach, between Canal Street

and UPRR, would have reduced visibility and several business parking spaces would be

displaced. One self-storage shed containing 5 storage units at the Milltown Market

property would be removed to create a cul-de-sac on the property. A cul-de-sac would

be built to allow vehicles to turn around on the business’ property and return to the

remaining Canal Street access point to the property. No other businesses or business

parking would be displaced by the Build Alternative.

3.4.4.2 Potential Impacts

As discussed in Section 3.4.1.2, the businesses at 513 North Kankakee Street have four

perpendicular parking spaces along the street, which would be displaced. Two parking

spaces would remain at a small parking lot near the building entrance. Businesses at 513

North Kankakee Street include Brown’s Carpet Care, Brown’s Floor Covering, Brown’s

Building Maintenance, and Puro Clean. The existing parking is used by both employees

and customers. The four to six spaces in front of Milltown Market (508 North Kankakee

Street) would be removed. On-site parking and parking along Canal Street would

remain.

One self-storage shed containing five self-storage units would be removed on the

Milltown property. In addition to the displacement of parking spaces and the selfstorage units, the businesses along the North Kankakee Street approach also would have

reduced visibility, as described in Section 3.1.6.2.

No additional businesses or access to parking would be displaced by the Build

Alternative. The Build Alternative would create construction jobs.

3.4.4.3 Mitigation

As indicated in Section 3.4.1.2 under “Public Parking,” four parallel parking spaces

along the east side of North Kankakee Street would be built across from Milltown

Market and just south of the businesses on the east side of North Kankakee Street.

As indicated in Section 3.4.2.2, ROW and temporary construction easement purchases,

including the self-storage sheds at Milltown Market property, would be conducted in

compliance with Uniform Relocation Act.

Mitigation measures for businesses could include improved signage.

3.4.5 Environmental Justice and Title VI

This section is unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

3.4.6 Barriers and Accessibility

Section 3.4.6.2 on page 3-83 of the August 2015 EA regarding potential impacts is

amended as follows to acknowledge the planned addition of ADA compliant sidewalk

ramps at Canal Street: Grade crossing improvements at North Kankakee Street would
Kankakee River Bridge 3-22 Supplemental EA

meet the requirements of ADA and would be extended to connect to the sidewalk

crossing on the north side of Chicago Street. ADA compliant sidewalk ramps will be

provided at all four corners of intersection at Canal Street.

3.4.7 Public Health and Safety

Section 3.4.7.3 beginning on page 3-85 of the August 2015 EA is amended to include

additional construction mitigation measures.

3.4.7.3 Mitigation

Measures would be taken during the construction phase to coordinate with the City of

Wilmington and emergency service providers to minimize the effects of railroad

crossing improvement construction on emergency vehicle travel. To minimize

disruption during construction and to compress the construction time period, North

Kankakee Street would be closed to traffic at the crossing during reconstruction of the

approach. Traffic will be detoured to East Kankakee River Drive and IL 53. Vehicle

access would be maintained during construction to the businesses on the east side of

North Kankakee Street. Emergency vehicles with heights less than 10 feet would use the

Water Street underpass during construction. To maintain access for the fire engines that

require higher clearance, the crossing at East Kankakee River Drive will be kept open

while North Kankakee Street is closed to through traffic.

3.4.8 Hazardous Materials and Waste

Section 3.4.8.1 on existing conditions (beginning on page 3-86 of the August 2015 EA) is

amended to add clarification of potential contamination risks at REC sites. Section

3.4.8.2 on potential impacts (beginning on page 3-88 of the August 2015 EA) is amended

with a revised Table 3-24 with updated ROW and easement acreages. Section 3.4.8.3 on

mitigation (beginning on page 3-89 of the August 2015 EA) is amended with new

mitigation measures for the demolition of a structure used as storage units, to address

worker and environmental safety during construction. Nineteen sites with potential

hazardous materials potentially affecting the Project study area were identified and are

shown in an updated Exhibit 3-11.

3.4.8.1 Existing Conditions

The PESA identified 19 sites with RECs out of 26 potential contamination sites in the

project area. Potential contamination risk was screened by considering sites that were

proposed as new ROW or easements, or were associated with existing railroad use. Five

sites were identified as having potential contamination risk to the UPRR within

proposed ROW; six sites were identified as having potential contamination risk to the

UPRR within both proposed ROW and construction easement, and three sites were

identified as RECs within the existing UPRR ROW. Therefore, potential contamination

risk is at 14 sites out of the 19 REC sites identified for the Kankakee River Bridge and

Track Improvements project because of use by proposed ROW, proposed easement, or

existing UPRR.
Site 5

Site 4

Site 2

Site 1

Site 6

Site 7

Site 9

Site 15

Site 14

Site 13 Site 11

Site 16

Site 19

Site 21

Site 25

Site 26

Site 24

Site 23

Site 22

Site 3

Site 8

Site 10

Site 12

Site 18

Site 20

Site 17

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus

DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and

the GIS User Community

±

Date: 02/04/2015

3 -11

POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Exhibit

SITES

0 0.25 0.5 Miles

Legend

Project Study Area

Union Pacific Railroad

Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC)

de minimis conditions

No REC or de minimis
Kankakee River Bridge 3-24 Supplemental EA

Table 3-24. Potential REC Impacts

Site

ID # MP

Side

of

Track

Acres Potentially

Impacted

(Approximate)

Reason for Potential

Impact

1 51.88 to 53.20 N/A 27.20 UPRR Existing ROW

2 51.84 to 51.88 N/A 0.54 UPRR Existing ROW

4 51.88 to 51.93 East 0.18 Proposed ROW

5 51.94 to 52.20 East 1.14 Proposed ROW

6 51.93 to 52.48 West 1.20 (0.92 ROW and

 0.28 Easement)1

Proposed ROW and

Construction Easement

7 52.20 to 52.33 East 0.44 Proposed ROW

9 52.47 to 52.52 East 0.27 (0.04 ROW and 0.23

Easement)1

Proposed ROW and

Construction Easement

11 52.53 to 52.57 East 0.17 (0.16 ROW and 0.01

Easement)1

Proposed ROW and

Construction Easement

13 52.59 to 52.63 East 0

1 N/A

14 52.56 to 52.63 West 0 N/A

15 52.65 to 52.69 West 0.10 (0.04 ROW and 0.06

Easement)1

Proposed ROW and

Construction Easement

16 52.65 to 52.69 East 0.43 (0.26 ROW and 0.17

Easement)1

Proposed ROW and

Construction Easement

19 52.77 to 52.81 East 0.181 Proposed ROW

21 53.02 to 53.17 West 0.14 (0.11 ROW and 0.03

Easement)1

Proposed ROW and

Construction Easement

22 53.04 to 53.11 East 0 N/A

23 53.13 to 53.19 East 0 N/A

24 53.19 to 53.21 East 0 N/A

25 53.17 to 53.19 West 0.08 Proposed ROW

26 53.18 to 53.22 N/A 0.77 UPRR Existing ROW

Total 32.84

1 Change from August 2015 EA. The total area potentially impacted rose 0.50 acre from

32.34 acres in the August 2015 EA to 32.84 acres.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-25 Supplemental EA

3.4.8.2 Potential Impacts

Table 3-24 indicates the REC sites identified in the Project study area and the potential

impacts resulting from construction of the Build Alternative. The total potentially

impacted area increased 0.50 acre from 32.34 acres in the August 2015 EA to 32.84 acres.

The No-Build Alternative would not impact these sites.

3.4.8.3 Mitigation

Special waste issues that may arise in the construction phase would be managed in

accordance with Union Pacific Railroad Hazardous Material Procedures. Prior to

earthwork operations, a decision will be made by UPRR, in accordance with their

Hazardous Materials Procedures on how specifically to address the potential

contamination at the 14 sites. It would be either disposal/handling by risk management,

or by environmental testing and development of a disposal/handling program based on

testing results.

Accidental spills of hazardous materials and wastes during construction or operation of

the transportation system require special response measures. Occurrences would be

handled in accordance with local government response procedures of the City of

Wilmington and Wilmington Fire Protection District. Refueling, storage of fuels, or

maintenance of construction equipment would not be allowed within 100 feet of

wetlands or water bodies to avoid accidental spills impacting these resource. The UPRR

has and the contractor would have an Emergency Response Plan that would be used

during Project construction.

Three structures are proposed for displacement as part of the Build Alternative, a selfstorage facility storage building, a residence, and an out-building associated with the

residence. (See the discussion of residential and business relocations inSection 3.4.2.2)

None of these building are listed on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of

Historic Places (NRHP). Section 3.5 of the August 2015 EA documents that there are no

architectural resources eligible for inclusion in NRHP within the proposed Project’s Area

of Potential Effect. Pre-demolition building surveys will be conducted prior to the

building demolition to ensure proper abatement (including appropriate regulatory

notifications in accordance with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP) of Asbestos-containing material (ACM) and lead based paint

(LBP) is completed and to help limit the volume of materials that would need to be

removed and placed in permitted landfills. Because of the commercial use of the selfstorage structure, identified as part of REC Site 11, LBP in particular, which has not been

banned for industrial use, may be present. The presence or absence of ACM or LBP

would be determined during pre-demolition building surveys. In the event of any

future design changes that require additional building demolitions, pre-demolition

surveys will be completed for those structures, too.

To ensure worker and environmental safety during construction, UPRR will

communicate known site hazards and/or risk management procedures with construction
Kankakee River Bridge 3-26 Supplemental EA

contractors during pre-construction meetings. The communication would include

emergency notifications to make and contacts in the event that an unforeseen

environmental condition is encountered. Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) guidelines will be followed for Personal Protective Equipment.

Dust control BMPs will be followed to reduce the exposure of potential contaminants.

3.5 Cultural Resources

This section is unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

3.6 Construction Impacts and Mitigation

Sections 3.6.1, 3.6.3, 3.6.4 and 3.6.5 are unchanged from the August 2015 EA. Section

3.6.2 on air quality (page 3-92 of the August 2015 EA) is amended to include findings of

additional construction emission analysis. Section 3.6.6 on invasive species (beginning

on page 3-93 of the August 2015 EA) is amended to add a specific mitigation measure

related to the introduction of invasive species during construction.

3.6.2 Air Quality

Construction air quality impacts are temporary in nature and localized to the area of

construction. As a rule, short-term construction (shorter than three years) on small

projects does not warrant a detailed air quality analysis. Construction of the proposed

Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements project is estimated to take 18 months

to two years. However, in 2016 the Build Alternative would be constructed

simultaneously with three other HSR Program projects in the Chicago-Gary-Lake

County, IL-IN Ozone Non-Attainment and PM2.5 maintenance area. This consideration

led to conducting an analysis to estimate emissions from construction of the combined

projects. The findings of this analysis are addressed in Section 3.1.1.3 under

“Construction Impacts.” It was found that emissions from the projects together would

be below the General Conformity de minimis thresholds.

The project construction would follow applicable State and local regulations regarding

dust control and other air quality emission reduction control measures, including

reducing GHG by following energy saving strategies. In addition, BMPs would be

utilized prior to, during, and after construction for dust suppression. Control measures

would be specified in contractor contracts.

GHG emissions also would be generated during the construction phase of the Build

Alternative. The total CO2 emissions of HSR Program construction in 2016 within Will

and Cook counties would be 4,155.9 tons, of which 2,269.0 tons would be associated

with the Build Alternative. However, these emissions are considered minor given the

limited duration of the construction activities, and would be eventually offset by the

reduction in GHG emissions by the mode shift from automobiles to passenger rail.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-27 Supplemental EA

3.6.6 Invasive Species

Specific measures to avoid and minimize introducing invasive species into the project

area will be included in construction contractor contracts.

3.7 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts

Section 3.7 is unchanged from the August 2015 EA except for a clarification on future

train growth impacts at crossings and to update the discussion of cumulative impacts on

threatened and endangered species to reflect the cumulative impacts finding in the BA

prepared for consultation under the Endangered Species Act.

3.7.2 Cumulative Impacts

3.7.2.1 Impact Causing Activities

The second bullet under future activities on page 3-98 is revised to read:

- Freight train growth from five daily trains to 11. Because the tracks in

Wilmington are considered mainline tracks, UPRR standard operation typically

does not stop trains on the mainline unless it is an emergency, hence freight train

growth would increase only the number of times the gates go down. There

would not be freight trains stopped at crossings for extended periods of time.

3.7.2.2 Potential Cumulative Impacts

Threatened and Endangered Species

A cumulative impact assessment for the Threatened and Endangered Specis is included

in the final informal Biological Assessment (BA), which was submitted to USFWS for all

listed species in Will County on February 3, 2016. The BA concluded the cumulative

impacts to the two federally endangered species in the project area, the sheepnose mussel

and the northern long-eared bad, are negligable.

3.8 Permits

This section is unchanged from the August 2015 EA.

3.9 Environmental Commitments

This section is amended from the August 2015 EA to include mitigation measures as it

relates to construction vehicle emissions, threatened and endangered species, demolition

of one structure, and worker and environmental safety during construction. The revised

list is presented in its entirety.

The following environmental commitments would be fulfilled in association with the

design, construction, and/or operation of the Build Alternative:
Kankakee River Bridge 3-28 Supplemental EA

· Air Quality

1. The project construction would follow applicable State and local regulations

regarding dust control and other air quality emission reduction control

measures, including reducing GHG, by following energy saving strategies. In

addition, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be utilized prior to, during,

and after construction for dust suppression. Control measures would be

specified in contractor contracts.

· Noise and Vibration

2. If the City of Wilmington wishes to designate a quiet zone after completion of the

Build Alternative’s grade crossing improvements, FRA would work with the

City of Wilmington, while also coordinating with the UPRR and Amtrak, so that

the Project study area becomes a quiet zone.

3. To minimize vibration impacts in the Build Alternative, UPRR and Amtrak

would use maintenance procedures such as regularly scheduled rail grinding,

wheel truing programs, vehicle reconditioning programs, and use of wheel flat

detectors.

· Aesthetic Environment and Scenic Resources

4. The UPRR ROW would be re-vegetated with a ground cover at the end of

construction, including the east and west sides of the UPRR ROW from East

Kankakee River Drive to Stewart Street.

5. For the North Kankakee Street crossing approach road improvements, during the

completion of construction plans and specifications, the UPRR’s Real Estate team

would continue to coordinate with City of Wilmington representatives and

landowners on measures to mitigate visual changes, particularly as it relates to

the exposed surface of retaining walls and replacement landscaping.

· Vegetation and Habitat

6. Temporary impacts would be mitigated by restoring the ground surface to the

pre-construction contour and planting exposed areas of soils with a cover crop.

7. Areas of temporary impact should be graded back to the original contour and

then seeded with modified IDOT Class 4 Native Grass mix. Perennial ryegrass

will not be included in the Class 4 mix. Seed will be planted according to Articles

250.05 and 250.06 of the IDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge

Construction (adopted 01-01-2012) or equivalent UPRR specifications.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-29 Supplemental EA

· Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

8. IDOT and UPRR would work to first avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands

locations during final design development to the extent practicable.

Unavoidable adverse wetland impacts would be subject to the applicable

replacement ratios specified in 17 IAC Part 1090.50 (c)(8). The replacement ratio

for unavoidable adverse impacts to wetlands with a Mean C value of four or

above would be 5.5:1.0. A bank site to be determined is proposed as the

compensation site for impacts requiring mitigation.

· Water Quality and Water Resources

9. Appropriate BMPs would be utilized prior to, during, and after construction as

part of the soil erosion and sediment control plan for the Build Alternative

included in the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP).

10. In the event that an unknown or undocumented well is encountered during

construction, the water well(s) identified would be properly capped and

abandoned. If the dwelling where the water well is located would remain after

construction is completed, the water well would be replaced or other suitable

alternative would be provided. The replacement water well, if necessary, would

be constructed such that susceptibility to surficial contamination is minimized,

for example, by constructing the well in a deeper aquifer.

· Threatened and Endangered Species

11. To minimize direct effects to the protected sheepnose mussel, all living

sheepnose mussel specimens found during a pre-construction mussel survey

would be removed from the impacted area and relocated. Live individuals

would be relocated into suitable habitat, preferably upstream of the construction

area. Prior to the relocation efforts, malacologists would work with IDNR and

USFWS to develop protocols in the handling, transport, and relocation of any

living sheepnose mussels, if found.

12. BMPs also would be implemented by UPRR contractors in proximity to the

bridge over the Kankakee River, as well as in proximity to tributaries of the

Kankakee River, to minimize impacts to water quality. In-stream work in the

Kankakee River would be performed in accordance with USACE, Chicago

District – Regulatory Branch Requirements for In-stream Construction

Activities. To the extent practicable, this may include the use of non-erodible

cofferdams, filtering of dewatering operations, timber/work mats and the use of

low ground-pressure equipment for work in wetlands.

13. To minimize impacts to the northern long-eared bat habitat, efforts would be

made to reduce the number of roost trees removed, as well as conducting tree
Kankakee River Bridge 3-30 Supplemental EA

removal activities between October 15 and March 31 from areas of potential

summer bat habitat. Additional surveys to determine if bats are present would

occur if tree removal is required outside of this time frame. Impacts to trees

would be quantified and mitigated by IDOT and this information coordinated

with IDOT BDE and USFWS prior to construction.

14. Nine acres of preservation of habitat for the northern long-eared bat also will be

used as northern long-eared bat mitigation. A site in the Wilmington area is

under consideration. IDOT will coordinate the preservation site with the

USFWS. The site will be secured via acquisition or through conservation

easement on land that will continue to be privately held and for which IDOT will

be responsible for identifying the owning/managing entity. Land that is used for

mitigation will be protected in perpetuity. IDOT will perform a two year

northern long-eared bat monitoring program at the mitigation site in years 1 and

3. Monitoring will take place two nights with two nets for a total of four mist net

nights. Mist nets would be set up across Forked Creek if possible, otherwise

IDOT will locate a suitable netting site within or as close to the mitigation site as

possible. IDOT will provide the monitoring plan for USFWS approval and

review. Reports will be provided to the USFWS following years 1 and 3 during

the monitoring period for the habitat preservation site documenting conditions

and results of the northern long-eared bat surveys. Monitoring details will be

coordinated with the USFWS.

15. Mitigation related to the purple wartyback, black sandshell, pallid shiner,

western sand darter, and river redhorse is subject to the completion of on-going

Incidental Take Authorization. To minimize direct impacts to listed mussels, all

living specimens found would be removed prior to construction. Appropriate

BMPs, including cofferdams and silt curtains, would minimize impacts to these

species. Turbidity monitoring will occur during certain construction activities

during the fish spawning period of March 15 to July 15 to reduce impacts to

state-listed fish. Worker awareness training will be provided by a qualified

environmental professional contracted by UPRR to help minimize and avoid

impacts.

· Community and Land Use / Public Health and Safety

16. During the construction period, coordination would occur between the

contractor and the railroads, wayside industries, the City of Wilmington, the

Wilmington Fire Protection District, and school officials, to minimize

construction period transportation impacts, such as access restrictions or detours

during improvement of at-grade crossings and modifications to the industrial

spur line. The Chicago to St. Louis HSR program website would be used to

announce to the public at-grade railroad crossing closures during the

construction period.
Kankakee River Bridge 3-31 Supplemental EA

· Hazardous Materials and Waste

17. Special waste issues that may arise in the construction phase would be managed

in accordance with Union Pacific Railroad Hazardous Material Procedures. Prior

to start of earthwork operations, a decision will be made by UPRR, in accordance

with their Hazardous Materials Procedures on how specifically to address the

potential contamination at the 14 sites. It would be either disposal/handling by

risk management, or by environmental testing and development of a

disposal/handling program based on testing results.

18. Accidental spills of hazardous materials and wastes during construction or

operation of the transportation system require special response measures.

Occurrences would be handled in accordance with local government response

procedures. Refueling, storage of fuels, or maintenance of construction

equipment would not be allowed within 100 feet of wetlands or water bodies to

avoid accidental spills impacting these resource. The UPRR has and the

contractor would have an Emergency Response Plan that would be used during

Project construction.

19. Pre-demolition building surveys will be conducted prior to building demolition

associated with the Project to ensure proper abatement of ACM and LBP is

completed, and to help limit the volume of materials that would need to be

removed and placed in permitted landfills.

20. To ensure worker and environmental safety during construction, UPRR will

communicate known site hazards and/or risk management procedures with

construction contractors during pre-construction meetings. The communication

would include emergency notifications to make and contacts in the event that an

unforeseen environmental condition is encountered. Occupational Safety and

Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines will be followed for Personal

Protective Equipment. Dust control BMPs will be followed to reduce the

exposure to potential contaminants.
Kankakee River Bridge 4-1 Supplemental EA

4.0 Coordination and Consultation

Section 4.1 on agency coordination is amended from the August 2015 EA to include BA

coordination and concurrence with USFWS and coordination meetings with the City of

Wilmington. Section 4.2 Public Meetings is amended to include the future public

meeting to be held concurrent with the issuance of this Supplemental EA.

4.1 Agency Coordination

Bullet two of the list of meetings held with environmental resource and regulatory

agencies in addition to the quarterly meetings presented beginning on page 4-1 of the

August 2015 EA is changed to read:

· Conference call with USFWS on October 24, 2014 to discuss potential threatened and

endangered species impacts with the proposed Project and the need for formal

consultation or conferencing. It was agreed that FRA would submit at BA to USFWS

with FRA’s findings on potential effects. The BA was submitted in January 2015.

USFWS provided comments on the BA in a letter dated February 2015. The letter

indicated agreement on determinations of No Effect included in the BA for most

species. The letter asked for more information related to impacts to the sheepnose

mussel and northern long-eared bat. A meeting was held with USFWS on March 9,

2015 to discuss USFWS comments. A follow-up meeting was held with the USFWS

on October 28 to further discuss USFWS comments. Agreement was reached on

revisions to be made prior to re-submission of the BA to USFWS. Subject to

USFWS’s review of the final BA, a biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to

Adversely Affect was tentatively agreed to for the sheepnose mussel and northern

long-eared bat.

The discussion of meetings with the City of Wilmington beginning on page 4-2 of the

August 2015 EA is amended to add meetings held regarding the North Kankakee Road

grade crossing approach improvements and the potential for a grade separation. To

date, there have been 16 meetings held with City of Wilmington representatives to

specifically address improvements to the North Kankakee Street at-grade crossing,

including consideration of grade separation options. Their dates, the focus of discussion

and understandings reached are:

· April 18, 2014: IDOT transmitted two concept options for North Kankakee Street

designs to the City of Wilmington.

· May 19, 2014: The City of Wilmington provided comments to IDOT on the two

concept options. The city found both concept options unacceptable.

· December 1, 2014: IDOT transmitted a new concept design at Water Street which

would allow for the closure of the North Kankakee Street crossing.
Kankakee River Bridge 4-2 Supplemental EA

· January 8, 2015: IDOT met with the City of Wilmington to discuss the Water Street

concept design. The city indicated that the North Kankakee Street crossing must

remain open and stated their preference for continuing to evaluate design

improvements at both North Kankakee Street and Water Street.

· February 16, 2015: IDOT transmitted a new design option for North Kankakee Street.

· February 27, 2015: IDOT and the HSR Program Management Team (PMT) met with

the City of Wilmington to discuss the North Kankakee Street design option

transmitted on February 16, 2015.

· March 17-23, 2015: IDOT completed the 60 percent design for the North Kankakee

Street crossing and transmitted the design option to the City of Wilmington.

· March 24, 2015: The City of Wilmington transmitted comments pertaining to

potential profile changes of Chicago and Canal Streets.

· June 24, 2015: UPRR transmitted 90 percent design of the North Kankakee Street

crossing option to the City of Wilmington.

· July 14, 2015: The City of Wilmington transmitted comments on the 90 percent

design of North Kankakee Street. The comments were pertaining to the location of

utilities, signage, and future meetings to discuss construction issues.

· July 16, 2015: The City of Wilmington transmitted additional comments on the 90

percent design of North Kankakee Street. The comments were pertaining to

construction issues, temporary crossing closure concerns, and use of an adjacent

property for staging.

· August 14, 2015: IDOT, UPRR and their consultants, and the HSR PMT met with the

City of Wilmington to discuss the North Kankakee Street design and remaining

issues related to construction, emergency access, contractor insurance, and public

outreach about construction. UPRR agreed to check on emergency vehicle turning

radii, material haul routes, and develop graphics for use in public presentations. The

City of Wilmington agreed to document their remaining comments in a letter to

IDOT.

· August 19, 2015: A public meeting was held in the City of Wilmington to present

project design.

· September 15, 2015: The City of Wilmington issued a resolution calling the EA for

the Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements project flawed in that it did not

include an assessment of the North Kankakee Street approach improvement. The

resolution asked that the crossing at North Kankakee Street be revised to provide for

a grade separation.
Kankakee River Bridge 4-3 Supplemental EA

· November 12, 2015: IDOT and the HSR PMT met with the City of Wilmington to

discuss the Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements project, including grade

separation options. The City of Wilmington felt strongly that the North Kankakee

Street crossing should remain open. Other items discussed at the meeting included

1) the process of applying for a quiet zone; 2) the length of time the gates would be

down; 3) the City of Wilmington’s concerns about ice jams in the river at the new

bridge; and 4) the planned bridge improvements at Water Street. An underpass

design concept at the North Kankakee Street was discussed. The HSR PMT

explained concerns about an underpass, which would be below the 50-year flood

level and require walls in front of businesses. The HSR PMT agreed to provide more

information on signal timing at the crossing, bridge clearance, and pier widths for

the Kankakee River bridge, North Kankakee Street underpass constraints, and

information about the spacing of grade crossings in Wilmington.

· December 8, 2015: IDOT and the HSR PMT met with the City of Wilmington to

follow up on the November 12, 2015 meeting. Discussions included the planned

Kankakee River bridge structure height that would contribute to minimizing the

potential for ice jams and construction staging of the bridge. Conceptual sketches for

an underpass at North Kankakee Street were presented and the City of Wilmington

concurred that the underpass alternative would not be desirable because of potential

frequent flooding. The City agreed that the grade separation or closing North

Kankakee Street would not be preferred. The City Fire Department requested the

Water Street bridge improvements design be reviewed to determine if increasing the

bridge vertical clearance would be feasible. The HSR PMT agreed to provide the

upcoming public meeting materials to the City of Wilmington for review and an

update of the UPRR real estate team discussions with Kankakee Street business

owners.

Copies of the 2011 EA, 2012 Tier 1 FEIS/ROD, and the August 2015 EA for this project

were sent to City of Wilmington officials for comment during their comment periods.

Agencies and local governments listed in Chapter 5.0 will be provided a copy of this

Supplemental EA with a request that comments be received within 30 days. Comments

received and responses will be incorporated in a Finding of No Significant Impact. If the

outcome of considering agency and public is that the Build Alternative would cause

significant environmental impacts, responses to EA comments would be included in a

Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

4.2 Public Meetings

The list of public meetings to which citizens of the City of Wilmington could attend that

began on page 4-3 of the August 2015 EA is amended to add the public meetings held to

discuss the August 2015 EA:
Kankakee River Bridge 4-4 Supplemental EA

· A public meeting was held August 27, 2015 on the August 2015 EA for the Kankakee

River Bridge and Track Improvements project. A public review copy of the Draft EA

was placed in the Wilmington Public Library. Original written comments received

on the EA are included in Appendix C. Written comments and responses to those

comments are included in Appendix D.

· An additional Public Meeting will be scheduled for the proposed Project. The

availability of this Supplemental EA for public review at the City of Wilmington

library will coincide with the announcement of the Public Meeting purpose, format,

and date and time. The Public Meeting announcement also will include a request for

additional written comments on the EA and this Supplemental EA. Comments

generated from this meeting and written comments submitted would be

incorporated in a Finding of No Significant Impact, including responses to

comments made. If the outcome of considering agency and public comments is that

this proposed Project would cause significant environmental impacts, responses to

Supplemental EA comments would be included in a Draft Environmental Impact

Statement, which would be made available for public comment and a public hearing

held.
Kankakee River Bridge 5-1 Supplemental EA

5.0 Distribution List

The Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements Supplemental EA is being

distributed to the following federal, regional, state, and local agencies and other

interested parties for their review and comments. Those who commented on the August

2015 EA for the Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements project are indicated

with an asterisk.

5.1 Federal

· Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

· Department of the Army, Chicago District, Corps of Engineers

· Federal Emergency Management Agency

· Federal Highway Administration

· U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service – Will-South

Cook County

· U.S. Department of Commerce

· U.S. Department of Energy

· U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

· U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

· U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Chicago Field Office*

· U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

· U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Office of Environmental Review*

· U.S. Senator Richard J. Durbin

· U.S. Senator Mark Kirk

· U.S. Representative Adam Kinzinger, District No. 16

5.2 State

· Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

· Illinois Bureau of the Budget

· Illinois Commerce Commission

· Illinois Department of Agriculture

· Illinois Department of Natural Resources

· Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Mines and Minerals

· Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Water Resources

· Illinois Department of Public Health

· Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics

· Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Highways

· Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

· Illinois Geological Survey

· Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

· Illinois Natural History Survey
Kankakee River Bridge 5-2 Supplemental EA

· Illinois Nature Preserves Commission

· Illinois State Clearinghouse

· Illinois State Library

· Illinois Water Survey

5.3 County

Will County Planning and Zoning Commission

5.4 Local Communities and Jurisdictions

City of Wilmington*

Wilmington Public Library

5.5 Other Agencies or Groups

· CREATE Program

· Illinois Farm Bureau

· Midewin Tallgrass Prairie Alliance*

· South Suburban Mayors and Managers Association

· United Counties Council of Illinois

· Will County Governmental League

5.6 Operating Railroads

· Amtrak

· Union Pacific Railroad
Kankakee River Bridge 6-1 Supplemental EA

6.0 References

The list of references from the August 2015 EA is amended to add the following:

ICF International, prepared for Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Chicago

2010 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. May 2012.

Illinois Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge

Construction, January 2012.

Nonroad Diesel Engines: Emission Standards, USA:

https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php, December 2015.

Shrouds, J.M., AASHTO report: Air Quality Community of Practice, Short Term Impacts from

Construction Equipment and Operation, State-of-the Practice, March 2010.
Appendix C 

Public and Agency Comments 

on August 2015 EA 
Kankakee River Bridge C‐1 Environmental Assessment Addendum 

Appendix C 

Public and Agency Comments on 

August 2015 EA 

CITIZEN COMMENTS ........................................................................................................... C-2 

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ...................................................................................................... C-10 

Wilmington Township Representative.................................................................. C‐10

City of Wilmington.................................................................................................... C‐11

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS – 

MIDEWIN TALLGRASS PRAIRIE ALLIANCE ............................................................... C-15 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

US Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service................................. C‐17

US Environmental Protection Agency ................................................................... C‐20

Supplemental EA
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8

C-10
C-11
C-12
RESOLUTION NO. 2015-10

A RESOLUTION ADDRESSING THE SHORTCOMINGS AND INACCURACIES IN 

THE TIER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL THROUGH 

THE CITY OF WILMINGTON 

and 

REQUESTING THAT ANY HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT MAINTAIN EMERGENCY 

PERSONNEL REPONSE TIME, ENSURE THE SAFETY OF PEDESTRIANS, MOTOR 

VEHICLE OCCUPANTS, AND RAIL PASSENGERS AND TO PRESERVE THE 

ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE CITY OF WILMINGTON 

 

WHEREAS, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and the U.S. Department 

of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has submitted a Tier 2 Environmental 

Assessment of the proposed Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements and have 

identified “The Build Alternative” as both agencies’ “Preferred Alternative” for the Wilmington 

area portion of the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Program; and 

WHEREAS, the City has reviewed said Environmental Assessment (EA) and has found 

that the EA fails to identify and address specific matters that would either require a grade 

separation or the “No Build” alternative; and 

WHEREAS, the EA fails to even address a grade separation which indicates that not all 

safety considerations were reviewed in advocating the “Build Alternative”; and 

WHEREAS, little, if any, in depth analysis or objective facts are demonstrated in the EA 

to establish that the “No Build” alternative would not further the plan for High Speed Rail; and 

WHEREAS, the “Build Alternative” is not consistent with the City of Wilmington’s 

planning goals as it does not include a high-speed rail station in Wilmington; and 

WHEREAS, the currently proposed construction plans involve elevating the railroad 

crossing with Kankakee Street to such an extent that businesses to the south of the crossing will 

lose their current access onto Kankakee Street (if they are able to stay in business) and in place 

thereof will have barricade walls installed posing fire and emergency hazards; and 

WHEREAS, the EA fails to address this issue and instead states that there would be no 

business impacts because of loss of parking or change in access; and 

WHEREAS, it is further planned to lower the speed limit over the crossing which is 

indicative of attempting to reduce a safety hazard caused by the high speed rail plans for this 

crossing and which lowered speed plan will reduce the effectiveness of the Kankakee Street 

thoroughfare; and 

WHEREAS, the City of Wilmington is effectively divided by the North/South Kankakee 

River and is also effectively divided by the East/West Union Pacific Railroad right of way; and 

C-13
WHEREAS, the City of Wilmington’s emergency responders are all located in the 

Southwest quadrant of the Kankakee River/UPRR division and the addition of the currently 

planned construction for high speed rail and additional train traffic will severely impact the 

timely provision of emergency aid to portions of the City and also increase the possibility of a 

blockage of travel through the crossing for emergency responders; and 

 . 

WHEREAS, the currently designed plans for the rail crossing at Kankakee Street can be 

revised to provide for a grade separation which will increase rail capacity and provide for 

uninterrupted flow, increased safety, enhanced emergency response time, and reduce if not 

eliminate vehicle-train conflict and delay. . 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of 

Wilmington, Will County, Illinois, that the City strongly supports a revision to the current high 

speed rail plans for the crossing at Kankakee Street so as to include a grade separation and in the 

absence thereof the City wholly supports a more thorough analysis by IDOT and FRA of the nobuild option for the present crossing. 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City 

Administrator are specially authorized in the name of the City of Wilmington to advocate for and 

advance the interests of the City and its residents as it relates to the rail crossing at Kankakee 

Street. 

 

PASSED this 15th day of September, 2015 with 8 members voting aye, 0 members voting 

nay, the Mayor N/A voting, with 0 members abstaining or passing and said vote being: 

John Persic, Jr. aye Kevin Kirwin aye 

Larry Hall aye Kirby Hall aye 

Fran Tutor aye Joe VanDuyne aye 

Steve Evans aye Frank Studer aye 

Approved this 15th day of September, 2015 

 

 

J. Marty Orr, Mayor 

Attest: 

Judith Radosevich, City Clerk 

C-14
9/7/2015 

Submitted via HSR Program website 

Gerald Heinrich 

Midewin Tallgrass Prairie Alliance 

1770 Vista Drive 

Wilmington, IL 60481 

815-476-6171 

g.heinrich@sbcglobal.net

PS # 3746 

CS # 9747 

The Kankakee River HSR Bridge (Wimington), as proposed, could contribute to and directly result in 

formation of ice jams that might affect the integrity of the HSR bridge itself and cause damage to local 

businesses and homes located near and along the the Kankakee River. 

Damaging Ice Jams have occurred in the past, and unless the bridge design is modified, the bridge 

/bridge piers will likely restrict the flow of ice and directly contribute to formation of damaging ice jams. 

Consider - a nuclear power plant currently diverts warm effluent into the Kankakee River, thus 

significantly reducing the probability of ice jams at at the proposed HSR Kankakee River Bridge. Upon 

closure of the nuclear power plant, discharge of warm effluent into the KKK River will cease, and the 

probability of damaging ice jams will re-occur. 

CS # 9748 

Regarding Tier 2 EA - Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements - August, 2015: 

If the Build Alternative is moved forward as proposed, the construction of a second bridge and track over the 

Kankakee River will allow for a significant increase in Amtrak Rail Passenger Service and UP Freight Service on the 

existing Union Pacific Rail Line that runs between Chicago and St. Louis. 

Per EA, a significant increase in rail traffic is anticipated as result of the construction of a double rail track over the 

Kankakee River and new rail sidings elsewhere. i.e. No second track(s), No increase in rail traffic. While not 

opposed to HSR and not opposed to improved Rail infrastructure, the installation of a second track over the 

Kankakee River and additional rail sidings would directly facilitate an increase in rail traffic on the Union Pacific 

Line between Chicago and St. Louis. 

An increase in rail traffic WILL result in far reaching negative impacts on a number of local businesses and homes, 

and have far reaching negative impacts on nearby 4(f) entities such as the USFS Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie 

and Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery. 

Per Section 3.7.1 of the noted EA, it is provided that "the program would result in negligible secondary impacts" 

and in Section 3.7.2 "would offer cumulative benefits". 

Please consider, nowhere in Section 3.7, i.e. particularly within Section 3.71 - Secondary Impacts, and/or within 

Section 3.72 - Cumulative Impacts are the negative impacts of increased rail traffic discussed as might affect 4(f) 

properties such as Midewin National Tall Grass Prairie, Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, the Kankakee River, 

and associated wildlife and endangered species. 

C-15
Please note: a significant increase in rail traffic (nearly doubling) should not be considered "insignificant". Nearby 

4(F) properties will significantly be affected if rail traffic is significantly increase. Also consider that the probability 

of a rail spill affecting the Kankakee River statistically doubles if the rail traffic is doubled. 

Subject to further review and study, a FONSI or "finding of no significant impact" is not appropriate. Before any 

build alternative is moved forward concerning defined improvements to the Kankakee River Rail Bridge, 

cumulative and secondary impacts as might affect nearby 4(f) properties need to be addressed and/or mitigated. 

C-16
United States Department of the Interior 

US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGION 3 

Chicago Ecological Services Field Office 

1250 S. Grove Suite103 

Barrington, IL 60010-5010

Phone: (847) 381-2253 Fax: (847) 381-2285

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

FWS/AES-CIFO 

September 29, 2015 

David Valenstein 

Chief, Environment and Corridor Planning 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Valenstein: 

This letter responds to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) and the Illinois Department 

of Transportation’s (IDOT) requests for comments on the Kankakee River Bridge and Track 

Improvements Tier 2 Environmental Assessment (EA). The proposed action is a portion of the 

Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail (HSR) Program approved by FRA under a Tier 1 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD), dated 2012. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) reviewed the information provided in your EA. 

With respect to those portions of the EA for which the Service has jurisdiction or special 

expertise, we offer the following comments and recommendations, which should be addressed in 

the Final EA. 

General Comments 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) [16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.] outlines the procedures 

for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve Federally listed species and designated critical 

habitats. Section 7(a)(1) directs all Federal agencies to utilize their authorities in furtherance of 

the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of species listed pursuant 

to the Act. Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal agency shall, in consultation with the 

Secretary of the Interior, insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical habitat. Federal agencies are required to determine whether 

their actions may affect listed or proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat. 

Once a “may affect” determination is made, the Federal agency must either request our 

concurrence with a “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” finding or request initiation of 

formal consultation. Both require a written analysis to be submitted to us. This analysis is 

C-17
2

typically transmitted in a document referred to as a Biological Assessment or Biological 

Evaluation. A Biological Assessment (BA) documents an agency’s conclusions regarding the 

effects of their proposed action on listed species, and the rationale to support those 

conclusions. FRA has developed a draft BA which is currently being revised in consultation 

with our office. The EA should be revised to be consistent with changes made in the Biological 

Assessment (BA). 

Train collisions with wildlife are only evaluated in this EA for the northern long-eared bat 

(Myotis septentrionalis). However, research (e.g., documentation and studies conducted for the 

EJ&E railway acquisition) has shown that train collisions occur with other species (i.e., besides 

listed species) on rail lines. An increase in train numbers and frequency could result in an 

increase in wildlife collisions. The EA should include information about wildlife collisions. 

Information could be obtained from studies completed for the EJ&E railway acquisition, 

authorized by the Surface Transportation Board, or other studies. 

Section 1.0 - Purpose and Need 

1.4 - Applicable Regulations 

The FRA should include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act to the list of applicable Federal laws found in the EA, especially since the natural 

resource sections discuss migratory birds (e.g., Section - 3.2.1 Vegetation and Habitat). 

Section 3.0 - Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation 

3.2 - Ecological Systems 

3.2.4 - Threatened and Endangered Species 

The EA should acknowledge that the BA is being finalized and that applicable conservation 

measures will be identified in the Final EA. FRA should consider adding a link to the BA in the 

Final EA. All final changes made to the BA, which revise information and commitments 

provided in the Draft EA, should be reflected in the Final EA. 

3.6 - Construction Impacts and Mitigation 

3.6.5 - Threatened and Endangered Species 

This section discusses mitigation to offset impacts to listed species. Mitigation for tree loss 

should be added to this section. The Final EA should be updated to reflect this conservation 

measure, which is currently being discussed with FRA. 

3.7 - Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 

3.7.1 - Secondary Impacts 

Section 3.7.1 indicates that, “the Build Alternative would not induce changes in development 

patterns or new development that would result in secondary impacts to community, cultural, and 

natural resources.” However, indirect impacts to mussel colonies, including impacts from 

siltation, sedimentation, and contaminants, are anticipated and described in Section 3.2.4 (on 

pages 3-58 and 3-59). Section 3.7.1 only acknowledges secondary and indirect impacts from new 

C-18
3

development and growth inducing effects. The Final EA should update this section to include 

the indirect impacts to listed species, listed in Section 3.2.4. 

3.7.2.2 Potential Cumulative Impacts 

The impact acreage area for the sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus) should be revised to reflect the 

acreage identified in the BA. 

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.), the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act (40 Stat. 755, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), and the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (54 Stat. 250, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 668-668d). 

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Shawn Cirton at 847/381-2253, ext. 19. 

Sincerely, 

 

 

 Louise Clemency 

 Field Supervisor 

cc: FRA, Andrea Martin 

 ACOE, Ron Abrant 

 USEPA, Jen Blonn 

 IDOT, John Oimoen, Tom Brooks 

 IDNR, Nathan Grider, Sheldon Fairfeild 

 

 

 

C-19
C-20

C-22

C-24

C-26

Appendix D 

Response to Public and 

Agency Comments on 

August 2015 EA 
Kankakee River Bridge D-1 Supplemental EA

Appendix D

Response to Public and Agency

Comments on August 2015 EA

D.1 Local Citizen and Government Comments

A public meeting was held on Thursday, August 27, 2015 at the Wilmington V.F.W, 557

West Baltimore Street, Wilmington, IL 60481. The meeting was held from 4:00 PM to 7:00

PM in an open house format with a live presentation at 5:30 PM; exhibit boards and

aerial maps for review; individual question/answer chats with team members; and the

opportunity to provide comments.

This public meeting was attended by 40 people. Seven comment forms were received.

One additional comment regarding the Environmental Assessment (EA) was submitted

via the Illinois High-Speed Rail (HSR) Program website. Local government officials and

members of the public made comments. A resolution with comments and supporting a

grade separation at North Kankakee Street was submitted by the City of Wilmington

City Council. The most prominent themes of the public and local government

comments included:

· Impacts on property and businesses of grade crossing improvements at North

Kankakee Street

· Consideration of a grade separation at North Kankakee Street

· Safety

· Noise

· Mitigation

Specific comments from citizens and local government representatives and responses

are presented below. Because citizens often had similar or identical comments, their

comments are organized by topic rather than by individual commenter so a complete

response to similar or identical comments can be provided in one place. The original

comment sheets and the City Council resolution are in included in Appendix C.

D.1.1 Citizen Comments

1. Comment: At the Kankakee Street crossing improvement, a wall in front of my

residence will significantly lower the property value of my house and I will be

unable to sell the property. We will no longer have privacy.

Response: The comments and concerns are noted. Additional impact assessment related

to grade crossing improvements is added in this document.
Kankakee River Bridge D-2 Supplemental EA

2. Comment: Businesses affected by the crossing improvement were contacted but

home owners in the 400 and 500 block were not directly contacted.

Response: The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require public

involvement of Environmental Assessments (EA) to the extent practicable. The

sponsoring agency (Federal Rail Administration) and Illinois Department of

Transportation (IDOT) follow a thorough public involvement process. The extent and

scale to which the process is followed is tailored to the specific project. Fourteen

coordination meetings were conducted with the City of Wilmington officials prior to the

August 27, 2015 public meeting starting in May 2014 to discuss the proposed

improvements and its potential impacts to the community. A general concurrence

amongst all parties was reached on the proposed improvements. Public meetings were

held in August 2015 to afford an opportunity for all interested parties to have direct

contact with study team members and an opportunity to comment on the proposed

project. Comments on the August 2015 EA led to additional meetings with City of

Wilmington officials on November 12, 2015 and December 8, 2015 since the release of the

August 2015 EA, and an additional public meeting is planned for early 2016 after the

release of this Supplemental EA.

3. Comment: Raising the grade crossing 6 feet will cause severe flooding from water

runoff. It already is 5 feet higher than my home and raising it 6 feet more will cause

severe flooding at homes on Kankakee Street because of water runoff. Will the rail

create flooding concerns along the rail line?

Response: The highest point in the grade crossing area would be approximately 3 feet

higher than today. However, the change in the slope at North Kankakee Street will not

create a flooding problem downhill from the grade crossing. The amount of impervious

area (e.g. pavement) is not changing so the amount of runoff will not increase. Catch

basins at the intersection of Canal Street and North Kankakee Street will be adjusted to

take into account changed patterns of water flow. Along the tracks the drainage design

will accommodate any changes in the quantity and pattern of runoff from the addition of

the second track.

4. Comment: The at-grade crossing at Kankakee Street should be replaced with a

grade separation. Another option would be to close Kankakee Street and rework the

grade separation serving Water Street/Chicago Street. The grade crossing is

dangerous now. A grade separation would be safer. A lot of pedestrians cross the

tracks, including children walking and on bikes. A grade separation would better

accommodate fire trucks and ambulances that need to cross the tracks.

Response: An assessment of grade separation options has been added to Section 2.2.5 of

this Supplemental EA. Grade separation options were discussed with the City of

Wilmington, including representatives of the police and fire departments, at meetings on

November 12, 2015 and December 8, 2015. The reasons why a grade separation was

found not to be a reasonable option are discussed in Section 2.2.5. Grade crossing

improvements at North Kankakee Street would include two pedestrian gates at the
Kankakee River Bridge D-3 Supplemental EA

sidewalk crossing on the east side of the North Kankakee Street. The pedestrian crossing

at North Kankakee Street also would include an escape walk and push gate.

5. Comment: The retaining wall associated with the change in the slope of Kankakee

Street leading from the Kankakee street grade crossing to Canal Street will decrease

the revenue of the Milltown Market, effecting tourism. Kankakee Street is

considered an historic district. In general, how many businesses will possibly be

hurt and put out of business?

Response: The impact of the retaining wall associated with the North Kankakee Street

grade crossing improvement is addressed in Section 3.1.6.2 of this Supplemental EA.

The North Kankakee Street area is not a designated Historic District by the Illinois

Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA). Concurrence was received from the State Historic

Preservation Office (SHPO) that there were no architectural resources eligible for

National Register consideration in the project’s Area of Potential Effect and that no

historic properties subject to protection under Section 106 of the National Historical

Preservation Act of 1966 would be affected by the project.

6. Comment: Additional high speed trains will shake houses and increase air

pollution.

Response: The concern is noted. Vibration impacts were assessed in Section 3.1.4.2 of

the EA. The ground-borne vibration analysis indicated that vibration impacts would

potentially occur with the Build Alternative at the two receptors that are within 100 feet

of the tracks. The assessment lists practices followed by the Union Pacific Railroad

(UPRR) and Amtrak to minimize vibration impacts. Air quality impacts were assessed

in Section 3.1.1 of the EA. The conclusion was that the Build Alternative would not

produce any significant air quality impacts along the UPRR right-of-way.

7. Comment: Trains are 125 feet from my home. Noise is currently a great problem.

Even if horns are not blown, the noise from freight trains last 2 to 3 minutes. The

noise is lowering my property value.

Response: The concern is noted. Noise impacts were assessed in Section 3.1.4.1 of the

EA. As indicated, the implementation of a quiet zone by the City of Wilmington once

grade crossing improvements are in place would result in Build Alternative noise levels

between 7 dB(A) and 10 dB(A) less than existing noise levels. A 7 dB(A) to a 10 dB(A)

decrease in noise levels is generally considered to range from a readily perceptible

decrease in noise (7 dBA) to being half as loud as the original noise level (10 dBA

decrease).

8. Comment: A new railroad right-of-way fence will be four feet from my driveway.

That is not a good thing for me.

Response: The concern is noted.

9. Comment: Does the City of Wilmington have any say on this project?
Kankakee River Bridge D-4 Supplemental EA

Response: Yes. A list of 14 meetings with the City of Wilmington held prior to the

release of the August 2015 EA and two additional meetings held prior to the release of

this Supplemental EA are presented in Section 4.1 of this Supplemental EA. The City of

Wilmington’s request in their comments on the August 2015 EA that grade separation

alternatives at North Kankakee Street be considered was discussed at the two additional

meetings and the merits of grade separation alternatives are discussed in Section 2.2.5 of

this Supplemental EA.

10. Comment: Will high speed rail help or hurt Wilmington? Wilmington residents are

concerned about the impact it will have on this small town.

Response: The primary potential benefits to the City of Wilmington are associated with

public safety, as discussed in Section 3.4.7 of the EA. As stated in that section, the Build

Alternative would include railroad right-of-way fencing on the west side of the tracks

adjacent to development in the East Kankakee River Drive area and from the development

in the Stewart Street area to Forked Creek. Fencing would be installed on both sides of

the railroad right-of-way from Forked Creek to the Kankakee River and from the Kankakee

River to the southern end of the Build Alternative at MP 53.19. Public at-grade

crossings would be upgraded to include four quadrant gates that make it difficult for

drivers to drive around the gates. Grade crossing improvements at North Kankakee

Street would include two pedestrian gates at the sidewalk crossing on the east side of the

North Kankakee Street. The pedestrian crossing at North Kankakee Street also would

include an escape walk and push gate. Improved gates and fencing will encourage

pedestrians crossing the tracks to do so safely. Improvements to North Kankakee Street

as it approaches the crossing will improve crossing safety by increasing sight distances

across the tracks. Improved sight distance will allow drivers to see motor vehicles,

pedestrians, bicyclists, and objects on the road on the other side of the crossing in time to

stop if needed to avoid a crash. Potential impacts of construction and operation of the

Build Alternative were discussed in the August 2015 EA and discussions have been

expanded in response to public and agency comments in this Supplemental EA.

D.1.2 Wilmington Township Representative Comment

1. Comment: Grade separate Kankakee Street.

Response: An assessment of grade separation options has been added as Section 2.2.5 of

this Supplemental EA. Grade separation options were discussed with the City of

Wilmington at meetings on November 12, 2015 and December 8, 2015. The reasons why

a grade separation was found not to be a reasonable option are discussed in Section 2.2.5.

2. Comment: This project should not have any negative impact on Wilmington.

Response: The commenter’s position is noted.

D.1.3 City of Wilmington Comments

1. Comment: The EA fails to identify and address specific matters that would either

require a grade separation or the No Build Alternative. The EA fails to even address
Kankakee River Bridge D-5 Supplemental EA

a grade separation which indicates that not all safety considerations were reviewed

in advocating the Build Alternative.

Response: The range of specific issues reflected in the remaining comments from the

City of Wilmington was discussed with City of Wilmington representatives, including

representatives of the police and fire departments, at meetings on November 12, 2015 and

December 8, 2015. The outcome of those discussions are taken into consideration in the

revisions to the EA in this Supplemental EA, including an assessment of grade

separation options in Section 2.2.5, and in the responses to more specific comments

below.

2. Comment: Little, if any, in depth analysis or objective facts are demonstrated in the

EA to establish that the No-Build Alternative would not further the plan for High

Speed Rail.

Response: When considering the merits of the No-Build Alternative it is important to

keep in mind the following characteristics of the No-Build Alternative:

· From the perspective of the number of freight trains operating in Wilmington, the

No-Build Alternative does not represent the status quo. Freight traffic is growing at

the Joliet Intermodal facility and in response to other market demands and growth is

expected to continue with or without the Illinois High-Speed Rail (HSR) Program.

Freight traffic can increase without a second track because freight trains do not have

to meet a daily timetable schedule with consistent on-time performance like passenger

trains. The UPRR can adjust freight movements to accommodate increased freight

demand on the current single track. The railroad tracks in and through Wilmington

are privately owned and the UPRR has the right to increase the number of freight

trains on those tracks.

· The existing North Kankakee Street crossing has very substandard and unsafe

stopping sight distances per IDOT and Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) design

criteria even with a single track. This substandard sight distance has nothing to do

with drivers seeing the gates coming down or with train growth. It is the sight

distance needed to see motor vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and objects on the road

on the other side of the crossing in time to stop if needed to avoid a crash. With the

No-Build Alternative, the substandard sight distance would not be improved.

· Finally, the current crossing has gates in only two quadrants. The Build Alternative

would have four-quadrant gates that would prevent motorists from driving around

lowered gates and would thus reduce the potential for motor vehicle/train collisions

now, as well as in the future. To minimize the chance that a motor vehicle can be

caught between the gates, gate warning lights begin to flash 5 seconds before the

gates begin to descend and an exit gate management system with a vehicle detection

system is used. Both the entrance and exit gates descend in tandem. If a vehicle is

detected within the crossing, the exit gates will cease lowering and begin to ascend.

Once the detection system verifies the crossing is unoccupied, the exit gates will

resume descending. In addition, Amtrak locomotives, which will be operating up to
Kankakee River Bridge D-6 Supplemental EA

110 mph, will have on-board computers. The on-board system will be in radio

communication with the grade crossings to advise the status of crossings even before

the point where the on-board system starts a crossing warning system (flashers and

gates). If the crossing gates are not working properly or if a vehicle is detected for

more than two minutes by the loop vehicle detector in the pavement area covered by

the gates, the on-board system will slow the train. Track curves on either side of the

North Kankakee Street crossing will limit passenger train speeds through the

crossing to 75 mph. The UPRR freights, which are limited to a maximum of 60 mph,

will still activate the gates as they do currently, with track circuits that detect the

presence of the train and start the crossing warning system.

The objectives of railroad improvements proposed between Chicago and St. Louis include:

· Reducing travel times and improving on-time performance between Chicago and

St. Louis for existing passenger trains, which would be accomplished by numerous

trackwork and grade crossing improvements.

· Improving grade crossing safety for motorists and pedestrians, including the

introduction of four quadrant gates and, where needed, improving motorist sight

distances.

· Adding eight additional passenger trains between Chicago and St. Louis that also

operate at lower than existing travel times and have a high level of on-time

performance.

Improvements to the Kankakee Street grade crossing and other crossings in the

Wilmington area are a part of meeting the first two objectives.

The second track of the Build Alternative for the Kankakee River Bridge and Track

Improvements Project will make a contribution to meeting the third objective. Unlike

freight trains, passenger trains must follow a published daily schedule. In addition, their

operation cannot be at the cost of interfering with the freight business of the host freight

railroad. A single track between Chicago and St. Louis does not have the capacity to

handle eight additional passenger trains at a high level of performance without

interfering with the UPRR freight business.

3. Comment: The Build Alternative is not consistent with the City of Wilmington’s

planning goals as it does not include a high-speed rail station in Wilmington.

Response: Section 3.4.2.1 of the EA acknowledges that the City of Wilmington would

like a HSR station, and that a passenger rail station does not currently exist in

Wilmington. However, in accordance to the FRA funding grant agreement with IDOT

on the HSR program, the approved statement of work specifically references the

municipalities designated to receive station upgrades and the City of Wilmington is not

designated as one of the locations.
Kankakee River Bridge D-7 Supplemental EA

4. Comment: The currently proposed construction plans involve elevating the railroad

crossing with Kankakee Street to such an extent that businesses to the south of the

crossing will lose their current access onto Kankakee Street (if they are able to stay in

business) and in place thereof will have barricade walls installed posing fire and

emergency hazards. The EA fails to address this issue and instead states that there

would be no business impacts because of loss of parking or change in access.

Response: The city is correct in that the impacts of the North Kankakee Street grade

crossing approach improvement should have been presented in the EA alongside the

impacts of the Kankakee River bridge, the second track and other trackwork

improvements, and grade crossing protection improvements. This Supplemental EA

assesses those impacts in amendments to Chapter 3, including the impact on businesses.

5. Comment: It is planned to lower the speed limit over the crossing which is

indicative of attempting to reduce a safety hazard caused by the high speed rail

plans for this crossing and which lowered speed plan will reduce the effectiveness of

the Kankakee Street thoroughfare.

Response: Lowering the speed limit over the crossing to 20 mph is unrelated to drivers

seeing the gates coming down or high-speed rail plans. The speed limit proposed for the

improved approach is appropriate for driver sight distance from one side of the crossing to

the other with the approach improvement. Drivers crossing the grade crossing at a faster

speed might not have time to stop if a person or obstruction were in North Kankakee

Street on the opposite side of the track. The current speed limit of 30 mph is too high for

existing sight distance conditions (sufficient only for 15 mph). A further increase in the

driver sight distance at the improved crossing so it would accommodate the current 30

mph speed limit, rather than the proposed 20 mph speed limit, would further increase

community impacts.

6. Comment: The City of Wilmington is effectively divided by the North/South

Kankakee River and is also effectively divided by the East/West Union Pacific

Railroad right of way and the City of Wilmington’s emergency responders are all

located in the Southwest quadrant of the Kankakee River/UPRR division. The

addition of the currently planned construction for high speed rail and additional

train traffic will severely impact the timely provision of emergency aid to portions of

the City and also increase the possibility of a blockage of travel through the crossing

for emergency responders.

Response: Grade separation options and their pros and cons were discussed with the

City of Wilmington, including representatives of the police and fire departments, at

meetings on November 12, 2015 and December 8, 2015. A comparison of those options

and the reasons why a grade separation was found not to be a reasonable option are

discussed in Section 2.2.5 of this Supplemental EA. It is acknowledged that train growth

will increase the time each day that the gates are closed and while the Water Street

underpass can serve most of the City of Wilmington emergency vehicles, its clearance is

not sufficient to allow the city’s largest fire trucks to pass through the underpass. As

such, there arrival at a west side fire can be delayed by a passing train. The City of
Kankakee River Bridge D-8 Supplemental EA

Wilmington indicated that the city is constructing a fire station on the northwest side of

the UPRR tracks (opposite side from the current fire station), which would reduce this

potential impact. The proposed project would increase the number of passenger trains

and gate down times. This impact is discussed in Section 3.4.12 under “At-Grade

Crossings” of the EA. With either the Build or No-Build Alternative, the number of

freight trains also is expected to increase from five to 11, which also will increase the

number of times a day that the North Kankakee Street crossing will be closed. Freight

trains would increase based on economic demand and could be accommodated with the

existing single track, thus an increase in freight traffic could occur with or without the

project.

7. Comment: The currently designed plans for the rail crossing at Kankakee Street can

be revised to provide for a grade separation which will increase rail capacity and

provide for uninterrupted flow, increased safety, enhanced emergency response

time, and reduce if not eliminate vehicle-train conflict and delay. It is resolved by

City Council of the City of Wilmington, Will County, Illinois, that the City strongly

supports a revision to the current high speed rail plans for the crossing at Kankakee

Street so as to include a grade separation and in the absence thereof the City wholly

supports a more thorough analysis by IDOT and FRA of the No-Build option for the

present crossing.

Response: Grade separation options and their pros and cons were discussed with the

City of Wilmington, including representatives of the police and fire departments, at

meetings on November 12, 2015 and December 8, 2015. Those conversations concluded

that no potential grade separation is a reasonable alternative. A comparison of those

options and the reasons why a grade separation was found not to be a reasonable option

are discussed in Section 2.2.5 of this Supplemental EA. Additional discussion on the NoBuild Alternative is presented in section 2.1 of this Supplemental EA.

8. Comment: The city would like to discuss wetland impact mitigation for impacts in

Will County and/or the entire project. The city has a proposed 20-acre area that has

been identified as a Wetlands Mitigation Bank site.

Response: Mitigation banks approved by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

can be used for wetland mitigation. If the city’s proposed 20-acre area is approved by the

USACE, it can be considered for mitigating HSR program wetland impacts in Will

County.

9. Comment: Consider the distance between the piers of the proposed new Kankakee

River Bridge from the perspective of their potential to cause ice jams on the river. Ice

jams cause catastrophic damage to downtown and IL 53 businesses, residents, and

roadways.

Response: The I-55 bridge over the Kankakee River downstream of Wilmington and the

Warner Bridge upstream in Kankakee County both experienced ice jams in 2014. The

I-55 northbound bridge has a 3-foot 10-inch minimum water clearance above the 100-

year water level. The Warner Bridge has a similar low clearance. The IL 53 Baltimore
Kankakee River Bridge D-9 Supplemental EA

Street bridge in downtown Wilmington just upstream of the UPRR bridge, which did

not experience an ice jam in 2014, has a minimum water clearance of 7.2 feet. The

current UPRR bridge has a minimum water clearance of 4.5 feet. The proposed UPRR

bridge would have a minimum water clearance of 9.9 feet, 5.4 feet higher than the current

UPRR bridge and 2.7 feet higher than the IL-53 bridge. The current UPRR bridge has

four piers, 10 feet wide for a total width of 40 feet. The proposed UPRR bridge has eight

piers, 4 feet wide for a total width of 32 feet. The existing bridge has an opening of 10,480

square feet, while the proposed UPRR bridge would have an opening of 13,770 square

feet, an increase of 31 percent. Therefore, the proposed UPRR bridge is expected have less

potential for ice jams than the current UPRR bridge, which did not experience an ice jam

in 2014.

D.2 Non-Governmental Organizations – Midewin

Tallgrass Prairie Alliance

1. Comment: The Kankakee River HSR Bridge (Wilmington), as proposed, could

contribute to and directly result in formation of ice jams that might affect the

integrity of the HSR bridge itself and cause damage to local businesses and homes

located near and along the Kankakee River. Damaging Ice Jams have occurred in the

past, and unless the bridge design is modified, the bridge/bridge piers will likely

restrict the flow of ice and directly contribute to formation of damaging ice jams.

Consider - a nuclear power plant currently diverts warm effluent into the Kankakee

River, thus significantly reducing the probability of ice jams at the proposed HSR

Kankakee River Bridge. Upon closure of the nuclear power plant, discharge of warm

effluent into the KKK River will cease, and the probability of damaging ice jams will

re-occur.

Response: A similar comment was received in the public and local official’s comments.

See the response above.

2. Comment: Regarding Tier 2 EA - Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements -

August, 2015: If the Build Alternative is moved forward as proposed, the

construction of a second bridge and track over the Kankakee River will allow for a

significant increase in Amtrak Rail Passenger Service and UP Freight Service on the

existing Union Pacific Rail Line that runs between Chicago and St. Louis. Per EA, a

significant increase in rail traffic is anticipated as result of the construction of a

double rail track over the Kankakee River and new rail sidings elsewhere (i.e., No

second track(s), No increase in rail traffic). While not opposed to HSR and not

opposed to improved Rail infrastructure, the installation of a second track over the

Kankakee River and additional rail sidings would directly facilitate an increase in

rail traffic on the Union Pacific Line between Chicago and St. Louis. An increase in

rail traffic WILL result in far reaching negative impacts on a number of local

businesses and homes, and have far reaching negative impacts on nearby 4(f) entities

such as the USFS Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie and Abraham Lincoln National

Cemetery. Per Section 3.7.1 of the noted EA, it is provided that "the program would

result in negligible secondary impacts" and in Section 3.7.2 "would offer cumulative
Kankakee River Bridge D-10 Supplemental EA

benefits". Please consider, nowhere in Section 3.7, i.e. particularly within Section

3.7.1 - Secondary Impacts, and/or within Section 3.7.2 - Cumulative Impacts are the

negative impacts of increased rail traffic discussed as might affect 4(f) properties

such as Midewin National Tall Grass Prairie, Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery,

the Kankakee River, and associated wildlife and endangered species. Please note: a

significant increase in rail traffic (nearly doubling) should not be considered

"insignificant". Nearby 4(f) properties will significantly be affected if rail traffic is

significantly increased.

Response: Increased Rail Traffic and Its Impact. The Build Alternative for the

Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements Project will make a contribution to

meeting the passenger rail travel objectives of the Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail

(HSR) program, including accommodating eight additional passenger trains operating at

a high level of performance. Freight traffic is growing at the Joliet Intermodal facility and

in response to other market demands and growth is expected to continue with or without

the HSR program. Freight traffic can increase without a second track because freight

trains do not have to meet a daily timetable schedule with consistent on-time performance

like passenger trains. The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) can adjust freight movements

to accommodate increased freight demand on the current single track. The railroad tracks

in and through the resources listed in the comment are privately owned and the UPRR

has the right to increase the number of freight trains on those tracks. Passenger trains

not only must follow a published daily schedule but their operation cannot be at the cost

of interfering with the freight business of the host freight railroad. A single track

between Chicago and St. Louis does not have the capacity to handle eight additional

passenger trains at a high level of performance and reliability without interfering with

the UPRR freight business.

The 2012 Tier 1 FEIS addressed impacts associated with the entire Chicago to St. Louis

HSR program, including community, cultural, natural, and Section 4(f) resources as

direct impacts. This included impacts of the increased number of trains. The 2012 Tier 1

FEIS also addresses the cumulative impacts of the Chicago to St. Louis HSR program in

combination with other rail improvements planned in the Chicago to St. Louis corridor.

Relation of the 2012 Tier 1 Selected Alternative to Tier 2 Alternatives. The 2012 Tier 1

Record of Decision selected a corridor in which passenger rail service would be improved

and the increased passenger rail capacity and on-time performance objectives of the HSR

program’s purpose and need would be met. The selection was based on the impact

findings of the 2012 Tier 1 FEIS and public and agency comment on the Tier 1 Draft

Environmental Impact Statement. The Selected Alternative includes the existing UPRR

corridor that passes through Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. The Tier 1 Selected

Alternative does not specify a particular track design or location within the selected

corridor. These details are being developed and assessed in the Tier 2 environmental

documentation. That documentation will include consideration of alternative designs

with the objective of ultimately identifying a preferred alternative that meets the project

and program’s purpose and need while minimizing impacts to resources in the location of

each Tier 2 project. The purpose and need of each Tier 2 document will retain the
Kankakee River Bridge D-11 Supplemental EA

corridor-wide passenger rail capacity and on-time performance objectives of the Chicago

to St. Louis HSR program and each individual Tier 2 project must make its contribution

to the objectives of the whole HSR program or the Tier 2 project fails to meet its purpose

and need.

Secondary and Cumulative Impact Assessment in Kankakee River Bridge and Track

Improvements Project EA. The secondary (indirect) and cumulative impact assessment

of the 2012 Tier 1 FEIS (Section 5.19) indicated that a more detailed analysis of

secondary (indirect) cumulative impact would be conducted in Tier 2 environmental

documentation for each Tier 2 project, if deemed necessary. As noted in the comment,

such a cumulative impact assessment is included in the EA for the Kankakee River

Bridge and Track Improvements Project. As with the direct impact assessment, its focus

is on the secondary and cumulative impacts associated with the Kankakee River Bridge

and Track Improvements Project.

The assessment concluded that the Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements

Project would not induce changes in development patterns or new development that

would result in secondary impacts to community, cultural, and natural resources..

For each resource directly impacted by the Kankakee River Bridge and Track

Improvements Project, the cumulative impact assessment considered the aggregate

impact of this project and other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions that

affect the same resources as this project, including other rail projects in this project’s

study area. The Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements Project will have no

direct impacts on the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie or the Abraham Lincoln

National Cemetery. In addition, the trackwork design of the Kankakee River Bridge and

Track Improvements Project will not limit the consideration of alternatives at the

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie or the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery.

Therefore, for these reasons combined with a Tier 1 FEIS having been prepared for the

entire program and the relationship of the 2012 Tier 1 Selected Alternative to the

consideration of Tier 2 projects that is described above, these two resources do not need to

be addressed in the Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements Project EA. This

project will impact the Kankakee River. Therefore, the cumulative impacts to the

Kankakee River and associated wildlife and endangered species of this project in

combination with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions is

addressed in the EA.

Secondary and Cumulative Impact Assessment for Planned Elwood to Braidwood Track

Construction Project Environmental Document. The Elwood to Braidwood Track

Construction Project is on UPRR right-of-way that passes through Midewin National

Tallgrass Prairie and the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery. The Tier 2

environmental document for that project will address impacts to these two resources and

mitigation. That impact assessment will again consider the impact of the increase in rail

traffic over existing conditions. The Tier 2 document will consider design alternatives

that minimize impacts to these resources while still achieving the track capacity and ontime performance objectives of the Chicago to St. Louis HSR program. For each resource
Kankakee River Bridge D-12 Supplemental EA

directly impacted by the Elwood to Braidwood Track Construction Project the cumulative

impact assessment will consider the aggregate impact of that project in combination with

other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions, including other rail projects,

in that project’s study area.

3. Comment: Also consider that the probability of a rail spill affecting the Kankakee

River statistically doubles if the rail traffic is doubled.

Response: A catastrophic event such as a rail spill could impact the Kankakee River, but

such an event is considered very unlikely, both with the current number of trains and a

future increase number of freight and passenger trains. Although they may attract media

attention, derailments or other similar incidents on railroad lines are extremely rare.

UPRR has well-established protocols in place both to prevent such rare occurrences, as

well as to respond quickly to these rare incidents when they do occur. The protocols of the

UPRR’s Hazardous Materials Group for preventing, preparing for, responding to, and

recovering spilled material from catastrophic events are summarized at the following

website:

http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/media_kit/cbr/prevention.shtml#

Agency notifications in the event of an incident at the Kankakee River would be made to

the National Response Center and the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, as

required by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

The planned new bridge design also reduces the chances of a spill into the Kankakee River

or other catastrophic event. The existing bridge has an open deck system, where the ties

sit directly on the steel girders. Gaps between the ties are open to the air below it,

therefore, debris and runoff flows directly into the Kankakee River. The planned new

bridge is a closed system, which would have a 5/8-inch thick steel deck plate welded to the

steel beam superstructure, with a steel curb section along the side. To allow rain water to

escape the closed system, four 2.5-inch steel drains would be installed on each span. The

proposed closed design would lower the spill risk compared to the existing conditions.

4. Comment: Subject to further review and study, a FONSI or "finding of no significant

impact" is not appropriate. Before any build alternative is moved forward

concerning defined improvements to the Kankakee River Rail Bridge, cumulative

and secondary impacts as might affect nearby 4(f) properties need to be addressed

and/or mitigated.

Response: The commenter's position on the appropriate environmental document is

acknowledged. See the response to comment #2 above on why secondary and cumulative

impacts on the nearby properties of Midewin National Wildlife Prairie and Abraham

Lincoln National Cemetery do not need to be addressed in the Kankakee River Bridge and

Track Improvements Project EA and indicating that they will be addressed in the Tier 2

document for the Elwood to Braidwood Track Construction Project that uses the railroad

right-of-way that passes through these two resources.
Kankakee River Bridge D-13 Supplemental EA

D.3 Environmental Resource and Regulatory Agency

Comments

Written comments were received from two environmental resource and regulatory

agencies, the US Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The original comment letters are

presented in Appendix C. The comments and responses are presented below.

D.3.1 US Department of Interior, US Fish and Wildlife Service

1. Comment: Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) [16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.]

outlines the procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve Federally

listed species and designated critical habitats. Section 7(a) (1) directs all Federal

agencies to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act by

carrying out programs for the conservation of species listed pursuant to the Act.

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal agency shall, in consultation with the

Secretary of the Interior, insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is

not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the

destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Federal agencies

are required to determine whether their actions may affect listed or proposed species

and designated and proposed critical habitat. Once a “may affect” determination is

made, the Federal agency must either request our concurrence with a “may affect,

but not likely to adversely affect” finding or request initiation of formal consultation.

Both require a written analysis to be submitted to us. This analysis is typically

transmitted in a document referred to as a Biological Assessment or Biological

Evaluation. A Biological Assessment (BA) documents an agency’s conclusions

regarding the effects of their proposed action on listed species, and the rationale to

support those conclusions. FRA has developed a draft BA which is currently being

revised in consultation with our office. The EA should be revised to be consistent

with changes made in the Biological Assessment (BA).

Response: Section 3.2.4 of this Supplemental EA includes the findings of Section 7

consultation through December 2015.

2. Comment: Train collisions with wildlife are only evaluated in this EA for the

northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis). However, research (e.g.,

documentation and studies conducted for the EJ&E railway acquisition) has shown

that train collisions occur with other species (i.e., besides listed species) on rail lines.

An increase in train numbers and frequency could result in an increase in wildlife

collisions. The EA should include information about wildlife collisions. Information

could be obtained from studies completed for the EJ&E railway acquisition,

authorized by the Surface Transportation Board, or other studies.

Response: Animals living in and passing through areas along the UPRR may have a

higher risk of being struck by trains because of increased train traffic. However, animals

in the area have adapted to existing train traffic and the increased potential for

animal/train collisions would not affect any particular animal populations. In addition,
Kankakee River Bridge D-14 Supplemental EA

most of the Project study area consists of urban land uses, and contains limited areas of

wildlife habitat that have not been extensively disturbed. The primary upland cover types

providing habitat for wildlife are near the Kankakee River and Forked Creek stream

corridors. Both streams will continue to be bridged. The Kankakee River Bridge and

Track Improvement Project’s Build Alternative would not result in habitat

fragmentation or create additional forest edges since it would follow the existing rail line.

Thus, any increase in the annual number of wildlife collisions by train would be

insignificant.

3. Comment: Section 1.0 - Purpose and Need, 1.4 - Applicable Regulations. The FRA

should include the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act to the list of applicable Federal laws found in the EA, especially since

the natural resource sections discuss migratory birds (e.g., Section - 3.2.1 Vegetation

and Habitat).

Response: These laws are now listed in Section 1.4 of this Supplemental EA.

4. Comment: Section 3.0 - Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and

Mitigation, 3.2 - Ecological Systems, 3.2.4 - Threatened and Endangered Species. The

EA should acknowledge that the BA is being finalized and that applicable

conservation measures will be identified in the Final EA. FRA should consider

adding a link to the BA in the Final EA. All final changes made to the BA, which

revise information and commitments provided in the Draft EA, should be reflected

in the Final EA.

Response: Section 3.2.4 of this Supplemental EA includes the findings of Section 7

consultation through December 2015. The BA is being finalized.

5. Comment: 3.6 - Construction Impacts and Mitigation, 3.6.5 - Threatened and

Endangered Species. This section discusses mitigation to offset impacts to listed

species. Mitigation for tree loss should be added to this section. The Final EA should

be updated to reflect this conservation measure, which is currently being discussed

with FRA.

Response: Section 3.2.4 of this Supplemental EA includes the findings of Section 7

consultation through December 2015.

6. Comment: 3.7 - Secondary and Cumulative Impacts, 3.7.1 - Secondary Impacts.

Section 3.7.1 indicates that, “the Build Alternative would not induce changes in

development patterns or new development that would result in secondary impacts

to community, cultural, and natural resources.” However, indirect impacts to mussel

colonies, including impacts from siltation, sedimentation, and contaminants, are

anticipated and described in Section 3.2.4 (on pages 3-58 and 3-59). Section 3.7.1 only

acknowledges secondary and indirect impacts from new development and growth

inducing effects. The Final EA should update this section to include the indirect

impacts to listed species, listed in Section 3.2.4.
Kankakee River Bridge D-15 Supplemental EA

Response: The direct, operational, interrelated and interdependent, indirect, and

cumulative impacts described in the BA for threatened and endangered species are

presented in Section 3.2.4 of the August 2015 EA and this Supplemental EA. Indirect

impacts from siltation, sedimentation, and contaminants during construction are not

presented in the secondary impacts discussion of Section 3.7.1 of the August 2015 EA,

“Secondary Impacts.” The reason for this is secondary impacts in Section 3.7.1 are

defined as impacts caused by actions taken by others in response to the presence of the

Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvement Project, such as induced development.

By this definition, impacts from siltation, sedimentation, and contaminants during

construction are not secondary impacts but direct impacts because they result from

project construction even though the resources affected are downstream from the

proposed bridge. Thus, the indirect impact information from the BA is presented in

Section 3.2.4.

7. Comment: 3.7.2.2 Potential Cumulative Impacts. The impact acreage area for the

sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus) should be revised to reflect the acreage identified in

the BA.

Response: The discussion of potential cumulative impacts in the August 2015 EA has

been revised in Section 3.7.2.2 of this Supplemental EA to note the findings of Section 7

consultation.

D.3.2 US Environmental Protection Agency

1. Comment: NEPA Process: We recognize the value of tiering as a way to avoid

repetition and focus on issues ripe for decision at each level of review. FRA has

divided the overall Chicago to St. Louis HSR corridor into numerous projects for the

purpose of Tier 2 project-level analysis. Some projects share the same geographic

area. For example, this Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements Project EA

falls within the boundaries of the Elwood to Braidwood Track Improvement Project

EA, as displayed in Exhibit 1-2. It is important for each project to be clearly defined,

including its relationship to any overlapping or neighboring projects, its logical

termini, and its independent utility. Such information facilitates a transparent and

robust NEPA process and helps to ensure consideration of all relevant

environmental impacts in the decision-making process.

Recommendations for the Final EA:

· Fully describe the relationship between this project and any related overlapping

or neighboring projects that FRA has or will assess through categorical

exclusions, environmental assessments, or environmental impact statements.

· Clearly define the logical termini and independent utility for this project.

Response: The information requested is included in Section 2.2.4 of the Supplemental

EA.
Kankakee River Bridge D-16 Supplemental EA

2. Comment: Waters of the U.S. The Draft EA states that the proposed project would

require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Certification and permits under the

CWA Section 404 and the Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 due to impacts to

Waters of the U.S. The project team conducted wetland delineations in 2011 and

found that the proposed project would permanently impact 0.41 acre and

temporarily impact 0.18 acre of waters, with jurisdictional waters accounting for 0.17

acre of permanent impacts and all 0.18 acre of temporary impacts. The Draft EA does

not state whether the Corps has issued a jurisdictional determination for the project

area. We understand that temporary bridges would be constructed on the east and

west sides of the existing Kankakee River Bridge to facilitate demolition of the

existing bridge and construction of the new bridge. Instead of a temporary bridge

over Forked Creek, the Draft EA explains that the project team will submit an

application to place temporary fill in the creek to create a causeway for construction

access. The Draft EA explains that use of temporary bridges, rather than causeways,

minimizes sedimentation. Based on the information provided, it seems that use of a

temporary bridge, rather than a causeway, for Forked Creek could minimize fill of

Waters of the U.S. and better protect water quality. Placement of fill materials into

Waters of the U.S. requires that the project comply with the CWA Section 404(b) (1)

guidelines. These guidelines are summarized as follows:

· LEDPA – There must be no practicable alternative to the proposed discharge

(impacts) which would have less adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem, so

long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental

consequences;

· No Violation of Other Laws – The proposed project must not cause or contribute

to a violation of state water quality standards or toxic effluent standards, and

must not jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed endangered or

threatened species or their critical habitat(s);

· No Significant Degradation – The project must not cause or contribute to

significant degradation of Waters of the U.S.; and

· Minimization and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts – The project must include

appropriate and practicable steps to avoid impacts to regulated Waters of the

U.S. Where impacts are unavoidable, there must be documentation on how

impacts have been minimized. Finally, compensatory mitigation to offset

unavoidable, minimized impacts to the aquatic ecosystem must be provided.

Our comments on Waters of the U.S. are based on information FRA has provided

to date, and we look forward to further commenting on this project through the

CWA Section 404 process when more information on project impacts and

compliance with CWA regulations becomes available.
Kankakee River Bridge D-17 Supplemental EA

Recommendations for the Final EA:

· Clarify whether the Corps has approved the jurisdictional delineation for the

project area and include any updated information on impact acreages in the Final

EA.

· Align NEPA and CWA Section 404 processes to ensure that the proposed project,

alternatives, and impacts in the EA will be consistent with those in the

applicant's future CWA Section 404 permit application. To demonstrate

consistency, summarize or include a copy of the draft CWA Section 404(b) (1)

analysis as an appendix to the Final EA.

· Discuss any proposed mitigation, including mitigation sequencing per the CWA

Section 404(b )(1) guidelines, and describe of how mitigation will comply with

the 2008 Mitigation Rule (40 CFR 230).

· If a mitigation bank will be used, identify the name and location of the bank and

the status of available credits.

· Describe how cumulative impacts to Waters of the U.S. from the overall Chicago

to St. Louis HSR corridor will be considered in CWA Section 404 permitting and

mitigation for this section.

Response: The jurisdictional delineations were prepared by a private contractor. Per

IDOT policy, the delineations will be submitted to USACE as a part of the permit

application. The final jurisdictional impact acres will be presented in the permit

application and, if available, within the currently expected Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI). Wetland mitigation is proposed to occur at a bank within the

watershed at a ratio determined by USACE. There are banks within the watershed with

adequate credits. This is consistent with the 2008 mitigation rule, which states that

mitigation should be first considered at a bank within the watershed. The name and

location of the mitigation bank used and final decisions on the use of a causeway at

Forked Creek will be agreed to with USACE during the permit process.

As stated in Section 5.9.2.1 of the 2012 Tier 1 FEIS the total HSR program assessed in

that document would cross 191 surface waters over the program’s 284-mile length, which

passes through 10 drainage basins. As stated in Section 5.11.2 of the 2012 Tier 1 FEIS,

the total HSR program assessed in that document would impact 55 acres of wetlands over

the program’s 284-mile length. Regarding compensatory wetland mitigation, the 2012

Tier 1 FEIS states that mitigation may be provided by purchasing credits from an

established wetland mitigation bank if an approved bank is available. If an approved bank

is not available, the conversion of non-wetland areas into wetlands may be required.

Mitigation requirements will be determined during the permitting process following

completion of final design and right-of-way plans.
Kankakee River Bridge D-18 Supplemental EA

Waters of the U.S. impacts have been and will be permitted and mitigated for each HSR

program project. To comply with the Interagency Wetland Policy Act, all wetland

impacts have been and will be mitigated, regardless of threshold or isolated status.

3. Comment: Threatened and Endangered Species. As discussed in the Draft EA, the

sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus) is endangered and the northern long-eared

bat (Myotis septentrionalis) is threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act;

both have habitat in the project area. State-listed species with habitat in the project

area include the endangered pallid shiner fish (Hybopsis amnis) and western sand

darter fish (Ammocrypta clarum), as well as the threatened purple wartyback mussel

(Cyclonaias tuberculate), black sandshell mussel (Ligumia recta), and river redhorse fish

(Moxostoma carinatum).

The Draft EA discusses past bat, mussel, and fish surveys and commits to mitigate

impacts through limiting roost tree removal to specific seasons and relocating

federal and state listed mussel species prior to construction, among other measures.

We understand that FRA and IDOT are working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) and Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) to fulfill their

regulatory obligations and minimize impacts.

Recommendations for the Final EA:

· Update the status of coordination with FWS and IDNR. Include a summary of

any outstanding FWS and IDNR concerns and FRA and IDOT's plans to address

such concerns.

· Work with FWS and IDNR to: (1) determine whether any additional federal or

state listed species may have habitat in the project area, and (2) strengthen

mitigation measures to protect identified federal and state-listed species. Include

any new commitments in the Final EA. Consider adding seasonal restriction

dates for in-water work and additional mitigation for tree removal.

Response: Since the release of the August 2015 EA, Section 7 consultation with the

FRA has advanced. A Biological Assessment (BA) was submitted to USFWS that

included mitigation for federally-listed species. Consultation has occurred to discuss the

BA’s findings and finalize mitigation. A discussion of impacts and current mitigation

commitments for threatened and endangered species are presented in Sections 3.2.4 of

this Supplemental EA.

4. Comment: Culverts. The proposed project includes the installation of new 24-inch,

36-inch, and 48-inch corrugated steel pipe culverts. Given the long linear nature of

the Chicago to St. Louis HSR corridor, culverts will play important roles in water

movement and wildlife crossings. The design of culverts is important to minimizing

project impacts on natural resources.

Recommendations for the Final EA:
Kankakee River Bridge D-19 Supplemental EA

· Consult with FWS and IDNR on best practices for designing culverts to minimize

impacts to species and facilitate wildlife crossings.

· In the Final EA, assess options for using open bottom culverts. If four-sided

culverts must be used, consider imbedding them into river/creek beds at least

one foot below the natural river/creek bottom in order to provide natural

bottoms and continuous aquatic habitat.

Response: No culverts are proposed for streams that carry fish or other aquatic fauna.

The purpose of all project culverts is transmitting stormwater. The two streams that

carry fish and other aquatic fauna are the Kankakee River and Forked Creek. Both are

bridged.

5. Comment: Air Quality. As discussed in the Draft EA, the project is within an area

that does not fully meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards; it is designated

as non-attainment for ozone and maintenance for fine particulates (PM25). Of the

overall Chicago to St. Louis HSR corridor, 59.8 miles of trackway fall within an

ozone non-attainment area. Table 3-5 compares regional emissions generated by the

proposed project with the de minimis thresholds for general conformity. It is unclear

whether the table captures emissions from the 1.31 mile section evaluated in this

Draft EA or from the full 59.8 mile portion of the Chicago to St. Louis corridor that

falls within an ozone non-attainment area. While the full corridor was considered in

the Tier I analysis, it is important for air quality impacts to be analyzed with projectlevel information. The Draft EA does not disclose project-specific or cumulative

construction emissions. It states that, "[a]s a rule, short-term construction impacts

(shorter than three years) does not warrant a detailed air quality analysis" (pages 3-

13 and 3-92). EPA disagrees with this statement and regularly sees detailed air

quality analyses for short-term construction impacts. Short-term construction

impacts have the potential to impact health, especially in children, elderly, and those

with impaired respiratory systems. While we recognize that this construction project

is only 1.31 miles in length, the overall Chicago to St. Louis HSR project covers 284

miles. The cumulative air analysis should disclose construction emissions from other

portions of the Chicago to St. Louis HSR project that could occur during the same

time period. Estimating project-specific and cumulative construction emissions and

assessing potential health impacts in the Final EA could: more fully disclose

potential impacts, lead to the identification of avoidance and minimization

measures, and result in more informed decision making.

Recommendations for the Final EA:

· Clarify whether Table 3-5 includes emissions from the 1.31 mile project covered

by this EA or the full 59.8 miles of the Chicago to St. Louis HSR corridor within

an ozone nonattainment area. If not already included, disclose emissions for the

full 59.8 miles stretch.

· Assess air emissions from project construction and potential health impacts.

Include direct, indirect, and cumulative emissions. Ensure that other projects
Kankakee River Bridge D-20 Supplemental EA

along the Chicago to St. Louis HSR corridor with overlapping construction

schedules are included. Commit to specific measures to avoid and minimize

emissions, such as those in the enclosed Diesel Emission Reduction Checklist.

Response: Table 5-3 of the EA includes the emissions for the full 59.8 miles of the

Chicago to St. Louis HSR corridor within the ozone nonattainment area. A construction

equipment emissions analysis is included in Section 3.1.1.3 of this Supplemental EA

under “Construction Impacts.” It is expected that during the first year of the

construction of the Kankakee River Bridge and Track Construction Project (2016) that

three other HSR program projects will be ongoing in the ozone nonattainment area. The

emissions of all four projects are included in the construction emissions analysis.

Additional discussion of construction emission avoidance and minimization is included

in Sections 3.1.1.4 and 3.6.2 of this Supplemental EA.

6. Comment: Climate Change. The Council on Environmental Quality's December

2014 revised draft guidance for Federal agencies' consideration of greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions and climate change impacts under NEPA outlines a reasonable

assessment framework. The guidance explains that agencies should consider both

the potential effects of a proposed action on climate change, as indicated by its

estimated GHG emissions, and the implications of climate change for the

environmental effects of a proposed action. We recognize that the Draft EA included

GHG estimates. The National Climate Assessment provides an in-depth look at

climate change impacts on the U.S. now and in the future. The report was produced

by a team of over 300 experts guided by a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee

and was extensively reviewed by the public and experts, including federal agencies

and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences. The report finds that in the

Midwest extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding will affect infrastructure,

health, air and water quality, and more. The National Climate Assessment section on

the Midwest provides a useful starting place for examining climate change impacts

in the project area.

Recommendations for the Final EA:

· Consider resiliency and adaptation to changing climate conditions when making

decisions about infrastructure design. We recommend reviewing climate

predictions for the Midwest in the U.S. Global Change Research Program's

National Climate Assessment report.

· Examine opportunities to minimize GHG emissions from construction and

operations. Consider energy efficiency, renewable energy, electric motors, and

cleaner diesel strategies in planning documents and construction contractor

scopes of work. Reducing diesel emissions has the added benefit of reducing

black carbon emissions, which have climate forcing effects orders of magnitude

larger than carbon dioxide on a per mass basis.

Response: The climate predictions for the Midwest in the U.S. Global Change Research

Program's National Climate Assessment were reviewed. The assessment summarizes
Kankakee River Bridge D-21 Supplemental EA

climate change issues for the Midwest as: “Extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding

will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water

quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great

Lakes.” Increased rainfall and flooding is the issue raised in the assessment that affects

transportation infrastructure and its resilience, including the proposed Project. At this

time, there were no regulatory permits or American Railway Engineering and

Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standards that address the effects of climate

change on railroad drainage design. Therefore, the two bridges and other drainage

components of the proposed Project meet current requirements for hydraulic capacity.

The design of the Kankakee River bridge does represent a hydraulic improvement over the

existing bridge. The proposed bridge has a 31 percent increase in opening area because of

reduced overall pier width and higher low chord elevation. As a result of the improved

hydraulic performance of the bridge the 100-year water surface elevation at the upstream

face would be reduced by 1-inch.

Additional discussion of construction emission avoidance and minimization is included

in Sections 3.1.1.4 and 3.6.2 of this Supplemental EA. As indicated in Section 3.1.1.3 of

the August 2015 EA under “Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions”: “As shown in Table

5.7-2 of the 2012 Tier 1 FEIS, from the perspective of the entire HSR Program corridor,

there would be a reduction in GHG emissions. The HSR Program would increase

passenger rail proportion of travel in the HSR corridor. Since travel by rail is the most

energy efficient mode of transportation, an overall decrease in GHG emissions of 20,150

metric tons per year (from 1,980,270 to 1,960,130) would occur in the HSR corridor.

The completion of the proposed Kankakee River Bridge and Track Improvements project

would contribute to this overall HSR Program GHG emissions benefit.”

7. Comment: Invasive Species. The Draft EA lists measures to minimize the spread of

invasive species that could potentially be taken, including: rapid seeding and revegetation of bare soil with native species, cleaning construction equipment prior to

entering areas near sensitive habitats, and active management of invasive plants. The

Draft EA does not commit to undertake these measures.

Recommendation for the Final EA: Clearly commit to specific measures to avoid and

minimize introducing invasive species into the project area.

Response: As indicated in Sections 3.2.1.3 and 3.6.6 of the EA, the requirements of

Executive Order 13112 to combat the introduction and spread of invasive plant species

during construction would be met. Specific measures to avoid and minimize introducing

invasive species into the project area will be included in construction contractor

contracts.

8. Comment: Hazardous Materials. The project team identified 26 locations with

potential contamination in the project area; six were deemed to have de minimis

conditions. The Draft EA lists the reasons for the de minimis determination as

"[p]otential asbestos containing material and lead based paint," and "[l]ikely

agriculture pesticide or herbicide use" (page 3-86). It is unclear why FRA considers

the presence of these types of contaminants to be too minor to warrant consideration.
Kankakee River Bridge D-22 Supplemental EA

In addition, Section 3.9, Environmental Commitments, does not discuss plans for

further testing and classification of potentially contaminated sites.

Recommendations for the Final EA:

· Further identify and assess potential contamination risks in the Final EA.

· Explain why construction activities on sites with potential asbestos, lead,

pesticide, and herbicide contamination are not of concern, or further assess

impacts from those sites.

· Describe how FRA and IDOT will ensure worker and environmental safety from

existing contamination in the project area prior to earth moving activities.

Response: Section 3.4.8.1 of the EA lists all of the Recognized Environmental

Conditions (REC) sites identified by the Draft Preliminary Environmental Site

Assessment (PESA) for the proposed Project. The Draft PESA was prepared in

accordance with the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) PESA Manual entitled “A

Manual for Conducting Preliminary Environmental Site Assessments for Illinois

Department of Transportation Infrastructure Projects.” The PESA identified 19 sites

with RECs out of 26 potential contamination sites in the project area. Potential

contamination risk was screened by considering sites which were proposed as new rightof-way or easements, or were associated with existing railroad use. Potential

contamination risk is at 14 sites out of the 19 REC sites identified for the Kankakee River

Bridge and Track Improvements Project within proposed right-of-way, proposed

easement, or existing UPRR right-of-way. Five sites were identified as having potential

contamination risk to the UPRR within proposed right-of-way; six sites were identified

as having potential contamination risk to the UPRR within both proposed right-of-way

and construction easement; and three sites were identified as having potential

contamination risk within the existing UPRR right-of-way. No work is proposed at the

remaining five of 19 REC sites. Prior to earthwork operations, a decision will be made by

UPRR, in accordance with their Hazardous Materials Procedures on how specifically to

address the potential contamination at the 14 sites. It would be either disposal/handling

by risk management, or by environmental testing and development of a disposal/handling

program based on testing results.

One structure is proposed for displacement as part of the Kankakee River Bridge and

Track Improvements Project. The presence or absence of asbestos or lead based paint

within the structure has not yet been confirmed. However, as stated in Section 3.4.8.3 in

the EA, pre-demolition building surveys would be conducted prior to building demolition

to ensure proper abatement, if required. Notifications in accordance with National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) would be made, and

abatement and demolition debris would be disposed of accordingly.

Sites 3 and 20 were identified as sites with de minimis conditions because of likely

agriculture pesticide or herbicide use. There is no work planned within Sites 3 and 20

(refer to Exhibit 2-1 Build Alternative Features and Exhibit 3-11 Potential Hazardous
Kankakee River Bridge D-23 Supplemental EA

Materials Sites), and therefore, are not considered a concern to the Kankakee River Bridge

and Track Improvements Project.

To ensure worker and environmental safety during construction, UPRR will

communicate known site hazards and/or risk management procedures with construction

contractors during pre-construction meetings. The communication would include

emergency notifications to make and contacts in the event that an unforeseen

environmental condition is encountered. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) guidelines will be followed for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Dust

control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be followed to reduce the exposure of

potential contaminants.

9. Comment: Coordination. Given the large scale and complex nature of the overall

Chicago to St. Louis HSR corridor, a high level of coordination among resources

agencies on individual Tier 2 projects is critical to streamlining and coordinating

various environmental requirements to help avoid future challenges. We appreciate

the on-going quarterly meetings on the entire length of the HSR corridor.

Recommendation for the Overall Chicago to St. Louis HSR Effort: To guide future

work along the Chicago to St. Louis HSR corridor, EPA recommends that FRA

continue to engage the resource agencies through regular meetings. A

communications strategy and/or a coordination plan would be helpful.

Response: IDOT plans to continue the quarterly meetings as the primary mechanism

for interagency coordination.
Appendix E

USFWS Concurrence Letter
United States Department of the Interior

US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGION 3

Chicago Ecological Services Field Office

1250 S. Grove Suite103

Barrington, IL 60010-5010

Phone: (847) 381-2253 Fax: (847) 381-2285

IN REPLY REFER TO:

FWS/AES-CIFO/2009-FA- 0558 

February 3, 2016 

Andrea Martin

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 20, W38-215 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Ms. Martin: 

This serves as a follow-up to email correspondence and telephone calls between our offices, and 

responds to your email dated February 3, 2016, requesting concurrence that the proposed bridge 

and track improvement project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the northern longeared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), a federally threatened species, and the sheepnose mussel 

(Plethobasus cyphyus), a federally endangered species. Based on the information provided, we 

concur with your determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for the sheepnose 

mussel and the northern long-eared bat. Our concurrence letter concludes informal consultation 

with the Federal Railroad Administration for the Kankakee River Bridge and Track 

Improvements Project.

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.), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Shawn Cirton at 847/381-2253, ext. 19. 

Sincerely, 

 

 Louise Clemency

 Field Supervisor 

E-1
cc: IDNR, Jenny Skufca 

 Parsons, Selover

E-2
Appendix F

Response to Agency and

Public Comments on the

May 2016 Supplemental EA
Appendix F

Response to Agency and Public

Comments on the May 2016 Supplemental EA

US Environmental Protection Agency

1. Comment: Waters of the U.S.: The EPA looks forward to further commenting on this project

through the CWA Section 404 process.

Response: The HSR project team will continue to coordinate on the project with the EPA during

the quarterly resource agency meetings. The Section 404 permit for the project already has been

issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

2. Comment: Air Quality: We recommend including appropriate measures from the attached

Construction Emission Control Checklist as requirements in construction contracts.

Response: The project team will consider your recommendation.

Citizen Comment

1. Comment: What has happened to the Prairie Plants that were along the RR track – Conservation

Act?

Response: Plants within the UPRR right of way are often mowed as part of routine maintenance.

2. Comment: Where is all the hard pack track land stormwater runoff going – no retention pond?

Response: Stormwater runoff is accommodated in the project design. No retention pond is

needed or planned. An IDOT official will contact you to discuss the details of the proposed

design.

3. Comment: How does more trains impact the foundations of houses and other structures?

Response: A vibration analysis was done for this project and the foundations of houses and other

structures will not be impacted by the project.

4. How will this affect the shaft mines under our town – sinking or water retention?

Response: The locations of the mines are still under investigation. IDOT is working with the city

of Wilmington to determine truck routes for the heavy equipment and cranes taking into

consideration the presence of shaft mines.
5. Comment: The noise from the trains will be more for our once quiet towns- Elwood,

Wilmington, Braidwood, Godley to Springfield.

Response: A noise analysis was done for this project. The potential increase in noise levels will

be small (3 db(A)). The project’s grade crossing improvements in Wilmington will create an

opportunity for the City of Wilmington to implement a quiet zone (no horn blowing) that would

result in train noise levels less than existing conditions.

6. Comment: The smell of the additive. What is it and how will it not hurt us – pollution?

Response: We are unsure of the smell you are referring to. An IDOT representative will contact

you to discuss this further.

7. Comment: Why are the railroad workers not being safe – no flaggers – 1 man cutting pavement

alone – moving big equipment no flaggers – blocked road – no flagger?

Response: We are unsure of the incident that you are referring to; workers in the ROW must

follow safety protocols. An IDOT representative will contact you to discuss this further.

8. Comment: What permits does the Union Pacific have for storm sewer runoff? Where can I get

this info?

Response: The UPRR will be acquiring a Clean Water Act Section 402 Stormwater Permit/NPDES

Permit for this project. An IDOT representative will contact you to help you get this info.

9. Comment: How does this help our town! The trains do not stop to get passengers – it should! All

this train project helps us? We cannot ride train to Chi to Springfield and all in between. It

should, we have to put up with the impact of more trains. Very shameful not to be able to use

what is there. Just a simple stop and go would be nice.

Response: All communities along the rail line will benefit from improved passenger services even

though no new stations are proposed. The drive to the nearest station (about 30 minutes from

Wilmington) will not change. What will change is the trip to Chicago or St. Louis will be faster

and train service more frequent. The project has looked at adding additional stops, however,

previous studies have concluded that additional stops would not be prudent because the travel

time savings from faster trains would be lost and the number of additional passengers would be

very minimal.

10. Comment: Division Street is closed across the tracks at RT 53. Also division St is not a truck route

So why would you need extra room for the length of trucks.

Response: An IDOT representative will contact you to discuss this issue, which is unrelated to this

project. The design of all crossings must confirm with IDOT highway design standards.
11. Comment: Why is there not a crossing at Braidwood Generating Plant entrance?

Response: An IDOT representative will contact you to discuss this issue, which is unrelated to this

project.

12. Comment: County Line Rd. from 55 to Godley should be a truck route.

Response: An IDOT representative will contact you to discuss this concern, which is unrelated to

this project.

13. Comment: Will I be able to open my gate to drive and trailer out or in – also semi trucks?

Response: An IDOT representative will contact you to discuss this concern, which is unrelated to

this project and your home in Braidwood.

14. Comment: How high will the road be? How will this affect storm runoff to my property?

Response: An IDOT representative will contact you to discuss this concern, which is unrelated to

this project and your home in Braidwood.

15. Comment: If road comes to my fence - where will the snow go when plowed – they always do a

poor job and block us in now?

Response: An IDOT representative will contact you to discuss this concern, which is unrelated to

this project and your home in Braidwood.