Environmental

Assessment

Union Pacific Railroad Track Improvement

Project form Joliet to Dwight, IL

Will, Grundy and Livingston County, Illinois

April 2011

IL-Chicago-St. Louis Supplement SDP EA.pdf
Union Pacific Railroad UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight, 

Illinois

Environmental Assessment

Submitted Pursuant to 64 FR 28545

by the

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

and

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 March 31, 2011____________ ________________________________________

Date of Approval For Illinois DOT

ABSTRACT: The Illinois Department of Transportation (DOT) in conjunction with the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) are evaluating improvements within the proposed Union Pacific 

Railroad Track project to be constructed on the UPRR Joliet Subdivision between Joliet (Milepost 

(MP) 36.7) and Dwight, Illinois (MP 72.8). This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses mainline 

track capacity and operational issues for existing and expected near-term freight and Amtrak 

services along the current Amtrak service routing between Joliet and Dwight. 

These improvements were not included in the Chicago – St. Louis High Speed Rail Project 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), completed in January 2003 and the Record of Decision 

(ROD) signed in January 2004. The proposed improvements have independent utility in addressing 

issues for existing and expected near-term freight and Amtrak services, and does not preclude other 

options to address the Chicago-Dwight portion of High Speed Rail if further corridor studies are 

initiated or advanced under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). 

The preferred alternative follows the current Amtrak service routing from Chicago - St. Louis and 

includes 1) track upgrades from Joliet (MP 36.7) to Dwight (MP 72.8) to allow 110 mph trains where 

safe and practical, 2) a new 2nd mainline track along the Union Pacific Railroad from Joliet (MP 36.8)

to Elwood (MP 44.69) and 3) a freight siding from MP 55.0 to 57.13. Also includes other 

improvements to increase in on-time performance and reduce the potential for delay to one or more 

of the trains operating over this line including installation of Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) with 

a Positive Train Control (PTC) overlay. No significant impacts to natural, social or human 

environments would occur. Potential impacts of 1.28 acres of wetland, 0.65 acres of open water, and 

4 vibration impacts. 

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

George Weber

Acting Deputy Director

Department of Public and Intermodal Transportation

Illinois Department of Transportation

100 West Randolph Street

Suite 6-600

Chicago, IL 60601
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

Page i

April 2011

Table of Contents

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................................................v

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

1.1 Background................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Introduction...............................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Project History...........................................................................................................1-2

1.4 Project Area................................................................................................................1-2

1.5 Project Purpose and Need.......................................................................................1-3

1.5.1 Purpose of the Proposed Action..............................................................................1-3

1.5.2 Need for the Proposed Action.................................................................................1-3

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

2.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................2-1

2.2 No Build Alternative................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Detailed Build Alternative......................................................................................2-2

2.3.1 110 mph Passenger Service, New Second Mainline Track and 

Mazonia Siding Track...............................................................................................2-2

2.3.2 At-Grade Crossings...................................................................................................2-2

2.3.3 Culvert and Bridge Crossings..................................................................................2-3

2.3.4 Right-of-Way and Construction Requirements.....................................................2-6

2.4 Preferred Alternative ...............................................................................................2-7

2.4.1 Benefits of the Preferred Alternative ......................................................................2-7

2.4.2 Relationship of Preferred Alternative to Chicago-St. Louis High 

Speed Rail.................................................................................................................2-10

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION...........................3-1

3.1 Physical Environment..............................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Air Quality and Energy ............................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Floodplains...............................................................................................................3-10

3.1.3 Noise and Vibration................................................................................................3-12

3.1.4 Visual Resources......................................................................................................3-17

3.1.5 Agriculture ...............................................................................................................3-20

3.1.6 Tree Resources .........................................................................................................3-21

3.2 Ecological Systems .................................................................................................3-22

3.2.1 Wetlands and Waters of the US.............................................................................3-22

3.2.2 Water Quality and Water Resources ....................................................................3-33

3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ...................................................................3-43
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight, IL, Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

Page ii

April 2011

3.2.4 Special Lands .......................................................................................................... 3-46

3.2.5 4(f) Properties.......................................................................................................... 3-48

3.3 Human Environment............................................................................................. 3-49

3.3.1 Transportation ........................................................................................................ 3-51

3.3.2 Socioeconomics and Land Use ............................................................................. 3-61

3.3.3 Demographics ......................................................................................................... 3-65

3.3.4 Environmental Justice and Title VI...................................................................... 3-71

3.3.5 Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................... 3-73

3.3.6 Hazardous Materials.............................................................................................. 3-74

3.3.7 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 3-80

3.4 Construction Impacts ............................................................................................ 3-81

3.5 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts................................................................... 3-82

3.5.1 Secondary Impacts ................................................................................................. 3-82

3.5.2 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................... 3-83

3.6 Permits...................................................................................................................... 3-84

3.6.1 Applicable Regulations and Permits ................................................................... 3-84

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

4.1 Meetings .................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Coordination Letters................................................................................................ 4-1

4.3 Agencies..................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.3.1 Letters and Other Contacts ..................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.2 Native American Tribal Consultation ................................................................... 4-2

4.3.3 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Consultation .................................... 4-2

4.3.4 Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Consultation....................... 4-2

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

5.1 Agency Coordination .............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1.1 Federal Agencies....................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 State Agencies ........................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.3 Other Agencies and Commissions ......................................................................... 5-1

5.1.4 Counties ..................................................................................................................... 5-2

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

5.1.6 Other Organizations................................................................................................. 5-2

5.1.7 Railroads.................................................................................................................... 5-2

6.0 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................6-1
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

Page iii

April 2011

APPENDICES

Appendix A Hazardous Waste

Appendix B Coordination and Consultation

Appendix C Noise and Vibration

Appendix D Wetland Report

Appendix E Typical Section, Bridge and Culvert Evaluation

Appendix F Air Quality

Appendix G Grade Crossings

Exhibits

List of Figures

Figure 1-1. Project Area .............................................................................................................1-4

Figure 2-1. Existing Sugar Run Creek Culvert (MP38.8)......................................................2-4

Figure 2-2. Existing Cedar Creek Bridge (MP 42.6)...............................................................2-5

Figure 2-3. Existing Jackson Creek Bridge (MP 44.4)............................................................2-6

Figure 2-4. Preferred Alternative .............................................................................................2-9

Figure 3-1. Site Location Map.................................................................................................3-11

Figure 3-2. Project Corridor Water Resources......................................................................3-37

Figure 3-3. 2006 to 2010 IDOT Crash Data for Crossings from Joliet to Dwight.............3-60

Figure 3-4. 2006 to 2010 IDOT Crash Data for Crossings from Joliet to Dwight –

Collision Type .......................................................................................................3-61
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight, IL, Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

Page iv

April 2011

List of Tables

Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................................... 3-2

Table 3-2. Project Area Federal Attainment Status.............................................................. 3-4

Table 3-3. Will County Air Quality Monitored Data (2006-2008) ..................................... 3-5

Table 3-4. Emissions Generated by the Project (tons/year)................................................ 3-7

Table 3-5. Floodplains ........................................................................................................... 3-12

Table 3-6. Existing Train Traffic........................................................................................... 3-14

Table 3-7. General Assessment Noise Analysis Results ................................................... 3-15

Table 3-8. Ground-borne Vibration General Assessment ................................................ 3-16

Table 3-9. Summary of Wetland and WOUS Screening by Milepost............................. 3-24

Table 3-10. Wetlands and their Characteristics in the Delineated Areas Jackson 

Creek, Cedar Creek, Sugar Run Areas.............................................................. 3-28

Table 3-11. Wetlands Affected and their Characteristics ................................................... 3-30

Table 3-12. Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Wetland 

Compensation Ratios........................................................................................... 3-32

Table 3-13. Project Corridor Water Resources ..................................................................... 3-36

Table 3-14. USFWS Federally Endangered and Threatened Species List in 

Project Area........................................................................................................... 3-44

Table 3-15. 4(f) Properties ....................................................................................................... 3-48

Table 3-16. Completed Agency and Municipal Plans......................................................... 3-50

Table 3-17. Existing and Projected (2010) Annual Person Trips........................................ 3-52

Table 3-18. At-Grade Rail Crossings ..................................................................................... 3-56

Table 3-19. ADT of Roads within or near Project Corridor................................................ 3-58

Table 3-20. Community Facilities .......................................................................................... 3-64

Table 3-21. Population and Households within 1,000 feet of Project Sites 2000 

Census and 2010 (Estimated) ............................................................................. 3-66

Table 3-22. Population by Race and Ethnicity 2010 (Estimated)....................................... 3-69

Table 3-23. Median Household Income, 1999 (Census 2000) and 2010 (Estimated)....... 3-71

Table 3-24. Sites Selected for Hazardous Materials Evaluation by Database.................. 3-75

Table 3-25. Tribal Groups with an Interest in Will, Grundy and Livingston County, 

Illinois .................................................................................................................... 3-81
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Page v

April 2011

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

g/m3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter of Air

μg Microgram

AAI All Appropriate Inquiries

AAR American Association of Railroads

ACHP Advisory Council for Historic Preservation

ACS American Community Survey

ADID Advanced Identification

ADT Average Daily Traffic

APE Area of Potential Effects

AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

AWQMN Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network

BCR Bridge Condition Report

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway

BSC Biological Stream Characterization

C Coefficient of Conservatism

CAA Clean Air Act

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments

CATS Chicago Area Transportation Study

CE Categorical Exclusion

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CIC CenterPointe

CMAP Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

CN Canadian National Railway Corporation

CO Carbon Monoxide

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CREATE Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency

CTA Chicago Transit Authority

CTC Centralized Traffic Control

CWA Clean Water Act

CWR Continuously Welded Rail

dBA A-Weighted Decibels

DBH Diameter at Breast Height

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EA Environmental Assessment

EcoCAT Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool

EDR Environmental Data Resources
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight, IL, Environmental Assessment

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Page vi

April 2011

EJ Environmental Justice

EO Executive Order

ESA Endangered Species Act

FD Final Design

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

FQI Floristic Quality Index

FRA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration

FTA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration

GHC Greenhouse Gas

HQAR High Quality Aquatic Resources

HSIPR High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail

HSR High-Speed Rail

IBI Index of Biotic Integrity

ICC Illinois Commerce Commission

IDNR Illinois Department of Natural Resources

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation

IDPH Illinois Department of Public Health

IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

IHPA Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

ILCA Illinois Land Conservation Act

INAI Illinois Natural Areas Inventory

ISGS Illinois State Geological Survey

IWPA Interagency Wetland Policy Act

LAWCON Land and Water Conservation Act 

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

Metra Metropolitan Rail Corporation

MFR Multi-Family Residences

mIBI macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity

MNTP Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MP Mile Post

mph Miles per Hour

MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area

MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFA No Further Action

NFR No Further Remediation

NH3 Ammonia

NIPC Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission 

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOI Notice of Intent

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Page vii

April 2011

NPL National Priority List

NR National Register

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRI Nationwide Rivers Inventory

NWI National Wetland Inventory

O3 Ozone

OSLAD Open Space Lands Acquisition and Development

Pb Lead

PM Particulate Matter

ppm Parts Per Million

PTC Positive Train Control

RI Rock Island

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Right-of-Way

RTA Regional Transportation Authority

SFR Single-Family Residences

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

SRP Site Remediation Program

TLM Track Laying Machine

TRT Track Renewal Train

TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility

UP Union Pacific

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UST Underground Storage Tank

VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

WCDH Will County Department of Highways

WOUS Waters of the United States

WWTP Waste Water Treatment Plan
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

1.0 Purpose and Need

Page i

April 2011

Table of Contents

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

1.1 Background..........................................................................................................................1

1.2 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1

1.3 Project History.....................................................................................................................2

1.4 Project Area..........................................................................................................................2

1.5 Project Purpose and Need.................................................................................................3

1.5.1 Purpose of the Proposed Action................................................................................3

1.5.2 Need for the Proposed Action ...................................................................................3

Figure 1-1. Project Area ....................................................................................................................4

UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

1.0 Purpose and Need

Page 1

April 2011

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 Background

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has released guidance on implementing the 

President’s “Vision for High Speed Rail” for applying for funding for high speed rail 

projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). In response, 

the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) submitted an application for funding 

under FRA’s “Track 2” High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program for the 

Chicago – St. Louis corridor. On January 28, 2010, IDOT received $1.1 billion for corridor 

improvements between Dwight and St. Louis based on the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD). 

The 2003 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and 2004 ROD for the Chicago - St. 

Louis High-Speed Rail Project selected a “build” alternative, including track, siding, signal 

and grade crossing improvements along the existing single track corridor south of Dwight 

to St. Louis and documented environmental impacts for the “build” alternative including 

110 miles per hour (mph) diesel locomotive operations in this corridor. The 2004 ROD 

“build” alternative would reduce travel time between Chicago and St. Louis.

The 2004 ROD deferred selection of a corridor from Dwight to Chicago to future study. 

Under the “no build” scenario for this section, the existing Amtrak alignment using Union 

Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and Canadian National Railway (CN) facilities was maintained, 

maximum operating speed remained at 79 mph, and no physical improvements or changes 

in Amtrak operating characteristics (i.e., number and speed of trains) were recommended. 

The FEIS recognized that further actions could be taken in the Dwight-Chicago portion to 

make additional service improvements when needed, subject to subsequent environmental 

review.1

Since the 2004 ROD, the IDOT has made significant progress on the Chicago and St. Louis 

Corridor in cooperation with the UPRR, which owns the right-of-way (ROW) south of Joliet 

and operates rail freight services in the corridor. Upgrades along the UPRR portion of the 

corridor pursuant to the 2004 ROD have included track, signaling and grade crossing 

improvements. 

1.2 Introduction

The proposed project is part of an incremental approach to improving existing railroad 

infrastructure to reduce travel time for the passenger rail mode and is the most cost-effective 

approach to improving current intercity rail service and facilitating development of highspeed rail within the Chicago – St. Louis corridor.

 

1 3.2.2. “Selected Alignment”, Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail Project Final EIS, Illinois 

Department of Transportation, January 2003, 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

1.0 Purpose and Need

Page 2

April 2011

1.3 Project History

For over a decade, the IDOT has pursued improvements to passenger rail service between 

Chicago and St. Louis. The Chicago – St. Louis corridor is part of the Midwest Regional Rail 

System plan to develop and implement a 21st Century regional passenger rail system. 

2003 Final Environmental Impact Statement/2004 Record of Decision: In January 2003, the 

IDOT completed a FEIS for the Chicago – St. Louis corridor. The Preferred Alternative from 

the FEIS included the provision of high-speed rail service, operating at 110 mph, along the 

existing Chicago – St. Louis Amtrak route south of Dwight, Illinois. No action was 

proposed between Chicago and Dwight. The proposed service consisted of three round 

trips per day. A ROD was signed in January 2004. Since the ROD, the IDOT has made 

significant progress on the Chicago and St. Louis Corridor in cooperation with the UPRR, 

which owns the ROW south of Joliet and operates rail freight services in the corridor. 

Extensive rehabilitation and upgrading of the Chicago-St. Louis corridor track and signal 

systems has been undertaken, and four-quadrant gates installed at many grade crossings in 

the corridor. Under earlier programs, work had been completed using $40 million in loan 

and grants provided by the IDOT and loans from the FRA. On January 28, 2010, IDOT

received an additional $1.1 billion for corridor improvements between Dwight and St. Louis 

based on the 2004 ROD.

In addition, IDOT has coordinated the planning efforts with the CN, the owner and operator 

of the rail line between Joliet and downtown Chicago. These efforts have involved 

subsidizing Amtrak operations and investing capital to upgrade Union Pacific (UP) and 

Amtrak facilities.

New Environmental Impact Statement (2011): On February 14, 2011, FRA and IDOT issued 

a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Chicago, IL to St. Louis, MO High Speed Rail Corridor Program. According to the NOI, the 

Tier 1 EIS will assess changing the existing rail corridor from one track to two tracks; 

increasing the number of high-speed passenger trains; potential corridor route alternatives 

between Chicago and Joliet, IL, through the City of Springfield, and for the approach to St. 

Louis, MO; and the associated transportation and environmental impacts. Also in the NOI,

FRA and IDOT stated their intention to not examine the Norfolk Southern-Canadian 

National alignment between Dwight and Chicago, which was previously studied in the 2003 

FEIS. The dropping of this alignment from further study will result in a single “build” 

alternative utilizing the UPRR alignment between Dwight and Joliet for the High Speed Rail 

Corridor Program, which coincides with the limits of this Environmental Assessment.

1.4 Project Area

The overall Environmental Assessment (EA) project area lies along a section between Joliet 

and Dwight which extends in a southeast direction across Will County, Grundy County and 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

1.0 Purpose and Need

Page 3

April 2011

northeastern Livingston County. The action proposed in this document consists of three 

components located within UPRR’s Joliet Subdivision. 

The first component will encompass the extension of the 110 mph speed limit approximately 

36 miles from the city of Joliet to the village of Dwight. The second component consists of a 

new 2nd mainline track located between UPRR Milepost (MP) 36.7 in the city of Joliet, and 

MP 44.69 in the village of Elwood. The third component consists of a new siding track 

located between UPRR MP 55.0 near the city of Wilmington and MP 57.13 near the village of 

Braidwood. Figure 1-1 shows the Joliet to Dwight EA Project area, with the location of the 

110 mph operational improvements and 2nd mainline track improvements reviewed in this 

document. The locations of the existing culvert at MP 38.3 and bridges at MP 42.6 and 44.4 

reviewed in this document are shown on Figure 1-1.

1.5 Project Purpose and Need

1.5.1 Purpose of the Proposed Action

The project purpose is to enhance capacity and increase the fluidity of operations on the 

UPRR Joliet Subdivision in the line section between Joliet and Dwight. This purpose is fully 

complementary with the projects awarded under the FRA HSIPR grant to IDOT that will be 

implemented in the section south of Joliet. As noted above in 1.3, the purpose is also 

complementary with the single Dwight–Joliet corridor that is proposed to be considered by 

the Tier 1 EIS for the Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program.

The project’s purpose is also to benefit existing medium and long-distance Amtrak service,

including the Lincoln Service between Chicago and St. Louis; the Kansas City Mule and 

Ann Rutledge trains between St. Louis and Kansas City, MO; and the Texas Eagle, 

providing service between Chicago and St. Louis, and then southwest to Little Rock, AR, 

Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX, and other points west to Los Angeles, CA. These trains serve one 

suburban Chicago stop and eight intermediate stops between Chicago and St. Louis, 

including Joliet, Bloomington-Normal and Springfield, Illinois.

The proposed alternatives have independent utility in addressing mainline track capacity 

and operational issues for existing and expected near-term freight and Amtrak services, and 

do not preclude other options to address the Dwight-Chicago portion of High Speed Rail if 

further corridor studies are initiated or advanced under the National Environmental 

Protection Act (NEPA).

1.5.2 Need for the Proposed Action

There is a need for improvements to on-time-performance on the existing Chicago-St. Louis 

route and to provide for an increase in average speeds and shorter trip times. Under the 

current schedules, there are about 15 trains per day operating over this section of line, 

including 10 Amtrak trains (including the two long distance “Texas Eagle” trains and eight 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

1.0 Purpose and Need

Page 4

April 2011

Figure 1-1. Project Area
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

1.0 Purpose and Need

Page 5

April 2011

intermediate distance “Lincoln Service” trains) and five UPRR freights (a combination of 

local and through trains).

Under the present infrastructure configuration, delays to passenger and freight trains can 

and do occur on the 37-mile line section between Joliet and Dwight on the Chicago to St. 

Louis corridor. For example, “Lincoln Service” trains 300 and 301 (first departures of the 

day northbound and southbound, respectively) are scheduled to meet north of Dwight, but 

the limited siding and track capacity, along with frequent road crossings in this section,

constrains the meet locations, frequently subjecting these trains to delays. In a similar 

context, trains 302 and 303 are scheduled to meet in this same section of line.

Reducing travel time and improving service reliability are paramount to increasing the 

viability of intercity passenger rail transportation between Chicago and St. Louis. In order 

to be attractive, passenger rail must meet or better the travel time of auto travel on the 

parallel interstate freeways with 65 mph speed limits. An overall reduction in travel time 

between Chicago and St. Louis is required to achieve that need. On-time performance, 

another key aspect of reliability, must also be improved. 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

2.0 Alternatives

Page i

April 2011

Table of Contents

2.0 ALTERNATIVES...................................................................................................1

2.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1

2.2 No Build Alternative..........................................................................................................1

2.3 Detailed Build Alternative................................................................................................2

2.3.1 110 mph Passenger Service, New Second Mainline Track and Mazonia Siding 

Track 2

2.3.2 At-Grade Crossings .....................................................................................................2

2.3.3 Culvert and Bridge Crossings....................................................................................3

2.3.4 Right-of-Way and Construction Requirements.......................................................6

2.4 Preferred Alternative .........................................................................................................8

2.4.1 Benefits of the Preferred Alternative ........................................................................8

2.4.2 Relationship of Preferred Alternative to Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail ..10

Figure 2-1. Existing Sugar Run Creek Culvert (MP38.8) ..............................................................4

Figure 2-2. Existing Cedar Creek Bridge (MP 42.6).......................................................................5

Figure 2-3. Existing Jackson Creek Bridge (MP 44.4) ....................................................................6

Figure 2-4. Preferred Alternative......................................................................................................9

UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

2.0 Alternatives

Page 1

April 2011

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Introduction

The alternatives evaluated in this EA includes the continuation of existing Amtrak service in 

the corridor (No Build Alternative) and a Detailed Build Alternative that provides for 

improvements to enhance capacity and increase the fluidity of operations on the UPRR 

Joliet Subdivision in the line section between Joliet and Dwight. The Detailed Build 

Alternative is also fully complementary to the projects awarded under the FRA HSIPR 

Grant to IDOT that will be implemented in the section south of Dwight.

2.2 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative includes existing and expected near-term freight and Amtrak 

services between Chicago and Dwight. These services would operate on the existing track 

configuration of double track between MP 36.7 to 38.5 and single track between MP 38.5 to 

72.81 and would not include any signaling improvements or additional crossovers to 

enhance operational flexibility.

South of the project limits, it is anticipated that other improvements to implement High 

Speed Rail will be pursued, as contained in the Chicago – St. Louis High Speed Rail Project 

EIS, completed in January 2003, with the ROD signed in January 2004. The EIS and ROD 

included the upgrade of the existing single track and 22 miles of siding, 12 miles of second 

track, one grade-separated highway-railroad grade crossing, and the installation of 

enhanced warning devices at 174 grade crossings, along the UP/Amtrak route between 

Dwight and St. Louis to allow 110- mph operation for three round trips per day. Since the 

ROD, the IDOT has made significant progress on the Chicago and St. Louis Corridor in 

cooperation with the UPRR, which owns the ROW south of Joliet and operates rail freight 

services in the corridor.

In February 2011, FRA and IDOT issued a Notice of Intent to prepare a new Tier 1 EIS for 

further high speed passenger rail service improvements from Chicago, IL to St. Louis, MO, 

building upon the selected alternative of the 2004 ROD. The NOI included a proposal to 

examine 110 mph passenger train service as well as to effectively consider a single “build” 

alternative utilizing the UPRR corridor between Dwight and Joliet. Therefore, the Tier 1 EIS 

proposal, which will examine improvements to allow 110 mph service north from Dwight to 

Joliet, will encompass the UPRR corridor examined in this Environmental Assessment as 

well as potential improvements north of Joliet and south of Dwight. It is possible the No 

Build Alternative in this EA would be superseded in the future by potential improvements 

resulting from the Tier 1 EIS study.

With the opening of the new Joliet intermodal terminal, the number of freight trains is 

expected to increase in the next year from five per day to 12 per day (construction began in 

August 2009 and the initial phase opened for revenue service in August 2010). Additional 

growth in the number of freight trains is also expected beyond the 12 trains per day, with 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

2.0 Alternatives

Page 2

April 2011

the potential of up to 22 trains per day by 2017. The existing number of Amtrak trains is ten 

per day (five northbound, five southbound). North of Dwight, the existing maximum 

operating speed of 79 mph would be maintained, as defined in the 2003 FEIS and 2004 ROD.

No physical improvements and no changes in Amtrak operating characteristics (i.e., number 

and speed of trains) would be made north of Dwight.

The No Build Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project. It would not 

enhance capacity and increase the fluidity of operations on the UPRR Joliet Subdivision in 

the line section between Joliet and Dwight. The single main track and the existing double 

track would not provide the operating flexibility required in view of the growing rail freight 

traffic and maintenance of existing Amtrak rail passenger service. 

2.3 Detailed Build Alternative

2.3.1 110 mph Passenger Service, New Second Mainline Track and Mazonia 

Siding Track

The Detailed Build Alternative consists of three components located within the EA project 

area. The first component will encompass design and construction of improvements to 

existing trackage that support the extension of the 110 mph speed limit for passenger trains,

approximately 36 miles from Dwight, IL to Joliet, IL and includes track upgrades, crossing 

upgrades, about 10 turnouts, and related work. The second component will encompass the 

final design and construction of new 2nd mainline track between Joliet and Elwood, IL. The 

alternative consists of track improvements to the existing double tracks between MP 36.7 to 

38.5, and adding a second mainline track between MP 38.5 to 44.69. In approximately the 

northern two miles of the project area, which are already double-tracked, the track 

improvements would include the addition of crossovers between the two existing tracks as 

well as turnout/signal upgrades. Additional construction activities throughout the entire 

project area include the installation of 21 new turnouts and approximately 6 miles of new 

track. The third component (Mazonia Siding) is located between MP 55.00 and MP 57.13, 

and consists of the construction of a new siding track adjacent to the north side of the 

existing single mainline track. Two new turnouts and approximately 12, 200 feet of track 

will be constructed for the Mazonia Siding. For all components, the signal system will be 

upgraded to a Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) signal system and will include a Positive 

Train Control (PTC) overlay.

2.3.2 At-Grade Crossings

Within the project corridor, there are 38 at-grade crossings (including seven private grade 

crossings) in the project corridor. Because the UPRR ROW is 100 feet wide at existing grade 

crossings, the crossing areas are wide enough to accommodate the addition of a second track. 

All public grade crossings located within the project corridor will be upgraded from the 

existing warning devices to four-quadrant gates with vehicle detection equipment. For 

private crossings located on farming property, the crossing is primarily used to move farming 

equipment from one field to another on farms that are bisected by a rail line. In this situation, 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

2.0 Alternatives

Page 3

April 2011

the crossing is proposed to receive a Field-to-Field Treatment that will incorporate a locked, 

reduced-access gate system. Both the land owner and Emergency Medical Services will have 

access to release this locked system when no trains are within the approach circuits. 

No grade crossings will be required for the third component (Mazonia Siding project). For 

additional information regarding at-grade crossing treatments, see Section 3.3.1 Transportation.

2.3.3 Culvert and Bridge Crossings

A review of the culverts and bridges in the project corridor was conducted to determine the 

potential impacts (see appendix E). It was determined that the first component of the 

project would have a low potential impact on the bridges and culverts since the work is 

contained within the existing right-of-way and on the same track alignment. The second 

and third components, would require extending some of the existing culverts and bridges to 

accommodate the additional embankment required to construct the second main track 

between Joliet and Elwood (second component) and siding track north of Braidwood (third 

component). There are no large culverts or bridges located within the third (Mazonia 

Siding) component. Additional bridges and culverts have been identified as potential 

replacement, however, the final location and design of these structures is pending approval 

of funding. If these bridges and culverts are included as part of this project, additional 

environmental surveys and subsequent documentation will need to be conducted. Also, 

coordination with the appropriate agencies, for example, Illinois Historic Preservation 

Agency/State Historic Preservation Officer, US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Within the second component, there is one large culvert at MP 38.8 and bridges at MP 42.6 

and 44.4 where the rail line crosses waterways. These would be modified with the addition 

of a second track. The existing roadbed on the bridges and approaches would be modified 

for the second track in accordance with current FRA standards. Temporary easement or 

ROW acquisition may be required at the stream crossings of the Sugar Run Creek at MP 

38.8, the Cedar Creek at MP 42.6 and Jackson Creek at MP 44.4 in Will County. Work on 

these structures would be limited to extending the culvert at MP 38.8 to the east, extending 

the bridge at MP 42.6 to the east and replacement of the one-track bridge at MP 44.4 with a 

double track bridge. A conceptual drawing of the proposed replacement structures has 

been prepared by the UPRR and is included in Appendix D. Additional detail regarding 

these structures is described below. 

Structure Improvement – MP 38.8. The first structure to be widened, at MP 38.8, is an 

extension of an existing arch top culvert to accommodate the proposed additional track (see 

photo in Figure 2-1). The UPRR has indicated that an additional temporary construction 

easement 50 feet wide by 200 feet in length (measured parallel to track) may be needed 

directly west of the existing UPRR ROW and centered at the culvert location. The land use 

west of the project site is former industrial and railroad uses. To the east, there is an inactive 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

2.0 Alternatives

Page 4

April 2011

quarry. There are no roadways, residences or business adjacent to the site that would be 

impacted by the construction of the culvert extension.

Figure 2-1. Existing Sugar Run Creek Culvert (MP38.8)

Source: Bing Maps (April 2010)

Structure Improvement – MP 42.6. The second structure to be widened (at MP 42.6), has a 

span of 11 feet; the current structure is nearly 90 years old (see photo in Figure 2-2). To 

avoid construction or longer-term impacts on this waterway, the UPRR has indicated that 

the installation of two 20-foot spans is under consideration, and the process of considering 

the construction phasing details for the work required at this location is underway.

Regarding access to the work zone, UPRR has proposed that access would be via Millsdale 

Road, approximately 400 feet north of the bridge site. The UPRR has sufficient ROW to 

build an access road within their existing property limits, or can temporarily use the new 

track embankment as the access road. 

The bridge site is located on the south side of Joliet in a largely undeveloped area. 

However, the surrounding area is in transition from an agricultural use to industry and 

rural residential subdivisions. Primarily, this transition is due to the recent start of 

construction of the 785-acre UPRR Joliet Intermodal Terminal and the 2,200 acre 

CenterPointe Intermodal Center (former Joliet Arsenal), which are located west of the 

railroad ROW. The vacant agricultural parcels surrounding the site are owned by the 

CenterPointe Joliet Terminal Railroad, LLC, or other development interests. The City of 

Joliet Zoning Map shows the undeveloped parcel east of the UPRR ROW is zoned as rural 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

2.0 Alternatives

Page 5

April 2011

residential. The parcels on the west side of the UPRR ROW are not zoned and have an 

agricultural use. 1 

Figure 2-2. Existing Cedar Creek Bridge (MP 42.6)

S

ource: Bing Maps (April 2010)

Structure Improvement – MP 44.4. The existing structure at MP 44.4 (see photo in Figure 

2-3) consists of two spans – one with a 42-foot length, the other being 56 feet long, for an 

overall length of 98 feet. The current structure is 104 years old. The UPRR is proposing to 

replace this structure with a combination of a 52-foot span and a 66-foot span. This would 

total an overall length on the order of 118 feet, which would avoid additional impacts on 

Jackson Creek. Furthermore, pilings for the new abutments would be driven outside of the 

existing ones, which the UPRR notes could then be used as retaining walls. On a 

preliminary basis, the railroad has also advised that they believe the existing center pier can 

be extended (with driven piles as foundational support) for the future second track.

If it becomes clear that the existing abutments cannot be used as retaining walls, the UPRR 

believes the overall bridge length at MP 44.4 would have to be considerably lengthened – to 

an overall length of around 240 feet. Similarly, if the existing center pier cannot be used, a 

new row of piling would have to be driven north or south of the existing pier substructure. 

This option would require adjustment of span lengths as well. Phasing of construction 

would be required at this location. 

 

1 City of Joliet Zoning Map accessed May 2009, http://www.cityofjoliet.info/ForResidents/documents/ZoningMap.pdf
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

2.0 Alternatives

Page 6

April 2011

Access to the work site at MP 44.4 has been given considerable attention by the UPRR. A 

major concern at this site is that the bridge is on high fill. If the new track embankment 

could be built as a first step, this would provide access to the bridge to facilitate construction 

of the replacement structure. However, if the embankment cannot be built first, on-track 

equipment would be required to construct the new structure. In this instance, new bents 

would have to be driven and it is expected that the center pier would have to be removed in 

order to comply with the no-rise condition at this waterway. The approach and specific site 

requirements are subject to additional investigation.

Figure 2-3. Existing Jackson Creek Bridge (MP 44.4)

S

ource: Bing Maps (April 2010)

The UPRR has also given considerable attention to construction staging and timing to 

ensure that impacts on its neighbors are minimized. A new single-family residential 

subdivision is located southeast (Meadowbrock Subdivision) and northeast (Wooded Cove 

Estates) of the Jackson Creek Crossing at MP 44.4. For example, the UPRR noted that 

construction will be limited to the hours between 7 am and 6 pm. In addition, construction 

staging areas for the extended 2nd main track project would be co-located with the UPRR’s 

Joliet Intermodal Facility. Construction equipment and materials required for the project 

have been proposed to be staged immediately adjacent to the railroad’s property at an 

existing grade crossing near the project site.

2.3.4 Right-of-Way and Construction Requirements

No displacements are expected as the majority of the track improvements would occur 

within the UPRR’s ROW between Joliet and Dwight. Temporary easements may need to be 

obtained by UPRR for construction access and to stage materials; however, these easements 

will not require the relocation of businesses or residences, or impact sensitive environments.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

2.0 Alternatives

Page 7

April 2011

2.3.4.1 110 mph Project Corridor between MP 36.7 and MP 72.81

The first component will encompass the extension of the 110 mph speed limit for passenger 

trains approximately 36 miles from Joliet, IL to Dwight, IL. Temporary easements could be 

required between MP 36.7 and 72.81 for track and signal work. Track construction would

require earthen fill at some locations and excavation at other locations for subgrade 

construction. Staging areas for construction equipment, materials, and spoils would be 

located within the UPRR’s ROW. 

Construction activities for the 110 mph passenger service will include use of a Track

Renewal Train (TRT) to install new rail and concrete ties along the existing mainline. This 

work will also include resurfacing of the stone ballast, renewal of crossing surfaces and 

approaches, and upgrade of the signals and crossing warning systems.

2.3.4.2 UPRR’s 2nd Mainline Track Project between MP 36.7 and MP 44.69

Temporary easement or ROW acquisition could be required at the stream crossings of the 

Sugar Run Creek at MP 38.8, Cedar Creek at MP 42.6 and Jackson Creek at MP 44.4 in Will 

County. Work on these structures would be limited to extending the culvert at MP 38.8 to 

the east, extending the bridge at MP 42.6 to the east and replacement of the single track 

bridge at MP 44.4 with a double track bridge. Additional culvert and bridges within the 

Joliet to Dwight project corridor structures are categorized as projects that would require 

environmental remediation through improvements to existing railroad track for purpose of 

preventing or correcting environmental pollution of soil, air or water. Culvert work with 

extensions would be conducted at MP 40.49, MP 40.51, MP 41.8, MP 42.95, MP 43.2, MP 

43.58 and MP 44.10. Culvert work without extensions or replacement would be conducted 

at MP 39.35, MP 41.90, MP 41.97, MP 42.20, MP 43.9 and MP 44.90 as shown in Appendix E. 

Track construction would require earthen fill at some locations and excavation at other 

locations for subgrade construction. Staging areas for construction equipment, materials,

and spoils would be limited to the culvert and bridges within the UPRR ROW between 

Joliet and Dwight, or within the UPRR ROW at the Joliet Intermodal Facility which is 

currently under operation. The intermodal facility site is located 2,000 feet west of the 

UPRR ROW near Laraway and Brandon Roads, between Joliet and Elwood. 

2.3.4.3 Mazonia Siding Track between MP 55.0 and MP 57.13

Temporary easements may need to be obtained by UPRR for construction access and to 

stage materials; however, these easements will not require the relocation of businesses or 

residences, or impact sensitive environments. The existing culverts at MP 56.3 and 55.7 

would be replaced. An easement would be required at MP 55 and MP 57.13 to construct 

construction pads for new turnouts. Work on these structures would be limited to the 

turnout area and culverts within the UPRR ROW.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

2.0 Alternatives

Page 8

April 2011

2.4 Preferred Alternative

2.4.1 Benefits of the Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative is the Detailed Build Alternative (described in detail in Section 2.3

above), which consists of the 110 mph passenger service, UPRR’s 2nd Mainline Track Project 

and Mazonia Siding Track Project. This project is proposed to proceed as part of the HSIPR

Program for Final Design (FD)/Construction using FRA funding, as well as local and 

railroad resources. 

This project would be of immediate benefit to the rail passenger and freight services using 

this line today. Further, major progress has been achieved in terms of environmental and 

engineering activities, allowing the project to be procured and installed in an expeditious 

manner. Both IDOT and the UPRR are committed to ensure that the benefits of this project 

are made available as soon as possible. The rail carrier has indicated that it is fully behind 

this project and is prepared to initiate work.

The proposed improvements would facilitate the implementation of the overall 

improvements within the UPRR Joliet Subdivision between Joliet and Dwight. Having the 

extended length of second main track would increase the options a dispatcher would have

available for arranging meets or other complex moves, thereby reducing the potential for 

delay to one or more of the trains operating over this line.

The proposed Mazonia Siding Track improvements between MP 55.0 to 57.13, would 

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

congestion in the area between Braceville and Joliet. The siding track will 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.

As part of the FRA Track 1a application process, UPRR’s Network Operations personnel 

estimated that there would be a 10% increase in on-time performance due to the 

implementation of these physical plant improvements. However, as mentioned earlier, the 

freight train speeds on this section of line would not increase due to this work and continue 

to operate at at 60 mph.

The upgrade to CTC with a PTC overlay in the improvement zone would enhance the safety 

of train operations through the zone, including those grade crossings within the project 

limits. The signal upgrade project would also improve operating conditions in the Joliet 

area, including expediting the hand-off of dispatch control to/from the Canadian National, 

on whose tracks the existing “Lincoln Service” and “Texas Eagle” trains run to/from 

Chicago.

Figure 2-4 shows the Preferred Alternative (Detailed Build Alternative).
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

2.0 Alternatives

Page 9

April 2011

Figure 2-4. Preferred Alternative
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

2.0 Alternatives

Page 10

April 2011

2.4.2 Relationship of Preferred Alternative to Chicago-St. Louis High Speed Rail

It is recognized that the proposed improvements included herein as the Preferred 

Alternative would enhance capacity and increase the fluidity of operations on the UPRR 

Joliet Subdivision in the line section between Joliet and Dwight for the existing and expected 

near-term freight and Amtrak services. It is also recognized that these improvements would 

offer similar capacity and operational benefits if the existing Amtrak service were 

augmented or supplanted by the proposed High-Speed Rail passenger service. By offering 

additional passing, routing and storage opportunities for freight and passenger trains, the 

Preferred Alternative improvements are fully complementary to similar St. Louis to Dwight 

improvements of the 2003 FEIS Selected Alternative. 

The 110 mph passenger service, UPRR’s 2nd Mainline Track Project and Mazonia Siding 

Tract Project has independent utility in addressing capacity and operational issues for 

existing and expected near-term freight and Amtrak services, and does not preclude other 

options to address the Chicago –Dwight portion of High Speed Rail if further corridor 

studies are initiated or advanced under NEPA. 

Consistent with the FRA’s requirements for the original round of HSIPR Program Track 1a 

projects, the State of Illinois intends to assure that all construction work is scheduled to be 

completed by the fall of 2012 or as future FRA guidance demands. 

The portion of work included by the 110 mph passenger service, 2nd mainline track work 

and Mazonia siding work, signal improvements, culvert/bride extensions (between MP 36.8 

to 44.69) and new siding (between MP 55.0 and MP 57.13) is estimated at approximately 

$280 million (Fiscal Year 2011 dollars). It is anticipated that the State of Illinois and the 

Union Pacific Railroad will provide funds to initiate this project; however, a re-submittal of 

an application for future rounds of ARRA funding may occur.

The Preferred Alternative would enhance capacity and increase the fluidity of operations on 

the UPRR Joliet Subdivision in the line section between Joliet and Dwight. The proposed 

second track and siding track would provide for immediate improvements to existing 

Amtrak service. Acknowledged “choke points” in this corridor would be alleviated, and 

two trains would be able to utilize the corridor at the same time. This would provide for 

improved operation of existing and future freight and Amtrak passenger trains within the 

corridor, as meets with UP freight trains could be better scheduled and accommodated. 
UPRR’s Track Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-i

April 2011

Contents

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION..................................... 3-1

3.1 Physical Environment.................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Air Quality and Energy ......................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Floodplains.......................................................................................................... 3-10

3.1.3 Noise and Vibration ............................................................................................ 3-12

3.1.4 Visual Resources................................................................................................. 3-17

3.1.5 Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 3-20

3.1.6 Tree Resources.................................................................................................... 3-21

3.2 Ecological Systems...................................................................................................... 3-22

3.2.1 Wetlands and Waters of the US .......................................................................... 3-22

3.2.2 Water Quality and Water Resources................................................................... 3-33

3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species................................................................... 3-43

3.2.4 Special Lands...................................................................................................... 3-46

3.2.5 4(f) Properties...................................................................................................... 3-48

3.3 Human Environment ................................................................................................... 3-49

3.3.1 Transportation ..................................................................................................... 3-51

3.3.2 Socioeconomics and Land Use ........................................................................... 3-61

3.3.3 Demographics ..................................................................................................... 3-65

3.3.4 Environmental Justice and Title VI..................................................................... 3-71

3.3.5 Public Health and Safety..................................................................................... 3-73

3.3.6 Hazardous Materials............................................................................................ 3-74

3.3.7 Cultural Resources.............................................................................................. 3-80

3.4 Construction Impacts................................................................................................... 3-81

3.5 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts............................................................................ 3-82

3.5.1 Secondary Impacts.............................................................................................. 3-82

3.5.2 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................ 3-83

3.6 Permits......................................................................................................................... 3-84

3.6.1 Applicable Regulations and Permits................................................................... 3-84

Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards..........................................................................3-2

Table 3-2. Project Area Federal Attainment Status.............................................................................3-4

Table 3-3. Will County Air Quality Monitored Data (2006-2008) ....................................................3-5

Table 3-4. Emissions Generated by the Project (tons/year) ................................................................3-7

Table 3-5. Floodplains......................................................................................................................3-12

Table 3-6. Existing Train Traffic......................................................................................................3-14

Table 3-7. General Assessment Noise Analysis Results..................................................................3-15

Table 3-8. Ground-borne Vibration General Assessment ................................................................3-16
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-ii

April 2011

Table 3-9. Summary of Wetland and WOUS Screening by Milepost ............................................. 3-24

Table 3-10. Wetlands and their Characteristics in the Delineated Areas Jackson Creek, Cedar Creek, 

Sugar Run Areas..................................................................................................... 3-28

Table 3-11. Wetlands Affected and their Characteristics ................................................................ 3-30

Table 3-12. Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Wetland Compensation Ratios..... 3-32

Table 3-13. Project Corridor Water Resources................................................................................ 3-36

Table 3-14. USFWS Federally Endangered and Threatened Species List in Project Area.............. 3-44

Table 3-15. 4(f) Properties............................................................................................................... 3-48

Table 3-16. Completed Agency and Municipal Plans ..................................................................... 3-50

Table 3-17. Existing and Projected (2010) Annual Person Trips .................................................... 3-52

Table 3-18. At-Grade Rail Crossings............................................................................................... 3-56

Table 3-19. ADT of Roads within or near Project Corridor............................................................ 3-58

Table 3-20. Community Facilities ................................................................................................... 3-64

Table 3-21. Population and Households within 1,000 feet of Project Sites 2000 Census and 2010 

(Estimated).............................................................................................................. 3-66

Table 3-22. Population by Race and Ethnicity 2010 (Estimated).................................................... 3-69

Table 3-23. Median Household Income, 1999 (Census 2000) and 2010 (Estimated) ..................... 3-71

Table 3-24. Sites Selected for Hazardous Materials Evaluation by Database ................................. 3-75

Table 3-25. Tribal Groups with an Interest in Will, Grundy and Livingston County, Illinois ........ 3-81

Figure 3-1. Site Location Map................................................................................................... 3-11

Figure 3-2. Project Corridor Water Resources.......................................................................... 3-37

Figure 3-3. 2006 to 2010 IDOT Crash Data for Crossings from Joliet to Dwight .................... 3-60

Figure 3-4. 2006 to 2010 IDOT Crash Data for Crossings from Joliet to Dwight –

Collision Type......................................................................................................... 3-61
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-1

April 2011

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

3.1 Physical Environment

The project area was inventoried for environmental resources. Included in this section is a 

discussion of the resources potentially impacted by the proposed 110 mph passenger service 

(MP 36.7 to 72.8), 2nd Mainline Track (MP 36.7 to 44.69) and Mazonia Siding (MP 55.0 to 

57.13) in the project corridor. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are identified.

This chapter has been prepared as an EA subsequent to the ROD that was received for the 

FEIS for the Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail Project in 2003. As such, the Final EIS (FEIS) 

and Draft EIS (DEIS) can be referenced for additional information on any of the topics 

discussed in this section and Chicago-St. Louis corridor.

3.1.1 Air Quality and Energy

“Air Pollution” is a general term that refers to one or more chemical substances that degrade 

the quality of the atmosphere. Individual air pollutants degrade the atmosphere by reducing 

visibility, damaging property, reducing the productivity or vigor of crops or natural 

vegetation, and/or reducing human or animal health. Air quality is a term used to describe 

the amount of air pollution the public is exposed to.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Air quality in the United States is governed by the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and is 

administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). As required 

by the CAA and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), the USEAP has established 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six major air pollutants, as shown in 

Table 3-1. These pollutants, known as criteria pollutants, are carbon monoxide (CO), lead 

(Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), ozone (O3), and sulfur dioxide 

(SO2). The "primary" standards have been established to protect the public health. The 

"secondary" standards, intended to protect the nation's welfare, account for air pollutant 

effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of the general 

welfare.

In addition to the criteria pollutants, USEPA also regulates air toxics. Mobile source air 

toxics (MSATs) are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment 

that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health and environmental 

effects. The CAAA listed 188 Hazardous Air Pollutants from transportation. A group of 93 

compounds emitted from mobile sources are listed in the USEPA Integrated Risk 

Information System. USEPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions 

from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers. 

These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, diesel particulate matter plus diesel exhaust 

organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-2

April 2011

Table 3-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Primary Standards Secondary Standards

Level Averaging Time Level Averaging Time

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO)

9 ppm 

(10 mg/m3) 8-hour (1)

None

35 ppm 

(40 mg/m3) 1-hour (1)

Lead 

(Pb)

0.15 μg/m3 (2) Rolling 3-Month 

Average Same as Primary

1.5 μg/m3 Quarterly Average Same as Primary

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2)

0.053 ppm 

(100 μg/m3)

Annual 

(Arithmetic Mean) Same as Primary

0.100 ppm 1-hour (3) None

Particulate Matter

(PM10) 150 μg/m3 24-hour (4) Same as Primary

Particulate Matter

(PM2.5)

15.0 μg/m3 Annual (5)

(Arithmetic Mean) Same as Primary

35 μg/m3 24-hour (6) Same as Primary

Ozone 

(O3)

0.075 ppm 

(2008 std) 8-hour (7) Same as Primary

0.08 ppm 

(1997 std) 8-hour (8) Same as Primary

0.12 ppm 1-hour (9) Same as Primary

Sulfur Dioxide

(SO2)

0.03 ppm Annual 

(Arithmetic Mean) 0.5 ppm 

(1300 μg/m3

) 3-hour (1)

0.14 ppm 24-hour (1)

(1) Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

(2) Final rule signed October 15, 2008.

(3) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within 

an area must not exceed 0.100 parts per million (ppm) (effective January 22, 2010).

(4) Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years.

(5) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple 

community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter of air (μg/m3).

(6) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented 

monitor within an area must not exceed 35 μg/m3 (effective December 17, 2006).

(7) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations 

measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm. (effective May 27, 2008) 

(8) (a) To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations 

measured at each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.08 ppm. 

 (b) The 1997 standard—and the implementation rules for that standard—will remain in place for implementation purposes 

as USEPA undertakes rulemaking to address the transition from the 1997 ozone standard to the 2008 ozone standard.

 (c) USEPA is in the process of reconsidering these standards (set in March 2008).

(9) (a) USEPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas, although some areas have continuing obligations under that 

standard (“anti-backsliding”).

 (b) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average 

concentrations above 0.12 ppm is < 1.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-3

April 2011

Most air toxics originate from human made sources, including on road mobile sources, 

non-road mobile sources (e.g., trains), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners), and stationary 

sources (e.g., factories or refineries).

Also of concern are greenhouse gases (GHG) that trap heat in the atmosphere. These gases 

are necessary to life as we know it, since they keep the planet’s surface warmer than it 

otherwise would be. As concentrations of greenhouse gases increase, however, the Earth’s 

temperature rises. This is known as the “Greenhouse Gas Effect.” Effects of these rising 

temperatures include climate change and rising sea levels. For additional information about 

the USEPA, the reader can contact its general internet address found at www.epa.gov. 

Additional information on the activities of USEPA's Office of Mobile Sources can be found 

at www.epa.gov/oms/ .

There are no changes proposed in the number of Amtrak trains. The speed of Amtrak trains 

in the project corridor would increase from 79mph to 110 mph. As a result, the Preferred 

Alternative is projected to affect air quality levels when compared to the No-Build. As 

result, an air quality analysis was performed.

This section describes the existing air quality conditions in Will, Grundy and Livingston 

County and the potential effects during construction of the preferred alternative. The 

criteria pollutants of concern are PM10 and PM2.5 from the diesel train and construction 

equipment emissions. Additional pollutants include CO from emissions from roadway 

vehicles, and O3 precursors (volatile organic compounds [VOCs] and nitrogen oxides 

[NOx]). The potential impacts on GHG from diesel trains and construction equipment is 

also considered. 

3.1.1.1 Existing Conditions

Attainment Status / Regional Air Quality Conformity

Section 107 of the 1977 CAAA requires that the USEPA publish a list of all geographic areas 

in compliance with the NAAQS, plus those not attaining the NAAQS. Areas not in NAAQS 

compliance are deemed non-attainment areas. Areas that have insufficient data to make a 

determination are deemed unclassified, and are treated as being attainment areas until 

proven otherwise. An area’s designation is based on the data collected by the state 

monitoring network on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.

The project area is located in Will, Grundy and Livingston County, Illinois. Will and 

Grundy County are located in the Chicago Metropolitan Region. Livingston County is 

primarily a rural county. As shown in Table 3-2, the USEPA has classified Livingston 

County as an attainment area for all pollutants. Will and Grundy counties are classified as 

attainment areas for CO, PM10 and Pb, and nonattainment areas for O3 and PM2.5.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-4

April 2011

Table 3-2. Project Area Federal Attainment Status

Pollutant Will County, IL Grundy County, IL Livingston County, IL

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment Attainment

Lead (Pb) Attainment Attainment Attainment

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment Attainment

Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment Attainment Attainment

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment Attainment

Ozone (O3) Nonattainment Nonattainment Attainment

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment Attainment

Source: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2011

The CAA requires that a State Implementation Plan (SIP) be prepared for each 

nonattainment area, and a maintenance plan be prepared for each former nonattainment 

area that subsequently demonstrated compliance with the standards. The CAAA requires 

federal agencies to ensure that their actions conform to the appropriate SIP. The SIP 

provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Prior to 

approval or funding by a federal agency, a proposed project must demonstrate compliance 

with USEPA’s Conformity Rule by determining that it would not cause or exacerbate 

exceedance of an NAAQS. As a project being developed under FRA, this project falls under 

the General Conformity Rule, which requires a conformity determination for each pollutant 

where the total of direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area 

caused by a federal action would equal or exceed EPA-specified significant threshold 

values. In Illinois, general conformity criteria and procedures are set forth in 35 Illinois 

Administrative Code 255. The significance rates for the project area are 100 tons per year for 

VOCs and NOx (i.e., ozone precursors) and for PM2.5.

Ambient Air Quality

The project is located within the Chicago-Gary-Lake Co., IL-IN 8-hr ozone nonattainment 

area and the PM-2.5 nonattainment area. Air quality monitors in Will County are located in 

Joliet, Channahon, and Wilmington. No air quality monitors are located in Grundy or 

Livingston County. The last three years of monitored data from the Will County monitors 

are shown in Table 3-3. As these data show, no exceedances of the NAAQS for PM10, NO2,

and SO2 standards were measured in Will County. One measurement exceeding the current 

24-hour PM2.5 standard, was monitored in 2007 in Joliet and two levels exceeding the 8-hour 

ozone standard in 2006 in Wilmington. Both exceedances did not constitute a violation of 

the NAAQS, because values shown in the table do not correspond to the NAAQS time 

periods. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is a three-year average of the 98 percentile values and 

the 8-hour ozone standard is a three-year average of the fourth highest values. 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-5

April 2011

Table 3-3. Will County Air Quality Monitored Data (2006-2008)

Pollutant Standard

Rte. 6 & Young Rd. 

Channahon 

Midland & Campbell Sts. 

Joliet

36400 S. Essex Rd.

Wilmington

2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO) [ppm]

1-hour

Maximum

2nd Maximum

# of Exceedences

8-hour

Maximum

2nd Maximum

# of Exceedences

Particulate Matter 

[ug/m3

]

PM10

Maximum 24-Hour 35 71 41

Mean Annual 17 24 15

# of Exceedences 0 0 0

PM2.5

Maximum 24-Hour 28.3 44.0 31.8 22 31.6 26.9

Mean Annual 12.7 14.58 11.41 9.82 12.07 10.19

# of Exceedences 0 1 0 0 0 0

Ozone (O3) 

[ppm]

8-hour

First Highest 0.078 0.075 0.064

Second Highest 0.076 0.074 0.062

Third Highest 0.068 0.072 0.061

Fourth Highest 0.068 0.071 0.060

# of Days Standard Exceeded 2 0 0

Nitrogen 

Dioxide 

(NO2) [ppm]

1-Hour Maximum 0.037 0.034

1-Hour Second Maximum 0.035 0.033

Annual Mean 0.006 0.005

# of Days Standard Exceeded 0 0

Sulfer 

Dioxide 

(SO2) [ppm]

1-Hour Maximum 0.08 0.077 0.147

3-Hour Maximum 0.064 0.054 0.068

24 Hour Maximum 0.022 0.018 0.025

Annual Mean 0.004 0.005 0.004

Source: USEPA AirData Monitor Values Report accessed January 26, 2011

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html?co~17197~Will%20Co%2C%20Illinois
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-6

April 2011

3.1.1.2 Potential Impacts

Pollutants that can be traced principally to diesel locomotives and construction equipment

are relevant to the evaluation of the project’s impacts; these pollutants include CO, VOC, 

NOx, O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Transportation sources account for a small percentage of regional 

emissions of SO2 and Pb; thus, a detailed analysis is not required. The project elements that 

could adversely affect air quality levels include diesel locomotive emissions from moving 

and idling, emissions from diesel train service at maintenance and storage facilities, and 

emissions from construction.

Volatile organic compounds and NOx emissions from these sources are a concern primarily 

because they are precursors in the formation of ozone and particulate matter. Ozone is 

formed through a series of reactions that occur in the atmosphere in the presence of 

sunlight. Since the reactions are slow and occur as the pollutants are diffusing downwind, 

elevated ozone levels often are found many miles from the sources of the precursor 

pollutants. Therefore, the effects of VOC and NOx emissions generally are examined on a 

regional or “mesoscale” basis. 

PM10 and PM2.5 impacts are both regional and local. A significant portion of particulate 

matter, especially PM10, comes from disturbed vacant land, construction activity, and paved 

road dust. PM2.5 also comes from these sources. Motor vehicle exhaust, particularly from 

diesel construction vehicles, is also a source of PM10 and PM2.5. PM10, and especially PM2.5, can 

also be created by secondary formation from precursor elements such as SO2, NOX, VOCs and 

ammonia (NH3). Secondary formation occurs due to chemical reaction in the atmosphere 

generally downwind some distance from the original emission source. Thus, it is appropriate 

to predict concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 on both a regional and a localized basis. 

CO impacts are generally localized. Even under the worst meteorological conditions and 

most congested traffic conditions, high concentrations are limited to a relatively short 

distance (300 to 600 feet) of heavily traveled roadways or rail corridors. The project would 

not change automobile or truck traffic patterns within the project area. As result, these 

impacts are not analyzed. However, emissions from construction vehicles and diesel 

locomotives can also be major sources of CO. Consequently, it is appropriate to predict 

concentrations of CO on both a regional and a localized or “microscale” basis for the 

proposed improvements within the project corridor.

MSAT impacts are both regional and local. On September 30, 2009 Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) released Interim Guidance Update on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA 

Documents. According to these documents, regardless of the alternative chosen, MSAT 

emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's 

national control programs that are projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by 72 

percent between 1999 and 2050. Local conditions may differ from these national projections 

in terms of fleet mix and turnover, vehicle miles of travel (VMT) growth rates, and local 

control measures. However, the magnitude of the USEPA-projected reductions is so great 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-7

April 2011

(even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to 

be lower in the future in nearly all cases. This project will not result in changes in traffic 

volumes, vehicle mix, basic project location, or any other factor that would cause an increase 

in MSAT impacts of the project from that of the no-build alternative. As such, this project

has not been linked with any special MSAT concerns.

Air Quality during Project Operation

Under the current schedules, there are about 15 trains per day operating over this section of 

line, including 10 Amtrak trains and five UPRR freights (a combination of local and through 

trains). The number of Amtrak trains on the mainline track would remain the same. 

However, the speed of passenger trains would increase from 79 mph to 110 mph in the 

project corridor. Freight trains on the mainline track would continue to operate at 60 mph.

Potential Regional Impacts

While the proposed project would increase diesel locomotive emissions due to speed 

increase, these increases may be off-set by small decreases in the travel times and smaller 

emissions from the newer locomotives. 

As portions of the project area are classified as nonattainment for O3 and PM2.5, the regional 

impacts are quantified to ensure that project-related emission increases do not exceed the 

applicable General Conformity thresholds. Table 3-4 presents the preliminary estimates of 

the regional emissions generated by the project. Based on preliminary estimates, emissions 

of pollutants of concern are below the applicability thresholds and the General Conformity 

rule does not apply.

Table 3-4. Emissions Generated by the Project (tons/year)

Scenario CO NOx VOC PM10 PM2.5 CO2

No Build Alternative 28.8 111.3 5.1 3.7 3.5 26.6

Build Alternative 30.8 119.1 5.6 3.6 3.5 28.3

Change 2.0 7.8 0.5 -0.1 -0.1 1.7

Source: Air Quality Modeling Analysis, see Appendix F

Potential Local Impacts

Along the Rail Right-of Way. The project will increase diesel emissions (PM10, PM2.5) along the 

train tracks. However, the speed increase (and therefore, the shorter residence time) and the 

purchase of newer locomotives with stricter emission limits are likely to off-set this increase. 

It is recommended that an analysis be conducted, using emission factors for diesel 

locomotives and USEPA’s AERMOD dispersion algorithm, to estimate the potential impacts 

of these emissions at the sensitive land uses (residences, playgrounds, etc.) near the rail line. 

It is not anticipated that the results of this analysis would predict a measurable increase in 

PM2.5 concentrations near rail right-of-way and it is not likely, therefore, that the project 

operations would cause or exacerbate a violation of the applicable air quality standards.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-8

April 2011

At Train Stations. The project is not anticipated to increase vehicular (automobile) traffic 

near the proposed stations locations. It is unlikely, therefore, that the project would cause 

significant air quality impacts. 

At-Grade Crossings. The project should not increase vehicular delays at at-grade crossings

and it is unlikely that it would result in any substantial impact on air quality levels.

Maintenance/Storage Yards. There would be no increase to maintenance and storage 

requirements due to this action. Therefore, it is unlikely that there would be significant 

impact from this action to the nearby sensitive land uses. 

Construction Impacts

Temporary impacts are possible that may be caused by dust and exhaust emissions 

generated by equipment during construction. Equipment would include the use of trucks, 

backhoes, graders, compactors, bobcats, cranes, loaders, and compressors. State and local 

regulations regarding dust control and other air quality emission reduction controls would 

be followed.

It is unlikely that the construction of the project, which would follow state and local 

regulations regarding construction activities and equipment, would cause a violation of the 

applicable standards. The UPRR will comply with local regulations to suppress dust 

emissions as necessary.

GHG emissions would also be generated during the construction phase of the project. 

However, these emissions are likely to be relatively minor given the limited duration of the 

construction activities. Construction activities are proposed to commence in fall 2011 and be 

completed by spring 2012.

3.1.1.3 Mitigation

Project Construction

To control local air pollution impacts during project construction, a permit may be required 

for portable bituminous and concrete plants that may be used in project construction. 

However, these materials would likely originate from existing permitted plants and would 

be delivered to the construction site.

Construction mitigation includes strategies that reduce engine activity or reduce emissions 

per unit of operating time, such as reducing the numbers of trips and extended idling. 

Verified emissions control technology retrofits or fleet modernization of engines for 

construction equipment could be appropriate mitigation strategies. The Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) request that construction specifications require the 

use of either later model construction equipment meeting the more stringent Tier 3 emission 

standards or equipment that has been retrofitted with diesel oxidation catalysts or 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-9

April 2011

particulate filters. The use of clean fuels, such as ultra-low sulfur diesel, biodiesel, or 

natural gas also can be a very cost-beneficial strategy.

Project Operation

Travel demand management strategies and techniques that reduce overall vehicle-mile of 

travel; reduce a particular type of travel, such as long-haul freight or commuter travel; or 

improve the transportation system's efficiency will mitigate MSAT emissions. Examples of 

such strategies include congestion pricing, commuter incentive programs, and increases in 

truck weight or length limits. Operational strategies that focus on speed limit enforcement 

or traffic management policies may help reduce MSAT emissions even beyond the benefits 

of fleet turnover. Well-traveled highways with high proportions of heavy-duty diesel 

truck activity may benefit from active Intelligent Transportation System programs, such as 

traffic management centers or incident management systems. Similarly, anti-idling 

strategies, such as truck-stop electrification can complement projects that focus on new or 

increased freight activity.

Long-term air quality on both a microscale and mesoscale levels are expected to improve 

once the project is operational due to improved train operations and reduction of travel time 

between Joliet and Dwight. Similarly, the 2nd mainline track and Mazonia Siding 

improvements would reduce locomotives idling for other trains to pass in the corridor. 

Moreover, USEPA regulations for vehicle engines and fuels will cause overall MSAT 

emissions to decline significantly over the next several decades.

3.1.1.4 Energy

Current energy consumption that results in pollutant emissions occurs with the four basic 

transportation modes used for travel in the project corridor — air, rail, bus, and automobile.

In general, Amtrak passengers account for about 2 percent of person-kilometers (personmiles) traveled in the corridor, while automobile traffic accounts for approximately 84 

percent. Airlines account for about 13 percent of travel. In addition, other vehicular 

transport by rail and motor vehicles results in energy consumption and resultant emissions.

The proposed project would enhance capacity and increase the fluidity of operations on the 

UPRR Joliet Subdivision in the line section between Joliet and Dwight. The number of 

Amtrak trains would remain the same and the speed would increase from 79 mph to 110 

mph in the project corridor. UPRR’s Network Operations personnel estimated that there 

would be a 10% increase in on-time performance due to the implementation of the proposed 

improvements. However, freight train speeds on this section of line would not increase due 

to this work and continue to operate at at 60 mph.

Energy Consumption during Project Construction

No-Build Alternative: The No-Build alternative would not require construction. Therefore, 

no changes in energy consumption are expected.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-10

April 2011

Preferred Alternative: During construction of the improvements, additional energy would 

be expended beyond what would be used for project operation. This additional energy 

would be consumed on a short-term basis by construction of improvements and by 

construction-related delays to existing rail traffic. However, once the project is operational, 

long-term energy savings are expected from significantly improved train operations and 

reduction of travel time between Joliet and Dwight. 

Energy Consumption during Project Operation

Passenger rail service under the No-Build and Preferred Alternatives would be a 

continuation of the existing 10 daily round trips between Joliet and Dwight, with the speed 

of trains increasing from 79 mph to 110 mph. Increased ridership resulting from the normal 

travel growth in the corridor would be accommodated by adding more cars to existing 

trains. The additional energy required to haul added weight could be compensated for by 

use of more efficient locomotives in the future. 

3.1.2 Floodplains

3.1.2.1 Existing Conditions

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

Management,” and by implementation of federal regulations under 44 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 9.00. These regulations direct federal agencies to undertake actions to 

avoid impacts on floodplain areas by structures built in flood-prone areas. In accordance 

with these federal directives, the FHWA has enacted federal-aid policy guidance and 

regulations under 23 CFR 650 and the FRA has established procedures under FRA Docket 

No. EP-1, Notice 5 “Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts”.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has primary responsibility for 

identifying flood-prone areas. FEMA conducted flood studies for the project areas in Will, 

Grundy and Livingston County to locate the extent of the flooding from a 100-year storm.

There are ten floodplains within the project corridor, primarily associated with the stream

crossings as summarized in Table 3-5. County information was obtained from the FEMA 

website and included in Table 3-5. Appendix D shows the floodplain map for the project 

corridor within Will County. Floodplain maps were not available for Grundy or Livingston.

3.1.2.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build alternative would not impact 100-year floodplains. The build alternative may

permanently and temporarily impact 100-year floodplains within the project corridor. 

Culvert replacement and bridge replacement and/or widening may cause both permanent 

and temporary impact to these floodplains depending on the final engineering plans.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-11

April 2011

Figure 3-1. Site Location Map 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-12

April 2011

Table 3-5. Floodplains

County Name Location Type

Will Hickory Creek 

Floodplain

Immediately south of Interstate 80 Zone AE

Will Sugar Run Floodplain West of the intersection of Chicago Street and 

Mills Road

Zone AE

Will Cedar Creek 

Floodplain

North of Sharp Road Zone A

Will Cedar Creek Middle 

Tributary Floodplain

North and South of Millsdale Road Zone A

Will Cedar Creek 

Unnamed Tributary

Approximately 3000 feet south of Millsdale Road Zone A

Will Jackson Creek 

Floodplain

Approximately 4000 feet south of Manhattan Road Zone AE

Will Jackson Creek 

Tributary Floodplain

Approximately 1000 feet north of Diagonal Road Zone A

Grundy Mazon River 

Floodplain

Approximately 2400 feet north of County Road 

6000 South

Zone A4, 

Zone B

Grundy Illinois Central Gulf 

Railroad Ditch

City of Gardner – south/east side of railroad tracks Zone A1

Livingston Gooseberry Creek 

Floodplain

Southern end of project limits – north side of 

Village of Dwight

Zone AE

3.1.2.3 Permits

A local stormwater permit will be required for all hydraulic structures. A permit will also 

be required from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) for the structure 

replacement/extensions. Individual IDNR permits will be required for the structures 

located within a FEMA designated floodway, while the other culverts along the corridor 

will comply with the non-notification Statewide Permit requirements.

3.1.2.4 Mitigation

Temporarily impacted areas would be restored following construction. Permanent impacts 

would require proper sizing of hydraulic structures and compensatory storage where 

required.

3.1.3 Noise and Vibration

The assessment of the potential for the project to cause noise and vibration impacts was 

accomplished by applying the procedures provided by the FRA High-Speed Ground 

Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance manual (U.S. Department of 

Transportation [USDOT] Federal Railroad, October 2005). The assessment included 

evaluating noise and vibration from train operations, which includes both rolling stock 

noise along the corridor and horn noise at the at-grade crossings.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-13

April 2011

The FRA screening procedure is conservative and is used to identify sensitive receptors 

where the next level of analysis is appropriate. Using the FRA screening procedure 

approach, sensitive receptors with the potential for noise and vibration impacts are 

identified. Receptor locations within the screening distance are then evaluated using the 

general assessment level of analysis. If impacts are still identified in the general assessment, 

a detailed analysis would be warranted.

The proposed project improvements were evaluated for the Joliet (MP 36.7) to Dwight (MP 

72.8) corridor. The overall improvements include increasing the passenger train speeds 

from 79 mph to 110 mph, double tracking portions between Joliet and Elwood (MP 38.50 to 

MP 45.50), and constructing the Mazonia siding (MP 55.0 to 57.13). Existing passenger train 

speeds less than 79 mph were evaluated at the current speed limit and not increased to 110 

mph in the Build scenario. The noise and vibration assessment in the areas of the proposed 

double track section evaluated potential impacts with half of the train traffic volumes using 

the new track while the other half continues to use the existing track. 

3.1.3.1 Noise Evaluation

Screening Noise Evaluation

The FRA screening procedure identifies a screening distance for both obstructed and 

unobstructed urban conditions and for quiet suburban/rural areas. Given the generally 

rural nature of the corridor, the quiet suburban/rural area screening distance of 500 feet was 

used to screen the project corridor. Sensitive receptors were identified along the project 

corridor and include single-family residences (SFR), multi-family residences (MFR), 

churches, schools, and parks. Thirty four receptor locations were selected to represent the 

various land uses along the corridor and are depicted in Appendix C.

Within the corridor, there are 26 public at-grade railroad crossings. All of these at-grade 

crossings are not within a 24-hour quiet zone and therefore train operators are required to 

use train horns on approach to the crossing. Nineteen of the receptors are within 1⁄4 mile of 

the crossings and therefore the evaluation includes horn noise in the assessment for these 

receptors. The exception to this is the two crossings in Elwood that are designated as 24-

hour quiet zones. Horn noise was not included in this part of the assessment for the Elwood 

area.

General Noise Assessment

The general assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the 

proposed project improvements (increased speed, double track sections, and the Mazonia 

siding). As the corridor is an active rail corridor, the existing noise environment includes 

the existing 10 passenger trains and the five freight trains. Based on the location of the 

receptors to the tracks and the rural land use, the dominant noise sources along the corridor 

are the existing rolling train noise and the locomotive horns near the at-grade crossings. 

Due to the project corridor being an active rail corridor with the trains being the dominant 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-14

April 2011

noise source, the impact evaluation is based on the comparison of the existing train noise 

and the train noise under the proposed build condition. As the freight train noise is a 

contributor to the noise environment, the freight train traffic is included in the evaluation. 

Table 3-6 summarizes the train traffic information for the existing and build condition.

Table 3-6. Existing Train Traffic 

Train Traffic Information Passenger Train Traffic Freight Train Traffic

No. of Trains (7am to 10pm) 9 3

No. of Trains (10pm to 7am) 1 2

Number of Locomotives 1 2

Number of Cars 6 50

Train Speed Existing, mph 79 60

Train Speed Build, mph 110 60

Source: UPRR; Amtrak Schedule (2011)

In addition to the rolling stock noise, horn noise was included in the evaluation at the grade 

crossings where sensitive receptors were identified, and idling locomotive noise was 

included in the evaluation along the proposed Mazonia siding location. Based on the FRA 

regulations for horn noise, operators shall not apply the horn more than 1⁄4 mile from the 

crossing based on the operating speeds of 60 mph or greater. Therefore, horn noise was 

evaluated for receptors within 1⁄4 mile of the at-grade crossings. Table 3-7 summarizes the 

general assessment results for the project corridor.

Based on the general assessment for the proposed improvements, noise impacts associated 

with the proposed project are not anticipated. Generally, the increased passenger train 

speed increases the rolling stock noise levels by an average 2 weighted decibels (dB(A)). 

However, the freight train noise is the dominant noise source in the corridor and therefore 

the overall noise levels remain constant as there is generally no change in freight noise 

between the existing and build scenarios. Additionally, the increased passenger train speed 

reduces the overall train horn noise as the duration of the horn noise is shorter at the higher 

speeds. A detailed noise analysis and a noise abatement evaluation are therefore not 

warranted as no impacts have been identified.

Construction Noise

Trucks and machinery used for construction produce noise which may affect some land 

uses and activities during the construction period. Residents along the corridor would at 

some time experience perceptible construction noise from implementation of the project. To 

minimize or eliminate the effect of construction noise on these receptors, time restrictions 

will be used to limit the period of exposure to construction noise, with construction activity 

only occurring from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-15

April 2011

Table 3-7. General Assessment Noise Analysis Results

Receptor 

Number

Dist. to

Existing 

Track, 

feet

Horn 

Noise 

Included

Receptor 

Type

Noise 

Metric

Project Noise 

Levels, dB(A)

Build 

Increase 

Over 

Existing, 

dB(A)

Allowed 

Increase 

(Moderate 

Impact), 

dB(A)

Impact 

Existing/ Determination

No-Build Build

R1 118 Yes SFR Ldn 75 75 0 0 No Impact

R2 583 Yes SFR Ldn 55 55 0 1 No Impact

R3 193 Yes Church Leq 73 73 0 2 No Impact

R4 32 Yes SFR Ldn 81 81 0 0 No Impact

R5 141 No SFR Ldn 65 65 0 1 No Impact

R6 651 Yes School Leq 68 67 -1 3 No Impact

R7 186 Yes SFR Ldn 73 73 0 1 No Impact

R8 142 No SFR Ldn 64 64 0 2 No Impact

R9 270 Yes SFR Ldn 71 71 0 1 No Impact

R10 162 Yes SFR Ldn 74 74 0 1 No Impact

R11 269 No SFR Ldn 60 60 0 2 No Impact

R12 230 Yes SFR Ldn 72 71 -1 1 No Impact

R13 194 Yes SFR Ldn 73 72 -1 1 No Impact

R14 95 Yes SFR Ldn 77 76 -1 0 No Impact

R15 168 No SFR Ldn 63 62 -1 2 No Impact

R16 165 No SFR Ldn 63 62 -1 2 No Impact

R17 137 No SFR Ldn 65 65 0 1 No Impact

R18 673 Yes Park Leq 68 68 0 3 No Impact

R19 58 Yes MFR Ldn 79 79 0 0 No Impact

R20 202 No SFR Ldn 62 62 0 2 No Impact

R21 25 No* SFR Ldn 76 76 0 0 No Impact

R22 522 No* Park Leq 56 56 0 3 No Impact

R23 164 No SFR Ldn 64 63 -1 2 No Impact

R24 120 No SFR Ldn 66 66 0 1 No Impact

R25 104 Yes SFR Ldn 76 76 0 0 No Impact

R26 240 Yes SFR Ldn 72 71 -1 1 No Impact

R27 132 Yes SFR Ldn 75 75 0 0 No Impact

R28 112 Yes SFR Ldn 76 76 0 0 No Impact

R29 73 Yes SFR Ldn 78 77 -1 0 No Impact

R30 502 Yes SFR Ldn 68 68 0 1 No Impact

R31 76 No SFR Ldn 69 68 -1 1 No Impact

R32 87 No SFR Ldn 68 67 -1 1 No Impact

R33 85 No SFR Ldn 79 79 0 0 No Impact

R34 69 No Church Leq 60 60 0 5 No Impact

* 24-hour Quiet Zone location
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-16

April 2011

3.1.3.2 Vibration Evaluation

Screening Vibration Evaluation

The screening assessment for potential vibration effects was based on land use coupled with 

an appropriately conservative screening distance obtained from the FRA guidance manual. 

The screening distance for residential land uses with infrequent events along a corridor with 

speeds between 100 mph and 200 mph is 100 feet. Sensitive receptors identified within this 

screening distance were evaluated for potential vibration impacts.

General Vibration Evaluation

Based on the vibration screening evaluation, sensitive receptors exist within the vibration 

screening distance (100 feet). The FRA general assessment procedures for vibration were 

used to predict the vibration level at the identified receptor locations. Table 3-8 summarizes

the general assessment analysis for vibration.

Table 3-8. Ground-borne Vibration General Assessment

Receptor 

No.

Dist. to 

Existing 

Track, ft

Existing 

Vibration 

Level, VdB

Build 

Vibration 

Level, VdB

Increase in 

Vibration, 

VdB

FRA Criteria 

(Infrequent 

Events), 

VdB

Impact 

Determination

R4 32 88 91 3 80 Yes

R14 95 80 83 3 80 Yes

R21 25 88 88 0 80 No

R29 73 82 85 3 80 Yes

R31 76 82 85 3 80 Yes

R32 87 90 90 0 80 No

R33 85 90 90 0 80 No

R34 69 79 79 0 83 No

Based on the ground-borne vibration analysis for the corridor, vibration impacts are 

anticipated as part of the proposed project due to the predicted vibration level exceeding the 

vibration criteria and also due to the vibration level increasing 3 velocity decibels (VdB) 

over the existing vibration levels. The vibration impacts are generally associated with the 

speed increase from 79 mph to 110 mph. There are no ground-borne noise impacts 

associated with vibration as the ground-borne noise levels are less than the FRA impact 

criteria.

Vibration Mitigation

The following maintenance procedures are used by the rail industry to mitigate vibration 

impacts through minimizing vibration sources:

Regularly scheduled rail grinding
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-17

April 2011

Wheel truing programs

Vehicle reconditioning programs

Use of wheel-flat detectors

3.1.4 Visual Resources

3.1.4.1 Existing Conditions

Guidance 

Visual and aesthetic quality along the project corridor was assessed in accordance with the 

FHWA guidance titled Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (USDOT 1983). Under 

the FHWA guidance, the visual environment is categorized into the following three 

geographic levels:

a. Regional Landscapes – Regional landscapes are discussed in terms of landform, 

topography and/or land cover components, which include water, vegetation and 

manmade development.

b. Landscape Units – Landscape units are within the regional landscape and are essentially 

“outdoor rooms” that often correspond to places or districts that are named (i.e. 

downtown). Landscape units are usually enclosed by clear landform or land cover 

boundaries.

c. Visual Survey Locations – Visual survey locations are locations of specific interest to 

persons within the larger regional landscape and landscape unit. Attributes of visual 

survey locations are described in terms of visual character, visual quality and visually 

sensitive resources. 

Visual character is defined by the landform, water, vegetation, and manmade 

development attributes found within the visual survey location. 

Visual quality is discussed in terms of vividness, intactness, and unity. An 

individual high rating of any one of these attributes does not connote high visual 

quality. Rather, all three must be highly rated to indicate high quality:

- Vividness is defined as the memorability of the visual impression received from 

contrasting landscape elements as they combine to form a striking and 

distinctive visual pattern.

- Intactness is defined as the integrity of visual order in the natural and man-built 

landscape, and the extent to which the landscape is free from visual 

encroachment.

- Unity is defined as the degree to which the visual resources of the landscape join 

to form a coherent, harmonious visual pattern. Unity refers to the compositional 

harmony or compatibility between landscape elements.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-18

April 2011

Visually sensitive resources are those that are noted because of their potential to be 

important for scenic, historic or recreational reasons. 

Assumptions

The proposed improvements would occur primarily within UPRR’s ROW and:

The rail service on existing rail lines was not assessed because it includes no increase in 

the number of Amtrak trains; the project would shift trains to a new second track; and 

the duration or frequency of the added trips would not be notable to visual receptors 

along the corridor.

The speed Amtrak trains would increase from 79 mph to 110 mph in the project corridor. 

However, freight train speeds on this section of line would not increase due to this work 

and continue to operate at 60 mph. The increase in Amtrak train speed would not be 

notable to visual receptors along the corridor.

No new stations, facilities or other structures are discussed in terms of: changes to the 

design or size of existing structures; changes in site lighting or vegetation; and increase 

in use that may result in impacts to local visual receptors.

Within the 2nd mainline track project corridor, there is one large culvert at MP 38.8 and 

bridges at MP 42.6 and 44.4 where the rail line crosses waterways. These would be 

modified with the addition of a second track. 

Within the Mazonia siding track corridor, there is one culvert at MP 55.5 where the rail 

line crosses a waterway. This would be modified with the addition of a siding track 

west of the existing mainline. 

Application of FHWA Guidance 

The FHWA geographic levels of regional landscape and landscape unit are generally used 

for projects that are contiguous in nature. Because the project includes three structures 

distributed over the corridor, and the locations are disjunctive in nature, these geographic 

levels were not used. Instead, each culvert/bridge site was assessed alone in terms of visual 

quality and potential for impact as the result of project construction and operation. The 

structures are not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under 

Criterion C (see State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] letter dated April 28th, 2010 in 

Appendix B). 

A conceptual drawing of the proposed replacement structures has been prepared by the 

UPRR and is included in Appendix E.

3.1.4.2 Potential Impacts

110 mph Project Corridor between MP 36.7 and 72.8

Track and signal improvements for 110 mph service would occur within the existing UPPR 

ROW. Temporary easements would need to be obtained by UPRR for construction access 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-19

April 2011

and to stage materials; however, these easements will not require the relocation of 

residences, or permanently impact visual receptors. Construction noise will be temporary 

and confined to the hours between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.

2nd Mainline Tract Project between MP 36.7 and MP 44.69

Structure at MP 38.8 

This site includes an operating single track crossing the Jackson Creek located at the margin 

of the Joliet urban residential area between industrial uses to the west and an inactive 

quarry to the east. There are no residences or existing buildings near the site. As result, 

there are no clear views of the structure. The structure to be widened, at MP 38.8, is an 

extension of an existing arch top culvert to accommodate the proposed additional track. 

Because of the lack of residential receptors at this site, and because the project proposes to 

extend the existing culvert and there is no temporary or infrequent visual change to 

residential viewers, no visual impacts would occur.

Structure at MP 42.6

The second structure to be widened, at MP 42.6, has a span of 11 feet over the Cedar Run 

Creek. The current structure is nearly 90 years old and is located in an agricultural area. 

The current structure is not considered an historic bridge by State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO). 

The nearest residences are located approximately 1800 feet to the northeast and north of 

Millsdale Road. To avoid construction or longer-term impacts on this waterway, the 

railroad has indicated that they are considering the installation of two 20-foot spans. The 

structure extension would be a concrete box culvert similar in design to the existing 

structure. Because visual resource impacts to these receptors are not anticipated, no visual 

impacts would occur.

Structure at MP 44.4

The third structure to be replaced, at MP 44.4, consists of two spans – one with a 42-foot 

length, the other being 56 feet long, for an overall length of 98 feet. The current structure is 

104 years old and is not considered an historic bridge by the SHPO. 

A single-family subdivision is located southeast (Meadowbrick) and northeast (Wooded 

Cove Estates) of the Jackson Creek Crossing at MP 44.4. One residence lies east and three 

residences west of the railroad ROW. These single-family houses are located on the north 

bank of Jackson Creek approximately 400 to 500 feet from the bridge. However, the train 

tracks and bridge are located beyond the view of these residential receptors due to trees or 

distance. 

The proposed new bridge would be a pre-cast concrete structure with a center pier. Visual 

impacts are not anticipated because the project proposes only to replace the existing bridge 

with a similar structure.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-20

April 2011

Mazonia Siding Track between MP 55.0 and MP 57.13 

The nearest residences are located in the City of Braidwood along North Washington Street 

approximately 200 feet to the west of the UPRR ROW. These multi-family houses have 

views of the existing mainline track. The siding track allows a location to store trains off the 

mainline track during periods of incidents while other train traffic can pass by. The siding 

track will also act as a passing lane that will allow for a freight train (slower train traffic) to 

pull over onto the siding while Amtrak traffic can move through the area quickly using the 

existing mainline track. The proposed siding track will not increase the number of trains or 

the regulated speed of trains throughout this area; thus, visual receptor impacts will not be 

increased from the existing condition.

Temporary easements would need to be obtained by UPRR for construction access and to 

stage materials; however, these easements will not require the relocation of residences, or

permanently impact visual receptors. Construction noise will be temporary and confined to 

the hours between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m.

3.1.4.3 Mitigation

Impacts to visual resources would be negligible. As a result, mitigation is not required.

3.1.5 Agriculture

3.1.5.1 Existing Conditions

Outside the urbanized area of Joliet, agriculture is the primary land use in the project 

corridor. Along the project corridor, the main agricultural crops are row crops, primarily 

corn and soybeans. However, many agricultural parcels are proposed for future 

development along the 2nd mainline track due to the opening of the UPRR CenterPointe 

Joliet Intermodal Center. No agricultural lands are located along the Mazonia siding project 

corridor. 

3.1.5.2 Potential Impacts

Proposed improvements are planned to occur primarily within or adjacent to existing 

railroad right-of-way. As a result, no impacts to agricultural areas are anticipated along the 

project corridor between MP 36.7 to 72.8.

As discussed in more detail in Section 3.2, numerous soil types located within the project 

corridor are identified as farmland of statewide importance; however, none of these would

be affected by the project, since the project would occur primarily in existing railroad ROW 

and the soils in these areas are already disturbed.

3.1.5.3 Mitigation

No impacts to agriculture are anticipated. As a result, mitigation is not required.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-21

April 2011

3.1.6 Tree Resources

3.1.6.1 Existing Conditions

A screening evaluation of forest and tree resources was conducted for the Joliet to Dwight 

project corridor. As the proposed improvements are located primarily within the existing 

railroad ROW, with the exception of the three new bridge crossings, there are limited trees 

that would potentially be impacted. The forested areas are generally located within creek 

crossings or existing wetlands and are dominated by common floodplain species. The 

general condition of the forested areas located within the project corridor was determined 

during multiple field visits in 2010 in the areas of Jackson Creek, Sugar Run, Cedar Creek, 

and the Mazonia siding. In addition, a screening for the entire project area was completed 

during a high-rail field review on March 24th, 2011. 

The majority of the project area contains scattered trees associated with fence-rows or 

developed areas. Small stands of high quality trees such as oaks are generally located in 

residential yards. Larger stands of trees are primarily associated with wetlands and 

streams. These areas are dominated by Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), American 

elm (Ulmus americana), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), box elder (Acer negundo), and green 

ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica subintegerrima). 

2nd Mainline Tract Project between MP 36.7 and MP 44.69

Sugar Run Creek MP 38.8

The trees at milepost MP 38.8 near Sugar Run are primarily second growth, adventive 

species that includes box elder (Acer negundo), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), green 

ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica subintegerrima), and white mulberry (Morus alba). The 

understory consists of aggressive non-native shrub species of buckthorn (Rhamnus 

cathartica) and honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica). A portion of this area contains abandoned 

equipment/building foundations from an abandoned railyard.

Cedar Creek MP 42.6

Only a few scattered trees occur along the banks of Cedar Creek at MP 42.6. A few small 

white mulberry trees and small box elders are present, all less than 6 inches in diameter at 

breast height (DBH). One dead eastern cottonwood is also present.

Jackson Creek MP 44.4

The forested area associated with Jackson Creek includes the only high-quality native forest 

within the project limits. The area on the northwest side of Jackson Creek/UPRR ROW (MP 

44.4) is comprised of a mature oak-hickory forest, dominated by the following species: red 

oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata). 

Additional tree species present include black cherry (Prunus serotina), black walnut (Juglans 

nigra), American elm, silver maple, and hackberry (Celtis occidentalis). 

The northeast portion of MP 44.4 is mainly a manicured landscaped residential area, with 

ash, silver maple, black cherry, American elm, and basswood (Tilia americana) species.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-22

April 2011

The southeast side of MP 44.4 is dominated by a few large Eastern cottonwoods, white 

mulberry, Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), and black cherry. The understory is comprised of 

thick honeysuckle. The southwest side is comprised of box elder, white mulberry, 

hackberry, silver maple, and black walnut. There are patches of thick honeysuckle within 

this area as well. Off-road vehicle trails are scattered throughout the forest. 

Mazonia Siding Track between MP 55.0 and MP 57.13 

The southern portion of this segment contains very few trees in comparison to the northern 

portion. Woodland areas exist on the northwest side of UPRR ROW between MP 56 (Hole 

in the Wall Road) and MP 55.6 (Coal City Road). This woodland is dominated by black 

walnut, green ash, silver maple, box elder, American elm, and eastern cottonwood. 

Additional tree species present include white mulberry, tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), 

black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), Siberian elm 

(Ulmus pumilia), and honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos). The understory consists of mostly 

aggressive non-native shrub species of buckthorn and honeysuckle.

3.1.6.2 Potential Impacts

Proposed improvements are planned to occur primarily within or adjacent to existing 

railroad right-of-way. As a result, tree impacts as a result of the proposed project are 

anticipated to be minimal.

3.1.6.3 Mitigation

Tree impacts can be mitigated by replacing trees that are unavoidable and minimizing 

impacts to the mature forested areas.

3.2 Ecological Systems

This section describes the ecological systems to be served or affected by the proposed 

project. Included in this section is a discussion of the anticipated wetlands, water quality 

and resources, and threatened and endangered species and special lands effects of the 

Preferred Alternative. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are identified.

3.2.1 Wetlands and Waters of the US

Wetlands are defined by the USACE and the USEPA as: 

"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal 

circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for 

life in saturated soil conditions” (Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations Section 

328.3 (b) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act).

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands”, requires federal agencies to avoid, to the 

extent practicable, short and long-term impacts associated with the destruction or 

modification of wetlands. More specifically, it directs federal agencies to avoid new 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-23

April 2011

construction in wetlands unless there is no practical alternative. In addition, it states that 

where wetlands cannot be avoided, the proposed action must include all practical measures 

to minimize harm to the wetlands. 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Title 33 United States Code [USC] Section 

403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Title 33 USC Section 1344) authorize permits 

for placement of structures, dredged, or fill material into the “waters of the U.S.” All public 

and private projects must obtain permits. The most likely types of these permits in the 

study area would be for filling wetlands of streams. Impacts to wetlands and waters of the 

United States must be replaced. While mitigation requirements under Section 404 and 

Section 10 are the same for developers and the IDOT regarding wetland loss and 

replacement, under the Illinois Wetland Protection Act of 1989 (Chapter 415 Illinois 

Compiled Statutes Section 5), IDOT mitigates for isolated and jurisdictional wetlands.

3.2.1.1 Existing Conditions

Wetlands in the overall project area were identified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping combined with aerial photography 

review and field confirmation via a high-rail review on March 24, 2011. The high-rail 

review generally consisted evaluating current conditions and did not include delineating 

any wetlands. All wetlands are located within the Des Plaines River or Illinois River 

watersheds.

Field conditions at three locations (Jackson Creek bridge, Cedar Creek bridge, and Sugar 

Run bridge) were delineated in the field during field investigations in 2010. The wetland 

delineations associated with these locations are contained herein as these are locations with 

a high potential for right-of-way acquisition and/or work within waters of the U.S. (WOUS) 

for double track. The limits of these wetlands were determined based on the presence of 

hydrophytic (adapted to grow in saturated soil) vegetation, hydric (characterized by 

considerable moisture) soils, and wetland hydrology. These three criteria are used to assess 

sites as wetlands or non-wetlands. Improvements within the remaining areas of the 

corridor and not anticipated to include work outside the right-of-way or in areas not already 

disturbed were evaluated through screening only.

Overall Project Corridor Wetland Screening – Dwight to Joliet

Table 3-9 includes a summary of potential wetlands identified via NWI map review, highrail screening, and wetland delineations in the Jackson Creek, Cedar Creek, and Sugar Run 

areas. Locations identified in the field during the high-rail screening but not on the NWI 

maps have been approximated. 

Most of the wetlands in the project corridor are located near or along stream or ditched 

channels. Major portions of the project area are developed (within the City of Joliet). 

Agricultural fields are prevalent south of Joliet. There are limited opportunities for isolated 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-24

April 2011

Table 3-9. Summary of Wetland and WOUS Screening by Milepost

Approximate

Location (MP) Environmental Issue NWI Mapped 1/ Side of Railroad 2/

38.2 Hickory Creek (Site 11)* R2UBHx East/West

38.8 Sugar Creek (Site 1)* None East/West

38.8-39.0 Wetland PUBFx East

39.2-39.4 Wetland (Site 4)* PUBGx West

39.4-39.5 Wetland (Site 5)* Not on NWI Maps West

40.5-40.6 Tributary to Cedar 

Creek/wetland (Site 6)* Not on NWI Maps East/West

41.8 Tributary to Cedar Creek (Site 

7)* Not on NWI Maps East/West

42.1-42.4 Prairie/wetland Not on NWI Maps East

42.6 Cedar Creek Not on NWI Maps East/West

44.1 Wetland (Site 8)* Not on NWI Maps

44.4 Jackson Creek PFO1A East/West

44.4-44.5 Wetland (Site 9)* Not on NWI Maps

44.5-44.7 Tributary to Jackson Creek (Site 

10)* Not on NWI Maps East

45.3-45.4 Wetland PEMAf West

46.3-46.6 Tributary to Grant 

Creek/wetland Not on NWI Maps East/West

46.6-46.7 Tributary to Grant 

Creek/wetland PFO1A East/West

47.2-47.3 Grant Creek/ wetlands PFO1A

PFO1A

East

West

48.7 Tributary to Prairie Creek Not on NWI Maps East/West

49.5 Prairie Creek Not on NWI Maps East/West

49.6 Wetland PUBGx East

49.9-50.4 Wetland PEMC East/West

50.3-50.4 Tributary to Kankakee River/ 

wetlands

PFO1A

PFO1A

East

West

50.4-50.8 Wetland PFO1C East/West

51.0 Wetland Not on NWI Maps West

51.4-51.5 Tributary to Kankakee River/ 

wetland PEMAF East/West

52.4 Forked Creek Not on NWI Maps East/West

52.6-52.7 Kankakee River Not on NWI Maps East/West

53.0 Wetland PUBGx West

53.6-53.9 Wetland PSS1C West

54.0-54.1 Wetland PEMC West

54.8-55.0 Wetland PEMC East/West

55.2 Wetland Not on NWI Maps West

55.5 Wetland Not on NWI Maps West
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-25

April 2011

Approximate

Location (MP) Environmental Issue NWI Mapped 1/ Side of Railroad 2/

57.8 Wetland PEMFx East

60.0-60.2 Jackson Creek/Wetlands

PEMC

PSS1C

PEM/SS1F

PFO1C

PEMA

PSS1C

West

West

West

East

East

East

61.5-61.9 Wetland PUBGx East

61.9-62.1 Wetland PUBGx East

62.3 Tributary to Mazon River Not on NWI Maps East/West

62.6-62.7 Wetland PFO1C West

62.7 Mazon River R2UBH East/West

63.4-63.6 Wetland PSS1A West

65.2-65.4 Wetland PUBGx West

66.0 Tributary to Mazon River Not on NWI Maps East/West

67.1 Tributary to Mazon River Not on NWI Maps East/West

67.6 Wetland PUBGx East

70.1 Woods Run Not on NWI Maps East/West

71.3 Gooseberry Creek Tributary Not on NWI Maps East/West

72.4 Gooseberry Creek Not on NWI Maps East/West

* Wetlands identified during the wetland delineation in April 2010.

1/ Per USFWS NWI mapping. Designations are defined as:

R – riverine, P – palustrine, FO – forested, SS – scrub-shrub, UB – unconsolidated bottom, 2- lower perennial, 

A – temporarily flooded, C – seasonally flooded, F – semi-permanently flooded, G - intermittently exposed, H 

– permanently flooded, 1 – broad-leaved deciduous, f – farmed, x – excavated

2/ Based on 100 foot wide corridor, 50 feet on either side of existing track.

wetlands to develop in these actively used areas. Historically, many agricultural fields in 

northern Illinois were ditched or tilled, which eliminated wetlands in these areas.

3.2.1.2 Wetland Plant Communities

Four types of wetland plant communities were identified in the project corridor. These 

include open water, emergent, shrub, and forested. Open water habitats include WOUS. 

Emergent wetlands were generally herbaceous dominated wetlands in depressional areas or 

along the banks of the creek. The shrub and forested wetlands are primarily along the 

banks of creeks. Forested wetlands are dominated by trees and include depressional and 

riparian areas.

None of the wetlands found along the UPRR tracks are considered to be High Quality 

Aquatic Resources. Will County has not adopted the USEPA Advanced Identification 

(ADID) program, which inventories high quality areas. Therefore, no ADID wetlands are 

located within the project limits.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-26

April 2011

3.2.1.3 Farmed Wetlands 

Farmed wetlands were first defined as a result of the "Swampbuster" provision of the Food 

Security Act of 1985 (Title 16 United States Code Sections 3801-3862). This act regulates the 

activities of farmers in regards to wetlands. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

can withhold farm program benefits if a farmer drains, dredges, or manipulates wetlands to 

increase the potential tillable land. Wetlands altered or manipulated before 1985 are termed 

"Prior Converted Wetlands" and are exempt from the Swampbuster provision. The Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has authority over farmed wetlands and the 

determination of these areas. Since 2005, the NRCS no longer conducts farmed wetland 

determinations for land that will be converted from agriculture to other uses. In response, 

the Chicago District of the USACE has issued guidance for the determination of farmed 

wetlands in their jurisdiction. 

There were no areas within the project limits that met the criteria for farmed wetlands. 

Project limits were determined to be the railroad ROW except for the Jackson Creek, Cedar 

Creek, and Sugar Run locations.

3.2.1.4 Wetland Functions

Each of the wetland types delineated serve different functions within the landscape. 

Riparian zones along major creeks and rivers within the project corridor provide the 

majority of natural cover and habitat in this landscape, which is highly fragmented by 

agriculture, roads, and development. Animals make use of forested areas (both wetland 

and non-wetland) as both nesting and foraging habitat. These areas also provide a corridor 

for use in migration, as well as for local travel.

Farmed wetlands provide little or no habitat functions for plants and animals. These areas 

may be tilled in drier years and the vegetation communities are completely disturbed, 

providing little to no habitat. These farmed depressions do serve as storm water storage 

and toxicant traps and also may act as groundwater recharge areas dependent upon the 

permeability of the soils. 

Project corridor wetlands serve as storm water attenuation features and can serve as 

sediment/toxicant traps in addition to habitat for wildlife. Furthermore, these areas can 

serve as groundwater recharge areas. Wetlands adjacent to streams also serve to attenuate 

flood flows from the channel during high water periods.

Jackson Creek, Cedar Creek, and Sugar Run Wetland Delineations

As of 2008, a series of regional supplements to the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual were 

published which outline updated technical guidelines and procedures for identifying and 

delineating wetlands that may be subject to regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. This wetland delineation was 

conducted using methodology presented in the USACE Regional Supplement to the USACE
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-27

April 2011

Wetlands Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (USACE Midwest Region Manual) (USACE, 

2008).

Seven jurisdictional wetlands and two “WOUS” were identified in April 2010 within the 

creek areas. In addition, two wetlands were identified that appear to be isolated. The area 

of wetland in the vicinity these three areas is approximately 1.28 acres and the area of open 

water is approximately 0.84 acre. Most of the wetlands are near or along streams. Wet 

meadows, open water, and forested wetlands comprise the majority of wetlands in number 

and in total area.

The exhibits in Appendix D depict the wetland areas. Table 3-10 presents the site number, 

plant community type, NWI classification, dominant vegetation, soil type, hydrologic 

indicator, size, Floristic Quality Index (FQI), and stream association. Wetlands are assigned 

a site number during the field delineations and are characterized by plant community and 

NWI classification. The total size of the wetland is approximated based on available 

mapping and field surveys. All wetlands within this section are in the Des Plaines River 

Watershed.

The overall quality of the wetland plant community is indicated by the FQI number 

calculated for each wetland. The FQI is an index derived from floristic inventory data and 

calculated from the number of species that occur in the plant community and the species 

coefficient of conservatism (C). C values are assigned to individual plant species, range 

from 0 to 10, and represent an estimated probability that a plant is likely to occur in a 

landscape relatively unaltered from what is believed to be a pre-settlement condition. The 

aggregate conservatism of all the plants inhabiting a site is used to determine its FQI. 

Another indicator, the Wetness Index, is a mean value derived from all wetness values in a 

floristic inventory. Based solely on the composition of plant species within the community 

being evaluated, the index characterizes the plant community in terms of hydrological 

characteristics. Values of -5 to 0 are considered wetlands and values from 0 to +5 are 

considered non-wetland. Finally, hydrologic connections to adjacent streams also are 

identified to aid in the jurisdictional determinations.

In Illinois, the FQI is applied to the vegetation of each wetland site. The general 

interpretation of the FQI value is that sites with values of 20 or more have at least some 

evidence of native character and may be considered environmental assets. Sites with FQI 

values between 10 and 20 are considered fair quality, FQI values of less than 10 indicate low 

natural quality; and FQI values of 5 or less indicate very low quality. 

Wetland Site 4 was considered to be fair quality, with an FQI value of 10.5. The remaining 

wetlands were considered degraded or severely degraded.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-28

April 2011

Table 3-10. Wetlands and their Characteristics in the Delineated Areas Jackson Creek, Cedar Creek, Sugar Run Areas

Site Wetland Type 1 Wetland Area 

Acres2 Dominant Vegetation(all strata)

Native 

FQI

Native 

Mean C

Mapped Soil 

Type

Isolated? 

Y/N3 NWI Classification

Wetness 

Coefficient4

1 Open water Sugar Run 

(WOUS) 0.11

Tatarian honeysuckle

Fowl manna grass

Sedges

Poison ivy

N/A N/A

Romeo silt loam 

(316A)

Pits quarry (864)

N R2UBH N/A

2

Open water Wet 

meadow

Cedar Creek (WOUS)

0.09

Cockspur hawthorn

Elderberry

Sandbar willow

Reed canary grass

Narrow-leaved cattail

7.3 1.8 Elpaso silt loam 

(356A) N None -2.1

3 Open water Forested

Jackson Creek (WOUS) 0.65

Box elder

Silver maple

Elderberry

Reed canary grass

Fowl manna grass

8.7 2.6 Lawson silt loam 

(8451A) N PFO1A -0.9

4

Wet meadow 

Tributary to Sugar Run

(WOUS)

0.54

Gray dogwood

Elderberry

Common buckthorn

Common reed

Reed canary grass

Riverbank grape

10.5 2.3 St. Clair silty clay 

loam (560D2) N PUBGx -1.7

5 Forested 0.00

Green ash

Box elder

Common buckthorn

Red hawthorn

Wild geranium

Common reed

Riverbank grape

9.5 3.0 St. Clair silty clay 

loam (560D2) Y None 0.1

6

Open water Wet 

meadow – Tributary 

to Cedar Creek

(WOUS)

0.29

Eastern cottonwood

Reed canary grass

Narrow-leaved cattails

White mulberry

4.5 2.0

Elpaso silt loam 

(356A) & 

Peotone silty 

clay loam 

(330A)

N None -3.6

7

Wet meadow 

Forested Tributary to 

Cedar Creek

(WOUS)

0.09

Green ash

Reed canary grass

Box elder

Curly dock

5.1 1.5 Elpaso silt loam 

(356A) N None -2.0
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-29

April 2011

Site Wetland Type 1 Wetland Area 

Acres2 Dominant Vegetation(all strata)

Native 

FQI

Native 

Mean C

Mapped Soil 

Type

Isolated? 

Y/N3 NWI Classification

Wetness 

Coefficient4

8 Wet meadow

Shrub 0.08

Sandbar willow

Box elder

Black willow

Reed canary grass

8.0 2.7 Beecher silt 

loam (298B) N None -3.0

9 Forested 0.05

Box elder

Moneywort

Reed canary grass

Hackberry

4.0 1.3 Camden silt 

loam (134) Y None -1.2

10

Open water Wet 

meadow Tributary to 

Jackson Creek 

(WOUS)

0.03

Long-bracted tussock 

sedge

Reed canary grass

Fowl manna grass

Orange jewelweed

9.0 3.0

Ashkum silty 

clay loam 

(232A)

N None -1.6

11 Open water Hickory 

Creek (WOUS) 0.19 Eastern cottonwood N/A N/A Lawson silt loam (8451A) N R2UBHx N/A

1 Wetland type is based on the IDOT definition off the Wetland Impact Evaluation form.

2Acreage is within project area only. All wetlands extend off-site.

3 Isolated is based on professional judgment in the field. The USACE makes all final jurisdictional determinations. Isolated applies to the lack of hydrological 

connection to a “Waters of the U.S.”

4 R – riverine, P – palustrine, FO – forested, UB – unconsolidated bottom, A – temporarily flooded, F – semi-permanently flooded, G - intermittently exposed, H –

permanently flooded, 1 – broad-leaved deciduous, 4 – floating vascular, x – excavated

5 Wetness Index – The index is a mean derived from all wetness values in a floristic inventory. Based solely on the composition of plant species within the 

community being evaluated the index characterizes the plant community in terms of hydrological characteristics; values of -5 to 0 are considered wetlands and 

values from 0 to +5 are non-wetland.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-30

April 2011

3.2.1.5 Wetlands Affected

The assessment of potential wetland impacts is based upon direct impacts related to the 

bridge and track construction, which includes areas within the proposed right-of-way and 

environmental survey limits. Construction would include placement of fill for new bridge 

abutments or piers and embankment for new track adjacent to the existing tracks. Wetland 

impacts related to construction would include vegetation removal, placement of clean fill, and 

changes to the wetland hydrologic regime. Besides the loss of wetland acreage, some wetland 

functions and values could be affected by the proposed project. 

Wetland impacts for the entire project corridor will need to be assessed after wetland 

delineations can be completed and engineering plans have been developed. Table 3-11 shows 

anticipated wetland impacts from the proposed improvements near Jackson Creek, Cedar 

Creek and Sugar Run. Impacts are assumed to occur only in areas where known additional 

ROW may be necessary (Jackson Creek, Cedar Creek, and Sugar Run bridges). Under the 

implementing regulations of the Illinois Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989 (IWPA), 

impacts to wetlands having an FQI rating of 20 or greater require 5.5 to 1.0 mitigation ratios. 

No high quality wetland areas will be directly affected by the proposed project.

Table 3-11. Wetlands Affected and their Characteristics

Site No. Plant 

Community

Size 

acres1

Impacted 

Wetlands, 

acres

Impacted 

Open Water, 

acres

FQI Stream/

Major Watershed

1 Open water 0.11 0 0.11 N/A Sugar Run/ Des Plaines

2 Wet meadow 0.09 0.09 0 7.3 Cedar Creek/ Des Plaines

3 Open water 

Forested 0.65 0.11 0.54 8.7 Jackson Creek/ Des Plaines

4 Wet meadow 0.54 0.54 0 10.5 Tributary to Sugar Run/ 

Des Plaines

5 Forested 0.00 0 0 9.5 None/ Des Plaines

6 Open water

Wet meadow 0.29 0.29 0 4.5 Tributary to Cedar Creek / Des Plaines

7 Wet meadow 

Forested 0.09 0.09 0 5.1 Tributary to Cedar Creek / Des Plaines

8 Wet meadow

Shrub 0.08 0.08 0 8.0 Tributary to Jackson Creek / Des Plaines

9 Open water

Wet meadow 0.05 0.05 0 4.0 None / Des Plaines

10 Open water

Wet meadow 0.03 0.03 0 9.0 Tributary to Jackson Creek / Des Plaines

11 Open water 0.19 0 0 N/A Hickory Creek /Des 

Plaines

Total Impacts 1.28 0.65

1 Acreage within project corridor, t – total wetland acreage, * – large wetland continues beyond the project 

corridor
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-31

April 2011

Avoidance and Measures to Minimize Harm

Recognizing the conceptual engineering detail of the project, further efforts will be made in 

future phases of work to avoid and minimize additional wetland impacts beyond the 

efforts. Avoidance and minimization can be accomplished in the following ways:

Narrower railroad cross-section with the use of:

Retaining walls

Steeper embankments

Bridging critical wetland resources

Avoiding and minimizing impacts to wetland resources may be constrained by other critical 

resources or local issues. 

Wetland Mitigation

Objectives for mitigation will be established in consultation with regulatory and resource 

agencies on the following major issues:

Purchase of mitigation credits from a commercial wetland bank

Type of compensatory wetland mitigation

In-kind replacement

Functional replacement

Ratio of wetland mitigation replacement

Location of wetland mitigation replacement

The State of Illinois, in the IWPA, has established compensatory wetland mitigation ratios 

for all state-funded projects. The established ratios generally are more stringent than those 

established by the USACE. The highest mitigation ratio of 5.5:1 will apply for wetland 

impacts in the following cases:

Alteration of wetlands that contain state- or federal-listed threatened or endangered 

species

Wetlands that contain essential habitat for state- or federal-listed species

Presence of an Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) site

A mean C-value of 4.0 or more (Swink and Wilhelm, 1994)

Individual wetlands with a FQI of 20 or more (Swink and Wilhelm, 1994)

The compensation ratios shown in Table 3-12 represent the current compensation guidelines 

required for wetland impacts in Illinois by the IWPA. The USACE has identified certain 

wetland resources (e.g., critical wetlands in DuPage County; High Quality Aquatic 

Resources, etc.) requiring elevated compensatory wetland mitigation as well. Compensation 

ratios for impacts to High Quality Aquatic Resources will be developed with the regulatory 

agencies on a case-by-case basis during permitting. 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-32

April 2011

Table 3-12. Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Wetland Compensation Ratios

Degree of 

Adverse Impact Onsite Offsite Out-of-Basin Impact cAcreage

Required d

Mitigation

Minimal alteration 1.0:1a / 1.5:1b 1.5:1 2.0:1 1.28 acres 1.92 acres

Significant alteration 1.5:1 2.0:1 3.0:1 N/A N/A

Destruction 2.5:1 4.0:1 5.5:1 N/A N/A

a This ratio applies to all other types of wetland vegetation, substrate, or wetland type except those wetlands that 

have woody vegetation, subject to USACE approval.

b This ratio applies if the vegetation of the affected wetland is woody.

C Wetland acreage only is included in the impact acreage. Open water areas have been omitted.

d Required mitigation assumes minimal alteration with off-site mitigation (1.5:1). 

Location of the compensatory wetland mitigation sites would be determined following 

agreement on the wetland replacement ratio and other mitigation objectives. Appropriate 

environmental studies would be conducted for the selected mitigation sites, including an 

evaluation of the environmental features of the site, existing resources, suitability for 

wetland resource creation and restoration and potential effects of mitigation creation at the 

selected location. The environmental studies would include historic/archaeological surveys, 

biological surveys, and potential for threatened and endangered species.

Preferences for mitigation are as follows:

1. Wetland mitigation banking within a USACE approved bank.1

2. On-site—within the same hydrologic unit and less than one mile from the project 

site.2

3. Off-site, within basin—the same hydrologic unit but more than one mile from the 

project site.

4. Off-site, out of basin—compensation not provided within the watershed of affected 

wetlands.

Mitigation for wetland impacts will coordinate with the 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). As the project will most likely meet the 

guidance of a Programmatic Action, the project will not require a wetland compensation 

plan or coordination with the IDNR. It is anticipated that impacts for this project will be 

mitigated by the purchase of credits from wetland banks.

 1 The option most preferred is mitigation bank credits. See the Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic 

Resources; Final Rule (April 10, 2008). 2 Mitigation site selection will consider the potential to attract waterfowl and other bird species that might pose 

a threat to aircraft. FAA Advisory Circular, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, (Advisory 

Circular No: 150/5200-33B) recommends that wetland mitigation projects that may attract hazardous wildlife 

be sited at least 10,000 feet from the air operations area of an airport serving turbine-powered aircraft, 5,000 

feet from the air operations of an airport serving piston-powered aircraft, and five statute miles if the attractant 

may cause hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-33

April 2011

The wetland sites occur within the Chicago and Rock Island Districts of the USACE. There 

are eight existing commercial wetland banks located in the Des Plaines River watershed. 

These are Redwing Slough, Bank 2, Neal Marsh, Delany Road, Lily Cache, Mink Creek, Des 

Plaines Towpath, and Cedar Creek. Because of the demand for wetland bank credits in the 

Chicago area the availability of wetland bank credits varies over short time periods as 

credits are purchased and new acreage is certified. It is the responsibility of the Union 

Pacific Railroad to secure all natural resources permits prior to construction. This includes, 

but is not limited to the Section 404 permit from the USACE, Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification from the IEPA, or other permits that may be required. Prior to construction and 

as part of the wetland permitting process, the Union Pacific Railroad will secure the 

necessary wetland mitigation as required for the Section 404 Permit. As wetland banking is 

the most efficient manner to provide wetland mitigation, the UP will provide the name of 

the wetland bank utilized as well as proof of purchase of the required credits.

The use of wetland banks consolidates wetland impacts to larger parcels that have higher 

functional and ecological value than smaller wetland mitigation areas. Large wetland 

complexes are also more manageable than numerous, smaller, isolated wetland mitigation 

areas. 

3.2.2 Water Quality and Water Resources

This section provides an overview of surface and groundwater resources and the water 

quality of those resources along the project corridor. It focuses on those resources with the 

potential to be affected by the Preferred Alternative.

The project would not impact groundwater and would not be likely to adversely affect 

surface waters. Appropriate Best Management Practices will be utilized prior to, during, 

and after construction as part of the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for the project.

3.2.2.1 Surface Water Resources

Surface Water Characterization

IEPA Use Assessments

The IEPA collects water samples from Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network 

(AWQMN) sampling stations as part of an ongoing assessment of water quality. 

Comparison of collected water quality data to the Illinois water quality standards is used to 

identify potential water quality concerns. Illinois water quality standards include 

acceptable limits for general use, public and food processing water supply, and secondary 

contact and indigenous aquatic life. Based on the comparison, the IEPA annually assesses 

the use support for aquatic life, fish consumption, public and food processing water 

supplies, primary contact, secondary contact, and aesthetic quality. The use support 

classifications are as follows:

Full Support – Water quality meets the needs of all designated uses protected by the 

applicable water quality standards.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-34

April 2011

Non-support – Water quality is severely impaired and not capable of supporting the 

designated use to any degree.

To facilitate reporting these results, IEPA also refers to fully supporting status (for a use) as 

a Good resource quality; non-supporting status is called Fair or Poor resource quality, 

depending on the degree to which the use is not attained. Uses determined to be nonsupporting are called impaired, and waters that have at least one use assessed as nonsupporting are also called impaired. For each impaired use in each assessment unit, the 

Illinois EPA attempts to identify potential causes and sources of the impairment.

Aquatic life use assessments in streams are typically based on the interpretation of 

biological information, physicochemical water data and physical-habitat information from 

the Intensive Basin Survey, AWQMN or Facility-Related Stream Survey programs. The 

primary biological measures used to determine stream health are the fish Index of Biotic 

Integrity (IBI), the new macroinvertebrate Index of Biotic Integrity, (mIBI) and the 

Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI) (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 2010).

IEPA 303d Listed Streams

Section 303d of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop and submit a list of impaired 

waters to the USEPA for review and approval. This is known as the 303d list. A stream is 

included on the 303d list if it does not meet applicable water quality standards or fully support 

its designated use or uses. 

Biological Stream Characterization

Biological data can be used to evaluate the overall health of a stream, as biota respond to the 

physical and chemical characteristics of the system they inhabit. The IDNR developed a 

rating system to measure the biological diversity and integrity of streams. Two separate 

ratings characterize each stream using fish, mussel, macroinvertebrate and endangered 

species data. The IDNR rating system ranges from A (highest) to E (lowest).

Class I Streams

The IDOT and IDNR identify important water resources as Class I streams (IDOT and IDNR 

1996). The Class I stream list is comprised of streams that meet any one of the following 

criteria:

National Park Service Candidate Wild and Scenic Rivers

Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (as Aquatic Natural Areas)

Habitat for listed state or federal species

IEPA Non-degradation Streams

High Biological Stream Characterization (BSC) Rating
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-35

April 2011

National Rivers Inventory

National Wild and Scenic River is a designation for protected water resources in the U.S. 

The goal of this designation is to preserve the river in its free-flowing condition. The 

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) is a listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing river 

segments in the United States that are believed to possess one or more "outstandingly 

remarkable" natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional 

significance. Rivers included on this list have the potential to be characterized as National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers. Under a 1979 Presidential directive and related Council on 

Environmental Quality procedures, all federal agencies must seek to avoid or mitigate

actions that would adversely affect one or more NRI segments 

(http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/; accessed 09/11/09).

Navigable Waterways

Navigable waterways are generally all waters that are currently used, were used in the past, 

or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce. Section 19 or Section 10/404 

permits are required for construction activities in these waters. A list of navigable 

waterways is provided by the USACE. The project corridor is covered by the Chicago 

District in Will County and by the Rock Island District in Grundy County.

Project Corridor Surface Water

The project is located within three watersheds within Will and Grundy Counties, crossing or 

adjacent to 12 streams and one lake that are tributaries of the Illinois River, Kankakee River, 

or Des Plaines River. Table 3-13 summarizes the water resource information and data for 

each stream. The streams (Figure 3-2) are listed in order of crossings, beginning at the north 

end with the crossing of Hickory Creek in Joliet, Illinois.

Hickory Creek

The UPRR corridor crosses the Hickory Creek 500 feet south of I-80. Hickory Creek 

originates in agricultural land in southwest Cook County and has a drainage area of 109 

square miles with a total length of 25.3 miles. The creek has a sandy bottom in its eastern 

segments, with sections of silty bottoms; the creek becomes progressively rockier as it nears 

Joliet, Illinois. 

Hickory Creek, stream segment GG-22, is not supporting for aquatic life and primary 

contact due to alteration in stream-side littoral vegetative covers, chloride, other flow 

regime alterations, total suspended solids (TSS), phosphorus (Total), aquatic algae, and fecal 

coliform. The sources of impairment are listed as discharges, urban runoff/storm sewers, 

and impacts for hydrostructure flow regulation/modification, site clearance (land 

development or redevelopment). Hickory Creek has a long history as a diverse aquatic 

community in pre-urbanization times (Shelford 1978). The IDNR has assessed Hickory 

Creek as B for diversity and C for integrity. Hickory Creek is a Class I stream in Will 

County, but is not a potential Wild and Scenic River and is not a navigable waterway.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-36

April 2011

Table 3-13. Project Corridor Water Resources

River CrossingIEPA DesignationTrack Crossing LocationCountyIEPA BasinIEPA Basin a/Total Drainage Area, sq. miles b/ c/Total Length, miles b/ c/

2010 IEPA Use Assessment a/

Biologically Significant Stream d/Diversity/Integrity d/Class I Streams e/National Rivers Inventory f/Navigable Waterway g/Aquatic LifeFish ConsumptionPublic and Food Processing Water SuppliesPrimary ContactSecondary ContactAesthetic Quality

Hickory Creek GG-22 Joliet Will 2 Des Plaines River 109.0 25.3 N X ND N X X No B/C Yes No No

Sugar Run GF-01 Joliet Will 2 Des Plaines River 14.7 8.3 N X ND X X X No No No No No

Cedar Creek GD North of Elwood Will 2 Des Plaines River 14.4 8.5 X X ND X X X No No No No No

Jackson Creek GC-02 Elwood Will 2 Des Plaines River 52.7 26.4 F X ND X X X No C/C No No No

Grant Creek GA-01 Elwood Will 2 Des Plaines River 15.9 11.0 N X ND X X X No No No No No

Prairie Creek FA-01 North of Wilmington Will 10 Kankakee River 49.6 27.0 F X ND X X X No No No No No

Forked Creek FB-01 Wilmington Will 10 Kankakee River 137.0 39.8 F X ND X X X No A/B No No No

Kankakee River F-16 Wilmington Will 10 Kankakee River 5165.0 >57.2 F N N F F X Yes A/B Yes 

(W&S) Yes Will

Hawk Lake -- Braidwood Will 11 Illinois River ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND No No No No No

Jackson Creek -- Northeast of Braceville Grundy 11 Illinois River ND 5.1 ND ND ND ND ND ND No No No No No

Mazon River DV-06 Southwest of Braceville Grundy 11 Illinois River 524.0 27.0 F N ND X X X No A/A Yes 

(W&S) Yes No

Woods Run DVEBA North of Dwight Grundy 11 Illinois River ND 9.5 X X ND X X X No No No No No

Gooseberry Creek DVEB Dwight Grundy 11 Illinois River ND 25.9 X X ND X X X No No No No No

* - Miles In Illinois

ND: No Data

F: Full Support, N: Non-Support, X: Not Assessed

NA: Natural Area / W&S: Wild and Scenic

Sources: 

a/ Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and Section 303(d) List (Draft).

b/ Healy, R.W. 1979. River Mileages and Drainage Areas for Illinois Streams - Volume 2, Illinois River Basin. USGS Water Resources Investigations 79-11.

c/ Healy, R.W. 1979. River Mileages and Drainage Areas for Illinois Streams - Volume 1, Illinois Except Illinois River Basin. USGS Water Resources Investigations 79-11.

d/ IDNR, 2008. Integrating Multiple Taxa in a Biological Stream Rating System.

e/ Illinois Department of Natural Resources and Illinois Department of Transportation. 1996. "Natural Resource Review and Coordination Agreement, Class I Streams." #96-14.

f/ United States Department of Interior. 1982. National Wild and Scenic River System Components. Http://www.rivers.gov/guidelines.html

g/ Illinois Administrative Code. Title 17: Conservation, Chapter I: Department of Natural Resources, Subchapter 11: Water Resources, Section 3704 Appendix A: Public Bodies of 

Water.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-37

April 2011

Figure 3-2. Project Corridor Water Resources
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-38

April 2011

Sugar Run

The corridor crosses Sugar Run at MP 38.8. Sugar Run traverses east-west to the Des Plaines 

River and originates in agricultural land near County Highway 52 north of Spenser Road, 

Joliet, Illinois. Sugar Run is approximately 8.3 miles long with a total drainage area of 14.7 

square miles. It merges with the Des Plaines River near the Brandon Locks south of Joliet, 

Illinois. The upper portion of the creek is intermittent, narrow and channelized. The lower 

portion of the creek retains much sinuosity and is located in an urbanized, residential 

setting of Preston Heights, Illinois. The lowermost section of Sugar Run, downstream of the 

railroad bridge, has a high gradient and a sand and gravel substrate with large areas of 

cobble and boulders in the steeper segments.

Sugar Run, stream segment GF-01, is not supporting for aquatic life due to arsenic, 

manganese, dissolved oxygen, sedimentation/siltation, and pH. The sources of impairment 

are listed as contaminated sediments, urban runoff/storm sewers, site clearance (land 

development/redevelopment), crop production (crop land or dry land). Sugar Run is not a 

Class I stream, a potential Wild and Scenic River, or a navigable waterway.

Cedar Creek

The corridor crosses Cedar Creek at MP 42.6, near West Millsdale Road, within the Des 

Plaines River Basin. Cedar Creek is a stream that originates in farmland near Illinois Route 

53, two miles northeast of the Village of Elwood. Cedar Creek runs approximately 8.5 miles 

to its confluence with the Des Plaines River, immediately north of Treat Island, with a total 

drainage area of approximately 14.4 square miles. The creek is channelized in its upper 

sections but retains much of its sinuosity and is buffered by a timbered riparian zone west of 

Wilmington Road. Approximately one mile east of the Des Plaines River, the gradient 

becomes steeper, and the creek bottom is composed of sand gravel cobble and occasional 

boulders.

Cedar Creek, stream segment GD, has not been assessed by the IEPA for any uses or 

attainments and is not on the 303(d) list. No impairments or sources of impairment are 

known for Cedar Creek. No records of fish or native mussels appear in the Illinois Natural 

History databases. Cedar Creek is not a Class I stream, a potential Wild and Scenic River, or 

a navigable waterway. Three unnamed tributaries to Cedar Creek cross the corridor.

Jackson Creek 

The bridge at MP 44.4 crosses Jackson Creek, near Elwood, Illinois. Jackson Creek 

originates in the Village of Frankfort at the eastern end of the watershed and flows westerly 

to the Des Plaines River through New Lenox and the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie 

(MNTP). Jackson Creek is approximately 26.4 miles in length with a total drainage area of 

approximately 52.7 square miles. Jackson Creek merges with the Des Plaines River 

immediately south of Treat Island. Jackson Creek has been straightened and channelized 

for agricultural purposes along much of its upper length, while the last quarter of its length 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-39

April 2011

is relatively un-channelized. The upper portions of the creek have bottoms that are 

comprised of sediment, sand and gravel. The lower portions of the creek contain substrates 

that are coarser, and are primarily sand, gravel, and cobble. 

Four communities reside partially or fully within the watershed including New Lenox, 

Frankfort, Manhattan, and Elwood. Waste water treatment plants (WWTPs) in three 

communities discharge effluent into the Jackson Creek system. The discharge for the 

Village of New Lenox enters Jackson Branch, a tributary to Jackson Creek, south of Laraway 

Road in Country View Park; the discharge from the Village of Manhattan goes into 

Manhattan Branch downstream of the community; and discharge from the Village of 

Elwood enters Jackson Creek approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Baseline Road. In 

addition to the three municipal facilities, a small WWTP serving the Ranch Oaks 

subdivision on Jackson Creek is located on the west side of Route 52, north of the Village of 

Manhattan.

Jackson Creek, stream segment GC-02, has been assessed as fully supporting for aquatic life 

and is not on the 303(d) list. Jackson Creek has not been assessed for any other use 

attainment by the IEPA. A fish survey conducted by the IDNR during 2003 rated four

stations on Jackson Creek as Good, and five stations as Fair, (Rung and Pescitelli 2005). One 

of the highest of the IBI scores for Jackson Creek was at a site in Midewin National Tallgrass 

Prairie. The IDNR biological diversity rating is C and the biological integrity rating is also 

C. Jackson Creek is not a Class I stream, a potential Wild and Scenic River, or a navigable 

waterway. 

Grant Creek

The corridor crosses Grant Creek at approximately MP 47.2, southeast of Abraham Lincoln 

National Cemetery, within the Des Plaines River Basin. Grant Creek originates in farmland 

east of Illinois Route 53, 1.5 miles southeast of the Village of Elwood. Grant Creek flows

11.0 miles to its confluence with the Des Plaines River, at the Grant Creek Cut-off, with a 

total drainage area of 15.9 square miles. The creek is channelized in sections but retains 

much of its sinuosity and is buffered by a timbered riparian zone west Illinois Route 53.

Cedar Creek, stream segment GA-01, has been assessed by the IEPA as fully supporting for 

aquatic life and is not on the 303(d) list. No impairments or sources of impairment are 

known for Grant Creek. Grant Creek is not a Class I stream, a potential Wild and Scenic 

River, or a navigable waterway.

Prairie Creek

The corridor crosses Prairie Creek at approximately MP 49.5, within the MNTP, and the 

Kankakee River Basin. Prairie Creek originates in farmland west of Illinois Route 19, 

approximately 2.5 miles south of the Village of Frankfort. Prairie Creek is approximately

27.0 miles in length with a total drainage area of 49.6 square miles. Prairie Creek merges 

with Kankakee River approximately 3.9 miles south of the corridor crossing. The creek is 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-40

April 2011

channelized in sections but retains much of its sinuosity and is buffered by a timbered 

riparian zone within the MNTP. 

Prairie Creek, stream segment FA-01, has been assessed by the IEPA as fully supporting for 

aquatic life and is not on the 303(d) list. No impairments or sources of impairment are 

known for Prairie Creek. Prairie Creek is not a Class I stream, a potential Wild and Scenic 

River, or a navigable waterway. One unnamed tributary to Prairie Creek crosses the 

corridor north of the Prairie Creek Crossing.

Forked Creek

The corridor crosses Forked Creek at approximately MP 52.4, in the City of Wilmington, 

within the Kankakee River Basin. Forked Creek originates in the Village of Monee east of 

Interstate 55 and flows for 39.4 miles to its confluence with the Kankakee River. Forked 

Creek is the third largest stream in the project corridor with a total drainage area of 137.0

square miles. The creek is channelized in sections but retains much of its sinuosity and is 

buffered by a timbered riparian zone within the western half of its reach. 

Forked Creek, stream segment FB-01, has been assessed by the IEPA as fully supporting for 

aquatic life and is not on the 303(d) list. No impairments or sources of impairment are 

known for Forked Creek. The IDNR has assessed Forked Creek as A for diversity and B for 

Integrity. Forked Creek is not a Class I stream, a potential Wild and Scenic River, or a 

navigable waterway.

Kankakee River

The corridor crosses the Kankakee River at approximately MP 52.6, in the City of 

Wilmington. The Kankakee River originates in St. Joseph County, Indiana. The Kankakee 

River extends for 57.2 miles in length in Illinois to its confluence with the Illinois River, 

southwest of the Village of Channahon. The Kankakee River has a total drainage area of 

5,165 square miles. The river is channelized in Indiana east of the Indiana-Illinois state 

boundary; however, it retains much of its sinuosity and is buffered by a timbered riparian 

zone in Illinois.

The Kankakee River, stream segment F-16, has been assessed by the IEPA as fully 

supporting for aquatic life, primary contact, and secondary contact, not supporting for fish 

consumption and public and food processing water supplies, and not assessed for aesthetic 

quality. No cause or source of impairment has been identified for stream segment F-16. The 

IDNR has assessed the Kankakee River as a Biologically Significant Stream and as A for 

diversity and B for integrity. The Kankakee River is a Class I stream, a Wild and Scenic 

River, and a navigable waterway. One unnamed tributary to the Kankakee River also 

crosses the corridor north of the City of Wilmington.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-41

April 2011

Hawk Lake

The corridor parallels Hawk Lake at approximately MP 56.0, in the City of Braidwood, 

within the Kankakee River Basin. Hawk Lake is a constructed lake within a former mining 

area. Hawk Lake discharges to Claypool Ditch. Claypool Ditch extends 7.9 miles to its 

confluence with the Mazon River, north of Illinois Route 113. The total drainage area is 

approximately 35.3 square miles. The ditch is channelized through the majority of its reach. 

Hawk Lake has not been assessed by the IEPA and is not on the 303(d) list. No impairments 

or sources of impairment are known for Hawk Lake. 

Jackson Creek

The corridor is adjacent to the headwaters of Jackson Creek at MP 60.0, northeast of the City 

of Braceville, within the Upper Illinois River Basin. Jackson Creek originates northeast of

the City of Braceville, west of the corridor. Jackson Creek extends approximately 5.1 miles

in length to its confluence with the Mazon River, west of the City of Braceville. The creek is 

channelized. 

Jackson Creek has not been assessed by the IEPA and is not on the 303(d) list. Jackson Creek 

is not a Class I stream, potential Wild and Scenic River, or a navigable waterway.

Mazon River

The corridor crosses the Mazon River at approximately MP 62.7, southwest of the City of 

Braceville, within the Upper Illinois River Basin. The Mazon River originates in agricultural 

fields, southeast of the Village of Cabery. The Mazon River extends 27.4 miles in length to 

its confluence with the Illinois River, within the City of Morris. The Mazon River with a 

drainage area of 524 square miles, is second in size to the Kankakee River. The river is 

channelized in sections but retains much of its sinuosity and is buffered by a timbered 

riparian zone on it northern side within the corridor. 

The Mazon River, stream segment DV-06, has been assessed by the IEPA as fully supporting 

for aquatic life and not supporting for fish consumption due to mercury and 

polychlorinated biphenols. The sources of impairment include atmospheric deposition –

toxics and unknown sources. The IDNR has assessed the Mazon River as A for diversity 

and A for Integrity. The Mazon River is a Class I stream, a potential Wild and Scenic River, 

and is not a navigable waterway. One tributary to the Mazon River crosses the corridor 

south of the Village of Gardner.

Woods Run

The corridor crosses Woods Run at approximately MP 70.1, northeast of the Village of 

Dwight, within the Upper Illinois River Basin. Woods Run originates in agricultural fields 

west of the Village of Dwight and flows 9.5 miles to its merger with Gooseberry Creek. The 

stream is channelized through the corridor. 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-42

April 2011

Woods Run, stream segment DVBA, has not been assessed by the IEPA. No impairments or 

sources of impairment are known for Woods Run. Woods Run is not a Class I stream, a 

potential Wild and Scenic River, or a navigable waterway.

Gooseberry Creek

The corridor is adjacent to Gooseberry Creek at approximately MP 72.4, northeast of the 

Village of Dwight, within the Upper Illinois River Basin. Gooseberry Creek originates in 

agricultural fields southeast of the Village of Odell and flows 25.9 miles to its confluence 

with the Mazon River. The stream is channelized throughout the majority of its reach. 

Gooseberry Creek, stream segment DVB, has not been assessed by the IEPA. No 

impairments or sources of impairment are known for Gooseberry Creek. Gooseberry Creek 

is not a Class I stream, a potential Wild and Scenic River, or a navigable waterway.

3.2.2.2 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not impact waterways or water quality. The Preferred 

Alternative is not anticipated to permanently impact waterways or water quality. Some 

stream substrate may be permanently removed to accommodate the culvert extensions and 

bridge construction at Sugar Run, Cedar Creek, and Jackson Creek. Temporary impacts due 

to instream streambank work would cease immediately after the activity is completed. 

Some specific minor construction impacts cannot be estimated at this time because they 

depend on several factors that would be determined either during final design or by the 

contractor before or during construction. Construction impacts would be minimized and 

mitigated using Best Management Practices. 

3.2.2.3 Mitigation

To comply with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, waterways within or immediately 

adjacent to the project area will be identified. Impacts to waterway(s) will be assessed and 

necessary permits will be obtained from the USACE prior to construction. All attempts will 

be made to avoid waterways. If avoidance is not possible, impacts will be minimized to the 

greatest extent possible. In the Chicago District (that oversees the regulatory program in the 

six-county Chicago metropolitan area including Will County), Regional Permit 3 applies to 

linear transportation projects. This regional permit requires that cumulative impacts cannot 

exceed 1.0 acre, and no single crossing may impact more than 0.25 acre. All of the 

conditions and requirements of Nationwide Permit 14 and Regional Permit 3 will be 

followed. It is anticipated that Section 401 Water Quality Certification will not need to be 

obtained separately. The IEPA has conditional Section 401 Water Quality Certification 

applicable to Nationwide Permit 14 and Regional Permit 3.

3.2.2.2 Groundwater Resources

Groundwater quality is dependent in large part on the physical and chemical composition 

of overlying geologic materials. Overall groundwater quality in the project area is good. 

The risk for groundwater contamination through the corridor is low to moderate except 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-43

April 2011

where the corridor crosses alluvial deposits. In such alluvial formations the potential for 

groundwater contamination is rated as high (Berg and Kempton, 1984).

Groundwater occurs in water-bearing units called aquifers. In Illinois, aquifers are 

classified as sand-and-gravel aquifers, shallow bedrock aquifers, and deep bedrock aquifers. 

Within the project areas, the principal shallow sand-and-gravel aquifers in Illinois are found 

in Will County. There are no sole source aquifers in Illinois. No regulated groundwater 

recharge areas are within the project area.

A review of data obtained from the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) Wells and 

Borings Database shows 15 locations with 33 wells or borings within 200 feet of the Union 

Pacific Railroad’s New 2nd Mainline Track from Joliet (MP 36.8) to Dwight (MP 72.8), IL.3 

All of the locations within the corridor are classified as water wells or borings. Four water 

wells or borings are listed as being in the same location; another site has three and one has 

two listings. The remaining sites all have one well or boring identified.

The ISGS notes that this data collection includes records dating as far back as 1801, and that 

most locations of the wells and boring locations have not been verified. Based on the 

available data, further coordination is necessary with the ISGS to conduct field tests to 

ensure that any wells or borings (active or inactive) are accounted for and would not be 

impacted by the construction of the project.

3.2.2.4 Potential Impacts

The No-Build Alternative would not impact groundwater. The Preferred Alternative is not 

anticipated to impact groundwater. 

3.2.2.5 Mitigation

As impacts to groundwater are not anticipated, mitigation is not anticipated.

3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

3.2.3.1 Existing Conditions

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

that are listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The ESA grants the USFWS 

prime responsibility in administering the species designations and protections granted 

under the ESA. “Endangered” means that a species is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. “Threatened” means that a species is likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future.

 3 Dated February 21, 1008, http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/maps-data-pub/wwdb/wwdb.shtml) and accessed through 

the Illinois Natural Resources Geospatial Data Clearinghouse (http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/nsdihome/ on May 2, 

2010
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-44

April 2011

Threatened and endangered species potentially occurring in the project corridor were 

identified from information supplied by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources 

(IDNR, 2011) and the USFWS Section 7 Consultation (USFWS, 2011). 

Threatened and Endangered Species

Various species receive federal and state protection to help repair previous damage to 

populations and to attempt to return the species population to self-sustaining levels. Other 

species receive state protection if the limits of their distribution ranges are within the 

particular state of concern or if populations can only exist in a specific but uncommon 

habitat in these states. Agency records and databases were reviewed to determine if federal 

or state-listed threatened or endangered species are known to exist in the project area.

Table 3-14 summarizes the USFWS federally endangered and threatened and candidate 

species by county within the project limits. According to the USFWS, the Candidate 

Conservation Program assesses species and develops and facilitates the use of voluntary 

conservation tools for the conservation of candidate and other species-at-risk and their 

habitats, so that these species do not need the protection of the ESA. The USFWS 

accomplishes this by working in partnership with public and private landowners.

Table 3-14. USFWS Federally Endangered and Threatened Species List in Project Area

Species Status County Habitat

Indiana bat Endangered Grundy & 

Livingston

Caves, mines (hibernacula); small stream 

corridors with well developed riparian 

woods; upland forests (foraging)

Hine’s emerald dragonfly Endangered Will Spring fed wetlands, wet meadows and 

marshes

Leafy-prairie clover Endangered Will Prairie remnants on thin soil over limestone

Eastern prairie fringed orchid Threatened Will, Grundy, 

& Livingston

Moderate to high quality wetlands, sedge 

meadow, marsh, and mesic to wet prairie

Lakeside daisy Threatened Will Dry rocky prairies

Mead's milkweed Threatened Will

Late successional tallgrass prairie, tallgrass 

prairie converted to hay meadow, and 

glades or barrens with thin soil

Sheepnose mussel 

Candidate 

(Proposed as 

Endangered)

Will Shallow areas in larger rivers and streams

Snuffbox mussel

Candidate 

(Proposed as 

Endangered)

Will Small to medium-sized creeks and some 

larger rivers, in areas with a swift current

Eastern massasauga Candidate Will

Graminoid dominated plant communities 

(fens, sedge meadows, peatlands, wet 

prairies, open woodlands, and shrublands)
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-45

April 2011

According to an on-line review of federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and 

Candidate Species (USFWS, March 2011), nine species are listed for Will, Grundy, and 

Livingston Counties, Illinois. Of the nine species, three are listed as endangered:

Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), 

Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana), 

Leafy-prairie clover (Dalea foliosa)

Three species are listed as threatened:

Eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea)

Lakeside daisy (Hymenoxy acaulis var. glabra)

Mead's milkweed (Asclepias meadii); 

Three species are listed as candidate species:

Massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus catenatus)

Sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus)

Snuffbox mussel (Epioblasma triquetra)

In 2007, the USFWS indicated that no Indiana bats were located in the six-county Chicago 

metropolitan area, based on extensive surveys over two years in various locations. The 

proposed project will not affect the Indiana bat as this species has not been observed in 

northeastern Illinois. Prairie habitat is located within and adjacent to the project area. As a 

result, habitat conditions may be suitable for the leafy prairie clover, eastern prairie fringed 

orchid, lakeside daisy, Mead’s milkweed, and the eastern Massasauga rattlesnake. A review 

of the Illinois Mollusk Collection Database indicates that the sheepnose mussel has not been 

identified in streams in the project area. The snuffbox mussel has been identified in the 

Kankakee River within Will County. Because instream work will be minimal for this 

project, the proposed action will not affect these mussel species. Spring fed wetlands or 

other habitat suitable for the Hines emerald dragonfly may be present within the project 

limits. However, there are no known populations of the Hines emerald dragonfly present 

within the project limits. 

State Listed Species

Utilizing the IDNR's Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool (EcoCAT), a review of the 

Illinois Natural Heritage Database was conducted for the project corridor on March 29, 2011, 

for informational purposes (IDNR Project No. 1110629). The IDNR response documentation 

is included in Appendix D. This information was obtained by IDNR through the Natural 

Heritage Database.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-46

April 2011

Utilizing the IDNR's Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool (EcoCAT), a review of the 

Illinois Natural Heritage Database was conducted for the project corridor. The results 

identified the potential for the following plant and animal species4. 

Plants:

Ear-Leafed Foxglove (Tomanthera auriculata)-Threatened

Grass Pink Orchid (Calopogon tuberosus)-Endangered

Large Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon)-Endangered

Oklahoma Grass Pink Orchid (Calopogon oklahomensis)-Endangered

Tubercled Orchid (Platanthera flava var. herbiola)-Endangered

Animals:

Black Sandshell (Ligumia recta)-Threatened

Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)-Endangered

Eryngium Stem Borer (Papaipema eryngii)-Endangered

Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)-Endangered

Ornate Box Turtle (Terrapene ornata)-Threatened

Pallid Shiner (Hybopsis amnis)-Endangered

River Redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum)-Threatened

Salamander Mussel (Simpsonaias ambigua)-Endangered

Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)-Endangered

Western Sand Darter (Ammocrypta clarum)-Endangered

3.2.3.2 Potential Impacts

The project would occur primarily within the existing railroad ROW, which has been 

significantly disturbed in most places. Detailed surveys were not conducted throughout the 

entire length of the project. Because of the potential presence of small isolated prairie 

remnants that may still be present, there is the possibility that isolated species could be 

observed. Potential impacts to sensitive habitat will be evaluated as engineering plans are 

developed.

3.2.4 Special Lands

Utilizing the IDNR's EcoCAT, a review of the Illinois Natural Heritage Database was 

conducted for the project corridor. The EcoCAT search identified 16 protected resources in 

the vicinity of the project area, identified as: 

Markgraf Quarry INAI site

Braidwood Dunes and Savanna Class III Groundwater Site

Braceville Railroad Prairie INAI Site

 4 IL Threatened and Endangered checklist 2/22/2011http://www.dnr.state.il.us/ESPB/pdf/2011_Checklist.pdf
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-47

April 2011

Braidwood Dunes And Savanna INAI Site

Godley Railroad Prairie INAI Site

Hitts Siding Prairie INAI Site

Joliet Army Ammunition Plant INAI Site (located in Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie)

Kankakee River INAI Site

Manhattan Creek INAI Site

Mazon River Bed INAI Site

Mazonia Railroad Prairie INAI Site

Wilmington Geological Area INAI Site

Wilmington Shrub Prairie INAI Site

Wilmington West Geological Area INAI Site

Braidwood Dunes And Savanna Nature Preserve

Hitts Siding Prairie Nature Preserve

Wilmington Shrub Prairie Nature Preserve

A review of the INAI Sites by county list (December 2010) identified the Markgraf Quarry, 

Wilmington Geological Area, and Wilmington West Geological Area as Category IV, which 

defines the INAI site as having outstanding geological features. Manhattan Creek and 

Mazon River Bed were identified as Category VI, which defines the INAI site has having 

unusual concentrations of flora or fauna and high quality streams. The Wilmington West 

Geological Area is located directly adjacent to the railroad. The project would not impact 

the Markgraf Quarry, Wilmington Geological Area, Wilmington West Geological Area, or 

Manhattan Creek as the project would occur entirely within the existing railroad ROW. 

Additionally:

The project would not impact the Braidwood Dunes and Savanna INAI Site or 

Braidwood Dunes and Savanna Nature Preserve, as this site is located more than one 

half mile east of the project corridor.

The project would not impact the Wilmington Shrub Prairie INAI Site or Wilmington 

Shrub Prairie Nature Preserve, as this site is located more than one half mile east of the 

project corridor.

The Godley Railroad Prairie, Mazon River Bed, Mazonia Railroad Prairie, Braceville 

Railroad Prairie, Hitts Sidding Prairie, Kankakee River, and Joliet Army Ammunition Plant 

INAI Site are located directly adjacent to the railroad ROW.

There are no public or private parks within the project corridor. As such, there are no lands 

affected by the build alternative that involve use of lands that have Land and Water 

Conservation Act (LAWCON) of 1965 (Title 16 United State Code Section 460l-4) funds or 

Open Space Lands Acquisition and Development (OSLAD) Act (Chapter 525 Illinois 

Complied Statutes 35/) funds involved in their purchase or development. 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-48

April 2011

The majority of the project area is contained within UPRR ROW except for the structures at 

the stream crossings. 

3.2.5 4(f) Properties

An inventory of 4(f) properties within 1000 feet of the project corridor was conducted. 

Parks in the vicinity of the project area include a park administered by the Joliet Park

District, approximately 1,100 feet to the east (east of Illinois Route 53) of the culvert 

proposed at MP 38.8. For the bridge at MP 42.6, there are no parks, although there is zoning 

for a future facility, located approximately 1,900 feet northeast of the bridge location. Lastly, 

for the bridge at MP 44.4, there is one park, administered by the Village of Elwood, slightly 

more than 680 feet to the southwest of the bridge. The MNTP, administered by the U.S. 

Forest Service, is located directly adjacent to the project corridor. The Godley Railroad 

Prairie, Mazonia Railroad Prairie, Braceville Railroad Prairie, and Hitts Sidding Prairie are 

located directly adjacent to the project corridor. The Mazon River Bed and the Kankakee 

River are INAI Sites located within the Mazon River and the Kankakee River, respectively, 

within the project corridor.

The review identified six potential 4(f) properties in the vicinity of the project area and one 

4(f) property (MNTP) adjacent to the project corridor, as identified in Table 3-15.

Table 3-15. 4(f) Properties

Project Component 4(f) Property Location Distance from 

UPPR ROW (feet)

Uses Section 4(f) 

Land 

110 mph 

Project 

Corridor

2nd Mainline 

Track

Joliet Union 

Station (Amtrak)

West of track - 50 

East Jefferson Street, 

Joliet 

Next to track

Existing elevated

double track -No 

4(f) land used

East Side 

National Register 

District

East of track –

Between E. Clinton 

and E. Jefferson 

Street

500 +

Nowell Park East of track – South 

Chicago Street 400 +

Osgood Park East of track – South 

E. Osgood Street Next to track

Village of Elwood 

Park East of track 600+

110 mph 

improvements

Midewin National 

Tallgrass Prairie

Former Joliet Arsenal 

Site

Several miles east 

and west of the 

project corridor Existing ROW –

Abraham Lincoln No 4(f) land used

National 

Cemetery

West of track -Former 

Joliet Arsenal Site

Property next to 

UPRR ROW

Mazonia Siding

No 4(f) properties 

within 1000 feet of 

track

N/A N/A N/A
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-49

April 2011

The MNTP is located in part of the former Joliet Army Ammunition Plant in Elwood between 

Hoff Road (MP 46.4) and Arsenal Road (MP 50.7). Midewin was established in 1996 as the 

first national tallgrass prairie in the United States under the Illinois Land Conservation Act 

(ILCA) and includes 19,000 acres, which is the largest prairie restoration project east of 

Mississippi River. The ILCA of 1994 (P.L. 104-106) (Sec 2915(a)), the legislation that 

established Midewin, included a prohibition against the construction of new through roads. 

This section did grant authorization of rights-of-way for utilities. However, railroads are not 

recognized as utilities. 

The Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery lies in the northwestern area of the former Joliet 

Army Ammunition Plant, west of the project corridor and is consider a public park. There are 

several active prairie restoration project areas immediately adjacent to the rail corridor. On 

the west side of the existing UPRR corridor, a 66-foot utility right-of-way has been 

previously granted to NICOR Gas Company that is protected under the ILCA act. 

The project would not impact MNTP or the Lincoln Cemetery as construction would occur 

entirely within the existing UPRR ROW. Therefore, the project will not use lands subject to 

the requirements of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. 

There are no section 4(f) properties located within the vicinity of the Mazonia siding project 

corridor, therefore, the project will not use lands subject to the requirements of Section 4(f) 

of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.

3.3 Human Environment

The purpose of this section is to describe the characteristics of the Human Environment 

within the area that is to be served or affected by the proposed project. Included in this 

section is a discussion of the anticipated transportation, socioeconomic, environmental 

justice, public health and safety, hazardous materials, and cultural resource effects of the 

Preferred Alternative. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are identified.

Agencies Involved in Transportation and Planning

The Policy Committee of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) is the 

designated Metropolitan Planning Organization for the northeastern Illinois region, which 

includes Will County. CMAP was formed in 2005 by combining the region's two previously 

separate transportation and land-use planning organizations – the Chicago Area 

Transportation Study (CATS) and the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) --

into a single agency. The CMAP Go To 2040 Comprehensive Plan was adopted on October 

13, 2010. GO TO 2040 is the long-range comprehensive plan for the Chicago region that 

includes Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry, and Will counties. 

The Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) is a fiscal oversight agency responsible for the 

overall budgets and financial condition of the three operating agencies or “service boards”—

Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), Metropolitan Rail Corporation (Metra), and Pace. Other 

agencies, such as the Illinois Department of Transportation, and the Will County Department of 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-50

April 2011

Highways (WCDH) have transportation planning responsibilities in the study area. The Will 

County 2030 Transportation Plan was recently completed and adopted by the Will County 

Board in April 2009. 

Grundy and Livingston County are designated a non-metropolitan area and are primarily 

rural. The Grundy County Expanded Area Transit System provides on-call shuttle service 

to the communities located within the project area located in Grundy County. Livingston 

County is included within a Small Urban Service Area that includes McLean, Ford and 

Iroquois Counties. IDOT coordinates transportation planning activities with local agencies 

in Grundy and Livingston County. The Illinois State Transportation Plan was completed in 

December 2007. 

Table 3-16 lists the regional, agency and municipal plans that were considered in this EA. 

Table 3-16. Completed Agency and Municipal Plans

County Project Agency/Municipality Name of Plan Adoption Date

Will 

110 mph Service

2nd Mainline Track

City of Joliet South Side 

Comprehensive Plan March 6, 2007

Chicago Metropolitan 

Agency for Planning 

2030 Regional 

transportation Plan October 9, 2008

Joliet Arsenal 

Development Authority

Joliet Arsenal LongRange Transportation 

Plan

April 2004

Pace Bus Vision 2020 December 21, 2001

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest 

Service

Midewin Prairie Plan 

(FEIS)

2002, amended 

6/26/08

Will County Land Resource 

Management Plan April 18, 2002

Will County 2030 Transportation 

Plan April 2009

Village of Elwood Comprehensive Plan September 2, 2003

City of Wilmington Comprehensive Plan September 16, 2008

110 mph Service 

Mazonia Siding

City of Braidwood Comprehensive Plan December 2004

110 mph Service Village of Godley* Comprehensive Plan 2006

Grundy 110 mph Service

Grundy County

Grundy County

Draft Comprehensive 

Economic Development 

Strategy 2011 - 2016

January 2011

Village of Braceville Comprehensive Plan April 2006

Village of Gardner Comprehensive Plan 2006

Livingston Village of Dwight Comprehensive Plan 1998

* Village of Godley is located in Will and Grundy County
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-51

April 2011

2nd Mainline Tract Project between MP 36.7 and MP 44.69

A number of local municipal and agency plans have also been prepared previously 

addressing various components of the project area. Joliet and Elwood have both prepared 

comprehensive plans with a transportation and land use component. However, the Joliet 

South Side Comprehensive Plan, adopted March 6, 2007, does reflect many of the recent 

land use changes in the project area due to the recent construction of the Joliet Intermodal 

Yard and CenterPoint Industrial Park. The plan does provide an inventory of 

demographics, land use, community facilities and natural resources in area surrounding the 

project corridor. Based on a discussion with the City of Joliet the plan polices do not reflect 

current market conditions and are not in effect at this time. 

The Joliet Arsenal Development Authority has prepared the Joliet Arsenal Long Range 

Transportation Plan (2004) and is currently updating this plan. This document is a subarea 

plan to the Will County 2030 Transportation Plan and recommends transportation strategies 

for a study area bounded by I-80 to the north; Wilmington-Peotone Road to the south; I-55 

to the west; and Cedar road to the east.

The Joliet Arsenal is a converted army ammunition plant and is in the process of being 

converted into the MNTP, National Veterans Cemetery (Abraham Lincoln National 

Cemetery), the Center Point Intermodal Center, and Prairie View Business Park. The overall 

purpose of the Joliet Arsenal plan is to identify, evaluate, and recommend the transportation 

strategies required to serve existing and planned development in the area. The 

recommendations include improvements to the roadway facilities in the near the project 

corridor.

Mazonia Siding Track between MP 55.0 and MP 57.13 

Parcels west of the UPRR ROW are within the municipal limits of the City of Braidwood. 

Between east 1st Street and Coal City Road, the area is residential. Commercial land uses 

and downtown Braidwood is located south of east 1st Street. The Braidwood Recreation 

Club (private club within unincorporated Will County) is located east of the UPRR ROW 

between 1st Street and Coal City Road. Commercial land uses and downtown Braidwood 

are located south of east 1st Street.

While these plans show improvements to the local system, some of the plans also reflect 

desired enhancements to the county, state, and other regional systems serving their 

municipality and surrounding areas. 

3.3.1 Transportation

This section summarizes the transportation impacts expected under the No-Build and 

Preferred alternatives. Under the current schedules, there are about 15 trains per day 

operating over this section of line, including 10 Amtrak trains (including the two long 

distance “Texas Eagle” trains) and five UPRR freights (a combination of local and through 

trains).
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-52

April 2011

3.3.1.1 Projected Ridership

This project would benefit existing medium- and long-distance Amtrak service including 

the Lincoln Service between Chicago and St. Louis; the Kansas City Mule and Ann Rutledge 

trains between St. Louis and Kansas City, MO; and the Texas Eagle, providing service 

between Chicago and St. Louis, and then southwest to Little Rock, AR, Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX, 

and other points west to Los Angeles, CA. These trains serve one suburban Chicago stop 

and eight intermediate stops between Chicago and St. Louis, including Joliet, BloomingtonNormal and Springfield, IL. The proposed project would result in improvements to ontime-performance on the existing Chicago-St. Louis route. Based on Amtrak ridership 

projections, the project would have an increase ridership of 21,300 riders with a 9-minute 

running time reduction.

There are no changes proposed in the number of Amtrak trains in the project corridor. As a 

result, the No-Build and Preferred Alternative are not projected to divert additional

travelers from other modes, as both alternatives are a continuation of existing Amtrak 

service. 

For reference purposes only, the ridership for the alternatives reviewed in the Chicago-St. 

Louis Draft Environmental Impact Statement is presented in Table 3-17.

Table 3-17. Existing and Projected (2010) Annual Person Trips

(1,000s) in the Chicago-St. Louis Corridor

Mode

Alternative

Existing (1998) No-Build (2010) Preferred (2010)

Trips Percent Trips Percent Trips Percent

Rail 271 0.8 406 0.9 602 1.3

Air 1,109 3.2 1,391 3.1 1,277 2.9

Bus 98 0.3 211 0.5 204 0.5

Auto 33,675 95.8 42,750 95.5 42,685 95.3

TOTAL 35,153 100 44,758 100 44,768 100

Source: Chicago-St. Louis Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2003)

3.3.1.2 Additional Impacts to Rail Operations

The project would result in improvements to on-time-performance on the existing route and 

provide for shorter trip times; thus, the project would not have a detrimental effect on other

railway operations.

Freight Traffic

No-Build Alternative: Under the current schedules, there are about five UPRR freights 

operating over this section of line (a combination of local and through trains). With the full 

opening of the Joliet intermodal terminal, existing UP freight operations would increase 

from 6 to 12 daily trips under the No-Build Alternative.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-53

April 2011

Preferred Alternative: As part of the FRA Track 1a application process, UPRR’s Network 

Operations personnel estimated that there would be a 10% increase in on-time performance 

due to the implementation of improvements in the project corridor. However, the actual 

freight train speeds on this section of line would not increase due to this work – freight

trains on the mainline track would continue to operate at 60 mph. The Preferred Alternative 

will encompass the extension of the 110 mph speed limit for Amtrak trains approximately 

36 miles from Dwight to Joliet.

Commuter Rail Service

The Joliet Union Station serves as the terminal station for the Metra's Rock Island service 

and Heritage Corridor service, as well as serving as an Amtrak station stop. The Metra 

Rock Island Mainline is a single track east-west mainline that crosses both the Burlington 

Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) double-track north-south mainline and the UP double-track 

north-south mainline located east of the BNSF at grade. The Joliet Union Station is located 

on the northeast quadrant of the interlocking. Amtrak's Texas Eagle and Lincoln Service 

share the same tracks with Metra Heritage Corridor from Union Station to Joliet.

No-Build Alternative: No changes to existing Metra commuter rail service to the Chicago 

area would be required with the No-Build Alternative. Future commuter rail service is 

assumed to be the same as existing service.

Preferred Alternative: The project would not result in changes in the number of commuter 

trains operating daily, and scheduling modifications are not anticipated. Under the 

Preferred Alternative, intercity passenger service would operate on the same tracks as the 

Metra Heritage Corridor Line between Chicago Union Station and Joliet. Through this area 

existing maximum speeds would be maintained. 

Amtrak Rail Service

Joliet is Amtrak’s second-busiest station in suburban Chicago with over 34,000 passenger

boardings and alightings on an annual basis and ten trains each day on the Chicago/St. 

Louis corridor, including the Lincoln Service which has seven trains daily and the Texas 

Eagle which runs two trains daily between Chicago and San Antonio with three weekly 

connections to New Orleans and Los Angeles. The Lincoln Service also stops in Dwight. 

The Ann Rutledge Service runs one daily connection through Joliet between Chicago and St. 

Louis and does not stop in Dwight.

No Build Alternative: Under the No-Build Alternative, no major changes to station access 

would occur between Joliet and Dwight.

Preferred Alternative: The improvements in the project corridor would decrease travel 

times and increase operational reliability for Amtrak trains passing through the corridor 

from Joliet to Dwight. No changes are proposed to the existing Amtrak stations in Joliet.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-54

April 2011

No-Build Alternative: Under the No-Build Alternative, construction would be limited to 

those projects included in the 2003 FEIS between Dwight and St. Louis.

Preferred Alternative: In general, construction activities for the 110 mph project corridor 

including the second mainline track and Mazonia Siding and signal improvements would 

result in two types of impacts. The first impact would be the requirement to reduce the 

operating speeds through the construction zones, which would add to rail travel time and, 

in turn, increased cost. The second impact would be the need to adjust the schedule of 

existing operations to create windows of opportunity for construction activities that require 

temporary shutdown of rail operations on selected track sections for a limited time.

Permission from the railroad owners will be required for construction that would take place 

within the railroad right-of-way. Schedule adjustments will be required when construction 

activities will directly impact the mainline track, such as when the new turnouts are being 

placed for the passing sections, or when there is a potential safety risk, such as during the 

construction of grade crossings. Some of these activities may require up to eight hours of 

continuous track closure.

Construction activities for the 110 mph passenger service will include use of a Track

Renewal Train (TRT) to install new rail and concrete ties along the existing mainline. This 

work will also include resurfacing of the stone ballast, renewal of crossing surfaces and 

approaches, and upgrade of the signals and crossing warning systems.

3.3.1.3 Intermodal Connections

The Joliet Station site offers intermodal opportunities for connection to existing 

transportation services. Amtrak Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle Service currently serve 

Joliet Union Station. Parking is available at the Joliet Amtrak station. No intermodal 

services are provided at the Dwight station, which is located south of the project limits.

Metra’s Heritage Corridor also provides service to downtown Chicago and other 

intermediate stations. The Rock Island service also serves downtown Chicago though 

different intermediate stations along a more easterly route. 

Pace Bus Service provides extensive service to the Joliet area, including Pace Route 834 to 

the Lockport Metra Station on the Heritage Corridor. Pace Routes 501, 504, 505, 507, 508, 

509, 511, 832, and 834 currently serve the Joliet Amtrak Station. Pace Bus route 511 operates 

between Joliet City Center, Elwood and CenterPoint Intermodal Center. Parking is also 

available at both the Lockport and Joliet Metra Stations. 

No Build Alternative: Under the No-Build Alternative, no changes to intermodal 

connections at the Joliet Union station would occur.

Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, no changes to intermodal 

connections at the Joliet Union station or the Dwight station would occur.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-55

April 2011

3.3.1.4 Additional Impacts to Vehicular Operations

Grade Crossings

No-Build Alternative: Under the No-Build Alternative, only planned grade crossing 

improvements included in the 2003 FEIS would be included between Dwight and St. Louis.

Preferred Alternative: All of the grade crossings from Joliet to Dwight in the project area 

were evaluated as part of the EA process. Grade crossings could be temporarily impacted 

by the track upgrades from 110 mph service as well as by the construction of the second 

mainline track and crossovers. 

The UP mainline from Joliet to Dwight crosses through areas of different land use. Starting 

at MP 36.7, the mainline is in an urbanized setting in the City of Joliet. As the mainline 

progresses southward it crosses through suburban and into rural areas. Vehicular crossings 

are mainly underpasses of the mainline in the urbanized and suburban areas. Once in the 

less developed rural areas, the crossings become at-grade. Each at-grade crossing is 

outlined in Table 3-18. A detailed summary of the grade crossing diagnostic evaluation can 

be found in Appendix G.

All public grade crossings located within the project corridor will be upgraded from the 

existing warning devices to four-quadrant gates with vehicle detection equipment. 

By agreement with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) and the FRA-Office of Safety, 

the private at-grade crossings will also be required to have four-quadrant gate installations 

and vehicle detection equipment.

For private crossings located on farming property, the crossing is primarily used to move 

farming equipment from one field to another on farms that are bisected by a rail line. In this 

situation, the crossing is proposed to receive a Field-to-Field Treatment that will incorporate 

a locked, reduced-access gate system. Both the land owner and Emergency Medical 

Services will have access to release this locked system when no trains are within the 

approach circuits.

In addition to the crossing upgrades, signals along the project corridor would be upgraded 

to Centralized Traffic Control which would allow for safer train movements through these 

grade crossings as well as the railroad network. 

These upgrades will allow for efficient train movements in this area and, therefore, the 

grade crossings would not be adversely impacted. These improvements may serve to 

reduce the traffic delay at these crossings as well as adjacent crossings. At this time no 

increase in the number of passenger trains or operating speed of freight trains are planned 

in the project area. 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-56

April 2011

Table 3-18. At-Grade Rail Crossings

Dot No. Street City County Existing Warning 

Device Proposed Warning Device

289760S Jackson St Joliet Will Gates Four Quad Gates

289771E Laraway Rd Joliet Will Gates Four Quad Gates

290484N Schweitzer Rd Elwood Will Gates Four Quad Gates

290486C Millsdale Rd Elwood Will Gates Four Quad Gates

290487J Manhattan Rd Elwood Will Gates Four Quad Gates

290490S Mississippi Rd Elwood Will Gates Four Quad Gates

922023D Walter Strawn Dr Elwood Will Gates Four Quad Gates

290492F Hoff Rd Elwood Will Gates Four Quad Gates

290493M Private Crossing Elwood Will Stop Sign Locked Gate System (Fieldto-Field Treatment)

290494U Private Crossing Elwood Will Gates Four Quad Gates

290496H Prairie Creek Rd –

Private Crossing

Wilmington Will Stop Sign – soon to 

be upgraded to gates

Four Quad Gates

290497P River Rd Wilmington Will Gates Four Quad Gates

290498W Kankakee River Dr Wilmington Will Flash Lights (mast) Four Quad Gates

290499D Private Crossing Wilmington Will Stop Sign Four Quad Gates

290500V Kankakee St Wilmington Will Gates Four Quad Gates

290502J First St Wilmington Will Flash Lights (mast) Four Quad Gates

290503R Stripmine Rd Wilmington Will Gates Four Quad Gates

290505E Coal City Rd Wilmington Will Gates Four Quad Gates

290506L Main St Braidwood Will AFLS-Gates-CantoverFour Quad Gates

290507T Center St Braidwood Will Gates Four Quad Gates

290508A Division St Braidwood Will Flash Lights (mast) Four Quad Gates

290509G County Line Rd Godley Will Gates Four Quad Gates

290513W Main St Braceville Grundy Flash Lights (mast) Four Quad Gates

290514D Mitchell St Braceville Grundy Gates Four Quad Gates

290517Y Carbon Hill Rd Gardner Grundy Four Quad Gates

290518F Washington St Gardner Grundy Four Quad Gates

290519M Division St Gardner Grundy Four Quad Gates

290521N Jackson St Gardner Grundy Four Quad Gates

290522V Main St Gardner Grundy Four Quad Gates

290525R Maher Rd Gardner Grundy Four Quad Gates

290527E Gorman Rd Gardner Grundy Four Quad Gates

290529T Scully Rd – Private 

Crossing

Gardner Grundy Gates Four Quad Gates

290530M Filman Rd Gardner Grundy Gates Locked Gate System (Fieldto-Field Treatment)

290531U Stonewall Rd Dwight Grundy Four Quad Gates

290532B Gantzert Rd Dwight Grundy Crossbucks Locked Gate System (Fieldto-Field Treatment)

290533H E Scully Rd Dwight Grundy Four Quad Gates

290534P Mazon Rd Dwight Grundy Four Quad Gates

290535W Livingston Rd Dwight Livingston Four Quad Gates

Source: ICC
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-57

April 2011

Federal Highway and State, and Local Roads

The FHWA has reviewed the project and determined there would no impact to the 

interstate system for 2nd Mainline Track Project and Mazonia Siding Project. The review 

letter from FHWA is located in Appendix B. The FHWA is currently reviewing the 

proposed 110 mph service between Joliet and Dwight

Existing Traffic Volumes

Because rail crossings in the urbanized areas are grade separated, average daily traffic on 

roads that cross the mainline was collected only for roads that have at-grade crossings. The 

average daily traffic (ADT) data is shown in Table 3-19. 

The most heavily travelled roadway in the vicinity of the mainline in the rural area south of 

Joliet to Elwood is Illinois Route 53 (IL 53). IL 53 runs north to south just east of the UPRR 

tracks and is the main N/S highway between Dwight and Joliet serving as a collector for the 

local roads that intersect it. Illinois 53 has several businesses and residences located along 

the facility as well as a major special trip generator in the Chicago Speedway, which has 

impacts on the level of traffic only during certain times of the year. The next major 

north/south road east of IL 53 is US 52 and the next major N/S road to the west is I-55.

IL 53 features a four-lane divided highway south of Joliet and a four-lane arterial in Joliet. 

The facility includes dedicated turning lanes at several intersections in Joliet and in rural 

areas. Traffic signals are present at several intersections along the corridor in Joliet with few 

to none once the route leaves the city limits. There are many access points to IL 53 from 

residences and businesses as well as the intersecting east/west local roads. 

Land development along the railroad ROW would normally lead to vehicular impacts at 

grade crossings. However, in downtown Joliet and south of Joliet, there are existing 

overpasses and underpasses of the UPRR track. Once south of the city, the area 

surrounding the mainline is largely agricultural. In addition the area west of the mainline 

north of Manhattan Road to the Des Plaines River has limited access because of the river. 

Because of the limited access it is assumed that these roads only serve local traffic and have 

no through traffic between IL 53 and the river.

The higher ADT on Laraway Road is most likely due to the proximity of the count location 

to the elementary school located near the Laraway Road rail crossing, therefore being 

subject to trips to and from the school. The higher ADT on Manhattan Road can be 

attributed to the facility being a Will County Highway (Highway 17) and a link between IL 

53 and I-55. 

Hoff Road in Elwood provides access to an industrial area of the Village. Several 

warehouses can be accessed from Hoff Road. Automobile and truck volumes were high 

near this crossing. Prairie Creek Grain Company in Elwood generates substantial truck 

traffic. This facility is located off IL 53 between Elwood and Wilmington. River Road in 

Wilmington is a two-lane county highway and also generates a larger quantity of both 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-58

April 2011

Table 3-19. ADT of Roads within or near Project Corridor

Dot No. Street City Location ADT Trucks

289760S Jackson St Joliet Jackson at N Scott St 8,100

N Scott at Jackson 7,200 650

Jackson at N State St 16,000

289771E Laraway Rd Joliet Laraway at S Chicago St 4,250

S Chicago St at Laraway 12,900 2,600

290484N Schweitzer Rd Elwood Schweitzer at S Chicago St 300

S Chicago St at Schweitzer 2,100

290486C Millsdale Rd Elwood S Brandon Rd at Millsdale 2,000

290487J Manhattan Rd Elwood Manhattan at S Brandon Rd 2,350

S Brandon at Manhattan 1,150

Manhattan at S Bush Rd 2,900

290492F Hoff Rd Elwood State Route 53 at Hoff 9,100 2,050

290497P River Rd Wilmington State Route 53 at River 8,900 1,550

290498W Kankakee River Dr Wilmington Kankakee at State Route 53 850

State Route 53 at Kankakee 7,400 900

290502J First St Wilmington First at Davy Ln 900

290503R Stripmine Rd Wilmington Stripmine at First 8,100 1,050

290505E Coal City Rd Wilmington Coal City at State Route 53 3,250

State Route 53 at Coal City 3,500 350

290506L Main St Braidwood Main at Front St 5,200 3,325

290507T Center St Braidwood Center at Front St 1,350

290508A Division St Braidwood Division at Front St 700

S Washington at Division 1,850

S Front at Division 2,800

290509G County Line Rd Godley State Route 129 at County 

Line

2,100

State Route 53 at County Line 1,350 260

290513W Main St Braceville State Route 53 at Main 1,250

290514D Mitchell St Braceville State Route 53 at Mitchell 1,250 175

290517Y Carbon Hill Rd Gardner State Route 53 at Carbon Hill 1,650 175

290525R Maher Rd Gardner Old US 66 at Maher 850

Maher at Old US 66 50

290527E Gorman Rd Gardner Gorman at Old US 66 25

290531U Stonewall Rd Dwight Stonewall at Old US 66 125

290532B Gantzert Rd Dwight 

290533H E Scully Rd Dwight Scully at Old US 66 50

290534P Mazon Rd Dwight Mazon at Old US 66 25

Old US 66 at Mazon 850

290535W Livingston Rd Dwight Livingston off Old US 66 100

Source: IDOT
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-59

April 2011

automobile and truck traffic. This highway intersects with IL 53 to the east and US 55 to the 

west.

Coal City Road is a rural two-lane roadway approximately halfway between Wilmington 

and Braidwood. There are no businesses or residence located near the UPRR grade 

crossing. Main Street is a local two-lane roadway (east-west) through the City of 

Braidwood.

Construction Related Impacts on Vehicular Traffic

No-Build Alternative: Under the No-Build Alternative, construction would be limited to 

regular maintenance activities. Therefore, impacts to vehicular traffic would be minimal.

Preferred Alternative: Under the Preferred Alternative, vehicular traffic would be 

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

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 would be installed. In some cases, temporary diversion of traffic to 

adjacent crossings could 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.

3.3.1.5 Parking

No changes to related parking are proposed under the project.

3.3.1.6 Safety

Proposed upgrades to the signals and crossing warning systems are intended to provide a 

safer corridor for both vehicular and rail traffic.

A review of IDOT grade crossing accident data from 2006 to 2010 found a total of 31 

reported accidents within the project corridor during that five year duration. Of those 

accidents, there were zero fatalities. Two of the 31 accidents were train related. 

Figure 3-3 shows 2006 to 2010 IDOT crash data for the area within the project corridor. 

Figure 3-4 shows a summary of the collision type for each of those accidents.

3.3.1.7 Impacts to Operations on Navigable Waters

There are no crossings of navigable waters within the project corridor.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-60

April 2011

Figure 3-3. 2006 to 2010 IDOT Crash Data for Crossings from Joliet to Dwight

Source: IDOT, District 3 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-61

April 2011

Figure 3-4. 2006 to 2010 IDOT Crash Data for Crossings from Joliet to Dwight – Collision Type

Source: IDOT, District 3

3.3.2 Socioeconomics and Land Use

3.3.2.1 Relocations

No relocations would be acquired. Construction at project sites could require temporary 

road closures. Temporary easements or purchase of ROW may need to be obtained by 

UPRR for construction access and to stage materials; however, these easements would not 

require the relocation of businesses or residences. ROW purchases will be conducted 

following the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 

(Uniform Relocation Act) (Title 42 United States Code Sections 4601-4655), as amended 

applies to all federal or federally assisted activities that involve the acquisition of real 

property or the displacement of residences or businesses. The IDOT will implement the 

provisions of the State of Illinois Relocation Assistance Plan in accordance Uniform 

Relocation Act. 

3.3.2.2 Community Services and Facilities

Schools, medical centers, and fire and police stations serve the daily needs of residents along 

the corridor for the Preferred Alternative. The project corridor provides access to and from 

educational and medical facilities and plays a critical role in providing these services, and in 

serving the health, safety and general welfare of those who use them. Within the project 

corridor, public service districts typically overlap the railroad. 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-62

April 2011

2nd Mainline Track Project between MP 36.7 and MP 44.69

The project corridor is located within the municipal boundary limits for Joliet and Elwood. 

Jurisdictionally, the City of Joliet currently has pertinent boundary agreements with the 

Village of Elwood to the South. The municipal boundary between Joliet and Elwood is 

located at Noel Road. Along the UPRR corridor, the boundary extends further south to 

behind the parcels along the north side of the Manhattan Road corridor. Existing land 

between Downtown Joliet and the Village of Elwood is primarily agricultural and rural 

single-family. 

Joliet and Elwood are served by municipal police and fire departments. In times of 

emergency, fire district teams from adjacent jurisdictions share equipment and personnel. 

Private ambulance companies also operate in communities along the corridor. Health care 

facilities are generally located in Joliet. Emergency routes for fire, police and ambulance 

services provide direct access to these medical facilities. Similar to school bus routes, 

emergency routes typically incorporate section line roads in this area. There is one 

elementary school adjacent to the project corridor at Laraway Road. 

110 mph Project Corridor between MP 44.69 and MP 55.0

Between Elwood and Wilmington there is one grain elevator operation along the project

corridor with a private grade crossing near MP 49.7. The Prairie Creek Grain Company is 

located at 29400 S. Route 53 and the property contains grain silos and buildings east and west 

of track. This area of project corridor is also located near the MNTP. The Midewin park 

offices is located at 30239 S. State Route 53. South of Midewin, the project corridor traverses 

southwest through Wilmington and the Kankakee River Valley. West of Wilmington, the 

corridor runs parallel to Route 53. 

Mazonia Siding Track between MP 55.0 and MP 57.13 

The project corridor is predominantly located within the municipal boundary limits of the 

City of Braidwood. Approximately .75 miles of the project area east of the URRR ROW is 

located within unincorporated Will County. However, the City of Wilmington boundary 

extends southwest along the UPRR ROW in this area. Existing land is primarily rural 

single-family residential and private outdoor recreation area.

Braidwood was a center of the coal mining industry in the late 1860's into the 1970's. Strip 

mining east and west of the UPRR Corridor began in the early 1900's and lasted until 1970. 

The strip mined areas became private recreational areas and housing developments. The 

area southeast of the project corridor is located adjacent to the Braidwood Recreation Club. 

The Braidwood Recreation Club is a non-profit private outdoor recreation club. A 9-hole 

golf course lies adjacent to along the southeast boundary of the UPRR ROW. The land area 

on the west side of the UPRR ROW is located within the Shadow Lakes Resort. This 

development is also a reclaimed strip coal mine. 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-63

April 2011

110 mph Project Corridor between MP 57.13 and MP 72.8

This section of the 110 mph project corridor runs southwest and parallel to IL Route 53 

through Briadwood, Godley, Bracville, and Gardner. The project terminates at MP 72.8 on the 

northeast side of Dwight. 

No-Build Alternative: Under the No-Build Alternative and Preferred Alternative, 

construction would be limited to regular maintenance activities. Therefore, impacts to 

community facilities would be minimal.

Preferred Alternative: Under the 2nd Mainline Tract Project , the Laraway Elementary 

School would be temporarily impacted to varying degrees at the Laraway road grade 

crossing. 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 might be required.

Under the 110 mph project corridor between Elwood and Wilmington, grade crossings are 

located at County Highway 44, Kankakee River Drive, N. Kankakee Street, North 1st Street 

and West Strip Mine Road. In some cases, temporary diversion of traffic to adjacent 

crossings might be required. Route 53 or West Baltimore Street provides the only bridge over 

the Kankakee River in Willmington. The next nearest crossing is Il-55, which is located more 

than five miles northwest of the Route 53 bridge.

Under the Mazonia siding project, grade crossings at Coal City Road and Main Street would 

be temporarily impacted to varying degrees. 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 might be required. At Main Street the nearest crossing is 

located 0.4 mile south at South Center Street. Coal City Road is located 2.5 miles north of 

Main Street. West Strip Mine Road is located 1.4 miles north of Coal City Road.

Under the 110 mph project corridor between Mazonia Siding and Dwight, grade crossings 

are located at S. Center Street, S. Division Street, N. Kankakee Road, N. Mitchell Street, S. 

Carbon Hill Road, E. Washington Street, Division Street, N, Jackson Street, County Road 29, 

S. Maher Road, and Livingston Road.

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 and considered minor. Construction 

phasing will be coordinated with the local governments, school districts and other service 

providers in order to mitigate any impacts due to temporary road closures. Table 3-20

shows the community facilities located near the project corridor. 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-64

April 2011

Table 3-20. Community Facilities

Project Component Community 

Facility Location Distance from UPPR ROW (feet) Impact

110 mph 

Project 

Corridor

2nd Mainline 

Track

Prince of Peace 

Church

East of track - E. 

Cass Street, Joliet 250

Existing elevated 

double track -No 

impact

No impact

Silver Cross 

Baseball Stadium

East of track –

Between E. Clinton 

and E. Jefferson 

Street

75

Joliet Amtrak 

Station

East of track –

south of E. 

Jefferson Street

Next to track

Joliet Metra Station West of track –

north Scott Street Next to track

Nowell Park

East of track –

South Chicago 

Street

400 +

Osgood Park

East of track –

South E. Osgood

Street

Next to track

Laraway 

Elementary School

East of track –

Laraway Road

Property next to 

UPRR ROW

Temporary grade 

crossing closure 

during construction

110 mph 

improvements

Midewin Park 

Office

30239 S. State 

Route 53

Several miles east 

and west of the 

project corridor

No impact

Prairie Creek Grain 

Company

East and West of 

track at MP 49.6

Property next to 

UPRR ROW

Temporary grade 

crossing closure 

during construction

Abraham Lincoln 

National Cemetery

West of track –W. 

Hoff Road

Property next to 

UPRR ROW

Temporary grade 

crossing closure 

during construction

Riverside Medical 

Center

East of track – W. 

Baltimore Road .25 miles 

Temporary grade 

crossing closure 

during construction

Mazonia Siding

Shadow Lakes 

(private 

development)

East of track Property next to 

UPRR ROW No impact

Braidwood 

Recreation Club 

(private non-profit 

development)

West of track Property next to 

UPRR ROW No impact

110 mph 

improvements

North Wilmington East and West of 

track

No community 

facilities next to 

track

No impact

Downtown 

Braidwood

East and West of 

track

No community 

facilities next to 

track

Temporary grade 

crossing closure 

during construction

Braidwood Nuclear 

Power Plant

West of track and IL 

53 100

Temporary grade 

crossing closure 

during construction

Village of Godley East of track and IL 

53 100

Temporary grade

crossing closure 

during construction
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-65

April 2011

Project Component Community 

Facility Location Distance from UPPR ROW (feet) Impact

Village of 

Braceville

West of track and IL 

129 100

Temporary grade 

crossing closure 

during construction

Village of Gardner East and West of 

track 100

Temporary grade 

crossing closure 

during construction

Village of Dwight East and West of 

track 100

Temporary grade 

crossing closure 

during construction

3.3.3 Demographics

The Joliet to Dwight track project begins in downtown Joliet, at E. Jackson Street (MP 36.7) 

approximately one block south of State Highway 63, and generally extends in a southwest 

direction through the Village of Elwood, City of Wilmington, City of Braidwood and the 

Village of Godley in Will County. In Grundy County, the project corridor travels primarily 

through unincorporated areas and the Villages of Braceville and Gardner. The project 

corridor terminates within Livingston County, north of the Village of Dwight, at North 

Union Street (MP 72.8).

A buffer extending 1,000 feet east and west from the UPRR ROW was used to inventory 

demographic characteristics of the Joliet to Dwight project corridor. The buffer was then 

subdivided into five sections in order to summarize the demographic data.

1. Downtown Joliet (MP 36.8 to E. Washington Street)

2. South Joliet Area 1 (E. Washington Street to (S. Chicago Street)

3. South Joliet Area 2 (S. Chicago Street to Laraway Road)

4. Joliet/Elwood (Laraway Road to MP 44.69)

5. Elwood to Dwight (MP 44.69 to MP 72.8)

3.3.3.1 Population and Households 

The 110 mph project corridor is approximately 36 miles long and has an estimated 2010

population of 7,910 within the buffer along the rail between Joliet and Dwight (Table 3-17). 

Approximately 50 percent (3,236) of the corridor population and 33 percent of the 

households (911) are located within Joliet and along the area for the 2nd Mainline Track 

project. 

2nd Mainline Tract Project between MP 36.7 and MP 44.69

The 2nd mainline track project corridor is approximately eight miles long and has an 

estimated 2010 population of 3,236 within the buffer along the rail between Joliet and 

Elwood (Table 3-21). As of 2010, the estimated population was 140,449 in the City of Joliet 

and 712,697 in Will County, making it one of the fastest growing counties in Illinois and the 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-66

April 2011

United States. Will County, once a predominantly agricultural area, is becoming 

increasingly urbanized, with an estimated 2010 population density of 857 persons per 

square mile. Population concentrations adjacent to the proposed project are found in 

Table 3-21. Population and Households within 1,000 feet of Project Sites 

2000 Census and 2010 (Estimated)

Community / CorridorSection

Population Households

2000

Census

2010 

Estimated

Percent 

Change 

(2000-

2010)

2000

Census

2010 

Estimated

Percent 

Change (2000-

2010)

State of Illinois 12,419,293 13,089,726 5.4% 4,591,779 4,843,349 5.5%

Will County 502,266 712,697 41.9% 167,542 236,966 41.4%

City of Joliet 106,221 140,449 32.2% 36,182 46,907 29.6%

Village of Elwood 1,620 2,076 28.1% 637 819 28.6%

City of Wilmington 5,134 6,023 17.3% 1,991 2,359 18.5%

City of Braidwood 5,203 6,563 26.1% 1,843 2,326 26.2%

Village of Godley 594 597 0.5% 200 199 -0.5%

Village of Braceville 792 942 18.9% 284 345 21.5%

Village of Gardner 1,406 1,540 9.5% 558 623 11.6%

Village of Dwight 4,363 4,340 -0.5% 1,667 1,680 0.8%

110 mph Service (1000 feet buffer)

Joliet to Dwight (MP 36.7 to 72.8) 7,137 7,910 10.8% 2,442 2,733 11.9%

2nd Mainline Track (1000 feet buffer)

A. Downtown Joliet (MP 36.8 to 

E. Washington Street) 941 1,010 7.3% 288 317 10.1%

B. South Joliet Area 1 (E. 

Washington Street to (S. 

Chicago Street)

1,729 1,802 4.2% 417 429 2.9%

C. South Joliet Area 2 (S. 

Chicago Street to Laraway 

Road)

222 229 3.2% 93 96 3.2%

D. Joliet/Elwood (Laraway Road 

to MP 44.69) 161 195 21.1% 57 69 21.1%

Total (A-D) 3,053 3,236 6.0% 855 911 6.5%

Mazonia Siding (1000 feet buffer)

Mazonia Siding Buffer 

(MP 55.0 to 57.13) 345 366 6.1% 117 120 2.6%

Source: Census 2000, 2010 Estimate ESRI Business Analyst Online 03/23/11 http://bao.esri.com/

downtown Joliet (shown as A in Table 3-21) and in the neighborhoods directly south of the 

downtown (shown as B in Table 3-21). This area accounts for an estimated 87 percent of 

population (2,812) along the project corridor in 2010. The surrounding land use at the 

northern end of the project within the city limits of Joliet is a densely developed urban 

environment consisting of a mixture of retail and commercial uses with some industries, 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-67

April 2011

public facilities, and residences. In 2010, there are an estimated 1,010 people and 317

households along the corridor in downtown Joliet. 

Downtown Joliet is an older part of the City of Joliet, and some historic buildings are located 

in the vicinity of the project. However, the rail ROW is located on an embankment and 

surrounding commercial buildings are set back 100 feet or more from the railroad ROW. 

The East Side Historic District lies within a half-block of the existing tracks at one point. 

Most of the land use immediately adjacent to the rail lines consists of vacant ground, 

parking lots, and commercial facilities. A small neighborhood park, Osgood Park, is located 

nearby, and an Amtrak commuter parking lot is located to the east of the tracks. South of E. 

Washington Street (B in Table 3-21), the downtown area transitions to single family 

residential neighborhoods. In 2010, the estimated downtown population is 1,802 persons 

and 429 households. Since 2000, the downtown population and south Joliet neighborhoods 

have increased 5.3 percent or 142 people.

On the south side of Joliet from S. Chicago Street to Laraway Road (shown as C in Table 3-

17), the surrounding land transitions to industrial use, including individual rock quarry 

operations owned by Chicago Street CCDD LLC (near MP 38.8) and Vulcan Materials 

(Zurich Road). This area includes lower-income residences, including a mobile-home park 

located on Zurich Road, but few residences are located near the train track. A new Dollar 

Tree distribution center and the Laraway Public School facility are located on the east side of 

the existing track at the Laraway Road Crossing. In 2010, the estimated population of the 

Area C is 229 and the number of households is 96. This area increased an estimated 3.2 

percent in population between 2000 and 2010.

Further to the south the land use changes mostly to cultivated agriculture fields growing 

row crops, mostly corn and soybeans. There is very little open natural space in this 

agricultural landscape, and residences consist of farmsteads and to a lesser extent, 

residential properties on large acreage parcels. The southern end of the project area is within 

the Village of Elwood. These developments are single family homes and townhomes, 

generally with values of $250,000 and more within new housing subdivisions. However, the 

area to the west of the railroad corridor is part of the former Joliet Arsenal and under 

redevelopment for the CenterPoint Intermodal Center. One of the largest private 

developments ever undertaken in the United States, CenterPoint encompasses 2,200 acres 

with a total investment approaching $1 billion. In 2010, the estimated population of Elwood 

within the project area is 195 and the number households is 69. The Elwood area increased 

an estimated 34 people in population between 2000 and 2010. Population growth is 

expected to increase further as new homes are constructed in the subdivision. 

Population and Households at MP 38.8, 42.6 and 44.69

Within the project corridor, there are two bridges and one large culvert where the rail line 

crosses waterways. These structures will be modified with the addition of a second track. 

Temporary easement or ROW acquisition may be required at the stream crossings of Sugar 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-68

April 2011

Run Creek at MP 38.8, Cedar Creek at MP 42.6 and Jackson Creek at MP 44.4 in Will 

County. Work on these structures would be limited to extending the culvert at MP 38.8 to 

the east, extending the bridge at MP 42.6 to the east and replacement of the one track bridge 

at MP 44.4 with a double track bridge. For these crossings, no existing buildings or 

residences would be impacted. 

Structure Improvement – MP 38.8

The site is located in a historically industrial area south of downtown Joliet. The land use 

west of the project site is the former American Cyanamid-Cytek industries site and railroad 

uses. To the east, there is an inactive quarry. There are no roadways, residences or business 

located adjacent the site. 

Structure Improvement – MP 42.6

The second structure to be widened, at MP 42.6, has no residences within 1,000 feet of the 

construction area. There is a small rural subdivision located .50 mile east on Millsdale Road. 

This site is located in Joliet jurisdictional planning area and is largely undeveloped at this 

time.

Structure Improvement – MP 44.4

This site is located within the Elwood jurisdictional limits. A single-family subdivision is 

located southeast (Meadowbrick) and northeast (Wooded Cove Estates) of the Jackson 

Creek Crossing at MP 44.4. One residence lies east and three residences west of the railroad 

ROW. These single-family houses are located on the north bank of Jackson Creek 

approximately 400 to 500 feet from the bridge. The surrounding area to the southeast and 

southwest is in transition from agricultural land to residential development. The downtown 

area of Elwood is located one mile south of MP 44.4.

Mazonia Siding Track between MP 55.0 and MP 57.13 

The Mazonia siding project corridor is approximately two miles long and has an estimated 

2010 population of 366 within the buffer along the rail between Coal City Road and East 

Main Street in Braidwood (Table 3-21). As of 2010, the estimated population was 6,563 in 

the City of Braidwood. The majority of households are located along North Washington 

Street in the Shadow Lakes development (west of the project corridor). 

Racial/Ethnic Composition

Table 3-22 shows that minority populations in Will County are primarily concentrated 

within the Joliet urban area. The racial composition of population within the 2nd Mainline 

Track project corridor is predominantly African American, with a substantial Hispanic or 

Latino minority. This population is primarily located in the City of Joliet and the South Joliet 

Area 1 neighborhoods (Table 3-22). In general, residences in this area have backyards 

and/or garages adjacent to UPRR ROW. Since there is an existing second track in this area, 

there would be no major construction activities that would result in impacts to the 

neighborhoods along the project corridor in Joliet. The estimated African American 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-69

April 2011

population represents 23 percent (1,823) of the population along Joliet to Dwight project 

corridor. The Hispanic or Latino population is approximately 18 percent (1,457). 

Table 3-22. Population by Race and Ethnicity 2010 (Estimated)

Area / CorridorSection White African 

American

Am. 

Indian

and

Alaska 

Native

Asian Pacific 

Islander Other

Two or 

More 

Races

Hispanic 

or Latino 

(of any 

race)

State of Illinois 9,332,121 1,867,843 40,280 567,972 6,312 964,565 310,633 2,106,372

Will County 540,868 77,081 2,087 28,666 272 46,531 17,192 114,896

City of Joliet 92,187 22,369 516 2,695 31 18,759 3,892 38,610

Village of Elwood 1,969 8 18 16 2 17 47 209

City of Wilmington 5,674 75 32 33 2 108 99 325

City of Braidwood 6,190 41 9 36 0 178 109 541

Village of Godley 560 2 1 5 0 16 13 54

Village of Braceville 928 0 2 0 0 2 10 21

Village of Gardner 1,497 1 2 5 0 23 12 74

Village of Dwight 4,163 41 2 16 0 67 51 170

110 mph Service (1000 foot buffer)

Joliet to Dwight (MP 

36.7 to 72.8) 5,251 1,823 26 35 2 633 141 1,457

2nd Mainline Track (1000 feet buffer)

Downtown Joliet (MP 

36.8 to Washington

Street)

336 324 3 1 0 319 27 610

South Joliet Area 1 

(E. Washington

Street to (S. Chicago 

Street)

340 1,296 4 3 0 130 30 352

South Joliet Area 2 

(S. Chicago Street to 

Laraway Road)

39 167 3 0 0 15 5 22

Elwood (Laraway 

Road to MP 44.69) 182 4 1 2 0 2 3 18

Total (A-D) 896 1,791 12 6 0 466 65 1,002

Mazonia Siding (1000 feet buffer)

Mazonia Siding 

Buffer 

(MP 55.0 to 57.13)

341 2 1 3 0 11 9 35

Census 2010 Estimate ESRI Business Analyst Online 03/23/11 http://bao.esri.com/

There are no concentrations of minority populations near the three structure improvement 

sites at MP 38.8, 42.6 and 44.4. There are no concentrations of minority populations near 

Mazonia siding project corridor.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-70

April 2011

3.3.3.2 Economics and Employment

Will County is located within the Chicago metropolitan area and has a diversified economic 

base. The project corridor between Joliet and Dwight passes through urban, suburban and 

rural areas, where population, labor force and employment vary dramatically. The Joliet 

Elwood area is rapidly becoming part of the fringe of the Joliet area with the construction of 

the CenterPointe (CIC) intermodal facilities in Joilet and Elwood on the former Joliet 

Arsenal site. The redevelopment of this property brought together virtually all levels of 

government, more than a dozen public agencies, and private industry to benefit the 

community under a common plan. Combined, CIC-Joliet and CIC-Elwood will create the 

nation’s largest inland port with more than 6,000 acres, multiple 1,000-acre Class I railroad 

intermodal yards, container/equipment management yards and more than 30 million square 

feet of industrial facilities. Upon build out, the project is expected to create 14,000 new jobs 

according to project data by CenterPointe Properties5.

Other industries along project corridor include a large inactive limestone quarry located 

west of MP 38.8 in the Joliet. Access to this site is from Chicago Street which has a northsouth alignment parallel to the rail corridor. Access to the quarry would not be impacted by 

the extension of the culvert at MP 38.8. Presently, this quarry has limited activity.

There is a large active quarry, Vulcan Materials, located directly west of the project corridor 

between Zurich and Laraway Roads. Presently, there are no businesses or areas of major 

employment adjacent to the culvert and bridge expansion sites at MP 44.4 and 46.2. 

The Prairie Creek Grain Company is located south of Elwood along IL Route 53. Prairie 

Creek silos and buildings are located east and west of the UPRR tracks. A private grade 

crossing provides truck access on the property. Prairie Creek is also a wholesale distributor 

of fertilizer.

The Willimington, Braidwood and Dwight economies are based on area services and 

manufacturing, and on the agricultural industry. The recreation economy is seasonally 

prominent, with thousands of visitors who enjoy camping, fishing and hunting in the 

region. The area is also prominent for its history and tourism related to the US Route 66 

corridor which follows IL Route 53 between Joliet and Dwight. A major area employer is 

Exelon’s nuclear power plant, situated immediately southwest of Braidwood. No industry 

or commercial business would be relocated by the siding improvement. Construction 

impacts would be limited to the temporary closing of grade crossings. 

The project promotes both the short- and long-term creation and preservation of jobs while 

promoting new opportunities during construction of the project. Approximately $280 

million (Fiscal Year 2011 dollars) will be invested in construction and construction-related 

activities for the 110 mph service track and signal improvements, 2nd mainline track and 

Mazonia siding. New and expanded business opportunities will be indirectly created by 

 5 CenterPointe Properties, http://www.centerpoint-prop.com, accessed on March 25, 2011.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-71

April 2011

enhancing the capacity and increasing the fluidity of freight rail operations on the UPRR 

Joliet Subdivision in the line section between Joliet and Dwight.

3.3.3.3 Income and Wages

Table 3-23 shows 1999 (from Census 2000) and estimated 2010 median household incomes 

for areas along the project corridor. Generally, the Joliet neighborhoods have the lowest 

median income. In comparison, the project corridor median income is lower than the 

statewide, Will County, Joliet or Elwood medians. 

Table 3-23. Median Household Income, 1999 (Census 2000) and 2010 (Estimated)

Area / CorridorSection

Median Household Income

1999

(2000

Census)

2010 

Estimated

Percent 

Change 

(1999-2010)

State of Illinois $46,635 $60,254 22.6%

Will County $62,221 $78,621 20.9%

City of Joliet $47,611 $63,591 25.1%

Village of Elwood $52,995 $65,953 19.6%

City of Wilmington $45,866 $57,014 19.6%

City of Braidwood $52,515 $65,466 19.8%

Village of Godley $41,932 $56,061 25.2%

Village of Braceville $47,752 $65,247 26.8%

Village of Gardner $41,952 $52,696 20.4%

Village of Dwight $40,063 $48,566 17.5%

110 mph Service (1000 foot buffer)

Joliet to Dwight (MP 36.7 to 72.8) $40,275 $49,956 19.4%

2nd Mainline Track (1000 foot buffer)

Downtown Joliet (MP 36.8 to E. Washington Street) $23,666 $25,215 6.1%

South Joliet Area 1 (E. Washington Street to (S. Chicago 

Street) $35,329 $39,420 10.4%

South Joliet Area 2 (S. Chicago Street to Laraway Road) $31,740 $35,368 10.3%

Elwood (Laraway Road to MP 44.69) $61,130 $69,186 11.6%

Project Corridor (MP 36.8 to MP 44.69) $30,794 $34,889 18.6%

Mazonia Siding (1000 foot buffer)

Mazonia Siding Buffer 

(MP 55.0 to 57.13) $48,400 $55,068 11.6%

Census 2010 Estimate ESRI Business Analyst Online 03/23/11 http://bao.esri.com/

3.3.4 Environmental Justice and Title VI

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 addresses discrimination issues associated with 

federally funded projects. No groups or individuals have been or will be excluded from 

participation in public involvement activities, denied the benefit of the project or subjected 

to discrimination in any way on the basis of race, color, age, sex, national origin, disability 

or religion. 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-72

April 2011

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

and Low-Income Populations (EO 1994), directs federal agencies to "promote 

nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment, and provide minority and low-income communities access to public 

information on, and an opportunity for public participation in matters relating to human 

health or the environment." The EO directs agencies to use existing laws to ensure that 

when they act:

They do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin;

They identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income communities; and

They provide opportunities for community input during the NEPA process, including 

input on potential effects and mitigation measures.

EO 12898 does not define the terms “minority” or “low-income.” However, guidance 

provided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) describes these terms in the 

context of an environmental justice (EJ) analysis. These definitions are unique to EJ analysis 

and are the basis for the methodology that follows:

Minority Individual - A minority individual is classified by the US Census Bureau as 

belonging to one of the following groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or 

Pacific Islander, Black (not of Hispanic Origin), and Hispanic.

Minority Populations - According to the CEQ Guidelines, minority populations should 

be identified 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. 

Low-income Population - Low-income populations are identified where individuals 

have incomes below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty 

guidelines. A low-income population is either a group of low-income individuals living 

in proximity to one another or a set of individuals who share common conditions of 

environmental exposure or effect.

The Health and Human Services 2011 poverty guideline for a family of four is $22,350.

Detailed information regarding minority and low-income populations for the project 

corridor was compiled from 2010 estimates developed by ESRI based on US Census data. 

2nd Mainline Track Project

A review of these data within a 1,000-foot buffer along the project corridor indicates a 

potential concentration of low income or minority populations in downtown Joliet and the 

neighborhoods of south Joliet. The project area at MP 38.8 and 42.6 has no population or 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-73

April 2011

houses near the culvert and bridge extension sites. There are four houses within 500 feet of 

MP 44.4.

Mazonia Siding Track between MP 55.0 and MP 57.13 

There are no concentrations of low income or minority populations along the project 

corridor.

Conclusions 

The No-build Alternative would not have disproportionate adverse impacts on minority or 

low impact populations. However, the No-build Alternative would not encourage or 

provide increased public transportation improvements that may be of value to low-income 

residents who may not be able to afford reliable personal transportation to travel to 

employment opportunities.

The Preferred Alternative would not result in property acquisitions or relocations in the 

City of Joliet or other communities along the project corridor nor result in 

disproportionately adverse impacts to minority or low-income residents or populations. 

Improvements in these areas would be constructed within existing UPRR ROW between 

Joliet and Dwight.

3.3.5 Public Health and Safety

Specifically, this assessment considers the impact on fire, police and medical response time 

due to the proposed 2nd mainline track and siding track affecting cross-community access at 

the at-grade road rail crossings. 

The 2nd mainline track corridor crosses 31 public and 7 private grade crossings as shown 

previously in Table 3-18. In Joliet, ten crossings are grade separated along the existing 

double-track section (MP 36.8 to 38.5). A crossing at Sharp Road is closed. The remaining 

four crossings are located in unincorporated Will County and have various forms of control, 

from actively protected grade crossing gates and flashing light signals to passively lights 

and bells-only crossing signals. The Mazonia siding track would not cross any existing 

grade crossings. 

The No-build Alternative would not impact public health and safety. Fire, police and 

medical response time would not be affected as the grade-crossing signals would not be 

relocated for construction of a new 2nd track.

The Preferred Alternative would not have an appreciable negative impact on public health 

and safety by the project. Fire, police and medical response times would be temporally 

impacted due to construction of new double-track grade crossings at four locations. 

However, all construction related impacts would be temporary and considered minor. All 

measures would be taken during the construction phase to coordinate with emergency 

service providers in order to mitigate any impacts due to temporary road closures.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-74

April 2011

3.3.6 Hazardous Materials

Potential hazardous material affected sites near the project corridor were identified. 

Environmental Data Resources (EDR) performed an electronic search of local, state and

federal environmental databases along the corridor and provided an associated report of 

their findings. The databases and search distances were in accordance with U.S. USEPA’s 

All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) regulations and American Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) 1527-05. Numerous sites were identified along the corridor (see Appendix A). 

Using the information in the EDR report, the sites within critical databases that were 

proximate to the project corridor were identified.

Sites selected for evaluation primarily focused on those included in the EDR report in 

Appendix A. Although EDR's report identifies all the sites within the distances required by 

the All Appropriate Inquiries and ASTM standards, the evaluation was narrowed for some 

databases so that it focused on facilities within reduced distances that better reflect the 

common extent of contaminant movement associated with the likely contaminants. 

National Priority List (NPL) sites were identified within a 1-mile buffer of the project 

corridor; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System (CERCLIS) sites were identified within 0.5 mile; and all other databases 

that were evaluated were identified within 500 feet of the corridor. Table 3-24 shows the 

number of facilities identified within each database for the 2nd mainline track Mazonia 

Siding, and the additional segments of the project corridor that will be constructed for high 

speed rail.

The EDR Report summarizes the facility name, location, and environmental databases that 

were evaluated for those facilities in proximity to the project corridor. Each facility has an 

EDR map identification number that is referenced to the attached EDR report.

3.3.6.1 Findings for the Proposed 2nd Mainline Track

The EDR report (Appendix A) detailed the presence of 20 leaking underground storage tank 

(LUST) sites, seven of which are located within 500 feet of the project corridor. The active 

LUST sites include a 1998 diesel release at the Burlington Northern & Santa Fe railyard 

alongside the railroad at Columbia Street in Joliet, a 1990 gasoline release at the Joliet Union 

Station, a used oil release at Rendel’s GMC, released gasoline at the Speedway Station at 160 

South Chicago Street in Joliet (approximately two blocks west of the railroad), a diesel 

release at the Joliet Mass Transit District facility, and released gasoline and diesel at the 

Joliet Township Road District, southwest of the Chicago Street / I-80 interchange. Included 

in the orphan summary is property at 1214 New Street, Joliet, which is a city-owned parking 

lot immediately west of the railroad, at which a fuel oil release was reported in 2009. Many 

of the LUST sites identified in the database are too far away from the corridor to have 

impacted either soil or groundwater.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-75

April 2011

Table 3-24. Sites Selected for Hazardous Materials Evaluation by Database

Database

2nd Mainline Track

Mazonia 

Siding

110 mph 

Service (all 

other areas)

Total 2nd 

Mainline 

Track

Culvert MP 

38.8

Bridge MP 

42.6

Bridge MP 

44.4

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Information System (CERCLIS) 4 1 0 0 0 1

US EPA's National Priority List (NPL) 2 0 0 0 0 0

Underground Storage Tank sites (UST) 32 0 0 0 5 28

Leaking Underground Storage Tank sites (LUST) 20 1 0 0 4 29

Drycleaner sites (DRYCLEANER) 1 0 0 0 0 0

Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites (SWF/LF) (IL NIPC) 3 1 0 0 2 3

Institutional Control sites, state and U.S. (INST CONTROL) 2 0 0 0 1 0

Illinois Statewide inventory of industrial, municipal, mining, oil & 

gas , and large agricultural impoundment (IMPDMENT) 2 2 0 0 0 3

Manufactured gas plant sites (MGP) 2 0 0 0 0 0

Engineering Control sites, State and U.S. (ENG CONTROLS) 2 0 0 0 1 0

Superfund Consent Decrees (CONSENT) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Illinois Site Remediation Program (SRP) Voluntary Cleanup 

Program (VCP) sites 7 1 0 0 1 3

State Hazardous Waste Sites (SHWS) 1 0 0 0 0 1

Illinois Category List (CAT) 2 0 0 0 0 0

Section 7 Tracking Systems; pesticide production sites (SSTS) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Records of Decision sites (ROD) 2 1 1 1 0 0

RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) 2 0 0 0 0 0

Brownfields, state and U.S. (BROWNFIELD) 0 0 0 0 1 0

Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) 6 0 0 0 0 1

Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: EDR DataMapTM Corridor Study for 2nd Mainline Track, 4/7/2010

EDR DataMapTM Corridor Study for UPRR MP 55.0 to 57.13 (Mazonia Siding), 7/27/2010

EDR DataMapTM Environmental AtlasTM Joliet-Dwight, IL, March 17, 2011
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-76

April 2011

The EDR database listed 32 Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities, of which only six 

were close to the railroad corridor. The database includes five gasoline tanks at the Union 

Station at Jefferson and Scott Streets in Joliet, and indicates that the tanks were last used in 

the early 1950s. Diesel, fuel oil, dry cleaning solvents and other potential contaminants are 

stored in the other tanks alongside the corridor.

The EDR database identifies seven facilities in Illinois EPA’s Site Remediation Program 

(SRP). The SRP database identifies properties which are contaminated by general 

commercial or industrial contaminants such as solvents or heavy metals requiring 

remediation. These sites include the Joliet Post Office at 158 North Scott Street in Joliet, and 

the American Cyanamid-Cytec Industries site at 1306 McKinley Avenue in Joliet. 

The EDR database identifies 41 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

generators. The RCRA databases also contain sites formerly classified as generators but 

which no longer generate or store hazardous waste. Most are small quantity generators in

Joliet; however, other facilities that generate hazardous waste exist along much of the route. 

The listing of a site as a small quantity hazardous waste generator alone does not suggest 

that contamination is present.

One facility, the “ESL Incorporated” at the intersection of West Laraway Road and South 

Patterson Road in Elwood, is classified as a TSD (Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility) 

and large quantity generator. The location of the facility was ascertained, and found to be 

approximately 7,500 feet from the railroad corridor.

Two manufactured gas plants were identified in the EDR report, however, both plants are 

located on the west side of the river, thus contaminants from these sites are unlikely to have 

migrated into the corridor.

EDR identified one dry cleaner, Ajax Cleaners (also known as “Oriental Cleaners”), through 

its database search. The location of the dry cleaner appears to be approximately 300 feet 

west of the railroad corridor. The Des Plaines River is dammed south of Joliet, and 

throughout the center of the city the river is constrained by dikes. PB expects that 

groundwater in shallow aquifers within central Joliet is mounded, and that groundwater 

flows away from the river. Accordingly, Ajax Cleaners is likely upgradient of the HSR 

corridor. The chemicals commonly used at dry cleaners, tetrachloroethylene and 

trichloroethylene, have high mobility in soil and groundwater, thus the migration of these 

substances below the corridor is likely.

Two CERCLIS sites were identified in the database: the American Cyanamid-Cytec 

Industries facility, which is directly west of the railroad corridor at the south edge of Joliet, 

and the Matheson Gas Products facility, also south of Joliet, but approximately 3,600 feet 

east of the corridor. The Cytec facility is no longer in operation. In 2007, the Illinois 

Department of Public Health (IDPH) evaluated the potential risks to the public posed by 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-77

April 2011

known contamination in soil, groundwater and sediments on the Cytec facility and in the 

surrounding area. The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) concluded:

“Currently the American Cyanamid-Cytec Industries site poses no apparent 

public health hazard. Limited data do not suggest that people near the site are 

being exposed to site-related contaminants at levels that would cause adverse 

health effects. Levels of chemicals in on site soil are not at levels that would be 

expected to cause adverse health effects. Exposure to chemicals in private wells 

and on- and off-site surface soil would not pose a health hazard. Exposure to 

contaminated sediments or surface water probably would be occasional, resulting 

in negligible exposure.”6 

The northern portion of the project corridor passes through industrial, commercial, 

residential, and suburban areas of Joliet, Illinois. The areas adjacent to the existing railroad 

tracks generally include roadways, parking lots, and residential yards.

The southern portion of the project passes through agricultural areas. Properties adjacent to 

the tracks are for the most part undeveloped. Vegetation along the tracks and adjacent 

properties did not appear stressed.

Findings for Culvert MP 38.8

At mile marker 38.8, the railroad passes over Sugar Run Creek. Sugar Run Creek begins 

several miles east of the culvert, and flows through and alongside several residential, 

commercial and light industrial areas. Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of the culvert 

below the railroad bed, the creek is confined to a channel that diverts it around a large openpit limestone mine. Mine dewatering pumps discharge water from the pit into Sugar Run 

Creek, approximately 100 feet upstream of the culvert. 

Northwest of the culvert is a pond used by the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad to hold and 

remove oil from runoff water. The EDR report identifies this pond as a permitted industrial 

impoundment structure. Current Will County Assessor records show that this property is 

now owned by the Illinois Department of Transportation, District 1.

Approximately 1,400 feet southwest of the culvert is the American Cyanamid-Cytec facility, 

a former chemical manufacturing company that is included on the USEPA’s CERCLIS 

(Superfund) list. In 2007, the IDPH evaluated the potential risks to the public posed by 

known contamination in soil, groundwater and sediments on the facility and in the 

surrounding area (see above section).

The presence of the open-pit limestone mine is expected to significantly control deep 

groundwater movement. A confining layer appears to exist in the area of the culvert which 

 6 Illinois Department of Public Health, Health Consultation American Cyanamid-Cytec Industries 

Joliet, Will County Illinois EPA Facility ID: ILD000675264, October 16, 2007
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-78

April 2011

prevents water in the creek from draining to deeper water-bearing zones. This same 

confining layer would also help prevent the vertical movement of any contaminants that 

might be present. Based on the anticipated direction of groundwater flow and the 

contaminants that could be present on surrounding properties, the potential that 

contaminated materials will be found in the area of the culvert is small.

Findings for Bridge MP 42.6

The railroad crosses Cedar Creek at MP 42.6, approximately 420 feet south of West Millsdale 

Road in Elwood. Cedar Creek is shown on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps as 

beginning only about one mile east of the crossing in rural farmland south of a relatively 

new subdivision. At the crossing, the USGS mapped the stream as being intermittent. 

Although the ESL Corporation property, a Superfund facility, is shown in the EDR report as 

being in close proximity to the crossing, further research including contact made with Waste 

Management, the successor owner of ESL, showed that the ESL facility was incorrectly 

mapped and is actually three miles north-northwest at the intersection of West Laraway 

Road and South Patterson Road in Elwood.

Findings for Bridge MP 44.4

At mile marker 44.4, the railroad crosses Jackson Creek, which begins several miles east of 

the culvert, and flows through agricultural fields and scattered rural residential 

subdivisions. The EDR report does not identify any likely sources for contamination 

upstream or near the bridge.

3.3.6.2 Findings for the Mazonia Siding Track

Table 3-24 above shows the number of facilities identified within each relevant database 

from the Mazonia Siding track project in Braidwood, Illinois. The EDR database report 

identified two IL NIPC sites approximately one-half mile northwest of the proposed siding 

track near the intersection of Novy and Cemak Roads. NIPC is an inventory of active and 

inactive solid waste disposal sites. The two NIPC sites are likely the same facility and 

essentially no information regarding these sites is provided in the EDR report. Four LUST 

sites were identified near the southern end of the proposed siding track, in the vicinity of 

State Highway 53 (Front Street) and State Highway 113 (Main Street). The former Bergman’s 

Bait and Pet Shop at 108 N. Front Street, near the southern end of the proposed siding track, 

was listed in several databases in the EDR report including SPILLS, ENG CONTROLS, INST 

CONTROLS, SRP, and BROWNFIELDS. Based on the findings in the EDR report, the City 

of Braidwood obtained a grant under the brownfield program to conduct corrective action 

at the site. The property has a land use restriction, groundwater use restriction, and must 

maintain an asphalt pavement barrier to restrict exposure to subsurface contaminants. This 

indicates that residual soil and groundwater contamination remains at the site. The IEPA 

issued a No Further Action/ Remediation (NFA/NFR) letter in March 2006 indicating that no 

further corrective action is necessary. 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-79

April 2011

3.3.6.3 Potential Effects

2nd Mainline Track Project between MP 36.7 and MP 44.69

The addition of a second track to the railroad right-of-way, which would include 

construction of new crossings over Sugar Run Creek, Cedar Creek and Jackson Creek, 

would not be expected to introduce new contaminants to the environment. 

Mazonia Siding Track between MP 55.0 and MP 57.31 

The addition of a siding track in the railroad ROW, would not be expected to introduce new 

contaminants to the environment.

Furthermore, if contaminants do exist in soil or groundwater along the corridor or on other 

properties, no change in the movement of contaminants would be expected. The project 

would not affect nor be affected by hazardous materials; however, wastes from unknown 

sites could be found and may need to be addressed in accordance with Federal and State 

laws and regulations.

If regulated solid or hazardous wastes are found unexpectedly during construction 

activities, work will cease at the suspect site and the construction inspector will contact the 

appropriate environmental agencies. The environmental agency, UPRR, and the contractor 

will develop a plan for sampling, remediation if necessary, and continuing project 

construction.

3.3.6.4 Findings for the 110mph Service 

The EDR report (Appendix A) detailed the presence of 29 LUST sites, six of which are 

located within 500 feet of the project corridor (between MP 44.69 to MP 55.0 and MP 57.31 to 

MP 72.91). The Phibro-Tech and United State Cold Storage facility in Wilmington, which 

border the east side of the railroad are open LUST sites. 

Two LUST locations are situated at the south end of the 110 mph Service area as it passes 

through Wilmington, and near to the planned Mazonia Siding. One of these locations is a 

Circle K gas station. The second location is poorly identified, but may be a motor oil change 

facility.

The EDR database identifies three facilities in the Site Remediation Program (IEPA’s SRP). 

The SRP database identifies properties which are contaminated by general commercial or 

industrial contaminants such as solvents or heavy metals requiring remediation. These sites 

include the Wilmington Cleaners property in Wilmington.

To supplement the information in the EDR Report, PB viewed current and historic aerial 

photographs of the area around Gardner, which are available through Google Earth Pro. 

These aerial photographs show that one historic and three current gas stations are located 

within approximately 250 feet of the Main Street railroad crossing in Gardner, but only two 

of them are identified in the LUST list. “No Further Action” letters have been issued for 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-80

April 2011

these two stations. Additional LUST sites identified in the database are believed to be too 

far away from the corridor to have impacted either soil or groundwater.

3.3.7 Cultural Resources

This section provides an evaluation of historic architectural and archeological resources 

within UPRR ROW. 

3.3.7.1 Existing Conditions

Regulatory Environment

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

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). 

Tribal Consultation 

The 1992 amendments to the NHPA require all federal agencies to consult with Indian 

Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations for undertakings that may affect properties of 

traditional religious and cultural significance. Section 36 CFR 800.2(c) (2)(ii)(A) states that 

"the agency official shall ensure that consultation in the Section 106 process provides the 

Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization a reasonable opportunity to identify its 

concerns about historic properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural 

importance, articulate its views on the undertaking's effects on such properties, and 

participate in the resolution of adverse effects." 

The current version of the regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA, effective 

August 5, 2004, reflects this approach and requires federal agencies to consult with any tribe 

that may attach religious and cultural significance to resources affected by an agency action, 

whether those resources are on or off tribal lands.

Illinois does not have resident federally recognized tribes, but there are non-resident tribal 

groups who have formally declared that that they consider specific portions of Illinois to 

have cultural or historic significance to their group. The 1992 NHPA amendments and 

subsequent revisions to the regulations by the ACHP incorporate provisions which stipulate 

that federal agencies, including the FRA, must consult with Federally-recognized American 

Indian tribes that attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be 

affected by an undertaking. A Project Notification System (PNS) has been developed and 

employed by the IDOT, the Illinois SHPO, and the USDOT (with FHWA the lead agency) to 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-81

April 2011

coordinate transportation projects with tribes that have expressed an interest in Illinois. 

Through the electronic PNS, the tribes contacted are listed in Table 3-25..

Table 3-25. Tribal Groups with an Interest in Will, Grundy and Livingston County, Illinois

Tribe Contacted

Potawatomi Yes

Ho Chunk Yes

Sauk Yes

Fox Yes

Kickapoo Yes

Miami Yes

Potential Impacts

During the current phase of the project, a review of project data by the IDOT Cultural 

Resources Unit lead to a determination that no historic properties will be affected by the 

proposed construction. The Illinois SHPO reviewed this finding and concurred (March 30, 

2011), see Appendix B, page B-1 and B-102.

3.4 Construction Impacts

Impacts associated with construction of the improvements would be local and temporary. 

The most noticeable impacts would likely be noise, vibration, dust, and traffic disruptions. 

There is also the potential for impacts to streams and wetlands. 

These temporary impacts would occur from operation of equipment for installation of 

additional track, rehabilitation of existing track, and upgrade/installation of bridges and 

signal devices. Normal traffic may be flagged at various times to allow entry and exit of 

construction equipment to the project sites via 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 at each site. 

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.

As with any construction project, an increase in noise is expected at construction sites. 

However, construction activity would generally occur on weekdays between the hours of 

7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and so would not interfere with normal activities of persons who 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-82

April 2011

may live or work nearby. Construction noise would be reduced to the extent feasible by 

including specific noise control requirements in the construction contract specifications. The 

specifications should require contractors to: 1) select the equipment and techniques that 

generate the lowest noise levels; 2) use equipment with effective mufflers; 3) certify 

compliance with noise monitoring; 4) select haul routes that minimize truck noise in 

residential areas; and 5) select air compressors that meet federal noise level standards and 

locate them away from or shield them from residences and other sensitive noise receptors.

Vibration during construction is generally limited to annoyance effects and not to building 

damage effects. Vibration impacts could be mitigated by restricting the procedures and 

time permitted for vibration-intensive activities, such as pile-driving and by requiring 

vibration monitoring to certify compliance with vibration limits. In addition, an active 

community liaison program could be implemented to ensure residents are kept informed of 

construction activities and have a means to register complaints.

For the more vibration-intensive activities, care would be taken to prevent vibration damage 

to adjacent structures. In areas where vibration is anticipated, surveys could be conducted 

before construction begins to aid in documenting damage that may occur as a result of 

construction.

Construction could temporarily impact floodplains, wetlands, streams, and surrounding 

stream banks. Track improvements would involve replacement of some rail, crossties and 

track ballast, plus other improvements to trackside equipment. These procedures are 

primarily restricted to the current right-of-way. Where a new second track is added, 

extension of culvert or bridge structures are required, with temporary construction impacts 

where new bridge structures are installed. New track installation would also require 

subgrade preparation and earthwork. 

These potential impacts would be minimized, however, as the contractor would be required 

to avoid wetlands during the establishment of construction staging areas and other 

construction activities. In addition, erosion, sedimentation and bank stabilization measures 

would be employed where construction occurs at or near creeks or creek crossings, 

consistent with the IDOT Bureau of Design and Environment Manual, and IDOT’s Standard 

Specification for Road and Bridge Construction, January 1, 2007.

3.5 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts

3.5.1 Secondary Impacts

Secondary (indirect) impacts are defined as reasonably foreseeable future consequences to 

the environment that are caused by the proposed action, but that would occur either in the 

future (later in time) or near, but not in the same location as, direct impacts associated with 

implementation of a build alternative. Under the CEQ regulations, indirect impacts are 

defined as those that are “... caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects would include growth-
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-83

April 2011

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 ecosystem” (40 CFR 1508.8b).

Indirect impacts can be associated with the consequences of land use change and

development that would be indirectly supported by changes in local access or mobility. 

Indirect impacts differ from those directly associated with the construction and operation of 

a project itself and are often caused by what is commonly referred to as “induced 

development.” Induced development would include a variety of alterations such as 

changes in land use, economic vitality, property values and/or population density. The 

potential for secondary impacts to occur is determined in part by local land-use and 

development-planning objectives and the physical location of a proposed action. 

With the No Build Alternative, the existing rail service along the project corridor would 

continue. Over time, a potential indirect effect could be to bring additional attention to a 

need for improvements to rail service along the corridor to accommodate additional rail 

traffic. 

The Preferred Alternative would result in indirect impacts as the improved operability of 

rail traffic could result in further development along the corridor. Local review boards 

would be responsible for investigating the impacts to water, sewer, traffic and other 

environmental factors from future development. The 2nd mainline track project area is 

already planned for future industrial development as part of the redevelopment of the Joliet 

Arsenal in Elwood. The area surrounding the Mazonia siding project corridor is designated 

private recreational development and unlikely to change to commercial or industrial uses. 

Other areas of the Joliet to Dwight corridor are located in rural agricultural areas and 

approximately 4.0 miles cross the MNTP (formerly Joliet Arsenal) between Elwood and 

Wilmington and runs parallel to IL Route 53. No additional stations are planned between 

Joliet and Dwight.

3.5.2 Cumulative Impacts

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. Under 

the CEQ regulations, cumulative effects are defined as “...the impact on the environment 

which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) 

or person undertakes such other actions.” Cumulative effects can result from individually 

minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). 

The cumulative effects analysis considers the aggregate effects of direct and indirect impacts 

– from federal, non-federal, public, or private actions – on the quality or quantity of a 

resource.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-84

April 2011

The intent of a 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. Contributions to cumulative effects associated 

with the Preferred Alternative on the resources analyzed would be limited to those derived 

from the direct and secondary impacts of the action.

The No Build Alternative would have a slight negative contribution to cumulative impacts. 

The No Build Alternative would not provide any benefits to regional air quality because it 

would continue the existing recognized rail “choke point” between Joliet and Braceville.

The Preferred Alternative would have slight beneficial contributions to cumulative impacts. 

The proposed improved operability of freight and passenger rail service is expected to 

provide an overall benefit to air quality. The improvements are expected to significantly 

reduce train idling and provide faster Amtrak service to motorists who would otherwise 

travel between Chicago and St. Louis by motor vehicle. The improvements to the grade 

crossing treatments will benefit the safety of motorists crossing the railroad.

3.6 Permits

3.6.1 Applicable Regulations and Permits

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the USACE.

Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill 

materials into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The introduction of fill or other 

materials (other than pre-cast structures) below the ordinary high water line of surface 

waters such as rivers, streams, ponds, wetlands, or unavoidable filling of wetlands 

would require a Section 404 permit.

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Water Quality certification from the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency.

States are granted authority to review activities in waterways and wetlands and to issue 

water quality certifications under Section 401. The Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (IEPA) issues a Section 401 Water Quality certification for all activities requiring 

a dredge and fill permit. Under the state’s antidegradation policy, individual water 

quality certifications would be subject to public review. A Section 401 permit is 

mandatory for all projects requiring a Section 404 permit.

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) Construction Permit from the IEPA.

Because the proposed project would potentially disturb 0.4 hectares (1 acre), it would be 

subject to the requirement for an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from the 

construction site(s). Permit coverage would be obtained under the IEPA General Permit 

for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Site Activities (NPDES Permit No. ILR10). 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-85

April 2011

A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan would be prepared and implemented, in 

accordance with requirements under the NPDES permit(s). 

Construction in Floodways of Rivers, Lakes, and Streams from the Illinois Department 

of Natural Resources (IDNR), Office of Water Resources.

The IDNR Office of Water Resources issues permits for work within regulatory 

floodways or public waters, and for the crossing of streams with more than 259 hectares 

(640 acres) of drainage area.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

If endangered species are identified during the project, all activity in the immediate area 

would cease. Coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be initiated as 

required by Section 7, and appropriate state or federal permits would be sought.

The IDNR issues permits for incidental takes of state-listed threatened or endangered 

species.

Air Permits.

To control local air pollution impacts, a permit may be required for portable bituminous 

and concrete plants used in project construction.

IDOT Requirements.

Prior to construction, erosion control fencing would be placed at the limits of 

construction. Zones of fill, grading, compaction, or equipment movement would be

restricted to areas outside the protective fencing. Impacts from silt and sedimentation 

would be minimized through adherence to erosion control measures outlined in IDOT’s 

Standard Specification’s for Road and Bridge Construction, January 1, 2007.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (42 Federal Register [FR 26951)

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetland (42 FR 26961)

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629)

Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency (65 FR 50121)

Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 

FR 28545 and 49 CFR Part 260.35)

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC § 4321 et seq., signed January 1, 

1970)

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (40 CFR 1500–1508)
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

3.0 Environmental Resources, Impacts and Mitigation

Page 3-86

April 2011

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 USC § 303)

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 USC § 460)

Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC § 401)

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 USC § 470)

Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC § 1344)

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended (42 USC § 61)

Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Final Rule (40 CFR 222 and 

229)
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

4.0 Coordination and Consultation

Page 4-i

April 2011

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

4.1 Meetings............................................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Coordination Letters .......................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Agencies ............................................................................................................................4-1

4.3.1 Letters and Other Contacts......................................................................................4-2

4.3.2 Native American Tribal Consultation ...................................................................4-2

4.3.3 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Consultation....................................4-2

4.3.4 Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Consultation.......................4-2

UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

4.0 Coordination and Consultation

Page 4-1

April 2011

4.0 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION

Public involvement is an important part of any IDOT project planning process. In addition 

to working with the requisite federal and state agencies, IDOT efforts for this Environmental 

Assessment included outreach to a wide variety of stakeholders along the project corridor.

4.1 Meetings

To assist with coordination, two outreach meetings have been held with various 

stakeholders. The first stakeholder public outreach meeting for the project was held on May 

12th, 2010 at the City of Joliet, City Hall to review the 2nd mainline Track EA and a proposed 

Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the Mazonia Siding Project in Braceville. After the meeting 

on May 12th, it was determined to include the CE in the EA document. See Appendix B for 

meeting minutes and comments.

As result of stakeholder comments regarding the location for the Mazonia Siding, an 

alternative location was determined by the UPRR in July 2010. Discussion with IDOT and 

FRA determined that the new location should be reviewed as a project component of the EA 

document. 

A second stakeholder outreach meeting was held on March 24th, 2011 to review the upgrade 

of track from Joliet to Dwight for 110 mile per hour service, as well as the new Mazonia 

Siding location and the addition of a second mainline track from Joliet to Elwood. This 

meeting built upon the information provided at the first stakeholder meeting; it also 

included all of the additional infrastructure requirements to complete the installation of the 

new 110 mile per hour track.

Additional stakeholder outreach meetings will be scheduled to receive public comments on 

the Joliet to Dwight Track Improvement options. These meetings will be held pending the 

final location of the siding track and other issues affecting the decision regarding this 

project.

4.2 Coordination Letters

Agency coordination is a necessary and crucial component of project development. Agency 

coordination in this project included working with a wide variety of agencies, including 

lead, participating, consulting and potentially affected agencies.

4.3 Agencies

The agencies that were engaged in the Environmental Assessment are listed in Chapter 6.0. 

Letters sent to agencies are shown in Appendix B. Includes letters sent in July 2010 for the 

2nd mainline track EA and the Mazonia Siding CE, and letters sent in March 2011 for this EA. 

All agencies were given the option to review the EA to provide comments. After all 

comments have been received from the agencies, additional coordination may be necessary 
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

4.0 Coordination and Consultation

Page 4-2

April 2011

to address issues or concerns with the project. All coordination will be conducted in 

accordance of FRA procedures. 

4.3.1 Letters and Other Contacts

Letters were sent to the agencies informing them of the EA, detailing the history of the 

project, the project scope, asking for information to complete the EA and any comments the 

agency representative may have had.

4.3.2 Native American Tribal Consultation

The 1992 National Historic Preservation Act amendments and subsequent revisions to the 

regulations by the ACHP incorporate provisions which stipulate that federal agencies, 

including the FRA, must consult with Federally-recognized American Indian tribes that 

attach religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by an 

undertaking. A PNS has been developed and employed by the IDOT, the SHPO, and the 

USDOT (with FHWA) the lead agency) to coordinate transportation projects with tribes that 

have expressed an interest in Illinois (there are no tribal lands or resident tribes within 

Illinois). Through the electronic PNS, the following tribes have been notified concerning the 

project: Miami, Ho Chunk, Potawatomi, Kickapoo, and the Sauk & Fox.

4.3.3 State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Consultation

The SHPO was contacted for this project. A letter of concurrence is included in Appendix B. 

Includes SHPO concurrence for the 2nd mainline track EA and the Mazonia Siding CE, and 

SHPO concurrence for this EA. Additional coordination with the SHPO will take place, 

pending approval of this project.

4.3.4 Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Consultation

The IDNR was contacted for this project by using the EcoCAT. The results of the EcoCAT 

are included in Appendix B. Includes EcoCAT for the 2nd mainline track and the Mazonia 

Siding from EA prepared in April 2010. A letter from the IDNR terminating consultation 

under 17 Illinois Administrative Code Part 1075 is shown in Appendix B for the EA 

prepared in April 2010. Also, included in Appendix B is an EcoCAT for this EA. Additional 

coordination with the IDNR will take place, pending approval of this project.
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

5.0 Distribution List

Page i

April 2011

5.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST ............................................................................................1

5.1 Agency Coordination.........................................................................................................1

5.1.1 Federal Agencies..........................................................................................................1

5.1.2 State Agencies ..............................................................................................................1

5.1.3 Other Agencies and Commissions ............................................................................1

5.1.4 Counties ........................................................................................................................2

5.1.5 Local Communities and Jurisdictions.......................................................................2

5.1.6 Other Organizations....................................................................................................2

5.1.7 Railroads .......................................................................................................................2

UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

5.0 Distribution List

Page 1

April 2011

5.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST

5.1 Agency Coordination

5.1.1 Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Federal Highway Administration, Illinois Division

Federal Transit Administration, Region 5

National Park Service

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District

U.S. Coast Guard, Ninth District

U.S. Department of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Region - R9

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife, Chicago Field Office

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5

U.S. Senator Richard Durbin

U.S. Senator Roland Burris

U.S. Representative, Debbie Halvorsen, District No. 11

5.1.2 State Agencies

Illinois Commerce Commission

Illinois Department of Agriculture

Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Illinois Department of Public Health 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Illinois Geological Survey

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency

Illinois Natural History Survey

Illinois Nature Preserves Commission

Illinois State Library

Illinois State Water Survey

5.1.3 Other Agencies and Commissions

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

Regional Transportation Authority
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

5.0 Distribution List

Page 2

April 2011

5.1.4 Counties

Grundy

Livingston

Will

5.1.5 Local Communities and Jurisdictions

Braceville

Braidwood

Dwight

Dwight Township

Gardner

Godley

Goodfarm Township

Elwood

Jackson Township

Joliet

Wilmington

5.1.6 Other Organizations

Center for Neighborhood Technology

Environmental Law and Policy Center

Exelon Corporation (Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station)

Illinois Farm Bureau

National Trust for Historic Preservation (Gaylord Building)

South Suburban Mayors & Managers Association

United Counties Council of Illinois

Will County Governmental League

5.1.7 Railroads

Amtrak

Canadian National Railway

Union Pacific Railroad Company
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

6.0 References

Page 6-1

April 2011

6.0 REFERENCES

2007 Census of Agriculture, February 2009, updated September 2009. Illinois State and County 

Data, Volume 1 – Geographic Area Series – Part 13. United States Department of 

Agriculture.

Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

http://dnr.state.il.us

City of Braidwood Comprehensive Plan, December 2004.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2008. Integrating Multiple Taxa in a Biological Stream 

Rating System. Office of Resource Conservation.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Illinois Integrated Water Quality Report and 

Section 303(d) LIST – 2010. Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 Water 

Resource Assessment Information and Listing of Impaired Waters. Appendix B. Draft.

US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory Map, 

Elwood, various years.

US Geological Survey, 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles, Elwood, IL. Various years.

US Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps, Will County, various years.

IDOT District 3, Traffic Data 

Joliet Arsenal Area Long-Range Transportation Plan, April 2004. Joliet Arsenal Development 

Authority. 

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Final Environmental Impact Statement (2002) amended in 2007 

and 2008.

Pescitelli, Stephen M., and Robert C. Rung. 2005. Evaluation of Fish Communities and Stream 

Quality in the Jackson Creek Watershed (Des Plaines River Basin), September, 2003. 

Office of Region II Streams Office, Division of Fisheries. 

Shelford, Victor E. 1978. Animal Communities in Temperate North America: Illustrated in the 

Chicago Region in Animal Ecology. Ayer Co. Publishing. 368p. 

Will County Depart of Highways 2020 Transportation Plan
UPRR’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight IL, Environmental Assessment

6.0 References

Page 6-2

April 2011

Will County Department of Highways 2020 Transportation Plan

Will County Land Resource Management Plan
APPENDIX A

AGENCY COORDINATION

<Signed copies of responses to USDA and USFWS  

comment letters will be included in the final version>



APPENDIX B

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Since the publication of the Environmental Assessment (EA) minor changes to the proposed 

action have resulted in additional analysis being needed for Noise and Vibration and Tree 

Resources. The additional information and analysis gathered for these project changes is 

reported below. No additional analysis was needed for Air Quality and Energy, Floodplains, 

Visual Resources, and Agriculture. 

Noise and Vibration

Noise Evaluation

The FRA screening procedure identifies a screening distance for both obstructed and 

unobstructed urban conditions and for quiet suburban/rural areas. Given the generally rural 

nature of the corridor, the quiet suburban/rural area screening distance of 500 feet was used to 

screen the project corridor. Sensitive receptors were identified along the length of the Dwight 

Siding and include two single-family residences (SFR), depicted in Figure 1A. This includes 

receptor R1 that was originally included in the analysis and a new receptor (RDS) to assess the 

residence on the siding side of the track corridor.

Along the length of the Dwight Siding, there are two public at-grade railroad crossings. Both of 

these at-grade crossings are not within a 24-hour quiet zone and therefore train operators are 

required to use train horns on approach to the crossing. Both of the receptors are within 1⁄4 mile 

of the crossings and therefore the evaluation includes horn noise in the assessment for these 

receptors. 

Based on the train traffic volumes and characteristics used in the April 2011 EA, the existing and 

build noise levels were predicted for the two receptors along the Dwight Siding. Table 1

summarizes the results of this analysis.

Table 1. General Assessment Noise Analysis Results

Receptor 

Number

Dist. 

to Ex. 

Main 

Track, 

ft.

Horn 

Noise 

Included

Receptor 

Type

Noise 

Metric

Project Noise 

Levels, dB(A)

Build 

Incr. 

Over 

Exist., 

dB(A)

Allowed 

Increase 

(Moderate 

Impact) Impact

Existing/ 

No-Build Build

R1 118 Yes SFR Ldn 79 79 0 0

No 

Impact

RDS 223 Yes SFR Ldn 77 77 0 0

No 

Impact

As noted in Table 1, noise impacts associated with changes to this element of the proposed 

project are not anticipated. A detailed noise analysis and a noise abatement evaluation are,

therefore, not warranted as no impacts have been identified. The overall general assessment for 
the entire project limits has not changed, as there were no noise impacts identified along the 

corridor.

Vibration Evaluation

The screening assessment for potential vibration effects was based on land use coupled with an 

appropriately conservative screening distance obtained from the FRA guidance manual. The 

screening distance for residential land uses with infrequent events along a corridor with speeds 

between 100 mph and 200 mph is 100 feet. There are no sensitive receptors identified within this 

screening distance, therefore, a vibration evaluation is not required for the Dwight Siding.

Tree Resources

The following summarizes the results of the additional investigations on tree resources 

performed since publication of the EA. 

North of Gardner between MP 58.0 and MP 60.0

A few scattered stands of red oak (Quercus rubra) and black oak (Quercus velutina) are located 

within the UPRR right-of-way on the west side of the UPRR, north of Kankakee Road, an

continuing north to Division Street. Other tree species present in this area include: Russian 

olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), glossy buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), green ash (Fraxinus 

pennsylvanica subintegerrima), peach-leaved willow (Salix amygdaloides), and Siberian elm (Ulmus

pumila). 

Dwight to Gardner between MP 66.0 and MP 70.0 

Dominant trees species located between Dwight and Gardner include: eastern cottonwood 

(Populus deltoides), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), 

eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), white mulberry (Morus alba), green ash, and slippery 

elm (Ulmus rubra). 

Dwight Siding Track between MP 70.18 and MP 72.78

The area on the west side of the UPRR right-of-way within the Dwight Siding track area i

comprised of few small, scattered trees. The following trees species were present in this area: 

eastern cottonwood, autumn olive, common buckthorn, eastern red cedar, white mulberry, 

green ash, and slippery elm. 

Tree impacts as a result of the proposed project are anticipated to be minimal. Tree impacts can 

be mitigated by replacing trees that cannot be avoided and minimizing impacts to the mature 

forested areas.
C-1

APPENDIX C

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

Since the publication of the Environmental Assessment (EA), minor changes to the proposed 

action have resulted in additional analysis being needed for Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. 

and Threatened and Endangered Species. The additional information and analysis gathered for 

these project changes is reported below. No additional analysis was needed for Water Quality 

and Water Resources or Special Lands. 

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.

Wetlands in the project corridor were identified using U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) 

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping data, aerial photography, high-rail surveys 

conducted on March 24, 2011, and on-the-ground surveys conducted in the southern portion of 

the project corridor on July 25, 2011. On-the-ground surveys and high-rail surveys included an 

evaluation of wetlands onsite and did not include wetland delineations. The on-the-ground 

surveys conducted in July 2011 assessed the general quality of the wetlands and their 

approximate locations and included non-wetland Waters of the US (WOUS). Wetlands were 

delineated at four locations (Jackson Creek Bridge, Cedar Creek Bridge, Sugar Run Bridge, and 

a section near Mazonia) during field investigations in 2010. The wetland delineations for the 

above mentioned bridges are provided in the EA. 

All wetlands within the project area are within the Des Plaines River or the Kankakee River 

watersheds. Additional wetlands may be present within the project corridor and will be 

delineated during the permitting process. 

Overall Project Corridor Wetland Screening – Joliet to Dwight

A summary of wetlands identified via NWI map review as well as the results from the high-rail 

wetland survey and wetland delineations conducted at the UPRR crossing of Jackson Creek, 

Cedar Creek, and Sugar Run, and a portion of the Mazonia areas is provided in the EA. 

Additional wetland areas may be present within the project corridor. Prior to construction, 

wetland delineations will be completed and permits will be obtained, if necessary.

The majority of wetlands in the project corridor are located near or along stream or ditched 

channels. In addition, there are patchy wet prairies located in swales along the railroad. Major 

portions of the project area are developed (within the City of Joliet). Agricultural fields are 

prevalent south of Joliet. There are limited opportunities for isolated wetlands to develop in 

areas with agricultural fields since historically, many agricultural fields in northern Illinois were 

ditched or tiled, which eliminated wetlands in these areas. The general locations and quality of 

potential wetland areas are summarized by sections of the corridor. 
C-2

Joliet to Elwood (MP 38.0 to MP 46.0)

Wetlands associated with Sugar Creek, tributaries to Cedar Creek, Cedar Creek and Jackson

Creek are located within the Joliet to Elwood section. The majority of this area was delineated 

and included in the April 2011 EA. 

Elwood to Wilmington (MP46.0 to MP 52.0)

Several wet areas are located on the west side of the existing track between Elwood and 

Wilmington. The majority of the potential wetlands are degraded. Small, moderate quality wet 

prairies and moderate quality scrub-shrub wet areas are present in this section. Moderate to 

high quality wet prairie areas adjacent to the railroad right-of-way are located within Midewin 

National Tallgrass Prairie. 

In addition, wetlands may be associated with Grant Creek, Prairie Creek, and an unnamed 

tributary to the Kankakee River. Several mapped NWI wetlands are located within this section 

of the project, and are included in Table 3-9 of the EA. 

Wilmington to Braidwood (MP52.0 to MP 57.3)

High quality wet remnant prairie, associated with the Hitts Siding Prairie Nature Preserve, is 

located on the west side of the UPRR, between Coal City Road and West Strip Mine Road, south 

of Wilmington. The majority of the high quality wet prairie associated with Hitts Siding Prairie 

Nature Preserve is located just outside of the railroad right-of-way.

A degraded drainage ditch is present on the east side of the tracks from Coal City Road to 

Illinois Route 129 (IL 129). The drainage ditch is dominated by invasive species, however, high 

quality species were observed within the ditch as well. Portions of the ditch were scrub-shrub 

plant communities. A scrub-shrub wetland community is located south of IL 129.

North of East 1st Street to Lighthouse Lane in Wilmington is a mixture of low-quality scrubshrub plant communities with moderate quality mesic to wet vegetation communities. 

In addition, wetlands may be associated with Forked Creek and the Kankakee River. Several 

mapped NWI wetlands are located within this section of the project, and are included in Table 

3-9 in the EA. 

Braidwood to Gardner (MP57.3 to MP 65.0)

High quality remnant wet prairie areas are present on the west side of the UPRR, between 

Mitchell Road and County Road 500 South. There are small patches of degraded wet areas 

mixed in with the high quality remnant wet prairie areas; however, the overall area identified as 

both wet prairie and small patches of degraded wetlands would be considered high quality 

(have an FQI of 20 or greater and/or a native mean C of 4.0 or greater). 

A moderate quality ditch is located south of County Road 500 South to the Mazon River. 
C-3

A ditch and tributary system and adjacent wetland areas associated with the Mazon River are 

located between Illinois Route 53 (IL 53) and the east side of the UPRR, extending north from 

the Village of Gardner to the Mazon River. Wetland areas adjacent to the ditch and tributary 

are degraded with some patches of moderate quality wet remnant prairie.

A degraded drainage ditch is present on the east side of the UPRR from Division Street to South 

Kankakee Street. A degraded ditch is also present south of Kankakee Street continuing south to 

the Mazon River. A drainage ditch with scrub-shrub vegetation is present, adjacent to the east 

side of the UPRR, north of the Mazon River. 

In addition, wetlands may be associated with Jackson Creek, an unnamed tributary to Mazon 

River, and the Mazon River. Several mapped NWI wetlands are located within this section of 

the project, and are included in Table 3-9 of the EA. 

Gardner to Dwight (MP 65.0 to MP 73.0)

High quality remnant wet prairie areas are present on the west side of the UPRR, beginning just 

south of Gardner and continuing south to Illinois Route 47 (IL 47). There are small patches of 

degraded wet areas and moderate to high quality upland areas mixed in with the high quality 

remnant wet prairie areas. The overall area identified as both wet prairie and small patches of 

degraded wetlands would be considered high quality (have an FQI of 20 or greater and/or a 

native mean C of 4.0 or greater). The highest quality remnant prairie areas within the project 

corridor are located in this section. 

Between the north end of the proposed Dwight Siding and the Village of Gardner, a drainage 

ditch with steep side slopes is present along the east side of the UPRR. The majority of the ditch 

is degraded; however, patches of moderate to high quality mesic/wet prairie remnants are 

present in this area as well. Moderate to high quality mesic/wet prairie remnants located on the 

east side of the UPRR, are present adjacent to high quality remnant prairie areas on the west 

side of the UPRR.

In Dwight, Gooseberry Creek (a Waters of the US – WOUS) has been channelized along the 

west side of the UPRR tracks. Wetlands may be associated with an unnamed tributary to the 

Mazon River, Woods Run, and an unnamed tributary to Goose Creek. In addition, multiple 

NWI mapped wetlands are located within this section of the project and are summarized in 

Table 3-9 in the April 2011 EA. 

Dwight Siding (MP 70.2 to MP 72.3)

The proposed Dwight Siding, located east of the existing tracks, consists of moderate to high 

quality patches of mesic/wet remnant prairie. Two small un-vegetated drainage ditches are 

present adjacent to the east side of the UPRR south of Livingston Road and County Road 100 

East. Woods Run crosses beneath the UPRR within the Dwight Siding area. Moderate quality 
C-4

depressional wetlands with patches of high quality remnant prairie are also present between 

Old Mazon Road and the north end of the proposed siding. 

Wetland Plant Communities

Seven (7) types of wetland plant communities were identified in the project corridor. These 

include open water, marsh, sedge meadow, wet meadow, ditch, wet shrub, and forested. 

Open water habitats include WOUS. Marsh wetlands are generally herbaceous dominated 

wetlands in depressional areas or along the banks of creeks. Sedge meadows and wet meadows 

within the project corridor are herbaceous dominated wetlands, specifically sedge dominant in 

sedge meadows, located primarily along both sides of the UPRR, between Braidwood and 

Gardner, between Gardner and Dwight, and in small areas within Midewin National Tallgrass 

Prairie. The shrub and forested wetlands are primarily along the banks of creeks and in 

isolated patches along both sides of the UPRR. Forested wetlands are dominated by trees and 

include depressional and riparian areas. Mesic to wet prairie remnants may also be present 

within the corridor. Mesic to wet prairies are dominated by perennial, native grasses and forbs.

Although none of the delineated wetlands found along the UPRR tracks included in the 2010 

wetland delineations are considered to be High Quality Aquatic Resources, there are potential 

high quality wetlands within the corridor. These areas will be evaluated during formal wetland 

delineations prior to construction. Will County, Grundy County, and Livingston County have 

not adopted the USEPA Advanced Identification (ADID) program, which inventories high 

quality wetlands. Therefore, ADID wetlands are not within the project limits.

Farmed Wetlands

A farmed wetland determination has not been completed for the project corridor. The majority 

of the project area is located within railroad right-of-way, which is not farmed. If farmed areas 

will be impacted, a farmed wetland determination will be completed prior to permitting. 

Wetlands Affected

The assessment of potential wetland impacts is based upon direct impacts related to bridge and 

track construction, which includes areas within the proposed right-of-way and environmental 

survey limits. Proposed construction includes placement of fill for new bridge abutments or 

piers and embankment for new track adjacent to the existing tracks. Wetland impacts related to 

construction would include vegetation removal, placement of clean fill, and changes to the 

wetland hydrologic regime. Besides wetland acreage loss, wetland functions and values could 

be affected by the proposed project.

Wetland impacts for the entire project corridor will need to be assessed after wetland 

delineations are completed and engineering plans have been developed. Anticipated impacts 

for the bridge improvements are provided in the April 2011 EA. Under the implementing 

regulations of the Illinois Interagency Wetland Policy Act (IWPA) of 1989, impacts to wetlands 
C-5

that have an FQI of 20 or greater require a mitigation ratio of 5.5 to 1.0. High quality areas are 

present within portions of the project corridor.

Avoidance and Measures to Minimize Harm

Recognizing the conceptual engineering detail of the project, efforts will be made in future 

phases of work to avoid and minimize additional wetland impacts. Avoidance and 

minimization can be accomplished in the following ways:

• Narrower railroad cross-section with the use of:

• Retaining walls

• Steeper embankments

• Bridging critical wetland resources

Avoiding and minimizing impacts to wetland resources may be constrained by other critical 

resources or local issues.

Wetland Mitigation

Objectives for mitigation will be established in consultation with regulatory and resource 

agencies on the following major issues:

• Purchase of mitigation credits from a commercial wetland bank

• Type of compensatory wetland mitigation

• In-kind replacement

• Functional replacement

• Ratio of wetland mitigation replacement

• Location of wetland mitigation replacement

The State of Illinois, in the IWPA, has established compensatory wetland mitigation ratios for all 

state-funded projects. The established ratios generally are more stringent than those established

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The highest mitigation ratio of 5.5:1 will apply 

for wetland impacts in the following cases:

• Alteration of wetlands that contain state or federal, threatened or endangered species

• Wetlands that contain essential habitat for state or federal listed species

• Presence of an Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) site

• A mean C-value of 4.0 or more (Swink and Wilhelm, 1994)

• Individual wetlands with a FQI of 20 or more (Swink and Wilhelm, 1994)

Location of the compensatory wetland mitigation sites would be determined following 

agreement on the wetland replacement ratio and other mitigation objectives. Appropriate 

environmental studies would be conducted for the selected mitigation sites, including an 

evaluation of the environmental features of the site, existing resources, suitability for wetland 

resource creation and restoration and potential effects of mitigation creation at the selected 

location. 

Preferences for mitigation are as follows:
C-6

1. Wetland mitigation banking within a USACE approved bank.1

2. Onsite, within the same hydrologic unit and less than one mile from the project site.2

3. Off-site, within basin—the same hydrologic unit but more than one mile from the project 

site.

4. Off-site, out of basin—compensation not provided within the watershed of affected 

wetlands.

State mitigation ratios are determined by the size of the impact (over or under 0.5 acres) and the 

location of the mitigation site (onsite, off-site, out-of-basin). Since the project will most likely 

exceed the threshold for a Programmatic Action, the project will require a wetland 

compensation plan and coordination with the IDNR. The project may not meet Programmatic 

Action thresholds due to total wetland and WOUS impacts along the entire project and the 

potential to impact high quality aquatic resources and wetlands that may harbor state listed 

species. It is anticipated that impacts for this project will be mitigated by the purchase of credits 

from wetland banks.

Wetland sites occur within the Chicago and Rock Island Districts of the USACE. The UPRR 

will secure all natural resources permits prior to construction. This includes, but is not limited 

to the Section 404 permit from the USACE, Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the 

IEPA, and/or other permits that may be required. Prior to construction and as part of the 

wetland permitting process, the UPRR will secure the necessary wetland mitigation as required 

for the Section 404 Permit. As wetland banking is the most efficient manner to provide wetland 

mitigation, the UPRR will provide the name of the wetland bank utilized as well as proof of 

purchase of the required credits.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Both federal and state listed threatened and endangered species and special lands occur along 

the project corridor in Will, Grundy, and Livingston Counties. These are described in detail in 

the attached EA. The Preferred Alternative is not expected to have significant impacts to these 

resources. Prior to construction, specific information concerning the presence of state and 

federal listed species would be obtained. Coordination with U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS)

and Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) has been initiated concerning the 

potential for the project to affect federal or state threatened or endangered species. This 

 1 The option most preferred is mitigation bank credits. See the Compensatory Mitigation for Losses 

of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (April 10, 2008).

2 Mitigation site selection will consider the potential to attract waterfowl and other bird species 

that might pose a threat to aircraft. FAA Advisory Circular, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or 

Near Airports, (Advisory Circular No: 150/5200-33B) recommends that wetland mitigation 

projects that may attract hazardous wildlife be sited at least 10,000 feet from the air operations 

area of an airport serving turbine-powered aircraft, 5,000 feet from the air operations of an 

airport serving piston-powered aircraft, and five statute miles if the attractant may cause 

hazardous wildlife movement into or across the approach or departure airspace.
C-7

coordination and consultation will continue as needed to assure that appropriate mitigation 

measures are incorporated into the project to minimize or avoid impacts to protected plant and 

animal species.

A coordination meeting was held with the Chicago Ecological Office of the FWS and the project 

team on June 21, 2011 (See Appendix A for associated correspondence). FWS determined at this 

meeting that species-specific surveys should be conducted for two of the federally listed species 

as suitable habitat is present within the project corridor. Surveys were requested for the eastern 

prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea, EPFO) and the leafy prairie clover (Dalea foliosa).

FRA has committed to completing the surveys for these species. The survey for the leafy prairie 

clover will extend past the completion of the FONSI. FRA will forward the findings of the 

plants surveys that were completed in 2011 upon completion in late summer 2011. If any 

federally listed species are observed during the surveys, FRA will notify the FWS for 

compliance with Section 7 consultation. 

FRA will commit to coordinate with the IDNR concerning the presence or absence of state listed 

species. If IDNR requires on the ground surveys for specific species, FRA will commit to 

completing the surveys prior to construction. If any state listed species are observed during the 

surveys, the FRA will notify the IDNR for compliance with Illinois State regulations. 

Both federal and state listed threatened and endangered species are known to occur within Will, 

Grundy, and Livingston Counties. The individual species are identified in the EA and were 

verified in July 2011 on the FWS database. Threatened and endangered species potentially 

occurring in the project corridor were identified from information supplied by the IDNR (IDNR, 

2011) and the FWS Section 7 Consultation (FWS, 2011). 

Federally-Listed Species

According to an on-line review of federally Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and Candidate 

Species (FWS, July 2011), nine species are listed in Will, Grundy, and Livingston Counties, 

Illinois. These are identified in the EA.

Prairie remnants inclusive of mesic to wet prairies, dry rocky prairies, and late successional 

tallgrass prairies are present within and adjacent to the project limits. As a result, habitat 

conditions are suitable for the Eastern prairie fringed orchid (EPFO) and the leafy prairie clover, 

which are discussed below. 

Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid

The EPFO has been observed in Illinois at various locations. Habitat for the EPFO includes wet 

to mesic prairie, wetlands including sedge meadows, fens, marshes, and marsh edges and 

occasionally sphagnum bogs. It occupies a wide range of moisture regimes. The EPFO prefers 

full sun conditions and therefore favors marshes and meadows; however, the species may 

inhabit relic habitat areas which have been subject to degradation from invasive trees and 

shrubs. 
C-8

Specific surveys were conducted for the EPFO in moderate to high quality wetlands, sedge 

meadows, marshes, and mesic to wet prairies within the project corridor. The following 

summarizes the EPFO survey methodology and results.

Due to the linear nature of the project and the rights-of-way, much of the habitat area was 

investigated by time meander search within the right-of-way. Time meander surveys were 

conducted within areas that were determined to be suitable habitat for the EPFO. Surveys were 

conducted to determine the presence/absence of the orchid. Surveys were conducted for a total 

of 214.25 field hours, expended on the dates shown in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid Field Survey Hours

Date (2011) Survey-Hours

June 30 14.0

July 11 34.75

July 12 35.0

July 13 27.50

July 14 17.25

July 15 32.75

July 19 23.75

July 20 29.25

Total 214.25

The EPFO survey was initiated at the macro level, utilizing existing information from as many 

resources as available to identify potential EPFO habitat within the project corridor. This 

included, but was not limited to, a review of data from the following sources; the FWS, the 

IDNR, the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS), local forest preserve and conservation 

districts, as well as local conservation groups. Information included both known locations of 

the EPFO or known suitable habitat sites. These sites were mapped on the aerial photographs 

which were utilized during the field surveys.

Subsequently, the EPFO survey included general field assessments at the macro level. This 

included a general assessment of areas identified in the initial study phase, as well as an 

investigation of potential known siding and ground disturbance areas. This level of survey was 

conducted through the use of high-rail access. The goal of using high-rail access was to identify 

the locations of suitable EPFO habitat present along the length of the proposed alternatives. 

The high-rail survey, conducted on June 29, 2011, focused on the overall composition of the 

vegetative community and plant associates. Additionally, certain specific areas were 

investigated in more detail on-foot during the macro-level survey on June 29. The areas 

determined to be highest potential habitat for the EPFO are described below. 
C-9

Sharp Road (MP 42.0)

A small, high quality wet to mesic prairie remnant located within the UPRR right-of-way, west 

of the UPRR, and immediately south of Sharp Road (approximately M.P. 42.0) contains suitable 

habitat for the EPFO. 

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie (MP 50.0 to MP 51.0)

High quality wet prairie remnant areas located within Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, 

outside of the UPRR right-of-way, and west of the UPRR contain suitable habitat for the EPFO. 

Wilmington to Braidwood (MP52.0 to MP 57.3)

High quality wet to mesic remnant prairie areas, associated with the Hitts Siding Prairie Nature 

Preserve, located on the west side of the UPRR, between Coal City Road and West Strip Mine 

Road, south of Wilmington contain suitable habitat for the EPFO. The majority of the high 

quality wet to mesic prairie associated with Hitts Siding Prairie Nature Preserve is located just 

outside of the UPRR right-of-way.

Braidwood to Gardner (MP57.3 to MP 65.0)

High quality wet to mesic remnant prairie areas located within the UPRR right-of-way, west of 

the UPRR, between Mitchell Road and County Road 500 South, contain suitable habitat for the 

EPFO. 

Gardner to Dwight (MP 65.0 to MP 73.0)

High quality wet to mesic remnant prairie areas located within the UPRR right-of-way, west of 

the UPRR, beginning just south of Gardner and continuing south to IL 47 contain suitable 

habitat for the EPFO. The highest potential EPFO habitat within the project corridor is located 

in this section. 

Between the north end of the proposed Dwight Siding and the Village of Gardner, a drainage 

ditch is present along the east side of the UPRR. The majority of the ditch is degraded; 

however, patches of moderate to high quality wet to mesic remnant prairie areas are present in 

this area as well and contain potential EPFO habitat. 

Dwight Siding (MP 70.2 to MP 72.3)

The proposed Dwight Siding, located east of the existing tracks, contains high quality patches of 

wet to mesic remnant prairie. Patches of high quality remnant prairie are also present between 

Old Mazon Road and the north end of the proposed siding. Both of the above mentioned areas 

contain suitable habitat for the EPFO. 

Survey Results 

Temperatures ranged from approximately 77oF to 102oF during the course of the field 

investigations, with surveys only being conducted on days with partial to full sun. Therefore, 

weather conditions did not hinder the investigations. EPFO was not found within or adjacent 

to the proposed project limits during the field investigations; however, suitable habitat for the 
C-10

EPFO was identified as being within the project corridor. 

Habitat types and land use within and adjacent to the proposed project limits include high quality 

(Floristic Quality Index (FQI) greater than 20), dry/mesic/wet prairie remnants located along the 

west and east sides of the UPRR line, agricultural fields, mowed turf areas, scrub/shrub wetlands, 

scrub/shrub uplands, open water wetlands, sedge meadows, forested wetlands, forested uplands, 

urban, and industrial. Agricultural fields, mowed turf areas, forested uplands, urban, and 

industrial areas are not conducive to supporting the EPFO. A variety of high quality, wet and 

mesic remnant prairies were investigated within and adjacent to the southern portion of the 

proposed project limits. Of the areas identified as suitable habitat for the EPFO, all would be 

considered high quality (have an FQI of 45.0 or greater and/or a native mean C of 4.0 or 

greater). Areas determined to be critical habitat for the EPFO are described above. 

Survey results indicate that the EPFO does not occur within the project limits. 

Based on the review of information provided by the FWS website on June 28, 2011, as well as 

conditions observed in the field, IDOT has determined that species or critical habitat is present

within the project area. This project may affect critical habitat of the EPFO. 

Leafy Prairie Clover

Surveys have been initiated for the leafy prairie clover starting in the first week of August, 2011. 

The flowering period for the leafy prairie clover ranges from mid to late summer. Surveys are 

being conducted in the areas previous surveyed for the EPFO since these habitat areas contain 

mid to high quality wet, wet mesic, mesic, and dry prairie remnants. Survey work of

approximate 200 field hours will be needed to document the presence or absence of this species. 

Upon completion of the leafy prairie clover surveys, results will be presented to the FWS. If no 

individuals are observed within the project limits, the FRA will request concurrence from the 

FWS that no impacts to the leafy prairie clover are anticipated. If the plant is observed within 

the project limits, the FRA will initiate consultation with the FWS.

State Listed Species

Utilizing the IDNR's Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool (EcoCAT), a review of the Illinois 

Natural Heritage Database was conducted for the project corridor on August 2, 2011 for review 

purposes. The IDNR response documentation is included in Appendix A. Since the EA was 

prepared, one species has been added, forked aster (Aster furcatus), which was added as 

threatened.

Specific surveys were not conducted for the state listed species; however, during on-the-ground 

time meander surveys conducted for the EPFO, five populations, consisting of 229 individuals 

of the ear-leaved foxglove were found within the project corridor. All populations of ear-leaved 

foxglove are located on the west side of the UPRR, within the right-of-way. 
C-11

Ear-Leaved Foxglove Habitat Characteristics/Natural History

Ear-leaved foxglove is a rare plant that occurs in scattered counties throughout most of Illinois, 

except the extreme south. Habitats include mesic black soil prairies, thickets containing grasses 

and occasional shrubs, savannas, woodland borders, abandoned fields, and areas along 

railroads (particularly where remnant prairies occur). This plant is found in both high quality 

habitats and somewhat disturbed areas. It is intolerant of frequent mowing or grazing; however 

an occasional wildfire may improve germination of the seeds, as well as reducing competition 

from shrubs and other kinds of plants.

Mesic prairies, thickets containing grasses and occasional shrubs, woodland borders, 

abandoned fields, and remnant prairies along railroads are present within and adjacent to the 

project limits. As a result, habitat conditions are suitable for the ear-leaved foxglove. As noted 

previously, specific surveys were not conducted for the ear-leaved foxglove within the project 

corridor.

Potential Impacts

The project would occur primarily within the existing railroad right-of-way, which has been 

significantly disturbed in areas north of Wilmington as well as within developed areas which 

include Braidwood, Gardner, and Dwight. There are large areas of high quality (FQI greater 

than 45.0) dry/mesic/wet remnant prairies located adjacent to the Hitts Siding Prairie Nature 

Preserve, located south of Wilmington; in the Braceville vicinity from south of County Road 

5000 South (south of Braceville) to West Kennedy Road, as well as along the west side of the 

UPRR between Gardner and Dwight.

Detailed surveys were not conducted throughout the entire length of the project. Because of the 

presence of large high quality prairie remnants, there is the possibility that critical habitat as 

well as threatened and endangered species will be impacted. Potential impacts to critical 

habitat and identified species that are listed will be evaluated as engineering plans are 

developed. 

Coordination with IDNR has been initiated concerning the ear-leaved foxglove and the 

Eryngium stem-borer, which has been identified by IDNR as a potentially present species. Prior 

to construction, FRA will request further consultation with IDNR concerning potential impacts 

to state listed species.