ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FOR THE ILLINOIS HIGH SPEED RAIL

SHIPMAN, ILLINOIS (MP 230) TO GODFREY, ILLINOIS (MP 253)

JERSEY, MACOUPIN AND MADISON COUNTIES, ILLINOIS

Prepared Pursuant to 42 USC § 4332, 49 USC §303, and 64FR 28545

by the Illinois Department of Transportation

Bureau of High Speed & Passenger Rail

March 2014
Shipman, Illinois (MP 230) to Godfrey, Illinois (MP 253)

Environmental Assessment

Jersey, Macoupin and Madison Counties, Illinois

Submitted Pursuant to 64 FR 28545

by the

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

and

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Date of Approval For Federal Railroad Administration

Date of Approval For Illinois DOT

ABSTRACT: This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates the construction of double tracking along 

the mainline service line of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) from north of Shipman (Milepost 230) to 

Godfrey (Milepost 253), in Jersey, Macoupin and Madison Counties, Illinois. The Preferred Alternative 

includes: 1.) upgrading existing tracks; 2.) adding a second mainline track; 3.) constructing turnouts; 4.) 

fencing; 5.) adding Positive Train Control (PTC) signaling; and 6.) improving and modifying existing 

at-grade crossings. 

The Preferred Alternative would be of immediate benefit to the rail passenger and freight services 

using this line today, as well as future use for High-Speed Rail (HSR) trains. The Preferred Alternative 

would improve fluidity of train movement, decrease delays in passenger trains, and reduce congestion 

in the section from Shipman to Godfrey. The sidings would also improve the efficiency of the railroad 

by allowing for train meets and sorting of cars for freight trains as well as an area for storing trains 

during maintenance incidents. No significant impacts to natural, social, or human environments would 

occur. 

The Preferred Alternative would impact the following resources; however impacts would be 

minimized to the greatest extent possible and mitigated as required: 1.) approximately 5.529 acres of 

wetlands; 2.) approximately 1.59 acres of prairie remnants; and 3.) acquisition of approximately 14.75 

acres of agricultural land, 15 acres of additional permanent and temporary easements, involving 25 

buildings and structures.

Temporary impacts to water quality, noise, transportation, and air quality could occur from 

construction-related activities.

The following may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: 

Francesco Bedini Jacobini, High Speed Rail Manager

Illinois Department of Transportation

2300 South Dirksen Parkway, Room 339

Springfield, IL 62764
Page i

March 2014

Contents

1.0 Purpose and Need.......................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Study Area....................................................................................................................................................1

1.3 Project Purpose and Need..........................................................................................................................1

2.0 Alternatives..................................................................................................................................................3

2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................3

2.2 No-Build Alternative...................................................................................................................................3

2.3 Build Alternative .........................................................................................................................................3

3.0 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigation...........................................5

3.1 Air Quality....................................................................................................................................................5

3.2 Water Quality...............................................................................................................................................7

3.3 Noise and Vibration ....................................................................................................................................9

3.4 Wetlands .....................................................................................................................................................13

3.5 Prairie Vegetation......................................................................................................................................21

3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species......................................................................................................24

3.7 Agricultural Land......................................................................................................................................27

3.8 Floodplains .................................................................................................................................................29

3.9 Energy Use..................................................................................................................................................30

3.10 Transportation............................................................................................................................................30

3.11 Land Use .....................................................................................................................................................34

3.12 Property Acquisitions ...............................................................................................................................38

3.13 Socioeconomic Resources .........................................................................................................................39

3.14 Environmental Justice and Title VI.........................................................................................................49

3.15 Barriers and Accessibility.........................................................................................................................50

3.16 Public Health and Safety ..........................................................................................................................51

3.17 Contaminated Sites and Hazardous Waste ...........................................................................................51

3.18 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................................52

3.19 Special Lands (Section 4(f) Resources, 6(f) Lands, and OSLAD Lands) ............................................53

3.20 Visual Resources .......................................................................................................................................54

3.21 Construction Impacts ................................................................................................................................57

3.22 Coastal Zones .............................................................................................................................................59

3.23 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................59

3.24 Permits ........................................................................................................................................................64
Page ii

March 2014

3.25 Environmental Commitments .................................................................................................................64

4.0 Coordination and Consultation.............................................................................................................66

4.1 Agency Coordination................................................................................................................................66

4.2 Public Meetings..........................................................................................................................................66

5.0 References ..................................................................................................................................................67

TABLES

Table 1. Attainment Status for Counties in Shipman-Godfrey Corridor........................................................5

Table 2. General Noise Assessment ...................................................................................................................11

Table 3. Ground-borne Vibration General Assessment ..................................................................................12

Table 4. Delineated Wetlands .............................................................................................................................15

Table 5. Wetland Impacts ....................................................................................................................................19

Table 6. Prairie Remnants located from Shipman to Godfrey and their Ecological Impact......................23

Table 7. Prairie Remnants Impact Assessment.................................................................................................23

Table 8. County Level Agricultural Agency Coordination ............................................................................28

Table 9. Existing (2010) and Projected (2030) Annual Person Trips (1,000’s)...............................................31

Table 10. Public and Private Crossings Recommended for Closures ...........................................................33

Table 11. Existing Grade Crossings within the Study Area............................................................................36

Table 12. Treatment of Grade Crossings for the Build Alternative ...............................................................38

Table 13. Population Summary ..........................................................................................................................40

Table 14. Population Growth between 2000 and 2010.....................................................................................40

Table 15. Elderly Population by Block Group ..................................................................................................41

Table 16. Home Ownership and Occupancy Rates .........................................................................................41

Table 17. Income Data by Census Tracts...........................................................................................................42

Table 18. Race and Ethnicity Summary.............................................................................................................43

Table 19. Public Facilities and Services along HSR Corridor.........................................................................45

Table 20. Growth and Economic Development Data ......................................................................................46

Table 21. Summary of Land Acquisitions .........................................................................................................48

Table 22. Grade Crossing Improvements..........................................................................................................55

Table 23. Agricultural Upgrades to Existing Track .........................................................................................56

APPENDICES

Appendix A Project Location Map 

Appendix B Propose Improvements (Source: Plan and Profile sheets from UPRR 30% Preliminary 

Plans, October 21, 2011)

Appendix C Zoning Map – Village of Godfrey

Appendix D USGS Culvert Locations 

Appendix E Drainage Structures Impacted

Appendix F Census Tract Map

Appendix G Census Block Group Map

Appendix H Community Facilities Map

Appendix I Environmental Resources Map
Page iii

March 2014

Appendix J Locations of Noise Sensitive Receptors

Appendix K Agency Correspondence

Agricultural Resources

Biological Resources

Cultural Resources
Page 1

March 2014

1.0 Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Illinois Department of Transportation 

(Department) have proposed to provide a double track railroad on the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)

from Shipman to Godfrey, Illinois (the Shipman to Godfrey Track Improvement Project or “the 

Project”). The improvements generally provide for upgrading existing tracks, adding a second 

mainline track and Positive Train Control (PTC) signaling, constructing turnouts, fencing, and 

improving and modifying existing at-grade crossings.

The Shipman to Godfrey Track Improvement Project is a component of the Chicago to St. Louis High 

Speed Rail (HSR) Improvements to enhance existing passenger transportation and create a more 

balanced use of the transportation network.

A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was completed for the Chicago to St. Louis HSR 

Improvements Project by the Department in 2003, with a Record of Decision (ROD) issued by FRA and 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 2004 approving the action. The proposed 

improvements included in the Final EIS and ROD will be referred to as the “Original Project”.

As part of the continuing efforts, the Project is re-evaluating the Original Project 2003 EIS for 

modifications to the Shipman to Godfrey Section of the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor. The features 

in this section that have been modified or added on since the Original Project conditions were 

evaluated include: 1.) A change in the composition of passby trips per day from ten passenger service

to two passenger service and eight HSR service; 2.) Providing wider spacing between the tracks from 

13.5 feet to 20 feet to facilitate maintenance; 3.) Providing an access roadway alongside the track; and 

4.) Installing a Positive Train Control (PTC) signaling system on the main track and passing track. The 

proposed Project would reduce travel time and improve service reliability, which are vital to increasing 

the viability of intercity passenger rail transportation between Chicago and St. Louis. This document 

has been prepared and made available for public and agency comment consistent with FRA’s

Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 28545, and the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations.

1.2 Study Area

The study area includes a nearly 22-mile section of the UPRR from Shipman, Illinois to Godfrey, 

Illinois, within the counties of Jersey, Macoupin and Madison. The UPRR Mileposts (MP) are MP 230 to

MP 253. See Appendix A for the Project Location Map.

1.3 Project Purpose and Need

As set forth in the 2003 FEIS and approved in the 2004 ROD, the primary purpose of the Original 

Project is to complete the improvements necessary to enhance the passenger transportation network in 

the Chicago to St. Louis corridor. The existing transportation network consists of highway (automobile 

and bus), air and rail (Amtrak) travel. Currently, 99 percent of the 35 million annual trips in the 
Page 2

March 2014

Chicago to St. Louis corridor are accomplished through automobile and air travel. Enhancements to 

passenger rail service would include reduced travel times, improved service reliability, increased 

frequency of trips, and increased capacity. Increased use of passenger rail would result in an overall 

improvement in traveler safety in the corridor, as well as a reduction in air pollutant emissions and 

energy consumption. A more balanced use of the network will provide benefits to the human 

environment over the existing network use. 

The need of the Original Project is to improve on-time performance on the existing Chicago to St. Louis 

route and to provide for an increase in average speeds and shorter trip times. According to ridership 

estimates, the 2010 mode split for annual person trips in the corridor is 97.3 percent for automobile, 1.1 

percent for air, 1.3 percent for rail (Amtrak), and 0.3 percent for bus. Over 90 percent of the over 50 

million corridor trips have origins or destinations in either Chicago or St. Louis. To achieve a more 

balanced transportation system in the corridor, trips must be diverted from the predominant mode of 

automobiles. 

As part of this effort, the Shipman to Godfrey Track Improvement Project (Project) is proposed as part 

of a subsequent reevaluation of the 2003 FEIS. The Project would reduce passenger train delay that 

occurs because of a lack of passing opportunity when freight trains are present. Reducing travel time 

and improving service reliability are paramount to increasing the viability of intercity passenger rail 

transportation between Chicago and St. Louis.
Page 3

March 2014

2.0 Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

There were two alternatives considered for this Project: a No-Build Alternative and a Build Alternative, 

which would provide a double track operation from Shipman to Godfrey, Illinois. The following 

describes each of these alternatives.

2.2 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative represents future conditions in the Project area as a single track operation 

between MP 236.27 to MP 252.11. The No-Build Alternative would include the existing UPRR route. As 

part of the Original Project, now being designed and constructed as authorized by the 2004 ROD, the 

existing main track is being brought up to 110 mph standards to allow high speed trains to operate in 

the corridor. This includes the installation of four quadrant gates at public crossings, upgrading farm 

crossings, and Positive Train Control (PTC) signaling. Completion of this work is anticipated in 2014.

The No-Build Alternative would retain the existing sidings at Shipman (2.3 miles long) and Godfrey 

(2.6 miles long), without upgrade to main track standards (keeping the existing 13.5-foot track centers 

rather than the wider 20-foot track centers), and would not construct the second main track for the 10.9 

miles between them. The No-Build Alternative assumes that passenger trains would operate on a single 

track using the limited sidings and serves as the baseline against which the Build Alternative is 

compared. 

2.3 Build Alternative

The section of the Chicago to St. Louis HSR route, covered in this Environmental Assessment referred 

to as the “Build Alternative”, extends from Shipman (UPRR MP 230) to Godfrey (MP 253) and is 

located in Macoupin, Jersey, and Madison Counties. There are two existing freight/passing sidings in 

this section:

• At the north end, Shipman siding (2.3 miles long, MP 236.3 to 238.6)

• At the south end, Godfrey siding (2.6 miles long, MP 249.5 to 252.1)

The Build Alternative generally includes upgrading existing tracks, adding a second mainline track, 

constructing turnouts and fencing, adding Positive Train Control (PTC) signaling, and improving and 

modifying existing grade crossings. In addition, the track in the existing two sidings will be upgraded

to main track standards (providing 20-foot track centers, concrete ties, and heavier welded rail). The 

enhanced standards are being applied to the existing Shipman and Godfrey sidings which are being 

incorporated in the new section of double track. The two sidings will be connected with 10.9 miles of 

new second main track to create a section of continuous double track totaling 15.8 miles. See Appendix 

B, Proposed Improvements, which shows the Build Alternative and locations of the sidings.

To construct the Build Alternative, approximately 15 acres of right-of-way (ROW) acquisition and 15 

acres of temporary and permanent easements would be required. In some locations, constructing the 

second main track and the access roadway would extend the fill and cut sections beyond the existing 
Page 4

March 2014

ROW and additional ROW and access easements would be needed for grading and re-establishing 

ditch flow-lines. See Appendix B, Proposed Improvements for locations of the proposed ROW.

To accommodate the new second mainline track, the Build Alternative also includes the widening of 

the railroad bridge over Illinois Route 16 (W. Railroad Street) in Shipman, and may involve 

modifications and extensions to various existing culverts and one bridge over a small waterway. No 

major waterways are located along this route. 

To facilitate maintenance, the Project would include wider spacing between the tracks (20-foot centers 

vs. the original 13.5 feet as previously described in the 2003 FEIS) and an access roadway alongside the 

track. The PTC signaling system would need to be installed on the added main track and some crossing

gates may need to be relocated to permit installation of the additional track. Crossovers between the 

northbound and southbound tracks are proposed to be installed approximately at the middle of the 

new double track section, at approximately MP 242. 
Page 5

March 2014

3.0 Affected Environment, Environmental 

Consequences and Mitigation

This section describes the existing environmental resources within the Project study area and analyzes 

the potential beneficial and adverse impacts to these resources from the two alternatives retained for 

detailed study pursuant to FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impact (64 FR 28545 (May 

26, 1999)). 

3.1 Air Quality

Air pollutants are contaminants in the atmosphere. Many man-made pollutants result from the 

incomplete combustion of fuels including coal, oil, natural gas, and gasoline. The principal factors 

affecting air pollution concentrations with respect to transportation projects are traffic, emissions, 

roadway type, terrain, meteorological parameters, and ambient air quality. The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), and later amendments reinforced their attainment and maintenance. The goal of 

air quality monitoring and actions is to ensure that the air quality levels of various pollutants do not 

exceed the set standards in order to protect the public health and welfare. 

The distance between Shipman, Illinois and Godfrey, Illinois is approximately 22 miles and the Project 

is located in Jersey, Macoupin and Madison counties. Table 1 shows the NAAQS attainment status for 

the counties in the Shipman-Godfrey corridor. All three counties are in attainment for carbon monoxide 

and PM10. Madison County is in nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM25 standard, but in attainment 

for the 2006 24-hour PM25 standard. Both Madison and Jersey counties are in nonattainment for 8-hour 

ozone. Based on the existing status of nonattainment for ozone in Jersey and Madison County, 

particular attention needs to be paid to any increase in emissions of ozone precursors such as VOC and 

NOx.

Table 1. Attainment Status for Counties in Shipman-Godfrey Corridor1

Pollutant Counties in Nonattainment Counties in Maintenance Areas

PM10 None None

PM25 Madison (1997 standard) None

8-hour Ozone Jersey, Madison None

Carbon Monoxide None None

 

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Greenbook., August 2011 Update. http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/
Page 6

March 2014

This new high speed rail (HSR) line is expected to attract additional vehicle traffic to railway stations. 

However, this will not have any meaningful impact in the Shipman-Godfrey corridor, because there are 

no stops within this study area.

Attracted Vehicle Travel

With the construction of the HSR tracks, there will be some immediate local air quality impacts. These 

potential impacts include fugitive dust emissions, direct emissions from construction equipment and 

truck exhausts, increased emissions and dust from construction vehicles on the streets, and emissions 

from re-routed vehicular traffic. Construction activities can result in short-term increases in fugitive 

dust and equipment-related particulate emissions in and around the Project area. (Equipment-related 

particulate emissions can be minimized if the equipment is well maintained.) The potential air quality 

impacts will be short-term, occurring only while construction work is in progress and local conditions 

are appropriate. The potential for fugitive dust emissions typically is associated with ground clearing, 

site preparation, grading, stockpiling of materials, on-site movement of equipment, and transportation 

of materials. The potential is greatest during dry periods, periods of intense construction activity, and 

during high wind conditions.

Short-Term Air Quality Impacts

An analysis of future mobile source emissions (VOC, CO and NOx) was conducted for the Original 

Project 2003 FEIS of the entire HSR corridor. Results of the 2003 analysis indicated that future annual 

emissions would decrease under both the No-Build and HSR Build Alternative as compared to existing 

conditions. Additionally, no increases (in the annual VOC and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions) were 

projected for the Build Alternative. The lower projected annual emissions with HSR were attributed to 

diversions from buses and automobiles to HSR. NOx emissions were projected to increase under the 

HSR Build Alternative, when compared to the No-Build Alternative.

Long-Term Air Quality Impacts

This Original Project was originally categorized as “exempt” under the general conformity regulations 

because no net increases in VOC or NOx emissions are projected in the ozone nonattainment or 

maintenance areas that exceed the rates set forth in Illinois’s general conformity regulations. Under the 

Build Alternative for the Original Project, emissions from new high speed rail trains would be lower 

than baseline emissions, because the proposed number of passbys per day was being reduced from ten

Amtrak trains to eight HSR trains and two Amtrak trains. Emissions from new state-of-the-art HSR 

trains will be lower than from Amtrak trains. The net condition in VOC or NOX emissions would be 

lower than baseline emissions as a result of the passby composition of trains (Amtrak vs. HSR) and 

additional passengers diverting from other modes of travel to HSR.

The results of the Original Project 2003 FEIS air quality analysis indicate that neither the No-Build 

Alternative nor the Build Alternative will result in CO concentrations in excess of the one-hour or 

eight-hour NAAQS of 35.0 ppm and 9.0 ppm, respectively. Under the Build Alternative, one-hour and 

eight-hour CO concentrations will increase slightly near grade crossings that will have traffic diverted 

to them from an adjacent grade crossing proposed for closure. However, this increase will be 

negligible. The other modifications of the Project will likely decrease concentrations as they are aimed 

to improve operational efficiencies and train functions.
Page 7

March 2014

There is no discussion of changes in PM (particulate matter) emissions within the Original Project 2003

FEIS. Because the Shipman to Godfrey corridor does not include any stations, it is unlikely that there 

would be any substantial change on PM25 or PM10 emissions. In the Build Alternative, the number of 

daily passbys is expected to remain the same at ten passbys per day but would now be comprised of 

eight HSR and two Amtrak trains rather than ten Amtrak trains. Any direct PM emissions from the 

trains would likely decrease as new HSR locomotives would provide less emissions and be more 

efficient than the No-Build Alternative. In addition, any PM emissions from vehicle idling at railroad 

crossings will likewise be reduced. There is no indication of any increase in long-term PM emissions as 

a result of this Project.

Construction of this component of the HSR corridor would be consistent with both the Federal Clean 

Air Act and its amendments and the provisions of the current State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Mitigation

3.2 Water Quality

3.2.1 Surface Water

The study area lies within two watersheds, the Lower Illinois/Macoupin Creek Watershed and the 

Mississippi South Central River Watershed as identified by the Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency. The Macoupin Creek watershed, excluding the Lower Illinois River, encompasses 624,318 

acres, discharging to the lower Illinois River. The Mississippi South Central River watershed 

encompasses 746,111 acres, including the Mississippi River and its tributaries between the lower 

Illinois River Watershed and the mouth of the Kaskaskia River.

The Macoupin Creek watershed, can be characterized as a rural system influenced by human activity.

TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) is a value of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of 

water can receive while still meeting water quality standards per the Clean Water Act. Agriculture is 

the dominant land use within the watershed followed by forest land with the balance comprised of 

developed land, grassland, wetlands, and open water. Throughout the watershed, land has been 

modified for agricultural uses. Parameters responsible for the TMDL listing include: manganese, 

dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, sedimentation/siltation, total phosphorous, total nitrogen, and other 

flow regime alterations.

Macoupin Creek Watershed

Macoupin Creek is surrounded by farmland and forested areas, subject to land modifications observed 

throughout the watershed. Water quality in Macoupin Creek suffers from sedimentation as is evident 

in the channel bottom. Macoupin Creek is listed as impaired under the Illinois 303(d) listing; however, 

the section of Macoupin Creek (IL_DA-04) in the study area is not listed as impaired. 

May Branch, a tributary of Macoupin Creek is surrounded by farmland and forested areas, subject to 

land modifications observed throughout the watershed. Water quality in the May Branch is good, with 

no apparent sediment load and the channel bottom is composed of sand and gravel. May Branch is not 

listed as impaired under the Illinois 303(d) listing within the Macoupin Creek watershed; however, 

Macoupin Creek is a 303(d) listed (impaired) water body.
Page 8

March 2014

Coop Creek, a tributary of Macoupin Creek is surrounded by farmland and forested areas, subject to 

land modifications observed throughout the watershed. Water quality in the Coop Creek subwatershed 

suffers from sedimentation as is evident in the channel bottom. Coop Creek is not listed as impaired 

under the Illinois 303(d) listing within the Macoupin Creek watershed; however, Macoupin Creek is a 

303(d) listed (impaired) water body. 

The Mississippi South Central River Watershed exhibits a variety of land types from rolling hills at the 

edge of the Springfield Till Plain, to the Mississippi River floodplain, and the bluffs in between.

Agriculture and developed land are the dominant land uses with the balance comprised of forest land, 

grassland, wetlands, and open water. Large cities within the watershed include Belleville, 

Edwardsville, Alton, Granite City, Collinsville, and Godfrey. Major streams include the Mississippi 

River, Maeystown Creek, Fountain Creek, Canal One, Cahokia Canal, Cahokia Creek, Wood River, and 

Piasa Creek. Ninety-five percent of the streams are rated as good or fair with only five percent

receiving a poor rating. The primary pollutant sources include siltation/suspended solids attributed to 

agricultural runoff, hydrologic/habitat alterations, and point sources. The watershed is not listed as a 

TMDL watershed with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA).

Mississippi South Central River Watershed

Water quality in the Little Piasa Creek Tributaries and Honey Cut Creek Tributaries is affected by 

sedimentation/siltation as is evident by deposits in the channel bottom, eroding slopes along the 

channels, nutrient enrichment as indicated by dark green tinted color, and channelization.

The No-Build Alternative would not directly impact the Macoupin Creek or Mississippi South Central 

River watersheds and would not impact surface water quality in the area. The site of the No-Build 

Alternative would remain as railroad structures within the existing footprint, with all current runoff

being conveyed by existing streams and unnamed tributaries.

Potential Impacts

The Build Alternative would also not have a direct impact on surface water quality for the Macoupin 

Creek watershed or Mississippi South Central River Watershed. The site of the Build Alternative is 

currently UPRR right-of-way (ROW) and construction activities would be on current ROW or 

immediately adjacent to existing structures. 

The 2003 FEIS for the Original Project states that construction of the Preferred Alternative has the 

potential to temporarily degrade the stream water quality due to erosion/siltation from track widening,

cut and fill activities along the tracks, or culvert and bridge replacements. This impact will increase 

turbidity and lower dissolved oxygen to levels that may temporarily violate state water quality 

standards. Anticipated impacts from operation and maintenance will be similar to existing conditions.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) Section 404 permits are required for culverts and bridges that 

require work in a jurisdictional wetland or Water of the U.S. (WOUS). Temporary impacts include any 

activities required to accommodate a culvert or bridge. Permanent impacts include any activity that 

changes the footprint or extends the culvert or bridge. Under the Build Alternative, 15 culverts and 

bridges would require a USACE Section 404 Permit within the Project limits (See Appendix E for a 

listing).
Page 9

March 2014

Construction activities would include use of appropriate best management practices (BMPs) to ensure 

pollutants do not enter either watershed. Construction activities would be compliant with the IEPA

NPDES ILR10 construction permit and the NPDES ILR40 MS4 permits for Godfrey, Illinois and 

Madison County, Illinois as appropriate. BMP selection would occur when construction plans are 

finalized and would include practices such as erosion and sediment control, good housekeeping 

procedures, and other measures that may be mandated by Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

(MS4).

3.2.2 Groundwater

The IEPA is the delegated environmental permit authority. There are no regulated groundwater 

recharge areas, community water supplies, adopted well setback zones, or non-community water 

supply wells within the study area according to the IEPA’s Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) 

program. The SWAP database search revealed nine Illinois State Geological Survey Wells near the 

proposed HSR project, with all nine wells beyond the limits of the Project. The IEPA’s SWAP website 

displayed no private well heads within 200 feet of the proposed siding areas; however, the Illinois State 

Water Survey Database of Domestic Wells indicated there are three wells within the vicinity of the 

UPRR ROW. All private wells are located outside of the railroad drainage ditches and there are no 

known discharges to any groundwater resources from the UPRR ROW. 

The No-Build Alternative would not impact the groundwater quality because it will remain in the 

existing footprint. The high speed trains will not transport any freight that may be a potential 

contaminant of groundwater resources with the exception of on-board diesel fuel and other petroleumbased products contained in locomotives and rail cars. The railroad has an established spill prevention, 

control, and countermeasure plan (SPCC Plan) to address any potential spill from a locomotive.

Potential Impacts

The Build Alternative will not measurably alter groundwater flow patterns since all improvements will 

lie adjacent to and parallel with existing railroad facilities. During construction, potential, but limited 

risk may be present for the release of motor fuel, oils, or other contaminants onto ground surfaces 

adjoining the alignment. Although minimal, the potential for impact will be the greatest where the 

alignment passes within a well-head protection area for a public water supply.

3.3 Noise and Vibration

Noise can be defined generally as unwanted sound. The primary effect of rail noise is annoyance, 

which interferes with sleep, thought, and conversation. Transportation noise rarely approaches higher 

levels that could cause hearing damage. Noise is expressed on a logarithmic scale in units called 

decibels (dB), and is commonly measured as A-weighted decibels (dBA). The common descriptor for 

measuring and predicting environmental noise is the equivalent sound level (Leq), which approximates 

the average noise level over a certain period of time. The day-night sound level (Ldn) is the equivalent 

sound level during a 24-hour period, with a 10-decibel weighting added during the nighttime hours of 

10 p.m. to 7 a.m. Both the Ldn and Leq have been adopted by the FRA and IDOT to evaluate potential 

noise impacts for railroad projects.
Page 10

March 2014

3.3.1 Existing Conditions

This noise and vibration assessment evaluates passenger train operations under existing, No-Build,

and Build Alternatives. The assessment of the potential for the Project to cause noise and vibration

impacts was accomplished using the criteria and procedures for passenger high-speed rail (HSR) projects, 

as provided by the FRA High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual

(FRA, 2012a). The FRA recommends the methods in the FRA 2012 HSGT Manual for 

passenger trains operating at speeds higher than 90 mph. Because future speeds under the Project 

would be 110 mph, this noise and vibration analysis used the FRA 2012 HSGT Manual for the future HSR 

passenger service under the Project. For the conventional passenger rail operations under existing 

conditions within the corridor, the noise and vibration impacts have been evaluated with the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA) guidance in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment manual (FTA, 

2006). The FRA recommends the methods in the FTA 2006 Manual for conventional passenger rail 

operating at speeds lower than 90 mph.

The FRA process for evaluating potential noise and vibration impacts begins with the screening 

procedures. The FRA screening procedures are used to identify sensitive receptors where the next

level of analysis is appropriate. Using this approach, sensitive receptors with the potential for noise

and vibration impacts have been identified along the Project corridor. Receptor locations within the

screening distance then have been evaluated using the general assessment level of analysis. If impacts

were identified in the general assessment, then a detailed analysis would be warranted.

3.3.1.1 Noise

The FRA noise screening procedure considers the type of corridor, existing noise environment, type of 

HSR project, and rail speeds. For a steel-wheeled project within an existing railroad corridor, the FRA 

2012 HSGT Manual identifies three screening categories: 1.) urban/noisy suburban, unobstructed (300

feet from center of mainline track); 2 . ) urban/noisy suburban, intervening buildings (200 feet

from center of mainline track); and 3 .) quiet suburban/rural (500 feet from center of mainline

track). Because the majority of the Project alignment can be considered rural, the noise screening 

distance is 500 feet for the FRA “Quiet Suburban/Rural” noise environment.

The 2004 ROD noise analysis used the screening distance of 250 feet as the limit of the 

previous noise analysis. As stipulated in FRA 2012 HSGT Manual, the noise screening distance

increased in rural areas to 500 feet. Therefore, the only receptors considered for noise analysis in this EA

document are located between 250 to 500 feet from the rail tracks. Twenty-five sensitive receptors were 

identified along the corridor, of which five are within 250 to 500 feet. The locations of the noise sensitive 

receptors are shown in Appendix J.

Existing passenger rail noise levels for the Project study area are presented in Table 2. The 

existing noise levels for conventional passenger trains have been predicted with the CREATE Railroad

Noise Spreadsheet Model (FRA, 2006). Table 2 also includes the passenger rail noise levels for the NoBuild and Build Alternatives. The future noise levels for HSR operations in Table 2 have been predicted 

with the HSGT Noise Spreadsheet Model (FRA, 2012b).
Page 11

March 2014

Table 2. General Noise Assessment

Receptor 

Number

Distance to 

track C/L (feet)

Receptor

Type

FRA

Land 

Use and 

Noise 

Metric(1)

Train Noise 

Level(2)

(dBA)

Increase 

in 

Noise:

Build 

over 

Existing 

(dBA)

Allowed 

Increase: 

Moderate 

Impact(3)

(dBA)

Impact

Determination

Under FRA 

Criteria Existing/ 

No Build Build Existing/ No Build Build

5 323 313

Isolated

Residence

Category 

2 - Ldn 48 50 2 5 No Impact

10 420 430 Church Category 

3 - Leq

48 51 3 10 No Impact

13 430 440

Isolated

Residence

Category 

2 - Ldn 46 48 2 6 No Impact

23 396 406 Church Category 

3 - Leq

49 51 2 9 No Impact

24 310 320 School Category 

3 - Leq

50 53 3 8 No Impact

Footnotes:

1.) FRA Noise Impact Criteria apply the 24-hour Ldn for residences (Land Use Category 2: where people normally sleep) and 

the hourly Leq for schools and churches (Land Use Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use)

2.) Train noise levels predicted with FTA/CREATE Spreadsheet Model for traditional passenger trains operating at 79 mph, 

and with the FRA Spreadsheet Model for HSR passenger trains operating at 110 mph.

3.) Impact criteria represent the allowable project noise limits based on the existing noise levels, as outlined in Table 3-1 of 

the 2012 FRA Manual. Impact level varies by FRA Land Use Category

3.3.1.2 Vibration

The FRA vibration screening procedure is based on land use, train frequency, and rail speeds. For 

residential land uses with infrequent events along a corridor with speeds between 100 mph and 200 

mph, the FRA 2012 HSGT Manual identifies the screening distance of 100 feet. Five of the representative 

receptor sites were found to be located within 100 feet of the railroad ROW line and could be affected 

by Project vibration. The locations of the vibration-sensitive receptors are shown in the Appendix J. 

Existing passenger rail vibration levels for the Project study area are presented in Table 3. Table 3 also 

includes the passenger rail vibration levels for the No-Build and Build Alternatives. The vibration 

levels for passenger trains have been predicted with the methods in the FTA 2006 Manual (FTA, 2006) 

and the FRA 2012 HSGT Manual (FRA, 2012).
Page 12

March 2014

Table 3. Ground-borne Vibration General Assessment

Receptor

Number

FRA 

Vibration 

Land Use 

Category(1)

Existing/

No-Build 

Distance 

to track 

(ft)

Existing/

No-Build 

Train

Vibration 

Level(2)

(VdB)

Build 

Distance 

to track 

(ft)

Build 

Train 

Vibration 

Level 

(VdB)

Increase 

in 

Vibration:

Build 

over 

Existing 

(VdB)

FRA 

Impact

Criteria(3)

Infrequent 

Events 

(VdB)

Vibration 

Impact

Determination

Under FRA 

Criteria

R2 2 75 73 85 74 1 80 No Impact

R7 2 88 71 78 76 5 80 No Impact

R11 2 81 71 91 73 2 80 No Impact

R17 2 89 71 99 73 2 80 No Impact

R22 2 51 76 61 78 2 80 No Impact

Footnotes: 

1.) FRA Vibration Land Use Category 2 includes residences and other buildings where people normally sleep. Category 3 

includes institutional land uses with primarily daytime uses, such as schools and churches.

2.) VdB is a logarithmic scaling of vibration magnitude

3.) For Infrequent Events (fewer than 30 vibration events per day), Ground-Borne Vibration (GBV) Impact Criteria are 80 VdB 

for Category 2 Land Uses(residences) and 83 VdB for Category 3 Land Uses (Institutional)

3.3.2 Potential Impacts

The proposed improvements to the Shipman to Godfrey section of the Chicago to St. Louis HSR 

corridor include increasing passenger train speeds from 79 mph to 110 mph for HSR, and adding a 

second main track (double tracking) adjacent to the existing main track. The total number of daily 

passenger trains would not change. The current schedule, ten passenger trains (five trains in each 

direction), is anticipated to be maintained as part of the proposal. Of the ten passenger trains under the 

Project, eight will be HSR and two are the existing long-distance Amtrak Texas Eagle service. 

3.3.2.1 Noise

The No-Build Alternative would not create any change in noise impacts from the existing

conditions, because the passenger train operations would not change.

For the Build Alternative, passenger rail noise levels would increase by 2-3 dBA compared with existing 

conditions (Table 2). The increase in passenger rail noise under the Project would result from increased 

speed. All noise increases are below the level of that would denote a “Moderate Impact” under FRA 

guidelines; therefore no noise impacts are expected.

While vehicular traffic contributes to the overall noise level, the construction of an additional track and

reconstruction of the existing mainline track would not change vehicular traffic substantially.

Therefore, vehicular traffic was not considered in the impact evaluation. Also, the Build Alternative

should not re-distribute or change vehicular traffic patterns and would not add capacity to the

overall highway/street system. However, due to the study area being within an active rail corridor with

the trains being the dominant noise source, the passenger train traffic was taken into consideration.
Page 13

March 2014

The impact evaluation is based on the comparison of the existing passenger train noise and the

train noise under the Build Alternative condition.

There would be no noise impacts on sensitive receptors from the Build Alternative because the

current 10 daily passenger trains traveling between Chicago and St. Louis would continue to pass

through the Project study area as those passenger trains currently do. Likewise, since no changes

in the levels of freight train noise are expected, the overall noise levels would remain similar to

existing conditions for freight trains.

Trucks and machinery used for construction would produce noise that could temporarily affect

some land uses and activities during the construction period. Residents adjacent to the study area

corridor would at some time experience perceptible temporary construction noise from

implementation of the Build Alternative. Most of the Project corridor is rural and the potential to 

experience construction noise impacts would be localized to the residentially developed areas of 

Godfrey, Brighton, and Shipman. During construction, all equipment would be in good working order

and maintenance, including the exhaust systems. Additionally, any temporary impacts would cease

immediately after the construction activity is completed.

3.3.2.2 Vibration

For the Build Alternative, passenger rail vibration levels would increase by 1-5 VdB compared with existing 

conditions (Table 3). The change in passenger rail vibration under the Project would result from the 

increase in train speed and construction of new tracks closer to the receptor. Because the future passenger 

rail vibration would be within the FRA Impact Criteria, vibration impacts would not occur.

Based on the ground-borne vibration analysis for the study, vibration impacts are not anticipated as 

part of the proposed Project for either the No-Build or Build Alternative. There are no ground-borne 

noise impacts associated with vibration as the ground-borne noise levels would be below the FRA 

impact criteria.

Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment 

and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations, which spread 

through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. 

Ground vibrations from construction activities very rarely reach the levels that can damage structures, 

but they can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings very close to the site. The 

construction activities that typically generate the most severe vibrations are blasting and impact pile 

driving which will not be utilized as part of this project.

3.4 Wetlands

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands”, 1977, requires federal agencies to avoid short and 

long term impacts resulting from destruction or modification of wetlands and Waters of the U.S. (See 

Section 3.2 for additional discussions of Waters of the U.S.). This order directs federal agencies to avoid 

new construction in wetlands unless there is no other viable alternative. When it is necessary to cause 
Page 14

March 2014

adverse effects to a wetland, the proposed action shall include all practical measures to minimize harm 

to the wetland.

Wetlands were identified within the study area by Olsson Associates in Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 using 

procedures outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and Regional Supplement 

to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0). Procedures included 

field verification of the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.

Wetlands within the Project area were classified using the Classification of Wetlands and Deep-water 

Habitats of the United States (Cowardin 1979). 

A total of 84 wetlands were identified by Olsson Associates on behalf of the UPRR. Table 4 summarizes 

wetlands delineated from MP 230 to MP 253. The wetlands range in size from 0.001 acres to 2.503 acres. 

The Floristic Quality Index (FQI) ranges from 0 to 10.21. 

The No-Build Alternative would have no impacts on wetlands.

Potential Impacts

The Build Alternative would impact wetlands. Table 5 identifies the temporary and permanent impacts 

associated with the wetlands within the Project limits. The temporary impacts total 2.708 acres. The 

permanent impacts total 2.821 acres. Impacts to wetlands consist of adding fill material, removing of 

materials and culvert replacements (See Table 5 for impacts). There were no wetlands identified in the 

2003 FEIS for this section.
Page 15

March 2014

Table 4. Delineated Wetlands

Wetland ID Cowardin 

Classification1

Size 

(Acres)

FQA2

Mile Post

Mean C FQI

TPA-Z PEMA 0.640 0.00 0.00 230.09-230.35

TPA-II1 PFO1A 2.503 2.75 5.50 230.03-230.37

TPA-II2 PFO1A 0.668 2.75 5.50 230.40-230.72

A PFO1A 0.079 6.00 8.49 230.35-230.36

B PEMA 0.254 2.25 6.36 230.37-230.40

TPA-Y PEMA 0.069 0.00 0.00 231.06-231.12

TPA-HH1 PFO1A 0.552 3.80 8.50 231.46-231.50

TPA-HH2 PFO1A 0.091 3.80 8.50 231.51-231.53

TPA-HH3 PFO1A 0.594 3.80 8.50 231.50-231.51

TPA-HH4 PFO1A 0.576 3.80 8.50 231.51-231.60

TPA-HH5 PRO1A 2.328 3.80 8.50 231.63-231.86

TPA-GG1 PFO1A/PEMA 0.045 1.67 2.89 231.60-231.61

TPA-GG2 PFO1A 0.205 1.67 2.89 231.66-231.78

TPA-GG3 PFO1A 0.074 1.67 2.89 231.94-231.97

TPA-FF PEMC 0.367 2.00 2.00 231.93-231.98

TPA-EE PEMC 0.546 2.00 2.00 232.13-232.18

TPA-DD PUB/PFO1A 0.049 4.25 8.50 232.29-232.30

TPA-CC PEMA 0.203 4.0 5.66 232.77-232.79

TPA-BB1 PUB/PFO1A 0.127 4.17 10.21 233.44-233.47

TPA-BB2 PFO1A 0.153 4.17 10.21 233.54-233.56

TPA-AA PEMA 0.008 0.00 0.00 233.63-233.64

TPA-V1 PEMA 0.156 8.00 8.00 234.31-234.64

TPA-V2 PEMA 0.190 8.00 8.00 234.65-235.18

TPA-W PEMC 0.019 5.00 7.07 235.26-235.30

TPA-X PEMC 0.028 2.00 2.00 235.36-235.38

TPA-S PEMC 0.001 1.00 1.00 235.69-235.69

Subdivision, SPCSL 2A HSR Tier 1 South, MP 230 to MP 253, Prepared by Olsson Associates 1

PEMA = Palustrine Emergent Temporarily Flooded

PEMC = Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded

PSSA = Palustrine Scrub Shrub Temporarily Flooded

PFOA = Palustrine Forested Temporarily Flooded

PFOC = Palustrine Forested Seasonally Flooded

PUB = Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom

2

FQA reported values include the mean coefficient of conservatism (Mean C) and the Floristic Quality Index 

(FQI), Data provided by Olsson Associates
Page 16

March 2014

Wetland ID Cowardin 

Classification1

Size 

(Acres)

FQA2

Mile Post

Mean C FQI

TPA-T PEMA 0.072 5.00 5.00 235.92-236.03

TPA-U PFO1A 0.191 2.00 2.00 236.14-236.17

KS-R PEMA 0.039 3.50 4.95 237.46-237.49

KS_P1 PEMA 0.083 4.00 4.00 237.58-237.62

KS_P2 PEMA 0.138 4.00 4.00 237.63-237.73

KS_Q1 PFO/PEMA 0.124 2.00 2.83 237.59-237.87

KS_Q2 PFO/PEMA 0.067 2.00 2.83 237.80-237.86

MP-8 PEMA 0.215 5.00 7.07 238.52-238.86

CT_28 PFO1A 0.065 2.75 5.50 239.38-239.40

Ct-b-day4 PEMA 0.119 1.33 2.30 240.78-241.06

DP_A PEMA 0.028 2.00 4.90 243.49-243.50

DP_B PEMC 0.006 2.50 5.00 2432.59-243.60

DP_C PEMC 0.011 2.67 4.62 244.06-244.08

MP-9A PEMA 0.009 1.17 2.87 243.53-243.54

MP-9B PEMA 0.030 1.17 2.87 244.20-244.28

MP-9C PEMA 0.005 1.17 2.87 244.30-244.31

MP-9D PEMA 0.058 1.17 2.87 244.33-244.46

DP_D PEMA 0.389 0.00 0.00 244.21-244.22

DP_E PEMA 0.003 2.00 2.83 244.49-244.50

MP-10A PEMA 0.013 2.13 6.02 244.90-244.92

MP-10B PEMC 2.265 2.13 6.02 244.86-245.38

MP-10C PEMA 0.145 2.13 6.02 244.86-245.38

DP_F PEMC 0.037 0.50 0.71 244.78-244.80

DP_G PEMA 0.698 2.33 4.04 244.84-245.65

DP_H PEMA 0.117 2.50 3.54 244.99-245.10

MP-11 PEMC 0.434 2.80 6.26 246.13-246.61

Subdivision, SPCSL 2A HSR Tier 1 South, MP 230 to MP 253, Prepared by Olsson Associates 1

PEMA = Palustrine Emergent Temporarily Flooded

PEMC = Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded

PSSA = Palustrine Scrub Shrub Temporarily Flooded

PFOA = Palustrine Forested Temporarily Flooded

PFOC = Palustrine Forested Seasonally Flooded

PUB = Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom 2

FQA reported values include the mean coefficient of conservatism (Mean C) and the Floristic Quality Index 

(FQI), Data provided by Olsson Associates
Page 17

March 2014

Wetland ID Cowardin 

Classification1

Size 

(Acres)

FQA2

Mile Post

Mean C FQI

MP-12A PEMA 0.024 4.25 8.50 246.20-246.23

MP-12B PEMA 0.707 4.25 8.50 246.50-246.64

DP_I PFO/PEMA 0.385 2.00 3.46 247.27-247.35

DP_L PEMC 0.017 3.00 5.20 247.39-247.42

DP_J PEMC 0.091 0.50 0.71 247.45-247.50

DP_K PEMA 0.021 1.00 1.41 247.50-247.50

DP_N PEMA 0.044 2.00 2.83 247.53-247.56

DP_M PEMA 0.150 0.00 0.00 248.44-248.54

DP_O PFOA/PEMC 0.084 2.67 4.62 248.44-248.49

DP_P PEMC 0.018 2.00 2.83 248.59-248.62

MP-13 PEMA 0.163 2.86 7.57 249.11-249.22

KS_I2 PEMA 0.144 1.67 2.89 249.27-249.38

KS_I1 PFO/PEMA 0.156 1.67 2.89 249.43-249.44

KS_J1 PEMA 0.060 4.00 5.66 249.46-249.50

KS_J2 PEMA 0.096 4.00 5.66 249.51-249.61

KS_J3 PSSA 0.396 4.0 5.66 249.63-249.78

KS_H2 PEMA 0.152 2.0 2.83 249.46-249.70

KS_H1 PEMA 0.196 2.0 2.83 249.91-250.01

KS_G PFO/PEMA 0.022 0.00 0.00 250.18-250.20

KS_F PEMA 0.029 0.00 0.00 250.24-250.27

KS_E PEMA 0.003 0.00 0.00 250.98-250.99

KS_C1 PEMA 0.127 1.40 3.13 250.96-251.23

KS_C2 PEMA 0.036 1.40 3.13 251.18-251.20

KS_D PFO/PEMC 0.837 4.0 5.66 251.14-251.22

KS_B PEMC 0.163 0.50 0.71 251.34-251.38

KS_A2 PFO/PEMA 0.223 1.67 2.89 251.51-251.53

Subdivision, SPCSL 2A HSR Tier 1 South, MP 230 to MP 253, Prepared by Olsson Associates 1

PEMA = Palustrine Emergent Temporarily Flooded

PEMC = Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded

PSSA = Palustrine Scrub Shrub Temporarily Flooded

PFOA = Palustrine Forested Temporarily Flooded

PFOC = Palustrine Forested Seasonally Flooded

PUB = Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom

2

FQA reported values include the mean coefficient of conservatism (Mean C) and the Floristic Quality Index 

(FQI), Data provided by Olsson Associates
Page 18

March 2014

Wetland ID Cowardin 

Classification1

Size 

(Acres)

FQA2

Mile Post

Mean C FQI

KS_A1 PEMA 0.029 1.67 2.89 251.51-251.52

KS_M PFO/PEMA 0.008 0.00 0.00 252.21-252.23

KS_L PFO/PEMA 0.096 2.50 3.54 252.24-252.28

KS_K PEMA 0.112 0.00 0.00 252.28-252.32

KS_O PEMA 0.038 0.00 0.00 252.96-253.01

KS_N PEMA 0.036 0.50 0.71 252.95-253.04

Subdivision, SPCSL 2A HSR Tier 1 South, MP 230 to MP 253, Prepared by Olsson Associates 1

PEMA = Palustrine Emergent Temporarily Flooded

PEMC = Palustrine Emergent Seasonally Flooded

PSSA = Palustrine Scrub Shrub Temporarily Flooded

PFOA = Palustrine Forested Temporarily Flooded

PFOC = Palustrine Forested Seasonally Flooded

PUB = Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom

2

FQA reported values include the mean coefficient of conservatism (Mean C) and the Floristic Quality Index 

(FQI), Data provided by Olsson Associates
Page 19

March 2014

Table 5. Wetland Impacts

Wetland 

ID Mile Post

Impacts*

Reason for Impact

Temporary Permanent

KS-R 237.46-237.49 0.039 Cut

KS_P1 237.58-237.62 0.083 Potential impact within ROW

KS_P2 237.63-237.73 0.099 0.039 Potential impact within ROW/Fill

KS_Q1 237.59-237.87 0.124 Cut and Fill

KS_Q2 237.80-237.86 0.067 Potential impact within ROW

MP-8 238.52-238.86 0.215 Cut and Fill

CT_28 239.38-239.40 0.036 0.001 Fill

Ct-b-day4 240.78-241.06 0.119 Fill

DP_A 243.49-243.50 0.028 Cut

DP_B 2432.59-243.60 0.006 Cut

DP_C 244.06-244.08 0.011 Cut

MP-9A 243.53-243.54 0.009 Fill and Culvert Replacement

MP-9B 244.20-244.28 0.030 Cut and Fill

MP-9C 244.30-244.31 0.005 Fill and Culvert Replacement

MP-9D 244.33-244.46 0.058 Fill

DP_D 244.21-244.22 0.082 0.100 Potential impact within ROW/Fill and Culvert 

Replacement

DP_E 244.49-244.50 0.003 Fill 

MP-10A 244.90-244.92 0.013 Cut and Culvert Replacement

MP-10B 244.86-245.38 0.177 Fill

MP-10C 244.86-245.38 0.145 Cut

DP_F 244.78-244.80 0.037 Fill

DP_G 244.84-245.65 0.680 0.018 Potential impact within ROW/Culvert 

Replacement

DP_H 244.99-245.10 0.037 Fill

MP-11 246.13-246.61 0.025 0.003 Potential impact within ROW/Fill and Culvert 

Replacement

MP-12A 246.20-246.23 0.011 0.013 Potential impact within ROW/Fill 

MP-12B 246.50-246.64 0.334 0.373 Potential impact within ROW/Fill 

DP_I 247.27-247.35 0.242 0.143 Potential impact within ROW/Fill and Culvert 

Replacement

*The impacts are based on UPRR 30% Preliminary Plans dated May 14, 2012 and are subject to change as new Design 

Plans become available. Highlighted cells indicate no impacts. This table includes impacted wetlands only.
Page 20

March 2014

Wetland 

ID Mile Post

Impacts*

Reason for Impact

Temporary Permanent

DP_L 247.39-247.42 0.017 Potential impact within ROW

DP_J 247.45-247.50 0.036 0.055 Potential impact within ROW/Fill and Culvert 

Replacement

DP_K 247.50-247.50 0.008 0.013 Potential impact within ROW/Fill and Culvert 

Replacement

DP_N 247.53-247.56 0.044 Cut and Fill

DP_M 248.44-248.54 0.150 Cut and Culvert Replacement

DP_O 248.44-248.49 0.030 0.054 Potential impact within ROW/Cut and Culvert 

Replacement

DP_P 248.59-248.62 0.018 Cut

MP-13 249.11-249.22 0.163 Fill

KS_I2 249.27-249.38 0.144 Fill

KS_I1 249.43-249.44 0.059 0.013 Potential impact within ROW/Fill 

KS_J1 249.46-249.50 0.060 Potential impact within ROW

KS_J2 249.51-249.61 0.093 0.003 Potential impact within ROW/Fill

KS_J3 249.63-249.78 0.396 Potential impact within ROW

KS_H2 249.46-249.70 0.152 Fill

KS_H1 249.91-250.01 0.196 Cut and Fill

KS_G 250.18-250.20 0.022 Potential impact within ROW

KS_F 250.24-250.27 0.029 Cut 

KS_E 250.98-250.99 0.003 Cut

KS_C1 250.96-251.23 0.022 0.0940 Potential impact within ROW/Cut and Culvert 

Replacement

KS_C2 251.18-251.20 0.030 Potential impact within ROW

KS_D 251.14-251.22 0.098 0.009 Potential impact within ROW/Fill and Culvert 

Replacement

KS_B 251.34-251.38 0.001 0.063 Potential impact within ROW/Cut and Fill

KS_A2 251.51-251.53 0.048 Fill and Culvert Replacement

KS_A1 251.51-251.52 0.001 Culvert Replacement

Total 

Impacts 2.708 2.821

*The impacts are based on UPRR 30% Preliminary Plans dated May 14, 2012 and are subject to change as new Design 

Plans become available. Highlighted cells indicate no impacts. This table includes impacted wetlands only.
Page 21

March 2014

The Illinois Department of Transportation (Department) prepared a report called a Wetlands Action Plan

indicating their plans to mitigate impacted wetlands in this Project. Compensation for unavoidable 

adverse wetland impacts would be coordinated with the Department’s, Bureau of Design and 

Environment (BDE). State mitigation ratios are determined by the size of the impact (over or under 0.5 

acres), Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and the location of the mitigation site (on-site, off-site, out-ofwatershed, within watershed). The final mitigation measures would be decided during consultation 

with the appropriate agencies. The St. Louis USACE regulatory program allows for the use of ratios in 

determining the amount of compensation required when there is a difference between the kind of 

aquatic resource being impacted and the kind of mitigation being required. Ratios must be based on an 

identifiable rationale (e.g., use of an assessment methodology, rationale based on a regional aquatic 

resource context, or a case-by-case rationale briefly described in the decision document). Other factors 

affecting mitigation ratios include temporal losses between the time of impact and the time the 

mitigation site achieves a fully functional level and the likelihood of mitigation success. All use of ratios 

should be to ensure that the underlying policy of offsetting the authorized impacts will occur (See

Appendix K for the Biological Resource Memorandum, February 6, 2013).

Mitigation

3.5 Prairie Vegetation

Three reports were reviewed in the evaluation of the prairie vegetation present along the UPRR from 

Shipman to Godfrey: 1) The Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) report titled Inventory of Roadside 

Prairies, Illinois Department of Transportation, District 6, prepared by William Handel (2003); 2) The INHS 

report titled Inventory of Roadside Prairies, Illinois Department of Transportation, District 8, prepared by 

William Handel (2004); and 3) The INHS report titled High-Speed Rail Chicago to St. Louis-Shipman to 

Godfrey (Tier 1) & Auburn to Shipman (Tier 2) Botanical Survey-Sangamon, Macoupin and Madison Counties, 

prepared by William Handel (2012). The presence of prairie remnant locations was confirmed in the 

field by Quigg Engineering Inc. (QEI) in the fall of 2011. 

The natural quality of each site within the 2003 and 2004 INHS reports was assessed and assigned a 

letter value of A, B, C, or D, with A representing the highest quality, least disturbed vegetation. In the 

2012 Report, the natural quality of each site was assessed and assigned one of five classes: 1, 1/2, 2, 2/3 

or 3, with 1 representing the highest quality, least disturbed vegetation. These values correspond, 

according to Handel (2003), as follows: Class 1= A or B, Class 2= C, and Class 3= D. 

In the 2003 INHS document, two prairie remnants were identified within the Project study limits. The 

INHS report identified a 3.7 mile, 82-foot wide prairie remnant north of Shipman labeled as Site 27. 

This prairie remnant was graded as an “A–B” quality prairie due to the number of conservative species 

present and a moderate to low abundance of exotic species. This prairie was reevaluated in the 2012 

INHS Report and was considered to be four separate prairie remnants (Site 18-21). The quality of Site 

18 and 20 was assessed as Class 2/3, the quality of Site 19 was assessed as Class 2, and the quality of 

Site 21 was assessed as Class 3. 

The second prairie identified in Handel’s 2003 INHS report is a 0.3 mile, 98-foot wide prairie remnant 

north of Brighton labeled as Site 26. This prairie remnant is graded as a “D” quality prairie, and is a 

highly degraded, low quality prairie with exotic species dominating portions of the remnants. Since it 
Page 22

March 2014

was not identified in Handel’s 2012 INHS document, the prairie is considered to no longer exist at this 

location.

Handel’s 2004 INHS document identified one prairie remnant within the Project study limits. The 

report identifies the entire area in Jersey County between the UPRR ROW and Illinois Route 267 as 

mowed prairie. It is considered prairie habitat due to the presence of conservative species which 

remained out of the reach of mowers. Since it was not identified in the 2012 INHS document, the 

prairie is considered to no longer exist at this location. 

The 2012 INHS document identified an additional 0.75 acre prairie along the west side of the tracks 

north of Plainview (Site 17). The quality of Site 17 was assessed as Class 2/3. 

None of the prairie remnants are part of an Illinois Nature Preserve or Illinois Natural Area Inventory 

Site according to the IDNR. Each prairie remnant mentioned above is further described in Table 6 with 

the most current data available. 

The No-Build Alternative would result in no direct removal of native vegetation within or adjacent to 

the right-of-way (ROW). Native vegetation within the ROW will be allowed to exist, subject only to 

standard mowing, clearing and herbicide treatment consistent with current ROW management. Native 

prairie remnants will remain unprotected.

Potential Impacts

The Build Alternative would impact native prairies along the railroad ROW. There are five prairies 

located within the Project limits that have the potential to be impacted. Table 7 lists the temporary and 

permanent impacts for each prairie. The impacts include fill and cut areas within the UPRR ROW. 

Appendix I, Environmental Resources Map, illustrates the locations of each prairie: 

The 2003 FEIS did not indicate any prairie remnants within the Project Limits. 
Page 23

March 2014

Table 6. Prairie Remnants located from Shipman to Godfrey and their Ecological Impact

Original 

Site

Numbera

Updated 

Site 

Numberb

Size 

(acres) Mile Postc Class

Type of 

Prairie

Potential 

Endangered/Threatened 

Species

Species 

Identifiedd

17 0.75

231.24-231.30

2/3

dry glacial 

drift prairie

Ground Plum (Astagalus 

crassicarpus) no

27

18 1.11

234.49-234.91

2/3

dry mesic 

prairie

Virginia Bunchflower 

(Melanthium virginicum) yes

19 3.06

235.03-235.63

2

dry mesic 

savanna

Virginia Bunchflower 

(Melanthium virginicum) no

20 2.09

236.27-236.45

2/3

dry mesic 

prairie and 

savanna

Savanna Blazing Star 

(Liatris scariosa var. 

nieulandii) no

21 1.21

236.67-236-81 & 

236.95-237.19 3

dry mesic 

prairie None no a INHS (2003). Inventory of Roadside Prairies, Illinois Department of Transportation, District 6, prepared by William Handel. b INHS (2012). High-Speed Rail Chicago to St. Louis-Shipman to Godfrey (Tier 1) & Auburn to Shipman (Tier 2) Botanical SurveySangamon, Macoupin and Madison Counties, prepared by William Handel c Based on 30% UPRR Design Plans and Handel’s 2012 Shapefiles d Endangered and Threatened species surveyed during the 2012 INHS Report

Table 7. Prairie Remnants Impact Assessment

Original Site 

Numbera

Updated Site 

Numberb

Size 

(acres)

Acres in 

ROW

Impacts (acres)* Reason for Impactc

Temporary Permanent

17 0.75 0 0 0 Outside of UPRR 

ROW

27

18 1.11 0.818 0 0 No Impacts based on 

30% Plans

19 3.06 2.089 0 0 No Impacts based on 

30% Plans

20 1.21 0.601 0 0.601 Fill Area 

21 1.21 0.989 0 0.989 Cut Area a INHS (2003). Inventory of Roadside Prairies, Illinois Department of Transportation, District 6, prepared by William Handel. b INHS (2012). High-Speed Rail Chicago to St. Louis-Shipman to Godfrey (Tier 1) & Auburn to Shipman (Tier 2) Botanical 

Survey-Sangamon, Macoupin and Madison Counties, prepared by William Handel c The impacts are based on 30% UPRR Design Plans and are subject to change as new Design Plans become available.

To the extant practical, the Project would avoid and minimize impacts to prairie Sites 17 through 21, 

BDE must be notified when unavoidable impacts are known. 

Mitigation
Page 24

March 2014

Per the 2004 ROD for the Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail Project, acre-for-acres in-kind 

compensation shall be provided for temporary and permanent impacts to prairie Grade C+ and above

by IDOT. Of the five prairie sites in the 2012 Survey, only Site 19 is grade C+ (2) or above. The BDE

Memorandum dated February 6, 2013 recommends that any compensation for impacts to Site 19 be 

combined with the impacts to high quality prairie within the Tier 2 project from MP 203 to MP 230.

In 2013 and 2014, the BDE will re-survey the class of 1, 1/2 and 2 prairie sites for the presence of federal 

and state listed species of plants, including the prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea).

3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, provides protections for those species 

that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The Act grants the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) the responsibility in administering the species designations and protections under the 

ESA. The term “endangered” means a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. The term “threatened” means a species is likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future. 

The Illinois Endangered Species Act (IESA) of 1972 provides protection for Federal and Illinois species 

listed as threatened and or endangered under the ESA and IESA. The Illinois Endangered Species 

Protection Board is responsible for listing and administering the species designations for Illinois 

species. "Endangered Species" under the Illinois Act means any species of plant or animal classified as 

endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, plus such other species the Board may 

list as in danger of extinction in the wild in Illinois due to one or more causes including but not limited 

to the destruction, diminution or disturbance of habitat, overexploitation, predation, pollution, disease, 

or other natural or manmade factors affecting its prospects of survival. The IESA defines "threatened 

species" as any species of plant or animal classified as threatened under the Federal Endangered 

Species Act plus such other species which the Board may list as likely to become endangered in the 

wild in Illinois within the foreseeable future.

The USFWS initially identified the following threatened/endangered species within the Project limits. 

• Jersey County: Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and decurrent false aster(Boltonia decurrens)

• Madison County: Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), least tern (Sternula antillarum), pallid sturgeon 

(Scaphirynchus albus), spectaclecase mussel (Cumberlandia monodonta), decurrent false aster 

eastern fringe orchid (Platanthera leucophaea).

• Macoupin County: Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) and eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera 

leucophaea) 

The IDNR had occurrence records for two state-listed plant species; Blazing Star (Liatris scariosa var. 

nieuwlandi) and Bunchflower (Melanthium virginicum). 
Page 25

March 2014

The No-Build Alternative threatened and endangered species and their habitats will not be directly 

affected. Wildlife habitat will remain in its present condition, subject to the influences of future 

maintenance activities that include the removal of woody species and the application of herbicide to 

vegetation within 15 meters (50 feet) of the edge of track. There will be no alteration of existing plant 

communities by construction. However, track maintenance will continue to affect the adjacent 

vegetation, and existing successional trends will continue until modified by future maintenance or 

development, if any.

Potential Impacts

The Build Alternative may affect habitat of the Indiana bat, blazing star, bunchflower, and eastern 

prairie fringed orchid. They are described in the following sections. Illinois Department of 

Transportation (Department) has determined, in their Biological Resources Review (February 6, 2013), 

the habitat within the Project limits was not suitable for least tern, pallid sturgeon, spectaclecase 

mussel, and decurrent false aster; therefore, these species will not be impacted.

Field surveys were conducted in September 2011 for Federal and State species with potential habitat 

within the study area. Field surveys were conducted for the presence of the federally-listed Decurrent 

False Aster (Boltonia decurrens) and Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (Planthera leucophaea). Fall field 

studies did not find the federally-listed plants and concluded the plants do not exist in the study area 

due to lack of favorable habitat requirements.

The Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) conducted vegetation survey titled High-Speed Rail Chicago 

to St. Louis-Shipman to Godfrey (Tier 1) & Auburn to Shipman (Tier 2) Botanical Survey-Sangamon, Macoupin 

and Madison Counties.(Handel, 2012). Spring INHS vegetation surveys resulted in identification of two 

populations of the Illinois listed Bunchflower and Blazing Star at the north limits of the Project

corridor. The state listed species Blazing Star and Bunchflower were not found during the September 

2011 field work. Spring 2012 vegetation surveys resulted in identified populations of Bunchflower and 

Blazing Star in the northern limits of the Project. Per the Department’s Biological Resources Review 

(BRR) Memorandum of February 6, 2013, the BDE will re-survey the class 1, 1/2 and 2 prairie sites for 

the presence of federal and state listed species in 2013. (See Appendix K for the BRR Memorandum.)

Indiana Bat

Quigg Engineering, Inc. (QEI) conducted a bat habitat survey in September 2011 to review three 

potential habitats for Indiana bat: 1) the woods at Miles Station between MP 242.39 and MP 242.89); 2) 

on the east side of the UPRR tracks, between MP 234.00 and MP 230.00 where the alignment crosses 

Macoupin Creek and May Branch of Macoupin Creek; and 3) where the alignment crosses Coop Creek 

at MP 236.00.

Indiana bat habitat occurs in the forested lands located at Miles Station (MP 242.39 and MP 242.89) on 

the east side of the UPRR tracks. Two areas of ROW within the Miles Station forested areas are 

proposed to be acquired to reconstruct culverts at MP 242.50 and MP 242.80. The two culvert locations 

are situated in a large tract of woods and discharge flows from two secondary branches of Honey Cut 

Creek. The tree canopy in these two locations along the streams is approximately 60 percent canopy 

Location 1
Page 26

March 2014

enclosed. Canopy height ranges between 25 to 30 feet above the stream channel. Eleven tree snags were 

identified within the forested sections of the woods within the limits of proposed ROW. 

These two culvert locations where the ROW is proposed to be acquired would require the clearing of 

approximately 1.23 acres of trees at MP 242.50 and 0.86 acres of trees at MP 242.80 in order to 

reconstruct the two culverts. 

Indiana bat habitat occurs between MP 234.00 and MP 230.00 where the alignment crosses Macoupin 

Creek and May Branch of Macoupin Creek. The tree canopy in these two locations along the streams is 

approximately 60 percent canopy enclosed. Canopy height ranges between 25 to 30 feet above the 

stream channel. Tree species within the forested area provide adequate roosting sites for the Indiana 

bat. Therefore, it was determined that the forestland located between MP 234 and MP 230 has potential 

habitat for the Indiana bat.

Location 2

Indiana bat habitat occurs where the alignment crosses Coop Creek at MP 236.00. Tree species and the 

forest vicinity to an open secondary stream provide adequate roosting sites and feeding opportunities 

for the Indiana bat. Therefore, the forested area was determined to have potential habitat for the 

Indiana bat.

Location 3

Appendix 2 of the Indiana Bat Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision (2007) lists one extant maternity 

colony for Jersey (Brainerd Cave) and Macoupin counties. Brainerd Cave is located 16 miles west of the 

UPRR tracks. There is one record of a 1987 capture of the Indiana bat 1.3 miles west of the UPRR tracks 

over Macoupin Creek (INHS 2010).

As stated in the 2003 FEIS, additional coordination will be conducted with the USFWS and the IDNR to 

assure that the proposed project will minimize or avoid impacts to protected plant and animal species 

during project construction, operation, and maintenance. This effort will include an agency 

consultation process and will be coordinated with and incorporate mitigation measures developed for 

both wetland and native vegetation impacts.

In addition, the BDE Biological Resource Review proposed two commitments to protect threatened and 

endangered species. The first commitment requires that there will be no tree clearing in these locations 

between the time periods of April 1 and September 30 when bats are likely to be present. Provided the 

clearing dates are adhered to, there would be no impact to the Indiana bat. The second commitment 

requires the BDE to re-survey the class 1, 1/2, 2 prairie sites for the presence of federal and state listed 

species of plants in 2013 and 2014. This commitment will ensure that sensitive species are not present in 

the Project limits (See Appendix K for Biological Resource Review Memorandum, February 6, 2013).
Page 27

March 2014

3.7 Agricultural Land

The Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), 7 U.S.C. 4201 – 4209 and the Farmland Protection 

Policy Act, 7 CFR 658, both state that during the development of a project, consideration must be given 

to the impacts that the action will cause in the conversion of farmland to non-farm use. Enacted by the 

U.S. Congress in 1981, the FPPA directs federal agencies to evaluate their programs and projects and to 

modify their actions so as to produce the least impact on farmland. The FPPA also directs federal 

programs, to the extent practicable, be compatible with state and local government and private 

programs and policies to protect farmland.

The Farmland Preservation Act (505 ILCS 75/1, et seq.) and State Executive Order No. 4 (1980), 

“Preservation of Illinois Farmland”, require state agencies to consider farmland conversion in the 

planning and execution of their programs and projects. The Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA) 

was legislatively directed to review all state agency projects and activities that may have a direct or 

indirect effect upon potential conversion of Illinois farmland. 

The Illinois Department of Transportation, Agriculture Land Preservation Policy; the Cooperative 

Working Agreement between the Illinois Department of Agriculture and the Illinois Department of 

Transportation on Farmland Preservation; and 8 Ill. Adm. Code 700, Farmland Preservation Act are the 

additional legal authorities regulating or influencing the policies and procedures on farmland 

conversion of Illinois Department of Transportation (Department) projects.

The No-Build Alternative would not result in use of agricultural land and therefore would have no 

impacts to agricultural lands.

Potential Impacts 

Approximately 14.7 acres of agricultural land would be affected by the Build Alternative from 

construction activities within the vicinity of the Shipman to Godfrey portion of the Chicago to St. Louis 

High Speed Rail project, including land within Macoupin, Jersey, and Madison counties. Agricultural 

land acquisition would occur throughout the 20.10 miles of the Project, with the bulk of land 

acquisition occurring in Macoupin County. Approximately 13 acres (or 89 percent) of the total 14.7

acres, of agricultural land acquisition would be in Macoupin County. Approximately 0.25 acres and 

one acre would be acquired in Madison and Jersey counties, respectively. Overall, 0.66 agricultural 

acres per project mile (including Macoupin, Jersey, and Madison counties) would be permanently 

affected by construction activities.

The 14.7 acres of agricultural land impacted would include 18 different soils. The soil capabilities range 

from Class 1 to 3 soils. Soils classified as 1 have slight limitations restricting their use for field crops.

Soils classified as 2 have moderate limitations restricting the choice of plants or require moderate 

conservation practices. Soils classified as 3 have severe limitations restricting the choice of plants or 

require special conservation practices, or both. In classes 2 and 3, the “e” and “w” subclass designations 

apply. Subclass e refers to erosion hazards while subclass w refers to water in or on the soil, both 

describing characteristics limiting planting options and dictating management practices. In class 1, 

there are no subclasses because the soils of this class have few limitations.
Page 28

March 2014

Due to the affected agricultural land’s proximity to the current UPRR ROW there would be no severed 

farm units, severance management zones, uneconomic remnants, landlocked parcels, or adverse travel 

conditions created. Siding, access road, and track construction would not affect agricultural zoning or 

affect any known agricultural protection areas. Minimal adverse effects may include agricultural 

income loss and irreversible and irretrievable commitment of agricultural resources along the UPRR 

ROW in Macoupin, Jersey, and Madison counties due to acquisition of 0.66 acres of agricultural ground

per project mile.

Mitigation

As part of the Build Alternative, the closure of a grade crossing (at MP 246.85) would change access to 

one farmhouse. The current crossing provides access across the tracks from Illinois Route 111 (S. 

Maple) to a farmhouse, via an unpaved driveway approximately 0.14 mile long. New access to the 

farmhouse would be via Conrad Road. A new driveway, approximately 0.17 miles long, would be 

required to connect to Conrad Road.

Per Department policy and the Farmland Preservation Act (505 ILCS 75/1, et seq.), coordination was 

initiated with the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA) to obtain the Agency’s opinions and 

concerns. In addition, the impact of this Project on farmland conversion has been evaluated in 

accordance with the requirements of the United States Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS). The Project would convert three acres or less of farmland per mile and the conversion would

not result in more than minor impacts. The Project was coordinated with the NRCS using Form AD1006 due to multi-county involvement. The IDOA and NRCS have no objections to the Project (See 

Appendix K for copy of the AD-1006 Form). County level agricultural agencies including Soil and 

Water Conservation Districts, County NRCS offices, and local Farm Bureau Managers were contacted 

to provide a chance to comment on the Project. Table 8 lists the coordination completed to date.

Table 8. County Level Agricultural Agency Coordination

Contact Person Agency Response 

(Y/N) Comments

Dan Steinmann Madison County NRCS Yes

No comments. Comments received 

from October 4, 2012 electronic 

correspondence and letter dated 

October 11, 2012

Tom Jett & Steve 

Koeller

Madison County Farm 

Bureau Yes

T. Jett forwarded request for comments 

to Farm Bureau President in Madison 

County (S. Koeller). Comment received 

from electronic correspondence 

October 1, 2012. No response from S. 

Koeller

Rick Macho Madison County SWCD Yes

Indicated the need for NPDES permits 

and that he is responsible for NPDES 

inspections on behalf of IEPA. 

Comments received from telephone 

conversation September 21, 2012
Page 29

March 2014

Contact Person Agency Response 

(Y/N) Comments

Crystal Nance Jersey County NRCS Yes

No comments. Comments received 

from electronic correspondence 

October 2, 2012.

Stephanie Knittel Jersey County Farm 

Bureau Yes

No comments. Comments received 

from electronic correspondence 

October 2, 2012 and October 10, 2012.

Jeff Blackorby Jersey County SWCD No No comments received

Jeremy Jackman Macoupin County 

NRCS/SWCD Yes

Forwarded to acting District 

Conservationist and AC. Brad from 

Macoupin County has no comments. 

Comments received in electronic 

correspondence from J. Jackman dated 

October 1, 2012 and from an October 4, 

2012 telephone conversation with Brad 

from Macoupin County NRCS

Mark Dugger Farm Bureau No No comments received

3.8 Floodplains

Federal protection of floodplains is afforded by Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management,” and 

by implementation of federal regulations under 44 CFR Part 9. These regulations direct federal agencies 

to undertake actions to avoid impacts on floodplain areas by structures built in flood-prone areas. A 

floodplain is a low land adjacent to a river, lake, or ocean. Floodplains are designated by the rarity of 

the flood that is large enough to inundate them (i.e., 10-year, or 100-year).

Listed below are FEMA FIRM MAP panels within the study area.

• Panel 1709300005A in Macoupin County: The existing rail and proposed double track crosses 

Macoupin Creek. The crossing area is indicated as Zone A (special flood hazard area). 

• Panel 17083C0225D in Jersey County unincorporated and incorporated areas: The study area is 

located in Zone X Areas - Other Flood Areas, area of 0.2 percent (500-year) annual chance flood; 

areas of one percent (100-year) annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or 

with drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas protected by levees from one percent

annual chance flood. 

• Panel 1704360125B and Panel 1704360145B in Madison County: The study area is located in Zone C

which is identified as Areas of Minimal Flooding.

The No-Build Alternative would result in no impacts to floodplains.

Potential Impacts

The 2003 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Original Project stated that, no work will 

be performed below the 100-year flood elevation and no encroachment will occur on the base 
Page 30

March 2014

floodplain elevation. However, design has progressed since the 2003 document and there would be 

localized floodplain impacts below the base flood elevation associated with work near Macoupin Creek 

overflow structures. This work would require an IDNR permit and impacts would be mitigated as 

described below.

A stormwater permit would be required for all hydraulic structures. A permit would also be required 

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

(IDNR) Office of Water Resources (OWR) for all structure replacements/ extensions within federal and

state jurisdictional streams and waterways. Culvert replacements and extensions required for Project 

construction are anticipated to comply with the IDNR OWR Statewide Permit, which does not require 

the permit application to be filed if certain construction requirements are met, as detailed in IDNR 

Statewide Permit 12. The IDNR OWR permit process includes floodplain considerations. 

Permits

Areas where temporary floodplain impacts occur would be restored following Project construction. 

Permanent impacts would require proper sizing of hydraulic structures and compensatory storage 

where required.

Mitigation

3.9 Energy Use

The No-Build Alternative would not require any construction. Therefore, no changes in energy 

consumption area expected.

Construction of the proposed improvements would require indirect consumption of energy for 

processing materials, construction activities and maintenance within the Project limits. Energy 

consumption by vehicles in the area may increase during construction due to possible traffic delays or 

temporary day time closures.

The proposed improvement would increase the efficiency of the current transportation network by 

providing a more balanced use of the overall transportation network and enhancing the passenger rail 

component of the network. This would result in less direct and indirect vehicular energy consumption 

for the Build Alternative than the No-Build Alternative. Thus, in the long term, post-construction 

operational energy requirements should offset construction and maintenance energy requirements and 

result in a net savings in energy usage.

3.10 Transportation

3.10.1 Projected Ridership

Projected ridership was developed using mode diversion models that have been previously used in 

other passenger rail forecasting studies in the U.S. and was adopted for the Chicago to St. Louis 

corridor. 

Based on initial ridership estimates, passenger rail ridership will account for 2.8 percent of all trips 

between Chicago and St. Louis in 2030 compared to 1.7 percent under the existing condition. This 
Page 31

March 2014

increase in ridership would allow the High Speed Rail to fully meet the Purpose and Need of the 

program. 

Rail passenger travel time between Chicago and St. Louis would be between 3 hours and 51 minutes 

and 4 hours and 10 minutes. This compares to the overall travel times anticipated in the 2004 ROD of a 

minimum of 4 hours and 30 minutes. The HSR improvements could result in an additional 35 to 39 

minutes travel time savings compared to that previously anticipated. Travel times would be lessened 

by up to one hour and 47 minutes compared to current Amtrak schedules. Capacity improvements 

provided will allow for increased train frequencies and improved reliability.

Annual ridership estimates were developed for the proposed HSR. Anticipated changes in ridership 

estimates are based on travel times, reliability and frequency of service, and connections to other 

modes of transportation.

Table 9 lists the projected annual person trips for the four modes of intercity travel in the corridor for 

this Project.

Table 9. Existing (2010) and Projected (2030) Annual Person Trips (1,000’s)

in the Chicago-St. Louis Corridor

Mode Existing Trips Percent Proposed Trips Percent

Rail 641,587 1.3 1,707,109 2.7

Air 542,751 1.1 826,284 1.3

Bus 99,809 0.2 120,366 0.2

Auto 49,440,179 97.5 59,547,865 95.7

Total 50,724,326 100 62,201,624 100

3.10.2 Freight Traffic

Construction of the High Speed Rail (HSR) service within the study area is not expected to result in a 

change in the number of freight trains operating daily. However, its construction would have a positive 

effect on freight capacity with implementation of the proposed improvements. Provision of the 

proposed freight sidings and improvements to existing sidings within this study area would address 

any impacts to freight service that might result from operating passenger trains at higher speeds. An

increase in the number of freight trains is projected with completion of the Union Pacific intermodal 

yard south of Joliet, Illinois.

Modifications to the freight train schedule would be required to prevent conflicts with passenger rail 

service. The increased frequency of passenger trains would further restrict rail time available for freight 

movements. Since high speed rail operations would occur primarily during the daytime, coordination 

with the host railroads would be required to determine if the routing of freight trains could occur 

outside of the peak intercity passenger periods. The freight carrier would have to agree to the shift. 
Page 32

March 2014

Additional double track and freight sidings would be required so that future high speed trains can 

meet and pass other high speed trains and freight trains operating in the corridor without slowing 

down. This capability is essential if predicted travel times are to be met. The HSR alternative evaluated 

in the FEIS included the construction of 12 to 26 miles of double track and 25 to 27 miles of freight 

siding. 

In this study area, one area was identified for new double track, between MP 238.65 in Shipman and 

MP 249.30 in Godfrey.

3.10.3 Impacts on Railroad Operations

No changes will be required to existing freight operations and to existing commuter rail service in the 

Chicago area. Future commuter rail service is assumed to be the same as existing service. Outside of the 

Chicago area, no other commuter rail service operates in the corridor.

Construction activities for the High Speed Rail (HSR) improvements would affect rail traffic by 

reducing operating train speeds through the construction zone, which would increase rail travel time 

and, in turn, cost. This would occur when adding new siding tracks, double-tracks and connection 

tracks, upgrading signals, and modifying grade crossings. 

Another impact would be schedule adjustments for existing operations to create windows of 

opportunity for temporary shutdown of rail operations on selected track sections when the new 

turnouts are being placed for the passing sections and new sidings, or when there is a potential safety 

risk, such as during the construction of a flyover.

As a result of this Project, Rail passenger travel time between Chicago and St. Louis will decrease to 

between 4 hours and 4 hours and 30 minutes. Rail communication and signal systems would be 

upgraded, improving reliability and on-time performance.

Schedule adjustments would be required when construction activities would either directly impact the 

mainline track, such as when the new turnouts are being placed for the passing sections and new 

sidings, or when there is a potential safety risk, such as during the construction of a highway bridge 

superstructure over the tracks. Some of these activities may require up to eight hours of continuous 

track closure.

3.10.4 Impacts to Vehicular Operations

Under the No-Build Alternative there would be no impact to existing vehicular operations. No 

modifications to the existing grade crossing in the corridor are proposed.

Implementation of the grade crossing treatment recommendations would impact vehicular traffic 

within the study area. However, the impact would be limited to low volume roads because almost all 

major high volume roads that were built or substantially upgraded have grade separated such 

crossings. 

Within the study area there are six crossings recommended for closure. However, no crossings would

be closed before an agreement is reached with the local agency having jurisdiction over the crossing or, 
Page 33

March 2014

in the case of private crossings, the crossing owner would be notified. Table 10 below shows grade 

crossings that would be closed and the nearest crossing away.

Table 10. Public and Private Crossings Recommended for Closures

Mile Post 

(MP)

Public or 

Private 

Crossing

Road Crossing Jurisdiction County

Nearest 

Crossing

(Miles)

234.57 Public Gilworth Lane Hilyard Township Macoupin 0.52

235.57 Private Private Farm 

Crossing

Private Farm/Near 

Carlinville

Macoupin 1.25

236.82 Private Private Farm 

Crossing

Private Farm/Near 

Shipman

Macoupin 0.38

237.57 Private Private Farm 

Crossing

Private Farm/Near 

Shipman

Macoupin 0.73

246.85 Private Private Farm 

Crossing

Private Farm/Near 

Brighton

Jersey 1.12

250.18 Private Private Farm 

Crossing

Private Farm/Near 

Collinsville

Madison 0.8

3.10.5 Station Access

There are no Amtrak stations within the study area. Travelers wishing to ride on an Amtrak train need 

to travel to the nearby communities of Carlinville or Alton. Carlinville is 15.48 miles north of Shipman 

and 33.09 miles North of Godfrey. Alton is 22.56 miles South of Shipman and 5.90 miles South of 

Godfrey. 

3.10.6 Safety

Under the No-Build Alternative the number of accidents occurring at the existing grade crossings may 

increase as more people use these routes. Slow moving trains in urban areas may interfere with 

emergency vehicle response times in the surrounding areas, especially where emergency response 

stations are located in areas where grade rail crossings are frequently blocked.

In the 2003 FEIS, accidents were estimated for all grade crossings in the proposed High Speed Rail 

(HSR) corridor. The purpose of that analysis was to determine the potential effectiveness of the grade 

crossing treatments.

Overall passenger safety in the corridor will increase as travelers divert from automobile to rail since 

rail is a safer mode of travel. The Build Alternative would reduce the predicted number of accidents 

occurring at the existing grade crossings because the overall accident exposure would be reduced as 

people change travel modes. In addition, with the proposed grade crossing protective safety 

treatments, crossings at grade would be better controlled thereby improving safety at the grade 

crossings.
Page 34

March 2014

In order to enhance safety in the corridor, fencing would be considered within many of the urbanized 

areas. Within the study area, based on UPRR 30 Percent Preliminary Plans, proposed fencing is shown at 

the following locations:

Mitigation

• MP 234.05 Plainview, Illinois

• MP 237.90 to MP 238.70 Shipman, Illinois

• MP 242.90 to MP 243.30 Miles Station Road, Illinois

• MP 245.30 to MP 246.25 Brighton, Illinois

• MP 248.45 to MP 248.75 David Acres Road, Illinois

• MP 250.70 to MP 251.00 Bethany Lane, Illinois

• MP 251.80 to MP 252.30 Godfrey, Illinois

• MP 252.50 to MP 252.80 Godfrey, Illinois

Where fencing is proposed it would be designed to provide the best possible protection to discourage 

trespassing and to direct pedestrians to a nearby warned crossing, usually within one block of the 

existing crossing.

3.10.7 Impacts on Vehicular Traffic

No construction would occur with the No-Build Alternative.

Vehicular traffic would be temporarily impacted to varying degrees at locations where grade crossings 

are modified or improved. The grade crossing improvements would, at a minimum, require traffic to 

slow down as it passes through the construction zone while new warning devices and other 

improvements are installed. In some cases, temporary diversion of traffic to adjacent crossings may be 

required. 

These impacts to vehicular traffic could affect emergency services, schools, businesses, local festivals, 

and other activities requiring vehicular access. However, all construction related impacts on vehicular 

traffic would be temporary. Traffic maintenance planning would be coordinated with schools and 

emergency service providers.

3.11 Land Use

3.11.1 Affected Environment

Construction of the rail network created the growth of numerous communities that served as regional 

centers for the collection and distribution of goods for a rich agricultural region. The influence of the 

railroad remained strong until interstate highways joined the transportation system in the 1950s and 

1960s. In contrast to the railroads, which created new communities along their length to maintain and 

support the railroads, interstate highways were constructed around, and often bypassed some 

communities. Because the interstates had limited points of access, county roads that connected with or 

crossed over them linking existing communities, became particularly important to the rural areas. As 

the economy of the region and the nature of agribusiness have changed, both highways and railroads 

have remained important elements of community life.
Page 35

March 2014

The population, land uses, building density, and the local transportation system distinguish the 

regional centers from the rural communities. The regional centers also typically have a wide range of 

agricultural, commercial and industrial services and suppliers, and provide medical facilities and 

opportunities for higher education not available in the smaller rural communities. The majority of the 

existing Amtrak railroad corridor in this study area has a single track; the number of tracks varies by 

the ownership arrangements on each line section.

Existing land use in this study area is described by county.

The study area extends for approximately 17 miles in Macoupin County, passing through mostly 

agricultural areas, as well as rural communities, including the unincorporated communities of 

Plainview and Shipman, and the eastern portion of the Village of Brighton. Currently no zoning 

ordinances exist for Macoupin County or these communities.

Macoupin County

The study area extends for less than 3.0 miles in unincorporated areas and the western portion of the 

Village of Brighton located near the southeast corner of Jersey County. Land use within Jersey County 

is predominantly agricultural as well as rural communities. Currently no zoning ordinance exists for 

Jersey County or the Village of Brighton.

Jersey County

The study area extends for approximately 4.5 miles in Madison County, passing through the Village of 

Godfrey. The Village of Godfrey has mixed zoning along the study area generally consisting of 

business, residential, and manufacturing zoned areas. (Refer to Appendix C for additional zoning 

detail) The Lewis and Clark Community College located in Godfrey is a main focal point of the 

community and is located near the railroad. Much of the land use in Madison County is primarily 

residential with some small agricultural fields in the unincorporated areas along the study area. 

Madison County

The No-Build Alternative would not have any impact on the existing land uses in the study area.

The general scope of the proposed work is to improve the UPRR to provide HSR service within the 

study area. The Project would consist of upgrading existing tracks, adding a second mainline track, 

constructing turnouts, and improving existing grade crossings between MP 230 to MP 253. The land 

uses in the study area would remain and not be affected by the Build Alternative.

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences

The principal concerns of rural and small communities are of road closures. Examples of local concerns 

about closing highway-railroad crossings include: increased travel distance and time, particularly for 

emergency and school bus services; traffic and physical changes to crossings that remain open; changes 

in access to homes and businesses; barriers to community growth; and changes to existing traffic 

patterns. The No-Build Alternative would not cause any changes to grade crossings as currently exist.

Over time, changes to grade crossings may occur as precipitated by the Illinois Commerce Commission 

(ICC), Illinois Department of Transportation, the operating railroad or the local community. However, 

any of these changes would be separate from the Build Alternative.
Page 36

March 2014

All of the grade crossings in the Original Project were evaluated as part of the EIS process. The 

approach to analyze grade crossing treatments and make recommendations was intended to be 

responsive to these concerns described above and to minimize impacts. As part of the Build Alternative 

for the HSR corridor, less than eight percent of the crossings are proposed for closure; many of these 

crossings serve pedestrians only. When identifying which grade crossings to close, only those on lower 

volume roadways were selected; none has an average daily traffic (ADT) count greater than 1,200 

vehicles. In all instances where crossing closures are proposed, adequate reserve capacity exists on the 

adjacent crossings to handle the diverted traffic. For the Project study area, only six grade crossings are 

impacted, and only one of those is a public vehicular grade crossing.

Refer to Table 11 for information on existing grade crossings, including milepost locations, and existing 

and proposed warning devices within the study area.

Table 11. Existing Grade Crossings within the Study Area

Showing Existing and Proposed Warning Devices

Updated 

Mile Post Street County Existing Warning Devise Proposed Warning Device 

230.09 Private Farm

Crossing

Macoupin None Upgrade to quad gates from none 

existing

231.02 TR234 Macoupin Crossbucks Upgrade to quad gates from existing 

crossbucks with yield signs

234.05 CR10 Macoupin Flashing lights Upgrade to quad gates with sidelights 

from existing conventional gates (new)

234.57 TR238 Macoupin None Public closure candidate 

235.57 Private Farm

Crossing

Macoupin None Private closure candidate 

236.82 Private Farm

Crossing

Macoupin None Private closure candidate 

237.20 Private 

Crossing

Macoupin None No change from none existing 

237.57 Private Farm

Crossing

Macoupin None Private closure candidate 

238.10 Private Farm

Crossing

Macoupin None Closed

238.30 Kealing Street Macoupin Gates Upgrade to quad gates with sidelights 

from existing conventional gates

239.89 TR 3851 Prairie 

Dell Road

Macoupin Crossbucks Upgrade to quad gates from existing 

crossbucks with yield signs

240.71 Private Farm

Crossing

Macoupin Flashing lights No change from flashing light 

241.30 TR 3991 

Bachman Road

Macoupin Flashing lights Upgrade to quad gates from existing 

crossbucks with flashers
Page 37

March 2014

Updated 

Mile Post Street County Existing Warning Devise Proposed Warning Device 

242.91 TR415 Macoupin Flashing lights Upgrade to quad gates with sidelights 

from existing crossbucks with flashers 

and sidelights

244.26 TR32 Macoupin Flashing lights Upgrade to quad gates with sidelights 

from existing conventional gates

244.76 TR427 Macoupin Gates Upgrade to quad gates with sidelights 

from existing conventional gates 

245.60 Pedestrian 

Crossing

Macoupin None No change from existing pedestrian

crossing

245.85 Center Street Macoupin Cantilever 

flashing lights 

with gates

Upgrade to quad gates with sidelights 

from existing conventional gates

246.85 Private Farm

Crossing

Jersey None Private closure candidate

247.97 Terpening Lane Jersey Flashing lights Upgrade to quad gates with sidelights 

from existing conventional gates 

248.55 TR 162A Jersey Gates Upgrade to quad gates with sidelights 

from existing conventional gates 

250.18 Private Crossing Madison None Private closure candidate

250.98 Bethany Lane Madison Gates Upgrade to quad gates from existing 

conventional gates 

252.01 Pearl Street Madison Cantilever 

flashing lights 

with gates

Upgrade to quad gates from existing 

conventional gates 

252.50 Tolle Road Madison Cantilever 

flashing lights 

with gates

Upgrade to quad gates from existing 

conventional gates with cantilever

Table 12 shows the proposed treatment to the grade crossings in the study area for the Build 

Alternative.
Page 38

March 2014

Table 12. Treatment of Grade Crossings for the Build Alternative

County

Closed Closed Pedestrian Close Public Vehicular Close Private Vehicular No ChangePedestrian Bell and Flashers Conventional Gates Locked Gates Quad Gates Grade Separation 

Macoupin 4 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 11 0

Jersey 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0

Madison 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0

Total 6 3 1 5 0 0 1 0 16 0

3.12 Property Acquisitions

The No-Build Alternative would not result in any land acquisition or require any easements for 

construction. All improvements will take place within existing railroad right-of-way (ROW) except for 

the grade separation proposed at Pontoon Road (MP 272.70).

Work within the study area as part of the Build Alternative may result in the displacement of 

businesses and residential properties as detailed below. The displacement of businesses or residential 

properties is due to their location within the right-of-way, which is needed for track or access road 

construction. Up to t25 buildings and structures may be displaced; these building and structures 

consist of nine residential, one commercial, ten industrial, and five other non-occupied structures.

Additional details on these properties are provided in Section 3.13.10. As these areas are still in the 

design development phase they are subject to change. If these areas require property to be acquired, the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended and all 

applicable laws and processes would be followed to allow for fair compensation and relocation of those 

displaced. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended, apply

to all federal or federally assisted activities that involve the acquisition of real property or the 

displacement of persons or businesses. Just compensation will be provided for the property acquisition 

that will be required. Both the United States and Illinois Constitutions require this. The courts have 

defined "just compensation" as monetary payment that is equivalent to the "fair market" value of the 

property. Fair market value has been defined as the highest price estimated in terms of money that the 

property will bring, if exposed to sale on the open market, with a reasonable time allowed to find a 

buyer, buying with the knowledge of all of the uses to which it is adapted, and for which it is capable 

of being used. The Bureau of Land Acquisition of the Illinois Department of Transportation will 

determine the fair market value.
Page 39

March 2014

As stated in Section 3.7, approximately 14.7 acres of agricultural land would need to be acquired by the 

Build Alternative from construction activities within the vicinity of the Shipman to Godfrey portion of 

the Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail project, including land within Macoupin, Jersey, and Madison 

counties. Most of the land acquisition would occur in Macoupin County.

An additional 15 acres of land would be required for temporary and permanent easements. These 

easements will be required primarily on residential land uses.

3.13 Socioeconomic Resources

3.13.1 Community Characteristics and Cohesion

The No-Build will not affect community characteristics and cohesion of the three communities in the 

study area as there will be no changes to the community structure or any new physical barriers to 

separate neighborhoods.

The study area of the Build Alternative extends along the UPRR from the Town of Shipman to the 

Village of Godfrey through Macoupin County, Jersey County, and Madison County (See Appendix A, 

Project Location Map). It generally follows the existing alignment and corridor of the UPRR. The Build 

Alternative does not propose to introduce any corridors on new alignment outside of the UPRR 

corridor. 

In Macoupin County the corridor passes through mostly agricultural areas as well as rural 

communities. The corridor extends for less than three miles in mostly unincorporated areas in the 

southeast corner of Jersey County. Land use is predominantly agricultural, but there is some singlefamily residential land use. To the south, the HSR corridor extends in Madison County, passing 

through urbanized, incorporated communities with heavy industrial uses. The Lewis and Clark 

Community College is located in the Village of Godfrey adjacent to the railroad. Small agricultural 

fields remain active in the unincorporated areas. The Build Alternative would not have any impact to 

community cohesion.

It is expected that there would be an insignificant amount of community disruption with the Build 

Alternative. This is due to the fact that the rail corridor already exists in these communities and the 

travel patterns between the communities and residences on either sides of the rail corridor would not 

change. The only exception would be related to the proposed closing of the public grade crossing at 

Gilworth Lane in Macoupin County (see Table 10) which would require vehicles to reroute a half mile 

to the next nearest grade crossing. A change in traffic patterns would result and there could be some 

potential for a break in community cohesion due to the lack of access on both sides of the track, albeit 

relatively insignificant. However, there is no expectation that there be any demographic shifts as the 

result of it. During construction of the second track there would be community disruption when grade 

crossings are temporarily shut. However, this is only a temporary issue and would not result in 

permanent change to travel patterns or community cohesion.

School bus, emergency vehicle and agricultural traffic routes were considered during this Project.

Because the travel patterns virtually remain the same, there would be no impacts on commercial 

districts or impacts on community services or revenues.
Page 40

March 2014

This assessment of an insignificant amount of community disruption for the revised project design is 

the same as stated in the 2003 FEIS. The potential for the biggest impact on rural areas and small 

communities is on the potential impacts of road closures and grade crossings that would impact 

community cohesion. However, as noted, there is only one proposed public vehicular grade crossing 

proposed which requires drivers to divert one half mile to the nearest grade crossing. This distance is 

considered relatively insignificant and not expected to disrupt the community.

3.13.2 Population, Age, Home Ownership, and Occupancy

Table 13

Population

shows that Jersey and Madison Counties grew between 2000 and 2010 similar to growth in 

Illinois. Macoupin County lost population during that time by 2.6 percent.

Table 13. Population Summary

Population Change 2000 2010 Percent Change

Macoupin County 49,019 47,765 -2.6%

Jersey County 21,668 55,985 3.3%

Madison County 258,941 269,282 4.0%

Illinois 12,419,293 12,830,632 3.3%

The corridor passes through the Town of Shipman (in Macoupin County), Village of Brighton (in parts 

of Macoupin and Jersey counties), and Village of Godfrey (in Madison County). Table 14 shows that 

growth between 2000 and 2010 in Shipman, Brighton, and Godfrey ranges from -4.7 percent to 10.4 

percent. 

Table 14. Population Growth between 2000 and 2010

Population Change Within County 2000 2010 Percent Change

Township of Shipman Macoupin 655 352 -4.7%

Village of Brighton Macoupin/Jersey 2,196 2,254 2.6%

Village of Godfrey Madison 16,286 17,982 10.4%

Evaluation of socioeconomic issues utilized data from the U.S. Census. Depending on data type, the 

U.S. Census provides socioeconomic information at the county, town, tract, and/or block group level. 

The maps in Appendices F and G show that the HSR corridor intersects with three census tracts and 

seven block groups. 

The existing population and projected population growth will be the same for the No-Build and the 

Build Alternatives. Given the fact that no station area is proposed for Shipman, Brighton or Godfrey, 

there would be no transit oriented development (TOD) that would increase residential development 

and ultimately encourage population growth.
Page 41

March 2014

Table 15

Age

shows the percentage of elderly population by block group, which range from approximately 

12 percent to 18 percent. These percentages are similar to those at the county and state levels.

Table 15. Elderly Population by Block Group

2010 Census Block Group Age Over 65 Year Old

Block Group 1, Census Tract 9566 17.1%

Block Group 2, Census Tract 9566 12.8%

Block Group 3, Census Tract 9566 18.6%

Block Group 4, Census Tract 9566 17.7%

Block Group 2, Census Tract 102 11.8%

Block Group 1, Census Tract 4027.01 15.1%

Block Group 2, Census Tract 4027.01 17.0%

County and State Level

Macoupin County 17.1%

Jersey County 15.7%

Madison County 14.3%

Illinois 12.5%

There will be no changes to the percentage of elderly population with either the No-Build or the Build 

Alternative.

Table 16

Home Ownership and Occupancy

shows home ownership rates and home occupancy rates for Shipman, Brighton, and Godfrey. 

Ownership rates range from 77.6 percent to 84.8 percent, which are greater than the statewide average 

of 69.2 percent. Occupancy rates range from 93.1 percent to 96.8 percent, which are greater than the 

statewide average of 90.1 percent. 

Table 16. Home Ownership and Occupancy Rates

Home Ownership and 

Occupancy Within County Ownership Rate

206-2010

Occupancy Rate

2006-20101

Township of Shipman Macoupin 77.6% 93.1%

Village of Brighton Macoupin/Jersey 81.8% 95.4%

Village of Godfrey Madison 84.8% 96.8%

Illinois 69.2% 90.1%

Neither the No-Build Alternative nor the Build Alternative would have any impact on home ownership 

and occupancy rates. The 2003 FEIS stated that since the No-Build Alternative is a continuation of 

existing Amtrak service no land use and development impacts are expected. For the Build Alternative, 
Page 42

March 2014

the 2003 FEIS states that the direct impacts on land use and development will be in cities where there 

will be a station stop for the HSR service. In those communities, there may be an increase in occupancy 

rates and home ownership from the expected development around the station. Since there are no 

stations in the Project area, there would not be any impact on home ownership and occupancy rates.

3.13.3 Income and Poverty

Table 17 shows income data at the census tract level. Median household income ranges from $45,000 to 

$61,000 in the affected census tracts compared to $55,000 in Illinois. Per capita income ranges from 

$23,000 to $25,000, which is similar to the counties as a whole but is below the Illinois figure of 

approximately $29,000. 

Poverty status in the census tracts in Macoupin (nine percent) and Jersey (five percent) counties are 

below the rates for their respective counties and Illinois as a whole. However, census tract 4027.01 in 

Madison County has 18 percent of people below poverty, higher than Madison County’s rate of 12.6 

percent. 

Table 17 also displays disability status. It shows that the affected census tracts all have greater rates of 

disability (14 percent to 20 percent) than their respective counties and Illinois as a whole. 

Table 17. Income Data by Census Tracts

2010 ACS 5-Year Estimates 

Census Tracts

Median 

Household 

Income

Per Capita 

Income

Person 

Below 

Poverty 

Level

Disability 

Status 

(2008-2010 ACS 3-

Year Estimates)

Census Tract 9566, Macoupin 

County

$55,946 $23,960 9.2% 16.1%

Census Tract 102, Jersey County $61,512 $25,590 5.0% 14.5%

Census Tract 4027.01, Madison 

County

$45,078 $23,410 18.2% 20.2%

County and State Level

Macoupin County $47,178 $23,222 12.0% 13.8%

Jersey County $53,470 $24,369 8.5% 9.5%

Madison County $51,941 $26,127 12.9% 11.9%

Illinois $55,735 $28,782 12.6% 10.2%

For the No-Build Alternative, there would not be any changes to the income or poverty levels. The 

expenditure of funds for transportation infrastructure for the Build Alternative, however, has both 

direct and indirect economic impacts which would have a positive impact on employment and income 

levels in the corridor. As the 2003 FEIS states, development of the project will require the employment 

of persons to construct the infrastructure including the road bed, the rail, signal systems and grade 

crossings. Additional jobs, such as ticket agent positions, will be created in the communities where the 

stations will be located, which is not in the study area.
Page 43

March 2014

The geographic distribution of the economic impact to the study area will depend on the location of the 

firms supplying the labor and materials needed on the Project. Since the communities in the study area 

are relatively small, it is not expected that they contain the businesses that would supply the necessary 

materials for the HSR corridor, however. Subsequently, it is not expected that the Build Alternative will 

have much of an impact on household income.

3.13.4 Race and Ethnicity

Table 18 illustrates that in most affected block groups the minority population is less than three

percent. This is also true of Macoupin and Jersey counties in general. Madison County has a minority 

population of approximately 12 percent and its affected block groups have approximately 8 to 12 

percent minority population. Compared to Illinois in general, the affected block groups do not have a 

large proportion of minorities. Neither the No-Build nor the Build Alternative would cause a change in 

the percentage of the minority population as it is not expected that there would be any changes to the 

population in the three communities.

Table 18. Race and Ethnicity Summary

201 Census Block Group Pop. White

Black 

or 

African 

Amer.

Amer.

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native

Asian

Two 

or 

More 

Races

Hispanic 

or 

Latino

Block Group 1, Census Tract 9566 1,198 98.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 0.8% 1.3%

Block Group 2, Census Tract 9566 1,381 97.5% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 1.2% 0.8%

Block Group 3, Census Tract 9566 897 97.7% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 1.0% 1.4%

Block Group 4, Census Tract 9566 1,328 98.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.8%

Block Group 2, Census Tract 102 1,972 97.1% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 1.6% 1.4%

Block Group 1, Census Tract 4027.01 1,822 88.5% 8.9% 0.2% 0.3% 1.9% 1.6%

Block Group 2, Census Tract 4027.01 2,623 92.0% 4.7% 0.3% 0.6% 2.1% 1.0%

County and State Level

Macoupin County 47,765 97.6% 0.8% 0.3% 0.3% 0.9% 0.9%

Jersey County 22,985 97.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 1.2% 1.0%

Madison County 269,282 88.2% 7.9% 0.2% 0.8% 1.8% 2.7%

Illinois 12,860,632 71.5% 14.5% 0.3% 4.6% 2.3% 15.8%

3.13.5 Public Facilities and Services

It is important to identify the existing public facilities and services in the study area so that any 

potential impacts from the Build Alternative can be assessed. The existing conditions indicate that there 

are 13 community facilities that are within 1/8 mile of the HSR corridor study area. Six are within 

Brighton, four are within Godfrey, two are within Shipman, and one is south of Brighton in an 
Page 44

March 2014

unincorporated area. The community facilities include four churches, two cemeteries, four schools, one 

library, one pond, and a government office building. The names of the facilities are:

• Within Shipman

− Shipman Cemetery

− Shipman Elementary School

• Within Brighton

− Brighton Village Clerk

− Brighton Memorial Library

− Brighton North Elementary School

− Brighton West Elementary School

− First Presbyterian Church

− Brighton Christian Church

• Within Godfrey

− Lewis & Clark Elementary School

− Faith Baptist Church

− Bethany Cemetery

− Godfrey Pond

• Other areas

− Crossroads Community Church (one mile south of Brighton limits)

In Brighton, the HSR study area abuts Brighton Memorial Library, First Presbyterian Church, and 

Brighton Village Clerk. In Godfrey, the Project limits abut Lewis & Clark Elementary School. 

In addition to these 13 facilities, other community facilities between approximately 1/8 mile and 1/2 

mile from the HSR project limits have also been identified. These are shown in Table 19 and on 

Appendix H, Community Facilities Map. In the maps, places that are within approximately 1/8 mile are 

shown in yellow and labeled. Other facilities are shown in blue with their names identified in Table 19. 

The Appendix H maps are shown from north to south along the HSR corridor.

As described in the 2003 FEIS, schools, medical centers, fires and police stations, parks, churches and 

other public spaces serve the daily needs of residents along the HSR corridor. Access to and from these 

facilities plays a critical role in providing these services, and in serving the health, safety, and general 

welfare of those who use them. Access to these facilities was considered during the Project and 

meetings were conducted with county engineers and representatives from regional planning 

commissions. Land use information was used to determine which grade crossings to close to have the 

least impact on public facilities. For the study area, only one public grade crossing, Gilworth Lane in 

Macoupin County, is impacted, and vehicles will only need to reroute one-half mile to cross the tracks. 

The Build Alternative will not have an impact on access to any public facilities in the area.
Page 45

March 2014

The Build Alternative will not physically impact any of the public facilities or services. None of these 

facilities are in the areas of property acquisition. Beyond temporary visual, noise, or vibration impacts 

during construction, no impacts to property or buildings are expected to community facilities.

For the No-Build Alternative, there will be no changes or impacts to any public facilities and services 

listed in Table 19.

Table 19. Public Facilities and Services along HSR Corridor

ID Type Name ID Type Name

0 Cemetery Shipman Cemetery 19 Government Brighton Post Office

1 Water Shipman Reservoir 20 School Brighton North Elementary 

School

2 Church Shipman United Methodist 

Church

21 Church Crossroads Community 

Church

3 Cemetery Saint Denis Cemetery 22 Church Faith Baptist Church

4 School Shipman Elementary School 23 Cemetery Bethany Cemetery

5 Government Shipman Village Hall 24 School Lewis & Clark Elementary 

School

6 Cultural Southwestern Farm & Home 

Museum

25 Water Godfrey Pond

7 Cemetery Miles Station Cemetery 26 Church Church of Jesus Christ of Latter 

Day Saints

8 School Brighton West Elementary 

School

27 Church First United Methodist Church

9 Church First Presbyterian Church 28 Cemetery Godfrey City Cemetery

10 Church St. John’s United Church 29 Park Adams Park

11 Assisted Living Robings Manor 30 Government Post Office

12 Government Brighton Village Clerk 31 School Lewis & Clark Community 

College

13 Church Brighton Christian Church 32 School North Elementary & Middle 

School

14 Park Betsy Ann Park 33 Assisted Living Beverly Farm Foundation

15 Church First Baptist Church of 

Brighton

34 School Early Childhood Center

16 Library Brighton Memorial Library 35 School Montessori Children’s House

17 Cemetery Baptist Church Cemetery 36 School Faith Lutheran School

18 Water Briarwood Lake
Page 46

March 2014

3.13.6 Changes in Travel Patterns and Access

The Build Alternative proposes six grade crossing closures in the corridor. The grade crossing closures 

in the corridor would have minimal change to travel patterns and access. Five of the six crossings 

proposed for closure are private crossings providing access only to farm fields. In all of these cases, 

alternate access to these fields is available from another local road or crossing. While the changes in the 

route to the field might be longer for the property owner, crossing of the tracks would take place at a 

location with comprehensive grade crossing protection rather than at an unprotected crossing. 

The sixth closure (at MP 246.85) would change access to one farmhouse as stated in Section 3.10.

Access for emergency vehicles, to schools and community centers and places of employment was taken 

into consideration when the street closures were proposed. There would be no significant impact 

regarding access for emergency services to the one farmhouse impacted. In order to provide access to 

the farmhouse, the emergency vehicles would travel via Conrad Road instead of the current path of 

travel along Illinois Route 111.

3.13.7 Economic Impacts

The Build Alternative is intended to result in a more balanced use of the transportation network by 

diverting trips made by automobile and air. The United States aims to develop a National Intermodal 

Transportation System which is economically efficient and environmentally sound, provides the 

foundation for the Nation to compete in the global economy, and moves people and goods in an energy 

efficient manner. The Chicago to St. Louis HSR corridor is a vital component of a future HSR network 

that will help improve the economy of the state, region, and country. 

3.13.8 Growth and Economic Development

Table 20 shows employment data for the corridor. Of the three tracts, tract 4027.01 has the highest 

percentage of management and office workers and the lowest percentage of construction and 

maintenance jobs. This tract covers more urban land areas. Tract 102 in the more rural Jersey County 

has the highest percentage of production, transportation, and material moving jobs. 

Table 20. Growth and Economic Development Data

Occupations 2010 

ACS 5-Year 

Estimates

Employment

Management, 

Business, 

Science, and 

Arts

Service

Sales 

and 

Office

Natural 

Resources, 

Construction, 

and 

Maintenance

Production, 

Transportation, 

and Material 

Moving

Central Tract 9566 2,239 29.6% 17.4% 21.8% 16.9% 14.3%

Census Tract 102 1,836 25.5% 12.9% 21.7% 14.2% 25.7%

Census Tract 4027.01 3,129 32.4% 15.1% 29.2% 9.0% 14.3%

According to the Macoupin Economic Development Partnership, the largest employers in Brighton are: 

• Brighton North-West Elementary Schools – 52 employees
Page 47

March 2014

• Petersen Healthcare – 50 employees

• Norrenberns Foods, Inc – 30 employees

Godfrey is approximately a 40-minute drive from downtown St. Louis, a location that has contributed 

to its growth. According to Madison County Community Development, Godfrey is part of the 

Riverbend Region, home to Olin Corporation, Global Brass & Copper, Argosy Gaming Co., Millers 

First Insurance, ConocoPhillips, American Water National Customer Service Center, Alton Steel, and 

West Star Aviation. The Riverbend region is a group of communities serving the manufacturing 

industry as well as the office and service industry. Tourism is also a major economic engine. Lewis and 

Clark Community College, the fastest growing community college in Illinois, is located in Godfrey. 

According to Madison County Community Development, the largest employers in Godfrey are:

• Lewis and Clark Community College – 580 employees

• Beverly Farm Foundation – 460 employees

• Alton Community Unit School District #11 – 370 employees

• Walmart Supercenter – 270 employees

• Schnucks – 140 employees

• The United Methodist Village – 75 employees

• Blu Fountain Manor – 55 employees

• Ted's Motorcycle World – 50 employees

The Build Alternative would not negatively impact employment in the adjacent communities. The 

Project would provide benefits to local employment through increased connectivity and transportation 

with enhanced passenger rail service in the region.

The Build Alternative would have some impact on local tax revenues. Property would be acquired and 

retained by the UPRR. In Illinois, railroads are required to pay property taxes to States, rather than 

local governments for land used as part of their operations. Based on the amount of land proposed to 

be acquired for the Project by the railroad (estimated at approximately 30 acres), typical property 

values in the rural areas affected, and typical property taxes in the counties concerned, it appears that a 

total of about $1,500 per year would be lost to the local tax rolls, spread over the three counties 

traversed by the route.

3.13.9 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

The Build Alternative runs though rural areas and small towns. In the Town of Shipman, Village of 

Brighton, and Village of Godfrey, there are sidewalks in many areas. There are no marked bicycle 

facilities in the vicinity of the Project. The Build Alternative would not negatively impact any bicycle or 

pedestrian facilities. As described in Section 3.13.6, all six of the crossings that are proposed for closure 

are private roadways used for farm access.

Existing crossings that would be upgraded to quad gates for vehicular traffic would also improve 

safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Grade crossings would include sidewalks or paved shoulders to 

accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists at crossings. 
Page 48

March 2014

3.13.10 Displacements

In Macoupin County the corridor passes through mostly agricultural areas as well as rural 

communities. Of the 22 total corridor miles from the Village of Shipman to the Village of Godfrey, the 

corridor extends for less than three miles in mostly unincorporated areas in the southeast corner of 

Jersey County. Land use is predominantly agricultural, but there is some single-family residential land 

use. To the south, the HSR corridor extends in Madison County, passing through urbanized, 

incorporated communities with heavy industrial uses. The Lewis and Clark Community College is 

located in the Village of Godfrey adjacent to the railroad. Small agricultural fields remain active in the 

unincorporated areas.

Table 21 shows that approximately 15 acres are expected to be acquired as part of the HSR project. 

Twenty-five buildings and structures would be impacted by the Project: nine residential, one

commercial, ten industrial, and five other structures. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970 (URA), as amended and all applicable laws and processes would be 

followed to allow for fair relocation and compensation of those displaced. These impacts would not 

affect environmental justice populations or community facilities. The need for relocation housing 

would be addressed in accordance with the URA. Opportunities for relocation exist, as according to the 

U.S. Census there are approximately: 2,200 vacant housing units in Macoupin County; 1,200 vacant 

housing units in Jersey County; and 10,000 vacant housing units in Madison County. Updated 

proposed ROW and displacement data have been requested of the UPRR and would be incorporated 

when information is received.

Table 21. Summary of Land Acquisitions

(Source: UPRR 30 Percent Preliminary Plans)

Sheet 

Number

Acquired 

ROW

(acres)

# of 

Buildings 

and 

Structures

Residential 

Buildings

Commercial 

Buildings

Industrial 

Buildings

Unknown 

Structures

7 0.21 0 0 0 0 0

8 0.61 0 0 0 0 0

9 0.54 0 0 0 0 0

10 0 4 3 1 0 0

11 0 5 4 0 1 0

13 0.23 0 0 0 0 0

23 0.37 0 0 0 0 0

27 1.97 2 1 0 1 0

28 0 6 0 0 6 0

33 0.39 0 0 0 0 0

34 0.24 1 1 0 0 0

36 2.21 0 0 0 0 0

39 0.86 0 0 0 0 0
Page 49

March 2014

Sheet 

Number

Acquired 

ROW

(acres)

# of 

Buildings 

and 

Structures

Residential 

Buildings

Commercial 

Buildings

Industrial 

Buildings

Unknown 

Structures

40 5.00 0 0 0 0 0

42 0.14 0 0 0 0 0

43 0.21 0 0 0 0 0

44 0.05 0 0 0 0 0

48 0.07 0 0 0 0 0

49 1.03 2 0 0 0 2

52 0.84 0 0 0 0 0

54 0 1 0 0 0 1

55 0 2 0 0 2 0

56 0 1 0 0 0 1

57 0.04 0 0 0 0 0

60 0 1 0 0 0 1

Total 15.01 25 9 1 10 5

3.14 Environmental Justice and Title VI

Executive Order 12898 and US DOT Order 5610.2, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”, requires federal agencies to incorporate 

consideration of environmental justice into their planning processes. They prohibit federal financial 

assistance for programs and activities that use criteria and methods or practices that discriminate on 

the basis of race, color or national origin. The goal is to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately 

high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on 

minority and low-income populations. The Executive Order applies to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation as well as several other federal departments. In addition, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 provides that “no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national 

origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under 

any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 

Executive Order 12898 provides that “each Federal agency will identify and address, as appropriate, 

any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations, including, but not limited 

to, as appropriate for its mission, in the following areas: 1.) implementation of the National 

Environmental Policy Act; 2.) implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; 

3.) impacts from climate change; and 4.) impacts from commercial transportation and supporting 

infrastructure (“goods movement”).”
Page 50

March 2014

Executive Order 12898 defines minorities as individuals of American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian 

or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic racial heritage. Minority populations are 

defined as those where either (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) 

the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority 

population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

As described in “Environmental Justice Under the National Environmental Policy Act” from the 

Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Justice (EJ) populations do not exist within the 

impacted corridor. Poverty status in Section 3.13.3 in the affected census tracts in Macoupin (nine

percent) and Jersey (five percent) counties are below the rates for their respective counties and Illinois 

as a whole. Census tract 4027.01 in Madison County has 18 percent of people below poverty, higher 

than Madison County’s rate of 12.6 percent and Illinois as a whole. Section 3.13.4 shows that in most 

affected block groups the minority population is less than three percent. This is also true of Macoupin 

and Jersey counties in general. Madison County has a minority population of approximately 12 percent 

and its affected block groups have approximately 8 to 12 percent minority population. Compared to 

Illinois in general, the affected block groups do not have a large proportion of minorities that can be 

considered meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population, as 

per Executive Order 12898.

The Build Alternative would not have disproportionate impacts to minority, low-income, or other 

disadvantaged groups adjacent to the corridor. There is not a significant EJ population that is based on 

either income or race that exists in the study area. Subsequently there is no disproportionately high or 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations 

resulting from project construction.

As stated in Section 3.10.4, there has been local concerns expressed that closing grade crossings would 

increase travel distance and time particularly for emergency and school bus services and changes 

access to homes and businesses. However, in the study area, there is only one public vehicular grade 

crossing to be closed, and traffic will be rerouted one half mile. Therefore, no impacts to community 

growth or access will result from project construction. It is expected that the Project would provide 

connectivity and economic benefits to these groups and the general population through enhanced 

passenger rail service. 

3.15 Barriers and Accessibility

The No-Build Alternative would perpetuate any existing barriers to mobility for elderly and disabled 

persons. 

The Build Alternative would have no impact regarding station and platform-oriented issues related to 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility or access for elderly because there are no stations 

within the section. Design features for pedestrian facilities at grade crossing improvements, where 

facilities are proposed would comply and meet all requirements of the ADA.
Page 51

March 2014

3.16 Public Health and Safety

The No-Build Alternative would not have an adverse effect on public health and safety. 

The Build Alternative would enhance safety with the installation of Positive Train Control (PTC), grade 

crossing closures, upgraded grade crossing protection, and upgraded track. It is expected that due to 

providing enhanced grade crossing protection that consists of four-quadrant gates to reinforce drivergate compliance and restrain vehicles from entering the path of a train, the safety of vehicular, bicycle 

and pedestrian traffic would be enhanced. In addition, an enhanced signal system designed to separate 

trains from one another and identify roadway vehicles on the tracks at crossings would be 

implemented on the UPRR corridor. 

In addition, transportation of goods and passengers is far safer than by highway. Thus, any shifts in 

passenger trips from road to rail as a result of the Build Alternative would produce minor societal 

safety benefits for those passengers choosing rail over highway travel.

3.17 Contaminated Sites and Hazardous Waste

The Original Project 2003 FEIS included preparation of a Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment 

(PESA). The assessment concluded that the Build Alternative could involve two special waste sites. 

Additional testing may be warranted and should be validated prior to any land acquisitions.

For the Project, a new assessment of potential hazardous waste sites was conducted on the sections of 

the Build Alternative track from MP 236.27 near Godfrey, Illinois to MP 252.11 near Shipman, Illinois

covering a total of 15.84 linear miles.

The PESA was conducted to determine the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or 

petroleum products within the study area or on adjoining properties that could potentially affect the 

study area. The PESA process included:

• Visual survey of the property to identify areas of potential environmental concerns.

• Visual survey of neighboring properties to assess any potential for an adverse impact on the 

property.

• Development of a 60-year land use history of the property.

• Review of published information on general geology, hydrogeology, and topographic setting for 

the property.

• Regulatory agency file search to identify federal and state-listed sites known to be contaminated or 

to have potential environmental concerns.

Results of the PESA identified a total of 19 recognized environmental conditions (RECs), as defined in 

ASTM E1527-05. Based on the evaluation, each of the 19 RECs were characterized as having potential to 

impact the work area. Further assessment classified the risk for special waste or regulated substances 

associated with each of the 19 RECs, as well as the Project in its entirety. A risk finding of "moderate" 

has been assigned for the Project based on the cumulative risk rankings of all the RECs. The risk 

findings were completed by GSG Consultants, the Project consultant who prepared the PESA.
Page 52

March 2014

The remaining identified sites from the records review are more than 1/8 mile from the proposed 

Project site and are not anticipated to impact the property, considering the nature of historical uses of 

the sites, their current regulatory status, their distance from the Project, and prevailing subsurface 

conditions of clay soils in the Project area. In addition, no spills or other incidents of concerns have 

been recorded for the property.

Results of this screening process were provided in a Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment 

(PESA) report prepared by GSG Consultants, Inc. in January 2012. The report is available to review

under separate cover at the offices of the Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Public and 

Intermodal Transportation, Chicago.

The No-Build Alternative would not have any involvement with contaminated sites or hazardous 

waste.

Potential Impacts

For the Build Alternative, IDOT would make an avoidance determination at a future date pertaining to 

the identified RECs located. If the Build Alternative (at either or both sidings) cannot avoid the 

identified RECs, then a Phase II site assessment would be prepared for the applicable location(s).

3.18 Cultural Resources

This subsection provides an evaluation of historic, architectural and archeological resources within 

UPRR ROW. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) 

requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their project undertakings on historic architectural 

and archeological resources that are either listed in or have been determined eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 800). If projects are federally permitted, licensed, 

funded, or partially funded, the project must comply with Section 106. Under Section 106, federal 

agencies are required to provide the public with information about a proposed project and its effect on 

historic properties and to seek public comment and input, except where confidentiality is considered 

necessary (as specified in 36 CFR Parts 800.2 and 800.3).

3.18.1 Existing Conditions

The Midwest Archeological Research Services, Inc completed two reports within the Project limits: 

Report on Phase I Archeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Tier 1 South Segment (MP 236 to MP 252.11) of 

the Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail Corridor (2011) and Report on Phase I Archeological Reconnaissance 

Survey for the Tier 1 South Segment (MP 230 to MP 236) of the Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail Corridor

(2011). From these reports, four archeological sites were identified within the Project limits. 

• B. Reno Dump (11-Mp-304) is a 60m by 15 m surface scatter of Historic Euro-American artifacts 

along the east side of the railroad tracks within the NE 1⁄4 of the SE 1⁄4 of the NE 1⁄4 of Section 24 

in Shipman Township. 

• Bernstein Site (11-Mp-4) is a 5.5 acre Late Woodland-Mississippian Period site that consists of a 

dense scatter of flakes, tools, and ceramics (including shell-tempered sherds). It is located within 
Page 53

March 2014

a portion of the SW 1⁄4 of the SE 1⁄4 of the NE 1⁄4 of Section 27 in Polk Township on the west side 

of the railroad tracks. 

• Chicago & Alton Railroad Site (11-Mp-308) is a 50 meter by 15 meter surface scatter of Historic 

Euro-American artifacts on the south (east) side of the railroad tracts at the end of West Street in 

Plainview. The 0.2 acre site is situated within the NW 1⁄4 of the NE 1⁄4 of the NW 1⁄4 of Section 9

in Hilyard Township.

Bott Evangelical Cemetery (11-Jy-604) was established in 1858 and is located on the east side of the 

railroad tracks within the NE 1⁄4 of the NW 1⁄4 of the NW 1⁄4 of Section 36 in Piasa Township. Fifteen 

graves appear to be situated within the right-of-way of Project.

The Department and IHPA cultural resources staff reviewed a photographic log of buildings, bridges 

and unique culverts that could be older than 50 years within the Project area. No structures were 

identified that warrant National Register consideration.

3.18.2 Potential Impacts

Under the No-Build Alternative, there would be no impacts to cultural resources because no 

construction work would occur.

Under the Build Alternative, three of the four archaeological sites in the Project area (identified above) 

would not be impacted by the Project. The Bernstein Site (11-Mp-4), which encompasses the 

improvements at the Newby Road grade crossing, would be coordinated with SHPO. The design team 

would work with the SHPO to avoid impacts to archaeological resources at this site. 

The Build Alternative would displace 25 buildings and structures. None of the structures warrant 

National Register consideration. Also, the Build Alternative would not result in visual impacts to 

cultural resources. Therefore, the Build Alternative would not adversely affect cultural resources (see 

Appendix K for the SHPO coordination).

In an IDOT letter dated June 6, 2013 with concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) dated June 11, 2013, IDOT stated that no Historic Properties subject to protection under Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, would be affected by this Project

(see Appendix K for a copy of the letter)..

3.19 Special Lands (Section 4(f) Resources, 6(f) Lands, and 

OSLAD Lands)

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 (as codified in 49 U.S.C. 303) 

states that publicly-owned parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuge areas, or historic sites 

of national, state or local significance may not be used for USDOT funded projects unless there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and such projects include all possible planning 

to minimize harm to these lands.

16 USC 4601-8(f)(3), commonly known as Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 

1965 (Public Law 88-578), requires that:
Page 54

March 2014

“No property acquired or developed with assistance under this section shall, without the approval of the 

Secretary, be converted to other than public outdoor recreation uses. The Secretary shall approve such conversion 

only if he finds it to be in accord with the then existing comprehensive Statewide outdoor recreation plan and only 

upon such conditions as he deems necessary to assure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least 

equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location.”

When a project proposes use of land in which Land and Water Conservation (LAWCON) funds have 

been involved in its purchase or development, Section 6(f) requires the approval of the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conversion of the land to other than public outdoor recreational use.

The OSLAD program is a State-funded grant program authorized by the Open Space Lands

Acquisition and Development Act (525 ILCS 35/1, et seq.). Illinois Administrative Code provisions for 

the OSLAD grant program (Ill Adm Code 17 Part 3025) incorporate by reference essentially the same 

compliance procedures as required for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LAWCON) grant 

program. Since OSLAD is a State program, no coordination is required with federal-level agencies.

The identification of potential Section 4(f) lands in the Villages of Shipman, Brighton and Godfrey was 

conducted as part of Project field reviews in September 2011. The Village websites were also utilized to 

determine the presence of parks, school grounds, and recreational areas. The Illinois Historic 

Preservation Agency’s Historic, Architectural and Archaeological Resources Geographic Information 

System (HAARGIS) was consulted for the occurrence of historic sites on, or determined eligible for, the 

National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the communities were contacted by telephone to 

confirm the presence of any 4(f) resources, or if the villages had plans for any type of 4(f) lands, located 

within the footprint of the proposed Project. 

The No-Build Alternative would not result in a use of Section 4(f) properties.

Potential Impacts 

Each community has public parks and recreation areas that would be defined as a Section 4(f) property.

However, none of the identified public parks or recreation properties occur within the study area for

the Build Alternative. Furthermore, none of the historic sites described in the previous section are 

eligible for the NRHP. Therefore, the Build Alternative would have no effect on any Section 4(f) lands , 

or Section 6(f) lands or properties registered to the OSLAD Program.

3.20 Visual Resources 

A project’s visual quality is ensured by encouraging a positive visual change that will improve or 

enhance the surrounding landscape. To ensure a positive visual experience is associated with the Build 

Alternative, a Visual Impact Analysis (VIA) was conducted for areas affected by the Build Alternative. 

A number of information sources were consulted and referenced to perform the VIA (See References). 

A VIA is an assessment of impacts to the viewshed from and to a proposed development. A viewshed 

is defined as a total area visible from a point or series of points along a transportation facility and 

conversely, the area with views upon the facility. To provide visual quality, the project’s relationship 

to natural landscapes, residential areas, historical features, existing land use, and topographical and 

physical characteristics must be evaluated.
Page 55

March 2014

The southern end of the Project corridor begins in the community of Godfrey, Illinois and runs north 

along the UPPR railway through Brighton, Illinois and ends at MP 253 just northeast of Shipman, 

Illinois. The tracks run through both residential and commercial areas within the communities, but the 

majority of the track runs through open agricultural land between these three communities. 

Agricultural lands contain open fields planted in a variety of row crops such as corn and soybeans with 

intermittent pasture land and farmsteads.

The VIA took into consideration viewsheds, residences and developments and their proximity to the 

tracks, vegetative cover and grade changes. The proposed Project between UPRR MP 230 and MP 253

from Shipman, Illinois to Godfrey, Illinois, can be constructed by incorporating appropriate landscaped 

design, and structural and railway design, in such a manner as to limit the potential for any significant 

or adverse long term impacts to the existing visual qualities of the Project area.

Positive Train Control (PTC) towers will be installed along with four quadrant gates at public crossings 

as part of the No-Build Alternative. The PTC towers are part of the signal and gate equipment and 

would appear typical of train signal equipment at crossings. The No-Build Alternative will not have 

any negative impacts on the visual quality of the landscape because the railroad tracks will not move 

from their current ROW.

Potential Impacts

The Build Alternative will have possible visual impacts due to the addition or modification of fourquadrant gates, PTC towers, removal of trees/shrubs, and the movement of the tracks closer to 

residential properties. PTC tower locations will be included in the final plans. Similar to the No-Build, 

the PTC towers would appear to be part of the typical train signal equipment at crossings. The impacts 

are described in further detail below in Table 22 and Table 23. 

Table 22. Grade Crossing Improvements

Mile Posts Crossing Improvement Impacted 

Properties

Godfrey

252.01 Pearl Street Four-Quadrant Gate & Tree/Shrub 

Removal Commercial 

250.90 Bethany Lane Four-Quadrant Gate & Tree/Shrub 

Removal

Residential and 

Commercial 

Brighton

245.85 West Center Street Four-Quadrant Gate Residential and 

Commercial 

244.76 Brighton Bunker Hill Four-Quadrant Gate & Tree/Shrub 

Removal Residential

Shipman

238.35 Keating Street Four-Quadrant Gate Commercial 

Rural 

Crossings
Page 56

March 2014

Mile Posts Crossing Improvement Impacted 

Properties

248.55 Humbert 

Road/David Lane Four-Quadrant Gate Residential and 

Commercial

247.97 Terpening Road Four-Quadrant Gate Residential and 

Commercial

244.26 Piasa Road Four-Quadrant Gate Residential and 

Agricultural

242.91 Miles Station Road Four-Quadrant Gate Residential and 

Agricultural

241.28 Bachman Road Four-Quadrant Gate Agricultural

239.89 Prairie Dell Road Four-Quadrant Gate Residential and 

Agricultural

Private 

Crossings

250.18 Private Crossing Four-Quadrant Gate & Tree/Shrub 

Removal Agricultural

246.87 Private Crossing Four-Quadrant Gate & Tree/Shrub 

Removal

Residential and 

Agricultural

240.71 Private Crossing Four-Quadrant Gate & Tree/Shrub 

Removal Agricultural

237.57 Private Crossing Four-Quadrant Gate & Tree/Shrub 

Removal Agricultural

237.24 Private Crossing Four-Quadrant Gate & Tree/Shrub 

Removal Agricultural

236.81 Private Crossing Four-Quadrant Gate & Tree/Shrub 

Removal Agricultural

Table 23. Agricultural Upgrades to Existing Track

Stationing Side of 

Tracks Impact Assessment

Godfrey

13286+00 to 13277+00 E Short Visual Impact Associated with Construction Activities

13286+00 E Removal of Existing Vegetation

13270+00 to 13259+00 W Minimal Impact through Ag Land

13253+00 to 13224+90 W ROW through Backyards along Humbert Road

Brighton

12895+00 to 1249+00 W Moving Alignment 30-30 Feet Closer to Residences
Page 57

March 2014

3.21 Construction Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not create construction impacts. 

Impacts from construction activities of the Build Alternative would be temporary, occur during 

construction, and would cease immediately after the Project is completed. 

Construction of the Build Alternative may involve temporary air noise, vibration and traffic impacts.

The construction contract specifications would require that the contractor adhere to all federal, state, 

and local noise abatement and control requirements. Noise would be controlled by measures such as, 

but not limited to, ensuring construction equipment is in good repair and fitted with manufacture 

recommended mufflers. 

Normal traffic may be flagged at various times to allow entry and exit of construction equipment to the 

Project sites using adjacent or nearby rail/highway grade crossings. Such occurrences are expected to be 

perceived by motorists as an inconvenience. However, these impacts would be temporary, and existing 

vehicular travel would be restored after construction has been completed.

The Project may require periodic reduction in the operating speed of trains that pass through 

construction zones. Also, there may be a need to adjust the schedule of rail operations if activities 

require temporary shutdown of selected track sections. Such schedule and/or operations adjustments 

would be necessary when there is a potential safety risk due to the proximity of moving trains and 

construction activities that are incompatible with ongoing train traffic. Such delays or disruptions may 

be similar to normal maintenance activities under existing conditions. “Best Management Practices” 

(BMPs) for dust and noise suppression would also be followed. 

Construction related effects on air quality due to the Build Alternative and construction of the HSR 

corridor should be localized, temporary, and of low magnitude with mitigation measures in place.

Demolition and construction activities can result in short-term increases in fugitive dust and 

equipment-related particulate emissions in and around the Project area. (Equipment-related particulate 

emissions can be minimized if the equipment is well maintained.) The potential air quality impacts 

would be short-term, occurring only while demolition and construction work is in progress and local 

conditions are appropriate. 

The potential for fugitive dust emissions typically is associated with building demolition, ground 

clearing, site preparation, grading, stockpiling of materials, on-site movement of equipment, and 

transportation of materials. The potential is greatest during dry periods, periods of intense construction 

activity, and during high wind conditions. The Illinois Department of Transportation’s (Department)

Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction include provisions on dust control. Under 

these provisions, dust and airborne dirt generated by construction activities would be controlled 

through dust control procedures or a specific dust control plan, when warranted. The contractor and 

the Department would meet to review the nature and extent of dust-generating activities and would

cooperatively develop specific types of control techniques appropriate to the specific situation. 

Techniques that may warrant consideration include measures such as minimizing track-out of soil onto 

nearby publicly-traveled roads, reducing speed on unpaved roads, covering haul vehicles, and 
Page 58

March 2014

applying chemical dust suppressants or water to exposed surfaces, particularly those on which 

construction vehicles travel. With the application of appropriate measures to limit dust emissions 

during construction, this Project would not cause any major, short-term particulate matter air quality 

impacts.

Lastly, the Department has developed additional construction-related Special Provisions dealing with 

the use of cleaner diesel fuel, idling reduction requirements for construction equipment, and the 

installation of emission control devices on contractor vehicles. These Special Provisions are found at the 

following links:

http://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/pdf/80237.pdf

http://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/pdf/80239.pdf

http://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/pdf/80261.pdf

During operation, the Build Alternative would alleviate identified congestion problems, improving 

traffic flow at grade crossings and along the HSR corridor. The Build Alternative would not cause or 

contribute to a violation of carbon monoxide (CO) standards. CO concentrations for the Build 

Alternative are below the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard necessary to protect public 

health and welfare.

During construction, measures to reduce engine activity or reduce emissions per unit of operating time

would be required. Construction equipment would be kept clean, well-maintained, and in good 

operating condition. 

In order to prevent construction impacts on water quality in the Project area, sediment and erosion 

control measures would be required during construction. Construction could cause temporary impact 

to wetlands and streams in the Project area. Measures are available to minimize potential impacts by 

requiring contractors to 1.) avoid wetlands during the establishment of construction staging areas and 

other construction activities and 2.) employ erosion, sedimentation and bank stabilization practices at 

or near creeks or creek crossings. Special provisions would be added to the contract documents to 

require such measures.

Debris and spoil disposal, if generated, would be removed according to state and local regulations.

Reference should be made to the NPDES permit requirements for the project. Any local stormwater 

management requirements and or BMPs that would be provided in accordance with local/state and 

federal permitting requirements would be followed.

Maintenance of traffic measures would be implemented during construction. Any road or sidewalk 

closures needed for construction activities would be temporary and traffic and pedestrian circulation 

would resume once construction is over. 

It is not expected that access to any community facilities would be restricted during construction. 

Coordination would need to take place with representatives from these facilities if access to the facility 

is altered. As stated in Section 3.10, vehicular traffic would be temporarily impacted to varying degrees 
Page 59

March 2014

at locations when grade crossings are under construction. Traffic would be required to slow down as it 

passes through the construction zone while new warning devices and other improvements are 

installed. In some cases, temporary diversion of traffic to adjacent crossings may be required. 

These impacts to vehicular traffic could affect emergency services, schools, businesses, local festivals, 

and other activities requiring vehicular access. However, all of the construction related impacts on 

vehicular traffic would be temporary and are considered minor.

Construction activities of the Build Alternative would not have impacts to minority, low-income, or 

other disadvantaged groups adjacent to the corridor.

3.22 Coastal Zones

The Project is not located along a coast or one of the Great Lakes and, therefore, there would be no 

impact to coastal areas. The Build Alternative would not affect coastal zone management.

3.23 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) defines secondary impacts as those:

“...effects which are caused by the proposed action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, 

but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other 

effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and 

related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.”2

Cumulative impacts are those impacts:

These actions are 

often referred to as “but for” actions.

“...on the environment which results from the incremental consequences of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions”3

The intent of the cumulative-effects analysis is to determine the magnitude and significance of 

cumulative effects, both beneficial and adverse, and to determine the contribution of the proposed 

action to those aggregate effects. 

The consideration of cumulative effects consists of an assessment of the total effect on a resource, 

ecosystem, or community from past, present and future actions that have altered the quantity, quality 

or context of those resources within a broad geographic scope. 

Indirect and cumulative impacts must be assessed within geographic boundaries at which the project 

may impact given resources. However, based on the type of resource, the boundary for the analysis of 

Boundaries for the Analysis of Impacts

 

2 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Section 1508.8(b) 3 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Section 1508.7
Page 60

March 2014

potential impact may vary. For example, potential impacts related to socio-economic factors may 

include entire communities but potential impacts for cultural, archeological and historic resources 

would only be within areas that are currently undeveloped and have the potential for future 

development based on the double tracking project. The boundaries for the area of impact are 

considered the municipal boundaries of the communities of Shipman, Brighton, and Godfrey. For 

unincorporated areas, it is assumed that any secondary or cumulative impacts would occur within five 

miles of the High Speed Rail corridor.

This section describes the effects that are secondary or cumulative to the development and operation of 

the double tracking but are likely to occur because of the Project. Unlike direct effects, these indirect 

impacts may occur somewhat farther out in time and typically relate to growth in the communities 

surrounding the High Speed Rail (HSR) service. 

The areas for which there may be secondary impacts are air quality; water quality; noise; wetlands; 

threatened and endangered species; vegetation; traffic and transportation; land use; social and 

economic; cultural, archeological and historical resources; and construction impacts.

The No-Build Alternative would not result in any secondary or cumulative impacts in any resource 

area.

3.23.1 Air Quality

Increases in rail traffic along the rail corridor as part of the Build Alternative would not cause an 

increase in air pollutants and there would be no secondary or cumulative impacts related to air quality.

3.23.2 Water Quality

All of the streams within the Project area have been impaired to some degree by point and nonpoint 

source pollution. The IEPA Integrated Water Quality report dated March 16, 2012 indicates for streams 

sampled, 62 percent were rated as Fully Supporting aquatic life. If land usage remains similar to 

present day conditions, soil erosion of cropland will continue to occur within portions of the stream 

environments via storm runoff. If there is any change in land use due to redevelopment, further 

utilization of streams for discharge effluents from both municipal and industrial sources will be 

expected. In the event that land is redeveloped, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Permit for construction involving one acre or more of land disturbance will be required. In 

addition, the NPDES MS4 ILR40 Permit requires MS4 communities to enforce a storm water pollutant 

control program to minimize pollutants coming into or discharged from their storm water conveyance 

systems. However, due to the fact that there are no station areas in the Shipman-Godfrey corridor, it is 

not expected that there would be significant conversion of agricultural lands into other uses causing an 

increase in discharge. Subsequently it is not expected that there are secondary or cumulative impacts to 

water quality caused by the Build Alternative.

3.23.3 Noise

Although there are no identified direct impacts or proposed mitigation measures for the Build 

Alternative, it is reasonable to conclude that current and future noise conditions could have secondary

and cumulative impacts to the adjacent communities and lands by impacting the type of development 
Page 61

March 2014

that would occur immediately adjacent to the corridor. Land uses and developments that are “noise 

sensitive” would most likely not be developed immediately adjacent to the HSR corridor. These types 

of land uses could include hospitals and residential land uses. However, the impacts of noise are not 

considered significant and it is expected that future land use patterns will follow the current 

development patterns in the communities.

3.23.4 Wetlands

Implementation of the Project is not expected to substantially alter development patterns in the 

corridor or near stations. Consequently, additional impacts to wetlands will not occur at an increased 

rate due to induced development. While this Project would add to the cumulative loss of wetlands in 

the Project area, with implementation of the Section 404 permit process, including maximum wetland 

avoidance and compensation, the potential for this Project to add to the cumulative wetland loss would

be minimized.

3.23.5 Threatened and Endangered Species

Coordination is ongoing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources (IDNR) to assure that the proposed Project would minimize or avoid impacts to protected 

plant and animal species during Project construction, operation, and maintenance. This effort includes 

an agency consultation process. Project improvements would be coordinated with the agencies and 

appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures would be developed for listed species and or their 

habitats.

Minor amounts of limited habitat types such as wetlands, native prairie, and woodland would be 

impacted by the Build Alternative. Adhering to the outcome of the agency consultation processes, it is 

anticipated no unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated to threatened and endangered species. No 

indirect or cumulative impacts are anticipated provided that tree clearing restrictions for the Indiana 

bat are adhered to.

Secondary impacts may result from construction disturbances during sensitive breeding periods, or 

through on-going maintenance activities such as mechanical or chemical removal of woody species. 

Cumulative impacts would result in the eventual loss of certain species within the corridor impact area 

due to the loss of habitat if this loss is not mitigated. Restoration of habitat needs to occur immediately 

after construction to minimize the impacts.

3.23.6 Vegetation

Vegetation along the Project corridor is indicative of disturbed cover types. Native prairies are the 

higher quality resource due to the loss of the majority of the Illinois prairie ecosystem. The reduction in 

native vegetation communities will be minimal compared to historic losses on a local or regional scale. 

However, because of the extensive historic losses and the relative importance of railroad rights-of-way 

as refuge for habitat-specific species, additional conversion of upland forest, savanna, remnant prairie, 

and wetland communities has an additive effect greater than the actual impact. A vegetation plan, 

including a prairie restoration plan would be incorporated into the overall Project final design to 

mitigate for indirect and cumulative prairie losses.
Page 62

March 2014

3.23.7 Traffic and Transportation

Indirect impacts occur when there are changes to travel patterns based on changes to grade crossings. 

Traffic impacts occur when access to areas is restricted resulting in increased traffic in areas where 

there are currently low volume roadways. Impacts will be greater if access is altered for ambulances, 

police, fire, school districts, hospitals and places of employment.

Cumulative impacts from traffic impacts could be perceived both positively and negatively. Additional 

traffic on low volume streets could negatively impact property values which could result in eventually 

lower tax revenues for the towns. However, additional traffic could benefit retail opportunities as more 

vehicles would be driving past retail stores, restaurants, and other attractions.

Six grade crossings in the corridor would be closed; five are private crossings and one is a pubic 

crossing. Since there is only one public grade crossing affected, Gilworth Lane in Macoupin County, it 

is not expected that there be a great amount of secondary or cumulative impacts. Access to the south 

side of the rail corridor for those properties on the north side near Gilworth Lane would be via 1st

Avenue eastward to the crossing labeled as Plainview Blacktop. Access to the north side for those 

properties on the south side of the rail corridor would be via private roads east of Plainview Blacktop. 

Since the area surrounding Gilworth Lane is undeveloped, the amount of traffic to be diverted down 1st

Avenue is very minimal and it is doubtful secondary or cumulative impacts would occur.

3.23.8 Land Use

Indirect impacts to land use include the fact that certain types of land uses would not develop near a 

HSR corridor due to potential noise issues, potential traffic impacts and other disruptions. Typically, 

residential land uses, hospitals, schools and other sensitive noise receptors would not locate within 

close proximity to railroad tracks unless there was a benefit in doing so, in particular a station nearby. 

However, no stations are proposed nearby.

Land uses that would not be impacted by increased train activity would most likely include 

manufacturing, warehousing, industrial, and commercial land uses including office space. It is 

expected that these land uses could develop along the corridor depending on the community’s plans 

for development. These types of land uses are already prevalent in Tract 102 in Jersey County as 

described in Section 3.11. However, it is expected that the Build Alternative would neither encourage 

nor discourage development of these types of land uses in the affected communities.

Cumulative impacts would occur if the presence of the HSR restricts the future development along the 

corridor stagnating the growth potential in the towns of Shipman or Godfrey. This may occur due to 

the noise impacts or restrictions in access to certain parcels of land due to grade crossings. Impacts on 

land uses that are sensitive noise receptors could occur as they most likely would not locate adjacent to 

a railroad corridor. However, it is expected that future land use patterns will follow the current 

development patterns in the communities in the Project area. The communities have been established 

around the rail corridor for decades and development patterns reflect the presence of the tracks. 

Subsequently it is expected that the future development would be neither negatively nor positively 

affected by the introduction of high speed rail through the community.
Page 63

March 2014

3.23.9 Social and Economic

Indirect effects on social and economic resources would be based on whether there are land use 

changes in the area. It is not expected that growth and economic development would occur from the 

double tracking except around station areas. Additionally, indirect economic impacts may include 

effects that construction and operation of the HSR trains might have on property values along the 

corridor. Although there may be some initial decline in property values during construction, it is 

expected that once the double track is constructed property values will return to their normal value as 

the tracks already exist.

Indirect benefits will occur with the addition of new jobs due to the construction of the HSR corridor.

Development of HSR between Chicago and St. Louis will require the employment of persons to 

upgrade the road bed, install signal and safety devices, and improve grade crossings. Additional jobs 

will be created in firms that produce the signal and safety devices, steel rails, and the rolling stock for 

the route. The wages that these individuals receive are then recycled throughout the economy as the 

new workers buy houses, furniture, groceries, and clothes. These expenditures, in turn, create new jobs, 

producing a multiplier effect on the economy. The geographic distribution of that impact will depend 

upon the location of firms supplying the labor and materials needed on the Project.

Cumulative impacts could include the economic benefit that will continue to grow once initiated. The 

addition of new jobs that enhance expenditures will continue to have a positive effect on the region’s 

economy resulting in more jobs, retail opportunities, and housing developments. It is not known 

however, where the additional economic benefit could occur and whether it will occur in the 

communities of Shipman, Brighton, and Godfrey.

In terms of social impacts, consideration on environmental justice (EJ) populations (i.e. lower income or 

from a minority racial group) is important. Indirect impacts would occur if EJ populations feel 

disproportionately affected by direct impacts such as noise or access and subsequently feel they can’t 

have the same standard of living as others in the community. Cumulative impacts would occur if the 

direct impacts cause the EJ population to move from the community or negatively impact their land 

values. As described in Section 3.14, Environmental Justice and Title VI, the percentage of minority and 

low income populations are not significantly represented in the corridor and therefore, it is not 

expected that there are secondary or cumulative impacts to the EJ population.

3.23.10 Cultural, Archeological and Historic Resources

There are no recorded cultural, archeological and historic resources located in the immediate Project 

area. In the future, the area that where there could be the most indirect impacts on cultural, 

archeological and historic resources would be primarily areas where stations would be located as 

stations could spur additional development and growth which could potentially impact cultural, 

archeological and historic resources. However, no station is proposed within the study corridor. 

Since there are no proposed stations between Shipman and Godfrey, it is not expected that there would 

be cumulative impacts due to the construction of a second track in this area that could potentially affect 

cultural, archeological or historic resources. It is not expected that the location of a double track in the 

Project area would encourage development that could impact these resources.
Page 64

March 2014

One historic structure would potentially be displaced by the improvement. Consultation with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is ongoing but no cumulative impacts are expected on other 

historic resources in the towns of Shipman, Brighton or Godfrey. Fencing may be provided as a safety 

feature but locations would be coordinated with the SHPO to ensure no visual impacts would occur to 

any listed historic resource.

3.24 Permits

3.24.1 Section 404

It is anticipated that a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 Permit would be required 

for the four identified wetland impacts associated with the culvert replacements at these sites, two in 

Madison County and two more in Macoupin County. Appropriate permits (Regional Permit or 

Nationwide Permit) would be sought and coordinated with the USACE.

Mitigation for wetland impacts would be coordinated with the Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources (IDNR). State mitigation ratios are determined by the size of the impact (over or under 0.5 

acres) and the location of the mitigation site (on-site, off-site, out-of-basin). The final mitigation 

measures would be decided during consultation with the appropriate agencies.

3.24.2 Section 401 Water Quality Certification

A Water Quality Certification (WQC) from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) under 

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act is required.

3.24.3 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES)

It is anticipated that this Project would result in the disturbance of one or more acres of total land area. 

Accordingly, it is subject to the requirement for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit for stormwater discharges from the construction site. Permit coverage for the Project 

would be obtained either under the IEPA General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction 

Site Activities (NPDES Permit No. ILR10) or under an individual NPDES permit. Requirements 

applicable to such a permit would be followed, including the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution 

Prevention Plan. Such a plan shall identify potential sources of pollution which may reasonably be 

expected to affect the quality of stormwater discharges from the construction site. It shall also describe 

and ensure the implementation of practices that would be used to reduce the pollutants in discharges 

associated with construction site activity and to assure compliance with the terms of the permit.

3.25 Environmental Commitments

• The reconstruction of two culverts where the ROW would be acquired would require the clearing 

of approximately 1.23 acres of trees at MP 242.50 and 0.86 acres of trees at MP 242.80. IDOT BDE 

Biological Resource Review commitment requires that there would be no tree clearing in these 

locations between the time periods between April 1 and September 30 when bats are likely to be 

present. 

• On the east side of the tracks from Stationing 13253+00 to 13224+90, additional ROW access is 

required. This section of ROW would have an impact on the viewshed from residential areas along 
Page 65

March 2014

Humbert Road, as the ROW access runs directly through residential backyards, along the western 

edge of an electric utility substation, and along the western edge of a municipal water storage 

facility. Visual screening would be implemented to shield the view of the residents from the 

alignment.

• Construction of the Build Alternative would create temporary construction impacts to air, noise 

and vibration during construction. The construction contract specifications should require that the 

contractor adhere to all federal, state, and local air, noise, and vibration abatement and control 

requirements.

• In order to prevent construction impacts on water quality in the Project area NPDES permit 

requirements and commitments would be adhered to and, proper sediment and erosion control 

measures should be utilized during construction.

• It is not expected that access to any community facilities would be restricted during construction. 

Coordination would need to take place with representatives from these facilities if access to the 

facility is altered.

• Coordination is ongoing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Illinois Department of 

Natural Resources to assure that the proposed Project would minimize or avoid impacts to 

protected plant and animal species during Project construction, operation, and maintenance. This 

effort includes an agency consultation process. Project improvements would be coordinated with 

the agencies and appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures would be developed for listed 

species and or their habitats.

• Vegetation along the Project corridor is indicative of disturbed cover types. The reduction in native 

vegetation communities resulting from Project construction would be minimal compared to historic 

losses on a local or regional scale. However, because of the extensive historic losses and the relative 

importance of railroad ROW as refuge for habitat-specific species, additional conversion of upland 

forest, savanna, remnant prairie, and wetland communities has an additive effect greater than the 

actual impact. A vegetation plan, including a prairie restoration plan would be incorporated into 

the overall Project final design to mitigate for prairie losses.

• To the extent practical, the project sponsor should avoid and minimize impacts to prairie sites 17 

through 21 and should notify the Illinois Department of Transportation Bureau of Design and 

Environment (BDE) when unavoidable impacts are known.

• In 2013 and 2014, the BDE will re-survey the class 1, 1/2, and 2 prairie sites for the presence of 

federal and state listed species of plants, including the eastern prairie fringed orchid.
Page 66

March 2014

4.0 Coordination and Consultation

This section summarizes the coordination efforts that have occurred throughout the Project 

development process. Coordination has been on-going with interested agencies and local communities 

through a series of meetings and written correspondence. 

The numerous coordination efforts between Illinois Department of Transportation (Department) and 

the interested agencies have covered issues regarding sensitive environmental resources. The agencies 

coordinated with include the following:

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration

• U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Railroad Administration

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Illinois Department of Agriculture

• Illinois Department of Natural Resources

• Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

• Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

• Illinois State Geologic Survey

• Jersey County

• Macoupin County

• Madison County

• Village of Shipman

• Village of Brighton

• Village of Godfrey

4.1 Agency Coordination

Coordination efforts have occurred with several resource agencies regarding clearances for biological 

resources (threatened and endangered species), wetlands, and cultural resources.

4.2 Public Meetings

As part of the Project coordination efforts, the Department has held meetings with various local 

agencies within the limits for the Project specified in the 2004 ROD. Specific to this proposal, an 

opportunity for public comment will be provided via a published Public Meeting Offer announcement 

in the local publications which cover the Project study limits. The public availability of the EA will 

coincide with the public meeting. The announcement would be printed a minimum of two times. 

Requests would be accepted for 21 days from the date of the first publication. A public meeting would 

be offered if requested. Any minutes generated from this meeting would be incorporated into the final 

version of this document.
Page 67

March 2014

5.0 References

Shipman to Godfrey, IL. Springfield Subdivision; Mile Post 230.00 to Mile Post 253.00; High Speed Rail; 

30 Percent Preliminary Plans.

Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, Chicago to St. Louis, High Speed Rail 

Project, 2004.

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Various Sections.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Greenbook., August 2011 Update. 

http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 2012a. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration 

Impact Assessment. Prepared by HMMH, Inc., Authors Carl E. Hanson, P.E., Jason C. Ross, P.E., and 

David A. Towers, P.E. DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15, Final Report, September 2012. Available at: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04090

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 2012b. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise Spreadsheet 

Model. Version 2.0, January 2012, copyright HMMH, Inc. Available at: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04137

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 2006. CREATE Freight Noise and Vibration Model MS Excel© 

Spreadsheet Model. Developed for Chicago CREATE Project, by HMMH, Inc., copyright 2006. Available 

at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L03727

Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2006). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Prepared by 

HMMH, Inc., Authors Carl E. Hanson, David A. Towers, and Lance D. Meister. FTA-VA-90-1003-06,

May 2006. Available at: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census: Population, Age, Race, and Ethnicity data.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey: Income and Occupations data.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey: Disability data.

Native Vegetation Report, High Speed Rail, Chicago to St. Louis, 1999.

Threatened and Endangered Species Report, High Speed Rail Project, Chicago to St. Louis, 1999.

Wetlands Report, High Speed Rail Project, Chicago to St. Louis, 1999.

Illinois Department of Transportation, Roadside Railroad Prairie Studies Reports, Districts 6 and District 8, 

2003.
Page 68

March 2014

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Illinois County Distribution List of Federal Threatened and Endangered 

Species.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory Maps.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Database, EcoCAT.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Macoupin 

County, Illinois.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Madison 

County, Illinois.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Jersey County, 

Illinois.

Cowardin, et.al, 1979; Classification of Wetlands and Deep-water Habitats of the United States.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Illinois, 1988.

Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report & Section 303d List, 2012. 3-46-12 Draft. Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: 

Midwest Region (Version 2.0), 2010

Wetland Delineation Report Union Pacific Railroad Company Springfield Subdivision, SPCSL 2A (HSR) Tier 1 

South (MP 230 to MP 253): Macoupin, Jersey, and Madison Counties, February 28, 2012, Olsson Associates. 

Illinois Natural History Survey, Inventory of Roadside Prairies, Illinois Department of Transportation, 

District 6, 2003, prepared by William Handel. 

Illinois Natural History Survey, Inventory of Roadside Prairies, Illinois Department of Transportation, 

District 8, 2004, prepared by William Handel. 

Illinois Natural History Survey, High-Speed Rail Chicago to St. Louis-Shipman to Godfrey (Tier 1) & Auburn 

to Shipman (Tier 2) Botanical Survey-Sangamon, Macoupin and Madison Counties, 2012, prepared by 

William Handel. 

Chicago to St. Louis High Speed Rail Project Tier 1 South-Shipman to Godfrey, Illinois Report of Fall Field 

Studies, Union Pacific Mile Post 230.00 to 253.00: Macoupin, Jersey, and Madison Counties, 2011, Quigg 

Engineering Inc. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Illinois County Distribution List of Federal Threatened and Endangered 

Species.
Page 69

March 2014

Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Database, EcoCAT.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory Maps.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Guidance Letter, October 31, 2001.