Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-1 October 2012

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Chapter 3 describes the existing social, economic, and environmental conditions in the Study 

Area, which serve as a baseline for comparing the potential impacts of the route, type of 

service, frequency of service, and station stops carried forward for detailed analysis in this 

Tier 1 EIS. Chapter 3 also identifies potential environmental consequences that would result 

from implementation of the Project as well as mitigation measures that could be used to 

avoid or minimize some of those potential environmental consequences.

The methodology for conducting the review and evaluation of the social, economic, and 

environmental resources is in accordance with federal regulations and guidelines, including 

NEPA (42 USC 4321-4347); FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts 

(Environmental Procedures) (64 FR 28545); and guidelines published by the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) on implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500).

The Study Area for the Build Alternative is approximately 500 miles long from Chicago, 

Illinois, through Iowa, to Omaha, Nebraska, and 500 feet wide on each side of the existing 

rail centerline for a total width of 1,000 feet. The Study Area was reviewed using recent 

aerial and satellite high-resolution photographic imagery; maps of topography, hydrography, 

and other features; and the most recent geographic information system (GIS) data for a 

variety of environmental resources. Because of the length of the Corridor and because this is 

a Tier 1 analysis, field visits for resource review were not conducted.

The existing railroad ROW along the Corridor was assumed to be 100 feet wide; although the 

actual ROW varies, this assumption was determined to represent a reasonable average width. 

A buffer was then applied to accommodate additional track needs to promote efficient track 

maintenance and reduce operating disruptions. The existing ROW and estimated additional 

ROW that would be necessary for track and siding construction and improvements at station

locations constitutes the Potential Impact Area. The anticipated amount of additional ROW 

required was conservatively estimated to allow for future design and to accommodate design 

constraints. Because there are multiple potential station locations in Council Bluffs, Iowa, 

and Omaha, Nebraska, and multiple design options through East Des Moines, Iowa, and 

across the Missouri River between Council Bluffs and Omaha, there is more than one 

potential alignment currently under consideration in those areas. During Tier 2 analyses, one 

alignment would be selected. For analysis in this Tier 1 EIS, the area along all alignments 

under consideration was evaluated as if it would be impacted. Consequently, the Potential 

Impact Area overestimates the area that would be directly impacted by Project construction 

to account for estimated ROW needs and multiple potential alignments in particular areas. 

The No-Build Alternative would not involve construction and operation of intercity 

passenger rail service from Chicago to Omaha, but would include other programmed 

transportation improvements (identified in Section 2.2.1). This includes independently 

planned construction of passenger rail service from Chicago to Moline, with subsequent 

operation of two round-trips per day at speeds up to 79 mph. This project is referred to as the 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-2 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program and is being evaluated in Tier 2 NEPA analyses 

on three separate projects: Chicago to Wyanet, Illinois; the Wyanet Connection of BNSF and 

IAIS track; and Wyanet to Moline, Illinois. Two of the areas of potential concern for 

environmental impacts from construction of the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program 

are Eola Yard in Eola, Illinois, and Wyanet; these areas will be addressed for potential 

impacts for most resources assessed in this EIS. Construction for the Chicago to Quad Cities 

service is anticipated to commence in 2013 and the service to be operational by 2015. 

The Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program passenger rail project would affect a portion 

of the same rail corridor as the Chicago to Omaha Project. Consequently, the impacts 

associated with construction of the Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Project between 

Chicago and Moline would actually be less than estimated for this analysis. Operational 

impacts for two round-trips per day associated with the Chicago to Quad Cities service were 

considered in this analysis.

In this Tier 1 EIS, the following general outline is used to summarize the analysis conducted 

for each resource. With the exception of costal zone management, all resources identified in 

FRA’s Environmental Procedures have been assessed. Coastal zone management was not 

evaluated because the Study Area does not include any coastal zones.

• Methodology and Regulatory Requirements – Summarizes the impact analysis 

methodology and the regulatory requirements for each resource, including the 

sources for the data collected and the applicable government agencies involved in 

the regulation of each resource. 

• Affected Environment – Describes the existing social, economic, or 

environmental conditions for each resource and their general locations within the 

Study Area.

• Impacts of No-Build Alternative – Evaluates the potential impacts of the 

No-Build Alternative.

• Impacts of Build Alternative – Evaluates the potential impacts of the Build

Alternative as it is proposed to be fully implemented, but also addresses potential 

impacts of phased implementation.

• Potential Mitigation Measures – Reviews potential mitigation measures, 

including avoidance and minimization, appropriate for the Tier 1 EIS. Specific 

mitigation measures would not be identified until preparation of Tier 2 NEPA

documents.

The assessment of impacts focuses on the Potential Impact Area and are quantified for many 

resources, but are evaluated qualitatively for some resources. For example, land use data 

were not available at the same level of detail throughout the approximately 500-mile-long 

corridor. Consequently, land use impacts are addressed qualitatively, with specific 

information on a few locations where it is known that additional ROW would be required and 

affect land use. Also, some resources, such as air quality and cultural resources, use different 

areas to evaluate potential impacts. The individual resource sections describe the area 

reviewed and discuss whether impacts are evaluated quantitatively or qualitatively. Impacts 

of phased implementation are addressed qualitatively in this Tier 1 EIS.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-3 October 2012

Appendix B contains figures showing the Study Area and Potential Impact Area as well as 

resources present within 0.5 mile of the rail corridor. Depending on the view of the figure 

and various database information, some resources are also shown outside 0.5 mile of the rail 

corridor. The figures were derived using recent aerial and satellite high-resolution 

photographic imagery, and the most recent GIS data for a variety of environmental resources. 

Resource data were not digitized for this Tier 1 analysis.

3.1 TRANSPORTATION

The transportation analysis includes considerations of all passenger and freight transportation 

modes (that is, automobile, air, bus, and rail) of the regional transportation network.

3.1.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Transportation considerations are evaluated in accordance with FRA’s Environmental 

Procedures. 

Coordination has taken place with Illinois DOT, Iowa DOT, Nebraska Department of Roads 

(NDOR), regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and Councils of 

Government (COGs) to obtain readily available long-range transportation plans, including 

information related to air travel, along the Corridor. Major existing and planned 

transportation facilities for each transportation mode along the Corridor have been identified, 

including existing locations with substantial levels of congestion. Information regarding 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for major highways 

in the Corridor have been collected from Illinois DOT, Iowa DOT, and NDOR. Information 

regarding intercity bus and passenger rail service has been collected from MPOs, COGs, and

appropriate state long-range transportation plans. As appropriate, local transit services have 

been identified along the Build Alternative, particularly at potential station locations. 

3.1.2 Affected Environment

The existing transportation network, including any nearby airports, along the Corridor is 

shown in Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162. Total trips in 2020 by travel mode along the 

Corridor is provided in Table 3.1-1. These numbers reflect the 2020 base modal split 

accounting for the proposed improvements to passenger rail service between Chicago and 

Moline as part of the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program. 

Table 3.1-1. Total Trips by Mode for the Year 2020

Mode of Travel Total Tripsa Percent of Total

Automobile 72,883,000 97.7%

Air 1,233,000 1.7%

Bus 359,000 0.4%

Passenger Rail 113,000 0.2%

Total 74,588,000 100%

Source: AECOM Ridership, Diversion, and Modal Split Forecast for 

Year 2020

Note: 

a Excludes short trips of less than 100 miles. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-4 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.1.2.1 Automobile Travel via the Interstate and Highway Network

In 2020, without new passenger rail service, approximately 98 percent of all travel between 

Chicago and Omaha is estimated to be by personal automobile. The primary travel route is 

I-88 between Chicago and East Moline, approximately 160 miles, and I-80 between East 

Moline and Downtown Omaha, approximately 313 miles. From southern Chicago, the entire 

route along I-80 from Chicago to Omaha is approximately 470 miles. A one-way trip by 

automobile between Chicago and Omaha along either of these routes at posted interstate 

speeds takes approximately eight hours. 

As noted in the Iowa 2012 long-range transportation plan, Iowa in Motion – Planning Ahead 

2040, VMT on Iowa highways is expected to continue to steadily increase. If capacity or 

other improvements are not made, congestion along I-80 and Iowa highways will continue. 

Within urban sections in the Quad Cities, Iowa City, Des Moines, and Council Bluffs, where 

traffic congestion is the greatest, there is limited ROW to expand due to existing 

development. Furthermore, according to the Iowa long-range transportation plan, freight 

truck traffic is expected to increase by 62 percent through 2040 on major highway corridors, 

with a substantial amount of this traffic on I-80, creating additional conflicts with vehicular 

traffic and further contributing to congestion. The Illinois 2012 Long Range Transportation 

Plan – Transforming Transportation for Tomorrow is currently in development and is 

scheduled to be completed in December 2012. However, the existing Illinois long-range 

transportation plan that was updated in December 2007 indicates a continued steady increase 

in VMT, an increase of 39 percent by 2030. The Nebraska 2012 long-range transportation 

plan, Vision 2032, noted a 102 percent VMT increase by the year 2030 for the 

Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area.

3.1.2.2 Air Service

Air service is currently available between major cities in the Study Area. Commercial air 

service is provided in Chicago (Chicago O’Hare International Airport and Chicago Midway 

International Airport), Moline (Quad Cities International Airport), Des Moines (Des Moines 

International Airport), and Omaha (Eppley Airfield). Direct flight service between Chicago

and Omaha is served by American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, and U.S. 

Airways. Typical flight times range from 1 hour and 20 minutes to 1 hour and 40 minutes. 

Direct flight service between Chicago and Des Moines is served by American Airlines, 

Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, and U.S. Airways. Typical flight times range from 

1 hour and 15 minutes to 1 hour and 25 minutes. Direct flight service between Chicago and 

the Quad Cities is also served by American Airlines, United Airlines, and U.S. Airways. 

Typical flight times range from 52 minutes to 56 minutes. There is no direct service between 

Moline and Omaha or between Des Moines and Omaha; typical connections go through 

Chicago or Minneapolis.

3.1.2.3 Bus Service

Bus service is provided in a majority of mid-to-large sized cities, with intermittent service in 

smaller towns. Service between Chicago and Omaha, with multiple stops, was provided by 

Greyhound. On August 15, 2012, Burlington Trailways took over the Greyhound routes from 

Omaha (though Greyhound is still maintaining the terminals), including the route from 

Omaha to Chicago, which features stops in Des Moines, Iowa City, Davenport, and Moline. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-5 October 2012

Typical bus service includes two trips per day: one in the early morning and one in the late 

evening. Typical travel time by bus between Chicago and Omaha ranges from 9 hours and 

15 minutes for “Express” service to 9 hours and 40 minutes for regular service (Greyhound, 

2011). 

Megabus.com, a subsidiary of Coach USA, is a low-fare express bus service that recently 

added daily service between Chicago and Omaha with stops in Iowa City and Des Moines. 

Megbus.com provides two round-trips per day: one in the morning and one in the late 

evening. The full one-way trip from Chicago to Omaha takes 8 hours and 50 minutes. In 

addition to low fares, Megabus.com offers competitive amenities including Wi-Fi service, 

power ports at each seat, and on-board restrooms. However, Megabus.com does not always 

provide traditional sheltered station stops. In Chicago, the station stop is located adjacent to 

Union Station. In Omaha, the station stop is adjacent to the parking garage at Crossroads 

Mall (Megabus.com, 2012).

3.1.2.4 Passenger Rail Service

Current passenger rail service between Chicago and Omaha (the route is shown in 

Figure 2-2) is part of Amtrak’s national or long-distance service on the California Zephyr, 

which terminates in Oakland, California. The California Zephyr serves four stops in Illinois, 

five stops in Iowa, and one stop in Nebraska along the BNSF line: Chicago, Naperville, 

Princeton, and Galesburg, Illinois; Burlington, Mt. Pleasant, Ottumwa, Osceola, and Creston, 

Iowa; and Omaha, Nebraska. Travel time from Chicago to Omaha on the current Amtrak 

long-distance service is approximately 8 hours and 55 minutes while travel time from Omaha 

to Chicago is approximately 9 hours and 36 minutes, compared to approximately 8 hours for 

travel by automobile (Amtrak, 2012). Arrival and departure times in Omaha are typically late 

at night or early in the morning. Other intercity passenger rail services currently operate 

within or adjacent to a portion of the Corridor in Illinois, including Amtrak’s Southwest Chief

(Chicago to Fort Madison, Iowa, at the Illinois/Iowa border) and Illinois’ state-supported, 

Amtrak-operated Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg services operating between Chicago and 

Quincy, Illinois. The Metra fixed-route commuter rail service currently operates on the 

BNSF rail corridor between downtown Chicago and Aurora, providing passenger rail service 

generally from 4:30 am through 2:00 am.

3.1.2.5 Freight Rail Service

The BNSF line in Illinois and the IAIS rail line in Iowa are located within the Corridor. 

BNSF is a high-volume Class I carrier with mostly double track sections. Within the 

Corridor, the BNSF line carries a traffic density of 40 to 59.9 million gross tons per mile per 

year (MGT) (North American Railroad Map, 2010). IAIS is a small volume Class II carrier 

with mostly single track sections. Within the Corridor, the IAIS line carries a traffic density

of less than 1 MGT (North American Railroad Map, 2010). The main commodities handled 

by BNSF in the Corridor are coal, food products, chemicals, and fertilizers. The main 

commodities handled by IAIS in the Corridor are farm products, food products, waste, scrap 

products, lumber, and chemicals/fertilizers. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-6 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.1.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on transportation 

are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. Travel originating in 

the Corridor west of Moline, Illinois, would continue to use predominantly automobiles and 

buses along I-80 and the Iowa highway network. Other intercity passenger rail services that 

currently operate within or adjacent to the Chicago to Omaha Corridor, including Amtrak’s 

California Zephyr and Southwest Chief, and Illinois’ state-supported, Amtrak-operated 

Illinois Zephyr and Carl Sandburg services, are assumed to continue to operate. Congestion

would continue to increase along I-80 and I-88, resulting in more travel delays and increased

conflicts with truck freight traffic. Negative impacts of congestion include lost opportunity 

costs for motorists, wasted fuel consumption, raised travel costs, increased air pollution, 

delays for emergency vehicles and increased traffic on parallel road networks. There could 

also be more delays at at-grade railroad crossings because of more vehicular traffic.

3.1.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

Within portions of the Study Area with single track, a parallel track would need to be 

installed to minimize delays and interference with existing freight rail traffic. In addition to 

new track or upgrades to existing track, other improvements associated with new passenger 

rail service would include upgrades to existing crossings and signals. All of these 

improvements would indirectly benefit existing freight rail service within the Potential 

Impact Area.

The Build Alternative would provide new passenger rail service between Chicago and 

Omaha. New high-speed passenger rail service within the Study Area would share the rail 

infrastructure with existing freight rail operations on both BNSF and IAIS rail line tracks. 

Other intercity passenger rail services that currently operate within or adjacent to the Chicago 

to Omaha Corridor are assumed to continue to operate. Potential impacts of this new service 

would be conflicts with existing passenger rail service along a portion of the BNSF line and 

freight rail service along both lines. This potential conflict would be minimized through 

safety upgrades and capacity improvements along both lines and the likely construction of a 

second rail along the IAIS line.

Under the Build Alternative, estimated average travel times between Chicago and Omaha 

would be under 7 hours. Between Chicago and Des Moines, the estimated average travel time 

would be under 5 hours. The Build Alternative would provide both standard-stop and 

selected-stop services. Travel demand and diversion forecasts for this alternative were 

performed and may be seen in Table 3.1-2. A large percentage of the trips are due to 

diversion from auto, bus and air trips. Approximately 71 percent of the passengers are 

diverted from autos, 17 percent from bus service and 2 percent from air service. The Build 

Alternate would also generate an induced demand, estimated to be approximately 10 percent.

The operation of this new passenger rail service could potentially impact local traffic patterns 

at the station locations. Traffic volumes as well as parking demand would increase. Details 

on the impact to the local road network and parking facilities would be discussed in the 

Tier 2 NEPA analyses.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-7 October 2012

Table 3.1-2. Total Rail Ridership by Diverted Travel Mode

Travel Mode Estimated Diversions for the Build 

Alternative (passengers per year)

Automobile 919,500

Bus 218,500

Air 27,500

Induced Demand 128,500

Total 1,294,000

Source: AECOM Ridership, Diversion, and Modal Split Forecast for 

Year 2020

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speed of the passenger trains would cause less 

temporary construction impacts to the transportation system than that of the maximum speed 

proposed for the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for impacts 

to the transportation system would be less during the initial implementation phase. As the 

Project extends westward, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase with 

subsequent implementation phases, more impacts and benefits to the traveling public would 

occur. 

3.1.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

To reduce impacts on other transportation modes, the Project would include safety and 

capacity improvements. These potential improvements include double tracking and signal

upgrades to address safety concerns at intersections and to limit disruption of existing freight 

rail service. These improvements are described in detail in Section 3.7, Public Health and 

Safety. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, will be identified and discussed 

during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as 

specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction.

3.2 LAND USE, ZONING, AND PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS

The assessment of land use, zoning, and property acquisitions includes consideration of the 

Project’s impact on existing and future land uses, public zoning policy, and potential areas of 

property acquisitions and/or relocations where additional ROW may be required.

3.2.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to relocations of residents and businesses is the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Due to the length of the Study Area, land use data collection was limited to available 

statewide satellite land cover data in GIS format and was supplemented by aerial and satellite 

photography. Relevant land use plans in a usable GIS format and public zoning data were
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-8 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

collected from regional MPOs and COGs for potential station locations only and will be 

reviewed more thoroughly in the Tier 2 analysis. Generalized land use data were separated 

into agricultural, rural-undeveloped, rural-residential, and urban-developed categories.

3.2.2 Affected Environment

An aerial view of the Corridor is shown in Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162. Different 

land uses are readily identifiable in the figures, which include the Study Area and adjacent 

land. The Study Area traverses three states, 24 counties, and 82 urban areas over 

approximately 500 miles. Throughout the Study Area, there is a wide diversity of land use 

types, patterns, and densities. Within urban areas, the predominant land use types are

industrial and commercial, and to a lesser extent, established urban and suburban residential. 

Within rural areas, the predominant land use type is agricultural, with a few scattered rural 

residences. Because rural areas contain cropland or open areas, they are considered to have 

fewer sensitive land uses than urban areas.

The eastern terminus of the Study Area includes the urban-industrialized areas of Chicago as 

well as its suburban cities and exurban bedroom communities. The predominate land uses in 

these areas are urban-industrial, commercial, and to a lesser extent, established urban and 

suburan residential areas. These land uses are long-established and are adjacent to existing 

high-volume passenger and freight rail lines.

The central portion of the Study Area consists of rural-agricultural communities (population

less than 10,000), rural economic centers (population 10,000 to 50,000), and mid-to-large 

cities (population of 50,000 to 200,000+) within Illinois and Iowa. The majority of the ruralagricultural communites in the Study Area have stagnant to declining populations. In the 

past, the agricultural industry served as the main economic base for many of these 

communities; however, as the agriculture industry has become more efficient and less labor 

intensive, some of the population began to shift to larger cities or other industries including 

health care, education, and to a lesser extent, small manufacturing and retail. Rural economic 

centers are largely residential; however, they do include support retail and services for 

smaller rural/agricultural communites within the area. Land uses within these areas are ruralagricultural with a few scattered rural residences. Within rural economic centers, there are a 

few commercial and service uses with modest concentrations of residential. 

Mid-to-large cities include cities or groups of cities serving the center of a larger metropolian 

area. The Quad Cities are a group of five mid-sized cities (East Moline, Moline, and Rock 

Island, Illinois, and Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa) that collectively serve as a major 

economic center on the western Illinois/eastern Iowa Mississippi River border. Historically, 

the Quad Cities’ dominant economic sectors were manufacturting and support industries;

however, over the past 30 years, the economies of these cities have become more diverse 

with the revitilizaton of downtown and older industrial areas. The existing land uses in these 

communities within the Study Area are primarily industrial. However, within and adjacent to 

downtown areas, there are established commercial, office, and residential neighborhoods.

The western terminus of the Study Area includes the Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan

area. Land uses are predominately industrial, with office, commercial, and parkland near 

downtown Omaha and industrial and commercial areas near I-80 in central Omaha.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-9 October 2012

3.2.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on existing land 

uses and zoning are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. The 

need for ROW in support of the Chicago to Quad Cities service would result in a minimal 

change in land use based on the potential amount of land required adjacent to existing ROW.

The majority of the ROW would need to be acquired for construction of the Wyanet 

Connection to join BNSF and IAIS track near Wyanet, Illinois.

3.2.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

For the Build Alternative, a majority of main line improvements would occur within or close 

to existing ROW, with few direct impacts on adjacent land uses. The land would be 

converted from its current condition to a railroad grade, and track would be constructed. 

Likely land use impacts would include potential acquisition of additional ROW for 

improvements around identified station areas. Two locations where new ROW would be 

required that would impact existing land uses are the following: 

1. The Build Alternative may require further improvement of the Wyanet 

Connection (approximately 1 mile south of Wyanet, Illinois) to facilitate two 

additional round-trips per day at speeds up to 110 mph. This area is shown in 

Appendix B, Figures 38 and 39. Consequently, more ROW, with farmland and 

other land use conversion, would potentially be required for the Build Alternative

at this location.

2. The Build Alternative includes a southern alignment option through southern Des 

Moines, Iowa, (Des Moines Design Option 3) that would require substantial 

property acquision for a new alignment. Although this area is industrial in 

character, sensitive land uses that would be directly impacted include an 

established residential neighborhood and Chester Field Park. This area is shown 

in Appendix B, Figures 114 and 115. 

New station areas may need to be rezoned through the local development review process. 

Existing stations that are approved during final site selection would likely need rehabilitation 

and/or upgrading with modern amenities to meet accessibility requirements. For the most 

part, improvements within these stations would be limited to the existing station site. 

However, additional property may need to be acquired for parking or other improvements. 

Other selected station locations may be greenfield1 or greyfield2 sites where stations do not 

exist and will need to be constructed. Impacts on adjacent land uses will be analyzed further 

during Tier 2 studies, when more specifics are known about station areas. In addition to 

stations, other improvements outside of existing ROW would include layover and 

maintenance facilities. The layover and maintenance facility location, size, and other 

program needs will be defined during Tier 2 studies.

Additional direct impacts would occur adjacent to future station areas and layover and 

maintenance facilities. The proposed passenger rail service would continue to use existing 

 

1 Greenfield sites are locations that have been previously undeveloped.

2 Greyfield sites are formerly developed, economically obsolescent, outdated, failing, moribund and/or 

underused real estate assets or land.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-10 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Amtrak stations at Chicago, La Grange Road, Naperville, Plano, and Princeton, Illinois; and 

potentially at Omaha, Nebraska. Direct land use impacts adjacent to these areas would be 

very limited because they are existing stations with current operations and would need 

modest improvements to accommodate new service. New stations or reuse and modification 

of pre-existing stations are proposed at Mendota, Geneseo, and Moline, Illinois; Iowa City, 

Grinnell, Des Moines, Atlantic, and Council Bluffs, Iowa; and potentially Omaha, Nebraska. 

These stations may have impacts associated with rehabilitation efforts. The Geneseo and 

Moline stations will be improved as part of the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program. 

Minimal additional improvements would be needed to these two stations for Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha service. The land use surrounding the new or pre-existing stations is 

described for each station below.

Because pre-existing stations in Mendota, Geneseo, Iowa City, Grinnell, and Atlantic are 

intact and only rehabilitation of the structures would be expected, no long-term adverse 

impacts are anticipated in the areas surrounding the stations. The Mendota, Illinois, station 

has commercial property to the west and residential property to the east of the station. The 

Geneseo, Illinois, station is surrounded by commercial, industrial, and residential land uses. 

The Iowa City, Iowa, station is located to the south of downtown and is surrounded by multifamily housing and commercial properties. Land use surrounding the pre-existing station in 

Grinnell, Iowa, is mostly residential and some commercial. The pre-existing Atlantic, Iowa,

station is surrounded by mostly industrial development. (Illinois Department of Agriculture, 

2001; and Giglierano, no date)

The Moline, Illinois, station is a proposed multi-modal facility located in downtown Moline. 

An entertainment center and a subsidiary branch of the Mississippi River are to the north of 

the station location. A mix of commercial and industrial surrounds the rest of the proposed 

facility (City of Moline, Illinois, 2001).

Specific sites for passenger rail stations in Des Moines and Council Bluffs, Iowa, and 

Omaha, Nebraska, have not yet been determined. Potential alternative locations for Des 

Moines, Council Bluffs, and Omaha stations are shown in Figure 2-5. Final site selection, 

construction, and operation of these passenger rail stations will be evaluated in subsequent 

Tier 2 NEPA documents.

An overnight train layover and light maintenance facility would be required in the Des 

Moines and Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan areas. Specific sites for these facilities have

not yet been determined; however, they will be evaluated in subsequent Tier 2 NEPA

documents when specific sites are identified.

In the Tier 2 NEPA documents, more detailed land use and zoning analysis will occur. This 

will include detailed impacts on the land uses within and surrounding future station and 

layover and maintenance facilities in designated impact areas and other areas where ROW

acquisition would occur to accommodate faster speeds and additional main line track and 

sidings as needed. The Tier 2 analyses will focus on site-specific issues and sensitive land 

uses such as residential, parkland, and institutional (for example, churches and public 

buildings) uses.

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-11 October 2012

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speed of passenger trains would cause less land use,

zoning and property acquisition impacts than that of the maximum speed proposed for the 

ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for impacts to land use, 

zoning and property acquisition would be less during the initial implementation phase. Likely 

land use impacts would be related to improvements to existing stations or construction of 

new stations and layover and maintenance facilities. As the Project extends westward, and 

speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase with subsequent implementation phases, 

more impacts to land use, zoning and property acquisition would occur to areas within or 

adjacent to the Potential Impact Area. 

3.2.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Potential mitigation measures include minimizing the Build Alternative footprint and 

associated improvements to existing ROW, layover facility, and station areas to the greatest 

extent possible. When the acquisition of adjacent land cannot be avoided, the provisions of 

the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as 

amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be followed. Examples of mitigation 

measures may include landscape and hardscape3 screening through a combination of trees, 

shrubs, groundcover, and other screening as a buffer between the station, layover and 

maintenance facility, or other associated improvements and adjacent neighborhoods, parks, 

or other features. During Tier 2 analyses, the extent of land use, zoning, and property 

acquisition impacts would be analyzed for potential mitigation issues that may be identified 

through agency coordination and the public involvement process. Specific mitigation 

measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 analysis 

after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are 

identified, and implemented prior to construction.

3.3 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

The agricultural resources assessed in this Tier 1 EIS include land with soils designated by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance, as defined in Section 

3.3.2.

3.3.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to farmland is the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 

1981 (7 CFR Part 658). Other regulations that pertain to farmland on a state level include the 

the Illinois Farmland Preservation Act (IFPA) (505 ILCS 75) and Iowa Code Chapter 352, 

County Land Preservation and Use (Iowa Code §§ 352.1 to 352.13 (2005)). There is no 

farmland in the Study Area in Omaha, Nebraska.

Collection of information included GIS data from the NRCS database regarding soil

designations of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance within the Study Area. 

 

3 Hardscapes are “structures (as fountains, benches, or gazebos) that are incorporated into a landscape.” 

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hardscape , accessed 8/7/12) 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-12 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.3.2 Affected Environment

The majority of the Study Area in Illinois and Iowa is agricultural land composed of soils

that are highly suitable for growing crops. The Study Area in Nebraska is located in urban 

built-up areas of the City of Omaha and does not include farmland. Agricultural lands near or 

within the Study Area in Illinois and Iowa are shown in Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162.

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 defines farmland and separates it into three 

categories, as follows:

• Prime Farmland – “Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical 

characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and other 

agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor, 

and without intolerable soil erosion, as determined by the Secretary” of USDA

(7 USC 4201(c)(1)(A)). These are soils that occur on slopes less than 6 percent.

• Unique Farmland – “Land other than prime farmland that is used for production 

of specific high-value food and fiber crops, as determined by the Secretary.... 

Examples of such crops include citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits, and 

vegetables” (7 USC 4201(c)(1)(B)).

• Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance – “Farmland, other than prime or 

unique farmland, that is of statewide or local importance for the production of 

food, feed, fiber, forage, or oilseed crops, as determined by the appropriate State 

or unit of local government agency or agencies, and that the Secretary determines 

should be considered as farmland” (7 USC 4201(c)(1)(C)). These are soils that 

generally can also be highly productive for cropland, but occur on slopes greater 

than 6 percent or have limitations in drainage or flood control that are more 

difficult to overcome.

Farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development or water 

storage. Therefore, the city limits of towns and cities within the Study Area were excluded 

from the farmland assessment, as were bodies of water. There are no soils designated as 

unique farmland in the Study Area.

The prime farmland soils within the Study Area are categorized with qualifiers, as follows:

• All areas are prime farmland

• Prime farmland if drained

• Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently 

flooded during the growing season

• Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the 

growing season

• Prime farmland if irrigated

Within the Study Area, the majority of prime farmland soils are on slopes of less than 

6 percent and are composed of mostly silt loams and silty clay loams as well as minor 

amounts of loams, sandy loams, fine sandy loams, loamy fine sands, and clay loams. The 

soils designated as farmland of statewide importance are generally on slopes that are 

6 percent or greater, the majority of which are loams, silt loams, and silty clay loams as well 

as minor amounts of clay loams, sandy loams, loamy sands, fine sandy loams, and loamy fine 

sands.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-13 October 2012

3.3.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on farmland

resources are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. The 

Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program would contribute minimal impacts on farmland 

soils as a result of constructing new track embankment for the Wyanet Connection in 

addition to potential culvert replacements/extensions and bridge replacements/additions in 

other portions of the Corridor. The Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program would impact 

both prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. Specific quantitative impacts on 

farmland from the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program would be determined as the 

project progresses through its required Tier 2 NEPA documentation. The Eola Yard

improvements would not impact farmland.

3.3.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

Construction of the Build Alternative would directly impact farmland where areas of 

additional ROW would be necessary. Those impacts would be relatively minor for farmland 

properties, constituting approximately 5 percent of the Study Area, because only minor linear 

amounts would be needed for adding track and siding to the existing railroad grade. No 

severances of existing farmland would occur. The total approximate impacts on farmland 

soils would be as shown in Table 3.3-1.

Table 3.3-1. Farmland Impacts

State Prime Farmland

(Acres)

Farmland of Statewide Importance

(Acres)

Illinois 1,460 150

Iowa 1,730 690

Nebraska 0 0

Total 3,190 840

With the initial implementation phase, less ROW for improvements would cause less 

farmland impacts than that of the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the 

potential for impacts to farmland areas would be less during the initial implementation phase.

As the Project extends westward, more impacts would occur to farmland areas within or 

adjacent to the Potential Impact Area.

3.3.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Because the Build Alternative would result in impacts on farmland, coordination would take 

place with NRCS as part of the Tier 2 NEPA process. Completion of form NRCS-CPA-106, 

Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Corridor Type Projects, would be required to 

determine if farmland impacts are above the threshold level for consideration of farmland 

protection measures. A form would need to be developed for each county traversed by the 

Project.

In addition, to comply with the 1982 Illinois Farmland Preservation Act, notification would

be sent to the Illinois Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Land and Water Resources,

regarding any land acquisition projects located outside municipal corporate limits. This 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-14 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

would be initiated during the Tier 2 NEPA process. Specific mitigation measures, to the 

extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 analysis after design details 

are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented 

prior to construction.

3.4 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

The evaluation of the social and economic environment considers population, employment, 

demographic shifts, community disruption or cohesion, effects on commerce, and general 

state, regional, and local economies. In addition to assessing potential adverse impacts from 

community disruption, the assessment considers likely benefits resulting in any potential 

increase in economic activity in and near the Study Area.

3.4.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Applicable livability principles from the Partnership for Sustainable Communities—a joint 

initiative from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the 

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA)—are considered. Socioeconomic considerations were evaluated in 

accordance with FRA’s Environmental Procedures.

Social and economic characteristics were gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010

Census and the American Community Survey (ACS). Data collected include population and 

employment (existing and future trends), demographic shifts, general housing information, 

and community services, such as schools and emergency services. Major social 

communities and economic centers along the Study Area were identified from GIS data. 

Demographic data were collected at the county level within rural areas and at the city level 

within urban areas (that is, communities with population greater than 50,000). 

3.4.2 Affected Environment

The socioeconomic environment near or within the Study Area is shown in Appendix B,

Figures 1 through 162. Buildings and land uses comprising the socioeconomic environment 

within the cities and small towns include businesses, schools, churches/places of worship, 

parks, community centers, hospitals, emergency facilities, and other public buildings.

3.4.2.1 Population

The Study Area comprises nine counties in Illinois (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, DeKalb, 

LaSalle, Bureau, Henry, and Rock Island), fourteen counties in Iowa (Scott, Muscatine, 

Cedar, Johnson, Iowa, Poweshiek, Jasper, Polk, Dallas, Madison, Guthrie, Adair, Cass, and

Pottawattamie), and one county in Nebraska (Douglas). These counties have a combined 

2010 population of 8,778,473 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Population within these counties 

increased by 11.4 percent between 1970 and 2010. This compares to a 51.9 percent increase 

in the overall U.S. population, a 15.4 percent increase for the State of Illinois, a 7.9 percent 

for the State of Iowa, and a 21.3 percent increase for the State of Nebraska over the same 

time period. A summary of population trends for all counties in the Study Area is included in 

Appendix C, Table 1.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-15 October 2012

Between 1970 and 2010, the population of five counties in Illinois (DuPage, Kane, Kendall, 

DeKalb, and LaSalle) increased, while the population of four counties (Cook, Bureau, Henry,

and Rock Island) declined. During the same time period, the population of ten counties in 

Iowa (Scott, Muscatine, Cedar, Johnson, Iowa, Poweshiek, Polk, Dallas, Madison, and 

Pottawattamie) increased, while the population of four counties (Jasper, Guthrie, Adair, and 

Cass) declined. The population of Douglas County, Nebraska, increased by 32.8 percent

between 1970 and 2010. The single largest gain in population by percent was Kendall 

County, Illinois, which experienced a 335 percent increase between 1970 and 2010. The next 

largest population change by percentage was Kane County, Illinois, at 105.3 percent and 

Dallas County, Iowa, at 153.5 percent over the same time period. The largest population 

declines by percentage in the counties in the Study Area over this time period were Adair and 

Cass counties in Iowa at 19 and 17.9 percent, respectively. Throughout the Study Area, 

counties in rural areas outside of urban areas have tended to have population declines while 

counties within urban areas have tended to grow steadily. The exception is urban counties 

within older industrial areas outside of Chicago and the Quad Cities that have experienced 

population declines due to a general slowdown of the manufacturing industry. Appendix C, 

Table 1 shows population change for all counties within the Study Area compared to each 

state and the United States. Appendix C, Tables 2 and 3 show population changes for all 

cities and villages within 0.25 mile of the Study Area.

There are 82 urban areas within 0.25 mile of the Study Area. Eleven of the 82 cities 

(Chicago, Cicero, Berwyn, Naperville, and Aurora, Illinois; Davenport, Iowa City, Des 

Moines, West Des Moines, and Council Bluffs, Iowa; and Omaha, Nebraska) are classified 

as urban. The total population of these urban areas represents almost 92 percent of the total 

population of all cities and villages within 0.25 mile of the Study Area. Chicago alone 

comprises 68 percent with a 2010 population of 2,695,598. Between 1970 and 2010, Chicago 

and Cicero, Illinois, experienced significant population declines, while the remaining eight 

cities experienced modest to significant population increases. A portion of Chicago’s 

population decline can be attributed to an exodus to the Chicago suburbs during the 1970s 

and 1980s, including suburban communities within the Study Area such as Berwyn, 

Naperville, and Aurora, Illinois. In the 1990s and 2000s, population decline in Chicago and 

population increases in the suburbs slowed.

Outside of the Chicago metropolitan area, the largest urban areas are Davenport, Iowa City, 

Des Moines, and Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska. Each of these cities has 

experienced modest population increases between 1970 and 2010. Other urban areas

comprise portions of larger metropolitan areas. East Moline, Moline, and Rock Island in 

Illinois, and Davenport and Bettendorf in Iowa, on the Illinois/Iowa border comprise a larger 

metropolitan area referred to as the Quad Cities, with a total population of 381,342. West Des 

Moines, which has experienced a significant population increase between 1970 and 2010, is 

part of the Des Moines metropolitan area. Council Bluffs, which has experienced a modest 

population increase from 1970 to 2010, is part of the Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan 

area. 

The remaining cities and villages with a population of less than 50,000 comprise 

approximately 8 percent of the total population of all areas within 0.25 mile of the Study 

Area. These cities and villages tend to be very small, with a median population of 2,093. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-16 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

With the exception of suburban communities outside large metropolitan areas, a majority of 

these communities had a stable to steadily declining population between 1970 and 2010. 

3.4.2.2 Employment

There are a number of diverse industry employment sectors within the Study Area, especially 

within urbanized counties. The employment sectors in the most urbanized counties (Cook, 

DuPage, Kane, LaSalle, and Rock Island counties in Illinois; Scott, Johnson, Polk, and 

Pottawattamie counties in Iowa; and Douglas County in Nebraska) are very diverse with few 

dominant sectors. However, the employment sectors in the rural counties are largely 

dominated by retail trade and manufacturing. Agriculture is still an important industry sector 

within these counties; however, farming operations are becoming more efficient and are less 

labor dependent than in the past. Overall, the dominant industry sectors for all counties are 

educational services, health care, and social assistance. This is consistent with the statewide 

averages. Appendix C, Table 4 provides a detailed summary of industrial employment 

sectors for each county in the Study Area.

Only one county in Illinois (Cook) and five counties in Iowa (Scott, Muscatine, Jasper, Polk,

and Pottawattamie) have a 2010 unemployment rate greater than their respective statewide 

average. The majority of counties with high unemployment rates are urbanized; however, 

there are a few exceptions in rural counties including Muscatine County, Iowa, which has the 

second highest unemployment rate of any county in the Study Area. Cook County, Illinois, 

which includes the City of Chicago, has the highest unemployment rate in the Study Area. 

Appendix C, Table 5 provides a detailed summary of 2010 employment status statistics for 

all counties within the Study Area.

The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended (PWEDA) indicates 

that an area is considered economically distressed if it has an unemployment rate that is at 

least 1 percent greater than the national average unemployment rate (8.3 percent, July 2012). 

Currently, only one county within the Study Area, Cook County, Illinois (9.9 percent), meets 

this criterion; however, Muscatine County (8.1 percent) is close to the national average 

unemployment rate. Data on per capita income for all counties in the Study Area are 

provided in Appendix C, Table 6.

3.4.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on 

socioeconomic conditions are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other 

projects. Socioeconomic conditions cover a wide variety of interrelated social and economic

factors, including demographic shifts, increased economic activity, and employment

opportunities. The Chicago to Quad Cities service is expected to contribute minimal impacts 

to socioeconomic conditions through construction funding being expended for the Project 

and temporarily improving employment and expenditures in local markets. In the case of the 

No-Build Alternative, slight demographic shifts and increased economic activity would be 

limited to modest improvements to passenger rail service between Chicago and Moline, 

Illinois. For station locations along the Chicago to Quad Cities service, there would be an 

increase in direct local employment with the potential for indirect employment through 

nearby development.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-17 October 2012

3.4.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The Build Alternative would result in minimal impacts on socioeconomic conditions. 

Economic impacts would include the potential for disruption of vehicular traffic to existing 

businesses and community facilities including schools, churches/places of worship, parks, 

community centers, hospitals, emergency services, and other public buildings along the route 

alternative during construction, which may make it difficult to access these uses. 

There is the potential that some business properties may need to be acquired; in these cases, 

the business would be compensated for the acquisition and the relocation in compliance with 

federal and applicable state law. Businesses closing or relocating outside of the local area

would cause a reduction in property tax income for the local government. These impacts 

would be identified during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, and mitigated in 

Tier 2 through coordination with local communities and agencies and other measures as 

described in Section 3.23.

Long-term economic impacts along the Corridor would be beneficial because the Chicago to 

Council Bluffs-Omaha service would provide connections to major markets in the Study 

Area. There would be temporary access impacts during construction and long-term impacts

for travel across at-grade crossings by the public and community service vehicles. While the 

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha service would cause some disruptions to existing 

businesses and neighborhoods during construction, appropriate measures would be taken to 

mitigate impacts to adjacent areas. These measures are described in Section 3.23. Other 

impacts potentially affecting social conditions include accessibility and safety issues to 

adjacent neighborhoods and activity centers. Appropriate safety measures would be taken 

and are described in Section 3.7. 

The Build Alternative includes a southern alignment option through southern Des Moines 

(Des Moines Design Option 3) that has the potential to disrupt established neighborhoods

and existing economic activity with the construction of a new rail line. This area is shown in 

Appendix B, Figures 114 and 115. Potential direct impacts include the displacement of 

homes and businesses. Impacted development within this area is described in further detail in 

Section 3.2. Potential indirect impacts include disruption of travel patterns during and after 

construction through the construction of new rail lines that would transect the existing street 

network within the area. In most areas, a rail corridor already exists, so community cohesion 

would be minimally affected overall, with some impacts projected in urban areas.

Short-term economic benefits would be derived from the Project through construction of

improvements along the corridor and future station areas. Long-term economic benefits 

would include the potential for increased economic activity within cities along the Study 

Area near identified stations. The Project may help to revitalize urbanized areas near future 

stations by attracting higher-density and mixed-use development, which provides new 

employment and housing options. Additionally, the Project would link cities along the Study 

Corridor, thereby improving mobility and expanding employment opportunities over a larger 

geographic area; this benefits employers by expanding the labor market and offering 

employees more choices of where to live. The location of housing in relation to jobs, 

services, and amenities appreciably enhances the quality of life. The level of benefit depends 

on the frequency and speed of service. For areas between stations, there would be limited 

economic benefits. Due to these long-term economic benefits and quality of life benefits, as 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-18 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

stated above, high-speed passenger rail has broad support within major communities 

throughout the Study Area.

The following communities within the Study Area have active advocacy organizations 

supporting new passenger rail service to promote economic development:

• The Quad Cities Rail Coalition, sponsored by the Quad Cities Chamber of 

Commerce, is an advocacy group promoting new passenger rail service to provide 

a positive impact on the region’s economy and quality of life. This coalition of 

10,000 members includes elected officials, community leaders, community 

organizations, and residents. Renew Moline also has created economic

development plans using the new Amtrak station as a catalyst for development 

and economic revitalization. 

• The Greater Des Moines Partnership sponsored Capital Crossroads, a regional 

plan that advocates support for high-speed rail through the Des Moines

metropolitan area. Building on the planned high-speed rail service between 

Chicago and the Quad Cities, Capital Crossroads recommends raising awareness 

and building support for extending the line through Des Moines to Omaha. The 

Greater Des Moines Partnership is an economic development advocacy group 

supported by over 280 public and private investors and focuses on economic 

development, workforce attraction and retention, downtown development and 

regional business development. Additionally, high-speed rail service for the Des 

Moines metropolitan area will be considered in the Tomorrow Plan, currently 

under development, which provides a long-term blueprint for the region. 

• In the Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area, the Metropolitan Area Planning 

Agency (MAPA), a COG, will begin a similar process in the fall of 2012 to 

develop a regional vision named Heartland 2050. MAPA’s Long Range 

Transportation Plan 2035 notes existing planning efforts for high-speed rail 

service; however, it does not make specific recommendations. Furthermore, these 

plans and initiatives articulate the economic and social benefits of the Project 

from a local perspective. Overall, local, regional, and state economics are 

anticipated to benefit from the Project, both in the short term during construction

and long-term during operation of the Project.

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speed of passenger trains would cause less impacts

and benefits to the socioeconomic environment than that of the maximum speed proposed for 

the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for impacts to the 

socioeconomic environment would be less during the initial implementation phase and would 

be related to any improvements to existing or new station areas and maintenance/layover 

facilities. As the Project extends westward, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips 

increase with subsequent implementation phases, more impacts and benefits to the 

socioeconomic environment would occur to areas within or adjacent to the Potential Impact 

Area.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-19 October 2012

3.4.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Direct socioeconomic impacts could include residential and business displacements in 

locations where improvements and ROW acquisition would be necessary outside of existing 

railroad ROW. Temporary construction impacts on adjacent residents and businesses would 

occur through noise, vibration, and disruptions to local traffic. Both of these impacts are 

likely to occur near stations. At this time, only general station area locations are known. 

When these areas are further defined and delineated in the Tier 2 analysis, potential impacts 

on socioeconomic conditions will be identified along with strategies to avoid or mitigate 

these impacts. In addition, public involvement and agency coordination activities may result 

in identification of potential mitigation needs. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent 

required, will be identified and discussed during Tier 2 analysis after design details are 

known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented 

prior to construction.

3.5 TITLE VI AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The environmental justice assessment was completed in accordance with Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964; Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations; the USDOT Order on 

Environmental Justice; and updated guidance implementing the USDOT order. The 

assessment also addresses limited English proficiency (LEP) as required under Executive 

Order 13166. The assessment was conducted to determine whether minority or low‐income 

communities, potential environmental justice areas, are present within or adjacent to the 

Study Area. Minority populations may include, but are not limited to, African Americans, 

Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Native Americans. Low-income is defined as a person 

whose household income is at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

poverty guidelines. A more detailed assessment of these populations will be conducted 

during Tier 2 analyses when more specific impacts are known. The mobility of elderly and 

disabled populations within the Study Area is addressed in Section 3.6.

3.5.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The methodology for conducting the review and evaluation of minority and low-income

populations is in accordance with federal regulations and guidelines, including NEPA; FRA’s 

Environmental Procedures; guidelines published by CEQ on implementing NEPA; 

Environmental Justice Guidance (December 10, 1997); Executive Order 12898; and DOT 

Order 5610.2(a)

Demographic data from the 2010 Census, including total population, ethnicity, and poverty 

status, were compiled at the city and county levels within and adjacent to the Study Area. 

Population and minority (racial and ethnic) data are reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, and 

income and language (LEP) data are reported by the ACS. State-level data were also 

gathered as a basis for comparison. At potential station locations, census-tract-level data were

gathered for adjacent tracts, as appropriate. 

The demographic composition of the No-Build and Build Alternatives in this Tier 1 EIS were

reviewed to determine whether minority populations and/or low-income populations that 

exceed the state averages are present. Data from counties along the Study Area were also 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-20 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

aggregated and used for comparison. Minority and low-income populations tend to be 

concentrated in urban areas. This trend was confirmed and documented in the analysis. 

To determine if an environmental justice population would be disproportionally adversely 

impacted by the Project, the existence and location of substantial minority and low-income

populations within the Study Area was determined. Minority and low-income populations

within the affected areas were compared to the statewide average. Environmental justice 

populations were identified where either the environmental justice population 1) is greater 

than 50 percent of the affected area’s population, or 2) is greater than 50 percent of the 

statewide or citywide average (Environmental Justice Guidance, Federal Transit 

Administration, Region VII). 

Using GIS data as well as spatial and demographic data from the 2010 Census and the ACS, 

the counties and cities in the Study Area were analyzed to highlight areas of substantial 

minority populations and/or low-income populations. Counties, cities, and/or census tracts 

within the Study Area were then highlighted for environmental justice populations. The 

potential for clusters of environmental justice populations being disproportionately adversely 

affected were evaluated and documented. 

A potential direct impact is the displacement of residents or businesses. However, for the 

Tier 1 EIS, potential displacement areas were identified and compared based on estimated 

ROW needs because exact areas for ROW acquisition are not known during the Tier 1 EIS. 

A qualitative evaluation was conducted to determine potential indirect impacts, which are

discussed in Section 3.26. 

Specific impacts would be identified and assessed in the Tier 2 NEPA documents, and a

determination would be made as to whether potential impacts are disproportionately high and 

adverse as compared to other affected populations. During Tier 2 analysis, LEP populations 

would be identified, and specific approaches to providing access to services will be 

documented. A preliminary screening of these populations was conducted within cities with 

significant minority populations.

3.5.2 Affected Environment

Aerial images with environmental resource information are provided in Appendix B,

Figures 1 through 162. Although minority and low-income population data are not portrayed 

directly in the figures, urban areas (which are evident in the figures) typically host a higher 

proportion of minority and low-income populations.

Census data were collected at the county level for the Study Area and the city level within 

0.25 mile of the Potential Impact Area to identify potential environmental justice

populations. There are 24 counties transected by the Study Area (9 in Illinois, 14 in Iowa,

and one in Nebraska). There are 82 cities and villages within 0.25 mile of the Study Area 

(40 in Illinois, 41 in Iowa, and one in Nebraska).

Minority Populations

Five counties (Cook in Illinois; Scott, Johnson, and Polk in Iowa; and Douglas in Nebraska) 

and ten cities and villages (Chicago, Cicero, Berwyn, and Aurora, Illinois; Davenport, West 

Liberty, Iowa City, Coralville, and Des Moines, Iowa; and Omaha, Nebraska) have a 

minority population that is 50 percent greater than their respective statewide average. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-21 October 2012

Chicago and Cicero are the only cities to have a minority population in excess of 50 percent 

of the total population. Appendix D, Tables 1, 2, and 3, provide a summary of population by 

race for all counties, cities, and villages within 0.25 mile of the Study Area.

Low-Income Populations

No counties in the Study Area have a low-income population that is 50 percent greater than 

their respective statewide average (see Appendix D, Table 4). However, eight cities and 

villages (Chicago and Carbon Cliff, Illinois; and Davenport, Atalissa, Iowa City, University 

Heights, Marengo, and Ladora, Iowa) have a low-income population that is 50 percent 

greater than their respective statewide average. A summary of low-income populations for all 

cities and villages within 0.25 mile of the Study Area is provided in Appendix D, Tables 5 

and 6. No county, city, or village in the Study Area had a low-income population in excess of

50 percent of the total population.

3.5.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on 

environmental justice populations are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to 

other projects. The Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program would occur through La 

Grange and Moline, Iowa, which include environmental justice populations. However, that 

program would likely not cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts to these 

populations because it is not anticipated that appreciable ROW would be required through 

urban areas where these populations are highest. West of Moline, Illinois, minority and lowincome populations would not realize the mobility and economic benefits provided through 

access to new passanger rail service.

3.5.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The Build Alternative could have direct and indirect impacts on minority and low-income

populations. Direct impacts affect environmental justice populations through potential 

property displacements for new or improved stations as well as the need for additional ROW 

for track and associated improvements on existing alignments or additional ROW for new 

alignments. Most improvements would be within existing ROW. Improvements outside of 

existing ROW are limited to areas that would be upgraded from single track to double track, 

new alignment connections at Wyanet and potentially Des Moines, intersection safety

improvements, and upgrades to stations for new passenger rail service. Indirect impacts 

affect adjacent environmental justice populations temporarily through increased traffic

congestion, delays, noise, and vibrations during construction. A more detailed assessment of 

indirect impacts is presented in Section 3.23.

Other impacts would occur through increased noise and vibrations caused by the operation of 

new higher speed rail service; this service would be new along IAIS rail lines within the 

Corridor and would be additional service along the BNSF component of the Corridor. Other 

direct and indirect impacts relate to safety at rail crossings and traffic delays due to increased 

train speeds and volumes through counties, cities, and villages with environmental justice

populations. Section 3.7.4 addresses public health and safety impacts in more detail.

Based on the noise analysis documented in Appendix F and summarized in Section 3.8.4, the

Build Alternative is projected to result in 1.0 new moderate noise impact per mile, 0.6 new 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-22 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

severe noise impact per mile, and a combined total of 1.6 noise impacts per mile. The 

incremental increase in train noise is not significant; consequently, environmental justice

populations are not anticipated to be disproportionately affected by noise. A more detailed 

evaluation of moderate and severe noise and vibration impacts for specific areas within the 

Project Impact Area would be conducted during Tier 2 analyses when specific ROW 

requirements and improvements are known.

2010 Census data were analyzed for census tracts transected by and adjacent to potential 

station sites within the Study Area. Potential station locations and the demographic, race, and 

poverty level information for all of the affected census tracts are provided in Appendix D, 

Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10. Demographic data for stations located in Des Moines and Council 

Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska, were not included because the locations of those 

stations are not known at this time. There are minority populations greater than 50 percent of 

their respective citywide average within impacted census tracts at the following stations: 

La Grange Road (Census Tract 8195) and Moline (Census Tract 223) in Illinois; and Atlantic 

(Census Tract 1905) in Iowa. In addition, there are low-income populations greater than 

50 percent of their respective citywide average within impacted census tracts at the following 

stations: La Grange Road (Census Tract 8195) and Moline (Census Tract 223) in Illinois; and 

Iowa City (Census Tract 16), Grinnell (Census Tract 3704), and Atlantic (Census Tract 1905)

in Iowa. 

The Build Alternative includes an optional alignment through Des Moines (Des Moines 

Design Option 3) that would impact both minority and low-income populations. This area is 

shown in Appendix B, Figures 57 and 58. Census Tract 52 has a low-income population of 

50.9 percent, which is substantially greater than the citywide average of 16.3 percent. 

Specific demographic information for minority and low-income populations is provided in 

Appendix D, Tables 11 and 12. Through the early conceptual design process, the Potential 

Impact Area was limited to minimize impacts on adjacent uses. Through refinements in the 

conceptual design, impacts on adjacent uses can potentially be further minimized during the 

Tier 2 analyses. 

An analysis of English proficiency for cities with substantial minority populations is

provided in Appendix D, Table 13. Minority populations within the Study Area may include

large proportions of populations that have LEP. During Tier 2 analyses, these affected 

populations would be identified for impacted areas, and specific approaches to providing 

access to services and for public involvement would be documented as appropriate.

The higher speed passenger rail service under the Build Alternative would provide economic

and quality of life benefits to minority and low-income populations through improved 

mobility and access to an alternative transportation mode serving multiple destinations 

througout the Corridor. However, these benefits would be limited to the area near the 

identified station stops. Some of these populations would also be impacted through potential 

displacements, noise, increased congestion, and other impacts. Specific impacts would be 

evaluated and addressed during Tier 2 analyses. 

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-23 October 2012

ROW for improvements would be required and passenger trains would run at speeds slower 

than 110 mph, and the potential for impacts to minority and low-income populations would 

be less than that of the maximum speed proposed for the ultimate proposed implementation.

Consequently, the potential for impacts and benefits to minority and low-income populations 

would be less during the initial implementation phase. As the Project extends westward, and 

speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase with subsequent implementation phases, 

more impacts and benefits to environmental justice populations would occur to areas within 

or adjacent to the Potential Impact Area.

3.5.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed 

during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as 

specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction.

3.6 ELDERLY AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

This environmental consideration includes an assessment of the transportation and mobility 

of elderly populations and populations with physical or mental disabilities. The assessment 

was performed with the acknowledgement that these populations live within and along the 

Corridor, but does not rely on data for the specific numbers of these populations by location.

3.6.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging, considers 

persons that are 65 years or older as elderly (Administration on Aging, 2011). Elderly 

populations are protected under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, and the 

Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended. Populations with disabilities are protected under 

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Generally, 

these four acts ensure that those associated population groups are not excluded from 

participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or 

activity receiving federal financial assistance. 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services – Administration on Aging website and 

the Department on Aging websites of each state were reviewed in regard to transportation 

and mobility issues (Illinois Department on Aging, 2012; Iowa Department on Aging, 2012; 

Nebraska State Unit on Aging, 2012). In addition, various metropolitan websites were 

reviewed to obtain public transportation information.

3.6.2 Affected Environment

Gathered data were reviewed and a general description of the means of transportation 

available to elderly populations and populations with physical or mental disabilities was 

prepared. Elderly and disabled persons are more likely to have health conditions, including 

vision, hearing, or mobility losses, which prevent them from driving. This increases their 

reliance on Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible transportation services that

provide a link to other services that are needed in order to remain independent. The means of 

transportation that cross or travel adjacent to the Study Area, and that are available to elderly 

and disabled populations in the major metropolitan regions of the Study Area, include fixedroute bus services, fixed-route commuter and passenger rail services, and paratransit services 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-24 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

in which people with disabilities can reserve transportation in advance. Persons with 

disabilities which prevent them from riding the regular fixed route public transit services are

eligible for paratransit service.

Aerial images with environmental resource information are provided in Appendix B, 

Figures 1 through 162. Although elderly and disabled data are not portrayed directly on the 

figures, the major transportation network in the urban areas and small towns (which are 

evident in the figures) is shown. The means of transportation available to elderly and 

disabled populations are summarized below. 

3.6.2.1 Chicago/Naperville, Illinois

In the Chicago metropolitan area, including Naperville, ADA accessible public transportation 

is provided under the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) as follows:

• Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) – Fixed-route bus and commuter rail services.

(CTA, 2011)

• Metra fixed-route commuter rail service – Currently operating on the BNSF rail 

corridor from downtown Chicago to Aurora. (Metra, 2012)

• Pace – Fixed-route suburban bus service (Pace, 2012a) with direct connections to 

and from CTA and Metra (Pace, 2012c), and paratransit services to persons with 

disabilities. (Pace, 2012b)

• Amtrak – Currently operating passenger trains from downtown Chicago to 

Wyanet, Illinois in the Study Area. (Amtrak, 2012).

3.6.2.2 East Moline/Moline/Rock Island, Illinois and Davenport/Bettendorf, Iowa (Quad Cities) 

In the Quad Cities metropolitan area, ADA accessible transportation services are provided as 

follows:

• Rock Island County’s Metro – Fixed-route bus service in East Moline, Moline,

and Rock Island, Illinois, and paratransit service for people with disabilities.

(MetroLINK, 2012)

• CitiBus – Fixed-route bus service in Davenport, Iowa and a paratransit service

through a contract with River Bend Transit, for people with disabilities. (City of 

Davenport, Iowa, 2012)

• Bettendorf Transit System – Fixed-route bus service that connects with CitiBus 

and crosses the Mississippi River to downtown Moline where it provides a 

connection with the Metro, and provides a paratransit service through a contract 

with River Bend Transit. (Bettendorf, Iowa, 2012).

3.6.2.3 Iowa City/Coralville, Iowa 

In the Iowa City/Coralville metropolitan area, ADA accessible transportation services are 

provided as follows:

• Cambus – University of Iowa’s fixed-route bus transportation service routes 

available to students, faculty, staff, and the general public, and paratransit service

for students, faculty, and staff who are disabled. (University of Iowa, 2009).
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-25 October 2012

• Iowa City Transit (ICT) - Fixed-route bus service. (City of Iowa City, Iowa, 2006-

2012a)

• Coralville Transit System (CTS) – Fixed-route bus service routes. (City of 

Coralville, Iowa, 2012)

• Johnson County SEATS (Special needs and Elderly Assisted Transportation 

System), a paratransit service provided by ICT and CTS. (City of Iowa City, 

Iowa, 2006-2012b)

3.6.2.4 Des Moines, Iowa

In the Des Moines metropolitan area, public transportation and ADA accessible 

transportation is provided as follows: 

• Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART) – Fixed-route bus service

and a paratransit service to elderly and disabled persons (DART, 2010).

• Heart of Iowa Regional Transit Agency (HIRTA) – Door-to-door bus services to 

the general public; with an emphasis on the elderly, low-income persons, and 

persons with disabilities; on a demand-response basis in a seven-county area 

outside of, and surrounding Polk County (HIRTA, 2012). The Study Area lies 

within three of those counties: Jasper, Dallas, and Madison.

3.6.2.5 Atlantic, Iowa

In the Atlantic area, accessible public transportation (small buses and vans) is provided by 

the Southwest Iowa Transit Agency (SWITA), which serves all residents in an eight-county 

area (Southwest Iowa Planning Council, 2012), two of which are in the Study Area: Cass and 

Pottawattamie.

3.6.2.6 Omaha/Council Bluffs, Iowa

In the Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan area, ADA accessible transportation services are 

provided as follows:

• Metro – Fixed-route bus service, with several routes on the Omaha side and a few 

that travel into the Council Bluffs area, and a paratransit service within the Omaha 

city limits for people with disabilities (Transit Authority of the City of Omaha, 

2012a and 2012b).

• Special Transit Service (STS) – Paratransit service within the Council Bluffs city 

limits, provided by the Department of Public Works for people with disabilities

(City of Council Bluffs, Iowa, 2012).

3.6.2.7 Intercity Bus Service

Three commercial bus lines, Burlington Trailways, Greyhound, and Megabus, offer ADA

accessible transportation service between Omaha and Chicago, enabling the elderly and 

disabled persons to travel between intermediate major urban areas as follows:

• Burlington Trailways – Chicago, Naperville, Moline, Rock Island, Davenport, 

Iowa City, Des Moines, and Omaha. (Burlington Trailways, 2012)
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-26 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

• Greyhound – Chicago, LaSalle, Davenport, Iowa City, Des Moines, Atlantic, and 

Omaha (Greyhound, 2011)

• Megabus – Chicago, Iowa City, Des Moines, and Omaha. (Megabus.com, 2012)

3.6.2.8 Intercity Airline Service

Four airlines provide direct nonstop service between Chicago and Omaha: American 

Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Airlines, and U.S. Airways. These airlines provide 

transportation services that accommodate the elderly and people with disabilities. Nonstop 

airline service is also offered between Chicago and the intermediate major urban areas as 

listed below. However, airline travel from Omaha to any of those intermediate cities, or 

between any of the intermediate cities served by airlines, is indirect and requires at least two 

flights, with a connection in an airline hub city such as Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver, or 

Houston. 

• American Airlines – Chicago, Moline, Des Moines, Omaha (American Airlines, 

2012)

• Southwest Airlines – Chicago, Des Moines (service began September 30, 2012), 

Omaha (Southwest Airlines, 2012)

• United Airlines – Chicago, Moline, Des Moines, Omaha (United Airlines, 2012)

• U.S. Airways – Chicago, Moline, Iowa City, Des Moines, Omaha (U.S. Airways, 

2012)

3.6.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and direct impacts on the 

elderly and people with disabilities, as well as their transportation and general mobility, are 

not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. However, the Chicago to 

Quad Cities service would not result in permanent adverse impacts on the transportation and 

mobility of the elderly and people with disabilities, as there would be no permanent change 

of existing public transportation routes. Minimal temporary impacts could occur as a result of 

some detours or delays during construction in the vicinity of grade crossing improvements 

related to the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program. In addition, beneficial impacts 

would occur as a result of providing an additional means of accessible public transportation 

between Chicago and the Quad Cities, and the Eola Yard improvements would reduce train 

traffic congestion and improve on-time performance of passenger train service.

3.6.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The Build Alternative would have no permanent direct adverse impacts on the existing 

transportation services and general mobility of elderly persons and persons with disabilities.

Although minimal temporary impacts on existing public transportation routes could occur as 

a result of detours or delays during construction in the vicinity of at-grade and gradeseparated crossing improvements, the proposed Project facilities and services would provide 

beneficial impacts by improving or developing accessible station facilities and improving atgrade crossings of existing public transportation routes. The proposed Project would also 

provide an additional means of accessible public transportation for the elderly and disabled 

populations, support expanded transit operations for efficient use of the transit system, and 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-27 October 2012

increase the availability of transportation options that connect to other cities beyond their 

immediate region.

Through ROW acquisition, it is possible that some elderly populations and populations with 

physical or mental disabilities could be displaced. Those impacts would be addressed along 

with the general population as described in Section 3.2.

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speeds of passenger trains would cause less 

temporary construction impacts to the existing public transportation system than that of the 

maximum speed proposed for the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the 

potential for impacts on the elderly and disabled populations, the public transportation 

system, and the beneficial effects on the general mobility of the elderly and disabled 

populations would be less during the initial implementation phase. As the Project extends 

westward, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase with subsequent 

implementation phases, more impacts and benefits realized for the general mobility of the 

elderly and disabled population would occur to areas within or adjacent to the Potential 

Impact Area. 

3.6.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

A more detailed analysis of potential adverse and beneficial impacts on the elderly and 

disabled populations, mitigation measures, and the public involvement process would be 

provided in the Tier 2 NEPA documents. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent 

required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 analysis after design details are 

known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented 

prior to construction. It is anticipated that any adverse impacts from the Project on the elderly 

and people with disabilities could be mitigated by providing beneficial ADA compliant 

services and facilities for those populations. Throughout the NEPA process, public 

involvement would include public open houses and public information distribution to reach 

elderly and disabled populations and obtain input regarding issues and concerns of those 

populations. 

3.7 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

This discussion includes considerations for the health and safety of residents and 

communities and for the level of protection that would be provided in relation to construction

activities and long‐term operations associated with the Project.

3.7.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to public health and safety includes the ADA, the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and its amendments, and the 

Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970. Public health and safety considerations were

evaluated in accordance with FRA’s Environmental Procedures.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-28 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Highway/rail at-grade crossing information was collected from the FRA Grade Crossings

database. The database provides spatial crossing information that originates from the 

National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory Program. Data collection included obtaining the 

number of existing at-grade crossings along the Study Area. During Tier 2 analysis, more 

detailed information would be gathered from public outreach efforts for other areas such as 

unusually busy at-grade crossings or farm crossings.

Publications and resource materials from FRA and other USDOT agencies were reviewed for 

general safety information including, but not limited to, the Americans with Disabilities Act 

of 1990, High‐Speed Passenger Rail Safety Strategy (FRA, 2009), the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110‐432), and the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) 

(49 USC §20109). During Tier 2 analysis, coordination would take place with the host

railroads to obtain information regarding the level of protection afforded the public in regard 

to health and safety issues.

3.7.2 Affected Environment

Aerial photographs illustrating many at-grade rail crossings by roads, trails, and other 

transportation pathways are shown in Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162.

The Study Area consists of existing BNSF freight and passenger rail lines and IAIS freight

rail lines from Chicago, Illinois, through Iowa, to Council Bluffs, Iowa and Omaha, 

Nebraska. The BNSF line is mostly double and triple track, is signalized, and is under CTC. 

The IAIS line is single track, is non-signalized, and operates under track warrant control

(TWC). 

There would be one small section of new track approximately one mile south of Wyanet, 

Illinois, to create an at-grade connection of the BNSF and IAIS rail lines. Throughout this

approximately 500-mile rail Corridor, the rail lines cross numerous public and private roads, 

highways and interstates with at-grade and grade-separated crossings. Currently, there are 

approximately 1,033 public or private road/rail crossings within the Study Area. This equates 

to just over two crossings per mile on average. There are approximately 514 public crossings 

and 519 private crossings. Approximately 78 percent of these crossings are at-grade and 

22 percent grade-separated. The at-grade crossings have various forms of warning devices 

ranging from active gates and flashing signals to passive protective lights and bells to simple 

cross-buck warning signs at rural crossings. FRA has established train control requirements 

for train movements above 79 mph (49 CFR Part 236). For train speeds between 80 to 

110 mph, the highest speed being considered for this EIS, FRA recommends the installation 

of the most sophisticated warning or traffic control devices that fit the location. Examples 

include dispatcher-controlled electrically locked gates, bells, flashing lights, and constant 

warning time devices.

Rail improvements must meet the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), FRA, and the ADA for construction, operations and maintenance. 

Requirements for public health, such as RCRA, also apply and are addressed in Section 3.10.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-29 October 2012

3.7.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on public health

and safety are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. The other 

projects considered as part of the No-Build Alternative in this Tier 1 EIS are the Chicago to 

Quad Cities Expansion Program passenger rail project, including the Chicago to Wyanet, 

Wyanet Connection, and Wyanet to Moline projects. The Chicago to Quad Cities service 

would contribute to increased train operations along this portion of the Corridor. The 

Chicago to Quad Cities service would introduce additional passenger trains with speeds of up 

to 79 mph and new crossings in Wyanet; consequently, the potential for at-grade conflicts 

would increase without the likely addition of upgraded warning or traffic control devices.

Construction, operations, and maintenance associated with the Chicago to Quad Cities 

Expansion Program would need to meet OSHA, ADA, RCRA and other requirements to help 

protect the safety and health of workers and the public.

3.7.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The Build Alternative would include substantial track and signal upgrades to address public 

safety and to limit conflicts with existing freight rail service. Along the IAIS line, additional 

track would be added and a CTC system would be installed, including a wayside signal 

system and remote control switches. The IAIS’s dispatching center would be upgraded as 

needed. Both BNSF and IAIS’s dispatching centers would be automatically notified as trains 

from one railroad are routed onto the other railroad.

This Build Alternative would provide new passenger rail service on approximately 115 miles 

of track owned by BNSF between Chicago and Wyanet, Illinois; over 1 mile of new track to 

connect the BNSF line to IAIS at Wyanet, Illinois; and approximately 378 miles of IAIS 

track between Wyanet and Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska. With new passenger 

rail service and anticipated speeds up to 110 miles per hour, existing single track sections 

would be upgraded to double track, the existing TWC system would be replaced with a 

CTC system, and existing at-grade crossings would be upgraded as necessary to help ensure 

that the most sophisticated warning devices appropriate for the area are available for 

high-speed rail service. Dispatcher-controlled switches would be installed at existing and 

new freight sidings. Tree and brush clearing would be performed as needed to provide 

necessary sight distances for the wayside signal system. Construction of these improvements 

would provide temporary impacts that are described in more detail in Section 3.23. Safety

issues would be mitigated through these improvements. During Tier 2 analysis, there would 

be further evaluation of whether some crossing locations would be closed and others would 

receive grade-separated crossings. Safety at stations would also be evaluated, with safety 

improvements proposed as warranted.

When compared to vehicular highway travel, passenger rail service is a safer alternative. 

According to the National Safety Council, based on miles traveled, personal motor vehicle 

travel is 12 to 20 times more likely to result in a fatality than passenger rail travel. In 

addition, construction, operations, and maintenance associated with the Build Alternative

would meet OSHA, FRA, ADA, RCRA, and other requirements to help protect the safety 

and health of workers and the public.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-30 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speed of passenger trains would cause less impacts 

and benefits to public health and safety than that of the maximum speed proposed for the 

ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for impacts on public health 

and safety would be less during the initial implementation phase. As the Project extends 

westward, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase with subsequent 

implementation phases, more impacts and benefits to public health and safety would occur to 

areas within or adjacent to the Potential Impact Area.

3.7.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed 

during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as 

specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction. Due to the increased 

speed of HSR service, there are a number of safety measures and strategies that should be 

considered to protect the health and safety of passengers as well as motor vehicles and 

pedestrians at existing or new at-grade crossings. FRA guidance recommends the following 

safety measures and strategies (FRA, 2009): 

• Upgrade the existing train traffic control system throughout the entire Corridor 

including conversion of the existing TWC along the IAIS to CTC. 

• Where practical, it is recommended that public and private grade crossings be 

consolidated along the HSR route. Redundant and/or unsafe crossings (due to 

proximity of exiting road intersections, skewed geometry, etc.) should be 

eliminated where alternate access can be reasonably provided. 

• For public and private at-grade crossings, especially within and on the fringe of 

populated areas, install the most sophisticated traffic control/warning device 

appropriate for the location, such as median barriers, special signage, flashing 

lights, four-quadrant gates, etc. In general, private crossings should be treated the 

same as public crossings.

• Private crossings within industrial developments and rural areas with a prevalence 

of heavy trucks and farm equipment can pose significant dangers. For these 

private crossings that cannot be closed, consideration should be given to 

providing a locking device when not in use. 

• Active warning systems for pedestrians are essential where the HSR line crosses 

existing sidewalks, trails, and bike routes. This is especially the case with crossing 

near parks, schools and other activity centers.

• Education and public outreach are important to prepare road users for the 

challenges inherent at future HSR crossings. The public will need to be informed 

that HSR trains travel at significantly higher speeds than existing trains in the 

Study Area. Exclusively relying on visual and/or audible cues to judge the arrival 

of HSR trains can be extremely dangerous.

• Station locations may warrant additional security improvements such as extra 

lighting, surveillance cameras, and other security measures.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-31 October 2012

3.8 NOISE AND VIBRATION

In general, noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound is produced by the vibration of 

sound pressure waves in the air, and sound pressure levels are expressed in units called 

decibels (dB). The human hearing organs do not perceive all sounds equally, and a 

mathematical weighting scale is used to put more emphasis (or weighting) on frequencies 

that humans perceive, and also to de-emphasize the frequencies that humans do not perceive 

very well. The A-weighting scale, expressed as A-weighted decibels (dBA), accounts for the 

human perception of hearing. Estimates of environmental noise in this analysis are expressed 

with a dimension of time associated with them. Two descriptors are used: Leq and Ldn. As 

used in this analysis, the equivalent noise level (Leq) is an energy-based average noise level 

that occurs over a 1-hour period. The day-night noise level (Ldn) is a combination of 

24 consecutive hourly Leq values, with the addition of a 10-decibel penalty to values that 

occur between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. In this manner, the Ldn accounts for additional 

annoyance associated with noise events that occur at night and can potentially disrupt sleep.

Airborne noise and ground-borne vibration were evaluated in this analysis, consistent with 

precedent applied by FRA on other Tier 1 studies for high speed passenger rail projects. 

Vibration, as addressed in this analysis, consists of rapidly fluctuating motions through the 

ground expressed as ground-borne vibration (GBV). Various federal agencies establish noise 

and vibration criteria to help ensure that federally funded projects are evaluated for noise and 

vibration impacts compared to criteria. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and FRA 

established similar procedures and guidelines for assessing train noise and categorizing 

impacts as no impact, moderate impact, or severe impact.

Noise and vibration receptors include residences, businesses, and locations where noise 

sensitivities exist due to the types of land use or activities such as parks, picnic areas, 

recreation areas, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. Consequently, urban areas 

adjacent to rail ROW have more receptors than rural areas.

3.8.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

FRA implemented Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulations (49 CFR 210) to 

comply with the Railroad Noise Emission Standards established by the USEPA in 

40 CFR 201.

The noise and vibration assessment followed FTA guidelines published in “Transit Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment” (May 2006). The FRA published virtually identical guidance 

for assessing noise and vibration from high speed passenger trains in 2005. FRA uses FTA 

methods for noise and vibration impact assessment. Consistent with other FRA Tier 1 NEPA

evaluations, a screening application of the general noise assessment was conducted, and a 

GBV assessment was prepared in accordance with FTA guidelines. 

The FTA noise impact criteria are defined by two curves, representing severe and moderate 

noise impacts, which are defined below. 

• Severe Impact. A significant percentage of people are highly annoyed by noise in 

this range. Noise mitigation would normally be specified for severe impact areas 

unless it is not feasible or reasonable (unless there is no practical method of 

mitigating the impact).
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-32 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

• Moderate Impact. In this range, other project-specific factors are considered to 

determine the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. These factors 

include the predicted increase over existing noise levels, the types and number of 

noise-sensitive land uses affected, existing outdoor-indoor sound insulation, and 

the cost-effectiveness of mitigating noise to more acceptable levels. 

The FTA noise impact criteria are summarized in Graph 3.8-1, below. The figure illustrates

existing noise exposure and Project-related noise exposure, and demonstrates that FTA noise 

impact thresholds vary with existing noise levels. Although the figure below references all 

three land use categories used by FTA, this analysis focused on Category 2 (land uses where 

overnight sleep occurs).

Graph 3.8-1. FTA Noise Impact Criteria

In a Tier 1 EIS, the focus is on receptors in land uses where overnight sleep occurs (primarily 

residences), which is consistent with FRA guidance for Tier 1 NEPA reviews. Residences 

were identified by visual inspection of digital aerial photographs; no windshield surveys were 

performed. Park and recreation areas identified through a separate analysis of those resources 

were also noted as receptor locations for the noise and vibration analysis.

Passenger trains would operate at the maximum authorized speed of 110 mph where and 

when possible, but sustained 110 mph stretches are not present on this route. The noise and 

vibration analyses evaluated average speeds that account for permanent speed reductions for 

curves, urban area ordinances, station stops, etc., and the speed loss that occurs when 

accelerating and decelerating out of and into each of those speed reductions. Freight trains 

have switching and other work events, and permanent speed restrictions for yard areas, 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-33 October 2012

curves, and urban ordinances, etc. The noise and vibration analyses also evaluated average 

freight train speeds.

Two future scenarios were assessed for the effects of airborne noise and GBV. The first 

scenario is the expected effect of a future freight rail traffic increase, without the addition of 

the passenger trains from Chicago to Omaha, combined with current service levels of 

commuter rail traffic from Chicago to Wyanet. The second scenario is the expected effect of 

the same freight rail traffic increase and commuter rail traffic along with the Project-related 

passenger rail traffic from the Project. These are respectively referred to as the future/nobuild scenario and the future/build scenario. Both of these scenarios were evaluated in order 

to assess the incremental, Project-related effects of airborne noise and GBV.

Data from several sources was used to generate train traffic counts on the proposed route for 

use in the noise and vibration assessment, including information from railroads, train traffic 

data from FRA crossing data, and operational data. The FRA grade crossing database was

incorporated in this assessment to identify the locations of public at-grade rail crossings 

where locomotive horns are used, and also to identify where quiet zones exist. Noise from 

locomotive horn use was not included in this assessment in areas where quiet zones currently 

exist, because horns are not used in those zones. 

Potential impacts of both airborne noise and GBV were assessed. FTA and FRA guidance for 

assessing noise and GBV from passenger trains were used in a screening application of 

FTA’s general noise assessment methods. The FTA noise impact criteria were used to assess 

the potential for noise impacts. The screening application of the general noise assessment 

methods only identified potential noise impacts at residential lands; it did not distinguish 

between moderate and severe noise impacts (as defined by FTA and FRA).

Aerial photography was collected showing the existing land uses along the Study Area and

existing noise levels were estimated along its route. Residential land uses were identified 

from aerial photography. Changes in train volumes (passenger and freight) were identified,

and estimates for train volumes and average train speeds were developed. This information 

was used to subdivide the Study Area into sections with similar traffic conditions. 

Existing noise levels in the Study Area were estimated using a multi-step process. Land uses 

along each section were evaluated to estimate development density, which was used 

to further subdivide the portions of the Study Area into areas of similar rail traffic volumes or 

“conditions,” development density, and then existing noise levels or “noise conditions.”

Following FTA/FRA guidance, noise impact thresholds were then determined based on the 

existing noise levels. By objectively establishing traffic and noise “conditions” with 

corresponding noise impact thresholds, the process of evaluating project-related noise 

throughout the entire corridor was simplified. The traffic and noise “conditions” are 

discussed in more depth in the following section.

The FRA grade crossing database was used to identify at-grade crossings for the Study Area

and to identify any quiet zones. Potential noise and GBV impacts were identified by plotting 

noise impact contours and identifying residential land uses (land use category 2) within those 

contours. No other land use category was included in the screening application of the general 

noise and GBV assessment methods. This methodology has been approved by FRA for use 

on Tier 1 NEPA assessments.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-34 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.8.1.1 Noise

The first step in the noise assessment was to identify existing noise levels. This assessment 

used methods published by FTA (May 2006) to estimate existing noise levels based on 

factors such as proximity to roadways, highways, and railroads, and also by population

density. Using FTA guidance, the highest estimate of existing noise levels produced by these 

methods was incorporated into this assessment. In accordance with FTA and FRA guidance, 

this assessment used the existing noise level to identify the noise impact threshold. The noise 

impact threshold was determined by locating the measured or estimated existing noise level 

in FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment – Final Report, Table 3-4, which

identifies noise impact thresholds corresponding to the existing noise levels (FTA, May 

2006).

The range of train volumes and speeds present in the Study Area was summarized as a series 

of traffic conditions (A through J). Because sustained speeds of 110 mph would not be 

possible on the route, the noise and vibration analyses evaluated average speeds that account

for permanent speed reductions for curves, urban area ordinances, station stops, etc., and the 

speed loss that occurs when accelerating and decelerating out of and into each of those speed 

reductions. Consequently, a speed of 100 mph was used to represent the maximum average 

speed of passenger trains. The noise and vibration analyses also evaluated average freight 

train speeds. This allowed the Corridor to be subdivided into sections with similar train 

traffic characteristics. A series of traffic conditions, or zones, were identified throughout the 

rail line; each traffic condition represents a range of similar rail traffic and surrounding land 

use (and existing noise levels). Assigning traffic conditions to the Study Area allowed it to be 

logically subdivided into subsections, simplifying the noise analysis. A total of ten traffic 

conditions were defined, as shown in Table 3.8-1. These “traffic conditions” were used only 

to facilitate the analysis; noise analysis results are reported by county and municipality.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-35 October 2012

Table 3.8-1. Summary of Traffic Conditions

Traffic Condition

Trains per 

Day

Average Train

Designation Location No. of Cars No. of 

Locomotives Speed

Future Freight Trains (Future/No-Build & Future/Build scenarios)

A Chicago-Aurora 60.0 105.0 3.0 45.0

B Aurora-Wyanet 36.0 105.0 3.0 45.0

C Wyanet-Silvis 14.0 141.4 3.0 35.0

D Silvis-Rock Island 22.0 106.4 2.0 5.0

E Rock Island-Iowa City 12.0 123.2 3.0 35.0

F Iowa City 14.0 115.5 2.0 5.0

G Iowa City-E. Des Moines 12.0 123.2 3.0 35.0

H Des Moines 14.0 115.5 2.0 10.0

I W. Des Moines-Council Bluffs 10.0 105.0 3.0 35.0

J Council Bluffs-Omaha 90.0 141.4 3.0 10.0

Chicago-area Passenger Trains (Future/No-Build scenario)

A Chicago-Aurora 102.0 9.0 1.0 60.0

B Aurora-Wyanet 8.0 9.4 2.0 70.0

Future Passenger Trains (Future/Build scenario)

A Chicago-Aurora 116.0 9.0 1.0 60.0

B Aurora-Wyanet 22.0 8.0 2.0 100.0

C Wyanet-Silvis 14.0 7.1 2.0 100.0

D Silvis-Rock Island 14.0 7.1 2.0 40.0

E Rock Island-Iowa City 14.0 7.1 2.0 100.0

F Iowa City 14.0 7.1 2.0 40.0

G Iowa City-E. Des Moines 14.0 7.1 2.0 100.0

H Des Moines 14.0 7.1 2.0 40.0

I W. Des Moines-Council Bluffs 14.0 7.1 2.0 100.0

J Council Bluffs-Omaha 14.0 7.1 2.0 40.0

As discussed in the previous section, the range of development density present throughout 

the Study Area was simplified into the three land use categories used in the FRA horn noise

model (rural, suburban, and urban). These particular land use categories were used because 

they are logical subdivisions of existing land use and they are consistent with land use 

categories used in the FRA horn noise model. The building-induced (acoustical) shielding 

assumptions used in that model for each respective land use were also incorporated into this 

analysis. A series of noise categories or “noise conditions” were then created by combining 

traffic conditions and the three categories of development density. Table 3.8-2 summarizes 

the Noise Condition definitions. Using this approach, the Study area was subdivided into the 

“noise conditions”, and each noise condition was modeled for representative results 

throughout the Study Area. As noted previously, the noise analysis results were reported by 

county and municipality.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-36 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Table 3.8-2. Noise Condition Definitions

Noise Condition Traffic Condition Development Density

1 A Urban

2 A Suburban

3 B Rural

4 B Suburban

5 B Urban

6 C Rural

7 C Suburban

8 D Suburban

9 D Urban

10 E Rural

11 E Suburban

12 E Urban

13 F Suburban

14 F Urban

15 G Rural

16 G Suburban

17 H Suburban

18 H Urban

19 H Rural

20 I Rural

21 I Suburban

22 J Urban

23 J Suburban

Using this approach, the moderate noise impact threshold was 59 dBA and the severe noise 

impact threshold was 62 dBA, both on a Ldn basis. 

Based on the FRA database, this analysis assumes that a quiet zone exists between Chicago 

and Aurora. These portions of the Study Area comprise much of Noise Condition 1 and 

Noise Condition 2. Furthermore, most crossings appear to be grade-separated through 

Council Bluffs, Iowa to Omaha, Nebraska. This portion of the Study Area comprises Noise 

Condition 22. Horns are apparently not used on any Noise Condition 1, 2, or 22 rail sections; 

therefore, locomotive horn analyses were not performed for these sections.

The FRA locomotive horn noise model does not allow a modeler to model several different 

trains at the same time, and was therefore not used on this analysis. The horn noise contours 

were created using methods in the FTA and FRA guidance documents, and incorporating 

some of the features of the FRA horn noise model (the 1/4-mile contour distance, and the 

shielding equations). 

3.8.1.2 Vibration

For the GBV assessment, the locations of existing vibration-sensitive land uses were

identified and reviewed. In addition, the collected data regarding surface geology were

reviewed for application to the assessment of vibration impacts.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-37 October 2012

Vibration impact assessments are based upon the highest expected level of vibration for 

repeated vibration events. The vibration impact criterion varies depending upon the number 

of vibration events per day; a greater number of vibration events will lower the threshold for 

expecting a community response to the vibration. The number of vibration events may range 

from less than 30 (infrequent) to more than 70 (frequent) events per day depending on 

location. FTA recommends, however, that the frequent-event criterion be applied for linehaul freight trains because of the lengthy vibration event caused by the rail cars and the 

greater weight and axle loads of freight trains versus passenger trains.

Both Future/No-build and Future/Build operations were evaluated to assess the potential 

vibration impact along the Study Area. The Future/Build scenario includes passenger trains 

moving at 100 mph, along with existing freight train traffic, on continuously welded rail 

(CWR). 

The assessment began with a data gathering task and construction of a GIS database for the 

Project. The railroad alignments, surface geology, aerial photography, and train traffic data

(the number of locomotives and rail cars) were among the critical information gathered. 

Geology sources included GIS data and maps available at the Illinois State Geological 

Survey, Iowa Geological Survey, and Nebraska Geological Survey websites. Appendix E 

includes data related to development of vibration curve adjustment factors used to support 

the vibration analysis. Train traffic data were compiled during the noise assessment. The 

traffic conditions developed for use in the noise assessment documented in the first part of 

this section were also applied in the vibration analysis. The traffic conditions provided in

Table 3.8-3 is a condensed version of Table 3.8-2 for use in the vibration analysis.

As in the noise analysis, the vibration analysis also categorized sections of the rail line into 

“traffic conditions.” These “traffic conditions” were used only to facilitate the analysis; 

vibration analysis results are reported by county and municipality. Table 3.8-3 refers to 

sections of rail that have specific combinations of train speed and frequency (although for the 

vibration assessment, the frequent-event criterion is assumed). Table 3.8-3 is a condensed 

version of Table 3.8-2 as it applies to the vibration analysis.

Table 3.8-3. Traffic Conditions

Traffic Condition Location

Speed (mph)

Future/No-build Future/Build

A Chicago-Aurora 60 60

B Aurora-Wyanet 70 100

C Wyanet-Silvis 35 100

D Silvis-Rock Island 5 40

E Rock Island-Iowa City 35 100

F Iowa City 5 40

G Iowa City-E. Des Moines 35 100

H Des Moines 10 40

I W. Des Moines-Council Bluffs 35 100

J Council Bluffs-Omaha 10 40
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-38 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Once the necessary datasets had been gathered, the vibration impacts for existing and future 

scenarios were analyzed. 

This Tier 1 NEPA vibration assessment only assessed Project-related ground-borne vibration

at land uses where overnight sleep occurs (primarily residences) for the same reasons as 

noted in the noise section. 

The quantitative noise assessment was completed using GIS data and by calculating the 

distance to Future/No-build and Future/Build train noise impact thresholds using FTA 

guidance. As noted above, noise levels calculated with this model were compared to FTA 

noise impact criteria to assess the potential for incremental increases in the number of train 

noise impacts. Similarly, the distance to Future/No-build and Future/Build vibration impact 

thresholds was calculated and plotted as GIS contours, and was used to identify the 

incremental change associated with the proposed Project. 

3.8.2 Affected Environment

Various resources, including sensitive receptors such as residences, parks, and recreational 

areas, within the Study Area are shown in Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162. The current 

rail traffic, speed, and noise conditions were identified in Tables 3.8-1, -2, and -3.

3.8.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Noise and vibration impacts were evaluated quantitatively and are reported separately below.

3.8.3.1 Noise

Using the same methods for estimating noise impacts under the Build Alternative, the noise 

impacts under the No-Build Alternative were also estimated in the future. Table 3.8-4 

summarizes the noise impacts under the No-Build Alternative, and provides a context when 

reviewing noise impacts associated with the Build Alternative.

Table 3.8-4. Incremental Increase in Noise Impacts Associated with the No-Build Alternative

Municipality

Moderate Severe

Total

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside

Adair County

Unincorporated 3 0 0 0 3

Adair County Total 3 0 0 0 3

Bureau County

Arlington 3 0 0 0 3

Malden 3 0 0 0 3

Mineral 3 0 0 0 3

Princeton 3 0 0 1 4

Wyanet 5 0 0 0 5

Unincorporated 3 0 0 0 3

Bureau County Total 20 0 0 1 21
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-39 October 2012

Municipality

Moderate Severe

Total

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside

Cass County

Anita 1 0 0 0 1

Atlantic 0 1 0 0 1

Wiota 0 0 1 0 1

Cass County Total 1 1 1 0 3

Cedar County

Unincorporated 2 0 0 0 2

Cedar County Total 2 0 0 0 2

Cook County

Berwyn 0 4 0 0 4

Brookfield 0 2 0 0 2

Chicago 0 3 0 0 3

Cicero 0 2 0 0 2

La Grange 0 2 0 0 2

Riverside 0 4 0 0 4

Western Springs 0 1 0 0 1

Cook County Total 0 18 0 0 18

Dallas County

Dexter 0 0 1 0 1

Van Meter 0 1 0 0 1

Dallas County Total 0 1 1 0 2

DeKalb County

Sandwich 11 3 0 0 14

Somonauk 6 0 0 0 6

Unincorporated 1 0 0 0 1

DeKalb County Total 18 3 0 0 21

Douglas County

Omaha 0 2 0 0 2

Douglas County Total 0 2 0 0 2

DuPage County

Clarendon Hills 0 6 0 0 6

Downers Grove 0 1 0 0 1

Hinsdale 0 2 0 0 2

Lisle 0 2 0 0 2

Naperville 0 3 0 0 3

Westmont 0 6 0 0 6

Unincorporated 0 1 0 0 1

DuPage County Total 0 21 0 0 21
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-40 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Municipality

Moderate Severe

Total

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside

Guthrie County

Casey 0 0 1 0 1

Menlo 0 0 1 0 1

Stuart 1 0 0 0 1

Guthrie County Total 1 0 2 0 3

Henry County

Annawan 5 0 0 0 5

Atkinson 4 1 0 0 5

Colona 13 5 0 0 18

Geneseo 8 0 0 0 8

Unincorporated 3 4 0 0 7

Henry County Total 33 10 0 0 43

Iowa County

Ladora 2 0 2 0 4

Victor 1 0 0 0 1

Unincorporated 6 2 0 0 8

Iowa County Total 9 2 2 0 13

Jasper County

Colfax 11 2 0 0 13

Kellogg 0 0 3 0 3

Newton 1 1 12 0 14

Unincorporated 9 1 0 0 10

Jasper County Total 21 4 15 0 40

Johnson County

Coralville 0 1 0 0 1

Iowa City 7 29 0 1 37

Oxford 2 0 1 0 3

Tiffin 2 5 2 0 9

University Heights 0 3 0 0 3

Unincorporated 1 0 0 0 1

Johnson County Total 12 38 3 1 54

Kane County

Aurora 0 2 0 0 2

Montgomery 2 0 0 0 2

Kane County Total 2 2 0 0 4

Kendall County

Plano 0 1 0 0 1

Unincorporated 1 0 0 0 1

Kendall County Total 1 1 0 0 2
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-41 October 2012

Municipality

Moderate Severe

Total

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside

LaSalle County

Earlville 4 0 0 0 4

Leland 1 0 0 0 1

Mendota 3 4 0 0 7

Unincorporated 3 1 0 0 4

LaSalle County Total 11 5 0 0 16

Madison County

Earlham 0 0 1 0 1

Unincorporated 1 0 0 0 1

Madison County Total 1 0 1 0 2

Muscatine County

Atalissa 1 0 2 0 3

Stockton 4 0 0 0 4

West Liberty 4 0 0 0 4

Wilton 6 1 0 0 7

Unincorporated 7 1 0 0 8

Muscatine County Total 22 2 2 0 26

Polk County

Altoona 1 0 0 0 1

Des Moines 3 3 0 0 6

Mitchellville 17 2 0 0 19

West Des Moines 5 0 0 0 5

Polk County Total 26 5 0 0 31

Pottawattamie County

Council Bluffs 0 2 0 0 2

McClelland 2 0 0 0 2

Unincorporated 2 1 1 0 4

Pottawattamie County Total 4 3 1 0 8

Poweshiek County

Brooklyn 0 0 1 0 1

Grinnell 0 0 6 0 6

Malcom 0 0 2 0 2

Victor 0 0 1 0 1

Unincorporated 1 0 0 0 1

Poweshiek County Total 1 0 10 0 11

Rock Island County

East Moline 5 0 0 0 5

Moline 7 0 0 0 7

Rock Island 2 0 0 0 2

Silvis 1 0 0 0 1

Rock Island County Total 15 0 0 0 15
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-42 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Municipality

Moderate Severe

Total

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside

Scott County

Davenport 10 4 0 0 14

Scott County Total 10 4 0 0 14

Grand Totals 213 122 38 2 375

335 40

Table 3.8-4 shows noise impacts sorted by grade crossing (due to locomotive horn use) and 

wayside noise (wheel-rail noise), and both moderate and severe. Under the future No-Build 

Alternative only 335 moderate and 40 severe noise impacts are estimated to occur along the 

approximately 500 mile corridor. Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be 

built, and noise and vibration impacts are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due 

to other projects. The Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to slightly increased 

noise and vibration along this portion of the Chicago to Omaha route.

3.8.3.2 Vibration

Projected No-Build rail traffic was assessed to identify the incremental increase in groundborne vibration effects on residential land uses in the Study Area. Table 3.8-5 presents the 

vibration impacts associated with the No-Build Alternative.

Table 3.8-5. Incremental Increase in Ground-borne Vibration Impacts 

Associated with the No-Build Alternative

County Municipality No. of Impacts

Adair County

Adair 0

Stewart 0

Unincorporated 0

Adair County Total 0

Bureau County

Arlington 4

Malden 3

Mineral 2

Princeton 6

Wyanet 6

Unincorporated 2

Bureau County Total 23

Cass County Atlantic 1

Cass County Total 1

Cedar County No change

Cook County

Berwyn 4

Brookfield 2

Chicago 3

Cicero 2

La Grange 2

Riverside 4

Western Springs 1

Cook County Total 18
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-43 October 2012

County Municipality No. of Impacts

Dallas County Van Meter 1

Dallas County Total 1

DeKalb County

Sandwich 17

Somonauk 7

Unincorporated 1

DeKalb County Total 25

Douglas County No change

DuPage County

Clarendon Hills 6

Downers Grove 1

Hinsdale 2

Lisle 7

Naperville 7

Westmont 6

Unincorporated 5

DuPage County Total 34

Guthrie County No change

Henry County

Annawan 2

Atkinson 3

Colona 12

Geneseo 6

Unincorporated 4

Henry County Total 27

Iowa County Unincorporated 1

Iowa County Total 1

Jasper County No change

Johnson County Iowa City 7

Johnson County Total 7

Kane County

Aurora 15

Montgomery 4

Unincorporated 3

Kane County Total 22

Kendall County

Montgomery 1

Plano 4

Unincorporated 9

Kendall County Total 14

LaSalle County

Earlville 6

Leland 2

Mendota 11

Unincorporated 4

LaSalle County Total 23

Madison County No change

Muscatine County No change

Polk County West Des Moines 1

Polk County Total 1

Pottawattamie County Council Bluffs 2

Pottawattamie County Total 2

Poweshiek County No change

Rock Island County No change

Scott County Davenport 3

Scott County Total 3

Total Vibration Impacts 202
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-44 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

The overall number of projected vibration impacts under the No-Build Alternative is quite 

low, and not considered to be significant.

3.8.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

Noise and vibration impacts were evaluated quantitatively and are reported separately below.

3.8.4.1 Noise

Both the Future/No-build and Future/Build (seven round-trips per day) passenger rail traffic

were assessed; this allowed the analysis to identify the incremental increase in train noise

effects on residential land uses in the Study Area reported in the sections below. This portion 

of the analysis is based on the proposed addition of seven round-trips per day at 100 mph 

from Chicago to Omaha. 

Table 3.8-6 presents the incremental increase in noise impacts, as defined by FTA, at 

residential land uses adjacent to the Study Area. The table presents noise impacts predicted to 

occur in each municipality along the Build Alternative, and sorts the impacts as moderate or 

severe grade crossing and wayside (wheel/rail) noise impacts. The entire Corridor was 

evaluated; rural areas are listed as unincorporated in the table.

Table 3.8-6 shows that the distribution of Project-related noise impacts is scattered 

throughout the Corridor. Areas with high existing traffic volumes and quiet zones are 

expected to experience a minor incremental increase in train noise associated with the Build 

Alternative. Conversely, areas with low existing traffic volumes, slow trains, and fewer or no 

quiet zones are expected to experience a larger incremental increase in train noise associated 

with the Build Alternative. 

Table 3.8-6 reflects the trend of a low incremental increase in noise impacts in Chicago 

where train volumes are already high but much of the area along the Build Alternative

consists of a quiet zone. Analysis results show that municipalities in the Quad Cities, where 

train speeds and volumes are low and quiet zones do not exist, are likely to experience a 

larger incremental increase in train noise levels and corresponding impacts associated with 

the Build Alternative. The influence of quiet zones on the magnitude of the incremental 

increase in train noise impacts suggests they represent an opportunity to mitigate many of the 

predicted impacts. Mitigation opportunities are discussed in Section 3.8.5.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-45 October 2012

Table 3.8-6. Incremental Increase in Noise Impacts Associated with the Build Alternative

Municipality

Moderate Severe

Total

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside

Adair County

Adair 0 2 0 0 2

Stuart 7 0 0 0 7

Unincorporated 0 0 3 0 3

Adair County Total 7 2 3 0 12

Bureau County

Arlington 0 0 3 0 3

Malden 0 0 3 0 3

Mineral 1 0 3 0 4

Princeton 3 0 2 1 6

Sheffield 10 0 0 0 10

Wyanet 0 0 5 0 5

Unincorporated 0 1 2 1 4

Bureau County Total 14 1 18 2 35

Cass County

Anita 2 2 1 0 5

Atlantic 3 2 0 1 6

Wiota 3 0 0 0 3

Unincorporated 1 0 0 0 1

Cass County Total 9 4 1 1 15

Cedar County

Durant 14 0 0 14

Unincorporated 8 1 2 0 11

Cedar County Total 22 1 2 0 25

Cook County

Berwyn 0 2 0 4 6

Brookfield 0 2 0 2 4

Chicago 0 19 0 3 22

Cicero 0 3 0 2 5

La Grange 0 2 0 2 4

Riverside 0 1 0 4 5

Western Springs 0 0 0 1 1

Cook County Total 0 29 0 18 47

Dallas County

De Soto 3 2 0 0 5

Dexter 10 0 0 0 10

Van Meter 3 1 0 1 5

Unincorporated 6 2 0 0 8

Dallas County Total 22 5 0 1 28
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-46 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Municipality

Moderate Severe

Total

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside

DeKalb County

Sandwich 0 0 11 3 14

Somonauk 0 0 6 0 6

Unincorporated 0 0 1 0 1

DeKalb County Total 0 0 18 3 21

Douglas County

Omaha 0 25 0 2 27

Unincorporated 0 1 0 0 1

Douglas County Total 0 26 0 2 28

DuPage County

Clarendon Hills 0 0 0 6 6

Downers Grove 0 8 0 1 9

Hinsdale 0 4 0 2 6

Lisle 0 3 0 2 5

Naperville 0 2 0 3 5

Westmont 0 0 0 6 6

Unincorporated 0 3 0 1 4

DuPage County Total 0 20 0 21 41

Guthrie County

Casey 8 1 0 0 9

Menlo 8 0 0 0 8

Stuart 5 0 1 0 6

Unincorporated 1 2 0 0 3

Guthrie County Total 22 3 1 0 26

Henry County

Annawan 3 0 5 0 8

Atkinson 3 0 4 1 8

Colona 0 0 12 6 18

Geneseo 16 0 8 0 24

Unincorporated 2 5 3 4 14

Henry County Total 24 5 32 11 72

Iowa County

Ladora 7 1 2 0 10

Victor 2 0 1 0 3

Unincorporated 15 2 6 2 25

Iowa County Total 24 3 9 2 38

Jasper County

Colfax 0 3 11 2 16

Kellogg 13 2 0 0 15

Newton 31 0 0 0 31

Unincorporated 4 0 9 1 14

Jasper County Total 48 5 20 3 76
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-47 October 2012

Municipality

Moderate Severe

Total

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside

Johnson County

Coralville 1 0 0 0 1

Iowa City 7 0 3 26 36

Oxford 4 0 1 0 5

Tiffin 5 0 0 1 6

University Heights 0 0 0 2 2

Unincorporated 3 1 1 0 5

Johnson County Total 20 1 5 29 55

Kane County

Aurora 0 11 0 2 13

Montgomery 1 0 2 0 3

Unincorporated 0 3 0 0 3

Kane County Total 1 14 2 2 19

Kendall County

Montgomery 0 1 0 0 1

Plano 9 1 0 1 11

Unincorporated 3 6 1 0 10

Kendall County Total 12 8 1 1 22

LaSalle County

Earlville 2 0 4 0 6

Leland 1 0 1 0 2

Mendota 4 0 3 3 10

Unincorporated 0 0 3 1 4

LaSalle County Total 7 0 11 4 22

Madison County

Earlham 9 1 0 0 10

Unincorporated 0 1 1 0 2

Madison County Total 9 2 1 0 12

Muscatine County

Atalissa 5 0 1 0 6

Stockton 0 0 4 0 4

West Liberty 2 1 4 0 7

Wilton 5 0 6 0 11

Unincorporated 3 4 7 0 14

Muscatine County Total 15 5 22 0 42
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-48 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Municipality

Moderate Severe

Total

Grade Crossing Wayside Grade Crossing Wayside

Polk County

Altoona 3 0 0 0 3

Des Moines 6 3 3 3 15

Mitchellville 9 0 17 0 26

Pleasant Hill 7 1 0 0 8

West Des Moines 2 4 5 0 11

Unincorporated 2 0 0 0 2

Polk County Total 29 8 25 3 65

Pottawattamie County

Council Bluffs 2 10 0 2 14

McClelland 5 0 2 0 7

Unincorporated 2 2 2 1 7

Pottawattamie County Total 9 12 4 3 28

Poweshiek County

Brooklyn 5 0 0 0 5

Grinnell 24 0 0 0 24

Malcom 3 0 0 0 3

Victor 2 0 0 0 2

Unincorporated 1 3 1 0 5

Poweshiek County Total 35 3 1 0 39

Rock Island County

Carbon Cliff 0 1 0 0 1

East Moline 1 0 5 0 6

Moline 0 0 7 0 7

Rock Island 0 0 2 0 2

Silvis 1 0 1 0 2

Rock Island County Total 2 1 15 0 18

Scott County

Davenport 0 24 10 4 38

Walcott 13 0 0 0 13

Unincorporated 2 0 0 0 2

Scott County Total 15 24 10 4 53

Grand Totals 346 182 201 110 839

528 311

Analysis results show a low incremental increase in noise impacts per mile associated with 

the Build Alternative. The Build Alternative is projected to result in 1.0 new moderate noise 

impact per mile; 0.6 new severe noise impact per mile, and a combined total of 1.6 noise 

impacts per mile over approximately 500 miles. On this basis, the incremental increase in 

train noise is not significant. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-49 October 2012

Analysis results also show that 375 noise impacts are projected to occur under the No-Build 

Alternative and 839 noise impacts are projected to occur under the Build Alternative. This is 

an increase of over 100 percent, and is spread throughout the corridor. Of these impacts, 

209 are changes from moderate to severe (the Build Alternative introduces two new severe 

noise impacts at locations that were previously not impacted).

Of the noise impacts predicted to occur under the Build Alternative, 547 of them are 

attributed to locomotive horn use, and they occur in areas where locomotive horns are 

currently in use (with many of them occurring under the No-Build Alternative). As noted 

under the No-Build Alternative, the analysis does not account for any change in at-grade

intersections to grade-separated intersections where horns would not be required. 

Implementing quiet zones has the potential to further reduce these impacts. Because of the 

preliminary nature of this Tier 1 analysis and the acknowledgement that upgrade of some atgrade intersections would be known during Tier 2, these grade-crossing impacts are not 

considered significant. The remaining 292 noise impacts attributable to the Build Alternative 

are associated with wayside noise and are spread throughout the corridor (equivalent to less 

than one noise impact per mile), which makes mitigation challenging and potentially 

impractical in some areas based on the consideration of feasibility and reasonableness of 

noise barriers for a few receptors. Because of the limited number of noise impacts per mile, 

these impacts are also not considered significant.

With phased implementation, the level of improvements needed for the baseline speed of 

79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of speeds up to 

110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW for 

improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds.

Consequently, impacts associated with the ultimate proposed implementation may eventually 

be realized, but the impacts would incur gradually over the years of implementation as 

federal and state funds are allocated to the Project.

3.8.4.2 Vibration

The Future/Build (seven round-trips per day) rail traffic was assessed; this allowed the 

analysis to identify the incremental increase in ground-borne vibration effects on residential

land uses in the Study Area.

Table 3.8-7 presents the incremental increase in vibration impacts, as defined by FTA, at 

residential land uses adjacent to the Study Area. The table presents vibration impacts 

predicted to occur in each municipality along the Build Alternative. There would be no 

incremental increase in vibration impacts for Cook and DuPage counties.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-50 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Table 3.8-7. Incremental Increase in Ground-borne Vibration Impacts 

Associated with the Build Alternative

County Municipality No. of Impacts

Adair County

Adair 4

Stewart 16

Unincorporated 3

Adair County Total 23

Bureau County

Arlington 11

Malden 14

Mineral 41

Princeton 45

Sheffield 44

Wyanet 38

Unincorporated 17

Bureau County Total 210

Cass County

Anita 7

Atlantic 19

Wiota 4

Unincorporated 3

Cass County Total 33

Cedar County

Durant 42

Unincorporated 10

Cedar County Total 52

Cook County No changes

Dallas County

De Soto 9

Dexter 25

Van Meter 17

Unincorporated 17

Dallas County Total 68

DeKalb County

Sandwich 61

Somonauk 61

Unincorporated 7

DeKalb County Total 129

Douglas County Omaha 15

Douglas County Total 15

DuPage County No changes

Guthrie County

Casey 7

Menlo 20

Stuart 18

Unincorporated 5

Guthrie County Total 50

Henry County

Annawan 71

Atkinson 45

Colona 96

Geneseo 144

Unincorporated 49

Henry County Total 405

Iowa County

Ladora 54

Marengo 2

Victor 37

Unincorporated 49

Iowa County Total 142
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-51 October 2012

County Municipality No. of Impacts

Jasper County

Colfax 54

Kellogg 29

Mitchellville 1

Newton 119

Unincorporated 48

Jasper County Total 251

Johnson County

Coralville 13

Iowa City 166

Oxford 25

Tiffin 42

University Heights 23

Unincorporated 15

Johnson County Total 284

Kane County

Aurora 244

Montgomery 34

Unincorporated 1

Kane County Total 279

Kendall County

Oswego 23

Plano 113

Unincorporated 64

Kendall County Total 200

LaSalle County

Earlville 6

Leland 2

Mendota 11

Unincorporated 4

Total 23

Madison County No change

Muscatine County No change

Polk County West Des Moines 1

Total 1

Pottawattamie County Council Bluffs 2

Total 2

Poweshiek County No change

Rock Island County No change

Scott County Davenport 3

Total 3

Total Vibration Impacts 202

The vibration analysis identified approximately 7 vibration impacts per mile associated with 

the Build Alternative. Analysis results indicate that ground-borne vibration impacts occur 

when train speeds reach 100 mph. The Project proposes to introduce 7 round-trip trains at up 

to a maximum speed of 110 mph each day. Therefore there would be 14 train pass-by events 

per day at this speed. Analysis results also show that the number of vibration impacts in each 

municipality is related to the density of residential development in areas adjacent to the rail 

line. In some areas of the Corridor, the magnitude of Project-related vibration impacts is 

greater than in other areas. On a Project-wide basis, 7 additional vibration impacts (due to 

14 daily pass-by events) per mile are not considered significant. However, the number of 

vibration impacts is projected to dramatically increase in more densely populated portions of 

the study area, particularly where train speeds may reach 100 mph. The magnitude of the 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-52 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

incremental increase in vibration impacts attributable to the Project is considered to be 

significant.

Table 3.8-8 presents a simple comparison of vibration impact contour distances for existing 

conditions, No-Build future conditions and 100 mph train service. 

Table 3.8-8. Distances to Category 2 Ground-Borne Vibration Impacts

Scenario

GBV 

Impact 

Level 

(VdB)

Distance to Impact Level (ft)

Traffic

Cond. 

A

Traffic

Cond. 

B

Traffic

Cond. 

C

Traffic

Cond. 

D

Traffic

Cond. 

E

Traffic

Cond. 

F

Traffic

Cond. 

G

Traffic

Cond. 

H

Traffic

Cond. 

I

Traffic

Cond. 

J

Existing 72 475 495 230 50 140 17.5 140 42 140 51

Future/NoBuild 72 475 495 230 50 140 17.5 140 42 140 51

Future/Build 72 475 660 540 320 335 155 335 155 335 184

As expected, as the train speed increases, the distance to the ground-borne vibration impact 

contour also increases (Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162 show vibration contours relative 

to buildings and other features). Areas outside of, or beyond the vibration impact contour are 

predicted to experience train-induced ground-borne vibration levels below the FTA/FRA 

vibration impact threshold. Generally, the Future/No-build trains will not travel at different 

speeds than the existing train traffic, and individual vibration events are therefore calculated 

to be equal in magnitude. Traffic condition A represents the portion of Chicago where the 

speed of the Future/Build trains does not increase from the Future/No-build trains, therefore 

the vibration impact distance does not change.

With phased implementation, the level of improvements needed for the baseline speed of 

79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of speeds up to 

110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW for 

improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. The slower 

speed would cause lower amounts of ground vibration than the maximum speed proposed for 

the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for vibration impacts 

would be less during the initial implementation phase. Consequently, impacts associated with 

the ultimate proposed implementation may eventually be realized, but the impacts would 

incur gradually over the years of implementation as federal and state funds are allocated to 

the Project.

3.8.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

As shown above, the presence or absence of quiet zones has a great effect on the predicted 

number of train noise impacts. Locomotive horn use at public at-grade crossings causes the 

majority of the predicted noise impacts. Therefore, minimizing locomotive horn use in the 

Study Area represents the greatest opportunity to mitigate potential Project-related noise 

impacts. The Project would upgrade some electronic circuitry through installation of constant 

time circuitry (warning lights) at public at-grade roadway-rail crossings. In effect, the Project 

would install the electronic infrastructure for quiet zones. Municipalities predicted to 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-53 October 2012

experience an increase in train noise impacts can choose to initiate the process of developing 

quiet zones, to take advantage of the infrastructure provided by the proposed Project.

The introduction of trains with speeds up to 110 mph in the study area has potential to cause 

a significant amount of ground-borne vibration, particularly in urban areas where population

density is greatest. During the Tier 2 NEPA process, measures to mitigate ground-borne 

vibration would be evaluated and implemented to reduce the potential vibration impacts.

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed 

during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as 

specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction.

3.9 AIR QUALITY

Air quality refers to the condition of the surrounding air in relation to the source and amount 

of pollutant emissions.

3.9.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to air quality is the Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended)

(CAA). Primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

established by the CAA will be used as a basis for the review of potential air quality impacts.

Coordination has taken place with the USEPA, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources

(Iowa DNR), the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA), and the Air 

Quality Division of the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ). Published 

data regarding the air quality status of each county in the Study Area were gathered. These

data pertain to criteria air pollutant levels as compared to NAAQS, and each county has been

designated under a status of attainment, nonattainment, or maintenance.

4

USEPA regulates air pollution in accordance with primary and secondary NAAQS 

established by the CAA, as amended. Iowa DNR, Illinois EPA and NDEQ regulate air 

pollutants and operate air monitors throughout each state. Illinois developed Illinois Ambient 

Air Quality Standards that are similar to the NAAQS. Iowa and Nebraska use the NAAQS to 

measure air quality. The NAAQS currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants 

are: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), particulate 

matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Particulate matter has been further defined by size. 

There are standards for particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter (PM-10) and 

smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM-2.5). Most O3 forms as a result of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) reacting with sunlight. Areas of the country 

where air pollution levels persistently exceed the NAAQS are designated as nonattainment

areas.

 

4 Attainment - meets national air quality standards. Nonattainment - does not meet national air quality 

standards and mitigation measures are being utilized. Maintenance – is close to national air quality 

thresholds and steps are being taken to reduce concentration of pollutants.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-54 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

FRA, in coordination with USEPA, must make a determination that a federal action 

conforms to one or more applicable state implementation plans (SIPs) to achieve attainment

of the NAAQS. General conformity emissions thresholds, defined in 40 CFR 51, Subpart W, 

are defined by the nonattainment or maintenance status for each criteria pollutant in the 

Study Area. If emissions from an action are below these thresholds, conformity analysis is 

not required. The applicable de minimisthresholds are as follows:

• O3, 100 tons per year of either NOx or VOC

• Pb, 25 tons per year

• PM-2.5, 100 tons per year

• PM-10, 100 tons per year

In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, USEPA also regulates

air toxics. Many air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile

sources, non-road mobile sources (such as airplanes or locomotives), and stationary sources 

(such as factories or refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are those pollutants that 

are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as reproductive 

effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental effects. Research into the health impacts of 

MSATs is ongoing; USEPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of 

exposures to these pollutants.

Emissions of air toxics from diesel locomotive engines are expected to be measured as a 

subset of either PM and/or hydrocarbons (HC). USEPA has established emission standards 

for these pollutants for newly manufactured and remanufactured locomotives.

These standards are dependent on the date a locomotive is first manufactured; the most

stringent set of standards applies to locomotives originally manufactured in 2015 and later. 

The vast majority of PM emitted by locomotive diesel engines is in the form of PM-10. 

USEPA is projecting that the PM-10 and HC emissions from the national passenger 

locomotive fleet are already on an accelerating downward trend, and will continue to drop as 

a result of USEPA’s emissions standards.

3.9.2 Affected Environment

The existing general air quality of the counties in the Study Area has been reviewed to assess 

if any of the counties are currently in nonattainment or maintenance for criteria pollutants.

Table 3.9-1 identifies those counties currently designated as nonattainment or maintenance 

areas by USEPA (USEPA, 2012). Lead is not considered in the conformity analyses found 

later in this section because no transportation modes considered emit lead from operation.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-55 October 2012

Table 3.9-1. Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas within the Project Area

Criteria Pollutants County State Status

Particulate matter less than 

10 microns in diameter (PM10)

Cook County – Lyons Township and 

Southeast Chicago IL Maintenance

LaSalle County - Oglesby IL Maintenance

Particulate matter less than 

2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5)

Cook County IL Nonattainment

DuPage County IL Nonattainment

Kane County IL Nonattainment

Kendall County IL Nonattainment

8-hour ozone (O3)

Cook County IL Maintenance

DuPage County IL Maintenance

Kane County IL Maintenance

Kendall County IL Maintenance

Lead (Pb) Cook County IL Nonattainment

Pottawattamie County IA Nonattainment

Source: USEPA, 2012

3.9.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on air quality are 

not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. Over time, air quality 

would worsen as vehicle congestion increases on the roads and highways between Chicago 

and Omaha. Specific quantitative impacts or benefits on air quality from the Chicago to Quad 

Cities service would be determined as that project progresses through its required Tier 2 

NEPA documentation.

3.9.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

Table 3.9-2 shows the pollutants evaluated under the general conformity analysis for the 

Build Alternative. Emissions are estimated for the year 2020 based on ridership forecasts for 

that year. This analysis includes the assessment of air quality impacts of the Build 

Alternative in counties which currently qualify as maintenance or nonattainment. All 

counties which qualify as maintenance or nonattainment for emissions evaluated in the 

operational analysis are in the Chicago area. 

Along the Corridor, there would be a reduction in all types of emissions except NOx

emissions, which would increase slightly due to the additional diesel fuel burned as a result 

of the increase in passenger train traffic by switching passengers from auto to rail. The slight 

increase in NOx emissions would occur because of the diversion of passengers from other 

travel modes through use of enhanced and increased passenger rail service. The net change in 

emissions calculated below is a result of utilizing the travel demand model information and 

USEPA guidance for emissions factors, based upon travel mode. Calculations are shown in 

Appendix F, and trip diversion and ridership information can be found in Section 3.1.4. This 

general conformity analysis would need to be verified in the Tier 2 NEPA analyses. 

Construction-related emissions may also be addressed during Tier 2 analyses.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-56 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Table 3.9-2. Summary of General Conformity Determination for the Build Alternative (2020) 

Pollutant

Route 

Miles in 

Area

De Minimis 

Threshold

Train Emissions Increase Net 

Emissions

Change Cook 

County

DuPage 

County

Kane 

County 

Kendall 

County

HC 55.60 100.00 2.44 2.69 0.91 2.13 -11.70

NOX 55.60 100.00 55.08 60.72 20.57 48.11 22.55

PM-10 4.00 100.00 0.34 N/A N/A N/A -0.07

PM-2.5 55.60 100.00 1.39 1.53 0.52 1.21 -1.97

Notes:

All numbers are in tons per year. Net Emissions Change includes reduction in passenger vehicles, bus, and 

plane emissions from trips diverted to trains based upon AECOM’s Ridership, Diversion, and Mode Split 

Forecasts. Ridership used for the emissions analysis was the low range of the estimate. The Chicago 

nonattainment area includes the counties and townships listed in Table 1. PM-10 is listed for 4 route miles 

because the area of concern for nonattainment is only the area of Lyons Township in the Chicago Area.

Because this alternative includes new train service, impacts from the Build Alternative on air 

quality are unavoidable. However, overall emissions would be less because this additional 

rail service is replacing passenger vehicles, bus, and plane trips along a similar route, and 

trains produce fewer emissions per passenger then other modes of transportation.

As shown in Table 3.9-3, operation of the Build Alternative would directly impact the air

quality by increasing NOX emissions to 283 tons/year and the CO emissions reduction to 

15,824 tons/year. There would also be a reduction in HC emissions totaling 95 tons/year and 

a reduction in SO2 emissions of approximately 1.8 tons/year.

Table 3.9-3. Build Alternative – 2020 Estimated Changes in Air Pollutants from Diversion of 

Passenger Vehicle, Bus and Plane Trips (Tons per Year)

Additional Train 

Emissions

Reduction in Emissions Net Change Vehicles Buses Planes

HC 73.46 122.89 45.47 0.56 (95.47)

CO 482.53 962.76 365.51 3.55 (849.30)

NOX 1,659.08 991.58 373.35 11.37 282.78

PM-10 43.06 48.85 18.52 0.00 (24.31)

PM-2.5 41.77 40.60 15.69 0.00 (14.52)

SO2 1.22 2.05 0.69 0.32 (1.84)

CO2 128,663.26 106,108.24 35,804.25 2,574.83 (15,824.05)

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements, the slower passenger train speeds, and fewer diverted trips from 

other modes of transportation would cause less reduction in emissions than that of the 

maximum speed proposed for the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the 

impacts on air quality would be less beneficial during the initial implementation phase. As 

the Project extends westward, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase with 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-57 October 2012

subsequent implementation phases, more benefits to air quality would occur to areas within 

or adjacent to the Potential Impact Area. 

3.9.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

As a result of this Tier 1 analysis, mitigation such as converting fleet vehicles from diesel 

fuel to alternative fuels may be required for NOx emissions, due to its output being above the 

de minimis. All other emissions are below their de minimis thresholds; as demonstrated in 

Table 3.9-3 for the Build Alternative. General air quality conformity analysis modeling may 

be required in Tier 2 NEPA documents to verify these findings. Specific mitigation 

measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 analysis 

after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are 

identified, and implemented prior to construction.

3.10 HAZARDOUS WASTE AND WASTE DISPOSAL

This resource includes hazardous materials and waste sites, either from the presence of stored 

materials or due to past spills or leaks.

3.10.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework governing activities potentially affecting hazardous materials and 

waste sites include the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended,

RCRA, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the Emergency 

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). USEPA is the federal agency 

overseeing hazardous waste management. State agencies’ regulatory frameworks include the 

Illinois EPA’s Hazardous Waste Program (Title 35 Ill. Administration Code, Parts 700-739), 

the Iowa DNR’s Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund and Sites Registry (under Sections 

455B.424, 455B.426 and 455B.427 of the Code of Iowa), and NDEQ’s Title 128, Nebraska 

Hazardous Waste Regulations.

Data were gathered from USEPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) list of final National Priorities List (NPL) 

hazardous material sites (USEPA, 2012a, b, c, and d). According to the USEPA, the NPL is 

“...a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous 

substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States...”5 The NPL list 

includes Superfund sites, which can pose a severe contamination risk or threat to public 

health and/or the environment. Data from USEPA’s Facility Registry System (FRS) were 

also gathered; these data include other less severe sites (not on the NPL list) that store or 

generate hazardous materials. Some of the non-NPL sites are described as “brownfield” sites, 

which are lands that are contaminated because they were previously used for industrial or 

certain commercial uses, but have the potential to be reused or redeveloped once they are 

appropriately cleaned up. Data for non-NPL sites in Iowa were supplemented with data that 

were gathered by Iowa DOT. Data were compiled for leaking underground storage tank 

(LUST) locations using the Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, and NDEQ websites. Data for waste 

 

5 USEPA NPL website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htm. Retrieved on May 31, 2012. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-58 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

water treatment facilities were compiled from the FRS, Iowa DOT data, and aerial 

photography. In addition, Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, and NDEQ websites were reviewed for 

locations of municipal landfills.

The data gathered for hazardous material and waste sites were reviewed, and a general 

description of those areas was prepared. A hazardous material or waste is any chemical, 

biological, or physical substance (liquid, solid, gas, or sludge) that can be potentially harmful 

to public health or the environment. Hazardous materials or wastes can be substances such as 

solvents, pesticides, or discarded commercial, industrial, or medical waste.

3.10.2 Affected Environment

The hazardous material and waste sites near or within the Study Area are shown in 

Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162.

Based on the hazardous materials and waste sites data, it was determined that there are no 

NPL (Superfund) sites located within or adjacent to the Study Area in Illinois. However, 

there are two NPL sites within the Study Area in Iowa, and one in Nebraska:

• The Des Moines TCE (Trichloroethylene) Site6 (Appendix B, Figure 116) 

encompasses approximately 200 acres and is located in the south central portion 

of the City. The site was listed because of VOC contamination in the 

groundwater, caused by solvents and other activities conducted for pesticide and 

herbicide formulation. Clean-up has taken place, and remedial activities include 

continuing groundwater monitoring by Iowa DNR.

7

• The Railroad Avenue Groundwater Contamination Site (Appendix B, Figure 117) 

is approximately 1,000 acres located in West Des Moines. The description of a

portion of this site within the Study Area includes each side of Railroad Avenue 

west of 1st Street, which is directly adjacent to the north and south sides of the 

Study Area. The site was listed because of VOC contamination in municipal 

water wells and the groundwater, and remedial activities have taken place.8

• The Omaha Lead Site (Appendix B, Figure 162) includes contaminated surface 

soils on properties in the city of Omaha, Nebraska, that have been contaminated 

as a result of historic air emissions from lead smelting/refining operations. The 

total area of the site is approximately 20 square miles and encompasses the 

eastern portion of the greater metropolitan area. Facilities released lead-containing 

particulates into the atmosphere through smokestacks and other processes. The 

pollutants were transported downwind in various directions and deposited on the 

ground surface. Surface water and groundwater are not affected by the leadcontaminated soils of the site.

 

6 USEPA. Envirofacts. CERCLIS Search Results. Des Moines TCE - Site Description. 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/cerclisquery.description_report?pgm_sys_id=IAD980687933. 7 USEPA. Envirofacts. CERCLIS Search Results. Railroad Avenue Groundwater Contamination - Site 

Description. http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/cerclisquery.description_report?pgm_sys_id=IA0001610963. 8 USEPA. Envirofacts. CERCLIS Search Results. Omaha Lead Site - Site Description

http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/fii_query_dtl.disp_program_facility?pgm_sys_id_in=NESFN0703481&pgm_s

ys_acrnm_in=CERCLIS.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-59 October 2012

Other less severe (non-NPL) hazardous material sites within the Study Area include 

industrial facilities dealing with plastics, metals, agricultural products, and building 

materials; and commercial sites such as automotive repair/maintenance facilities, dry 

cleaners, and petroleum companies. There are several non-NPL hazardous material sites 

within the Study Area including 73 in Illinois, 84 in Iowa, and 7 in Nebraska. The facility 

names and general locations of these sites are shown in Appendix G, Tables 1, 2, and 3.

Some of the non-NPL sites are brownfield sites. The current lists of municipal landfills 

indicate that there are no landfills located within the Study Area, with the exception of the 

former Tuttle Street Landfill site listed above as part of the Des Moines TCE NPL site.

The state listings of LUST sites within the Study Area include 219 in Illinois, 116 in Iowa, 

and 73 in Nebraska.

The Study Area contains 21 municipal or industrial waste water treatment facilities, in the 

form of large sewage treatment plants, sewage lagoons, or small liquid waste treatment 

facilities (Appendix G, Table 4). Two of those facilities are located in Illinois and 19 are 

located in Iowa. There are no waste water treatment facilities in the Study Area in Nebraska.

3.10.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on hazardous 

materials or waste sites are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other 

projects. The Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program would likely have no impacts on 

hazardous material and waste sites as a result of constructing new track embankment for the 

Wyanet Connection. A preliminary investigation in 2010 in support of a Tier 1 did not 

identify any sites of major concern (Iowa DOT, 2010a). In other areas where a minor amount 

of additional ROW may be needed for upgrades to the rail line, there is a minimal potential 

for impacts on hazardous material and waste sites. Improvements in Eola Yard could 

encounter contamination from past spills or leaks of hazardous materials. Specific impacts 

from this project on hazardous material and waste sites would be determined as the project 

progresses through its required Tier 2 NEPA documentation. In addition, it is anticipated that 

the No-Build Alternative would not result in the exposure of hazardous materials from 

adjacent sites, and would minimally increase the chance of a hazardous material incident 

during refueling or maintenance operations, or from a spill during operation of the trains. 

3.10.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The impacts on or effects from non-NPL sites, LUST sites, or waste water treatment facilities 

would pose a lesser risk of contamination than NPL Superfund sites. Table 3.10-1 presents a 

summary of the number of hazardous material and waste site impacts within the Potential 

Impact Area.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-60 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Table 3.10-1. Hazardous Material and Waste Sites Impacts

State NPL

Superfund Non-NPL LUST Waste Water Treatment

Illinois 0 13 15 0

Iowa 2 12 11 1

Nebraska 1 2 8 0

Total 3 27 34 1

As a result of increased train traffic from operations of the Build Alternative, in addition to 

operations at maintenance and layover facilities, there could be a moderate increase in the 

chances of a hazardous material incident during refueling, maintenance operations, or from a 

spill during operation of the trains. As a result, water quality could potentially be affected as 

railway contaminants or accidental chemical/fuel spills from operations and maintenance 

activities could reach water resources adjacent to, or downstream of the Potential Impact

Area. However, with appropriate permanent best management practices (BMPs) in place, 

water quality impacts from hazardous materials would be avoided or minimized.

3.10.4.1 NPL Superfund Sites

As a result of acquiring ROW and adding siding and track, the Build Alternative would

potentially affect, and/or be affected by the three NPL Superfund hazardous material/waste 

sites discussed previously: the Des Moines TCE Site, the Railroad Avenue Groundwater

Contamination Site, and the Omaha Lead Site. Due to the overall extents of these sites, 

effects would be unavoidable. Although the Build Alternative is within the contamination 

areas of these sites, specific impacts cannot be determined in this Tier 1 analysis. There is the 

potential for exposure to hazardous waste contamination during construction, and the need 

for mitigation or cleanup procedures could substantially affect project cost. Requirements for 

safety procedures and protection of human health and the environment would be established 

to help ensure that there would be no further contamination of adjacent sites and to provide a 

safe working environment during construction.

3.10.4.2 Non-NPL Sites

The Build Alternative would potentially affect, and/or be affected by 27 non-NPL hazardous 

material or waste sites as listed in Appendix G, Tables 1, 2, and 3. Of those sites, 13 are in 

Illinois, 12 are in Iowa, and 2 are in Nebraska. Four of the sites in Illinois are designated as 

brownfields. Two of the sites in Nebraska, Gould Incorporated and American Smelting and 

Refining Company (ASARCO) Incorporated, are also included in the description of the 

Omaha Lead NPL Superfund site.

3.10.4.3 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites

The Build Alternative would potentially affect, and/or be affected by 34 LUST sites as listed 

in Appendix G, Table 4. Of those sites, 15 are in Illinois, 11 are in Iowa, and 8 are in 

Nebraska.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-61 October 2012

3.10.4.4 Waste Water Treatment Facilities 

The Build Alternative would potentially affect, and/or be affected by one waste water 

treatment facility as listed in Appendix G, Table 5. This site is a small liquid waste treatment 

facility in Des Moines, in conjunction with the Titan Tire Corporation industrial complex. 

3.10.4.5 Solid Waste Disposal

The construction of the Build Alternative has the potential to generate waste material from 

clearing plant material, excavation of soil and rock, and removal of existing track and 

railroad ties where replacement is warranted. Other examples of site waste may include 

construction material packaging, broken equipment/parts, and other excess material. It is 

anticipated that some of the rock and soil material could be reused for fill material in other 

construction areas associated with the Project or other nearby construction projects. During 

typical construction activities, small amounts of soil may be contaminated through on-site 

motor or hydraulic oil spills. Recyclable construction materials would be taken to recycling

facilities that are in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. Construction debris 

that cannot be recycled would be disposed of in permitted landfills following proper disposal 

procedures and in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. State and local 

regulations may include prohibitions or limitations on burning of construction debris, and 

control measures to limit pollution if tree trunks and limbs are permitted to be burned on site.

Within the limited areas of additional ROW acquisition, there may be instances where 

demolition of existing structures or buildings would be required. Some of these materials 

may be recycled. However, some of these buildings or structures may include small amounts 

of hazardous waste; especially in older industrial areas that are prevalent in the developed 

portions of the Study Area fronting existing rail lines, and in some cases, testing of hazardous 

waste may be required. Handling, collection, and disposal of waste materials would be 

performed according to federal, state, and local regulations, including any waste materials 

generated by maintenance and layover facilities.

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speeds of passenger trains would cause less impacts 

on or from hazardous material and waste sites than that of the maximum speed proposed for 

the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for impacts on or from

hazardous material and waste site areas would be less during the initial implementation 

phase. As the Project extends westward, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase 

with subsequent implementation phases, more impacts would occur to or from hazardous 

material and waste site areas within or adjacent to the Potential Impact Area.

3.10.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

As a result of impacts on or from NPL Superfund sites, there is a potential for exposure to 

hazardous waste contamination during construction, and the need for mitigation or cleanup 

procedures, depending upon the location of impacts. Requirements for safety procedures and 

protection of human health and the environment would be established to help ensure that 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-62 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

there would be no further contamination of adjacent sites and to provide a safe working 

environment during construction.

In areas of additional ROW acquisition or excavation, it is anticipated that there is a potential 

for exposure of hazardous materials from adjacent sites during construction, however, the 

level of risk and potential mitigation measures cannot be determined in this Tier 1 analysis.

A more detailed investigation of specific site limits, contamination boundaries, and impacts 

would be performed as part of the Tier 2 NEPA documents. Specific mitigation measures, to 

the extent required, will be identified and discussed during Tier 2 analysis after design details 

are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented 

prior to construction.

All solid waste materials generated during construction of the Project could be recycled or 

properly disposed of in accordance with the provisions of each state’s solid waste 

management statutes and regulations, and local regulations.

3.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The consideration of impacts on cultural resources is subject to several federal laws, 

regulations and guidelines. Principal among these are NEPA and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (Section106). Section 106 is implemented through adherence to the 

regulations 36 CFR Part 800, issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP). The FRA, as lead federal agency, is responsible for compliance with both statutes.

NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) encourage federal agencies to 

coordinate their efforts for compliance with both statutes. Since compliance with neither 

statute substitutes for the other, FRA is required to gather and prepare information about 

cultural resources that meets the requirements of both statutes. 

3.11.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on 

historic properties (any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object listed 

on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]). NEPA requires 

federal agencies to consider the impacts of projects on important cultural and historical 

resources; a broader range of cultural resources than is considered under the NHPA. 

Section 106 compliance for this Tier 1 EIS and future Tier 2 NEPA documents will be 

consistent with procedures for a phased approach governed by 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2). 

Early coordination packages describing the Project and soliciting information were sent to 

the Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs). The Area of 

Potential Effect (APE) for the Study was designated as 250 feet on either side of the rail 

centerline for a total width of 500 feet. FRA sent an email message to the Illinois, Iowa, and 

Nebraska SHPOs seeking concurrence on the reasonableness of the APE and requesting 

access to data on historic resources recorded in national and state registers of historic places

(see Appendix O). Concurrence with the APE was assumed in accordance with 36 CFR 

800.3(c)(4) based on no SHPO responses within 30 days from receipt of the email message. 

Data on historic properties were gathered from a National Park Service (NPS) database of 

sites on the NRHP, and from the aforementioned SHPOs’ files and databases (GIS and Excel 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-63 October 2012

formats). Sites listed on the NRHP and those confirmed as eligible for listing on the NRHP 

were identified within the APE.

As the lead federal agency, FRA coordinated with several tribes. These tribes were identified 

using a compiled list of documented federally recognized tribes with former and current 

habitation in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska along the Corridor. Input from the tribes, including 

their Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), is being used by FRA to identify cultural 

resource issues of concern to be addressed in this Tier 1 EIS and future Tier 2 NEPA

documents. 

The objective during the Tier 1 evaluation is to identify the locations of known historic 

properties and important cultural and historic resources within the APE, and assess the 

potential for impacts on those properties. Specific effect determinations will not be 

conducted during Tier 1 analysis. During Tier 2 NEPA evaluations, as more detailed 

information is available for review of the preferred alternative and specific service 

alternatives are identified, effect determinations on historic properties for each section of the 

Project (see Chapter 5 for a discussion of likely individual sections to be addressed in Tier 2) 

will be proposed to SHPOs and THPOs, as appropriate. If any adverse effects are identified 

during the Tier 2 NEPA process, they will be addressed through SHPO/THPO consultation 

and will be in compliance with 36 CFR 800.5 and 800.6. 

Procedures to help ensure that the effects and impacts on cultural resources are appropriately 

considered and coordinated for purposes of Section 106 and NEPA may be addressed under 

the terms of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.14. The PA 

would be developed during the Tier 2 NEPA process, and would guide FRA and the 

consulting parties9 in their deliberations on how to take into account the effects of the project 

for Section 106 purposes, as well as provide coordinative procedures for considering impacts 

to important cultural and historic resources for purposes of NEPA. 

3.11.2 Affected Environment

Railroads served to expedite the development of Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska by providing 

efficient and quick transportation pathways. The proposed route includes railroads initially 

constructed in the 1800s. The rail segment from Davenport to Iowa City is one of the earliest 

railroad lines constructed in Iowa, and the alignment has changed minimally since its original 

construction in 1855. This segment also hosted two significant historic events: the Mormon 

exodus from the State of Illinois, and John Brown’s last trip through Iowa prior to the raid at 

Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Iowa (Iowa SHPO, 2012). Historic sites, with the exception of 

archaeological sites whose specific locations are determined to be confidential, within the 

Study Area are shown in Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162. Appendix H includes a table of 

all historic sites that are listed on the NRHP or eligible for listing on the NRHP within the

APE for the Study. The table data are organized from east to west within the APE by county.

 

9 Section 106 consulting parties may include, but are not limited to, the SHPO, THPO, Indian tribes and 

Native Hawaiian Organizations, local governments, applicants for Federal assistance or approvals (e.g., 

State DOTs), and others with a demonstrated legal or economic interest or concern with the effects on 

historic properties.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-64 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

The APE includes 213 historic resources listed on the NRHP or eligible for listing on the 

NRHP, including buildings (residential, commercial, and industrial), historic districts, 

bridges and other structures, and an archaeological site. Several of the properties are related 

to the operation of the railroad. The density of cultural resource site locations is highest in 

urban areas.

3.11.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and therefore would not 

directly impact any historic properties from construction, nor cause indirect impacts from 

operations of passenger trains (such as ground vibration) along the Study Area.

Consequently, no new impacts are projected to occur beyond those that could occur due to 

other projects. The Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to slightly increased 

noise and ground vibration along this portion of the Chicago to Omaha route. At a Tier 1 

analysis, no impacts on significant cultural resource properties were anticipated to occur for 

the Wyanet Connection and Eola Yard improvements. The Chicago to Quad Cities 

Expansion Program has the potential to affect historic properties within and between the 

aforementioned cities, but the impacts would be addressed as part of the Tier 2 NEPA

process and Section 106 consultation for that project. Similarly, historic properties impacted 

during construction of other transportation projects noted in Section 2.2.1 would be 

addressed as part of Section 106 consultation.

3.11.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The Potential Impact Area includes 60 historic resources (37 buildings, one structure, three

bridges, and 19 historic districts) either listed on the NRHP or eligible for listing on the 

NRHP, as noted on Table 3.11-1. As the Project proceeds into the Tier 2 NEPA process, 

avoidance of these properties would be considered. The rail line near Chicago Union Station

is located underground beneath the United States Post Office in Cook County, and no 

expansion of the line is projected to occur in this portion of the Project; consequently, 

although listed in Table 3.11-1, the post office would not be affected.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-65 October 2012

Table 3.11-1. Historic Resources within the Potential Impact Area

NRHP Site 

Numbera County and State Site Name Site Type

Cook, IL Union Station – Chicago Building

01000868 Cook, IL United States Post Office – Chicago Building

Cook, IL

Water Tower, Well House, and Pump 

House – (Riverside Landscape 

Architecture District)

Building

69000055 Cook, IL Riverside Landscape Architecture District District

Cook, IL Berwyn Suburban Station Building

Cook, IL Stone Avenue Station Building

06000011 DuPage, IL Downtown Hinsdale Historic District District

77001516 DuPage, IL Naperville Historic District District

93001238 Kendall, IL Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad

Depot Building

85000979 DeKalb, IL Von KleinSmid Mansion Building

LaSalle, IL Illinois Central Railroad Freight House Building

Bureau, IL Bridge over TR 170B carrying BN RR Bridge

78003433

Bureau and 

Henry, IL Hennepin Canal Historic District District

07000856 Rock Island, IL

Moline Downtown Commercial Historic 

District District

82002596 Rock Island, IL Rock Island Lines Passenger Station Building

69000057 Rock Island, IL Rock Island Arsenal District

04000175 Rock Island, IL Lock and Dam No. 15 Historic District District

Scott, IA

Littig Brothers/Mengel and Klindt/Eagle

Brewery Building

Scott, IA

St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church

Complex – Rectory Building

Scott, IA

St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church

Complex – Convent Building

Scott, IA

St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church

Complex – St. Mary’s Church Building

84001558 Scott, IA

St. Mary’s Roman Catholic Church

Complex District

Scott, IA House Building

Scott, IA House Building

Scott, IA Davenport Paper Box Company Building

Scott, IA

Ewert and Richter Express and Storage 

Company (West Building) Building

Scott, IA

Ewert and Richter Express and Storage 

Company (East Building) Building

Scott, IA Neu, Vincent J., Auto Dealership Building

Scott, IA

Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific 

Railroad Elevated Rail Bed Structure

Scott, IA Matthews Building Building

Scott, IA National Biscuit Company Building

83003656 Scott, IA Hamburg Historic District District

03001290 Scott, IA Crescent Warehouse Historic District District

84001538 Scott, IA St. Anthony's Catholic Church Complex District

Muscatine, IA

Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railroad

– Wilton Depot Building
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-66 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

NRHP Site 

Numbera County and State Site Name Site Type

02001035 Muscatine, IA West Liberty Commercial District District

Johnson, IA House Building

Johnson, IA House Building

Johnson, IA House Building

Johnson, IA Prizler House Building

Johnson, IA House Building

Johnson, IA

Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific 

Passenger Station Building

04001321 Johnson, IA Melrose Historic District District

73000732 Johnson, IA South Summit Street District District

64500787 Iowa, IA Amana Colonies District

76000805 Poweshiek, IA Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific 

Railroad-Grinnell Passenger Station Building

91000384 Poweshiek, IA Grinnell Historic Commercial District District

82000410 Jasper, IA Arthur, Thomas House Building

Polk, IA Grocers Wholesale Company Warehouse Building

Polk, IA Municipal Court and Public Safety

Building Building

03001262 Polk, IA Linden Heights Historic District District

88001168 Polk, IA Civic Center Historic District District

Adair, IA

Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific 

Railroad: Stuart Passenger Station Building

Adair, IA Adair Viaduct Bridge

Cass, IA

Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific Railroad

Depot Building

95000856 Pottawattamie, 

IA

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad

Passenger Depot Building

74001110 Douglas, NE Burlington Station Building

96000769 Douglas, NE

Omaha Rail and Commerce Historic 

District District

93000558 Douglas, NE 10th Street Viaduct Bridge

71000484 Douglas, NE Union Passenger Terminal Building

Source: National Park Service, not dated, National Register of Historic Places Spatial Database, 

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/natreg/docs/Download.html, Accessed July 6, 2012.

Illinois State Museum. July 2012. Archaeological sites and surveys data for the Chicago to Omaha 

Corridor. Provided by Nick Klobuchar, Site File Administrator, on July 16, 2012.

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. September 2012. Architectural properties data for the Chicago 

to Omaha Corridor. Provided by Trey McGhee, Chief Information Officer, on September 14, 2012.

Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist. July 2012. Archaeological sites and surveys data for the 

Chicago to Omaha Corridor. Provided by Colleen Eck, Site Records Manager, on July 18, 2012.

Iowa State Historic Preservation Office. Architectural properties data for the Chicago to Omaha 

Corridor. Provided by Berry Bennett, Iowa Site Inventory Coordinator, on August 3, 2012

(shapefiles) and August 14, 2012 (database information).

Nebraska State Historical Society. July 2012. Archaeological sites and surveys data for the Chicago 

to Omaha Corridor. Provided by Trisha Nelson, Curator, Archaeology Collections, on July 17, 2012.

Nebraska State Historical Society. August 2012. Architectural properties data for the Chicago to 

Omaha Corridor. Provided by Patrick Haynes, Historic Resources Survey & Inventory Coordinator, 

on August 15, 2012.

Note:

a Site number is the NRHP listing number for the resource. Sites eligible for listing are not on the 

NRHP, and thus have no NRHP listing number.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-67 October 2012

Cultural resources within the APE but outside the Potential Impact Area were reviewed for 

indirect impacts, such as visual intrusion or audible impacts, as a result of construction

activities and future operation of the passenger rail system. Depending on the proximity of 

cultural resources to operating trains, structures may be identified for protection from noise

and vibration impacts and incompatible visual intrusions. If the Project would require 

modification of historic properties, these modifications may be considered potential adverse 

effects and require further Section 106 consultation. The consultation with SHPOs would be 

conducted during Tier 2 analyses to determine the preferred method of mitigation.

The replacement of existing rail, ties, and ballast, which is a common practice that is 

essential to operation and maintenance of any railroad, would not likely represent any 

adverse effects to historic properties. New stations may be constructed and existing stations 

may be modified for the Project, but the specific locations and plans for modification would 

not be known until Tier 2 analyses, and would be reviewed at that time for potential impacts 

on historic properties.

With phased implementation, the level of improvements needed for the baseline speed of 

79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of speeds up to 

110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW for 

improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. The slower 

speed would cause less noise and lower amounts of ground vibration than the maximum 

speed proposed for the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for 

impacts to historic sites would be less during the initial implementation phase. Consequently, 

impacts associated with the ultimate proposed implementation may eventually be realized, 

but the impacts would incur gradually over the years of implementation as federal and state 

funds are allocated to the Project.

3.11.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Potential mitigation could include recordation of site information, improvement of other 

sites, changes in Project design, or other options. Mitigation measures may be developed in 

accordance with the terms of a PA between FRA and consulting parties including the ACHP 

and SHPOs. The timing of the PA would be determined based on input from the consulting 

parties. The PA would focus on Study commitments, documentation of the qualities that 

contribute to the historic significance of resources, review procedures, and products to be 

produced for mitigating adverse effects during the preparation of Tier 2 NEPA documents.

The procedures of the PA would specify the sequence and scheduling of decisions to be 

reached and the manner by which these efforts would be coordinated. Specific mitigation 

measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 analysis 

after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are 

identified, and implemented prior to construction.

3.12 PARKS AND FEDERALLY OR STATE-LISTED NATURAL AREAS

Parks are defined as lands that have been officially designated as such by a federal, state, or 

local agency. Natural areas are lands designated by Congress or federal or state agencies as 

wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas, wildlife management areas, nature preserves, 

and recreation areas. These designated natural areas can contain rare plants, animals, and 

other unique natural features, and may also contain habitat for spawning and nursery areas, 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-68 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

nesting and feeding areas, or wintering areas. For purposes of this Tier 1 EIS, state-listed 

natural areas are defined as public lands managed by Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, or NGPC.

Parks and natural areas may contain recreational resources (such as trails, ball fields, and 

swimming pools), and recreational resources can also exist independently. For this Tier 1 

EIS, federal, state, and local park and recreational resources were identified and assessed for 

potential impacts. Publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife or waterfowl refuges 

that are considered to be significant resources are also addressed in Section 3.13 as Section 

4(f) properties.

3.12.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Potential impacts on parks, recreational resources, and natural areas (as identified in the 

introduction to this section) would be evaluated in accordance with CEQ guidelines 

implementing NEPA and FRA’s Environmental Procedures.

Data from several sources were used to evaluate potential effects on public parks, 

recreational resources, and natural areas within the Study Area. Sources included federal, 

state, and county websites (including GIS data where available), atlases, such as Illinois, 

Iowa, and Nebraska DeLorme Atlases, aerial photography, and aerial photography mapping 

programs such as Google Maps. A GIS database of the Study Area was compiled with input 

from Iowa DNR, Illinois DNR, NGPC, and other state agencies. Data were not digitized for 

this Tier 1 analysis. For example, GIS shapefiles of trails in Iowa and Nebraska were 

acquired and used in the analysis, but were not found for Illinois. Consequently, the figures 

in Appendix B only illustrate Iowa and Nebraska trails.

The name, general location (municipality, county, and state), type, and size of the park, 

recreational resource, or natural area were identified. Federally and state-listed sites in the 

Study Area of a sufficient size to be visible were mapped. Local sites were identified and 

mapped if the boundaries were known.

The analysis for this Tier 1 EIS focused on identifying the number of public parks, 

recreational resources, and natural areas located within the Study Area and identifying the 

types of activities with the potential to impact those resources. The activities that would have 

potential to impact public parks, recreational resources and natural areas include upgrading 

rail infrastructure and the construction of new passenger stations. Impacts could be through 

physical modifications of land or effects from increasing noise levels. Specific types and 

degrees of impacts on individual resources (such as ROW acquisition and impacts on

characteristics of a resource) will not be known until further design of rail facilities takes 

place during Tier 2 analysis, and will be evaluated in Tier 2 NEPA documents. During 

Tier 2, resource data would be updated in GIS through digitization of field data and publicly 

available information.

3.12.2 Affected Environment

Public parks, recreational resources, and natural areas within the Study Area are shown in 

Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162. There are 101 parks (city, county, and state), 

65 recreational areas (trails, athletic fields, golf courses, a state recreation area, stadiums, and 

swimming pools), and 44 natural areas (including wildlife management areas, state natural 

areas, county forest preserves, woodlands, research areas, and open space). Appendix I 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-69 October 2012

includes a table of all public parks, recreational resources, and natural areas within the Study 

Area.

3.12.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on parks, 

recreational resources, and natural areas are not anticipated beyond those that could occur 

due to other projects. The Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to slightly 

increased air emissions and noise in parks, recreation areas, and natural areas along this 

portion of the Corridor. At a Tier 1 analysis, no impacts on parks or recreation areas were 

anticipated to occur for the Wyanet Connection and Eola Yard improvements, but some 

prairie areas would likely be disturbed to construct the Wyanet Connection. 

3.12.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The Potential Impact Area includes 44 parks, 24 recreational resources, and 22 natural areas, 

as listed in Appendix I. In most instances, only a very small portion of the resources are

within the Potential Impact Area, which was developed with a sufficient buffer to facilitate 

design refinement and likely reduction of the area during Tier 2 NEPA analysis. There are 

three parks (Tiffin City Park in Tiffin, Iowa; Twin Creek Park in Pleasant Hill, Iowa; and 

Waterworks Park in Des Moines, Iowa) and two natural areas (Zoo Woods Forest Preserve in 

Riverside, Illinois and Correll Wildlife Area near Adair, Iowa) that are transected by the 

Build Alternative. There are six locations where there are parks, recreation areas, or natural 

areas on opposite sides of the Build Alternative: 

• Veeck Park and Pierce Park, and Pierce Park and Highland Park in Hinsdale, 

Illinois

• Heritage Woods Preservation Area and Burlington Park, and Old Plank Park and 

the Naperville Country Club in Naperville, Illinois

• Steven G Bridge Park and Blackberry Oaks Golf Course in Bristol, Illinois10

• Finkbine Golf Course and Finkbine Prairie in Iowa City, Iowa

As the Project proceeds into Tier 2 analysis, avoidance of these properties would be 

considered. Unavoidable impacts would be further analyzed in the Tier 2 and Section 4(f)

NEPA documents. The greatest potential for temporary impacts would be during culvert 

replacement or bridge work, or during construction of passenger stations or maintenance 

facilities.

With phased implementation, the level of improvements needed for the baseline speed of 

79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of speeds up to 

110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW for 

improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. The slower 

speed would cause less noise and lower amounts of ground vibration than the maximum 

speed proposed for the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for 

impacts to parks, recreation areas, and natural areas would be less during the initial 

implementation phase. As the Project extends westward, and speeds and the frequency of 

 

10 Steven G. Bridge Park is not currently within the Potential Impact Area, but could be if Blackberry Oaks 

Golf Course would be avoided.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-70 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

round-trips increase with subsequent implementation phases, more impacts would occur to 

parks, recreational areas, and natural areas within or adjacent to the Potential Impact Area.

Consequently, impacts associated with the ultimate proposed implementation may eventually 

be realized, but the impacts would incur gradually over the years of implementation as 

federal and state funds are allocated to the Project.

3.12.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Potential mitigation measures include avoidance or minimization of impacts, replacement of 

equipment and facilities in another location within existing parkland, purchase of similar 

properties, planting of woodlands, or development of wetlands in nearby locations, including 

the use of wetland mitigation banks. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, 

would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, 

recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to 

construction.

3.13 SECTION 4(f) AND 6(f) PROPERTIES

Section 4(f) protected properties are any publicly owned lands of a public park, recreation 

area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state or local significance or any land of a 

historic site of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the federal, state, or 

local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) within the meaning of 

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act (49 USC 303(c)). 

Section 6(f) lands are defined as parkland or recreation land that was acquired or developed 

with funding authorized under Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 

1965 (LWCF). These lands cannot be converted to non-park/recreation use without the 

approval of the National Park Service. Conversion of these lands is allowed if it is 

determined that there are no practicable alternatives to the conversion and that there will be 

provision of replacement property. The replacement property must be of at least equal fair 

market value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness for recreation purposes as the land 

proposed to be taken. 

3.13.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

FRA cannot approve any program or project that requires the use of Section 4(f) protected 

properties unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land. In 

addition, the program or project must include all possible planning to minimize harm to the

park, recreational area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use.

One exception to the aforementioned requirement is if FRA determines that the use of the 

property, including any measure(s) to minimize harm (such as any avoidance, minimization, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures) would have a de minimis impact. A direct use occurs 

when there is a physical incorporation of land into a transportation facility. A constructive 

use occurs when a project does “not incorporate land from a section 4(f) resource, but the 

project's proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes 

that qualify a resource for protection under section 4(f) are substantially impaired and the 

resource can no longer perform its designated function (49 USC 303).
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-71 October 2012

Potential impacts on Section 4(f) and 6(f) properties will be evaluated in accordance with 

CEQ guidelines implementing NEPA, FRA’s Environmental Procedures, the requirements 

set forth in 49 USC 303 for Section 4(f) lands, and 36 CFR 59, Land and Water Conservation 

Fund Program of Assistance to States. 

3.13.2 Affected Environment

Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162 show public parks, recreational resources, and wildlife

and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance for the Study Area. The figures 

also show historic sites of national, state, or local significance that qualify as Section 4(f)

protected properties.

Table 1 of Appendix J lists all public parks, public recreational, public natural areas, and 

historic properties within the Study Area, including a 500-foot buffer (for parks, recreation

areas, and natural areas) and a 250-foot buffer on either side of the existing rail centerline for 

historic sites. Section 4(f) properties were identified in the entire Study Area because the 

Project needs to be reviewed in Tier 2 for the potential for constructive use to properties 

beyond the Potential Impact Area. Within the Study Area, there are 101 parks (city, county, 

and state), 59 public recreational areas (trails, athletic fields, golf courses, a state recreation 

area, stadiums, and swimming pools), 18 public natural areas (including wildlife

management areas, state natural areas, county forest preserves, woodlands, research areas, 

and open space), and 213 historic properties listed on, are eligible for listing on, the NRHP

(including buildings, bridges, other structures, and Historic Districts that would likely qualify 

as Section 4(f) properties).

3.13.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on Section 4(f)

and 6(f) resources are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. 

The Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to slightly increased air emissions and 

noise in this portion of the Study Area; environmental analysis for this project will evaluate 

its potential for Section 4(f) impacts. At a Tier 1 analysis, no direct use or constructive use 

impacts were anticipated to occur for the Wyanet Connection and Eola Yard improvements.

3.13.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The Potential Impact Area includes 44 public parks, 21 public recreational resources, 

8 public refuges, and 60 private and public historic properties, as listed on Table 2 in 

Appendix J. In most instances, only a very small portion of the resources are within the 

Potential Impact Area, which was developed with a sufficient buffer to facilitate design 

refinement and likely reduction of the area during Tier 2 NEPA analysis. In some cases, 

properties protected by Section 4(f) are transected by the Potential Impact Area 

(Section 3.13.2).

As the Project proceeds into Tier 2 analysis, avoidance of these properties would be 

considered. Unavoidable potential impacts would be further analyzed in the Tier 2 NEPA

documents. The greatest potential for temporary impacts would be during culvert 

replacement or bridge work, or during construction of passenger stations or maintenance 

facilities. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-72 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

It is not anticipated that these impacts would be substantial and result in a constructive use of 

these Section 4(f) resources; further evaluation of the potential impacts would be addressed 

during Tier 2 analysis when more details of the design and operation are known.

An initial review of the National Park Service LWCF database identified three individual 

parks and five park districts or community park departments within the Potential Impact Area 

that received LWCF funding (Appendix J, Table 3 includes a list of these properties):

• Cook County Forest Preserve District, Cook County, Illinois

• Community Park, Clarendon Hills, Illinois

• Naperville Park District, Naperville, Illinois

• Tiffin City Park, Tiffin, Iowa

• Altoona Parks Department, Altoona, Iowa

• City of West Des Moines Parks and Recreation, West Des Moines, Iowa

• Walnut Woods State Park, Polk County, Iowa

• City of Omaha Parks and Recreation, Omaha, Nebraska 

During Tier 2 analysis, coordination would occur with the administering agencies to 

determine if lands within the Potential Impact Area were improved with LWCF funding. If 

any areas are considered to be LWCF lands, potential impacts would be addressed during 

Tier 2 analysis.

With phased implementation, the level of improvements needed for the baseline speed of 

79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of speeds up to 

110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW for 

improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. The slower 

speed would cause less noise and lower amounts of ground vibration than the maximum 

speed proposed for the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for 

impacts to parks, recreation areas, natural areas, and historic sites would be less during the 

initial implementation phase. As the Project extends westward, and speeds and the frequency 

of round-trips increase with subsequent implementation phases, more impacts would occur to 

parks, recreational areas, natural areas, and historic sites within or adjacent to the Potential 

Impact Area. Consequently, impacts associated with the ultimate proposed implementation 

may eventually be realized, but the impacts would incur gradually over the years of 

implementation as federal and state funds are allocated to the Project.

3.13.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Unless exceptions for de minimis impact findings are applicable, a feasible and prudent 

alternative that avoids resources protected under Section 4(f) must be selected. If two or 

more alternatives affect Section 4(f) lands, the one causing the least relative harm to 

Section 4(f) properties must be selected, unless the overall environmental impacts of the 

other alternative are greater.

Where impacts on Section 4(f) properties cannot be avoided, all possible planning must be 

completed to minimize impacts. Minimization of harm includes both alternative design that 

lessens the impact on Section 4(f) resources and mitigation measures that compensate for 

residual impacts. Minimization and mitigation measures should be determined through 

consultation with the official of the agency owning or administering the resource. Potential 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-73 October 2012

mitigation measures could include replacement of equipment and facilities in another 

location within existing parkland, purchase of similar properties, planting of woodlands, or 

development of wetlands in nearby locations. 

Section 6(f) lands would be avoided to the extent practicable. For LWCF lands that cannot be 

avoided, there would be provision of replacement property that is of at least equal fair market 

value and of reasonably equivalent usefulness for recreation purposes as the land proposed to 

be taken. 

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed 

during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as 

specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction.

3.14 VISUAL RESOURCES AND AESTHETIC QUALITY

This resource includes both natural and built visual scenic resources along the Study Area

and the general aesthetic quality of the visual environment, including the track facility, trains, 

and stations.

3.14.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to visual resources and aesthetic quality is

Environmental Procedures (64 FR 28545).

To determine which visual resources are unique and have potential scenic qualities, a review 

of each state’s scenic byways websites was conducted, and data for public parks, recreation 

areas, and natural areas (including conservation areas, forest preserves, wildlife refuges, and 

wildlife management areas) were gathered from the Environmental Systems Research 

Institute (ESRI), Bing Maps aerial imagery, Iowa DOT natural resources database, Iowa 

DNR, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Transportation, and the land 

holdings database of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The ESRI hydrography 

data, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), Iowa DOT

rivers databases, and Bing aerial photography were used to compile the list of major rivers 

with riparian woodlands. In addition, data were obtained for the NPS’s historic sites listed in 

the NRHP, as these sites typically possess aesthetic visual qualities. A compilation of 

municipal area information, including urban and small town environments and residential

neighborhoods, was derived from ESRI data and Bing aerial photography. 

3.14.2 Affected Environment

There are two distinct categories of views to be considered in discussing the visual 

environment: 1) views from the train, which are views of visual/scenic resources; and 

2) views of the railroad facilities (siding and track, trains, and stations) from an adjacent 

vantage point, by people who are sensitive to those views (adjacent residential areas). Public 

parks, recreational resources, and natural areas within the Study Area are shown in 

Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162. The figures also readily portray a plan view of rural and 

urban viewsheds.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-74 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.14.2.1 Views from the Train

The majority of the visual environment through which the route travels is characterized by 

flat to gently sloping plains of open agricultural cropland, interspersed with areas of gently 

rolling hills. The remainder of the Study Area travels through the urban built-up 

environments of the major metropolitan areas of Chicago, the Quad Cities, Iowa City, 

Des Moines, and Omaha/Council Bluffs; and the built environments of the smaller towns 

located between those major cities. 

Potential visual/scenic resources within or adjacent to the Study Area were divided into six

categories: 1) public parks; 2) recreational areas; 3) natural areas (see lists of these three 

resources in Appendix I); 4) major perennial river corridors with riparian woodlands (see 

list in Appendix K); 5) historic sites (see list in Appendix H), and 6) city/small town areas.

Potential visual/scenic resources within or adjacent to the Study Area include 101 parks, 

65 recreation areas, 44 natural areas, 76 major perennial rivers with riparian woodlands, 

213 properties listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP, and 78 built-up environments of 

the cities (including suburbs) and small towns.

Although the dominant agricultural cropland and pastureland in the Study Area can exhibit 

visual qualities of their own, the major perennial river corridors contain woodlands and 

surface water that provide visual contrasts to the vast open areas of the agricultural 

countryside, and contrasts with the built environments within the cities and towns. The 

expansive Mississippi and Missouri Rivers would provide unique scenic views as the 

passenger trains travel on the bridges over these water resources.

Many of the parks, recreation areas, and natural areas also contain wooded areas, manicured 

open fields, and/or water bodies, which can provide visual interest. In addition, historic 

buildings and structures scattered within the cities and towns, possess unique architectural 

elements that can provide scenic qualities for on-looking passengers. In some instances, the 

remainder of the buildings in the urban areas and small towns can possess aesthetic qualities 

and provide views of urban and small town character, if they are well-maintained and in 

harmony with the context of the surrounding environment.

A unique scenic resource in the Study Area is at the west edge of Iowa where the Loess Hills

landform provides a visual environment of peaked hills, steep side slopes, narrow ridge 

crests, and sometimes vertical bluffs of exposed tan-colored silt, contrasting with the 

relatively flat surrounding landscape.

3.14.2.2 Views of the Railroad Facilities

Individuals concentrated in the adjacent residential areas of municipalities (cities, suburbs, 

and towns) who would have the potential for undesirable views of the railroad facilities are

considered to be sensitive visual receptors. There are 79 municipal areas along the rail line 

that contain potential sensitive visual receptors. 

Existing views of the railroad siding and track are uniform and similar throughout the Study 

Area. Although the siding and track are low-profile visual elements in the landscape, the 

current trains are vertical elements that are periodically seen by sensitive viewers. Currently, 

views of passenger and freight trains occur frequently in the Chicago to Wyanet, Illinois 

portion of the Study Area. The residential areas within the cities and towns along the Study 

Area from Wyanet to Council Bluffs, Iowa, currently experience periodic views of only 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-75 October 2012

freight trains. Existing train stations and depots are also visible to residents in adjacent 

neighborhoods. However, the architecture of the depot buildings is typically considered 

aesthetically pleasing and some are listed in the NRHP.

3.14.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on visual/scenic 

resources and sensitive visual receptors are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due 

to other projects. The Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program would result in potential 

minor impacts or alterations on visual/scenic resources as a result of constructing new track 

embankment for the Wyanet Connection as it traverses part of the riparain woodland of a 

major perennial waterway (Pond Creek). The Eola Yard improvements would be in a railroad

yard, and negligibly changed views from a train or of the railroad facitilities. In addition, 

potential culvert replacements/extensions and minor bridge replacements/additions at other 

major perennial rivers along the Study Area could result in minor alterations of those 

visual/scenic resources. It is anticipated that there would be minimal or no direct impacts on 

other visual/scenic resources because of little or no additional ROW acquisition in the 

remainder of the Study Area. Specific impact areas will be identified during the Chicago to 

Quad Cities Tier 2 NEPA analysis as more specific project limits are identified.

3.14.3.1 Views from the Train

Views of the visual/scenic resources from the passenger trains, may vary in duration 

depending on train speed, the distance of the resource from the Corridor, and the presence or 

absence of vegetatation or structures that could act as visual barriers prior to arrival near the 

visual/scenic resource. 

Culvert replacements or extensions, and bridge replacements or additions, at the major 

perennial river crossings would necessitate removal of some of the riparian woodland, which 

is an aesthetic feature of those resources. However, the removal of vegetation may be 

beneficial by opening up the views to the remaining or distant portions of the visual/scenic 

resource. To improve site distance at crossings for vehicle and train traffic, tree and brush 

clearing could occur, which could open up views to other visual/scenic resources that may be 

in the vicinity of those areas.

3.14.3.2 Views of the Railroad Facilities

With the additional passenger trains, running two round-trips per day at 79 mph from 

Chicago to the Quad Cities, there would be a minimial increase in the frequency of views of 

the trains, from sensitive visual receptors in the vicinity. Consequently, the effects of the 

Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program on the receptors would be minimal, since 

residents in those areas are already accustomed to views of the trains.

3.14.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The construction activities of the Build Alternative; including tree and brush clearing, 

placement of fill material for additional track and siding, stream relocations, culvert 

replacement or extensions, bridge replacement or additions, and new or expanded station

areas; could have the potential to impact visual/scenic resources and affect sensitive visual 

receptors present in the Study Area.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-76 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.14.4.1 Views from the Train

As indicated in Section 3.12, the Build Alternative would result in direct impacts on 

44 public parks, 24 recreational areas, 22 natural areas, and 78 city and small town 

environments. In addition, all 76 of the major perennial rivers and/or their riparian areas 

would either be crossed or potentially impacted by longitudinal encroachments on the 

riparian area, thereby resulting in minimal linear alterations of these resources. Siding and 

track additions, culvert replacements or extensions, and bridge replacements or additions, 

would necessitate removal of some of the wooded areas, considered to be aesthetic features.

However, the removal of vegetation may be beneficial by opening up the views to the 

remaining or distant portions of the visual/scenic resource, as well as the water surface in 

relation to the major rivers. Only small portions of these visual/scenic resources would be 

within the Potential Impact Area because additional ROW would be abutting the existing 

ROW rather than being on new alignment. As a result, alteration of these resources and 

effects on the views of those resources would most likely be minimal. In addition, the 

expansive Mississippi and Missouri Rivers would provide unique scenic views as the 

passenger trains travel on the bridges over these water resources.

The Build Alternative would have linear impacts on the Loess Hills landform area as a result 

of adding track and siding through this unique visual resource in the northeast portion of 

Council Bluffs, Iowa. The linear impacts would be minimal and the existing views of the 

Loess Hills would remain open for the passengers of the trains. An additional area of impact 

in the Loess Hills would result from a potential new station location just southeast of the 

intersection of I-80 and Highway 6, in the northeast corner of Council Bluffs (Appendix B, 

Figures 156 and 157). This area is characterized by rolling hills of open grassland. A new 

station facility in this area would result in impacts to the scenic resource by removing the 

natural landform on this property, and replacing it with a building and parking facilities.

The Build Alternative has the potential to affect 60 properties (buildings, structures, bridges, 

or historic districts) within the Potential Impact Area (Table 3.11-1). However, measures to 

avoid or minimize impacts to those historic resources would be analyzed in the Tier 2 NEPA

documents. In addition, impacts to the urban character and small town character of the builtup environments would be minimal, as there would be very little, if any, additional ROW 

required in these areas.

Although the Build Alternative would result in impacts on several visual/scenic resources, 

those impacts would be minimal and would be offset by the beneficial impacts on the 

passengers of the trains by providing visual access to those resources throughout the Study 

Area. To improve site distance at some crossings for vehicle and train traffic, tree and brush 

clearing may be required. However, this could also open up views to other visual/scenic 

resources that may be in the vicinity of those areas.

Views of the visual/scenic resources from the passenger trains may vary in duration 

depending on train speed, the distance of the resource from the Corridor, and the presence or 

absence of vegetatation or structures that could act as visual barriers prior to arrival at the 

vicinity of the visual/scenic resource. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-77 October 2012

3.14.4.2 Views of the Railroad Facilities

The Project improvements for the Build Alternative would be visually similar to the existing 

railroad facilities. The views of the additional siding and track, from the residential

neighborhoods of the cities and small towns in the Study Area, would be similar to the 

existing views to which the adjacent residents are already accustomed. Although they are 

currently accustomed to seeing passenger trains and freight trains between Chicago and 

Wyanet, and only freight trains between Wyanet and Omaha, the proposed alternative would 

add seven more passenger trains per day at speeds up to 110 mph between Chicago and 

Omaha. The passenger trains would be shorter and faster than the freight trains, resulting in 

views of the trains that would be of shorter duration than those of the freight trains.

Although the visual/scenic resources provide views for passengers on the trains, in some 

cases, the visibility of the railroad facilities from those resources could be considered an 

incompatible visual intrusion, depending upon the sensitivity of the resource. As indicated in 

Section 3.13, all of the 44 public parks, 21 of the public recreation areas, 8 of the public 

natural areas, and all 60 of the historic properties are considered Section 4(f) resources, and 

as such, views of the railroad facilities from these resources would be a consideration in the 

impacts evaluation on those resources. It is not anticipated that visual impacts would 

adversely affect any of those resources because the views of railroad facilities are not new, 

and because of the visual/scenic resources’ proximity to the railroad. Visual considerations

and impact avoidance or minimization in regard to Section 4(f) resources would be analyzed 

further in the Tier 2 NEPA documents.

The Build Alternative follows existing railroad alignments and would travel by residential

areas containing sensitive visual receptors who are currently accustomed to seeing trains.

One exception would be in the east side of Des Moines, where the Des Moines Design 

Option 3 alignment would pass through a residential neighborhood along the abandoned 

Wabash rail corridor parallel to the Southeast Connector (Appendix B, Figures 114 and 115).

This neighborhood is currently not exposed to views of railroad facilities, and Design 

Option 3 would bisect the neighborhood, resulting in a negative visual impact on these 

sensitive visual receptors.

One station area in Grinnell, Iowa and a potential station area in Omaha may be located 

adjacent to, or in the vicinity of residential areas. Those sensitive visual receptors would be 

subject to views of the stations. Although there may be a change in the exisiting 

environment, new development or expansion of the facilities could incorporate appropriate 

aesthetic design elements and landscaping to complement or enhance the visual quality of the 

existing surroundings.

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speeds of passenger trains would result in fewer 

visual impacts than that of the maximum speed proposed for the ultimate proposed 

implementation. Consequently, the potential for impacts to visual resources and sensitive 

visual receptors would be less during the initial implementation phase. As the Project extends 

westward, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase with subsequent 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-78 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

implementation phases, more impacts would occur to visual resources and sensitive visual 

receptors within or adjacent to the Potential Impact Area. 

A more detailed analysis of visual/scenic resources, sensitive visual receptors, the potential 

degree of change or alteration to existing resources and views, and considerations for 

aesthetic quality in station design, will be addressed in the Tier 2 NEPA documents.

3.14.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Through the public involvement process, residents’ concerns about the potential views of the 

railroad facilities would be determined. Mitigation and impact minimization efforts would be 

addressed in more detail in the Tier 2 NEPA documents and could include consideration of 

potential measures such as appropriate re-vegetation of disturbed areas of the scenic 

resources and visual screening of railroad facilities from adjacent residential areas.

A general strategy to minimize and mitigate for visual impacts of potential new station

facilities or expansion of existing facilities could include consideration of appropriate design 

of aesthetic features and landscaping that would complement and blend with the context of 

the surrounding visual environment. 

As discussed in Section 3.19, if land disturbance within the Loess Hills area is unavoidable, 

coordination should take place with Iowa DNR regarding mitigative buffer zones adjacent to 

areas of native vegetation and re-establishing native vegetation on disturbed areas. Mitigation 

measures could also include shaping areas to blend into the natural character of the 

surrounding hills.

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed 

during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as 

specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction.

3.15 WATERWAYS AND WATER BODIES

Waterway and water body resources include perennial and intermittent streams, and lakes

and ponds as designated on USGS maps and USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 

maps.

3.15.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to these water resources includes Section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act of 1972 (as amended) and the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 401 

et. seq., as amended and supplemented; 23 CFR 650, subparts D and H, 33 CFR 114-115).

The ESRI hydrography data and the NPS Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) were used to 

compile GIS data for locations of waterways, in the form of rivers and perennial and 

intermittent streams. Waterway information was supplemented by stream data from the 

USGS NHD, the Illinois Natural Resources Geospatial Data Clearinghouse, and Iowa DOT

databases. Additional data included the USFWS NWI maps for designations of deep water 

lakes (lacustrine) and open water ponds (palustrine unconsolidated bottom). In addition, the 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources’ (Iowa DNR, 2009a and 2009b) website was 

reviewed to obtain input regarding special designations of Meandered Sovereign Waters, a 

designation unique to Iowa.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-79 October 2012

In conjunction with the Tier 2 NEPA documents, a more detailed impact analysis of 

waterways and water bodies would be conducted, including field surveys, at which time there 

is the potential for additional waterways and water bodies to be found. Smaller streams with 

an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and connections to jurisdictional streams that were 

not included in the mapping databases may be found. Coordination would take place with the 

USACE to determine which water resources are jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional for 

Section 404 permitting purposes and mitigation requirements, in addition to coordination 

with state resource agencies.

For permitting purposes, the project lies within three USACE regulatory districts: the 

Chicago District for eastern Illinois, the Rock Island District for central and western Illinois 

and most of Iowa, and the Omaha District for Nebraska which includes Nebraska and a small 

portion of Iowa west of the federal levee system in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Illinois provides a 

joint permit application form which is submitted to the Illinois DNR, Illinois EPA, and 

USACE for a floodplain permit, Section 404 permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification,

and public waters permits. Iowa provides a joint permit application form which is distributed 

to Iowa DNR and USACE to obtain a Section 404 permit, Section 401 Water Quality

Certification, a floodplain construction permit, and a Sovereign Lands/Waters construction 

permit. The NDEQ regulates stream impacts under its Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification authority, in conjunction with the USACE’s Section 404 permit. The U.S. Coast 

Guard’s Section 9 bridge permit would be required for any new bridge structures over rivers

that are considered navigable by the Coast Guard, as well as a Section 10 permit from the 

USACE.

Jurisdictional water resources are considered Waters of the U.S., and as such, the discharge 

of fill material below the OHWM of jurisdictional waters is regulated by the USACE and 

would require a Section 404 Permit in the design stage, in addition to mitigation.

3.15.2 Affected Environment

When railroad lines were first built in the Midwest, they were located along the valleys of 

rivers and creeks, wherever possible, to take advantage of the level and nearly level terrain, 

thereby minimizing cut and fill construction operations. Consequently, the Study Area runs 

parallel to and perpendicular to waterways throughout the Study Area. The waterways and 

water bodies near or within the Study Area are shown in Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162. 

The 76 major named perennial streams in the Study Area are listed in Appendix K, Table 1

by state and county. The Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, the Des Plaines River, the 

Mississippi River, and the Missouri River are important waterways in the Study Area that are 

used for commercial navigation. These rivers would be crossed on existing bridges, with the 

exception of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal which runs parallel to the route in the 

downtown Chicago area. There are also smaller perennial streams and intermittent streams 

throughout the Study Area. Some segments of a particular stream run perpendicular, parallel,

or skewed to the Study Area, or lie within it in more than one location.

Special designations by the NPS have also been given to a few of the waterways near the 

Study Area. The NPS has compiled the NRI, which is a listing of free-flowing river segments 

“...that are believed to possess one or more ‘outstandingly remarkable’ natural or cultural 

values judged to be of more than local or regional significance” (NPS, 2011). Although there 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-80 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

are no segments of NRI-listed streams directly within the Study Area, four streams are 

crossed that have NRI segments in relative proximity to the Study Area: the Fox River

(2 miles), Big Indian Creek (0.75 mile), and Big Bureau Creek (1.5 miles), all of which are in 

Illinois; and the Cedar River (1 mile) in Iowa.

The Iowa DNR designates the Cedar River, Iowa River, Des Moines River, and Raccoon 

River as Meandered Sovereign Rivers which require special permitting, if impacted.

Although Iowa DNR also designates some stream segments as Protected Water Areas 

(Scenic Rivers), none are within the Study Area. 

There are 20 water bodies designated as deep water lakes (lacustrine) on the NWI maps, and 

197 open water ponds (palustrine unconsolidated bottom) scattered along the Study Area 

(Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162). Most of the lakes are the result of previous surface 

mining excavations, while a few were formed by damming streams. Although Iowa DNR has 

also designated certain lakes as sovereign, none are located in the Study Area.

3.15.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and no project related

impacts on waterways and water bodies are anticipated beyond those that could occur due to 

other projects. As part of the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program, minimal 

disturbance would occur outside existing ROW, except for a BNSF and IAIS connection near 

Wyanet, Illinois. There would be direct impacts to a perennial stream (Pond Creek) as a 

result of constructing new track embankment for the Wyanet Connection and relocation of a 

linear water of the U.S. for the Eola Yard improvements. In addition, minor impacts on 

waterways and water bodies from potential culvert replacements/extensions and bridge 

replacements/additions in other areas of the project may also occur. Specific quantitative 

impacts from this project on waterways and water bodies would be determined as the project 

progresses through its required Tier 2 NEPA documentation. There is also the potential for 

temporary construction impacts from possible culvert or bridge replacements along the 

remainder of the rail route, as a part of ongoing maintenance. 

3.15.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

Impacts from the Build Alternative on waterways are unavoidable since some stretches of the 

existing railroad were originally built along waterways and floodplains. 

As shown in Table 3.15-1, construction of the Build Alternative would directly impact 

approximately 323 waterway segments, totaling approximately 104,150 linear feet. These 

waterway segments would be impacted by construction activities including placement of fill 

material for additional track and siding, culvert replacement or extensions, and bridge 

replacement or additions. In some areas, these impacts would include relocation of parallel 

stream segments that would be impacted by new track embankments. Although the Build 

Alternative would cross all four of Iowa’s Meandered Sovereign Rivers, none of the NRI 

stream segments would be directly impacted. The rail line would cross the Mississippi River

on an existing bridge and may cross the Missouri River on an existing bridge or one or two 

new bridges in order to support additional passenger train service for the Build Alternative.

The Build Alternative would also impact portions of seven lakes, totaling approximately 

32 acres, and 44 ponds, totaling approximately 33 acres.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-81 October 2012

Although construction impacts on waterways and water bodies would occur as a result of soil

erosion and potential construction pollutant loading of stormwater runoff, they would be 

temporary and would cease after construction is completed.

Table 3.15-1. Impacts on Waterways and Water Bodies

State Perennial

Streams

Intermittent

Streams Lakes Ponds

Illinois

 No. 41 54 4 11

 L.F. / Ac. 16,880 L.F. 17,360 L.F. 5 Ac. 4 Ac.

Iowa

 No. 65 162 3 28

 L.F. / Ac. 15,360 L.F. 54,235 L.F. 27 Ac. 27 Ac.

Nebraska

 No. 1 0 0 5

 L.F. / Ac. 315 L.F. 0 L.F. 0 Ac. 2 Ac.

Total

 No. 107 216 7 44

 L.F. / Ac. 32,555 L.F. 71,595 L.F. 32 Ac. 33 Ac.

Notes:

No. = Number; L.F. = Linear Feet; Ac. = Acres 

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speeds of passenger trains would result in fewer 

impacts on waterways and water bodies than that of the maximum speed proposed for the 

ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for impacts to waterways and 

water bodies would be less during the initial implementation phase. As the Project extends 

westward, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase with subsequent 

implementation phases, more impacts would occur to waterways and water bodies within or 

adjacent to the Potential Impact Area.

3.15.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

In conjunction with the Tier 2 NEPA documents, the waterways would be reviewed to 

determine where it is possible and practical to avoid or minimize impacts. 

Mitigation options available for unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waterways and water 

bodies would be discussed in more detail during the Tier 2 NEPA documents. Mitigation 

measures could include mitigation banking, in-lieu fees, and on-site or off-site permitteeresponsible mitigation. During the design process, coordination would take place with the 

USACE and appropriate state resource agencies to develop mitigation strategies. Specific 

mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 

analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are 

identified, and implemented prior to construction.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-82 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.16 WETLANDS

The regulatory definition of wetlands, as adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA, May 11, 2012) and USACE to administer the USACE’s Section 404 

permit program is “[Wetlands are] 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. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas." 

Wetlands generally include swamps, bogs, and similar areas (USEPA, 40 CFR 239.2 and CE, 

33 CFR 328.3). For this analysis, this resource includes vegetated wetland areas as 

designated on the USFWS NWI maps.

3.16.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to wetlands includes Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act of 1972 (as amended), Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (USDOT Order 

5660.14; 23 CFR 777), and the Interagency Wetland Policy Act of 1989 (20 ILCS/830/1-2, 

et seq.) and administrative rules promulgated there under (17 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1090).

In conjunction with the Tier 2 NEPA documents, a more detailed impact analysis of wetlands

would be conducted, including field surveys, to determine which areas meet the USEPA and 

USACE regulatory criteria and definition of a wetland, and to determine the type and 

boundaries of those wetland areas. There is also the potential for additional wetlands to be 

found in the course of those surveys. Coordination would take place with the USACE to 

determine which wetland areas are jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional for Section 404 

permitting purposes and mitigation requirements, in addition to coordination with state 

resource agencies.

For permitting purposes, the project lies within three USACE regulatory districts as 

discussed in Section 3.15.5. Illinois provides a joint permit application form, which is 

submitted to the Illinois DNR, Illinois EPA, and USACE for floodplain and public waters

permits. Iowa provides a joint permit application form. The NDEQ regulates stream impacts 

under its Section 401 Water Quality Certification authority, in conjunction with the 

USACE’s Section 404 permit. The U.S. Coast Guard’s Section 9 bridge permit would be 

required for any new bridge structures over rivers that are considered navigable by the Coast 

Guard, as well as a Section 10 permit from the USACE.

The USFWS NWI database was used to compile GIS data for locations of vegetated wetland 

areas within the Study Area. 

3.16.2 Affected Environment

Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162, show the NWI wetlands near or within the Study Area.

The NWI maps are based on a classification system known as the Cowardin System, which 

classifies the types of ecosystems related to water resources (Cowardin, 1979). Typical 

vegetated wetlands in the Midwest include, but are not limited to, emergent (herbaceous), 

scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands. 

Areas that are mapped as vegetated wetlands on the NWI maps have the potential of being 

regulated as special aquatic sites by the USACE. The regulatory definition of wetlands 

emphasizes that wetlands must possess three essential characteristics before a positive 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-83 October 2012

determination of a wetland can be made: hydric soils,

11 a prevalence of hydrophytic 

vegetation,

12 and a persistent wetland hydrology.

The vegetated wetland systems present within the Study Area include Palustrine Aquatic Bed 

(PAB), Palustrine Emergent (PEM), Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (PSS), and Palustrine Forested 

(PFO). Although there are several wetland areas scattered throughout the Study Area, most 

of the larger concentrations of wetlands occur in the floodplains of, and adjacent to, the 

following perennial streams: 

• Little Rock Creek (Appendix B, Figure 19)

• Somonauk Creek (Appendix B, Figure 20)

• Big Bureau Creek (Appendix B, Figure 37)

• Green River (Appendix B, Figures 50 through 52)

• Rock River (Appendix B, Figure 53)

• Mississippi River (Appendix B, Figures 55 through 57)

• Cedar River (Appendix B, Figures 66 and 67)

• Wapsipinicon Creek (Appendix B, Figure 69)

• Iowa River (Appendix B, Figure 75)

• Clear Creek (Appendix B, Figures 76 through 80)

• Big Bear Creek (Appendix B, Figures 85 through 88)

• Little Bear Creek (Appendix B, Figures 91 and 92)

• South Skunk River (Appendix B, Figures 105 through 108)

• Fourmile Creek (Appendix B, Figures 113 and 114)

• Raccoon River (Appendix B, Figures 116 through 122)

• Turkey Creek (Appendix B, Figures 136 through 140)

• East Nishnabotna River (Appendix B, Figure 142)

• West Nishnabotna River (Appendix B, Figures 148 and 149)

• Missouri River (Appendix B, Figures 160 through 162)

3.16.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and project related impacts to 

wetlands would not occur beyond those that could occur due to other projects. The Chicago 

to Quad Cities Expansion Program would contribute to minimal impacts on a wetland area as 

a result of constructing the Eola Yard improvements. In addition, other minor wetland 

impacts would occur as a result of potential culvert replacements/extensions and bridge 

replacements/additions at other wetland areas in the Corridor. Specific quantitative impacts 

on wetlands from this project would be determined as the project progresses through its 

required Tier 2 NEPA documentation. There is also the potential for temporary construction

impacts from possible culvert or bridge replacements along the remainder of the rail route, as 

a part of ongoing maintenance.

 

11 Hydric soils are soils “that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during 

the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” (NRCS, August 10, 2012).

12 Hydrophytic vegetation is “plant-life that thrives in wet conditions” (Illinois DNR, 2012).
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-84 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.16.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

Impacts from the Build Alternative on wetlands that are located adjacent to existing ROW 

are unavoidable since some stretches of the existing railroad were originally built along 

several waterways and floodplains where wetlands occur.

As shown in Table 3.16-1, construction of the Build Alternative would directly impact 

approximately 372 wetlands, totaling approximately 238 acres, the majority of which would 

occur in Iowa. These wetlands would be impacted by construction activities including 

placement of fill material for additional track and siding, culvert replacement or extensions, 

and bridge replacement or additions.

Although construction impacts on wetlands may occur, as a result of soil disturbance and 

potential construction pollutant loading of stormwater runoff, they would be temporary and 

would cease after construction is completed.

Table 3.16-1. Impacts on Wetlands (by type)

State

Palustrine

Total Aquatic Bed

(PAB)

Emergent

(PEM)

Scrub-Shrub

(PSS)

Forested

(PFO)

Illinois

 No. 2 38 5 29 74

 Ac. 1 16 1 13 31

Iowa

 No. 0 128 27 126 281

 Ac. 0 56 31 106 193

Nebraska

 No. 0 11 3 3 17

 Ac. 0 12 1 1 14

Total

 No. 2 177 35 158 372

 Ac. 1 84 33 120 238

Notes:

No. = Number; Ac. = Acres 

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speeds of passenger trains would result in fewer 

wetland area impacts than that of the maximum speed proposed for the ultimate proposed 

implementation. Consequently, the potential for impacts to wetland areas would be less 

during the initial implementation phase. As the Project extends westward, and speeds and the 

frequency of round-trips increase with subsequent implementation phases, more impacts 

would occur to wetland areas within or adjacent to the Potential Impact Area. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-85 October 2012

3.16.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

In conjunction with the Tier 2 NEPA documents, wetlands would be reviewed to determine 

where it is possible and practical to avoid or minimize impacts. 

Mitigation options available for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands would be 

discussed in more detail during the Tier 2 NEPA documents and could include mitigation 

banking, in-lieu fees, and on-site or off-site permittee-responsible mitigation. During the 

design process, coordination would take place with the USACE and appropriate resource 

agencies to develop appropriate mitigation strategies. Specific mitigation measures, to the 

extent required, will be identified and discussed during Tier 2 analysis after design details are 

known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented 

prior to construction.

3.17 WATER QUALITY

Water quality refers to the potential effects of sediment erosion and chemical pollution on 

surface water resources (streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands) and on groundwater in relation to 

karst areas.

3.17.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 303(d), requires that each state identify 

those waters that are not meeting the state’s water quality standards. Other regulations

pertaining to water quality includes Sections 401 and 402 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 

(as amended) and EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards 

(43 FR 47707). The list of surface waters provided in Section 3.16.2 was reviewed.

To determine potential karst regions in the Study Area, information was obtained from 

Internet data and mapping by the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), Illinois 

Department of Natural Resources (Illinois DNR), Iowa DNR, Nebraska DNR, and Nebraska 

Emergency Management Agency (NEMA). The most recent 303(d) lists of impaired waters 

were gathered from the websites of Illinois EPA, Iowa DNR, and NDEQ. Well locations 

were compiled from the Illinois Natural Resources Geospatial Data Clearinghouse website, 

the Iowa DOT database, and the Nebraska DNR website. Data for waste water treatment 

facilities in all three states were compiled from USEPA’s Facility Registry System and were

supplemented with Iowa DOT data, and aerial photography.

3.17.2 Affected Environment

As discussed in Sections 3.15.2 and 3.16.2, the Study Area contains perennial and 

intermittent waterways, wetlands, and other surface water resources, all of which can be 

affected by runoff of pollutants from the project. Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162, show 

the water resources near or within the Study Area.

As discussed in Section 3.15.1, there are no NRI stream segments located within the Study 

Area, however, there are four streams crossed by the Study Area that have NRI segments in 

proximity to, and downstream of, Study Area. They are: the Fox River (2 miles; Appendix B, 

Figure 13), Big Indian Creek (0.75 mile; Appendix B, Figure 25), Big Bureau Creek 

(1.5 miles; Appendix B, Figure 37), all of which are in Illinois; and the Cedar River in Iowa 

(1 mile; Appendix B, Figures 66 and 67).
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-86 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

The Study Area also includes four rivers in Iowa (Cedar River, Iowa River, Des Moines 

River, and Raccoon River) which Iowa DNR designates as Meandered Sovereign Rivers, 

which require special permitting, if impacted.

The federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 303(d), requires that each state identify 

those waters which have uses that are impaired by pollutants and, as a result, are not meeting

the state’s water quality standards. This list of water quality limited (impaired) surface waters 

is referred to as the 303(d) List. There are 28 streams (Appendix L, Table 1) included on the 

303(d) list (USEPA, March 6, 2012), but no other water bodies within the Study Area.

In addition to runoff of pollutants potentially affecting surface water resources, groundwater

also can be affected by runoff as surface flow can be quickly lost through caves, sinkholes, 

and open fractures where there is minimal, if any, soil cover to act as a filter. Bedrock near 

the ground surface, composed of easily dissolved limestone and dolomite, is referred to as 

karst terrain and is characterized by fractures, caves, sinkholes, springs, and losing streams.

13

Groundwater in karst areas is highly susceptible to contamination from any pollutants that 

could travel with stormwater surface flow and into karst features. 

According to mapping available through the Illinois DNR, ISGS, and NEMA websites, the 

Study Area does not pass through any major karst areas in Illinois or Nebraska. Although

Iowa DNR mapping shows that the Study Area is not within major karst areas, it is on the 

southern edge of a potential karst region in the eastern portion of the state (Iowa DNR, 2012).

A small portion of the potential karst areas are mapped in the Study Area in the northeast 

corner of Muscatine County and along the south side of the Muscatine/Cedar County line.

There is also a potential for water wells to be located adjacent to the existing railroad ROW.

The locations of wells have not been determined for this Tier 1 analysis but would be 

investigated in the Tier 2 NEPA studies.

The Study Area contains 21 municipal or industrial waste water treatment facilities, in the 

form of large sewage treatment plants, sewage lagoons, or small liquid waste treatment 

facilities. These facilities are discussed as part of Section 3.10.

3.17.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and permanent project 

related impacts on water quality would not occur beyond those that could occur due to other 

projects. The Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program would result in potential temporary 

impacts on water quality as a result of constructing new track embankment for the Wyanet 

Connection and implementing the Eola Yard improvements, and potential culvert or bridge 

replacements in other areas of the Project where water resources would be impacted. Specific 

impacts from this project on water quality would be determined as the Project progresses 

through its required Tier 2 NEPA documentation. There is also the potential for temporary 

construction impacts from future culvert or bridge replacements along the remainder of the 

rail route as a part of ongoing maintenance.

 

13 A losing stream is a stream where flow is reduced as it moves downstream because it infiltrates into the 

ground, recharging groundwater.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-87 October 2012

The current rail routes between Chicago and Omaha would continue to be used, resulting in 

continued potential minor impacts on water quality. Erosion and sedimentation from railroad

grades to adjacent water resources, and potential pollutant runoff and spills from operation 

and maintenance activities could potentially reach adjacent water resources. 

3.17.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The Build Alternative would cross 24 of the 28 streams on the 303(d) List of Impaired 

Waters (water quality limited waters) within the Study Area. The remaining four streams 

would not be crossed or otherwise encroached upon, but are close enough to the Study Area

to have the potential of receiving runoff from the Study Area.

The Build Alternative would also potentially affect the water quality of several other water

resources described in Sections 3.15 and 3.16 as a result of soil erosion from stormwater

runoff, fill material placed in water resources, and construction of bridges and culverts or 

culvert extensions. The avoidance or minimization of sediment pollution would be 

accomplished in appropriate areas by the use of BMPs as discussed below for potential 

mitigation measures.

Construction activities of the Build Alternative have the potential to temporarily affect water 

quality as a result of soil erosion and potential construction pollutant loading of stormwater

runoff. BMPs would be used during construction to control water pollution through the use 

of temporary measures as discussed below for potential mitigation measures. 

The potential for the Build Alternative to adversely affect groundwater is minimal, since 

there are no major karst areas within the Potential Impact Area. The Build Alternative is 

located at the southern edge of a “potential” karst area, which would be investigated further 

in the Tier 2 NEPA documents, in coordination with Iowa DNR. BMPs would be used to 

divert any stormwater or pollution runoff from entering karst features, if present in the Study 

Area. 

The Project has the potential to affect groundwater in areas with groundwater wells.

Although the exact locations of groundwater wells have not been determined as part of the 

Tier 1 analysis, wells would be investigated in the Tier 2 NEPA documents, and/or during 

preliminary design, when more specific locations and impacts can be determined.

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speed of passenger trains would result in fewer water 

quality impacts than that of the maximum speed proposed for the ultimate proposed 

implementation. Consequently, the potential for impacts to water quality would be less 

during the initial implementation phase. As the Project extends westward, and speeds and the 

frequency of round-trips increase with subsequent implementation phases, more impacts 

would occur to water quality within or adjacent to the Potential Impact Area. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-88 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.17.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

The potential of the proposed project to adversely affect water quality during construction

activities could be mitigated by the development and implementation of Stormwater

Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) and the use of temporary and permanent BMPs. The 

avoidance or minimization of sediment pollution could be accomplished by the use of BMPs, 

such as rock berms/ditch checks, drainage basins (detention/retention), vegetated swales, 

seeding and mulching. At new stations, retention/detention basins, if appropriate, may be 

incorporated on-site to avoid or minimize water quality impacts by reducing stormwater 

runoff from the site. 

BMPs could be used during construction to control water pollution through the use of 

temporary measures, such as berms, slope drains, sediment basins, straw bales, silt fences, 

seeding and mulching. In addition, disturbance to stream banks and riparian zones could be 

minimized and limited to only that which is necessary to construct the Project. 

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed 

during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known. The Tier 2 NEPA documents would

further address mitigation measures and control of pollutants and sediments in regard to the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting, SWPPPs, and BMPs. 

In addition, each state’s required Section 401 Water Quality Certifications would be 

addressed. 

The Tier 2 NEPA documents would also address the need for mitigation of impacts on 

mapped or unmapped water wells, including proper abandonment of the wells (such as

plugging and sealing) to prevent groundwater pollution from construction and from future 

operations and maintenance. Specific mitigation measures would be implemented prior to 

construction.

3.18 FLOODPLAINS

This resource includes areas of 100-year floodplain (areas with a one percent annual chance 

of flooding) as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 

accordance with 44 CFR 59.1.

3.18.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to floodplains is Executive Order 11988, Floodplain 

Management (as amended), which affords avoidance and minimization considerations to 

floodplains. As stated in this policy, federal agencies are required “... to avoid, to the extent 

possible, the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and 

modification of floodplains, and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain 

development wherever there is a practicable alternative”. In addition, the State Emergency 

Management Agencies (SEMAs) have floodplain management programs. 

Digital 100-year floodplain data (Zone A and Zone AE), based on FEMA’s Flood Insurance 

Rate Maps (FIRMs) of Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), were compiled from the 

FEMA website. SFHAs (or 100-year floodplains) are the areas subject to flooding by the

one percent annual chance flood. SFHA Zone A is designated as having no base flood 

elevations determined, whereas in SFHA Zone AE, base flood elevations have been 

determined. Where floodplain data for some counties were not available in digital format, 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-89 October 2012

the FIRMs were used to digitize the 100-year floodplain within the Study Area. However, 

there are some streams in three counties in Iowa, for which FEMA floodplain mapping was 

not available in the Study Area, including Mud Creek in the southeast corner of Cedar 

County, Little Bear Creek and Big Bear Creek throughout Poweshiek County, and Turkey 

Creek in the northwest corner of Adair County.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (as amended), requires federal agencies to 

avoid adverse impacts on floodplains, to the extent possible, and to avoid situations that 

would support floodplain development if a practicable alternative exists. Potential avoidance 

and minimization of impacts on 100-year floodplains would be further evaluated in the Tier 2 

NEPA documents. Coordination with the SEMAs, which have Floodplain Management 

Programs, the DNRs of each state, and local floodplain administrators would be initiated for 

any proposed encroachments in a 100-year floodplain area, and to discuss floodplain 

development permitting and potential mitigation measures.

3.18.2 Affected Environment

Most of the major perennial waterways within the Study Area have 100-year floodplains

mapped by FEMA, in addition to some of the other smaller waterways within the Study 

Area. When railroad lines were first built in the Midwest, they were located along valley 

floodplains of rivers and creeks, wherever possible, to take advantage of the level and nearly 

level terrain, to minimize cut and fill construction operations. As such, the Study Area runs 

parallel to several waterways and their adjoining floodplains throughout the Study Area, in 

addition to crossing several floodplains at a perpendicular or skewed angle. Appendix B, 

Figures 1 through 162, show the floodplains near or within the Study Area.

Major flooding in the Study Area in the past quarter century has occurred in 1993, 2008, and 

2011, resulting in some railroad lines being under water or washed out in some places, 

causing delays and closures. During the 1993 flood, IAIS reported that trains were moving at 

only 10 mph throughout much of the Corridor because of saturated ground (Haefner, 1996).

During the 2008 flood, the IAIS Railroad operations were out of service for approximately 

10 days because of flooding in Des Moines and a washout between Omaha and Des Moines. 

A train near Davenport wrecked when it hit a washout, and the IAIS tracks between 

Davenport and Iowa City were closed for 13 days (Changnon, 2009). Near Atalissa, Iowa 

(Muscatine County), severe damage occurred to about a mile of track that was washed out

(Iowa DOT, 2008). However, the Missouri River flooding of 2011 resulted in the IAIS line 

becoming busier, as other railroad companies used the IAIS tracks as a detour route for their 

damaged tracks (Grizel, 2011).

3.18.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on floodplains

are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. The Chicago to Quad 

Cities Expansion Program would contribute to minimal impacts to floodplain areas. With the 

No-Build Alternative, there would be direct impacts on the 100-year floodplain of a perennial 

stream (Pond Creek) as a result of constructing new track embankment for the Wyanet 

Connection and on the 100-year floodplain of Indian Creek for the Eola Yard improvements.

Potential culvert replacements/extensions and bridge replacements/additions would cause 

additional minor floodplain impacts. Specific quantitative impacts on floodplains from the 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-90 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program would be determined as the project progresses 

through its required Tier 2 NEPA documentation. There is also the potential for temporary 

construction impacts from possible culvert or bridge replacements along the remainder of the 

rail route, as a part of ongoing maintenance.

3.18.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

Since some stretches of the existing railroad were originally built along and across the 

floodplains of several waterways, floodplain impacts from the Build Alternative would be 

unavoidable. The Build Alternative would cross and permanently encroach on several 

100-year floodplain areas as a result of adding track and siding, bridge additions or 

replacements, and culvert replacements or extensions. Approximately 1,657 acres of 

100-year floodplains are within the Potential Impact Area of the Build Alternative as shown 

in Table 3.18-1.

Table 3.18-1. 100-Year Floodplain Impacts

State 100-Year Floodplain

(Acres)

Illinois 369

Iowa 1,273

Nebraska 15

Total 1,657

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW would result in fewer floodplain area impacts. Consequently, the potential for impacts 

to floodplains would be less during the initial implementation phase. As the Project extends 

westward, more impacts would occur to floodplain areas within or adjacent to the Potential 

Impact Area. 

3.18.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Impacts on the 100-year floodplains and regulatory floodways would be assessed during Tier 

2 analysis, and would include a discussion of the no-rise requirement in regulatory floodway 

areas. These discussions would also include potential impacts on the natural and beneficial 

floodplain values, significant changes in flooding risks or damage, and the potential for 

incompatible floodplain development. Coordination with the SEMAs, the DNRs of each 

state, and local floodplain administrators would be initiated to discuss floodplain 

development permitting and potential mitigation measures, such as restoring natural and 

beneficial floodplain values by seeding with native vegetation, and proper design of bridges 

and culverts so as to not restrict flood flows. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent 

required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 analysis after design details are 

known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented 

prior to construction.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-91 October 2012

3.19 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS

This resource includes the general topographic, geologic, and general soil conditions within 

the Study Area, as well as caves and mines.

3.19.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Applicable national and state regulatory framework related to geology, such as the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, will be listed and addressed as they relate to 

the Project.

The general topographic information was compiled through review of online maps from the 

websites of the ISGS, the Iowa Geological and Water Survey (IGWS), and the University of 

Nebraska (Lincoln, Nebraska) School of Natural Resources. Information regarding the 

general geologic conditions, caves, sinkholes, and mining for each state was compiled from 

the websites of the ISGS, the IGWS, the NEMA, and the Nebraska Conservation and Survey 

Division (NCSD) within the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. The soils data were obtained 

from the NRCS and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln School of Natural Resources. 

3.19.2 Affected Environment

Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162 show an aerial view of the Study Area. Although twodimensional, topography, geology, and soils can be inferred through observing water bodies

and areas with surface relief near or within the Study Area, as well as using known databases

such as GIS and aerial photography.

3.19.2.1 Topography

The topography of the Study Area within Illinois is dominated by the Till Plains

physiographic section, characterized by flat to gently sloping plains interspersed with areas 

of gently rolling hills. There are two exceptions at the east end of the Study Area with 

Chicago’s urban area in the mostly level Chicago Lake Plain physiographic region, and 

Chicago’s suburban area located in the Wheaton Morainal Country physiographic region 

characterized by rolling hills and broad ridges of deposited glacial material (ISGS, 2012).

The topography of the Study Area within Iowa is dominated by the Southern Iowa Drift Plain 

landform region extending over most of the southern half of the state. This landform is 

characterized by plains and gently to steeply rolling hills and valleys. The only constrasts 

occur near each end of the state in the nearly level river floodplain areas of the Mississippi 

and Missouri River Alluvial Plains, and at the west end of the state where the thick deposits 

of wind-blown silt make up the Loess Hills landform. Over the years, erosion has resulted in 

a landscape of peaked hills, steep side slopes, narrow ridge crests, and sometimes vertical 

bluffs of tan-colored exposed silt, resulting in the Loess Hills in the Council Bluffs area 

(Iowa DNR, 2012b, Landform Regions of Iowa). Across the Missouri River in Nebraska, the 

general topography of the Omaha area changes back to a rolling hills landform.

3.19.2.2 Geology

According to ISGS (Kolata, 2005) and Iowa DNR’s Geological & Water Survey, (Iowa 

DNR, 1998 and 2004), the general underlying bedrock geology within the Study Area is 

predominantly sedimentary rock consisting of limestone, dolomite, sandstone, and shale.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-92 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

In the Study Area, the bedrock of the Silurian Age occurs in eastern Illinois; the Ordovician 

Age occurs in central Illinois; and the Pennsylvanian Age occurs in western Illinois. The 

Iowa bedrock geologic maps and stratigraphic column indicate that the bedrock geology

within the Study Area is of the Silurian and Devonian Ages in eastern Iowa, the 

Mississippian Age near central Iowa, and a narrow portion of Cretaceous Age bedrock within 

the Pennsylvanian Age region in western Iowa. In western Nebraska in the Omaha area, the 

bedrock is mostly limestone and shale of the Late Pennsylvanian Age (Miller, 1922).

Karst topography is characterized by caves, sinkholes, and open fractures. Geologic maps 

indicate that there is no bedrock at or near the surface within or near the Study Area in 

Illinois, and none of the karst regions of Illinois that contain caves and sinkholes are in or 

near the Study Area (ISGS, 2010) nor are there karst areas in the Study Area in Nebraska

(NEMA, 2011).

A review of cave mapping (NSS, 2009), and karst and sinkhole mapping (Iowa DNR, 2012a 

Interactive Mapping), indicated that most of Iowa’s major karst regions that include caves 

and sinkholes are located outside of the Study Area to the north. However, Iowa DNR 

mapping shows that the Study Area is on the southern edge of a potential karst region in the 

eastern portion of the state. A small portion of the potential karst areas are mapped in the 

Study Area in the northeast corner of Muscatine County and along the south side of the 

Muscatine/Cedar County line, between Wilton and West Liberty.

3.19.2.3 Underground Mining

The geologic conditions in some portions of the Study Area have also provided opportunities 

for surface and underground mining of mineral resources, which has occurred in both Illinois 

and Iowa since the mid-1800s. The potential hazard of underground mining is subsidence, in 

which the land above the mined out area sinks because of the collapse of the mine roof 

below. Coal has been the major resource extracted by underground mining in the vicinity of 

the Study Area. Coal mining maps for Illinois (Louchios, 2011) indicate that no known 

underground coal mining areas are located within the Study Area, although there is one 

previous surface coal mine area just east of Atkinson in Henry County. This surface mine is 

now abandoned, containing vegetation and pits filled with open water. Coal mining maps for 

Iowa (GeoCommons, 2003), indicated that eight mining entrance points are located within 

the Study Area in Des Moines, which had a large underground mining industry up until the 

mid 1900s.

According to Iowa DNR geologic information (McKay, 1987), there are three counties in the 

Study Area where underground limestone mines are located: Scott, Jasper, and Poweshiek.

The mine in Scott County is approximately four miles from the Study Area. Information for 

underground limestone mine locations in the other two counties was not readily available 

from online resources. 

Nebraska does not have a history of coal mining, and an Internet search did not retrieve any 

readily available information that would indicate the existence of mine locations in the Study 

Area in Nebraska. However, more detailed research would be conducted in the Tier 2 NEPA

process to confirm the presence or absence of underground mines in the Study Area.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-93 October 2012

3.19.2.4 Soils

The majority of general soil associations (or groups) within the Study Area are divided into 

regions and are similar across each state, in that most were formed in loess (wind-blown soil 

deposits). A map of the soil regions in Illinois (NRCS, 2012b) indicates that the soils within 

the Study Area are dominated by silt loam and silty clay loam soils; with the exception of the 

Chicago urban area which also contains loam and fine sand. The alluvium (stream-deposited) 

soils of the Mississippi River floodplain are also silt loam and silty clay loam.

A map of the soil regions in Iowa (NRCS, 2012a) indicates that the majority of the soils in 

the Study Area are dominated by silt loam, silty clay loam, and clay loam soils, with the 

exception of the silty clay alluvium soil of the Missouri River floodplain. The soils within the 

Study Area in Omaha consist of the silty clay, silt loam, and loamy fine sand soils in the 

Missouri River floodplain and the silt loam and silty clay loam soils in the remainder of the 

Omaha area (UNL, 1998).

According to the NRCS, soils that are considered hydric are those soils that are sufficiently 

wet in the upper part to develop anaerobic conditions during the growing season. For the 

most part, hydric soils are formed under saturated conditions and are present in the wetland 

areas throughout the Study Area, indicating poor drainage or seasonal high water tables. 

3.19.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on topography, 

geology, and soil conditions would not occur beyond those that could occur due to other 

projects. The Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program would contribute to minimal 

impacts to topography, geology, and soils. It is anticipated that there would be no impacts 

from topography, geology, or soils having characteristics that would adversely affect the 

construction of new embankment for the Wyanet Connection, Eola Yard improvements, 

potential culvert extensions/replacements, or bridge replacements.

3.19.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

In areas where additional ROW is required for construction of the Build Alternative, grading 

operations would be necessary through the flat to gentle slopes and through the gently to 

steeply rolling hills and valleys of the Project area. The rolling topography of the Loess Hills

landform region would be encountered in the area just east of Council Bluffs, Iowa. The 

Build Alternative would have linear impacts on the Loess Hills landform area as a result of 

adding track and siding in the northeast portion of Council Bluffs, Iowa, and it is anticipated 

that the linear impacts would be minimal. An additional area of impact in the Loess Hills 

would result from a potential new station location just southeast of the intersection of I-80 

and Highway 6, in the northeast corner of Council Bluffs (Figures 156 and 157). A new 

station facility in this area would result in impacts to this resource by removing the natural 

landform on this property, and replacing it with a building and parking facilities. These 

topographic conditions are not expected to pose an adverse challenge since the alternative is 

adjacent to an existing railroad grade and minimal cut and fill would be required. However, 

one of Iowa DOT’s special provisions for construction states that land disturbance within the 

Loess Hills region for the use of borrow material should be avoided or minimized unless 

there is no practicable alternative (Iowa DOT, 2010b).
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-94 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Although the Build Alternative would impact a potential karst area near the east end of the 

Iowa portion of the Project, it is at the edge of this potential karst area and is a relatively 

small portion of the entire Study Area. Bedrock encountered in the Potential Impact Area 

would increase construction costs, but would not be an insurmountable challenge for the 

project. The Build Alternative would not impact the underground mining entrances located in 

the Des Moines, Iowa area, however, the potential for karst terrain and mining subsidence are 

considerations that would be investigated further in the Tier 2 NEPA process.

The grading operations of the Build Alternative would impact various soil types in the 

Potential Impact Area, most of which are silt loams and silty clay loams, which would not 

pose adverse construction challenges. Although the silty clay soils of the Missouri River

floodplain have a high shrink-swell potential, and hydric soils in wetland areas would require 

proper drainage prior to construction, these conditions are not anticipated to be adverse 

challenges to building additional railroad facilities. Because the soils of the Loess Hills area 

are highly prone to erosion in cut areas, considerations for proper slope and erosion control 

measures would be necessary in the design stage. During the design process, specific soil 

types within the project construction area will be determined, as well as the engineering 

limitations of those soils in relation to new siding placement and the design of new facilities 

at station locations.

Topographic, geologic, and soil conditions would be taken into further consideration as the 

Project progresses into the Tier 2 analyses and particularly into design.

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements a would result in fewer impacts on or from topography, geology, 

and soils. Consequently, the potential for impacts on or from topography, geology, and soils

would be less during the initial implementation phase. As the Project extends westward, 

more impacts would occur to or from topography, geology, and soils within or adjacent to the 

Potential Impact Area. 

3.19.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

No requirements for mitigation related to topographic, geologic, and soil conditions are 

anticipated, with the exception of impacts on the Loess Hills area. According to Iowa DOT, 

areas in the Loess Hills with native vegetation should be given priority for avoidance and 

minimization. Cultivated land and previously disturbed land can receive less consideration. If 

borrow sites or land disturbance within the Loess Hills area are unavoidable, coordination 

should take place with Iowa DNR regarding possible mitigation measures such as buffer 

zones adjacent to areas of native vegetation. Mitigation measures could also include shaping 

disturbed or borrow areas to blend into the natural character of the surrounding hills (Iowa 

DOT, 2010b). Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and 

discussed during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA

documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-95 October 2012

3.20 NATURAL HABITATS AND WILDLIFE

This resource includes various types of natural terrestrial habitats and the wildlife that uses 

these habitats. Natural areas may be lands designated by Congress or federal or state agencies 

as wildlife refuges, waterfowl production areas, wildlife management areas, nature preserves, 

high quality natural communities, natural areas, and wildlife sanctuaries. On the state level, 

natural areas are public lands managed by Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, or the Nebraska Game 

and Parks Commission (NGPC).

3.20.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to natural habitats and wildlife include the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (as amended) (FWCA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918 (as amended) (MBTA), the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 (PRA), the Wilderness Act 

of 1964 (WA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (as amended)

(BGEPA). In addition, each state has regulations pertaining to wildlife and habitat, such as 

the Illinois Wildlife Code (520 ILCS 5/), the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act 

(520 ILCS 10/11(b)), Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act (525 ILCS 30/17), and 

administrative rules promulgated there under (17 Ill. Adm. Code Part 1075), the Iowa Code 

(Chapter 481A Wildlife Conservation), and Title 163 (NGPC) of the Nebraska 

Administrative Code (Chapter 4 Wildlife Regulations). Natural habitats and wildlife are also 

protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, which is discussed in 

Section 3.21.

The MBTA and the BGEPA were implemented to offer protection to avian species. The 

MBTA makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, or sell migratory birds; and the 

BGEPA prohibits anyone from taking bald or golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or 

eggs, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior. Among other actions, “take” 

includes disturbance of eagles to the degree that it substantially interferes with breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering behavior, or results in injury, death, or nest abandonment. In addition 

to protection from direct harm, the BGEPA also prohibits activities that disrupt eagles at 

nests, foraging areas, and important roosts because loss of these areas can disturb or kill 

eagles.

During the scoping process for this Study, letters were sent to Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, and 

NGPC to invite the agencies to provide input and data relating to high-quality natural 

communities, managed natural areas, and general wildlife habitat types and locations. During 

the scoping process, Illinois DNR offered to perform an EcoCAT14 review within two miles 

on each side of the centerline of the Study Area and provided GIS Natural Heritage Database 

information regarding natural areas, including high quality natural communities, Illinois 

Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) sites, and land enrolled in Illinois Nature Preserves

Commission (INPC) land protection programs (Nature Preserves and Land and Water 

Reserves). Iowa DOT provided GIS database information gathered from Iowa DNR, 

including natural areas, wildlife management areas, and past and present forest stand areas.

 

14 EcoCAT is the Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool of Illinois DNR, developed to help state agencies 

and units of local government comply with threatened and endangered species requirements. The system 

uses databases, GIS, and a set of programmed decisions to help identify the presence of and potential 

impact on threatened and endangered species.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-96 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

The NGPC Nebraska Heritage Program website (NGPC, 2012) was reviewed and it was 

determined that there are no listed natural areas within the Study Area in Nebraska. General 

wildlife information on the websites of Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, and NGPC was also 

obtained. The websites of the Illinois Forest Preserve Districts by county were used to obtain 

forest preserve locations. Information regarding the location of national wildlife refuges was 

obtained from the USFWS.

3.20.2 Affected Environment

Over the years, intensive agriculture and development have fragmented and reduced the 

amount of woodland and prairie habitat available for wildlife, and have decreased the quality 

of the wildlife habitat areas that remain. Each state has developed a proactive wildlife action 

plan (comprehensive wildlife action strategy) to assess the health of wildlife and to determine 

strategies to conserve the numerous wildlife species of each state, including a full array of 

wildlife as well as those in greatest need of conservation, and their associated habitats

(Illinois DNR, 2005; Iowa DNR, 2012; NGPC, 2005). These habitats provide food and 

shelter for over a thousand species in each state, including mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, 

amphibians, mussels, and snails, as well as several thousand insect species (see Appendix M 

for species lists). Although not an all inclusive list, some of the most common wildlife 

species (excluding insects) that can be seen inhabiting the region surrounded by the Study 

Area generally include the following: 

• Mammals – opposum, raccoon, cottontail rabbit, red fox, gray squirrel, whitetailed deer

• Birds – cardinal, blue jay, purple martin, robin, wild turkey, ruffed grouse, quail, 

mallard duck, Canada goose

• Reptiles – eastern garter snake, bull snake, ornate box turtle

• Amphibians – spotted salamander, northern leopard frog

• Fish – green sunfish, smallmouth bass, channel catfish, flathead catfish

• Invertebrates – giant floater mussel, common mucket, garden snail

Each state has compiled lists of specific natural areas or natural communities that provide 

habitat for the region’s wildlife population, which are shown in Appendix M, Table 1 and 

displayed on Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162. Appendix M, Table 1 also indicates the 

type of habitat that is characteristic within the Study Area, including: woodlands (upland and 

riparian), savanna, prairies/grassland, shrubland, and aquatic habitat. Illinois DNR has 

compiled a list of INAI sites, which are categorized as follows: 

• Category I – High quality natural community and natural community restorations

• Category II – Specific suitable habitat for state-listed species or state-listed

species relocations

• Category III – State dedicated Nature Preserves, Land and Water Preserves, and 

Natural Heritage Landmarks

• Category IV – Outstanding geological features

• Category V – Unusual concentrations of flora or fauna and high quality streams

The INPC’s land protection program consists of a list of Nature Preserves, Land and Water 

Reserves, and Natural Heritage Landmarks. Appendix M, Table 1 lists one INPC site, in

addition to INAI Category I, II, and III areas located within the Study Area in Illinois. There 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-97 October 2012

are also forest preserves within the Study Area in Illinois, which are under the jurisdiction of 

the forest districts of Cook, DuPage, and DeKalb counties.

Iowa DNR has compiled a list of nature preserves throughout the state, but none are within or 

adjacent to the Study Area. However, a review of Iowa DNR data provided by Iowa DOT 

indicated that remnant prairies on public lands, wildlife management areas, and other natural 

areas exist within the Study Area in Iowa. Although there are no designated “state forests” 

located within the Study Area in Iowa, certain past and present forest stand areas (originally 

described by district foresters in forest stewardship and project plans), which are currently 

managed, protected, or under development by Iowa DNR; also occur within the Study Area.

The largest natural habitat in the Study Area is the USFWS Port Louisa National Wildlife

Refuge, which occurs along the wide Iowa River floodplain in Iowa County, Iowa near 

Marengo (Appendix B, Figures 82 through 85). The Refuge is approximately two miles in 

width and 42 miles in length, extending through Iowa County and into Tama County to the 

northwest. Approximately 10.5 miles of the Refuge property travels through the Study Area, 

and although most of the Refuge is on the north side of the railroad ROW, a relatively small 

portion is also on the south side. It is managed by Iowa DNR and is comprised of several 

thousand acres of wildlife habitat that includes riparian woodland, savanna (mix of grassland

with scattered trees), and grassland. 

The Study Area in Nebraska contains no listed natural areas, with the exception of the 

Missouri River.

In addition to the Mississippi and Missouri rivers listed in Appendix M, Table 1, the aquatic 

resources within the Study Area that provide natural habitat for fish, invertebrates (such as 

mussels), and amphibian species include the numerous streams, wetlands, lakes, and ponds

that are discussed in Sections 3.15 and 3.16. Several of the natural areas listed in 

Appendix M, Table 1 also have streams running through the properties.

The east-west trending Study Area is located in the north-south trending bird migration route

through Illinois, Iowa, and the Missouri River corridor known as the Mississippi Flyway, 

which is used yearly by land birds, shore birds, and water fowl. Acording to information 

from Illinois DNR, the Mississippi River riparian corridor in the Study Area is suitable 

habitat for bald eagles, which were observed in the area in 2004 and 2009. The potential for 

occurrences of migratory bird nesting, foraging, or roosting areas would be studied further in 

the Tier 2 NEPA documents.

3.20.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts to natural 

habitats and wildlife would not occur beyond those that could occur due to other projects. 

The Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program would result in potential minor impacts to

terrestrial as well as aquatic habitats and wildlife as a result of constructing new track 

embankment for the Wyanet Connection, in addition to potential culvert 

replacements/extensions and minor bridge replacements/additions. The Eola Yard

improvements may also result in minor impacts on aquatic habitats. Field reviews will be 

conducted as the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program progresses through the Tier 2 

NEPA process to determine the presence or absence of wildife or their habitats. To improve 

site distance at crossings for vehicle and train traffic, tree and brush clearing is expected to 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-98 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

occur, which could impact natural habitats that may be present in the impact area. Specific 

clearing and impact areas will be identified during the Chicago to Quad Cities Tier 2 NEPA 

analysis as more specific project limits are identified.

The wildlife species that may be present in the region of the Study Area have been 

continually exposed to train traffic in varying degrees. The number of existing trains (in trips 

per day) that travel through the urban and rural areas between Chicago and the Quad Cities 

are listed below. The existing freight train traffic does not travel faster than 45 mph, and the 

existing passenger train traffic averages 60 to 70 mph (Chicago to Wyanet).

• Chicago to Aurora, Illinois (urban) – 102 passenger, 40 freight

• Auroa to Wyanet, Illinois (rural) – 8 passenger, 24 freight

• Wyanet to Silvis, Illinois (rural) – 7 freight

• Silvis to Moline, Illinois/Quad Cities (urban) – 15 freight

With the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program, there would be an additional four 

passenger trains per day at 79 mph. The number of noise and vibration occurrences generated 

by the trains would increase minimally over the number of noise and vibration occurences of 

the existing train traffic between Chicago and Wyanet. However, in the rural area between 

Wyanet and Silvis, there would be an increase of over 50 percent in the number of trains per 

day, and in the urban area between Silvis and Moline/Quad Cities, there would be an 

approximate 25 percent increase in trains. Although some animal species may become 

accustomed to the resulting train noise and vibration, other species may not. Some animals 

may simply take notice and change body position, while others may panic and take flight or 

run (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc., 2005; and California High-Speed Rail Authority, 

2008). Although there are very few studies that have directly evaluated the impact of train 

noise and vibration on wildlife, other noise studies have reported that noise levels in the 

vicinity of 100 dB have been associated with observable effects on animals (Harris Miller 

Miller & Hanson, Inc., 2005). The potential effects of noise and vibration on wildlife, which 

can vary considerably among various species, will be further analyzed during the Tier 2 

NEPA process for this alternative when the resident species and potential migratory bird

species can be determined for the individual Tier 2 sections.

Although no online published data were readily available, pertaining to numbers of train and 

wildlife collisions, those types of accidents can occur at any time, and have a tendency to be 

most prevalent in the winter months when wildlife can more easily move along the plowed 

railroad right-of-way (USFWS, 2004). It is anticipated that the increase in the frequency of 

trips and speed of train traffic may consequently increase the potential for train collisions 

with mobile animal species and migratory birds, however, this issue will be further analyzed 

in the Tier 2 NEPA document.

The current rail routes between Chicago and Omaha would continue to be used. Existing

environmental impacts such as erosion and sedimentation from railroad grades to adjacent 

water resources, and potential pollutant runoff and spills from operational and maintenance 

activities would continue to affect any natural habitat and wildlife species that may be 

present adjacent to the rail corridor. There is also the potential for temporary construction

impacts from future culvert or bridge replacements along the remainder of the rail route, as a 

part of ongoing maintenance.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-99 October 2012

3.20.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The construction activities of the Build Alternative—including tree and brush clearing, 

placement of fill material for additional track and sidings, stream relocations, culvert 

replacement or extensions, and bridge replacement or additions—could have the potential to 

impact terrestrial and aquatic natural habitats of wildlife species present in the Study Area.

Tree and brush clearing would be necessary to construct additional track and embankment, 

and to improve site distance at crossings for vehicle and train traffic. This clearing would 

impact natural habitats and may consequently impact the wildlife species that inhabit those 

areas.

Adjacent natural communities were historically fragmented by construction of the existing 

railroad alignment. Since the proposed widening activities abut the existing ROW, impacts 

from the Build Alternative would be relatively minimal and linear, and would not further 

fragment remaining large parcels of natural habitat areas.

Embankment placed in wetlands, lakes, and ponds; stream relocations; culvert replacement 

or extensions; and bridge replacement or additions would directly impact aquatic species 

habitats. In addition, temporary disruptions of aquatic species movement and hydrological 

flow could occur, thereby affecting in-stream habitats both upstream and downstream of the 

Project.

Appendix M, Table 2 lists the natural areas that would be directly impacted by construction

of the Build Alternative within the Potential Impact Area. It is estimated that approximately 

178 acres of natural terrestrial habitat areas would be directly impacted, in addition to 

104,150 linear feet of stream habitat, 238 acres of wetland habitat, 32 acres of lakes, and 

33 acres of ponds (Table 3.20-1).

Table 3.20-1. Natural Habitat Area Impacts 

Habitat Type Illinois Iowa Nebraska Total

Terrestrial (in Acres) 

Upland Woods 7 17 0 24

Riparian Woodland 0 8 0 8

Savanna/Upland Woods/Grassland Mix 0 19 0 19

Savanna/Riparian Woods/Grassland Mix 0 111 a 0 111

Riparian Shrubland 0 1 0 1

Prairie/Grassland 0 11 0 11

Prairie (High Quality Natural Community) 4 0 0 4

Riverine (Bridged) 0 0 0 0

Total 178

Aquatic

Streams (Linear Feet) 34,240 69,595 315 104,150

Wetlands (Acres) 31 193 14 238

Lakes (Acres) 5 27 0 32

Ponds (Acres) 4 27 2 33

Note: a The USFWS Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge accounts for +/- 109 acres.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-100 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

The majority of natural habitat impacts would occur at the USFWS Port Louisa National 

Wildlife Refuge property since it abuts both sides of the rail corridor for 10.5 miles. Impacts 

to the Refuge property would most likely be unavoidable. Minimization of impacts would be 

analyzed in the Tier 2 NEPA process when more specific project limits can be identified

through engineering refinements.

Some natural areas within the Study Area that are not directly within the Potential Impact 

Area could be affected by other aspects of the Project as described below.

The wildlife species that are present along the rail corridor have been continually exposed to 

train traffic in varying degrees. The number of existing trains (in trips per day) that travel 

through the urban and rural areas between Chicago and Omaha are listed below. The existing 

freight train traffic does not travel faster than 45 mph, and the existing passenger train traffic 

averages 60 to 70 mph (Chicago to Wyanet).

• Chicago to Aurora, Illinois (urban) – 102 passenger, 40 freight

• Auroa to Wyanet, Illinois (rural) – eight passenger, 24 freight

• Wyanet to Silvis, Illinois (rural) – seven freight

• Silvis to Moline, Illinois/Quad Cities (urban) – 15 freight

• Moline/Quad Cities to Iowa City, Iowa (rural & urban) – six to eight freight

• Iowa City to Des Moines, Iowa (rural & urban) – six to eight freight

• Des Moines to Council Bluffs, Iowa (rural) –five freight

• Council Bluffs, Iowa/Omaha, Nebraska (urban) – 60 freight

With the Build Alternative, there would be an additional 14 passenger trains per day at up to 

110 mph between Chicago and Des Moines, with 10 of these trains continuing to Omaha.

The number of noise and vibration occurences generated by trains would increase minimally 

over the number of noise and vibration occurrences of the existing train traffic between 

Chicago and Wyanet and in the Omaha/Council Bluffs area. However, in the rural areas from 

Wyanet to Silvis, there would be three times the number of trains per day, and in the urban 

area between Silvis and Moline/Quad Cities, there would be an approximate 100 percent 

increase in trains. From the Quad Cities to Council Bluffs, the number of noise and vibration 

occurrences generated by trains would triple. As discussed previously under the No-Build 

Alternative impacts section (3.20.3), some animal species may become accustomed to these 

noise and vibration occurrences, while others may not. At this Tier 1 level of study, the 

location and density of wildlife is unknown, as are the individual species. More detailed 

investigations of the effects of noise and vibration on wildlife would be performed in the 

Tier 2 NEPA documents when train speed, noise, and vibration can be more accurately 

calculated, and when field surveys identifying potentially affected wildlife can be performed.

As discussed previously in Section 3.20.3, Impacts of No-Build Alternative, it is anticipated 

that the increase in the frequency of trips and speed of train traffic may increase the potential 

for train collisions with mobile animal species and migratory birds; however, this issue 

would be further analyzed in the Tier 2 NEPA documents.

The increase in train traffic and railroad ROW could also increase the chances of impacts 

from erosion and sedimentation from railroad grades to adjacent aquatic habitat, and 

potential pollutant runoff and spills from operational and maintenance activities, which could 

affect natural habitats and the water quality of aquatic habitats that may be present adjacent 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-101 October 2012

to the rail corridor. However, permanent BMPs would provide measures to avoid or 

minimize those types of impacts. There is also the potential for temporary construction

impacts from future culvert or bridge replacements along the remainder of the rail route, as a 

part of ongoing maintenance.

Land disturbance, wetland disturbance, tree and brush clearing, and culvert and bridge 

replacements could affect potential migratory bird and/or eagle nesting, foraging, or roosting 

areas that may be present in the Study Area. The Illinois DNR has identified the Mississippi 

River riparian corridor as suitable habitat for bald eagles, which have been previously 

documented in that portion of the Study Area. Also the NGPC has identified bald eagles in 

the Missouri River corridor. Specific locations requiring clearing or structure removal would

be identified during the Tier 2 NEPA analysis when a more specific extent of project limits 

would be determined. At that time, coordination with the Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, and 

NGPC would take place to determine potential locations of migratory bird and/or eagle 

occupancy within the Study Area, in addition to determining seasonal nesting, roosting, and 

foraging requirements of potentially affected species. To comply with the MBTA and the 

BGEPA, restrictions may be placed on the timing of clearing and other construction

disturbance activities, to help ensure avoidance or minimization of impacts.

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speeds of passenger trains would result in fewer 

impacts on terrestrial and aquatic habitat, less noise and vibration effects on wildlife, and 

potentially fewer train/animal collisions than that of the maximum speed proposed for the 

ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, impacts on natural habitats and wildlife 

would be less during the initial implementation phase. As the Project extends westward, and 

speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase with subsequent implementation phases, 

more impacts would occur to natural habitats and wildlife within or adjacent to the Potential 

Impact Area. 

3.20.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Data specific to the study would be obtained through coordination with the Illinois DNR, 

Iowa DNR, and NGPC during the Tier 2 NEPA process. The existing information regarding 

natural terrestrial and aquatic habitat would be used as background data for conducting field 

surveys to determine existence of high quality natural communities in the Study Area. During 

the Tier 2 process, avoidance and minimization of impacts would be assessed, and 

unavoidable impacts to natural habitats would be coordinated with the state agencies to 

determine compliance with regulatory requirements and potential mitigation measures to 

offset impacts, which could include restrictions on construction activities in specific areas 

during the breeding/nesting seasons. In addition, permanent BMPs would be implemented to 

provide measures to avoid or minimize those types of impacts.

The Tier 2 NEPA process would also include coordination with Iowa DNR regarding 

mitigation of woodland impacts according to Iowa Code 314.23, Environmental Protection, 

which requires woodland replacement by “... plantings as close as possible to the initial site, 

or by acquisition of an equal amount of woodland in the general vicinity for public 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-102 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

ownership and preservation, or by other mitigation deemed to be comparable to the woodland 

removed, including, but not limited to, the improvement, development, or preservation of 

woodland under public ownership.”

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed 

during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as 

specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction.

3.21 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

This evaluation includes threatened and endangered species listed by the USFWS and 

Designated Critical Habitats (DCHs), and consideration of state-listed threatened and 

endangered species.

3.21.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to threatened and endangered species includes the ESA

of 1973, administered by USFWS. In addition, state-listed species are regulated by the 

Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act (520 Illinois Compiled Statutes [ILCS] 10),

administered by the Illinois DNR as advised by the Illinois Endangered Species Protection 

Board; the Iowa Endangered Plants and Wildlife Law (Chapter 481B of the Code of Iowa), 

administered by the Iowa Natural Resources Commission and Iowa DNR; and the Nebraska 

Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act (Neb. Rev. Stat.§§ 37-801-11), 

administered by the NGPC.

The USFWS website provides information on federally listed threatened and endangered 

species and DCHs. The Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, and NGPC websites also provide data 

relating to state-listed threatened and endangered species. In addition, the Illinois DNR 

offered to perform an ECOCAT review and provided GIS Natural Heritage Database

information regarding general locations within 2 miles of the Study Area centerline of 

federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species, high quality natural 

communities, and INAI sites. The INAI sites included Category II – specific suitable habitat 

for state-listed species or state-listed species relocations.

3.21.2 Affected Environment

The compiled data for federally and state-listed threatened and endangered species were

reviewed to describe the affected environment. The ESA defines endangered species as those 

that are “in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion of [their] range,” and defines threatened species as “those animals and plants likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 

their ranges” (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Vertebrate animal species and subspecies, invertebrate 

animal populations, and plant species and varieties (including fungi and lichens) are eligible 

for listing under the ESA.

3.21.2.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

USFWS currently lists 16 threatened or endangered species that occur, or have the potential 

of occurring, in the specific counties of the Study Area, as shown in Table 3.21-1.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-103 October 2012

Table 3.21-1. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

Common Name Scientific Name Status Counties Designated Critical Habitat

(DCH) Habitat Description

Decurrent false 

aster Boltonia decurrens T LaSalle & Bureau, IL None Disturbed alluvial soils

Leafy prairie

clover Dalea foliosa E Cook, DuPage, & LaSalle, IL None

Prairie remnants on thin soil

over limestone

Hine's emerald 

dragonfly

Somatochlora 

hineana E Cook & DuPage, IL 

Calcareous (high in calcium 

carbonate) spring-fed 

marshes and sedge meadows 

overlaying dolomite bedrock,

along and near the Des 

Plaines River in Cook and 

DuPage Counties, Illinois.

Spring-fed wetlands, wet 

meadows and marshes

Mead's 

milkweed Asclepias meadii T Cook & DuPage, IL & Adair, IA None Virgin prairies

Spectaclecase 

mussel

Cumberlandia 

monodonta E Rock Island, IL & Scott & Muscatine, IA None

Large Rivers (Mississippi 

River) in areas sheltered from 

the main force of the current

Higgins eye 

pearlymussel Lampsilis higginsi E Rock Island, IL & Scott & Muscatine, IA None Mississippi River from Rock River to Steel Dam

Prairie bush 

clover

Lespedeza 

leptostachya T

Cook & DuPage, IL & Scott, Muscatine, 

Cedar, Johnson, Iowa, Poweshiek, 

Jasper, Polk, Dallas, Madison, Guthrie, 

Adair, Cass & Pottawattamie, IA

None Dry to mesic prairies with 

gravelly soil

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis E

Kendall, DeKalb, LaSalle, Bureau, 

Henry & Rock Island, IL & Scott, 

Muscatine, Cedar, Johnson, Iowa, 

Poweshiek, Jasper, Polk, Dallas, 

Madison, Guthrie, Adair, & Cass, IA

Blackball Mine, located in 

the Pecumsaugan CreekBlackball Mines Nature 

Preserve in LaSalle County, 

Illinois.

Caves and mines 

(hibernacula); upland forests 

and small stream corridors 

with well developed riparian 

woods (foraging and 

roosting).

Eastern prairie

fringed orchid

Platanthera 

leucophaea T

Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, DeKalb, 

LaSalle, Bureau, Henry & Rock Island, 

IL & Johnson, IA

None Mesic to wet prairies
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-104 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Common Name Scientific Name Status Counties Designated Critical Habitat

(DCH) Habitat Description

Sheepnose 

mussel

Plethobasus 

cyphyus E Rock Island, IL & Scott & Muscatine, IA None

Shallow areas in larger rivers

and streams (Mississippi 

River and possibly Rock 

River)

Topeka shiner Notropis topeka E Dallas, IA

The North Raccoon River and 

adjacent off-channel and side 

channel pools, Elm Branch, 

and Swan Lake Branch in 

Dallas County, Iowa.

Prairie streams and rivers

Piping plover Charadrius 

melodus

E Cook, IL & Pottawattamie, IA None Wide, flat, open sandy 

beaches with very little grass 

or other vegetation.

(Missouri River) Nesting 

territories often include small 

creeks or wetlands.

T Douglas, NE None

Western prairie

fringed orchid

Platanthera 

praeclara T

Scott, Muscatine, Cedar, Johnson, Iowa, 

Poweshiek, Jasper, Polk, Dallas, 

Madison, Guthrie, Adair, Cass & 

Pottawattamie, IA & Douglas, NE

None Wet prairies and sedge 

meadows

Pallid sturgeon Scaphirhynchus 

albus E Pottawattamie, IA & Douglas, NE None Missouri River

Interior least tern Sterna antillarum E Polk & Pottawattamie, IA & Douglas, 

NE None

Bare alluvial and dredged 

spoil islands. Barren to 

sparsely vegetated sandbars 

along rivers, sand and gravel 

pits, or lake and reservoir 

shorelines

Whooping crane Grus americana E Douglas, NE None

(During migration) sparsely 

vegetated shallow water in 

wetlands, lakes, ponds, and 

riverine areas, away from 

human activity

Sources: Illinois – http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/illinois-cty.html (March 2012)

Iowa – http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/iowa_cty.html (March 2012)

Nebraska – http://www.fws.gov/nebraskaes/Library/NECounty2012.pdf (February 2012)

Notes: E = Endangered, T = Threatened 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-105 October 2012

Although the species listed above have the potential to occur in various suitable habitats in 

the Study Area, their presence or absence has not been determined in this Tier 1 study.

However, the natural habitats in the Study Area that are known to have the potential for 

suitable habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species include the following: 

• Rock River – Sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus) (endangered) – Rock 

Island and Henry counties, Illinois 

• Mississippi River – Higgins eye pearlymussel (Lampsilis higginsii) (endangered), 

Spectaclecase mussel (Cumberlandia monodonta) (endangered), sheepnose 

mussel (endangered) – Rock Island County, Illinois, and Scott County, Iowa

• North Raccoon River – DCH for the Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka) 

(endangered) – Dallas County, Iowa

• Missouri River – Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) (endangered in Iowa, 

threatened in Nebraska), pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (endangered) –

Pottawattamie County, Iowa, and Douglas County, Nebraska

3.21.2.2 State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

In addition to federally listed species, there are also threatened and endangered species listed 

by each state, that occur or have the potential of occurring in the specific counties of the 

Study Area, as shown in Appendix N Table 1 and the lists of species following Table 1. 

Potential habitat for state-listed species in Illinois counties in the Study Area ranges from a 

high of 69 endangered species and 43 threatened species in Cook County, to a low of five

endangered species and five threatened species in DeKalb County. In Iowa, potential habitat 

ranges from a high of 35 endangered species and 34 threatened species in Muscatine County, 

to a low of zero endangered species and two threatened species in Cass County. Douglas 

County, Nebraska includes potential habitat for three endangered species and four threatened 

species.

In this Tier 1 analysis, occurrence locations of state-listed species were not available from 

Iowa DNR and NGPC. However, Illinois DNR provided Natural Heritage Database 

information, which indicated that the following state-listed species are located within the 

Study Area, as shown in Table 3.21-2.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-106 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Table 3.21-2. Illinois State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Study Area 

Common Name Scientific Name Federal 

Status

State 

Status

County

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus T Cook

Blanding's Turtle Emydoidea blandingii - E Cook

Pretty Sedge Carex woodii - T Du Page

Shadbush Amelanchier interior - T Du Page

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus - E Du Page

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus - E Du Page, Bureau

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax - E Du Page

Greater Redhorse Moxostoma valenciennesi - E Kane

Earleaf False Foxglove Agalinis auriculata - T Henry

Black Sandshell Ligumia recta T Rock Island

Higgins Eye Pearlymussel Lampsilis higginsi E E Rock Island

Source: Illinois DNR – Natural Heritage Database

Notes:

E = Endangered, T = Threatened, 

The INAI lists the following three natural habitats within the Study Area, designated as 

Category II – specific suitable habitat for state-listed species or state-listed species 

relocations:

• Maple Grove Forest Preserve (INAI #0527) – contains habitat for the pretty 

sedge and shadbush, which is state-listed as threatened– Du Page County, Illinois

• Eola Road Marsh (INAI #1470) – contains habitat for the common moorhen, 

yellow-headed blackbird, black-crowned night heron, and blanding’s turtle, which 

are state-listed as endangered – Du Page County, Illinois

• Mississippi River, Moline (INAI #1295) – contains habitat for the Higgins eye 

pearlymussel, which is federally and state-listed as endangered, and the black 

sandshell (mussel), which is state-listed as endangered – Rock Island County, 

Illinois

3.21.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on federally or 

state-listed threatened or endangered species would not occur beyond those that could occur 

due to other projects. It is anticipated that the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program

would have no adverse effects on federally listed species, and may have potential minor 

impacts to state-listed species, if only temporary, as a result of constructing potential culvert 

replacements/extensions, bridge replacements/additions, and track and embankment 

improvements in the vicinity of state-listed species occurrences. New track embankment for 

the Wyanet Connection would most likely not affect any state-listed species. However, the 

Eola Yard improvements could potentially result in minor linear impacts to the Eola Road 

Marsh, which is suitable habitat for state-listed species. Field reviews would be conducted as 

the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program progresses through the Tier 2 NEPA process 

to determine the presence or absence of threatened or endangered species, or their habitats.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-107 October 2012

Specific clearing and impact areas would be identified during Tier 2 analysis as more specific 

project limits are identified.

Although there is no DCH for federally listed species within the Chicago to Quad Cities 

study area, some state-listed species have been recorded. Those that may be present along the 

study area have been continually exposed to train traffic in varying degrees. The discussion 

regarding the potential effects of noise and vibration on wildlife in Section 3.20.3, also 

pertains to the state-listed species.

The increase in train traffic may consequently increase the potential for train collisions with 

mobile state-listed animal species, if any would happen to be present in the Study Area.

However, information regarding train/wildlife collisions is not readily available online as 

discussed in Section 3.20.3, but this issue will be further analyzed in Tier 2 NEPA

documents. Between Wyanet and Moline/Quad Cities, there are no federally or state-listed 

species occurrences within the Study Area, and operation of the rail would most likely not 

have an adverse effect on any federally or state-listed threatened or endangered species.

The discussion in Section 3.20.3, regarding potential impacts from erosion and 

sedimentation, pollutant runoff and spills, and temporary construction impacts also pertains 

to federally and state-listed species that may be present in the Study Area. 

3.21.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

3.21.4.1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

The Build Alternative would have no direct impacts on the DCH of any federally listed 

threatened or endangered species. As shown on Figure 60, the Study Area is located 

approximately 1,200 feet downstream of the confluence of the North Raccoon, South 

Raccoon, and Raccoon rivers. The North Raccoon River is DCH for the Topeka shiner 

(Notropis topeka). Further analysis in Tier 2 NEPA studies would be necessary to determine 

if the Topeka shiner habitat extends further downstream into the Study Area.

The Build Alternative would cross the Rock River, Mississippi River, and the Missouri 

River, which are suitable habitat for the five federally listed species discussed previously 

within the existing affected environment. It is anticipated that no new bridge structures would 

be required over the Rock River and Mississippi Rivers, and therefore no direct or adverse 

impacts on those species would occur in these river corridors. However, it is possible that 

one or more new bridge structures could be needed across the Missouri River between 

Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebraska. Consequently, consultation with the USFWS, 

Iowa DNR, and NGPC would be required during Tier 2 analysis to address potential impacts 

to threatened and endangered species in this portion of the alternative.

The presence of most of the habitat types that are suitable for the federally listed species in 

the Study Area would not be determined until Tier 2 analysis for the Project. However, it is 

likely that the upland and riparian woodland areas in the Iowa counties of the Study Area 

may potentially provide suitable foraging and roosting habitat for the endangered Indiana bat

(Myotis sodalis), although there is no DCH for this species in the Study Area. The Build 

Alternative would result in impacts to wooded areas, as discussed in Section 3.20. However,

impacts would be linear and minimal, rather than fragmenting large parcels of wooded areas,
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-108 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

and would not conribue to further fragmentation since the proposed alternative would

directly abut the existing ROW. 

The construction activities of the Build Alternative, including tree and brush clearing, 

placement of fill material for additional track and siding, stream relocations, culvert 

replacement or extensions, and bridge replacement or additions, could have the potential to 

impact terrestrial and aquatic habitats of federally listed threatened or endangered species, if 

present.

The presence or absence of federally listed threatened and endangered species is not known 

at this time. However, field surveys and coordination with the USFWS and state resource 

agencies would take place during the Tier 2 studies, when more specific project limits would 

be identified, to determine the potential for threatened or endangered species in the Study 

Area, and the potential for avoidance or minimization of impacts on any species that may be 

present. 

The discussion in Section 3.20.4, regarding potential effects of noise and vibration on 

wildlife also pertains to federally-listed species that may be present in the Study Area. At this 

Tier 1 level of study, the specific locations of federally-listed species are unknown. More 

detailed investigations would be performed in the Tier 2 documents when train speed, noise, 

and vibration can be more accurately calculated, and when field surveys identifying the 

presence or absence of federally-listed species can be performed. The discussion in Section 

3.20.4 also pertains to the potential for train collisions with federally-listed species, as well as 

potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation, pollutant runoff and spills, and temporary 

construction impacts.

At the Tier 1 level, it is anticipated that the potential impacts on federally listed threatened or 

endangered species from the Build Alternative would not result in adverse effects (impacts 

that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat). This conclusion is based on the fact that the Build Alternative would 

stay within, or immediately adjacent to existing rail infrastructure, which minimizes the 

potential for adverse impacts. However, since there is a potential for federally listed 

threatened or endangered species occurrences in the Study Area, there is a need for Section 7 

consultation with USFWS during Tier 2 analysis. The USFWS has participated in the Project 

scoping process and would continue to be consulted during the Tier 2 NEPA process, where 

construction-related effects and activities of the Build Alternative would be more definitively 

assessed to determine whether or not there would be an adverse effect on federally listed 

threatened or endangered species. Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, and NGPC would also be 

involved in these future coordination efforts.

3.21.4.2 State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

The construction activities of the Build Alternative, including tree and brush clearing, 

placement of fill material for additional track and siding, stream relocations, culvert 

replacement or extensions, and bridge replacement or additions, could potentially impact 

state-listed threatened or endangered species. However, the presence or absence of these 

species along most of the Study Area is not known at the Tier 1 level of analysis, with the 

exception of the Study Area in Illinois, as discussed below and shown in Table 3.21-3. Field 

surveys and coordination with Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, and NGPC would take place during 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-109 October 2012

the Tier 2 NEPA studies to determine the potential for the existence of state-listed threatened 

or endangered species in the Study Area, specific clearing and impact areas, and the potential 

for avoidance or minimization of impacts on any species that may be present. 

The discussion in Section 3.21.4.1 above, and Section 3.20.4, regarding potential effects of 

noise and vibration on wildlife also pertains to state-listed species that may be present in the 

Study Area. At this Tier 1 level of study, the specific locations of state-listed species are 

unknown. More detailed investigations would be performed in the Tier 2 NEPA documents 

when train speed, noise, and vibration can be more accurately calculated, and when field 

surveys identifying the presence or absence of state-listed species can be performed. The 

discussion in Section 3.20.4 also pertains to the potential for train collisions with state-listed 

species, as well as potential impacts from erosion and sedimentation, pollutant runoff and 

spills, and temporary construction impacts.

Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, and NGPC have participated in the Project scoping process and 

would continue to be consulted in the Tier 2 NEPA process, when construction-related 

effects and activities of the Build Alternative can be more definitively assessed to determine 

whether or not there would be effects on state-listed threatened or endangered species.

An analysis of the state-listed species information provided by Illinois DNR indicated that 

the habitat for the state-listed threatened and endangered species listed in Table 3.21-3 may

be directly impacted by the Build Alternative. However, direct physical impacts on 

individual species would not be determined until Tier 2 analysis.

Table 3.21-3. Illinois State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Potential Impacts

Common Name Scientific Name Federal 

Status

State 

Status

County

Blanding's Turtle Emydoidea blandingii - E Cook

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus - E Du Page

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus - E Du Page, 

Bureau

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax - E Du Page

Earleaf False Foxglove Agalinis auriculata - T Henry

Black Sandshell Ligumia recta - T Rock Island

Higgins Eye Pearlymussel Lampsilis higginsi E E Rock Island

Source: Illinois DNR – Natural Heritage Database

Notes:

E = Endangered, T = Threatened 

In addition, the following two INAI Category II (specific suitable habitat for state-listed 

species or state-listed species relocations) natural habitats could be impacted by the Build 

Alternative:

• Eola Road Marsh (INAI #1470) – contains habitat for the common moorhen, 

yellow-headed blackbird, black-crowned night heron, and Blanding’s turtle, 

which are state-listed as endangered – Du Page County, Illinois. Impacts = 

0.8 acre
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-110 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

• Mississippi River, Moline (INAI #1295) – contains habitat for the Higgins eye 

pearlymussel, which is federally and state-listed as endangered, and the black 

sandshell (mussel), which is state-listed as endangered – Rock Island County, 

Illinois. No impacts are anticipated with use of the exising bridge over the river.

The habitat of species shown in Table 3.21-3 are within the Potential Impact Area, and 

although some of the locations of state-listed species occurrences listed in Table 3.21-2 are

located outside of the Potential Impact Area, they lie within the Study Area and may still be 

affected by noise, vibration, train collisions, or pollutants as described previously. 

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speeds of passenger trains would result in fewer 

impacts from tree and brush clearing, less terrestrial and aquatic habitat impacts, less noise

and vibration effects, and potentially fewer train/animal collisions than that of the maximum 

speed proposed for the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for 

impacts on threatened and endangered species would be less during the initial 

implementation phase. As the Project extends westward, and speeds and the frequency of 

round-trips increase with subsequent implementation phases, more impacts would occur to

threatened and endangered species within or adjacent to the Potential Impact Area. 

3.21.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Since the Project could potentially affect federally listed threatened and endangered species, 

consultation with USFWS and the appropriate state agencies (Iowa DNR, Illinois DNR and 

NGPC), as required under Section 7 (Interagency Cooperation) of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA), would be initiated as informal consultation in the early stages during the Tier 2 

NEPA process. If USFWS and the state agencies concur that the Project is not likely to affect 

any federally listed species in the Study Area, the informal consultation would be complete. 

However, if it is determined that the Build Alternative could have the potential to affect a 

federally listed species, a biological assessment would be prepared to determine the Build 

Alternative’s potential effect on one or more species. When a potential impact to a federally 

listed species is identified, formal consultation is required with USFWS. The USFWS would 

prepare a biological opinion on whether the proposed activity would adversely affect 

(jeopardize the continued existence of) a listed species. Mitigation measures for unavoidable 

adverse impacts would be determined as part of the formal consultation.

Potential impacts on state-listed threatened and endangered species would be coordinated 

with the Illinois DNR, Iowa DNR, and NGPC, as appropriate, during the Tier 2 NEPA

documents, at which time these agencies would search database records specific to the Study 

Area. Database information regarding species locations and habitat requirements would be a 

basis for conducting field surveys to determine existence of state-listed species in the Study 

Area. During the Tier 2 NEPA process, avoidance or minimization of impacts would be 

assessed, and unavoidable impacts on state-listed species would be coordinated with the state 

agencies to determine potential mitigation measures. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-111 October 2012

Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed 

during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as 

specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction.

3.22 ENERGY USE AND CLIMATE CHANGE

This resource includes the use of fuel and the relative energy use for various modes of 

transportation. Climate change refers to the climate’s possible relationship to changes in 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

3.22.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

This assessment evaluates potential commitments of energy resources likely to be involved in 

the Project and any potential energy conservation likely to reduce the use of petroleum or 

natural gas, consistent with the policy outlined in Executive Order 12185, Conservation of 

Petroleum and Natural Gas. The current regulatory framework affecting greenhouse gases 

includes the Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended) and CEQ’s NEPA Guidance on 

Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Transportation model data were collected from Illinois DOT, Iowa DOT, and NDOR, as well 

as from regional MPOs and COGs, and are used in this analysis for passenger rail ridership

forecast.

Relevant collected transportation data were reviewed, and a general discussion was prepared 

on the relative efficiencies of the various transportation modes used between Chicago and 

Omaha and intermediate points in relation to energy consumption and GHG emissions.

A more detailed discussion of specific modes of transportation within the Study Area is 

provided in Section 3.1 and a more detailed discussion of emissions is provided in 

Section 3.9.

3.22.2 Affected Environment

All transportation modes, including new passenger rail service, require various forms of 

energy resources and each of these resources have different implications on energy use and 

climate change. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, typical passenger trains are 

31 percent more energy efficient than automobiles, and 14 percent more energy efficient than 

planes based on average British Thermal Units (BTUs) per passenger mile, see Section 3.1 

for more information. Therefore, diverted passenger trips from automobiles, buses, and trains 

to passenger rail can reduce energy consumption and reduce GHG emissions. GHG 

emissions released into the atmosphere absorb15 and emit16 radiation within the thermal 

infrared17 range. Because part of this radiation is reflected back towards the lower 

atmosphere, it results in an elevation of the average surface temperature. This process is the 

 

15 Absorption – The way in which the energy of a photon is taken up by matter, typically the electrons of an 

atom. (Physics - electromagnetic radiation)

16 Emit – the emission spectrum an element or compound is the spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic 

radiation emitted by the element's atoms or the compound's molecules.

17 Thermal infrared – also known as long-wave infrared, is referring to the light with wavelength 8 – 15 

Micrometers
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-112 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect18, which is the key contributor to climate change. 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, especially those produced by automobiles, are key 

contributors to GHG emissions.

3.22.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts on energy use 

and climate change would not occur beyond those that could occur due to other projects. 

Under the No-Build Alternative, passenger train service would not be as readily available to 

the public west of Moline, resulting in the continued reliance of automobiles, buses, and 

planes for transportation for this portion of the Study Area. With the continued trend in 

substantial increases in VMT within the Study Area, energy consumption and GHG

emissions would likely continue to steadily increase under the No-Build Alternative. The 

Chicago to Quad Cities service would slightly reduce the rate of increase.

3.22.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The Build Alternative would provide expanded passenger rail service between Chicago and 

Omaha. With speeds up to a maximum of 110 mph, seven round-trips per day, with standardstop service to major and minor destinations in the Study Area, the Build Alternative would 

provide a competitive transportation alternative compared to automobiles, planes, and buses. 

For example, as noted in Section 3.1, an automobile trip from Chicago to Omaha is 

approximately 8 hours compared to approximately less than 7 hours for rail service. Energy

would be consumed during construction of the Project, but benefits to future energy 

expenditures for transportation and reduced potential for GHG emissions would be realized.

Based on a preliminary passenger rail forecast, the Build Alternative would provide a net 

reduction on energy consumption and GHG emissions through diverted trips from 

automobiles, buses, and trains to new passenger rail service. 

This reduction on energy consumption is quantified through a number of factors including 

reduction in GHG emissions and fuel consumption from automobiles and planes. These 

factors were derived from modal passenger mile diversions from a rail ridership model 

developed for the Project and analysis of energy efficiency by mode. 

Implementation of the Build Alternative has the potential to provide energy savings and 

would reduce the transportation system’s impact on climate change. Based on the modal 

diversions in ridership forecasts, the Build Alternative would decrease automobile traffic by 

approximately 434.9 million passenger-miles per year and reduce bus travel by 

approximately 103.3 million passenger-miles per year. CO2, the main GHG emission, would 

decrease by approximately 15,824 tons per year. Automobile fuel consumption would 

decrease by approximately 12 million gallons per year.

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speeds of passenger trains would result in fewer 

 

18 Greenhouse effect – definition: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/245233/greenhouse-effect
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-113 October 2012

impacts on energy use than that of the maximum speed proposed for the ultimate proposed 

implementation. Consequently, the potential for impacts on climate change and the reduction 

of overall energy use for transportation would be less during the initial implementation 

phase. As the Project extends westward, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase 

with subsequent implementation phases, the resulting further reduction of overall energy use 

for transportation would reduce the transportation system’s impact on climate change. 

3.22.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Mitigation may not be required for energy and climate change due to the positive impact and 

the diverted trips from other modes lowering the overall amount of CO2 emissions along the 

Study Area.

3.23 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

This environmental consideration includes a discussion of potential impacts from 

construction equipment and personnel, as well as impacts on the public during construction.

3.23.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The regulatory framework pertaining to the consideration of construction impacts on the 

environment is NEPA (42 USC 4231). 

Coordination took place with FRA, and data collection included a review of published FRA 

data regarding construction impacts pertaining to waste disposal, water quality, air, noise, 

vibration, access, and traffic and safety. The collected data and information were reviewed 

and descriptions prepared for the following considerations for impacts associated with 

construction activities: 

• Waste Disposal – solid and hazardous

• Water Quality – erosion and sediment; fuel and lubricant spills

• Air Quality – equipment emissions and fugitive dust

• Noise – heavy construction equipment

• Vibration – potential drilling and blasting

• Access – access to facilities, services/businesses, and parking; pedestrian and rail 

access

• Traffic and Safety – traffic management; detours; public safety measures

3.23.2 Affected Environment

Section 3.23.1 lists considerations for impacts attributed to typical construction activities 

associated with the proposed main line rail and associated improvements including 

intersection and signal upgrades, stations and maintenance facilities. Specific construction 

activities would be described in Tier 2 NEPA documents as the Project improvements and 

future operations are more defined.

Sensitive resources that could be most affected by these construction activities are sensitive 

land uses (residential neighborhoods, schools, etc.), environmental justice populations (low 

income and minority populations), elderly and disabled populations, and parks and 

recreational areas. These resources are described in detail in Sections 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.12, 

respectively. Mitigation measures are described in Section 3.23.5.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-114 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162 show an aerial view of the Study Area, which illustrates

the partly urban and mostly rural nature of the Corridor.

3.23.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts caused by 

construction would not occur beyond those that could be related to other projects. The 

Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to slightly increased air emissions and noise

along the eastern portion of the Chicago to Omaha Corridor. Construction for the Chicago to 

Quad Cities service would occur primarily within existing ROW, therefore limiting 

construction impacts. The exception would be for construction occurring in ROW to be 

acquired south of Wyanet, Illinois, for a connection between the IAIS track and the BNSF

track; this area is in a rural location with scattered rural residences. Construction for the 

Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program, as well as other ongoing and planned 

construction activities, would need to follow environmental requirements for construction 

such as stormwater permitting to minimizing construction impacts.

3.23.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The Build Alternative would require additional ROW for main line and ancillary 

improvements; however, construction activities directly impacting adjacent development 

would be limited to areas in close proximity to existing rail facilities.

Construction of the Build Alternative would result in the commitment of land where 

additional ROW is needed. The land would be converted from its current condition to a 

railroad grade and track. Construction materials would consist largely of steel, concrete, 

ballast rock, and wood. These resources are not in short supply and many of the materials 

could be recycled for other projects when they no longer meet the design needs for passenger 

rail service.

Typical main line improvements proposed for the Build Alternative include construction of 

an additional track through much of the Study Area to increase rail capacity and limit 

conflicts with existing rail operations. The areas where additional track is needed are located 

in primarily rural areas where adjacent land uses are associated with agricultural uses.

Further improvements may be needed to the Wyanet Connection, with potential to expand 

the construction footprint that would be previously disturbed as part of the Chicago to Quad 

Cities service. In addition to main line improvements, other major construction activities 

include a potential off-alignment optional connection through Des Moines, Iowa. Other 

construction activities include an upgrade of the rails, cross ties, signalization, and grade 

crossing protection throughout the Potential Impact Area. Construction of these 

improvements would result in temporary construction impacts, including increases in waste 

disposal, potential impacts to water quality, air quality, increased noise levels, vibration, dust, 

traffic congestion, visual changes, and disrupted access to properties and neighborhoods. 

Specific construction impacts would be evaluated in more detail in Tier 2 NEPA analyses.

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements would cause less temporary construction impacts. Consequently, the 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-115 October 2012

potential for construction impacts would be less during the initial implementation phase. As 

the Project extends westward, more construction impacts would occur to areas within or 

adjacent to the Potential Impact Area.

The considerations for construction activities listed in Section 3.23.1 are evaluated here for 

potential impacts.

3.23.4.1 Waste Disposal

The construction of the Build Alternative has the potential to generate waste material from 

clearing plant material, excavation of soil and rock, and removal of existing track and 

railroad ties where replacement is warranted. Other examples of site waste may include 

construction material packaging, broken equipment/parts, and other excess material. It is 

anticipated that some of the rock and soil material would be reused for fill material in other 

construction areas associated with the Project or other nearby construction projects. During 

typical construction activities, small amounts of soil may be contaminated through on-site 

motor or hydraulic oil spills and previously contaminated soils. Groundwater from past 

disposal could also be encountered and need to be properly handled. Construction debris and 

contaminated materials that cannot be recycled would be disposed of in permitted landfills 

following proper disposal procedures and in compliance with federal, state, and local 

regulations. Regulations may include prohibitions against burning of construction debris and 

control measures to limit pollution if tree trunks and limbs are permitted to be burned on site.

During Tier 2 NEPA analysis, areas would be reviewed for potential contamination concerns,

and some sampling and analysis may be performed as warranted. Further sampling may be 

conducted as needed to better characterize and determine the extent of contamination.

Within the areas of additional ROW acquisition, there may be instances (such as during 

construction of the southern alignment option in Des Moines adjacent to the Southeast 

Connector) where demolition of existing structures or buildings would be required within the 

areas of additional ROW acquisition. Some of these materials may be recycled. Recyclable 

construction materials would be taken to recycling facilities that are in compliance with 

federal, state, and local regulations. However, some of these buildings or structures may 

include small amounts of hazardous waste; especially in older industrial areas that are 

prevalent in the developed portions of the Study Area fronting existing rail lines. In some 

cases, testing of hazardous waste from these buildings or structures may be required, and all 

handling, collection, and disposal of waste materials would be performed according to 

federal, state, and local regulations.

3.23.4.2 Water Quality

In some instances, construction activities would occur within, adjacent to, or near streams, 

wetlands, and bodies of open water. As described above, construction debris, materials and 

potential spills may occur and have the potential to impact water quality from stormwater

runoff from the construction site. The contractor would be required to properly dispose of all 

site waste materials in proper and timely manner to avoid adverse impacts on water quality. 

In addition, through the NPDES and all other federal, state and local permitting processes 

described in Section 3.27, the contractor would take all necessary precautions to limit on-site 

stormwater discharges during construction, including BMPs for control of soil erosion and 

other pollutants. Special care would be taken in construction areas abutting or near identified 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-116 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

park and recreational resources, water bodies and wetlands. Hazardous materials (petroleum, 

chemicals, etc.) on the construction site should be properly stored and located away from 

water bodies and wetlands in a self-contained upland location.

3.23.4.3 Air Quality

Construction activities would include short-term air emissions from on-site heavy equipment 

as well as fugitive dust and particle debris from demolition and excavation activities. 

Emissions from construction vehicles and equipment would be controlled in accordance with 

emission standards prescribed under state and federal regulations. The contractor would be 

required to mitigate fugitive dust and particle emissions through the use of BMPs, including 

but not limited to proper location and screening of dust-generating activities, covering of 

dust-producing construction materials, and using proper water suppression techniques. Air 

quality impacts would be mitigated by adherence to construction permit conditions and all 

state and local regulations, which may include prohibitions against burning of construction 

debris and control measures to limit pollution if tree trunks and limbs are permitted to be 

burned on site.

3.23.4.4 Noise and Vibration

Most construction activities would involve heavy equipment that generates a large amount of 

noise. Some construction activities, including pile driving and rock excavation with 

explosives, would generate a high decibel level, and in some cases, would cause vibrations 

that may temporarily affect properties off-site. A majority of the construction activities 

would occur in remote agricultural or rural areas away from concentrated residential areas 

and other sensitive land uses. Within urban areas, a majority of land uses along the existing 

rail lines are industrial with few residences. In the instances where construction activities 

abut residential areas, the contractor would take appropriate measures to limit the times and 

duration of construction activities and limit routing of heavy construction equipment to, from 

and within the site to limit adjacent noise to sensitive land uses. Contractors may be required 

to equip and maintain muffling equipment for trucks and other machinery in order to 

minimize noise emissions. Mitigation efforts should also address other impacted resources 

such as environmental justice and elderly and disabled populations. 

In the case of vibrations, sufficient care would be taken to limit off-site disturbances. Ground 

vibration from construction activities are not likely to reach levels high enough to impact 

adjacent structures with the exception of older buildings. Special care would be taken in 

areas where construction activities are adjacent to older buildings, especially fragile buildings 

with historical significance. If drilling and blasting are necessary for construction, a carefully 

planned and executed drilling and blasting program would be prepared during the design 

development phase, which would place limits or controls on drilling and blasting activities.

The requirements of this program would be governed by federal, state, and local regulations, 

and coordination with affected groups will continue during the detailed design phase. Areas 

that could be impacted by vibration would be identified in Tier 2 analyses.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-117 October 2012

3.23.4.5 Access

During construction, access to adjacent properties may be impacted on a temporary basis. 

Construction would primarily occur in rural or agricultural areas with limited traffic. 

However, within urban areas and small communities, existing businesses could experience 

inconvenience and potential short-term economic hardship during construction because of 

access disruptions and traffic delays. To avoid disruptions, the contractor would be required 

to develop a traffic mitigation plan for construction sequencing to maintain reasonable access

to adjacent properties. This plan would also include special provisions to accommodate 

emergency vehicle access to the site and to adjacent properties. For temporary roadway 

closings, the contractor would notify local emergency service providers in advance. Special 

care should also be taken to help ensure safe and reasonable access for adjacent elderly and 

disabled populations.

3.23.4.6 Traffic and Safety

Slow-moving heavy equipment would be entering and exiting the construction sites in the 

Study Area throughout the construction period. If not properly planned and coordinated with 

local jurisdictions, this can cause conflicts with existing traffic and can impact motorized and 

non-motorized safety. The contractor would be required to coordinate with Illinois DOT, 

Iowa DOT and the NDOR, as well as the appropriate local jurisdictions to develop and 

implement a traffic control and safety plan. This plan would include measures to shift traffic 

away from the work zone during construction periods that would directly impact traffic flow 

as well as the installation of safety barriers to protect workers. 

3.23.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Impacts from construction activities would be reviewed and mitigation would be considered

during the development of the Tier 2 NEPA documents. The potential for Project 

construction impacts may be mitigated through the following measures:

• Waste Disposal

o Recycling of construction debris, if possible, at facilities that are in 

compliance with federal, state, and local regulations 

o Testing of any hazardous waste encountered, if required, 

o Performing handling, collection, and disposal of waste materials in 

accordance with federal, state, and local regulations.

• Water Quality

o Management of stormwater runoff through NPDES and all other federal, 

state and local permitting processes

o Implementation of BMPs for control of soil erosion and other pollutants.

o Proper storage of hazardous materials away from water bodies and 

wetlands in a self-contained upland location. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-118 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

• Air Quality

o Adherence to construction permit conditions and all state and local 

regulations, which may include prohibitions against burning of 

construction debris, and control measures to limit pollution if tree trunks 

and limbs are permitted to be burned on site.

• Noise

o Equipping and maintaining muffling equipment for trucks and other 

construction machinery to minimize noise emissions. 

• Access

o Development of a traffic mitigation plan for construction sequencing to 

maintain reasonable access to adjacent properties, including special 

provisions to accommodate emergency vehicle access to the site and 

adjacent properties. 

• Traffic and Safety

o Coordination with Illinois DOT, Iowa DOT, and NDOR as well as local 

jurisdictions to develop and implement a traffic control and safety plan. 

• Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and 

discussed during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA

documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to 

construction.

3.24 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES

Irreversible commitments involve the use or destruction of a specific resource (for example, 

energy and natural resources such as water, minerals, or timber) that cannot be replaced 

within a reasonable time frame. Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value 

of an affected resource that cannot be restored as a result of the action (for example, 

extinction of a threatened or endangered species or disturbance of a cultural site). 

3.24.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources directly relate to the trade-offs of 

implementing a project versus not implementing a project. Irreversible and irretrievable 

impacts were evaluated in accordance with NEPA (42 United States Code [USC] 4321-

4347); guidelines published by CEQ on implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.16; and FRA’s 

Environmental Procedures.

Data gathered from the review of all applicable resources analyzed in the Tier 1 EIS were

used, especially the consumption of energy (as derived from the assessment of air pollutants

generated from the operation of the proposed passenger trains between Chicago and Omaha) 

and natural resources (as derived from the assessment of water resources, topography,

geology, and soils, natural habitats and wildlife, wetlands, and threatened and endangered 

species). Additionally, land use committed to conversion for the transportation improvements

was addressed. Specific government agency coordination is not typically conducted for this 

resource evaluation and was not performed for this Study.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-119 October 2012

The potential use of existing resources and land were assessed. The change in the use of 

resources was qualitatively assessed, and the potential for irreversible and irretrievable use of 

these resources was identified. Resources considered in this analysis were those resources on 

which the Project would have a direct or indirect effect. Tier 2 analyses would assess specific 

impacts on the extent known from the design process. 

The extent of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources was assessed to 

determine if mitigation would be required. 

3.24.2 Affected Environment

Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162 show various resources within the Study Area.

3.24.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and new commitments of 

resources would not occur beyond those that could occur related to other projects. The 

Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to some commitment of resources for that 

project for constructing the Wyanet Connection and Eola Yard improvements. Also, energy

resources would continue to be consumed by automobile travelers between Chicago and 

Omaha at a slightly higher rate than with the Project.

3.24.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

Construction of the Build Alternative would result in the irreversible and irretrievable 

commitment of land where additional ROW is needed. The land would be converted from its 

current condition to a railroad grade and track. 

Construction materials would consist largely of steel, concrete, ballast rock, and wood. 

Whereas the use of these materials would be largely irretrievable, these resources are not in 

short supply and many of the materials could be recycled for other projects when they no 

longer meet the design needs for passenger rail service.

Several energy resources would be committed to the Project, including petroleum, natural 

gas, electrical, and manpower expenditures for construction, operation, and maintenance. 

These resources are generally irretrievable. 

With phased implementation, the level of improvements needed for the baseline speed of 

79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of speeds up to 

110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW for 

improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. The slower 

speed would cause less noise and lower amounts of ground vibration than the maximum 

speed proposed for the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for 

irreversible and irretrievable impacts would be less during the initial implementation phase.

As the Project extends westward, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase with 

subsequent implementation phases, more impacts would occur to properties within or 

adjacent to the Potential Impact Area. Consequently, impacts associated with the ultimate 

proposed implementation may eventually be realized, but the impacts would incur gradually 

over the years of implementation as federal and state funds are allocated to the Project.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-120 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

In addition to the above resources commitments, federal and state financial resources would 

be irreversibly and irretrievably committed to the Project for the development of Tier 2 

NEPA documentation, design, construction, operation, and maintenance. These financial 

resources would no longer be available for other federal or state projects.

3.24.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Irreversible and irretrievable impacts do not require mitigation; consequently, no mitigation 

measures are proposed.

3.25 SHORT-TERM USE VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY OF THE 

ENVIRONMENT

Balancing the relationship between short-term impacts and long-term productivity is an 

important consideration in determining project feasibility. The following sections discuss

short-term impacts to and use of resources, and long-term effects and benefits/losses that 

could be expected under the No-Build and Build Alternative.

3.25.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Short-term impacts to and use of resources in relation to long-term productivity were 

evaluated in accordance with NEPA, guidelines published by CEQ on implementing NEPA,

and FRA’s Environmental Procedures.

Data were gathered from the review of construction impacts and all applicable resources 

analyzed in the Tier 1 EIS. This analysis qualitatively discusses the relationship between 

short-term impacts to and use of resources, and the long-term benefits and productivity of the 

environment.

3.25.2 Affected Environment

Various resources within the Study Area are shown in Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162.

3.25.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and impacts are not 

anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. 

3.25.3.1 Short-Term Impacts

Construction for the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program could contribute to potential 

short-term construction impacts related to the following:

• Hazardous materials and waste disposal 

• Water quality (erosion and sedimentation, and/or potential fuel and lubricant 

spills) 

• Air quality (equipment emissions and fugitive dust) 

• Noise and vibration (construction equipment) 

• Property access

• Traffic and pedestrian delays and detours
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-121 October 2012

In addition, short-term employment, use of materials to construct the project, and purchases 

of goods and services generated by project construction could create a short-term increase in 

the local economy that would end once the construction phase is completed.

3.25.3.2 Long-Term Benefits

In the region between Chicago and the Quad Cities, the introduction of additional passenger 

rail service would contribute to modest improvements in the transportation network, 

socioeconomic conditions, and safety for at-grade crossings.

3.25.3.3 Long-Term Losses/Impacts

Long-term adverse impacts on the social and natural environment would be minimal because 

most of the construction would be contained within existing ROW. Long-term productivity 

could be minimally affected with some reduction in farmland, slight increases in noise and 

vibration impacts on sensitive receptors, and increased collision impacts with wildlife. 

However, traffic congestion could increase, and energy resources may continue to be 

consumed by other modes of transportation between Chicago and Omaha, at a slightly higher 

rate than with the Build Alternative. This, in turn, could result in increased pollutant

emissions and decreased air quality.

3.25.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

Implementation of the Build Alternative would result in the short-term impacts and use of 

resources as described below, while increasing the long-term benefits and productivity of 

passenger rail transportation, land use, and economic systems.

3.25.4.1 Short-Term Effects

The Build Alternative would contribute to short-term construction impacts similar to those of 

the No-Build Alternative, discussed above, but to a greater extent because of a longer 

corridor and additional ROW. In addition, short-term employment, use of materials to 

construct the project, and purchases of goods and services generated by project construction 

could create a short-term increase in the local economy that would end once the construction 

phase is completed. 

With the initial implementation phase, the level of improvements needed for the baseline 

speed of 79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of 

speeds up to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW 

for improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. Less 

ROW for improvements and the slower speeds of passenger trains would result in fewer 

impacts from operational-related items such as train noise, ground vibration, and air 

emissions than that of the maximum speed proposed for the ultimate proposed 

implementation. Consequently, less construction would occur, fewer short-term impacts and 

use of resources would be required for construction, and less energy would be used to 

develop and operate the Project during the initial implementation phase.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-122 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

3.25.4.2 Long-Term Benefits

In the region between Chicago and Omaha, the addition and enhancement of passenger rail 

service would contribute to improvements in the transportation network and access within the 

region by providing competitive passenger rail service that would meet the needs of 

increased future travel demand and more efficient travel between major urban centers.

A reduction in air pollution emissions would occur as a result of passenger rail service 

replacing automobile, bus, and plane trips, and decreased congestion on local streets and 

highways. Improved accessibility within the region would also result in economic benefits

through employment opportunities, potential for transit-oriented development, and increased 

economic activity. Other long-term benefits would include improvements in safety for 

at-grade crossings and providing an accessible alternative mode of transportation for 

minority, low-income, elderly, and disabled populations.

3.25.4.3 Long-Term Losses/Effects

Although the Build Alternative would result in some permanent impacts to waterways, water 

bodies, wetlands, floodplains, plant communities, natural habitat, and wildlife, coordination 

with resource agencies would be conducted to minimize impacts through appropriate 

mitigation measures. Other long-term losses/effects on the productivity of the environment 

would include the following:

• Removal of existing farmland from productivity

• Reduction of the local tax base as a result of acquiring farmland, commercial, and 

industrial property for additional railroad ROW

• Potential economic impacts on other modes of public transportation

• Potential acquisition of park land, recreation land, and natural areas

• Noise and vibration impacts on sensitive receptors

• Collision impacts on wildlife

With the initial implementation phase, there would also be less long-term benefits and 

productivity. As the Project extends westward, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips 

increase with subsequent implementation phases, more operational-related impacts would 

occur, and more energy and resources would be required. However, there would be more 

long-term benefits and productivity within or adjacent to the Potential Impact Area. 

3.25.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

The potential mitigation measures for short-term and long-term impacts are discussed in the 

previous sections for each respective resource in this chapter.

3.26 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA define indirect effects 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 may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to 

induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related 

effects on air, water, and other natural systems, including ecosystems (40 CFR 1508.8b). 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-123 October 2012

CEQ regulations define cumulative impacts 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 non-federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). Thus, 

cumulative impacts include the direct and indirect impacts of a project together with the 

impacts from reasonably foreseeable future actions of other projects. 

Direct and indirect effects of the Project, as well as other past, current, or reasonably 

foreseeable regional and state-wide projects, are relevant for review of cumulative impacts.

Major local projects could also contribute to cumulative effects on a resource.

3.26.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

The methodology for conducting the review and evaluation of indirect and cumulative 

impacts is in accordance with federal regulations and guidelines, including NEPA, and CEQ 

guidelines implementing NEPA.

Indirect effects were evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.8(b) and FRA’s

Environmental Procedures. The cumulative impacts with respect to the Project were

evaluated in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.7, CEQ guidance on assessing cumulative 

impacts (Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act, 

January 1997) and other sources, including FRA’s Environmental Procedures.

Data from the following sources was used during review of the potential indirect and 

cumulative impacts on the human and natural environment as a result of the Project:

• Identification of other major transportation projects in the Study Area vicinity 

through planning documents, including state transportation improvement plans, 

the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, state long-range transportation plans, 

comprehensive plans developed by regional MPOs and COGs

• Land use information

• Internet sources, such as agency or news websites

• Input from government agencies as part of the scoping process

The collected data were reviewed, and projects that could incrementally affect the existing 

environment along with the Project were characterized. The effects of past actions were 

addressed as part of the existing or baseline condition for each resource relevant to the 

analysis. Any present or reasonably foreseeable future development (warranting an

Environmental Assessment (EA) or EIS analysis) identified within the Study Area was 

considered. Specific local roadway improvement projects and minor projects near the Study 

Area are likely numerous and would be evaluated in only Tier 2 NEPA analyses. 

The potential for other development or other changes to the existing land use or environment 

potentially induced by the Project was assessed. This includes further development of land in 

the vicinity of the Study Area and at stations, or changes in traffic circulation that could 

require modification or construction of transportation infrastructure that could generate 

indirect reasonably foreseeable effects on the human and natural environment. The direct 

impacts on each resource were considered, and the likelihood of the Project to induce

additional indirect changes was considered. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-124 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Resources on which the Project would have no direct or indirect effect were not considered 

in the cumulative effects analysis. Resources were considered within a resource-appropriate 

Study Area (for example, water resources were considered within a watershed), and the area 

that would be impacted directly and indirectly varied among different resources.

3.26.2 Affected Environment

Rail projects associated with cumulative impacts relative to the Project include the 

completion of the Midwest Regional Rail System itself. Of the MWRRI corridors with a 

terminus in Chicago (MWRRI, 2004), the following are currently funded and under 

development at various stages of planning and implementation:

• Chicago to Detroit-Pontiac, Michigan

• Chicago to St. Louis, Missouri

• Chicago to Moline, Illinois (the Illinois portion of the Chicago to Iowa City 

project, known as the Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program, which includes 

the Chicago to Wyanet, Wyanet Connection, and Wyanet to Moline projects

• Chicago to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to Twin Cities, Minnesota, to Duluth, 

Minnesota

Chicago’s Metra has planned improvements to help offset the demand from the increasing 

population in northeast Illinois. Metra’s four primary projects are the following (Commuter 

Rail Division of the Regional Transportation Authority, 2012):

• STAR Line – Suburb-to-suburb commuter rail service between Joliet, Illinois, and 

O’Hare International Airport

• SES – Commuter service in south Suburban Cook and Will counties

• UP-NW Line – Expansion of service to eastern McHenry County and the addition 

of express and reverse-commute service to northwest Cook County

• UP-W Line – Capacity, speed, and reliability improvements for Cook, DuPage 

and Kane counties

In addition to the aforementioned projects, Metra has initiated an Environmental Assessment 

and design of an extension of the BNSF line from from Aurora to Oswego, Illinois.

Other railroad projects include the implementation of other high-speed intercity passenger 

rail projects. Final Design/Construction and Preliminary Engineering/NEPA projects in 

Illinois and Iowa are:

• Illinois: Midwest Train Equipment Fleet – This project would provide new rolling 

stock for the Midwest states of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin.

• Illinois: Chicago Terminal Limits for the Midwest Regional Rail System – This 

project would provide final design and construction for the Quad Cities (the 

terminal station would be in Moline), Milwaukee, and Detroit corridors as well as 

preliminary design and NEPA work for the St. Louis, Detroit, and Milwaukee 

corridors.

• Illinois: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor – This project would 

complete the first phase of ground work for the high-speed rail corridor; it would 

include final design, rehabilitation and construction of existing sidings, new 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-125 October 2012

sidings, and development of a second main line to accommodate train meet points 

associated with the high-speed rail corridor as well as accompanying signal, 

bridge, and crossing work.

• Illinois: Amtrak Illinois Zephyr Galesburg Congestion Relief Project – This 

project would construct three new BNSF tracks in Galesburg for staging freight 

trains to improve passenger train service, build a third main line track through the 

Galesburg passenger station to improve efficiencies, and install a new connection 

between Brookfield and Mendota.

• Iowa: Ottumwa Subdivision Capitalized Maintenance – This project would reduce 

temporary speed restrictions of the California Zephyr (Amtrak 5 and 6) on the 

BNSF Ottumwa Subdivision across southern Iowa. 

• Iowa: Ottumwa Subdivision Crossover Improvements – This project would 

improve the service performance of the California Zephyr, consisting of two daily 

Amtrak trains (Amtrak 5 and 6) that operate between Chicago’s Union Station

and Amtrak’s Emeryville station.

Illinois has one planning project, which consists of studying the feasibility of 220 mph highspeed express passenger service between Chicago and St. Louis. Iowa also has one planning

project, which seeks funding for the planning effort for the complete MWRRI corridor from 

Chicago to Omaha. Nebraska has no planning projects.

Specific roadway improvement projects within or crossing the rail corridors are numerous.

Major projects for tollways and interstates were considered for this Tier 1 analysis.

The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority has two capital programs. Move Illinois is a 

$12 billion program to improve mobility, relieve congestion, reduce pollution, create jobs, 

and link economies in the Midwest (Illinois Tollway, 2012). This program includes 

improvements to existing tollways as well as the development of new tollways. The second 

capital program is the Congestion-Relief Program that was initiated in 2005 with $5.8 billion 

to reduce travel times, rebuild and restore the existing system, and the recently constructed

south extension of I-355 into Will County (Illinois Tollway, 2012).

Both Illinois DOT and Iowa DOT have numerous localized interstate improvement projects

near the Study Area. Some of the larger projects under review include:

• Illiana Expressway (Illinois) – A proposed project south of Joliet, Illinois, that 

would provide a direct connection between I-55 in Illinois and I-65 in Indiana 

(Illinois DOT and Indiana DOT, 2012)

• Elgin O’Hare West Bypass Study (Illinois) – A tiered analysis of transportation 

issues west of O’Hare International Airport that has identified a multi-modal 

alternative including a new expressway, arterial, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian

improvements (FHWA, FAA, Illinois DOT, and Illinois State Toll Highway 

Authority, March 2012)

• CBIS Improvements Project (Iowa) – A multi-phased project focused on 

improving I-80, I-29, and I-480 within the Omaha/Council Bluffs metropolitan 

area to improve mobility, reduce congestion and crashes, and add capacity 

(Iowa DOT, 2012)
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-126 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Although a local project, the Southeast Connector project for the City of Des Moines, Iowa is 

within the Study Area, and is relevant to the Project. The Southeast Connector is an arterial 

roadway for a major, multi-lane roadway connecting the Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway at 

SW 2nd Street to the U.S. Highway 65 (US 65) bypass. The project is currently under 

construction, with one section of the roadway opened from SW 2nd Street to SE 9th Street.

The aforementioned projects are in different phases of planning and construction; 

consequently, the availability of information on specific impacts of the projects varies. Being 

a Tier 1 level of analysis with a nearly 500 mile Study Area, the assessment of cumulative 

impacts was a qualitative evaluation of the potential for cumulative impacts rather than a 

detailed quantitative analysis of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. If 

necessary, a more detailed review of potential indirect and cumulative impacts of projects 

would be conducted during Tier 2 NEPA analyses for individual sections of the Project.

3.26.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and new direct, indirect, or 

cumulative impacts are not anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other projects. 

The Chicago to Quad Cities service would contribute to slightly increased air emissions

energy consumption and noise along this portion of the Chicago to Omaha route. Potential 

direct, or indirect, and cumulative impacts of those improvements are being addressed in 

Tier 2 NEPA documents currently underway.

The No-Build Alternative would result in a slight indirect impact due to the lack of passenger 

rail service between Moline and Omaha. This indirect impact would primarily be in the form 

of increased traffic congestion as travelers between Moline and Omaha would continue to 

use existing roadways. In addition, the No-Build Alternative would have a slight negative 

contribution to cumulative impacts by continuing the dependence on personal automobiles on 

highways for travel between Moline and Omaha, and to a more limited extent, between 

Chicago and Moline. Selection of the No-Build Alternative would not result in the 

elimination of any of the projects listed above with the exception of the Moline to Omaha 

component of the MWRRI corridor from Chicago to Omaha.

3.26.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

The impacts of the Build Alternative are addressed collectively under subheadings for 

indirect impacts and cumulative impacts.

3.26.4.1 Indirect Impacts

Construction and operation associated with any phase of the Build Alternative has the 

potential to cause indirect impacts. The following is a list of potential indirect impacts 

identified through evaluation of various environmental resources:

• Operation of passenger trains at speeds up to 110 mph would result in increased 

noise and ground vibration, as well as air emissions, and visual and aesthetic

impacts. These direct impacts could potentially result in indirect impacts of 

reduced use of nearby parks, recreation areas, and natural areas. Section 4(f)

properties could be indirectly affected by noise, ground vibration, aesthetics, and 

access issues. Additionally, there could be indirect impacts on wildlife through 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-127 October 2012

reduced use of areas near train operations. Increased passenger rail operations also 

would increase the potential for wildlife collisions. Threatened or endangered 

species could potentially be indirectly affected by noise, vibration, air emissions, 

and water quality impacts affecting habitat.

• The passenger train service could have the indirect effect of reducing ridership on 

current transportation services, such as intercity bus and flight service, by offering 

a competitive alternative to these modes. Diverted trips from these modes to 

passenger rail service may have implications to the viability of these modes in the 

future. 

• Potential indirect positive impacts include a slight reduction in vehicular 

congestion on I-88 and I-80 within the Study Area. This would have positive 

impacts on air quality, safety and reduce future delays due to congestion. 

• Commencement of passenger service and modification of at-grade crossings

could indirectly affect traffic flow from previous traffic conditions.

• As a result of increased train traffic, as well as activities at stations and 

maintenance facilities, there would be an increased chance of a hazardous 

material incident. Potential indirect impacts could also affect water quality as 

railway contaminants or accidental chemical/fuel spills from operations and 

maintenance activities could reach water resources adjacent to, or downstream of 

the project area. However, with appropriate BMPs in place, water quality impacts 

from hazardous materials would be avoided or minimized.

• Noise and vibration from passenger rail traffic could cause indirect impacts to 

cultural resources by affecting visitor experience. Also, there is the potential for 

induced transit-oriented development in the vicinity of station areas, which may 

indirectly affect nearby cultural resources.

• Potential indirect impacts to downstream water bodies and wetlands could occur 

from culvert and/or bridge replacements.

• Transit-oriented development could result indirectly from the construction and 

use of station locations.

• Adjacent land uses could be indirectly impacted from changes in traffic flow at 

rail crossings and near future station sites. Temporary traffic indirect impacts

would occur through closings during construction rerouting traffic through 

adjacent neighborhoods and business areas. Lack of convenient access can cause 

increased travel time and delay for local residents and potential economic impacts 

to businesses that depend on convenient accessibility such as auto-oriented retail 

and services, drive-through restaurants, etc. Long-term indirect impacts would 

occur through potential increased congestion and traffic delays near crossings 

with new passenger rail service.

• There would be a temporary increase in GHG emissions from construction

activities from on-site equipment as well as increased delays and congestion from 

automobile and bus traffic. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-128 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

• The Project would result in indirect positive impacts on air quality from 

contributing to the development of a more complete multi-modal transportation 

system within the Study Area and encouraging changes in long-term travel 

behavior and advocacy for more energy efficient modes of transport that improve 

air quality.

• Upgrades to rail infrastructure may indirectly benefit existing freight service.

With phased implementation, the level of improvements needed for the baseline speed of 

79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of speeds up 

to 110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW for 

improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. The slower 

speed would cause less noise and lower amounts of ground vibration than the maximum 

speed proposed for the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for 

indirect impacts would be less during the initial implementation phase. As the Project 

extends westward, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase with subsequent 

implementation phases, more impacts would occur to properties within or adjacent to the 

Potential Impact Area. Consequently, impacts associated with the ultimate proposed 

implementation may eventually be realized, but the impacts would incur gradually over the 

years of implementation as federal and state funds are allocated to the Project.

At a Tier 1 level of evaluation, it is not anticipated that these impacts would be substantial; 

further evaluation of potential indirect impacts would be addressed during Tier 2 analysis 

when more details of the design and operation are known. For example, the increased noise

and vibration from passenger train operations would be considered for potential constructive 

use of Section 4(f) facilities during Tier 2 analysis. Specific mitigation measures, to the 

extent required, would be identified and discussed during Tier 2 analysis after design details 

are known, recorded in NEPA documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented 

prior to construction.

3.26.4.2 Cumulative Impacts

The majority of projects listed in Section 3.26.2 are linear transportation projects, often 

occurring either in existing ROW or adjacent to existing ROW (which in urban and suburban 

areas, is land that has been previously disturbed). Because drainage is often constructed 

parallel to transportation improvements, it is likely that many of these projects would be 

affecting drainage and could involve impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. In 

rural areas, it is likely that the other projects may be affecting farmland, natural areas, and 

wildlife habitat primarily through expansion of existing corridors. 

Given that the majority of construction impacts of the Project (such as filling of wetlands) 

would be within existing ROW and that nearly the entire additional ROW required is 

adjacent to existing ROW, the physical impacts would be very localized. Unless other 

projects are occurring in these immediate areas, the Build Alternative holds minimal 

potential for significant adverse cumulative impacts.

The Build Alternative would have the potential for several beneficial indirect effects along 

the route. First, implementation would help to reduce traffic congestion on existing roadways 

by diverting some potential motorists from the roadways to the passenger trains; this would 

also slightly reduce vehicle emissions compared to future emissions generated without the 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-129 October 2012

Project. Additionally, air travel demand is projected to reduce through diversion of some 

travelers to passenger trains, thus leading to a reduction in aircraft emissions compared to 

future emissions generated without the Project. There is also the potential for transit-oriented 

development of other services near the proposed stops; this would likely further reduce 

traffic congestion and emissions.

Station development associated with the Project has the potential to result in induced 

development in close proximity to the stations. However, station locations would be selected 

through coordinated efforts with local city/county/metropolitan area planners to help ensure 

that the sites and opportunities presented for growth development are suitable to handle 

increased traffic and other demands, minimizing the potential for adverse cumulative 

impacts.

With the additional passenger trains (running seven round-trips per day at speeds up to 

110 mph between Chicago and Des Moines, and with five of those trips continuing to 

Omaha), the number of noise and vibration occurrences, potential collision impacts, and 

water quality/pollutant-related impacts would increase over existing conditions, as described 

for the Build Alternative and for the Chicago to Quad Cities project Expansion Program in 

the No-Build Alternative.

When considered collectively with the projects listed above, the Build Alternative would 

have a slight beneficial contribution to cumulative impacts by improving overall air quality

and reducing roadway congestion and would have the potential for increased transit-oriented 

development. Should construction of this Project occur simultaneously with some of the 

above listed projects, existing passenger and freight rail services could see temporary 

increases in delays and congestion but overall train traffic would be maintained throughout 

construction. 

With phased implementation, the level of improvements needed for the baseline speed of 

79 mph would be less than required for the ultimate proposed implementation of speeds up to 

110 mph; therefore, the initial implementation phase would require less ROW for 

improvements than would be needed to support infrastructure for higher speeds. The slower 

speed would cause less noise and lower amounts of ground vibration than the maximum 

speed proposed for the ultimate proposed implementation. Consequently, the potential for 

cumulative impacts would be less during the initial implementation phase. As the Project 

extends westward, and speeds and the frequency of round-trips increase with subsequent 

implementation phases, more impacts would occur to properties within or adjacent to the 

Potential Impact Area. Consequently, impacts associated with the ultimate proposed 

implementation may eventually be realized, but the impacts would incur gradually over the 

years of implementation as federal and state funds are allocated to the Project.

3.26.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Per CEQ guidance NEPA’s 40 Most Asked Questions,19 “All reasonable mitigation measures 

that could improve the project are to be identified, even if they are outside the jurisdiction of 

the lead agency or the cooperating agencies, and thus would not be committed as part of the 

RODs of these agencies.” Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be 

 

19 46 Federal Register 18026 (March 23, 1981), as amended. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-130 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

identified and discussed in Tier 2 NEPA documents as specific indirect and cumulative

impacts are identified after design details are known, recorded in NEPA documents as 

specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction.

3.27 PERMITS

This environmental consideration includes anticipated federal, state, and local permits and/or 

approvals that may be required. 

3.27.1 Methodology and Regulatory Requirements

Data collection included a review of federal and state government agency databases to 

compile information regarding the types of permits and approvals that may be required for 

the Project. Local and construction permits would be discussed in the Tier 2 NEPA

documents when specific impacts are determined.

3.27.2 Affected Environment

For this resource, the existing environment was reviewed for the consideration of potential 

permits and approvals needed for the Project. The presence of wetlands, floodplains, 

navigable waters, and other resources were reviewed to identity the likely permits required 

prior to construction.

Appendix B, Figures 1 through 162 show an aerial view of the Study Area and resources

(such as wetlands and floodplains) requiring permits and approvals prior to disturbance.

3.27.3 Impacts of No-Build Alternative

Under the No-Build Alternative, the Project would not be built, and thus would require no 

permits or approvals. The Chicago to Quad Cities Expansion Program would be responsible 

for acquisition of all necessary permits and approvals prior to construction.

3.27.4 Impacts of Build Alternative

Construction of the Build Alternative would likely require the permits and approvals 

described below. The implementation phases are anticipated to also require the same permits 

and approvals as the ultimate proposed implementation of the Build Alternative. However, 

because of the anticipated extended timeframe for implementation of the Project, the number 

of initial permits would likely be more, as well as the need for permit modifications and 

extensions.

3.27.4.1 Section 404 Permit 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged, excavated, or fill 

material in wetlands, streams, rivers, and other waters of the United States. The USACE is 

the federal agency authorized to issue Section 404 Permits for certain activities conducted in 

wetlands or other waters of the United States. The Project lies within three USACE 

regulatory districts: the Chicago District for eastern Illinois, the Rock Island District for 

central and western Illinois and all of Iowa, and the Omaha District for the Missouri River 

floodplain and Nebraska. Generally, any project that includes construction activities in new 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-131 October 2012

ROW and/or impacts an aquatic resource requires a Section 404 Permit. Project-related 

construction activities that require Section 404 review include:

• Culvert extensions

• Bridge/culvert replacements

• Riprap placement and/or flood emergency repairs

• Dredging, excavation, and fill in jurisdictional waters

• Any construction in or around streams or wetland areas

To obtain authorization to disturb regulated aquatic resources, the permit applicant must 

identify the waters present through wetland delineation and/or stream determination, avoid 

protected resources where possible, minimize unavoidable impacts, and if necessary, mitigate

any remaining impacts. The USACE issues two types of Section 404 permits: general and 

individual. General permits include Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits that

are issued periodically for categories of activities that result in only minimal adverse impacts

to the aquatic environment. Individual permits are issued for projects with more significant 

adverse impacts on a case-by-case basis. Individual permit authorizations are based on a 

public interest review that includes a comment period for resource agencies and the public. 

At a Tier 1 analysis, it is difficult to determine the number and type of permits that may be 

needed. The number and type of permits would depend on the nature of each Tier 2 project’s 

specific construction requirements, phasing, and location.

General Permits are reviewed by the USACE and are typically issued within 45 days of 

submittal. Individual permits require a 90 to 120-day review time, including a 30-day public 

notice period. Failure to comply with a Section 404 Permit may result in an enforcement 

action including a cease and desist order to stop all project work and significant fines until 

the project is in compliance. 

3.27.4.2 Section 401 Water Quality Certification

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act gives authority to each state to issue a water quality

certification for any project that needs a 404 Permit. The 401 Certification is a verification by 

the state that the project will not violate water quality standards. The following state agencies 

issue water quality certifications for activities within the Study Area: 

• Illinois EPA. USACE provides the Section 404 application to Illinois EPA for 

review under Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Additional approvals are 

required by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources/Office of Water 

Resources (Illinois DNR/OWR) for construction activities within a public body of 

water and within floodways in accordance with the Illinois Wetland Policy Act of

1989.

• Iowa DNR. The Iowa Water Resources Section of the Office of Location and 

Environment (OLE) reviews preliminary plans and project concepts for all 

projects likely to be affected by Section 404. 

• NDEQ. The NDEQ regulates stream impacts under its Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification authority, in conjunction with the USACE’s Section 404 permit.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-132 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

Section 401 water quality certifications for construction would be obtained from each state 

for Tier 2 projects during the design phase of the Project and in conjunction with the Section 

404 permits. Discharge of stormwater during construction would be addressed under the 

NPDES permitting and with BMPs. 

3.27.4.3 Section 9 USCG Bridge Permit 

To help enforce the General Bridge Act of 1946, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Bridge 

Permit, also often referred to as a Section 9 Permit, is required to construct a new bridge or 

reconstruct or modify an existing bridge over navigable waters of the United States. The 

purpose of the General Bridge Act of 1946 is to preserve the public right of navigation and 

prevent interference with interstate and foreign commerce. USCG policy is to protect the 

freedom of navigation and the quality of the environment, meeting the reasonable needs both 

of navigation and land traffic.

Typical activities requiring a USCG Bridge Permit are:

• Constructing a new bridge over a canal, channel, stream, river, lake or other 

navigable body of water.

• Modifying an existing bridge or causeway.

• Making repairs that alter structural configuration or navigational clearances.

• Significantly modifying any substructure or superstructure components. 

For the Project, one or two new bridge crossings may be required over the Missouri River.

Coordination has commenced with USCG under this Tier 1 EIS, and would continue during 

the Tier 2 NEPA analyses to determine and define permitting requirements.

3.27.4.4 Section 10 Permit

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires that regulated activities conducted 

below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of navigable waters of the United States be 

approved by the USACE. Until 1968, the Rivers and Harbors Act was administered to protect 

only navigation and the navigable capacity of the nation’s waters. In 1968, in response to a 

growing national concern for environmental values, the policy for review of Section 10 

permit applications was revised to include additional factors such as fish and wildlife, 

conservation, pollution, aesthetics, ecology and general welfare. Regulated activities include 

the placement/removal of structures, work involving dredging, disposal of dredged material, 

filling excavation, or any other disturbance of soils and sediments, or modifications of a

navigable waterway. One combined application can be submitted for both Section 404 and 

Section 10 permits. These permits may be required for any major river crossing 

improvements.

3.27.4.5 Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit

USEPA regulates non-point source discharges through its stormwater program pursuant to 

the Clean Water Act. The USEPA has given Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska the responsibility to 

administer the NPDES permit to govern stormwater runoff from construction activities that 

disturb one acre of land or greater. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-133 October 2012

Illinois EPA administers and enforces NPDES permits in Illinois. Illinois EPA uses General 

Permit No. ILR10 for construction activities that will result in the disturbance of 1 or more 

acres of land subject to the Clean Water Act, the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and 

the Illinois Pollution Board Rules and Regulations. In order for stormwater discharges from 

construction sites to be authorized to discharge under this general permit, the applicant must 

submit a NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) in accordance with state requirements. Unless 

notified to the contrary, 30 days after the date the NOI is received by Illinois EPA, applicants 

who submit a NOI in accordance with the requirements of this permit are authorized to 

discharge stormwater from construction sites under the terms and conditions of this permit.

Iowa DNR administers and enforces NPDES permits in Iowa. In most cases, Iowa DNR uses 

General Permit No. 2 for construction activities that will result in the disturbance of one or 

more acres of land subject to the Clean Water Act. A general permit can be cost-effective, as 

a large number of facilities can be covered under a single permit. A general permit may be 

written to cover categories of point sources having common elements. After a general permit 

has been issued, the Project applicant must submit a NPDES NOI to Iowa DNR. Upon 

receipt of a NOI, Iowa DNR may request additional information, notify the applicant that it is 

covered by the general permit, or require the applicant to apply for an individual permit.

In Nebraska, NDEQ issues the construction stormwater general permit or CSW general 

permit. This general permit authorizes the discharge of pollutants in stormwater discharges 

associated with construction activities that will result in the disturbance of one or more acres 

of land subject to the Clean Water Act and the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act. The 

CSW general permit covers stormwater discharges associated with both small and large 

construction activities. As part of the permit process, applicants must submit a NPDES NOI 

to NDEQ prior to the start construction activities. Before submitting a NOI, the applicant 

must document that the discharges are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

state or federally-listed endangered or threatened species.

3.27.4.6 Section 408 Approval

33 USC 408 (Section 408) authorizes the Secretary of the Army to permit others to modify 

existing USACE projects under certain circumstances. Section 408 is likely to pertain to 

temporary or permanent modifications to existing flood control structures from construction

of the proposed high speed rail facilities. A Section 408 approval is issued by the USACE if 

it is determined that a temporary occupation or use of the structure will not pose a public 

safety hazard. There are two levels of Section 408 approvals: minor and major. Minor 

approvals are reviewed and approved by the USACE at the District level. Major approvals 

are initially reviewed at the USACE District level, then undergo a quality assurance review 

by Major Subordinate Command prior to being forwarded to Headquarters for final approval 

by the Chief of Engineers. The type of modifications and potential impact to existing flood 

control structures determines the need for a minor versus major approval. 

3.27.4.7 Floodplain Development Permit

A permit is required before construction or development begins within any SFHA. These 

areas are defined as land covered by the floodwaters of the base or 100 year flood. If FEMA

has not defined the SFHA within a community, the community would require permits for all 

proposed construction or other development in the community, so that it may determine 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-134 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

whether such construction or other development is proposed within flood-prone areas. 

Permits are required to ensure that proposed development projects meet the requirements of 

the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and each community’s local floodplain

management ordinance. Each community reviews proposed projects to verify that all 

required permits required by federal or state law have been received. Coordination would 

take place with each state’s Department of Natural Resources and local jurisdictions, as 

appropriate, to determine specifics regarding permits for floodplain impacts. Illinois provides 

a joint permit application form that is submitted to the Illinois DNR, Illinois EPA, and 

USACE for floodplain and public waters permits. Iowa provides a joint permit application 

form which is distributed to Iowa DNR and USACE to obtain a floodplain construction 

permit, as well as other water-related permits. In Nebraska, flood management permits are 

submitted to the Nebraska DNR.

3.27.4.8 Air Pollution Control Permits

Illinois EPA issues an air pollution control permit for a stationary source that has the 

potential to emit air pollutants including NOx, SO2, PM, CO, VOM, HAP, GHG, and Pb. 

There are two types of permits in Illinois: construction permits and operating permits. Iowa 

DNR administers a construction permit that tracks potential GHG emissions. In Nebraska, 

the Air Quality division of Nebraska DEQ administers air quality permits for construction 

and operations. The Project will likely need a construction permit for batch plants20 and 

equipment that may emit air pollutants. An air quality permit for operations is not 

anticipated.

3.27.4.9 40 CFR Part 61 - NESHAP

The Illinois EPA is designated to enforce National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations for the handling of asbestos during demolition, renovation 

and disposal. If asbestos is encountered during construction or renovation, the owner or 

responsible party is required to notify Illinois EPA through a Notification of Demolition and 

Renovation Form. Both Iowa and Nebraska have a similar process where the owner or 

responsible party is required to disclose and coordinate asbestos removal with Iowa DNR or 

NDEQ, respectively.

3.27.4.10 Iowa Sovereign Lands Construction Permit

Iowa DNR administers a permit for impacts to lands or waters designated as sovereign. 

Sovereign lands are lands under the jurisdiction of the Natural Resource Commission and 

managed by the Commission for public access, such as: Meandered Sovereign Rivers, 

Meandered Sovereign Lakes, Sovereign Islands, State Forests, Wildlife Management Areas, 

State Parks, and State Preserves. Any construction on, above, or under state-owned lands 

and/or waters must secure a Sovereign Lands Construction Permit from Iowa DNR in 

advance of work. 

 

20 Batch plants are temporary areas where aggregate, asphalt or concrete mixes are created and then sent to 

the actual site of construction.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and

Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study Environmental Consequences

Tier 1 Service Level EIS 3-135 October 2012

3.27.4.11 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Formal Notice and Airspace Review

The Project may require formal notice and airspace review under 14 CFR Part 77 (Federal 

Aviation Regulation Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace). The FAA provides a 

Notice Criteria Tool on its website to determine potential conflicts with civilian and military 

airports. This tool will be utilized in Tier 2 analyses when the Project footprint is further 

defined.

3.27.5 Potential Mitigation Measures

Specific mitigation measures would be implemented as appropriate per each individual 

permit and approval. For example, Section 404 Permits may require mitigation measures for 

both temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands, streams, rivers, and other waters of the 

United States. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and 

discussed during Tier 2 analysis after design details are known, recorded in NEPA

documents as specific impacts are identified, and implemented prior to construction.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences Chicago to Council Bluffs-Omaha Regional Passenger Rail System Planning Study

October 2012 3-136 Tier 1 Service Level EIS

This page intentionally left blank