stakeholder involvement plan€¦ · stakeholder involvement plan for agency and public involvement...

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN

for Agency and Public Involvement

Grand Crossing Rail Project CREATE Project P4

Illinois Department of Transportation

and Federal Highway Administration

Version 1.3

May 22, 2012

Illinois Department of Transportation i May 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Overall CREATE Program Partnerships and Management ................................ 1-1

1.2 Project Background ............................................................................................ 1-3

1.3 Legal Requirements ........................................................................................... 1-5

1.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act .......................................................... 1-5

1.3.2 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users .......................................................................... 1-5

1.3.3 National Historic Preservation Act .......................................................... 1-6

1.3.4 Context Sensitive Solutions .................................................................... 1-6

2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 JOINT LEAD, COOPERATING, AND PARTICIPATING AGENCIES ............................ 3-1

3.1 Joint Lead Agencies ........................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Cooperating Agencies ........................................................................................ 3-1

3.3 Participating Agencies ........................................................................................ 3-2

3.3.1 Agencies Declining Invitation to Participate ............................................ 3-2

3.3.2 Agencies Not Responding to Invitation ................................................... 3-3

3.4 Section 106 Consulting Parties .......................................................................... 3-3

4.0 PROJECT WORKING GROUPS ................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Project Study Group ........................................................................................... 4-2

4.2 Core Technical Team ......................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Community Advisory Group ............................................................................... 4-2

5.0 STAKEHOLDERS .......................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Stakeholder Identification ................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Tentative Ground Rules for Stakeholder Involvement ........................................ 5-2

6.0 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ...................... 6-1

6.1 Project Development Process ............................................................................ 6-1

6.1.1 Project Initiation ...................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Purpose and Need Development ............................................................ 6-2

6.1.3 Alternatives Development ....................................................................... 6-2

6.1.4 Identification of Preferred Build Alternative ............................................. 6-3

6.1.5 Final EIS ................................................................................................. 6-3

CREATE Grand Crossing Rail Project Stakeholder Involvement Plan

Illinois Department of Transportation ii May 2012

6.1.6 Record of Decision ................................................................................. 6-3

6.2 Project Development Responsibilities, Tentative Schedule, and Stakeholder Involvement Activities ......................................................................................... 6-3

7.0 ADDITIONAL METHODS OF INVOLVEMENT .............................................................. 7-1

7.1.1 Public Outreach Meetings....................................................................... 7-1

7.1.2 Other Mechanisms for Public Involvement ............................................. 7-2

8.0 PLAN AVAILABILITY AND UPDATES ........................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Availability of the Stakeholder Involvement Plan ................................................ 8-1

8.2 Modification of the Stakeholder Involvement Plan .............................................. 8-1

9.0 RESOURCE AGENCY DISPUTE RESOLUTION .......................................................... 9-1

9.1 Informal Dispute Resolution Process ................................................................. 9-1

9.2 Formal Dispute Resolution Process ................................................................... 9-1

10.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES TO DATE ........................................................ 10-1

10.1 Meetings Held to Date ...................................................................................... 10-1

10.2 Getting the Word Out ....................................................................................... 10-1

10.3 Next Steps ........................................................................................................ 10-4

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Study Area Exhibits

Appendix B: Agency Participation

Appendix C: Stakeholders

Appendix D: Tentative Schedule

Appendix E: SIP Revision History

Appendix F: Dispute Resolution Process

Illinois Department of Transportation 1-1 May 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE) is a joint effort of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT), and the Association of American Railroads (AAR) to restructure, modernize and expand freight and passenger rail facilities and highway grade separations in the Chicago metropolitan area while reducing the environmental and social impacts on the general public. Information about the CREATE program can be obtained from http://createprogram.org.

The AAR acts on behalf of Amtrak, Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS), CSX Transportation (CSX), Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), Commuter Rail Division of the Regional Transportation Authority (Metra), BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), CN Railway Company (CN), and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CP).

The CREATE Program includes the development of four freight and passenger rail corridors in the Chicago metropolitan area to relieve congestion and reduce delays for both rail traffic and the roadway motorists that must traverse the at-grade railroad intersections. The Grand Crossing Rail Project is one component of the Passenger Corridor within the CREATE Program. The overall CREATE Program study area and the Grand Crossing Rail Project location are shown in Figure 1-1.

1.1 OVERALL CREATE PROGRAM PARTNERSHIPS AND MANAGEMENT

The overall CREATE Program involves 14 agencies in a first-of-its kind public-private partnership. Given the size and complexity of the program and the number of entities involved, a clear management structure was developed to guide operations and ensure efficient use of funds.

Given the number of partners involved, CREATE established a committee structure to manage day-to-day operations, which is shown in the adjacent figure. The committees are comprised of the agencies and railroad companies listed in the introduction above.



Figure 1-1: Grand Crossing Rail Project Location



FHWA CREATE Program Manager

The FHWA Program Manager for CREATE is responsible for the management of all Federal interests associated with the program. The manager serves as the primary local contact for the FHWA, Federal Transit Agency (FTA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), IDOT, CDOT, railroad companies, and other local agencies.

Stakeholder Committee

The Stakeholder Committee has three members: President and CEO of AAR, CDOT Commissioner, and IDOT Secretary. This committee sets policy for the overall CREATE Program and approves any changes in scope or budget.

Management Committee

The Management Committee, in coordination with the Management Working Group, reviews and approves project designs, project cost estimates, and construction assumptions. It makes decisions regarding scope, schedule, and budget based on recommendations from the Implementation Team.

Implementation Team

The Implementation Team tracks budget and construction progress and recommends project changes. Members are mainly from the Engineering/Operations divisions of their agencies.

Finance and Budget Committee

The Finance and Budget Committee reports to the Management Committee and works with the Advocacy Committee to identify sources of public funds. It monitors project cost estimates versus actual expenditures, and assists project managers with financial management issues.

Advocacy Committee

The Advocacy Committee is responsible for all CREATE communications, addressing community concerns, and advocating for CREATE. The committee monitors the federal and state legislation process and conducts public outreach. It also advocates for engineering and construction companies to hire more aggressively in the communities where projects will be constructed to benefit the local economy.

Technical Review Team

This team is comprised of one member each from the railroads, IDOT, and CDOT and reports to the Implementation Team. The team works with project managers on detailed scope, schedule, and budget issues.

1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

The CREATE Grand Crossing Rail Project study area is located in the City of Chicago. The preliminary study area as defined by the CREATE Feasibility Study is bounded by 117th Street on the south and Pershing Road on the north. Appendix A contains maps of boundaries and resources within this preliminary study area.



Figure 1-2: Potential Limits of Track Work



The purpose of the project is to provide a new, more direct route to Chicago’s Union Station for Amtrak trains coming from New Orleans, Louisiana, and Carbondale, Illinois, as well as to provide sufficient mainline capacity to accommodate additional Amtrak trains along with freight traffic. Currently, Amtrak trains from New Orleans and Carbondale take a circuitous route on the CN line that includes a backup maneuver to pull into Union Station. The existing Amtrak route into Union Station is shown on Figure 1-2.

This phase I environmental study will define the project’s purpose and need, identify a reasonable range of alternatives to address the project’s purpose and need, and evaluate the transportation, environmental, and socioeconomic issues associated with the alternatives. The project study area may be refined as alternative routes and associated improvements are developed.

Key community and agency issues and interests will be identified through early project outreach efforts with project stakeholders, community officials, various community groups, and municipalities in the study area.

1.3 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

The study process for this project will meet state and federal requirements meant to integrate environmental values and public interaction into transportation improvements. The requirements include the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the National Historic Preservation Act, and Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS).

The FHWA and IDOT, acting as joint lead agencies for the CREATE Grand Crossing Rail Project, developed this Stakeholder Involvement Plan to meet the requirements of CSS and to address the Coordination Plan requirements of 23 USC §139(g) within the context of the NEPA process.

1.3.1 National Environmental Policy Act

The FHWA and IDOT will complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Grand Crossing Rail Project in order to satisfy NEPA requirements. This environmental study will begin with an evaluation of transportation problems in the study area based on stakeholder input that will be obtained from scoping meetings and engineering analysis. This evaluation will form the basis for the project Purpose and Need and for identifying improvement alternatives. Ultimately, a preferred alternative for the study area will be identified. The NEPA process requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of their proposed actions and reasonable alternatives to these actions. NEPA also encourages early and frequent coordination with the public and resource agencies throughout the project development process.

1.3.2 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

SAFETEA-LU reauthorization established additional requirements for the environmental review process for FHWA and FTA projects. The environmental review process is defined as the project development process followed when preparing a document required under NEPA or any other applicable federal law for environmental permit, approval, review, or study required for the transportation project.



The SAFETEA-LU requirements apply to all FHWA and FTA transportation projects processed as an EIS; therefore, the Grand Crossing Rail Project is subject to these requirements. 23 USC §139(g) requires the lead agencies for these projects to develop a Coordination Plan to structure public and agency participation during the environmental review process. This Stakeholder Involvement Plan (SIP) will serve as that plan.

1.3.3 National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the public and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The Section 106 process seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of Federal undertakings through consultation among the agencies and other parties with an interest in the effects of the undertaking on historic properties, commencing at the early stages of project planning. The goal of consultation is to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects, and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties.

The Grand Crossing Rail Project is considered a Federal undertaking by FHWA. This SIP describes coordination activities that will occur during the project development process to satisfy Section 106 requirements.

1.3.4 Context Sensitive Solutions

This project is being developed using the principles of Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) per the IDOT Bureau of Design and Environment Manual. The CSS approach is based on working with stakeholders to develop, build, and maintain cost-effective transportation improvements that reflect the project’s surroundings. The CSS approach provides stakeholders with the tools and information required to effectively participate in planning for the improvements. This Stakeholder Involvement Plan outlines the tools that will be used by stakeholders to share comments about the project alternatives and improve the ability of the project team to understand and address concerns raised. The CSS process strives to achieve the following:

Understand stakeholders’ key issues and concerns.

Involve stakeholders in the decision-making process early and frequently.

Establish an understanding of the stakeholder’s role in the project.

Address all modes of transportation.

Apply flexibility in design to address stakeholder’s concerns whenever possible.


2.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of this Stakeholder Involvement Plan (SIP) is to provide an outline for implementing stakeholder involvement in this project. The SIP serves to define the methods and tools that will be used to engage and educate stakeholders in the decision making process for this project.

Stakeholder involvement plays a crucial role in confirming that the intended project addresses the community’s needs and considers its concerns. This SIP details multiple forums for the open exchange of information and ideas between the public and the transportation agencies involved.

The SIP includes proactive agency involvement aimed at resolving issues, streamlining document review and agency consultation and achieving informed consent. Involving the public in the project development process will help address community concerns and help the project proceed smoothly, and citizens are less likely to contest the study results if they are part of the decision-making process.

The goals of the SIP include:

Identify stakeholders and ensure their opportunity for meaningful input into the project’s development from beginning to end.

Identify joint lead agencies, cooperating and participating agencies, and project study group.

Identify the roles and responsibilities of the joint lead agencies.

Identify reasonable alternative solutions to solve identified problems, with stakeholder input and concurrence.

Establish the timing and type of involvement activities with all stakeholders.

Establish stakeholder requirements for providing timely input to the project development process.


3.0 JOINT LEAD, COOPERATING, AND PARTICIPATING AGENCIES

3.1 JOINT LEAD AGENCIES

Per SAFETEA-LU, FHWA and IDOT will act as the joint lead agencies for preparing the Environmental Impact Statement for the Grand Crossing Rail Project. As such, FHWA (Division Administrator) and IDOT (Secretary of Transportation) are the ultimate decision-makers for this project. Other FHWA and IDOT responsibilities are generally described in Table 3-1 in Appendix B.

FHWA will be responsible for sending invitations to Federal agencies identified as potential cooperating or participating agencies, and any non-federal agency that is identified as a potential cooperating agency. IDOT will be responsible for sending invitation letters to all state and local agencies identified as potential participating agencies.

3.2 COOPERATING AGENCIES

Per NEPA, a cooperating agency is any federal agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed project. A state or local agency of similar qualifications may by agreement with FHWA and IDOT, be a cooperating agency. Cooperating agencies are permitted, by request of the lead agency, to assume responsibility for developing information and preparing environmental analyses for topics about which they have special expertise. Furthermore, they may adopt, without re-circulating, a lead agencies’ NEPA document when, after an independent review of the document, they conclude that their comments and suggestions have been satisfied.

Agencies invited to serve as cooperating agencies for this project are listed in Table 3-2 in Appendix B. The responsibilities shown in the table are in addition to those that are typical of cooperating agencies, such as the following:

Identify as early as possible any issues of concern regarding the project’s potential environmental and socioeconomic impact.

Communicate issues of concern formally in the EIS scoping process.

Provide input and comment on the project’s purpose and need.

Provide input and comment on the procedures used to develop alternatives or analyze impacts.

Provide input on the range of alternatives to be considered.

Provide input and comment on the sufficiency of environmental impact analyses.



3.3 PARTICIPATING AGENCIES

Per SAFETEA-LU, a participating agency is any federal, state, tribal or local government agency that may have an interest in the project. By definition, all cooperating agencies will also be considered participating agencies. However, not all participating agencies will serve as cooperating agencies. Agencies serving as participating agencies are listed in Table 3-3 in Appendix B.

The responsibilities shown in the table are in addition to those for providing comments on purpose and need, study methodologies, range of alternatives, environmental impact analyses, and the preferred alternative.

It is the responsibility of participating agencies to provide timely input throughout the environmental review process. Failure of participating agencies to raise issues in a timely manner may result in these comments not receiving the same consideration as those received at the appropriate time. FHWA and IDOT will address late comments only when doing so will not substantially disrupt the process and established timelines. If a participating agency disagrees with the methodologies FHWA and IDOT propose, they must describe a preferred alternative methodology and explain why they prefer the alternative methodology.

3.3.1 Agencies Declining Invitation to Participate

Pursuant to SAFETEA-LU Section 6002, a federal agency that chooses to decline to be a participating agency must specifically state in its response that it:

Has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to the project,

Has no expertise or information relevant to the project, or

Does not intend to submit comments on the project.

Non-federal agencies must respond to the invitation in writing by hardcopy or email within the specified timeframe (no more than 30 days) in order to be recognized as a participating agency. If an agency declines to be a participating agency, its response should state the reason for declining the invitation. Non-federal agencies that do not respond to the invitation will not be considered a participating agency.

If FHWA and IDOT disagree with an invited agency declining to participate, FHWA and IDOT will attempt to resolve the disagreement through established dispute resolution procedures (see Section 9).

Agencies not initially invited to participate or that have declined an invitation to participate may become involved for several reasons listed below:

An invited agency declines to participate, but the lead agencies think the invited agency has jurisdiction or authority over the project which will affect decision making.

An agency declines invitation, but new information indicates that the agency indeed has authority, jurisdiction, special expertise, or relevant project information.

An agency declines invitation and later wants to participate, then the agency should be invited to participate, but previous decisions will not be revisited.



An agency was unintentionally left out and now wants to participate, the agency should be invited and it should be determined whether previous decisions need to be revisited.

FHWA and IDOT will determine if the new information and input warrants revisiting previous decisions. Any agency that declines to be a participating agency may still comment on a project through established public involvement opportunities.

Table 3-4 of Appendix B lists the agencies that were invited to participate in the project and declined.

3.3.2 Agencies Not Responding to Invitation

Table 3-5 of Appendix B lists the agencies invited to participate in the project that have not responded.

3.4 SECTION 106 CONSULTING PARTIES

FHWA is responsible for involving consulting parties in findings and determinations made during the Section 106 process. The Section 106 regulations identify the following parties as having a consultative role in the Section 106 process:

State Historic Preservation Officer

Indian Tribes and Native American Organizations

Representatives of local governments

Applicants for Federal assistance, permits, licenses and other approvals

Individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking

FHWA has worked with IDOT and the State Historic Preservation Office to identify potential Section 106 consulting parties, which are listed in Table 3-6 of Appendix B. Individuals or organizations may request to become a consulting party for this project by contacting Danielle E. Stewart, P.E., IDOT’s CREATE Section Chief, by e-mail ([email protected]).

Consulting parties may provide input on key decision points in the Section 106 process, including the project’s Area of Potential Effect, determinations of eligibility and finding of effect, and if applicable, consulting to avoid adverse effects to historic properties. The FHWA and IDOT will utilize IDOT’s public involvement procedures under NEPA to fulfill the Section 106 public involvement requirements.


4.0 PROJECT WORKING GROUPS IDOT will invite stakeholders to participate in project working groups to aid in the project development and decision making process. The three working groups established for this project are the Project Study Group (PSG), the Community Advisory Group (CAG), and the Core Technical Team (CTT), which will function as a subset of the PSG. The relationship of these working groups to the other groups associated with the Grand Crossing Rail Project is shown in the diagram below.

Project working group members represent a cross-section of diverse stakeholders. As such, the working groups are an important mechanism for obtaining project input. The objective of the project working groups is to provide multidisciplinary advisory input to project decisions and, ultimately, to help develop a consensus solution for the project.

Group membership may be altered during the project to allow for optimal stakeholder involvement. If recommended by stakeholders and determined necessary by the Project Study Group, additional project working groups may be formed in the future.



4.1 PROJECT STUDY GROUP

Per IDOT’s CSS procedures, IDOT has formed a Project Study Group, an interdisciplinary team that will provide review and oversight of the Grand Crossing Rail Project. The PSG will make the ultimate project recommendations to the leadership of FHWA and IDOT. This group consists of a team of representatives from FHWA, IDOT, CDOT, AAR and member railroads, and the project consultants.

The PSG has primary responsibility for guiding the project development process and will participate in monthly coordination meetings. These meetings will serve as the venue where the CREATE partners will review the CTT’s progress over the previous month and make decisions regarding the direction of the project.

The individuals listed in Table 4-1 of Appendix C will form the PSG for this project. The railroad companies have a prominent role in the PSG because they meet the requirements of a project sponsor per 23 USC §139. Along with IDOT, the railroad companies are seeking Federal approval for the project.

4.2 CORE TECHNICAL TEAM

The CTT, as subset of the PSG, is composed of key agency and consultant staff who will manage the project “in the trenches” on a day-to-day basis. The CTT will include individuals from IDOT, FHWA, and the project consultants. This group will meet frequently throughout the study process to provide technical expertise in key areas including study process, agency procedures and standards, and technical approaches.

The CTT will support the PSG by taking primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with the SIP. The CTT will also support the PSG by:

Expediting the project development process.

Identifying and resolving project development issues.

Promoting partnership with stakeholders to address identified project needs.

Working to develop consensus among stakeholders.

Providing project recommendations to the PSG and joint lead agencies.

The individuals listed in Table 4-2 of Appendix C will form the CTT for this project.

4.3 COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUP

Community Advisory Groups are often beneficial to a project, especially when they are established to focus on specific areas of concern. They generally consist of community leaders and organizations that represent the views of all of the communities and counties within and adjacent to the project study area. The responsibilities of this group include providing input to the study process, and consensus at key project milestones (e.g., project purpose and need, range of system alternatives to be advanced for detailed study, and the recommended system alternatives).



Membership of the CAG for this project is presented in Table 4-3 in Appendix C. Additional members will be added as the study progresses.

The CAG will be a working committee comprised of stakeholder members. The CAG meetings will have a workshop format designed to encourage timely and meaningful opportunities for information exchange between the CAG and the PSG. The intended result is to garner consensus from the CAG members when managing community issues, addressing design, environmental, and technical issues, as well as developing and refining proposed improvement alternatives. Details regarding the meeting program are contained in Chapter 6 and Appendix D.

Any community outside the study area that shows interest in the project, that is not a part of the CAG, will be added to the stakeholder list, ensuring they will receive newsletters, meeting invitations, and project updates. The project team will also be available to meet with any community on a one-on-one basis throughout the project.


5.0 STAKEHOLDERS Per IDOT’s CSS procedures, a stakeholder is anyone who could be affected by the project and has a stake in its outcome. This includes elected officials, property owners, business owners, special interest groups, and motorists and pedestrians traveling through the study area that may be affected by new track alignment, as well as passenger train riders affected by schedule delays due to railroad congestion.

The role of the stakeholders is to advise the Project Study Group and the joint lead agencies. A consensus from stakeholders is sought, but ultimately the project decisions remain the responsibility of the joint lead agencies. Consensus is defined as a majority of the stakeholders in agreement, with the minority agreeing that their input was duly considered.

5.1 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION

An initial list of stakeholders was identified through a combination of database searches and input from local community leaders. It is anticipated that new stakeholders will be added to the initial stakeholder list throughout the project. Stakeholders for this project may include, but not be limited to, the following:

Elected officials

Community representatives

Residents

Business owners adjacent to the study area

Churches and schools within the project limits

Advocates for community and historic interests

Special interest groups (environmental, etc.)

Government and planning agencies

Transportation system users

Chambers of commerce

Neighborhood organizations

Utilities

Civic groups

Others outside the study area with an interest in the project



The initial list of project stakeholders is included in Appendix C. Table 5-1 includes the list of federal and state elected officials, Table 5-2 includes the list of local elected officials, and Table 5-3 includes list of the remaining project stakeholders.

5.2 TENTATIVE GROUND RULES FOR STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

The stakeholder involvement program for the Grand Crossing Rail Project will be conducted based on a set of ground rules that form the basis for the respectful interaction of all parties involved in this process. These ground rules will be established tentatively with the initiation of the SIP, but must be agreed upon by the stakeholders and, therefore, may be modified based on stakeholder input.

These rules include the following:

Stakeholder input will be duly considered in order to yield the best solutions to problems identified by the process.

Participant input in the process is valued and will be considered.

All participants must keep an open mind and participate openly and honestly.

All participants should work collaboratively and cooperatively to seek a consensus solution. Consensus is defined as “when a majority of the stakeholders agree on a particular issue, while the remainder of stakeholders agrees its input has been heard and duly considered and that the process as a whole was fair.”

All participants in the process must treat each other with respect and dignity.

The project must progress at a reasonable pace, based on the project schedule.

The role of the stakeholders is to advise the Project Study Group. A consensus of stakeholder concurrence on project choices is sought, but the final project decisions will be made by IDOT and FHWA.

IDOT and FHWA decisions must be arrived at in a clear and transparent manner and stakeholders should agree their input has been duly considered.

Members of the media are welcome at all stakeholder meetings; however, they must remain in the role of observers, not participants in the process.


6.0 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE OF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

This section describes the general project development process and tentative schedule, project activities, and associated stakeholder involvement activities.

6.1 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

This project will be advanced in conformance with NEPA and associated federal and state requirements. Major steps in the process include project initiation, identification of transportation problems and needs, and development and evaluation of a range of potential improvement alternatives. Ultimately, the process will lead to the identification of a preferred build alternative that will be described in the EIS.

The following sections provide a brief overview of the project development activities.

6.1.1 Project Initiation

This stage of the project development process includes various agency notifications, project organizational activities, and EIS scoping activities. These activities include, but are not limited to, the following:

Project Initiation Letter (PIL) submitted to FHWA requesting the environmental review process be initiated.

Develop the project Notice of Intent (NOI), which notifies all interested parties of FHWA and IDOT intent to prepare an EIS.

Assemble and organize the PSG, CTT, and CAG.

Identify project cooperating and participating agencies.

Identify Section 106 consulting parties.

Identify stakeholders.

Develop and publicly circulate the SIP.

Conduct elected officials briefings to gather initial information about community issues and best methods for public engagement and outreach.

Conduct regulatory/resource agency EIS scoping activities; these activities will provide an opportunity for the agencies to review and provide input to environmental impact assessment methodologies to be utilized in the project environmental analyses.



6.1.2 Purpose and Need Development

This stage of the project consists of the identification of transportation problems in the study area. This information will be used as the basis for the development of the project Purpose and Need statement.

Activities in this stage include:

Analyze existing and future rail transportation performance; opportunities for stakeholder input will be provided to ensure that findings represent both technical analysis findings and stakeholder perspectives.

Develop Section 106 Area of Potential Effect and coordinate with Section 106 consulting parties.

Develop the project Purpose and Need statement. Opportunities for stakeholder and public review will be provided.

Outreach activities that will occur during Purpose and Need development include:

Conduct a community context audit to identify unique community characteristics that contribute to the project’s context.

Hold initial CAG meeting to solicit input on Purpose and Need and establish schedule for CAG involvement throughout the project.

Continue coordination with elected officials through briefings and other small group meetings as necessary.

Conduct initial public meeting to introduce project and gather the community’s input on project-specific and transportation issues in general.

Produce and distribute first project newsletter.

These outreach activities are described further in Chapter 7.

6.1.3 Alternatives Development

A reasonable range of alternatives will be considered to address the project Purpose and Need. The alternatives development process will be iterative in nature, providing progressively greater detail in terms of the type and location of potential improvement alternatives. Numerous opportunities will be provided for stakeholder and public input to the development and evaluation of alternatives. Steps in the development of improvement alternatives include the following:

Identify planning and design guidelines, alternative development procedures, and evaluation and refinement processes.

Develop and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives.

Identify historic properties within the project’s Area of Potential Effect and coordinate with Section 106 consulting parties.

Prepare and complete public involvement on the Draft EIS, including a public hearing.



Make Section 106 effect finding and coordinate with the Section 106 consulting parties. If applicable, work with Section 106 consulting parties to resolve adverse effect.

During this stage, the second project newsletter will be produced and distributed, and a second public meeting will be held to solicit input on the project alternatives to aid in the selection of the preferred alternative. Additional CAG meetings, elected officials meetings, and small group meetings also will be held at this time.

6.1.4 Identification of Preferred Build Alternative

If a Preferred Build Alternative is identified prior to the Draft EIS, then the Draft EIS will identify that Preferred Build Alternative.

If the Preferred Build Alternative has not been identified prior to the Draft EIS, then following circulation and public review of the Draft EIS and associated public hearing, the process will continue with the identification of the Preferred Build Alternative and completion of the Final EIS. Activities at this stage of the project development process include:

Tentatively identify the Preferred Build Alternative based on resource agency review and stakeholder input.

Refine the Preferred Build Alternative to address resource agency and stakeholder comments.

The major outreach activity during this stage will be the formal public hearing, preceded by the final CAG meeting and an elected officials briefing. A newsletter will be issued prior to the public hearing and will summarize the results of the Draft EIS and provide details on the hearing time and location.

6.1.5 Final EIS

A Final EIS will be prepared that addresses substantive comments received during the Draft EIS public comment period and identifies the Preferred Build Alternative. The Final EIS will be made available to the public and provided to all substantive commenters for a period of 30 days.

6.1.6 Record of Decision

Following the 30-day waiting period after the Final EIS is published, IDOT and FHWA will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) identifying the alternative that is selected for implementation (Selected Alternative). Substantive comments received during the 30-day waiting period will be addressed in the ROD. FHWA’s approval of the ROD completes the NEPA process.

6.2 Project Development Responsibilities, Tentative Schedule, and Stakeholder Involvement Activities

The tentative schedule for project development activities and associated stakeholder involvement is summarized in the Timeframe Agreement schedule shown as Table 6-1 in Appendix D. The tentative schedule for stakeholder, advisory group, and public information meetings is provided in Table 6-2 in Appendix D.


7.0 ADDITIONAL METHODS OF INVOLVEMENT This section summarizes the methods and venues for stakeholders to be involved in the Grand Crossing Rail Project development process. These outreach methods will be used by the project team to keep the public informed of project development and to invite valuable input from stakeholders.

7.1.1 Public Outreach Meetings

Stakeholder involvement will be an ongoing process from project initiation through completion. In addition to the Community Advisory Group meetings, various other meetings will be held throughout the project development process to provide outreach opportunities to all stakeholders. These meetings will include the following:

Community-Based Organizations Meetings

Small group meetings are useful in providing project information to the surrounding community and aiding the general public in better understanding project goals and objectives. These meetings also provide each group with the opportunity to obtain the undivided attention of the project staff so they know that their concerns have been heard. Small group meetings will be ongoing throughout the project. Attendees may include the project team, local agencies, civic and service organizations such as Rotary Clubs or Kiwanis, members of the business community, and neighborhood groups and individuals. The meetings will address specific project issues and allow for more specialized discussions and input.

Elected Officials Meetings

Briefings will be conducted with local and regional elected officials, including legislators, regarding project updates and progress. These meetings may be held at major milestones in the project or as requested.

Public Meetings

Public involvement for the project also will include opportunities for broader public meetings in the form of public information meetings, stakeholder workshops, and a public hearing. These large-scale meetings will encourage public attendance and foster public awareness of project developments and alternatives that are being evaluated. These meetings also will provide a forum for general public input, including concerns and comments regarding project alternatives. Public meetings will be held to coincide with major project milestones during the Draft EIS process.

The first meeting will serve as a project kickoff providing information regarding the study process and objectives, and an opportunity for the public to share its



perspectives regarding transportation issues and project concerns. It could also be formatted to serve as a public scoping meeting.

The second meeting will focus on sharing initial ideas, based in part on input received from the first meeting, regarding transportation system alternatives and eliciting public feedback.

The meetings will utilize various public informational techniques such as project boards, handouts, and powerpoint or multimedia presentations summarizing the project work and findings to date. The meetings will be advertised by flyers as well as public notices placed in area newspapers. Opportunities for the public to provide written (comment forms) and verbal comments (through a court reporter) will be available at the meetings.

Public Hearing

The public hearing for this project will be held in coordination with circulation of the Draft EIS as required by NEPA. The Draft EIS may identify a preferred alternative to the public at this time, if one has been identified, to demonstrate how public input shaped the recommendations and demonstrate acceptance from stakeholders throughout the corridor.

Stakeholder Workshops

Stakeholder workshops are a way to obtain stakeholder input regarding various project issues and potential system solutions. Renderings and visualizations will be developed to illustrate concepts and issues that have been raised, developed, and evaluated. The renderings and visualizations will be dependent on the topic of discussion and format of the particular workshop.

7.1.2 Other Mechanisms for Public Involvement

In addition to the meeting opportunities described in the preceding section, there will be several other methods for the public to obtain information about the project. These methods (noted below) will provide information and opportunity for feedback regarding upcoming public meeting events, project schedule, and general project status updates within the study area. The Community Advisory Group will review and provide feedback on all written and electronic outreach materials before they are distributed to the public.

At a minimum, these will include:

Media Briefings. A proactive approach to media coordination will be used to ensure that the media has current, relevant, and accurate information to share with the public. This approach includes participation in media briefings, preparation of media kits to distribute to local media outlets, preparation of press releases, and availability of project staff to support the IDOT media spokesperson in ongoing coordination with members of the media.

Mailing List. A mailing list will be developed that will include such recipients as property owners; Federal, state, and local officials; special interest groups; resource agencies; businesses; emergency responders, schools, churches, civic organizations, law enforcement, railroad organizations and members of the public. The mailing list will be developed using existing resources (names and addresses of



officials from other recent projects in the area), as well as desktop reviews and Internet searches. This list will be updated throughout the project.

Public Website: www.grandcrossingrail.com. The Grand Crossing Rail Project website consists of a homepage and various topic-specific pages. The site will be reviewed to ensure it reflects the most current and relevant project information. Project documentation and materials will be posted to the Web site, as information is available, for public review. A section will be available for posting comments; comments can also be emailed directly to [email protected].

Newsletters and Written Materials. Project newsletters will be prepared approximately quarterly to coincide with key project milestones. These newsletters will provide current project information and include announcements for upcoming public meetings and the public hearing.

Additional outreach strategies are available to augment the public involvement process and create a more sophisticated, dynamic process for engaging the full spectrum of potential stakeholders. These include:

Producing one-page briefings on key issues. For example, this may involve developing a one-page briefing describing the EIS process or workforce opportunities.

Providing mobile alerts to interested stakeholders to inform them of upcoming project activities. This may be more relevant during the construction phase, but could be established now to develop a user-base and provide information about public involvement activities.

Creating a branding strategy to help distinguish the Grand Crossing Rail Project from other CREATE initiatives and more effectively engage and target stakeholders.

These strategies will be discussed and evaluated by the CTT and PSG during the Project Initiation phase to determine the most effective tools to incorporate into the Grand Crossing Rail Project public involvement process. The final list of outreach mechanisms will be provided in subsequent versions of this Stakeholder Involvement Plan.


8.0 PLAN AVAILABILITY AND UPDATES The SIP is a dynamic document that will be available to stakeholders and updated as appropriate through the duration of the project. This section describes SIP stakeholder review opportunities and plan update procedures.

8.1 AVAILABILITY OF THE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN

The PSG will make the SIP available to stakeholders for review at Public Meetings and on the project website: www.grandcrossingrail.com. The stakeholder review period for the SIP will be 30 days from date of release. As the project proceeds forward the SIP will be updated to reflect appropriate changes or additions. SIP updates will be posted on the project website.

8.2 MODIFICATION OF THE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN

The plan will be reviewed regularly for continued effectiveness and updated as appropriate. Plan administration includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Maintaining a current list of project stakeholders.

Maintaining a detailed public involvement record (log) that includes records of all stakeholder contacts, meetings, and comments.

Ensuring two-way communication and timely responses to stakeholders through formal and informal channels.

Revisions to this SIP may be necessary through the duration of the project. The PSG will provide updated versions of the SIP to all agencies involved, as necessary. Cooperating and participating agencies should notify FHWA and IDOT of staffing and contact information changes in a timely manner.

The record of SIP revisions is provided in Table 8-1 in Appendix E.


9.0 RESOURCE AGENCY DISPUTE RESOLUTION This section describes the overall project dispute resolution process that will be used by FHWA and IDOT as part of the Stakeholder Involvement Plan.

FHWA and IDOT are committed to building stakeholder consensus for project decisions. However, if an impasse has been reached after making good-faith efforts to address unresolved concerns, FHWA and IDOT may proceed to the next stage of project development without achieving consensus. FHWA and IDOT will notify agencies of their decision and a proposed course of action. FHWA and IDOT may propose using an informal or a formal dispute resolution process as described below.

9.1 INFORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS

In the case of an unresolved dispute between the agencies, FHWA and IDOT will notify agencies of their decision and proposed course of action.

9.2 FORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS

The 23 USC §139(h) established a formal dispute resolution procedure for the environmental review process. This process is only intended for use on a dispute that may delay a project or result in the denial of a required approval or permit for a project. Only the project sponsors (IDOT and the railroad companies) or the Illinois State Governor may initiate this formal process; they are encouraged to exhaust all other measures to achieve resolution prior to initiating this process.

Appendix F contains a copy of a diagram illustrating the formal dispute resolution process included in the FHWA/FTA SAFETEA-LU Environmental Review Process Final Guidance (November 2006).


10.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES TO DATE This section summarizes public involvement activities as of April 2012.

10.1 MEETINGS HELD TO DATE

Elected officials briefings

Community Advisory Group meetings:

November 15 and 18, 2011 – focused on Problem Statement/Purpose and Need

March 13 and 14, 2012 – focused on Range of Alternatives

Public Meetings:

December 12 and 13, 2011 – focused on Purpose and Need

March 26 and 28, 2012 – focused on Range of Alternatives

Other community outreach meetings:

January 19, 2012 – Project Team invited by New Life Covenant to discuss the potential effects of the project on their church expansion plans (7757 S. Greenwood Avenue, Chicago)

January 24, 2012 – Project Team invited by State Representative Marlow Colvin and Alderman Michelle Harris to a community meeting at Avalon Park (1215 E. 83rd Street, Chicago)

April 26, 2012 – Amtrak invited by a Community Advisory Group member to discuss the project at a community meeting at Mt. Nebo Church (354 W. 71st Street, Chicago)

May 14, 2012 – Project Team invited by a Community Advisory Group member to discuss the project at a community meeting at Mt. Nebo Church

10.2 GETTING THE WORD OUT

A variety of methods have been used to notify the public about the project and solicit their participation and input. In addition to counting on our Community Advisory Group members to talk with their neighbors and constituents about the project, the Project Team maintains a project website and actively responds to comments and questions received via the website, phone, direct email, or mail.

Both rounds of public meetings were broadly publicized through the following media:



Invitation Letters to Community Advisory Group members, local elected officials, and city agencies owning property within the study area.

Postcards mailed to every property that could be potentially affected by property acquisition and distributed at community meeting places such as:

Offices of Aldermen, State Senators, and State Representatives

Chicago Police Department 2nd, 3rd, and 7th district offices

Chicago Public Library – Kelly and Grand Crossing branches

Sherwood Park Field House

Grand Crossing Park Field House

Teamwork Englewood

Kennedy King College

Gary Comer Youth Center

Chicago Embassy Church

Advertisements in local and regional newspapers such as the Chicago Sun-Times, The Defender, and Chicago Crusader.

Website postings on the project website (www.grandcrossingrail.com) and the “Englewood Portal” website.

Through our Community Advisory Group members and elected officials, who are helping the Project Team understand many of the project-related issues and concerns important to their neighbors and constituents.

To address comments received from several individuals that the community was not adequately notified of the December 2011 public meetings, the Project Team implemented several additional strategies for the March 2012 public meetings to ensure community residents are aware of the project and improve turnout at the public meetings:

Broadened postcard distribution based on suggestions from Community Advisory Group members and coordinated better with distribution venues to make sure postcards were openly displayed and readily available. Also increased the number of postcards at each distribution point. Postcard distribution locations and quantities are shown below in Table 10-1.

Distributed door hangers (which contained the same information as the postcards) throughout the project area to target residents who may not have received a notice in the mail, focusing on areas with the greatest potential for impacts. Door hanger distribution was handled by Diverse City, a local firm located at 11351 S. May Street, Chicago. Approximately 2,000 door hangers where distributed.

Included notices in online community bulletins/websites such as Englewood Portal, R.A.G.E., and EveryBlock Chicago.

Sent email blasts on March 16 and March 22 to all individuals on our emailing list.



TABLE 10-1: POSTCARD DISTRIBUTION VENUES AND QUANTITIES

Venue Address Quantity

Chicago Police Department (CPD) – 3rd District 7040 S. Cottage Grove Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 50

CPD – 2nd District 5101 S. Wentworth Avenue Chicago, IL 60609 50

CPD – 7th District 1438 W. 63rd Street Chicago, IL 60636 50

Chicago Public Library – Kelly Branch 6151 S. Normal Boulevard Chicago, IL 60621 50

Chicago Public Library – Grand Crossing Branch 1000 E. 73rd Street Chicago, IL 60619 50

Chicago Park District – Sherwood Park 5701 S. Shields Avenue Chicago, IL 60621 50

Chicago Park District – Grand Crossing Park 655 S. Ingleside Avenue Chicago, IL 60619 50

Kennedy King College 6301 S. Halsted Street Chicago, IL 60621 50

Fuller Park Community Development Corporation/Eden Place 4417 S. Stewart Avenue Chicago, IL 60609 50

Imagine Englewood If 730 W. 69th Street Chicago, IL 60621 50

Sherwood Peace Association 5848 S. Princeton Avenue Chicago, IL 60621 50

Teamwork Englewood 815 W. 63rd Street Chicago, IL 60621 50

YMCA - Englewood Satellite Office 64 W. 63rd. Street Chicago, IL 60621 50

Antioch MB Church 6248 S. Stewart Avenue Chicago, IL 60621 50

Chicago Embassy Church 5848 S. Princeton Avenue Chicago, IL 60621 50

Englewood Mennonite Church 832 W. 68th Street Chicago, IL 60621 50

House of Israel Temple of Faith 7130 S. Chicago Avenue Chicago, IL 60619 50

Ingleside-Whitfield United Methodist Church 929 E. 76th Street Chicago, IL 60619 50

New Covenant Missionary Baptist Church 740 E. 77th Street Chicago, IL 60619 50

New Life Covenant 5517 S. Michigan Chicago, IL 60615 50

St. Colombanus Parish 331 E. 71st Street Chicago, IL 60619 50

Office of State Senator Mattie Hunter 2929 S. Wabash Avenue Chicago, IL 60616 50

Office of State Senator Donne Trotter 8704 S. Constance Avenue Chicago, IL 60617 50

Office of State Representative Kenneth Dunkin 1543 N. Wells Street Chicago, IL 60610 100

Office of State Representative Esther Golar 4926 S. Ashland Avenue Chicago, IL 60609 50

Office of State Representative Constance Howard 8729 S. State Street Chicago, IL 60619 50

Office of Alderman Willie Cochran 6357 S. Cottage Grove Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 50

Office of Alderman Pat Dowell 5046 S. State Street Chicago, IL 60609 50

Office of Alderman Leslie Hairston 2325 E. 71st Street Chicago, IL 60649 50

Office of Alderman Michelle Harris 8539 S. Cottage Grove Avenue Chicago, IL 60619 50

TOTAL: 1,550



10.3 NEXT STEPS

To ensure that all community members have adequate opportunity to provide their input on the information and materials presented at the December 2011 public meetings, a Community Meeting will be held on May 17, 2012 at New Beginnings Church (6620 S. King Drive, Chicago) to solicit additional input on the project’s Purpose and Need Statement. The Community Meeting will follow the same format of and present the same materials from the December 2011 public meetings.

Other upcoming public involvement activities include the next round of Community Advisory Group meetings in Summer 2012, as well as public hearings on the Draft EIS in early 2013.

Illinois Department of Transportation May 2012

APPENDICES

Illinois Department of Transportation A-1 May 2012

APPENDIX A: STUDY AREA EXHIBITS



Figure A-1a: Neighborhood Resources



Figure A-1b: Neighborhood Resources



Figure A-2a: Political Boundaries



Figure A-2b: Political Boundaries



Figure A-3: Existing Amtrak Routes

Illinois Department of Transportation B-1 May 2012

APPENDIX B: AGENCY PARTICIPATION

TABLE 3-1: LEAD AGENCIES

Agency Role Other Roles Responsibilities

Federal Highway Administration Lead Federal Agency NEPA, PSG

Manage environmental review process Prepare EIS Provide opportunity for public &

participating / cooperating agency involvement

Illinois Department of Transportation Joint Lead Agency NEPA, PSG

Manage environmental review process Prepare EIS Provide opportunity for public &

participating / cooperating agency involvement

Collect and prepare transportation and environmental data

Manage CSS process PSG – Project Study Group

TABLE 3-2: COOPERATING AGENCIES

Agency Other Roles Responsibilities

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District

Section 404 permit jurisdiction; environmental reviews; wetlands

Provide comments on purpose and need, methodologies, range of alternatives, and preferred alternative

Federal Railroad Administration Provide input for passenger and rail transit orientation

solutions

Federal Transit Administration Provide input for passenger and rail transit orientation

solutions

TABLE 3-3: PARTICIPATING AGENCIES


Chicago Public Schools CAG Provide comments related to public school facilities



TABLE 3-3: PARTICIPATING AGENCIES


Illinois Department of Natural Resources

Provide comments on natural areas and nature preserves; wetlands; threatened and endangered species

Provide input to USACE on Section 404 jurisdiction

Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma Section 106 consulting party

Provide input on Native American interests Provide coordination and review of the Section

106 process CAG – Community Advisory Group

TABLE 3-4: AGENCIES DECLINING COOPERATING/PARTICIPATING STATUS

Agency Comments

Name Declined participation as ____ Agency.




TABLE 3-5: AGENCIES NOT RESPONDING TO PROJECT COOPERATION/PARTICIPATION

Agency Comments

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Letter sent 6/1/2011; no response

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Letter sent 6/1/2011; no response

Cook County Letter sent 6/2/2011; no response

Chicago Park District Letter sent 6/2/2011; no response

Chicago Transit Authority Bus Service Letter sent 6/2/2011; no response

Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Letter sent 6/2/2011; no response

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Letter sent 6/2/2011; no response

Citizen Potawatomi Nation Letter sent 6/22/2011; no response

Ho-Chunk Nation Letter sent 6/22/2011; no response

Hannahville Indian Community Letter sent 6/22/2011; no response

Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation Letter sent 6/22/2011; no response

Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri Letter sent 6/22/2011; no response

Forest County Potawatomi Letter sent 6/22/2011; no response

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Letter sent 6/22/2011; no response

Sac and Fox Tribe of Mississippi in Iowa Letter sent 6/22/2011; no response

Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma Letter sent 6/22/2011; no response



TABLE 3-6: SECTION 106 CONSULTING PARTIES


Illinois State Historic Preservation Office

Participating agency

Provide coordination and review of the Section 106 process Provide input on historic and archeological resources

Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

Participating agency

Provide input on Native American interests Provide coordination and review of the Section 106 process

Illinois Department of Transportation C-1 May 2012

APPENDIX C: STAKEHOLDERS

TABLE 4-1: PROJECT STUDY GROUP

Agency Contact/Title Phone Email and Mailing Address

IDOT Danielle Stewart / CREATE Section Chief, Bureau of Railroads

847.705.4233 [email protected]

IDOT Bureau of Railroads 201 West Center Court Schaumburg, IL 60196

IDOT Walter Zyznieuski / Bureau of Design and Environment


IDOT Bureau of Design & Environment Environmental Unit 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62764

FHWA Bernardo Bustamante / CREATE Program Manager


FHWA Chicago Urban Satellite Office 200 W Adams Street, Suite 330 Chicago, IL 60606

FHWA-IL JD Stevenson / Planning, Environment and ROW Team Leader


FHWA 3250 Executive Park Drive Springfield, IL 62703

Chicago Department of Transportation

Jeffrey Sriver /

CREATE Program Manager


Chicago Department of Transportation 30 N. LaSalle Room 500 Chicago, IL 60602

AAR Bill Thompson / CREATE Railroad Program Manager


Association of American Railroads 1501 S. Canal Street Chicago, IL 60607-5204

Norfolk Southern & CTCO

Cabell Brockman / Superintendent Chicago Transportation Coordination Office (NS)


Norfolk Southern / Chicago Transportation Coordination Office 1501 S. Canal St. Chicago, Illinois 60607-5204



TABLE 4-1: PROJECT STUDY GROUP


Metra & CTCO Dave Rodriguez / Director of System Operations (METRA)

[email protected]

Metra 151 N. Michigan Ave., Prudential Plaza - Lower Level Chicago, IL 60601

Chicago Transportation Coordination Office 1501 S. Canal St. Chicago, Illinois 60607-5204

CN & CTCO

Chad Becker / Superintendent Chicago Transportation Coordination Office (CN)

312.542.8351

[email protected] CN / Chicago Transportation Coordination Office 1501 S. Canal St. Chicago, Illinois 60607-5204

Amtrak Walter Lander / Principal Officer, Corridor Planning

312.544.5298

[email protected] National Railroad Passenger Corporation - Amtrak Policy and Development, Central 500 W. Jackson Blvd Chicago, IL 60661

Parsons Tony Pakeltis / Project Manager

312.930.5268 [email protected] 10 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60606

Parsons Steve Martin / Rail Engineering Lead

312.930.5156 [email protected] 10 S. Riverside Plaza, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60606

TABLE 4-2: CORE TECHNICAL TEAM


IDOT Danielle Stewart / CREATE Section Chief, Bureau of Railroads


IDOT Bureau of Railroads 201 West Center Court Schaumburg, IL 60196

IDOT Walter Zyznieuski / Bureau of Design and Environment


IDOT Bureau of Design & Environment Environmental Unit 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62764



TABLE 4-2: CORE TECHNICAL TEAM


IDOT Jakita Trotter / CREATE Public Outreach Administrator


IDOT Office of Communications 100 W. Randolph Suite 6-600 Chicago, IL 60601

FHWA Bernardo Bustamante / Engineering Project Manager, CREATE


FHWA Chicago Metro Office 200 W Adams Street, Suite 330 Chicago, IL 60606

FHWA-IL JD Stevenson / Planning, Environment and ROW Team Leader


FHWA 3250 Executive Park Drive Springfield, IL 62703

HNTB Ron Deverman / Principal Environmental Planning Manager

312.798.0221 [email protected] HNTB 111 N. Canal Street, Suite 1250 Chicago, IL 60606

HNTB Adin McCann / Project Manager

312.798.0301 [email protected] HNTB 111 N. Canal Street, Suite 1250 Chicago, IL 60606


312. 930.5268 [email protected]

Parsons Craig Moore 312.930.5224 [email protected]

Parsons Elizabeth Federico 212.266.8393 [email protected]



TABLE 4-3: COMMUNITY ADVISORY GROUP


IDOT Danielle E. Stewart / CREATE Section Chief, Bureau of Railroads


IDOT Jakita Trotter / CREATE Public Outreach Administrator



312. 930.5268 [email protected]

Parsons Craig Moore / Engineering Lead


Parsons Elizabeth Federico / Environmental Lead


Note: Members of the Community Advisory Group will be assembled from the list of community representatives on the Stakeholder list (Table 5-3). Those currently listed in Table 4-3 will serve as contacts for the CAG. The full list of CAG members will be updated as the project progresses.

TABLE 5-1: FEDERAL AND STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS

Stakeholder Representing Phone Email and Mailing Address

U.S. Senator Richard J. Durbin

Illinois

202.224.2152

312.353.4952

Washington Office: 711 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510

District Office: 230 South Dearborn St. Suite 3892 Chicago, IL 60604

U.S. Senator Mark Kirk

Illinois

202.224.2854

312.886.3506

Washington Office: 387 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510

District Office: 230 South Dearborn St. Suite 3900 Chicago, IL 60604

U.S. Representative Bobby Rush

1st Congressional District

202.225.4372

773.224.6500

Washington Office: 2268 Rayburn Office Building Washington, DC 20515

District Office: 700 E. 79th. St. Chicago, IL 60619





U.S. Representative Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.

2nd Congressional District

202.225.0773

773.734.9660

Washington Office: 2419 Rayburn House Office Building Washington DC 20515

District Office: 7121 S. Yates Blvd. Chicago, IL 60649

U.S. Representative Dan Lipinski

3rd Congressional District

202.225.5701

312.886.0481

Washington Office: 1717 Longworth House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

District Office: 6245 South Archer Ave. Chicago, IL 60638

U.S. Representative Danny K. Davis

7th Congressional District

202.225.5006

773.533.7520

Washington Office: 2159 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

District Office: 2746 W. Madison Street Chicago, IL 60612

State Senator Mattie Hunter 3rd Senate District 312. 949.1908

[email protected] 2929 S. Wabash Avenue Suite 102 Chicago, IL 60616

State Senator Kwame Raoul 13th Senate District 773.363.1996

[email protected] 1509 E. 53rd Street 2nd Floor Chicago, IL 60615

State Senator Emil Jones 14th Senate District 773. 995.7748 507 West 111th Street

Chicago, IL 60628

State Senator James T. Meeks 15th Senate District 708. 862.1515 2050 E. 159th Street

Calumet City, IL 60409

State Senator Jacqueline Y. Collins 16th Senate District 773.224.2830

[email protected] 1155 W. 79th St. Chicago, IL 60620

State Senator Donne E. Trotter 17th Senate District 773.933.7715

[email protected] 8704 S. Constance, Ste. 324 Chicago, IL 60617

State Representative Kenneth Dunkin

IL 5th State Representative District 312. 266.0340

[email protected] 1543 North Wells St. Chicago, IL 60610

State Representative Esther Golar

IL 6th State Representative District 773.925.6580

[email protected] 4926 South Ashland Chicago, IL 60609

State Representative Kimberly DuBuclet


[email protected] 276-S Stratton Office Building Springfield, IL 62706





State Representative Robert Rita

IL 28th State Representative District 708. 396.2822

[email protected] 2355 West York St, Suite 1 Blue Island, IL 60406

State Representative Thaddeus Jones


[email protected] 1910 Sibley Boulevard Calumet City, IL 60409

State Representative Andre M. Thapedi

IL 32nd State Representative District 773.873.4444

[email protected] 371 E. 75th St. Chicago, IL 60619

State Representative Marcus C. Evans, Jr.

IL 33rd State Representative District 773.783.8492

[email protected] 8539 South Cottage Grove Chicago, IL 60619

State Representative Constance A. Howard


[email protected] 8729 S. State St. Chicago, IL 60619

TABLE 5-2: LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS


Pat Dowell Alderman – 3rd Ward 773.373.9273 [email protected] 5046 S. State St. Chicago, IL 60609

Leslie A. Hairston Alderman – 5th Ward 773.324.5555 [email protected] 2325 E. 71st Street Chicago, IL 60649

Roderick T. Sawyer Alderman – 6th Ward [email protected] 463 & 1/2 E. 83rd St. Chicago, IL 60619

Michelle A. Harris Alderman – 8th Ward 773.874.3300 [email protected] 8539 S. Cottage Grove Ave. Chicago, IL 60619

Anthony A. Beale Alderman – 9th Ward 773.785.1100 [email protected] 34 East 112th Place Chicago, IL 60628

James A. Balcer Alderman – 11th Ward 773.254.6677 [email protected] 3659 S. Halsted St. Chicago, IL 60609

Willie Cochran Alderman – 20th Ward 773.955.5610 [email protected] 6357 S. Cottage Grove Chicago, IL 60637



TABLE 5-3: STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder Representing Type

Ms. Priscilla Alexander Sherwood Park Parks/Rec Centers

Mr. Gerald Anderson African American Contractors Association Economic Development

Ms. Janice Avery Residents

Mr. Hal Baskin P.E.A.C.E Organization Community Development

Mr. Marcel Bright 3rd Ward Elected Official Representative

Mr. Gregg Brown Southside Federal Credit Union Residents

Mr. Michael Brown Fuller Park Parks/Rec Centers

Ms. B. Elaine Bryant Englewood Mennonite Church Religious Institutions

Ms. Cora Butler Residents

Principal Alice Buzanis Jesse Sherwood Elementary School Residents

Ms. Jean Clark Residents

Principal Joyce Cooper Emil G. Hirsch Metropolitan High School Educational Institutions

Principal Sharon Ann Dale Arthur Dixon Elementary School Educational Institutions

Mr. Arness Dancy Englewood Black Chamber of Commerce Chambers of Commerce/ Business Orgs

Ms. Naomi Davis Blacks in Green Community Development

Reverend Gerald Dew Antioch MB Church Religious Institutions

Ms. Connie Dire Bishop Shepard Little Community Center Residents

Ms. Mary Ellen Drake Chatham Avalon Park Community Council Neighborhood Groups

Mr. Demond Drummer Teamwork Englewood Community Development

Principal Michael Durr John Hope College Preparatory High School Educational Institutions

Ms. CeCe Edwards Park Manor Neighbors; Grand Crossing Park Advisory Council

Neighborhood Groups; Parks/Rec Centers

Mr. John Ellis Residents

Pastor Jacqueline Ford Ingleside-Whitfield United Methodist Church Religious Institutions

Elder Kevin Ford Project Pride/ St. Paul Church of God in Christ Development Ministries, Inc. (SPCDM)

Residents/Religious Institutions

Ms. Mildred Gipson Residents

Ms. Teresa Gonzalez Resident Association of Greater Englewood (R.A.G.E.) Economic Development





Principal Beverly Greene James Madison Elementary School Educational Institutions

Ms. Donna Hampton-Smith Office of State Representative Kenneth Dunkin Elected Official Representative

Pastor John Hannah New Life Covenant Religious Institutions

Mr. Yusuf Hasan Linblom Park Residents

Reverend John Hatchett Coalition for United Community Labor Force Economic Development

Principal Shontae Higginbottom Avalon Park Elementary School Educational Institutions

Ms. Jean Carter Hill Imagine Englewood If Community Development

Director Julia Hill Chicago International Charter - Avalon/South Shore Educational Institutions

Mr. Holden Hodges House of Israel Temple of Faith Religious Institutions

Rabbi James Hodges House of Israel Temple of Faith Religious Institutions

Mr. Rob Hodges House of Israel Temple of Faith Religious Institutions

Ms. Estella Holloway Residents

Ms. Barbara Holt 20th Ward Elected Official Representative

Mr. Michael Howard Fuller Park Community Development Corporation/ Eden Place Residents

Mr. Roger Huff 5th Ward Organization Residents

Mr. Donald Jaburek Residents

Ms. Lenore Jackson Residents

Ms. Beatrice Jasper Residents

Mr. Brandon Johnson Washington Park Consortium Residents

Mr. Bernard Johnson Residents

Mr. Charles Johnson New Life Covenant Religious Institutions

Ms. Loretta Johnson Residents

Captain Robert Johnson Chicago Police Department, 9th District Police & Fire

Ms. Doris Jones Teamwork Englewood Community Development

Mr. George Jones Coalition for United Community Labor Force Economic Development

Ms. Juanita Jones Princeton Community Organization Residents





Mr. Prentiss Jones Residents

Mr. Barry Kelley B.F. Paxton Community Development Corp. Community Development

Ms. Crystal King-Smith Residents

Ms. Clara Kirk West Englewood United Organization Neighborhood Groups

Mr. Michael P. Knotek St. Colombanus Parish Religious Institutions

Chief Sylvester Knox Chicago Fire Department - Engine 84 Police & Fire

Principal Peggy Korellis-Byrd

TEAM Englewood Community Academy High School Educational Institutions

Director Dennis Lacewell Urban Prep Academy for Young Men Charter Educational Institutions

Mr. Carl Latimer Coalition for United Community Action Residents

Mr. Cliford Lindsey Residents

Principal Shannon Mason Betty Shabazz International Charter Educational Institutions

Mr. Charles O’Conner Chicago Police Department, 7th District Police & Fire

Ms. Deborah Payne Southwest Federation Block Clubs of Greater Englewood Neighborhood Groups

Pastor Willard Payton Pastors of Englewood Community Development

Bishop Edward Peecher Chicago Embassy Church Religious Institutions

Principal Tiffany Phinn Walter Reed Elementary School Educational Institutions

Mr. Brad Redrick Grand Crossing Neighborhood Network Neighborhood Groups

Officer Teresa Reed Chicago Police Department, 3rd District Police & Fire

Ms. Alice Rivers Resident

Commander Leo Schmitz Chicago Police Department, 7th District Police & Fire

Ms. Brenda Scott Residents

Mr. Omar Shareef African American Contractors Association Economic Development

Mr. Edward Shultz Eastwood Gardens Apartment Residents

Ms. Joy Sigur-Ramza Residents

Principal Kenndell Smith Henry O. Tanner Elementary School Educational Institutions

Mr. Solomon Smith Meyering Park Advisory Council Parks/Rec Centers





Ms. Alicia Spears Business and Economic Revitalization Association Economic Development

Ms. Earnestine Sykes Residents

Principal Garland Thomas Noble Street Charter School (Johnson College Prep) Educational Institutions

Mr. J.P. Thomas 6th Ward Elected Official Representative

Mr. Phillip Thomas ETA Creative Arts Foundation Cultural Centers

Principal Veronica Thompson Paul Revere Elementary School Educational Institutions

Pastor Stephen John Thurston New Covenant Missionary Baptist Church Religious Institutions

Ms. Michelle Times Residents

Ms. Valerie Toliver 71st Street Drexel Block Club Neighborhood Groups

Ms. Darlene Tribue Park Manor Neighbors Community Council Neighborhood Groups

Principal James Troupis Gary G. Comer College Prep Educational Institutions

Mr. John Ukpong Will Feed Community Organization Neighborhood Groups

Mr. Eli Washington The Chesterfield Community Council Neighborhood Groups

Ms. Dorothy Watts Meyering Park Advisory Council Parks/Rec Centers

Mr. Eric White Residents

Ms. Barbara Williams 8th Ward Elected Official Representative

Mr. Henry P. Wilson New Englewood Village Collaborative Neighborhood Groups

Mr. Jose Wilson Residents

Mr. Calvon Witchard Residents

Chicago Fire Department - Engine 72 Police & Fire

Hoard Park/Wood Hall Park Parks/Rec Centers

Parkway Community House - Hull House Community Development

Illinois Department of Transportation D-1 May 2012

APPENDIX D: TENTATIVE SCHEDULE TABLE 6-1: TIMEFRAMES AGREEMENT

Goal Actual

Activity # Activity Description

No. of Days to

Complete Activity

Completion Date

No. of Days to

Complete Activity

Completion Date Remarks

1 BoR sends FHWA Project Initiation letter N/A N/A N/A N/A

2 CSS Project Study Group (PSG) formed N/A N/A N/A N/A

3 FHWA and IDOT develop and agree to Timeframe 02/01/11 N/A 2/1/2011

4

BoR develops draft Stakeholder Involvement Plan (SIP) and sends it to FHWA and BDE for review and comment (repeat as necessary)

15 02/16/11 N/A 2/1/2011 Revised Dec 2011; revised April 2012

5

FHWA, BDE, PSG, and Advocacy Committee review and send comments on draft SIP to BoR (repeat as necessary)

14 3/2/2011 N/A 2/1/2011

6 FHWA publishes Notice of Intent in Federal Register 5 4/6/2011 5 3/28/2011 (Start of timeframe

goal)

7

FHWA and IDOT prepare and send participating and cooperating agencies invitation letters and draft SIP (revisit as needed)

7 4/13/2011 65 6/1/2011

8 NEPA/404 project introduction/scoping meeting N/A 6/6/2011 N/A 6/27/2011

9

BoR conducts stakeholder involvement on Context Audit, Problem Statement, and Purpose and Need, and to present SIP to stakeholders

50 11/14/2011 54 11/18/2011

10 Initial Public Meeting - obtain public input on draft Purpose and Need

N/A 12/13/2011 25 12/13/2011

FHWA/IDOT to provide input on draft Purpose and Need prior to public meetings. Two-week comment period after meeting.



Goal Actual


No. of Days to

Complete Activity

Completion Date

No. of Days to

Complete Activity


11

BoR prepares and submits preliminary Purpose and Need packet to FHWA and BDE for review (repeat as needed)

30 1/12/2012 69 2/20/2012

12

FHWA and BDE review and issue comments on preliminary Purpose and Need packet to BoR (repeat as needed)

28 2/9/2012

13

Presentation of project at NEPA/404 Merger meeting (Purpose and Need to be discussed)

N/A 2/2012 N/A 1/13/2012 Initial range of alternatives was also discussed.

14

BoR conducts stakeholder involvement to receive input on range of alternatives and how we will perform the screening analysis

35 2/16/2012 23 3/14/2012

15 Second Public Meeting - obtain public input on alternatives 25 3/12/2012 14 3/28/2012

FHWA/IDOT to provide input on draft range of alternatives prior to public meetings. Two-week comment period after meeting.

16

BoR prepares and submits range of alternatives packet to FHWA and BDE for review (repeat as needed)

30 4/11/2012

17

FHWA and BDE review and issue comments on range of alternatives packet to BoR (repeat as needed)

28 5/9/2012

18

Project Update at NEPA/404 meeting (Alternatives to be Carried Forward to be discussed)

N/A 6/2012

19

BoR conducts stakeholder involvement to achieve consensus on Preferred Alternative

25 6/3/2012

Additional stakeholder involvement will occur between the Preferred Alternative meetings and the Public Hearing.

20

BoR prepares and submits preliminary Preferred Alternative packet to FHWA and BDE for review (repeat as needed)

30 7/3/2012

21

FHWA and BDE review and issue comments on preliminary Preferred Alternative packet to BoR (repeat as needed)

28 7/31/2012



Goal Actual


No. of Days to

Complete Activity

Completion Date

No. of Days to

Complete Activity


22

BoR prepares and sends Preliminary Draft EIS to BDE and FHWA (IL Division) for review (repeat as necessary)

90 8/7/2012

23 BDE and FHWA review and issue comments on Preliminary Draft EIS (repeat as necessary)

56 10/2/2012

24 Project Briefing at NEPA/404 meeting (Preferred Alternative to be discussed)

N/A 9/2012

25

BoR prepares revised Preliminary Draft EIS for BDE to send to IDOT Chief Counsel (repeat step as necessary)

29 10/31/2012

26

BoR prepares and sends revised Preliminary Draft EIS to FHWA IL Division and BDE (repeat step as necessary)

29 11/29/2012

27

BoR prepares and sends revised Preliminary Draft EIS to Cooperating Agencies (if requested) for review

29 11/29/2012

28 BDE, FHWA, and Cooperating Agencies provide comments on revised Preliminary DEIS

28 12/27/2012

29 BoR sends FHWA and BDE signature-ready Draft EIS 28 1/24/2013

30 FHWA and BoR sign Draft EIS 9 1/18/2013

31 BoR sends Notice of Availability to FHWA N/A 2/6/2013

FHWA sends to EPA on the Wednesday of the week prior to publication

32 IDOT distributes Draft EIS 7 2/9/2013

33

FHWA publishes Notice of Availability in Federal Register and begins Public Comment period

7 2/15/2013

34 IDOT holds Public Hearing on Draft EIS 18 3/5/2013

DEIS must be available a minimum of 15 days prior to the public hearing

35 Comment period ends 45 4/1/2013 Comment period ends 45 days after NOA



Goal Actual


No. of Days to

Complete Activity

Completion Date

No. of Days to

Complete Activity


36 Review and respond to comments 25 4/26/2013

37 Prepare and send Preliminary Final EIS to BoR and BDE for review (repeat as necessary)

25 5/21/2013

38 BoR and BDE review and comment on the Final EIS (repeat as necessary)

43 7/3/2013

39

Prepare and send the revised Final EIS to FHWA, BoR, and BDE for review (repeat step as necessary)

16 7/19/2013

40

FHWA, BoR, and BDE review and issue comments on the draft Final EIS to BoR (repeat step as necessary)

28 8/16/2013

41 BoR prepares and sends FHWA and BDE signature-ready Final EIS

14 8/30/2013

42 FHWA coordinates with FHWA Legal Counsel to complete legal sufficiency review

28 9/27/2013

43 Receive FHWA legal sufficiency finding 31 10/28/2013

Assume 30-day review for FHWA legal counsel

44 Signature-ready Final EIS sent to FHWA/BoR/BDE 7 11/4/2013

45 FHWA and BoR sign signature-ready Final EIS 7 11/11/2013

46 BoR sends Notice of Availability to FHWA N/A 11/13/2013

FHWA sends to EPA on the Wednesday of the week prior to publication

47 IDOT distributes Final EIS 7 11/18/2013

48 FHWA publishes Notice of Availability in the Federal Register

7 11/22/2013

49 Final EIS waiting period ends 30 12/22/2013

Time between NOA and end of FEIS waiting period is no less than 30 days

50 Draft ROD and Statute of Limitations notice is prepared and sent to BoR/FHWA/BDE

21 12/13/2013

51 Review of draft ROD 29 1/11/2014

52 Revisions to Draft ROD 7 1/18/2014



Goal Actual


No. of Days to

Complete Activity

Completion Date

No. of Days to

Complete Activity


53 FHWA signs ROD 14 2/1/2014

54 FHWA publishes Statute of Limitations notice in the Federal Register

10 2/12/2014



TABLE 6-2: TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE

Stakeholder / CAG Meetings Date Topic Objective

First Round – Stakeholder Briefings

June-July 2011

Present project information, CSS process, and address any outstanding issues. Seek volunteers for CAGs.

Brief elected officials.

First Round – Community Advisory Group Meeting (CAG)

November 15 and November 18, 2011

Present problem statement and CSS process, determine key issues, discuss purpose and need.

Garner consensus on SIP and ground rules, conduct Community Context Audit, obtain input on purpose and need.

First Public Information Meeting (Open House)

December 2011

Present project information and CSS process. Seek additional volunteers for CAGs.

Generate interest, educate and inform the public, obtain input on project purpose and need, garner project support.

Second Round – Stakeholder Briefings

Project update and address key issues.

Brief elected officials and conduct community-based organization meetings as necessary. Garner consensus from all groups on identified issues.

Second Round – Community Advisory Group Meeting (CAG)

March 2012 Review project context through engineering and environmental criteria, further define purpose and need, identify fatal flaws, present potential alternatives.

Development of problem statement. Consensus on draft purpose and need outline. Development of potential alternatives.

Second Public Information Meeting (Open House)

March 2012 Obtain input on alternatives.

Third Round – Stakeholder Briefings

April-May 2012

Project update on alternatives. Brief elected officials and conduct community-based organization meetings as necessary. Garner consensus to keep the project moving forward with the potential alternatives. Identify and discuss potential mitigation strategies.

Third Round – Community Advisory Group Meeting (CAG)

Summer 2012

Review evaluation process, matrix, and alternatives to be carried forward for further study.

Garner support for alternatives to be carried forward for further study. Discuss potential mitigation strategies.

Fourth Round – Stakeholder Briefings

Obtain input on selection of preferred alternative.

Brief elected officials and conduct community-based organization meetings as necessary. Discuss preferred alternative and mitigation strategies.



TABLE 6-2: TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE

Stakeholder / CAG Meetings Date Topic Objective

Fourth Round – Community Advisory Group Meeting (CAG)

Discuss selection of preferred alternative.

Garner support for preferred alternative.

Public Hearing (Open House)

Present preferred alternative. Garner community support for preferred alternative.

Illinois Department of Transportation E-1 May 2012

APPENDIX E: SIP REVISION HISTORY

TABLE 7-1: SIP REVISION HISTORY

Version Date Document Name Revision Description

1.0 June 15, 2011 Stakeholder Involvement Plan for Agency and Public Involvement, Grand Crossing Rail Project

Original version

1.1 July 5, 2011 Stakeholder Involvement Plan for Agency and Public Involvement, Grand Crossing Rail Project

Added website URL; updated agency responses in Appendix B

1.2 December 9, 2011 Stakeholder Involvement Plan for Agency and Public Involvement, Grand Crossing Rail Project

Updated IDOT contact info, stakeholders, Timeframes Agreement, and meeting schedule

1.3 May 22, 2012 Stakeholder Involvement Plan for Agency and Public Involvement, Grand Crossing Rail Project

Updated public involvement activities to date, contact info, stakeholders, Timeframes Agreement, and meeting schedule

Illinois Department of Transportation F-1 May 2012

APPENDIX F: DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS


Illinois Department of Transportation F-2 May 2012

DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS

Formal Dispute Resolution Process, FHWA/FTA SAFETEA-LU

Environmental Review Process Final Guidance (November 2006, page 40)

stakeholder involvement plan€¦ · stakeholder involvement plan for agency and public involvement...

Documents