STATE OF ILLINOIS
POLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JAMES R. THOMPSON CENTER
100 W. RANDOLPH STREET, SUITE 11-500
CHICAGO, IL 60601
PETER ARENDOVICH,
Complainant,
v.
ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY
AUTHORITY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 29009-102
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
Mr. Peter Arendovich
1388 Gordon Lane
Lemont, IL
60439
Please take notice that on the
15
th
day of July, 2009, Respondent, Illinois State
Toll Highway Authority's MOTION TO DISMISS FRIVILOUS COMPLAINT was filed
with the Clerk
of the Pollution Control Board, James R. Thompson Center, 100 W.
Randolph Street, Suite 11-500, Chicago, IL 60601 via electronic filing.
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney General
of Illinois
~~-.L~·A~N~E~--------
Assistant Attorney General
Illinois Toll Highway Authority
2700 Ogden Avenue
Downers Grove, IL 60515
(630) 241-6800 (ex. 1530)
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PETER ARENDOVICH,
Complainant,
v.
THE ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 09-102
(Enforcement-Noise)
MOTION TO DISMISS FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT
Respondent, The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority ("Tollway"), through its attorney,
LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General
ofthe State oflllinois, pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/31, moves
the Pollution Control Board to dismiss the Complainant's Formal Complaint because it is
frivolous.
In
support thereof, the Tollway states the following:
I.
Issue
Complainant Peter Arendovich has filed a Private Enforcement Action with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). Complainant alleges that the
Tollway is causing noise pollution in violation
of Board regulations, specifically 35 Ill. Adm.
Code, Subtitle H, Chapter I, Section 900.102.
See
copy of Complaint attached as Exhibit A,
paragraph
5. Complainant alleges that the noise pollution is caused near his residence by the 1-
355 extension (Veterans Highway) between the 135
th
Street Bridge and Archer Avenue.
ld.
at
paragraphs 4 and
6. Moreover, Complainant alleges that the Board db(A) requirements are being
violated.
ld.
at paragraph 7.
In
this case, based on the Tollway's exhaustive efforts to satisfy the Complainant's concerns,
the fact that Board regulations have not been violated, and the reality that there are no more
reasonable remedial measures available to satisfy the Complainant, this matter must be dismissed
1
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
as frivolous. A complaint is frivolous ifit makes a "request for relief that the Board does not
have the authority to grant, or a complaint that fails to state a cause
of action upon which the
Board can grant relief." 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202.
ill
the case at bar, the Tollway has exceeded Federal Highway Authority (FHWA) and
Tollway guidelines and recommendations for noise abatement. Regardless, Complainant alleges
that the Tollway has exceeded the Board db(A) requirements: however,
he has failed to articulate
what those numeric violations might be. Notwithstanding, the Complaint makes a request for
relief that the Board does not have the authority to grant;
or alternatively fails to state a cause of
action upon which the Board can grant relief. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202.
II.
Background
FAP Route 340 (1-355 South Extension) has been contemplated and studied in the Chicago
Metropolitan Region sine the early 1960's and a centerline, putting the world
on notice of the
planned tollway, was recorded in 1968.
See
copy of Record of Decision (ROD), FHWA-IL-EIS-
93-03-FS/4(f),
February 25,2002; Section
I.
Background (pg. 1) attached as Exhibit B.
ill
1993,
the Illinois State Legislature authorized the Tollway to examine the feasibility
of constructing
FAP Route 340 as a tollway.
ld.
At that time, the Illinois Department
of Transportation (IDOT)
was already analyzing the project and its impacts and began preparing a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS).
ill
February 1996, IDOT completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f)
Evaluation (FEIS) which was later approved by the FHW A.
ld.
However, before the venture
began, the Illinois Chapter
ofthe Sierra Club,
et al.
filed suit against the project. Sierra Club.
Illinois Chapter
v. U.S. Dept. ofTransp., 962 F.Supp. 1037 (N.D. Ill. 1997). On November 12,
1998, the proposed 1-355 extension was declared invalid.
ld.
ROD at
1.
2
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
After the initial FEIS was invalidated, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal
Registrar to initiate the Draft Supplemental EIS (Draft SEIS). 64 Fed. Reg. 77, 19854 (Apr. 22,
1999). See
attached Exhibit C. The purpose ofthis document was to address the concerns of the
aforementioned court ruling. After careful study was completed, the Final SEIS was published
in September
2001.
Id.
ROD at 1. On February 25,2002, the FHWA approved the Final SEIS
and signed the Record
of Decision.
Id.
ROD at 24.
III.
1-355 South Extension Noise Abatement
The 1996 FEIS recommended noise abatement at six locations, including a noise abatement
location near the Complainant's residence at 135
th
Street along the 1-355 extension. The SEIS
prepared
by IDOT in 2000/01 revised the noise abatement recommendations to reflect analysis
changes based
on the newly released Traffic Noise Model (TNM) adopted by FHW A and
implemented
by IDOT.
See
23 C.F.R §772 (1997).
Also see
FAP 340 (1-355 South Extension),
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation, August 31,
2001, (pg. 4-12) attached as Exhibit D. The SEIS reduced the recommended number
of noise
abatement from six locations to four locations.
Id.
at 4-13.
Also see
attached Exhibit E.
In the 2000/01 SEIS, the noise abatement location near the Complainant's residence at 135
th
Street along the 1-355 extension was eliminated because it was no longer deemed reasonable and
feasible per the 2000 IDOT Cost and Noise Reduction Policy ($24,000
per benefited residence).
Id.
This was due, in part, because the FHW A TNM provided better accountability for terrain
information and acoustics and the 2010 noise levels predicted in the 1996 FEIS used STAMINA
2.0 which over-predicted traffic generated noise levels
by 2 to 4 dB(A).
Id.
The FHWA
considered,
inter alia,
the noise abatement and on February 25,2002, approved the Final SEIS
3
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
and signed the Record of Decision, which did not require a noise abatement location near the
Complainant's residence.
Id.
ROD at 24.
Subsequently, in 2004, the Tollway updated the traffic noise study and noise abatement
recommendations to reflect 2030 traffic and a continuous six-lane corridor from I-55 to 1-80.
The final Tollway proposal reinstituted all
ofthe original noise abatement recommendations as
outlined in the 1996 EIS, which included noise abatement near the Complainant's residence at
135
th
Street along the 1-355 extension.
See
Illinois Tollway, 1-355 South Extension (F AP 340)
Traffic Noise Analysis Reevaluation Technical Report, August 10,2005 (pgs. 18,21-22,25-26)
attached as Exhibit F.
IV.
Argument
A. Initial Sound Abatement:
The 2002 FHW A ROD approved the 1-355 South extension based on the revised 2000/01
SEIS, which did not include a noise abatement location near the Complainant's residence at 135
th
Street along the 1-355 extension. Nevertheless, on its own initiative, the Tollway conducted an 1-
355 South Extension Traffic Noise Analysis Re-evaluation and reinstated the 1996 EIS noise
abatement recommendations which included noise abatement near the Complainant's residence
(noise barrier FEIS-l).
See
attached Exhibit Fat 18,22, and 25. Following the re-evaluation,
the Tollway determined that it would build a noise wall 2,450 feet in length and 14 feet in
average height.
Id.
at 18. The noise wall had an estimated cost of $34,300 per benefited
residence.
Id.
at 21. Although the Tollway does not have a set cost per benefited residence in
order for the noise abatement to
be considered cost effective
(see
Illinois State Toll Highway
Authority Traffic Noise Study and Abatement Policy attached as Exhibit G), the amount is well
above the mOT figure for cost per benefited residence ($24,000). The noise abatement
4
recommendation was made in large part to satisfy the Complainant's frequent and usual concerns
relating to noise pollution and to protect the Complainant's enjoyment
of his property.
Throughout the final phases
of design and early stages of construction, pursuant to the
requirements
of the Toll Highway Act (605 ILCS
1019),
the Tollway held a series of public
meetings. Moreover, the Tollway hosted monthly Local Advisory Committee meetings starting
in November 2004, with two meetings specifically designated to discuss noise abatement
recommendations.
See
605 ILCS 10114. In addition to these meetings, the Tollway made a
significant public outreach effort, which included the development and dissemination
ofproject
fact sheets throughout construction to reaffirm noise abatement recommendations, as well as
providing information regarding the basis for these recommendations.
See
Illinois State Toll
Highway Authority Interstate 355 Post-Construction Noise Report, 1-27-2009, (pg.
2) attached
as Exhibit H. The Complainant was present at a majority
of these public meetings and Local
Advisory Committee meetings and was extremely involved in the entire noise abatement
process.
In fact, many of the noise abatement measures were taken in large part to satisfy the
then stated concerns
of the Complainant.
B. Further Sound Abatement:
The Tollway's Noise Analysis Reevaluation included a noise abatement recommendation for
135
th
Street along the 1-355 extension in the fonn of a noise wall 2,450 feet in length and 14.0
feet
in average height. The Tollway, nevertheless, attempting to provide further relief to
Complainant and surrounding neighbors, exceeded its original sound abatement
plan and decided
to build a noise wall 2,560 feet
in length and 15.8 feet in average height (110 feet longer and 1.8
feet higher then recommendations).
[d.
In response to further noise complaints and concerns
from the Complainant, the Tollway, to further accommodate the Complainant and surrounding
5
persons, extended the noise wall an additional 72 feet and added 2 feet of additional height over
the southern 300 feet
of the wall.
[d.
This supplemental wall cost the Tollway an additional
$57,879.46. See
Angela LaPorte e-mail attached as Exhibit
I.
C. Final Sound Abatement:
ill
a final effort to provide relief to the Complainant and surrounding persons, the Tollway
built a wooden wall over the bridge near Complainant's home that stretches 240 feet in length
and has an average height of 10 feet.
[d.
Exhibit H at 2. This supplemental wall cost the
Tollway an additional $69,280.
[d.
Exhibit
I.
The current sound wall configuration protecting
the Complainant and his neighbors is illustrated in an aerial photograph attached as Exhibit J.
The above referenced noise abatement measures were instituted in large part to accommodate
and satisfy the concerns
of the Complainant.
D. Tollway Polices Concerning Noise Abatement:
The Tollway has not only followed its own policies and procedures when constructing the
above referenced sound walls, it has far exceeded its policies.
See
Exhibit G at 5-6. Moreover,
the FHWA has expressly stated that the Tollway has fulfilled the commitments relating to noise
abatement that were stipulated in the ROD.
See
copy
ofFHWA letter to Complainant, February
19,2009, attached as Exhibit
K.
Most recently, again in an effort to address Complainant's continued noise concerns, on
January 20
th
and 22
nd
,
2009, post construction, Tollway staff and traffic noise consultant Huff
and Huffmeasured noise along 1-355 in the vicinity of 135
th
Street along the 1-355 extension.
The noise measurements north
of 135
th
Street near the Complainant's residence ranged from 56-
62dB(A).
See
attached Exhibit
L.
These levels are well within the acceptable dB(A) limits and
6
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
below the federal noise abatement impact criteria of 67dB(A). 23 C.F.R §772, Table 1 (2009)
attached as Exhibit M.
E. Conclusion:
A complaint is frivolous ifit is a "request for relief that the Board does not have the authority
to grant,
or a complaint that fails to state a cause of action upon which the Board can grant relief.
35
TIL Adm. Code 101.202. In the case at bar, the Tollway's construction ofI-355 noise
abatement is consistent
with both the federal and state criteria and exceeds the recommendations
outlined
in the FHWA approved EIS. Moreover, after the Tollway's re-evaluation, the Tollway
built a noise wall that that exceeded the noise wall recommended
in the Traffic Noise Analysis
Re-evaluation: the noise wall constructed
in the vicinity ofI-355 and 135
th
Street near the
Complainant's residence is 422 feet longer and nearly 2 feet higher than that documented in the
EIS
and required to demonstrate compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (1970).
Lastly, post-construction field measurements
of traffic noise reaffirmed the noise modeling
results included
in the EIS and confirmed the overall effectiveness of noise abatement
in
this
area. Accordingly,
the Tollway has provided Complainant substantial relief from noise pollution
and has implemented all feasible and reasonable noise abatement measures. Short of tearing
down the previously constructed sound walls and building new taller walls, there is nothing more
that can be done for the Complainant. Therefore, the Complaint fails to state a cause of action
upon which the Board can grant relief and thus Complainant's Formal Complaint is frivolous.
7
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
V.
Conclusion
WHEREFORE, Respondent, lllinois State Toll Highway Authority, respectfully requests that
the Fonnal Complaint be dismissed.
8
Respectfully Submitted,
a;lr;-:L
'iL
Y A GILMAN
Senior Law Student
ROBERT T. LANE
Senior Assistant Attorney General
(630) 241-6800 x1530
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
State of mioois
PoLLUTION CONTROL BoARD
JAMES R.
THOMPSON CENTER"
100 W.JUNDOLPHSTREET, S1JITEll1OO
CHICA;Go,c1LUNOIS'~~1
BEFORKTHE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
Peter Arendovich
_~~
__ -...-_
(Insert!yournafue(s) on lines
above),
Complainant(s),
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CRBCElveD
CLERK'S
OPfICE
APR 28
~9
f!oUutiQPControl
S"A1tEPfitUJNQI'J'?~'
~,;,:,
'.'
.
v.
~
PCB 01 .... / ()-;;"..-
The Illinois State T<lUHighway Authority
(Insert name(es) 'of alleged polluter(s)
on 'lines above),
Respondent(s).
) (For
BQpMUse)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Note:!f you do not use this formal complaint form 8nd
instead.~ and~
your own, it
tn~st
contain all of the information requested by this form. All
it~ms 'mustbe.completed~
...
Ifth~ts'
.... ;.;
insufficient space to complete any item,. you may attach adtlitional sheets, specifyingtbenumber .. ;. '
of the iremyou are completing. Once completed, you must file the original$1a nine copies. of
the formal'complaint, notice
to
respondent, and certificate of service with the Clerk .of the Board'
.at the above address.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
, .'
1.
2,
3.
Your name, street address,
county,
state:
Place where you can be
contacted during normal
business
hours (if different
from above):
Name and address of respondent
(alleged polluter):
Peter Arendovich
1388 Gordon Lane
Lemont, IL 60439
Phone: 630257-8753
Phone: Cell 630-788-8264
The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority
2700 Ogden Avenue
Downers Grove, IL. 60515
Phone: 630-241-6800
__
Describe the type of business or activity that you allege is causing or allowing pollution
(e.g.,
manufacturing company, home repair shop) and give the address
of
the pollution
source
if different
than
the address above:
The business causing the noise pollution is the profit making government agency known
as the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority. The noise pollution is caused by the 1-355
extension (Veterans Highway) between the 135
th
Street Bridge and Archer Avenue.
List specific sections of the Environmental Protection Act, Board regulations, Board
order, or pemllt that you allege have been or are being violated:
35lll.
Adm. Code, Subtitle H, Chapter I, Section 900.102
_
Describe the type of pollution that you allege
(e.g.,
air, odor, noise, water, sewer back-
ups, hazardous waste) and the location of the alleged pollution. Be as specific as you
reasonably can in describing the alleged pollution:
The noise pollution is caused
by the traffic along the 1 -355 extension (Veterans
Highway) in the area between
13S
th
Street and Archer Avenue, specifically on
the
135
th
Street Bridge. The 135
th
Street Bridge is 540 feet long and does not have a sound barrier.
"
Describe the duration and frequency
of the alleged pollution. Be as specific as you
reasonably can about when
you first noticed the alleged pollution, how frequently it
occurs, and whether it is still continuing (include seasons
of the year, dates, and times of
day if known):
The noise pollution was immediately noticeable after the
1-355 Tollway (Verterans
Highway) was opened on November 11,2001. The noise pollution is continuous, 24
hours per day, seven days a
week. The noise is so frequent that the IPCB db requirements
are violated every minute
of every day of the year. The noise becomes more intense as
large trucks
are crossing the bridge at high speeds during the early morning hours and
late
in the night.
8.
Describe any bad effects that you believe the alleged pollution has or has
had
on human
health, on plant or animal life, on the environment, on the enjoyment
of life or property,
or on any lawful business or activity:
The noise generated by the
1-355 Tollway has resulted in an unreasonable interference
with the use and enjoyment
of my property and other properties
in
the area. The noise
during the night interferes with our sleep which endangers the physical and emotional
health and well-being
of the families in this area.
9.
Describe the relief that you seek from the Board
(e.g.,
an order that the respondent stop
polluting, take pollution abatement measures, perform a cleanup, reimburse cleanup costs,
change its operation, or pay a civil penalty (note that the Board cannot order
the
respondent to pay your attorney fees or any out-of-pocket expenses that you incur by
pursuing an enforcement action»:
We request that the board enter an order directing the respondents to install a sound
barrier wall from the beginning
of the bridge on 13S
th
Street up to Archer Avenue at a
height that will minimize noise entering our property. Currently, there is a short wooden
wall
of 240 feet in length and an average of 10 feet high on the bridge or
aproximately540 feet
in
length. The remaining 300 feet on the 13S
th
Street Bridge does
not have any sound barrier installed.
10.
Identify any identical or substantially similar case you know of
that
is already pending
before the Board or in another
forum against this respondent for the same alleged
pollution (note that you need not include
any complaints made to the lllinois
Environmental Protection
Agency or any unit of local government):
None
known.
11.
State whether you are representing (a) yourself as an individual or (b) your
unincorporated sole proprietorship.
Also, state whether you are an attorney and, if so,
whether you are licensed and registered to practice law in Illinois. (Under Illinois law, an
association, citizens group, unit of local government, or corporation must be represented
before the Board by an attorney.
Also, an individual who is not an attorney cannot
represent another individual or other individuals before the Board. However, an
individual
who is not an attorney is allowed to represent (a) himself or herself as an
individual or (b) his or her unincorporated sole proprietorship, though the individual may
prefer having attorney representation.):
I am representing myself as
an individual.
12.
~a6mplainant'
s signature)
CERTIFICATION (optional but encouraged)
I,
..}>C=-Wf2" Q
tBI'VPOV
(c::.
'f
•
on oath or
affirmation, state
I
have read the foregoing and that it is accurate
to
the best of my
knowle
Subscribed
to and sworn before me
this
02 7
r'" day
Of~ ~((9.
Notary blic
My commission expires: .7--
z-,
O:Z() /0
'OFFICIAL SEAL'
Brian Paone
Notary Public, State of illinois
Will County
My Commission Expires July 1, 2010
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT
NOTE: TmS STATEMENT MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE SERVICE OF THE
FORMAL COMPLAINT
ON THE RESPONDENT
INFORMATION
FOR RESPONDENT RECEIVING FORMAL COMPLAINT
Please take notice that today I filed with the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(Board) a formal complaint, a copy of which is served on you along with this notice. You may
be required to attend a hearing on a date set by the Board.
Information about the formal complaint process before the Board is found in the
Environmental Protection
Act (Act) (415 ILCS
S/1 et seq.)
and the Board;s procedural rules (35
Ill. Adm. Code 101 and 103). These can be accessed at the Board's Web site
(www.ipcb.state.il.us).
The following is a summary of some of the most important points in the
Act and the Board's procedural rules. It is provided for general informational purposes only and
does not constitute legal advice or substitute for the provisions of any statute, rule, or regulation:
Board Aecepting Formal Complaint for Hearing; Motions
The Board will not accept this formal complaint for hearing if the Board finds that it is
either "duplicative" or "frivolous" within the meaning of Section 31 (d) of the Act (415 ILCS
5131(d» and Section 101.202 of the Board's procedural rules (35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.202).
"Duplicative" means that an identical or substantially similar case is already pending before the
Board or in court.
See
35 111. Adm. Code 103.212(a) and item 10 of the formal complaint.
"Frivolous" means that the
formal complaint seeks relief that the Board does not have the
authority to grant, or fails
to state a cause of action upon which the Board can grant relief. For
example, the Board has the authority
to order a respondent to stop polluting and pay a civil
penalty,
to implement pollution abatement measures, or to perform a cleanup or reimburse
cleanup costs.
The Board does not have the authority, however, to award attorney fees to a
citizen complainant.
See
35 TIL Adm. Code 103.212(a) and items 5 and 9 of the formal
complaint.
If you believe that this formal complaint is duplicative or frivolous, you may file a
motion with the Board, within
30 days after the date you were served with the complaint,
requesting that the Board not accept the complaint
for hearing. The motion must state the facts
supporting your belief that the complaint is duplicative or frivolous. Memoranda, affidavits, and
any other relevant documents may accompany the motion. If you need more time
than
30 days
to file a motion alleging that the complaint is duplicative or frivolous, you must file a motion for
an extension of time within 30 days after service of the complaint. A motion for an extension of
time must state why you need more time and the amount of additional time you need. Timely
filing a motion alleging that the complaint is duplicative or frivolous will stay the
60~day
period
for filing an answer to the complaint.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.204, 103.212(b).
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
, .
All motions filed with the Board's Clerk must include an original, nine copies, and proof
of service on the other parties. Service may be made in person, by U.S. mail, or by messenger
,service. Mail service is presumed complete
four days after mailing.
See
35
m.
Adm. Code
101.300(c), 101.302, 101.304.
If you do not respond to the Board within 30 days
after
the date on which the complaint
was
served on you, the Board may find that the complaint
is
not duplicative or frivolous and
accept the case for hearing. The Board will then assign a hearing officer who will contact you to
schedule times for telephone status conferences and for hearing.
See
35 lli. Adm. Code
103.212(a).
Answer to Complaint
You have the right to file an answer to this formal complaint within 60 days
after
you
receive the complaint.
If
you timely file a motion alleging that the complaint is duplicative or
frivolous, or a motion to strike, dismiss, or challenge the sufficiency
of the complaint, then you
may file an answer within 60 days after the Board rules on your motion.
See
35 Ill. Adm. Code
101.506, 103.204(d), (e), 103.212(b).
The Board's procedural rules require the complainant to tell you
as respondent that:
Failure to file an answer to this complaint within 60 days may have severe
consequences. Failure to answer will mean
that all allegations
in
the
complaint will
be
taken as
if
admitted for purposes of this proceeding.
If
you have any questions about this procedure, you should contact the hearing
officer assigned to this proceeding, the Clerk's Office
or an attorney. 35 1lI.
Adm. Code 103.204(f).
Necessity
of an Attorney
Under Illinois law, an association, citizens group, unit oflocal government, or corporation
must
be represented before the Board by an attorney.
In
addition, an individual who is not an
attorney cannot represent another individual or other individuals before the Board. However,
even
if
an individual is not an attorney, he or she is allowed to represent (1) himself or herself as
an individual or
(2) his or her unincorporated sole proprietorship.
See
35m. Adm. Code
101.400(a). Such an individual
may nevertheless wish to have an attorney prepare an answer
and any motions or briefs, and present a defense at hearing.
Costs
In defending against this fonnaJ. complaint, you are responsible for your attorney fees,
duplicating charges, travel expenses, witness fees, and any other costs that you or your attorney
may
incur. The Board requires no filing fee to file your answer or any other document with the
Board.
The Board will pay any hearing costs
(e.g.,
hearing room rental, court reporting fees,
hearing officer expenses).
If you have any questions, please contact the Clerk's Office at (312) 814-3629.
I, the
underSi~,:ob.
dath or a.ftirnlation,statethaton(month, daYfyeat) ....... ..
~tdI{/L·
.
•• '2:'7:
""
"C>
'1
.1 servedtheattaehed fonnal.eomplaint'8Ildootice on the
res . ndent by:; (check appropriate line)
..
-A-certitiednuul (attach copy ofreqeiptifavailable, otherwise you'mustfile
receipt later
with Clerk)
__
...•
l'c;gis~re,dmail.
(attach copy of receiptif available,
'Othernr;ise
youmustnfe receipMaterwitllClerk)
> __
messenger service (attacl1.coPY of receipt
iffavailabl~,otherwise
file receipt later with Clerk)
..
. _ ... _ personal service (attaeh affidavit ifavailable,othel'\Vise you
. must file affidavit later with Clerk)
at the.a.ddresshelow:
RESPONDENrS.l\DIlRESS;
Name .
I£,-
INS I:>
::;
'TttTl:
Street
27
0
1)
Oa'lJ'tEAJ If t(
City,state,:z;jpcode
?it!) cAJ
AJ6/l.S 00
vG
Z
LC
b
or.l:r
(list each respondent's name and address ifmultiple respondents)
~.dJ~
City, state, zip code
_L_.
_'-<::'_M_O---'-",p
__
:·...:..,.._.-..:;"--;;;;;;.;::.._"--~~
Subscribed
to
and sworn before me
this
d2~
.......day ..
of
.4-,,/1/
,200
dr<>~·
Notary Public
My commission expires;
,:yt.2-
~/
c7
.OFFICI,6J.SEAL.
BriSri.Paone.. .
NotarypuDlic.
St~eof
illinois
Will Collnty . .. ..•
My CommissiQn J:Xpires July 7.
201
0
I,
RECORD OF DECISION
FAP Route 340 (1-355 South Extension),
Interstate Route
55 to Interstate Route 80,
Cook, DuPage and Will Counties
FHW A-IL-EIS-93-03-FS/4(t)
February 25, 2002
I.
BACKGROUND
The Proposed Action
has
been in the planning stage for 39 years. In 1962, F AP Route 340, then referred
to as Federal Aid (FA) Route 61, was included in the Chicago area's
first
long-range transportation plan.
The Proposed Action was included
in subsequent plans, including the 1995,2010,
and
2020 plans. The
Illinois Department
of Transportation (IDOT) was the main project sponsor throughout the 1960's,
1970's, 1980's and early 1990's. A centerline was recorded in 1968, and engineering and environmental
studies were conducted during those
past decades. In July, 1993, the lllinois State Legislature passed
legislation authorizing the lllinois State Toll Highway Authority (lSTHA) to examine the feasibility of
constructing F AP Route 340 as a Tollway. ISTHA then began its participation in the Environmental Impact
Statement (BIS) process as a cooperating agency.
In February 1996, mOT completed a Final Environmental Impact
State~ent
and Section 4(f) Evaluation
(FEIS) which was then approved by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHW
A). In April 1996, the
FHW A issued its Record of Decision (ROD) on the project. Through coordination with the Governor,
ISTHA was identified as the Constructing Agency and was to have funded the project. Land was
acquired for right-of-way and utilities were relocated. However, no construction contracts were awarded.
In August 1996, the Illinois Chapter of the Sierra Club, et al. filed'suit against the project in the U.S.
District Court, Northern District
of Illinois (Federal Court). On November 12, 1998, the Federal
District Court amended its order of January 16, 1997, declaring that FHWA's approval of the
proposed extension of Interstate 355 was invalid. In December 2000 mOT published a Draft
Supplemental EIS (Draft SEIS) that addressed
the concerns of the Federal Court ruling. In February 2001
public hearings were held
on the Draft SEIS. In September 2001, the Final Supplemental EIS (Final
SEIS) was published. This ROD presents
FHWA's decision addressing the Final SEIS. Currently, a
Constructing Agency
has
not been identified and the project is not funded;
II.
DECISION
The following sets forth the basis for selecting the TollroadlFreeway Alternative for construction in Cook,
DuPage and Will Counties. The Tollroad/Freeway Alternative involves constructing
an approximately 20
kilometer (12.5 mile) Tol1roadlFreeway fucility on a 91 meter (300 foot): right-of-way on new alignment.
The TollroadlFreeway Alternative connects two major interstates (I-55 and 1-80) in the Chicago area and
will involve FHW A approval of new interstate access points at each connection.
In
consideration of the
following, the FHW A
has
baseci its,decisionthat
the
selected<akematiw,l) Satisfies Purpose and Need,'2)
poses the,Jea,st impacts
ow'
the environment, 3) the process satisfies NEP A and other applicable
requirements and 4) the project may
be advanced.
The fucility will be a fully access controlled, six-lane divided highway from I-55
to 12th Street and a fully
access controlled, four-lane divided highway from 127
th
Street to 1;.80. Interchanges
ar:_~anne~
at I-55,
PAP 340 (1-355 South Extension)
1
Record of Decision
t.
"
127th Street, 143rd StreetIIL Route 171 (Archer Avenue), IL Route 7 (159th Street), U.S. Route 6 and 1-
80. A mainline toll collection plaza will be provided in the vicinity of Bruce Road in addition to any
necessary ramp toll collection facilities, should the project be constructed as a tollroad.
The recommended alignment parallels Lemont Road from I-55
at
the northern project terminus to the Des
Plaines River, then shifts
to the southeast, paralleling State Street approximately 1.2 kilometers (0.75
miles)
to the west from 127th Street to 143rd Street. The alignment would then parallel Gougar Road and
curve diagonally
to the east and connect to 1-80 approximately 0.4 kilometers (0.3 miles) east of Cedar
Road.
\
~,_
··"~,.I:
The putpose of the Pr:.oposed Action is to
p.v.~_~~m.~!oYem.
ent tb
M
,
'11 ; . '
8ft
96.... ... 'Ii I
ij.~_",.
_ ..
It
0
........
...
·~
..
lliiol.f'wtthin
~tlwimi'n
tpd F'.
I ' ' ..
? I [
I
Ullflltii\bl§. The Transportation System Improvement is needed to
(1) Improve Access Between Residential Areas and Regional Job Centers, (2) Achieve Land Use
Planning Goals, (3) Improve Regional Mobility, and (4) Address
Local System Deficiencies.
>.'
"
•
The decision to build the TollroadlFreeway Alternative is based upon full consideration of information
contained
in the Draft SEIS approved by the FHWA on December 20, 2000, public hearings held on
February 8 and 14, 2001 and the Final SEIS approved by the FHWAon August 31,2001. The FHWA
decision is also based on public and agency comments pertaining to the Proposed Action, the other
alternatives considered, the respective environmental consequences, and issues related
to the Proposed
Action.
, ill
" ,
~.
l
The Proposed Action is described in greater detail in Section 3.2, and
SeWOlJ
5.4 of the Final SEIS. The
Draft and Final SEIS are available for review
at the Illinois Department 'ofTransportation at 201 West
Center Court, Schaumburg, Dlinois 60196 and
at the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority
at
2700 West
Ogden Avenue, Downers Grove, Dlinois 60515.
.., .'
t
't.-
III
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
"
. I
'.
Alternatives Selected for Evaluation in the Draft SEIS: Five alternatives were evaluated in the Draft
and Final SEIS: 1) the No-Action (Baseline) Alternative; 2) a
M~\s.}·~it. ~ternative;
3) the Lemont
Bypass Alternative; 4) the Enhanced Arterial Alternative, and 5) the IolliOOd/Freeway Alternative. (See
Section 3.2
of the Final SEIS for a full description of these alternatives.), ' '.
1\". "
No-Action (Baseline) Alternative
maintained existing roadways, included foadway capacity improvements,
transit upgrades and
TSMlfDM strategies recommended in the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
and projects from
the
1998-2002 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), minus the proposed Transportation
System Improvement. The No-Action (Baseline) Alternative
was developed in close coordination with
area transportation providers and local officials. The No-Action (Basel;ne) Alternative also included a
number
of other roadway projects
that
are not currently funded, but anticipated to be constructed by the
year 2020. Although not determined
to meet the Putpose and Need for the project, this alternative was
carried forward for evaluation in the Draft SEIS as the baseline for comparing other alternatives.
Mass Transit Alternative
maintained existing service and
impl~lllented,
i
,mass transit improvements
recommended in the 2020 RTP, plus additional transit fucilities and services not included in
the
2020 RTP, but
identified
by local and transit agency officials as likely to be implemented by 2020.
This
Alternative alone
was not found to meet the Purpose and Need for the project and was not carried forward. However, existing
and planned mass transit services were included in the
three
roadway alternatives.
~
• "
~
'\ ; ; ,
'.' 1 ,
PAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
2
Record of Decision
Lemont Bypass Alternative
provided a new full access controlled divided 'highway on new alignment in the
northern one-quarter
of the Corridor and a new limited access controlled principal arterial on existing
alignment in the Corridor's southern
three
quarters. The Ahernative also included the No-Action (Baseline)
Roadway Improvements, and mass transit and TSM improvements recommended in the 2020 RTP and
projects from the 1998-2002 TIP. The Lemont Bypass Alternative was-found not to meet the Purpose and
Need for the project based on the findings of the performance analysis summarized in the next section.
Enhanced Arterial Alternative
improved existing arterials and included the No-Action (Baseline)
Roadway Improvements, and mass transit and TSM improvements recommended in the 2020 RTP and
projects
from the 1998-2002 TIP. The Enhanced
Arterial
A1ternative was found not to meet the Pwpose and
Need for the project based on the
findings of the performance analysis summarized below.
Tollroad/Freeway Alternative
provided a new full access controlled divided highway on new alignment
with
improvements
at
intersecting roadways. The TollroadlFreeway Alternative also included implementation of
the No-Action (Baseline) Roadway Improvements, and mass transit and TSM improvements recommended in
the 2020 RTP
and projects from the 1998-2002 TIP.
This
is the selected alternative. As outlined in the
performance analysis
below, the Tollroad Freeway Alternative was superior and the only alternative to
satisfy the Purpose and Need.
Performance Analysis: The TollroadlFreeway Alternative outperformed the other alternatives in
satisfying the four need criteria based on quantitative measures including land use and transportation plan
consistency, safety performance, and year 2020 travel times. The performance analysis was based upon
separate socioeconomic and travel demand forecasts for the
No-A~o~
(Baseline) Alternative and Build
Alternatives. The No-Action (Baseline) Alternative was specifically developed as a land use scenario
that
did not include the Proposed
Action.,'·~.
',.' ,,:
Improve Access Between Residential Areas and Regional Job
;.C~I1((!,rs:
, The No-Action (Baseline)
Alternative travel times between the Project Corridor and regional job centers are projected
to
increase an
average
43 percent and up
to
55 percent by year 2020 under the No-Action (Baseline) Alternative
scenario. The TollroadlFreeway Alternative reduced these projected"year
2QZO,travei times by 20 percent
on average. This was a
33 percent improvement over the Lemont
Byp~~ Alt~p:tative
and a 185 percent
improvement over the Enhanced Arterial Alternative.
,
..
Improve Regional Mobility:
The
No-Action (Baseline) Alternative travel times from the Project Corridor
to over three quarters
of the northeastern Illinois region are
proJ~~d
.tQ. increase from 12 to over 25
percent by the year 2020. The TollroadlFreeway Alternative substantially reduced these projected year
2020 travel times and improved regional mobility
to
144 percent
inQ~
.of the region than the Lemont
Bypass Alternative and over 2,000 percent more
of the region than the
...
)j~ced
,
. " .
Arterial Alternative .
Address Local System Deficiencies:
The No-Action (Baseline) Alternative travel times for local travel
within the Project Corridor are projected to increase
150 percent by year 2020. The TollroadlFreeway
Alternative reduced these projected year 2020 travel times by
13 perce.nt overall. This was a 30 percent
improvement over the Lemont Bypass Alternative and an
85 percent'
~provement
over the Enhanced
Arterial Alternative. The TollroadlFreeway Alternative also
provide.~ -ili.Qb,~St' s~ety
performance. This
performance was six times better than the Lemont Bypass Alternative and
45 times better than the
Enhanced Arterial Alternative.
.
Achieve Land Use Planning Goals:
The TollroadlFreeway Alternative
was
ranked most consistent with
the goals and objectives
of municipal land use and transportation plans bypro(essionalland use planning
staff
oflocal governments within the Project Corridor. These planning goals and objectives were set forth
by each local government in their respective plans and defme each community's vision as to how their
overall community should develop. Each Alternative received
an,overaU score on a scale of one to five,
with five being the most consistent with the goals and objectives of municipai land use and transportation
PAP 340 (1-355 South Extension)
3
Record oj Decision
'.,
;
plans and one being least consistent. The TollroadlFreeway Alternative received an overall score of 4.5
while the Lemont Bypass Alternative, Enhanced Arterial Alternative and No-Action (Baseline)
Alternative received scores
of 3.1, 2.3, and 1.5, respectively. A survey of mayors and county Board
members representing municipal governments within the Project Corridor found overwhelming support
for the TollroadlFreeway Alternative.
Ninety percent
of these, elected officials selected the
TollroadlFreeway Alternative as the alternative best suited to achieving the planning goals and objectives
of their communities. None of the elected officials selected the 'Lemont Bypass Alternative and 10
percent selected either the Enhanced Arterial Alternative
or the Mass Transit Alternative. Among the
governmental agencies with land use planning authority, there was 100 percent support for the
TollroadlFreeway Alternative.
'
Alternatives Considered in the 1996 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Dismissed in the
Draft SEIS: Alternatives considered in the 1996 FEIS, but not carried over to this analysis included the
Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative
and Expressway Alternative, as well as the
multiple alignment alternates of the TollroadlFreeway Alternative. The 1996 FEIS found that the TSM
and Expressway Alternatives lacked capacity to accommodate projected 20 I 0 traffic and, therefore, did
not satisfy Purpose and Need. The Final SEIS utilized updated year 2020 traffic projections, which were
41% higher
than
the 2010 traffic projections used in the 1996 FEIS. Since the TSM and Expressway
Alternatives were found
not to satisfy the capacity requirements of the Purpose and Need
in
the 1996
FEIS under lower traffic projections, the Alternatives would remain unsatisfactory under the higher traffic
demand forecasted for year 2020 and, therefore, were eliminated from further consideration
in this
supplemental analysis.
. ;
.,'
As for the multiple alignment iterations of the TollroadlFreeway
Ai~~ti;e.
these iterations represented
adjustments
to the TollroadlFreeway alignment to avoid and
minimiz.e~ect
impacts to parks, wetlands
and other resources. However, the affected environment
directly"
ltnPaCted by the TollroadlFreeway
Alternative did not change substantially between publication
of the "1996"FEIS and this Final SEIS.
Therefore, no new environmental issues were identified
to warrant,
J:eco~ideration
of these alignment
iterations.
.~
...
.
""d,
.,' I,
Additional Analysis conducted after Circulation of the Draft SEIS:, After
~view
of the Draft SEIS,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) commented
tluU:
the environmental impacts of the
Lemont Bypass Alternative should
be evaluated. A comparative
revi~wofthe
environmental effects was
performed for the
three
Build Alternatives. The findings of this
reVie~
\vere presented
in
Final SEIS,
Section 3.4.2. The review
was GIS based and evaluated the
comp~ve
effects of the TollroadlFreeway
Alternative, Lemont Bypass Alternative and Enhanced Arterial Alternative on natural and social
resources to an equal level of detail.
The
analysis found the
enviro~ental
affects associated with each
Build Alternative were
not distinguishable.
In
a follow up letter commenting on the Final SEIS, the
USEPA concluded
that there is not a substantial difference between alternatives with regard to direct
natural and cultural resource impacts.
.
Recommended Alternative: Following circulation of the Draft SEIS, public and agency comments were
received and addressed, additional evaluation
of the environmental effects of the alternatives was
conducted and acknowledgement from the resource agencies on the need for the project was received.
Based
on the evaluation of alternatives, the TollroadlFreeway Alternative. was found as the only
alternative
to satisfy the Purpose and Need and was selected as the Recommended Alternative in the Draft
and Final SEIS. This selection was based on:
•
The TollroadlFreeway Alternative maximized access
to regional jqb centers by achieving the
greatest reduction in year 2020 travel time from the Project Corridor
to regional job centers. The
TollroadlFreeway Alternative surpassed comparable travel time reductions achieved
by the
Lemont Bypass Alternative by
33 percent and the Enhanced Arterial Alternative by 185 percent.
PAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
4
Record oj Decision
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
IV.
•
•
The TollroadlFreeway Alternative optimized regional mobility by reducing year 2020 travel
times
to 144 percent more of the region than the Lemont Bypass Alternative and over 2,000
percent more
of the region
than
the Enhanced Arterial Alternative.
The TollroadlFreeway Alternative best addressed local syStem deficiencies and reduced year
2020 travel times within
the Project Corridor, outperforming the Lempnt Bypass Alternative by
30 percent and the Enhanced Arterial Alternative by '85 percent.
The TollroadlFreeway
Alternative would save nearly
$1 million/year through improved travel times and over $2
million/year in lost productivity attributed to the higher travel times associated with the Lemont
Bypass Alternative and
the Enhanced Arterial Alternative, respectively. Equally important, the
TollroadlFreeway Alternative
had
the best safety performance with a percent reduction in crashes
that
was six times better
than
the Lemont Bypass Alternative and 45 times better
than
the
Enhanced Arterial Alternative.
'
•
The TollroadlFreeway Alternative also best enables local government
to achieve overall land use
planning, growth management
and transportation goals. The 'follroadlFreeway Alternative was
ranked
most consistent with these goals and objectives by the muniCipal and county governments
within
the Project Corridor. Furthermore, a survey of elected .officials representing Will County
and project corridor local governments was conducted asking
whic~
Alternative would best aid
in
achieving land use and transportation planning goals. The survey' achieved a 100 percent
response rate. The TollroadlFreeway Alternative
was identified by 90 percent of the respondents
as most consistent with local planning goals, 5 percent .identified the Enhanced Arterial
Alternative,
5
percent identified the Mass Transit Alternative,
'alici 0,
perCent identified the Lemont
Bypass Alternative. Among
the governmental agencies with land use planning authority, there
was
100 percent support for the TollroadlFreeway Alternative. Therefore, the TollroadlFreeway
Alternative is most compatible with the growth management
gQal~
and objectives of county and
municipal governments represented within the Project Corridor.
'.
. ..
SECTION 4(f)
\
~', ~
.
A Section 4(t) Evaluation was included in both the Draft SEIS and the Final SEIS (Section 5). A
comparative assessment
was completed to determine which Section 4(t)
l?r~p.erties
would be used by each
Alternative
consid~red
in
the 1996 PElS and the Draft SEIS. The
cPn;tp~ye
assessment disclosed that
none of the build alternatives would completely avoid 4(t) impacts.
The
Toliroadl Freeway Alternative is
the only alternative
that satisfies Purpose and Need. The Final SEIS concluded that there is no feasible
and prudent alternative
to the Tollroadl Freeway Alternative tbatayoids' the. Section 4(t) impacts
associated with
the Tollroadl Freeway Alternative.
. .'.' ", :' ,
FAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
5
Record of Dedsion
.."
1
J
Also, The lllinois Historic Preservation Agency reviewed project impacts, to the I&M
Canal
and made a
'ff'
determination of no adverse effect for the Tollroad/Freeway Alternative in, November 1993 (See 1996
J
FEIS, Chapter 6, lllinois Historic Preservation Agency). A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under
j
~
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended) was developed to mitigate impacts to
r:
the Lustron House in July 1995 (See 1996 FEIS, Appendix B). ISmA is implementing commitments
(J
associated with that MOA.
~
Finally,
all
possible planning to minimize harm to Section 4(t)
reso~rces
:was included in this action.
-r
I'
i
Measures to minimize harm included
~se
of a high level bridge
cro~sing
the 'Des Plaines River
V~ley
i
.e
~
from south of New Avenue to approXImately 213 meters (700 feet) north of Bluff Road. The bndge
r. VI
~
spans Keepataw Forest Preserve, the I & M Canal and the Des Plaines River and therefore, avoids and
J
( j
minimizes impacts to associated floodplain, forest and wetland resources. The bridge was desi:ed
to
tf
minimize impacts to these resources and allow for continued recreational
u~e.
For example, bridge s
~
lengths were lengthened to minimize the foot print of the bridge and reduce ground disturbancev" ridge
piers were placed
to allow continued unrestricted wildlife movement through the area while avoiding the
dangers
of wildlife/auto collisions on the roadway. Also, the bridge deck aIld related highway drainage
was designed
to be directed away from sensitive resources. Measures to minimize harm are further
discussed
in the Draft
and
Final SEIS, Chapter 5.0 (Section 4(t) Evaluation) and Chapter 6.0
(Coordination
and Commitments).
V.
MITIGATION AND COMMITMENTS
'"
"
;
All practical measures to minimize the potential environmental
impa.9tS~~ed
by the TollroadlFreeway
Alternative will
be taken. The mitigation measures proposed for this
pr~j~
are described in Chapter 5 of
the Draft and Final SEIS and Chapter 6 of the 1996 FEIS.
., ."
.:" .. ! ,'.
The centerline for a FAP Route 340 was recorded in DuPage and Will Counties in 1968.
In
the
approximately 32 years since completion
of the original design studies, a humber of changes have occurred
that required reevaluation
of the selected design and alignment More ,recently, a total of 10 individual
alignment shifts were considered in the 1996 FEIS to avoid an4,tn4Whize linpacts.
This alignment
avoided
and minimized impacts to the greatest extent practicable.
This
~8rime~tWas
carried over
to
the
Draft and Final SEIS and is the alignment for the recommended TollroadlFreeway Alternative. Additional
project modifications
to
avoid and minimize impacts included designiIlg the proposed bridge over the Des
Plaines River
to
reduce environmental, visual, and aesthetic
imp~,
to JJte extent practicable and to
accommodate wildlife and recreational corridors underneath the structure. .
In
areas where impacts are
unavoidable, best management practices (BMP) were incorporated into,tP:t},roaddesign.
Local Coordination:
In
response to the Proposed Action, local government entities formed the Heritage
Corridor Planning Council (HCPC). This Council was charged with ,coordinating local government land
use planning within the Project Corridor and aiding
in addressing secondary and cumulative impacts. The
HCPC published: 1-355 Heritage Corridor: Cumulative Effects of Local Plans, May 1996 (revised
October 1996) as
part
of executing its on-going charge.
Bt. at .8MplCi JOg M
tIi€
iilliiOt§ €OhlPiL@d 3M!;, Ret i6
2
Ga~QfI14,
i«!i e EdOltes ooiM be ..
li"jR'erted.1
J
fl1 si.
lin.
~$IM'lty
't!MMIHft!b 09 ISULtI." ,eluted. 'J'
till~
aPitP'sPs15ih
Tel1
Mir..,e Advisory Committee will work with ISTHA. to address local issues related
to facility construction. Finally, the Agency constructing the roadway (Constructing Agency) will send
to the involved local municipal, township or county governments preliIni.pary plans applying to their area
prior
to completing final design. The agencies will be invited to comment OIl the plans and indicate if they
would
be willing to participate in the costs of providing bicycle/multi-use. t(ails, sidewalks, traffic signal
modifications, lighting, widening, landscaping, etc. Local
governm~ntsreceiving
the coordination will
PAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
6
Record of Derision
include: the Villages of Woodridge, Lemont, New Lenox and Homer. Glen; the City of Lockport; the
Townships ofDuPage, Lemont, Homer, and
New Lenox; and the Counties of DuPage, Cook, and Will.
Wetlands; There were no alignments that avoided all wetland impacts. The Selected Alternative, a
refinement
of the original proposed alignment, was developed to minimize impacts to wetlands. The
So!
I'
I
"
En
';
'g 3 92 J
,
E (2
e
..
of. wetland, all. within the Des Plaines
River watershed. Wetlands in
the Des Plaines River Valley will be bridged to minimize the area directly
filled and reduce changes
in hydrologic characteristics of the affected wetlands. Due to various Federal
and
compensation.
State requirements, this project
I'
)9 Q?
I seas
(U.
" '
is
,;
Wig)
credits of wetland
i
.
~'.
.,
'
'
As
committed to
in
the 1996 FEIS, wetland compensation will be derived from three sources; two
',J4
locations along the Spring Creek floodplain and the Lockport.. PraitieNature Preserve. The, total
~
~ ~1:"
\CA?mitigation
by the Selected
acreage
Alternative
required
and
has
a
changed
change
due
in the
to
replacement
the decrease
ratios
in the
used,~
total. wetland
;calculate
hectares
total mitigation
(acres) impacted
area.
7..
a.
a
~.
~
IS
The
satisfies
first
Section
area of
404
mitigation
of the
Cl~
is 'located
Water
along
Act.
Spring
This mitisafion
Creek. It
will
is
6.,6.&:h~~
replace the function
(16.5 acres)
an~
value
in area
of3.93
and
g~
I
z,.
'1~ectares
(9.7 acres) acres of unpacted wetlands. Followmg acceptance. of the created sIte by the U.S.
~ ~y
Corps of Engineers (USACOE), the Spring Creek mitigation sitewil,l be transferred to the Forest
j
~
Preserve District of Will County (FPDWC) as part of the Spring Creek Greenway, in fee. An
t
approximate 30-meter (IOO-foot) buffer will be incorporated into thedesi8\1 Qfthe site to allow for access,
'Z
long term management and recreational
trail
development. The sprhi
g'
Creek site has been acquired, but
no mitigation has occurred.
rt tl
The second area occurs within the Lockport Prairie Nature
Presery~ .i~Jhe,:o.~
Plaines River Valley and
~~ ~
satisfies agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
(USFW~).
~
the FPDWC.
Since /
l'
publication of the 1996 FEIS, work on this site has been complett:d
~d
approved by the USACOE,
USFWS, and FPDWC for the restoration
of the Lockport Prairie site. In
a
letter dated July 25, 1997 from
the USACOE, 1.52 hectares (3.75 acres)
of the 6.07 hectares (15.0 acres) site were credited for wetland
mitigation.
. . .
.
"! '.
e third site will satisfy regulations issued under the IDinois
Int~ragepcy W~land
Policy Act of 1989.
OT, ISTHA
(if identified as the Constructing Agency), FPDWC, and
th~ n~ois
Department of Natural
ources (IDNR) have identified
an acceptable site adjacent to
th~ ~
s#e along Spring Creek. An
ditional 1.8 hectares (4.5 acres) has been located on FPDWC .. proHlfJ:ty, along the Spring Creek
enway. Itt 18Mideratioh
of
~
Bistliet
PI~iiMatlI_".
iE' till
.~~iiia~.ll
8 hestares" 5.
~)o{
t
All three mitigation sites are located within the same watershed
as.~eimpacted
wetlands. The
Constructing Agency will coordinate with the USACOE and nlinQis
Environm.. ental Protection Agency
(IEP A)
to determine actions to be taken on these permits to fulfill all
Sec~on.
404 and 401 requirements.
Water Quality; Measures to protect water quality within the project corridor during construction of the
Selected Alternative will include adherence
to the Constructing Agency's standard specification for
regulating sediment and erosion control. Measures provided
w~l;
indude pIdjJMZOh HI
If
!WiH'bn
contW' i'S1
§,opp'UPgr
Qg1!nt;QC II
I"
sa fSIMi. The plan will
specify't~:ffiporary
runoff diversions with
sedimentation controls
to be used to capture sediment laden runoff during coristniction. Additionally, the
Selected Alternative will bridge the Des Plaines River Valley and thereby minimize the wetland and
floodplain area directly filled, thus reducing changes, in hydrologic characteristics of the valley.
~~ ~«l..J
PAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
7
Record 0/ Decision
.
"
.
I
\\
~
Stormwater generated on the bridge during operation will be collected and piped to a wet detention basin
t J
~
in the Des Plaines River Valley. Detention basins will also be provided at major stream crossings.
~
In
addition, to minimize impacts to Black Partridge Nature Preserve and Creek, the roadway was moved
t
~
\1
l
approximately 107 meters (350 feet) west of
the recorded
alignment. This reduced
proximity
of
the
1
~
,
~
roadway to Black Partridge Nature Preserve and Creek and decreased potential salt transport. To further
!.L
A} J
'1
protect this resource, surface runoff generated south of Davey Road during operation will be collected,
~ ~
detained and discharged outside of the Black Partridge Creek watershed. This eliminates 3.7 kilometers
""! ,""
tJ
1.! aJ
Partridge
(2.3 miles)
Creek
or 22
has
percent
been
of
ongoing
anticipated
since
highway
1994 and
runoff
continues
to Black
in accordance
Partridge Creek.
with previous
Monitoring
commitments.
of Black
''''./
./J--'
Previous commitments include conducting water quality monitoring prior to, during and after
~
construction. Results of the monitoring will be coordinated with Cook, Will and DuPage counties.
Salt Spray: A road salt dispersion study was undertaken by the
min()i~ S~te
Water Survey (lSWS)
beginning
in February 1996. This commitment satisfies concerns previously'raised by US Department of
the Interior, the FPDWC, and the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission. Key study components included
evaluation of the mass emission to the atmosphere, the size distribution of the emitted salt droplets and
the concentration and size of these droplets at varying distances from their source. The initial results of
the study are presented in Section 4.16.2 of the Draft and Final SEIS. Detailed results are presented in
the ISWS report titled "Atmospheric Dispersion Study of Deicing Salt Applied to Roads: First Progress
Report" dated April 2000. J
aR!:5
phasee as'''e
"'I~J
....
,.lepUPait d',,'
I
dl'; ,.' '=1_1
"lIri,"~erj6
dhii_ieete'~~~IiJI",;t'
Threatened and Endangered Species: The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife'Se~ice pl'~vided
an opinion in 1995
that the Selected Alternative would not affect the leafy prairie clover
(D,alea,
folio
sa
).
In
November 1995,
the Service concurred that the Selected Alternative would not likely adversely affect the Hine's emerald
dragonfly (Somatochlora hineana). COncurrence on the Hines emerald dragonfly was predicated on
dragonfly and salt spray studies which would be performed prior
to,,~¥ring,
and after construction. The
pre-construction phase
of the dragonfly studies have been ongoing since
1~95
and served as a basis for
the 1999 Dragonfly Recovery Plan. The results
of these studies are
s~PW1~d
in Section 2 of the 1996
FEIS. Oetailed results are presented
in
the Dragonfly Recovery
.PI~,(~u~e:
1999), follow-up Illinois
Natural Historic Survey reports and the ISWS Report titled
"Atmosp~eric
Dispersion Study of Deicing
Salt Applied to Roads (April 2000)". A pre-construction study of the;
.l{~ne's
emerald dragonfly re-
confirmed that the Selected Alternative as planned would not adversely effect the Hine's emerald
dragonfly.
n Q
1
r
6 , 6 J
'n II rid ...
0' thetH"r ,
,~.
*"'DIlftj
US Lt_
a
MAllO. f2lctrr.on.
:'
,
'
Regarding the Spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata) and Blandings turtle
(Emyd~idea
bmndingi), a herpetologist
will be employed to determine
if
the primary range of the spotted turtle:and, Blandings turtle is outside the
construction limits before construction begins. If spotted turtles are found
~
the construction limits, then
appropriate action would
be taken based on the herpetologist's recollll11endations.
In
addition, a biologist,
botanist, and ornithologist will be retained by the Constructing Agency to" observe construction startup
activities adjacent
to and within local forest preserves.
The
scientists
Will
visit the site periodically and report
all findings directly
to the Constructing Agency.
Section
6(0: Keepataw Forest Preserve was purchased using
~d
atld, ,water Conservation Funds
(LAWCON).
In
an August 9, 1995 letter it is stated
that
the Constructing Agency requires a permanent
easement
of approximately 5.0 hectares (12.4 acres) and a temporary easement of approximately 1.2
additional hectares (3.0 acres)
in land located in the Keepataw Forest
Pr~serve
for use in connection with
FAP Route 340. Suggested replacement lands for LAWCON properties ,required for the project have
been identified in coordination with the Forest Preserve District
ofWiU~ounty
(FPDWC). This property
has been appraised at $14,830 per hectare ($6,000 per acre).jua, 11
ft I'll ill, ..
"'~trtfte
FAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
8
Record of Dedsion
£sp&
(18
'82ZiC§
"II
pWeie
ut_. bWii WiifilMms: iCfbiiW 28
g
me
tcta;mc
I 11 -.
:?! ••
This property was appraised
at
$365,000 and is approximately 11.7
hectares(2~
acres) in size. The National
Park Service
(NPS) approved this transfer subsequent to FHW A's
of the FEIS and issuance of a
ROD. The IDNR indicated that the NPS is in agreement. .... _ ... _ ..... IIIIPIi ... ____ .rbe
Coordination with the FPDWC has continued during preparation of the FinalSEIS. At a meeting on June
20, 2000, the FPDWC reaffirmed its desire to maintain the proposed LA WCON replacement land as
described in the Draft SEIS. Intergovernmental agreements addreSsing'LAWCON replacement are
presented in the Final SEIS, Appendix
A.
,
• '. •
~,:.
: 'I "
•
Revegetation: During the design phase, tree mitigation plans will be submitted to the FPDWC for
comment. Tree mitigation will consist
of two components: the planting of replacement seedlings on
property owned and managed by the FPDWC, and the planting
ofnori~seedlmg
trees along the corridor or
crossroads as appropriate. The planting
of seedlings is intended to eliminate edge effects by filling in gaps
between forested tracts
of land. This reduction of forest edge is a measure to reduce cowbird nest
parasitism. Tree replacement species will be similar to the species lost
if
appropriate environmental
conditions still exist to support the species.
'
'"','.'
Landscaping design plans for tree replacement will be distributed to local 'park and forest preserve
districts for review prior
to initiating the bidding process. Tree replacC?ment to mitigate actual tree losses
may occur in some
of the agricultural, forbland, and shrubland
~,~Spci,~d
with the forested
tracts
crossed by the preferred highway alignment. Tree replacement woul!:l:
~c~~]png
the edges of the right-
of-way where feasible following the establishment
of the
final
~g~'!gr;ules.
Approximately 16,500
~
trees will be
~moved
due to the
c~nstruction
of the
Se~ected Alterna"~y,.~",,R,ePl~ement
ratios
~ill
be 1:1
for non-seedlmgs and 3:1 for seedlmgs. The Constructing Agency Will lise native grass seed tnIXtures on
the backslopes
of ditches and in some interchange infields.
. ','
J
,~
r'" , . ...,'
•
Decreasing existing fragmentation at sites in the area will mitigate
~elttation
of forests to be caused
by the project. This will be done by reforesting appropriate
non-fqr~~~4 ~ ~fland
in the area
that
are
adjacent
to or between existing (relatively) large forest tracts, so as to increase the total acreage of
continuous forest and thus the acreage of forest interior habitat. The majority of the tree mitigation effort
will involve the reforestation effort.
The
number of acres to be
refor~ed
will depend on the density of
the plantings. Reforestation will occur on forest preserve proPtrrty.",
}h~
Constructing Agency will
coordinate this effort with the FPDWC.
;:~.,
.
Protection and care will be provided for all existing trees and shrubs
'to
r~inwithin
the project limits as
referenced in mOT's Special Provision for Protection and Care
of Trees and Shrubs, which will be
included in the job specifications. Existing trees and shrubs which are to remain will also be delineated
on the plans as will those which are
to be removed. Finally, native grass seed mixtures will be used as
appropriate
on the back slopes of ditches and the infields of interchanges. Mowing restrictions applying
to the backslopes of ditches will be implemented adjacent to forested areas as a measure to minimize
cowbird parasite activities.
Cultural Resources: A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
sign~(tilt9q;()ber
3, 1995 outlined the
procedures for IS1HA
to follow to address the impacts to the" Lpstron H()use, Avoidance of this
architecturally significant structure was not feasible and prudent. In
,co~uU:ation
with the Illinois State
Historic Preservation Office (lSHPO), a mitigation plan
to mitigate use'ofthis property was formulated.
In accordance with this plan, the Lustron House was
to be recorded according to Historic American
Building Survey (HABS) standards. The structure
was marketed
thro~gh
advertisements with a plan to
, : 1,.'
FAP 340 (1-355 South Extension)
!J
Record of Decision
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
1V1
move the Lustron House to a setting deemed suitable by the SHPO. A MOA (1996 FEIS. Appendix B) was
drafted in an effort to formalize this mitigation plan and fulfill all requirements pursuant to 36 C.F.R Part
800, regulations implementing Section 106
of the National HistOric PreservatIon Act (16 U.S.C. 470f).
The Lustron House structure
was inadvertently taken down prior to its HA13S recording. Therefore, this
stipulation
of the MOA could not be satisfied. A meeting between ISTHA and the Illinois HistOric
Preservation Agency
(IHP
A) was conducted on August 17, 2000 to discuss the status of coordination for
the Lustron House. The meeting focused on an October 7, 1998 letter from IHP A to ISTHA in which
IHP A identified three options for ISTHA to satisfy Stipulation 3
of the MOA: lSTHA accepted Option 1:
development of a good resource file for distribution (brochure) which' could. be distributed to Lustron
owners
or the general public to promote better awareness of this histOric,propertytype. At an August 17,
2000 meeting, FHW A concurred that
if ISTHA proceeds with the above stated Option 1, Stipulation 3 of
the MOA would be adequately addressed and the Section 106 proCess would be complete. ISTHA
confirmed its Draft SEIS, Appendix D commitment to implementing' Option l in a letter to IHPA dated
August 28, 2000. ISTHA submitted a
draft brochure to IHP A for review and .conditional approval on
October 10, 2001. The Draft SEIS, Appendix D and Final SEIS, Appendix A presents copies of the
referenced letters, minutes
of the referenced meetings, and applicable memoranda of agreement.
In
addition, a HistOric Marker commemorating the invention of the steel-tipped plow by John Lane was
located on the northeast comer of 163rd Street and Gougar Road. This HistOric Marker was relocated on
the same property.
Air Quality: The Project Corridor is located within the Chicago metropolitan area. This region is
classified as a "Severe" ozone non-attainment area
of the NatioJIal, Ambient
Air
Quality Standard
(NAAQS).
The non-attainment area includes Cook, DuPage,
Km,i~,-;~~~,~~((nry,
and Will counties,
as well as the townships
of Aux Sable and Goose Lake in Grundy, .Coullty and Oswego Township in
Kendall County.
j
. 1
"'lI~
~
The
analysis.
Selected
staff
Alternative
at
The
the
analysis
Chicago
utilizing
found
Area
the
the
Transportation
same
impact
process
on emissions
that
Study
is
(CATS)
used
from
for
the
perfP~~<cf<~
the.
SC?I~~fi;~t,ef1latiye
,m'i~~;~
'!;}mission
air
to
quality
be
analysis
negligible
conformity
for the
for
~
both VOC and NO
x•
As such, CATS found the impact of the Selected"Al:te,;native on ozone levels in the
northeastern Illinois area to be inSignificant and no additional urban
airShed~ysis
was determined to be
~
j
necessary. The mPA concurred with this finding in a letter dated
D~c~p1l>C?r,6,
2000. A copy of this
, letter is presented
in
Draft SEIS, Appendix C. Therefore, further .3lIalysj$}Vith respect to ozone is not
warranted
or appropriate., <
,." . <
Noise: To minimize noise impacts from normal operations
to'serisitivecar~~
noise walls will be
constructed where determined
to be economically reasonable and feasible:"These locations are identified
in the Draft SEIS, Section 4.13.
Also, during construction
of the Selected Alternative it will be the'
respo~ibility
of all contractors to
determine and comply with the limitations imposed by local ordinances with respect to construction
operations, equipment noise and working time restrictions.
Pedestrian
and Bike Trails: Ongoing coordination and planning',is
pr~~e4ing
to accommodate a
potential bikeway along the corridor
of the Selected Alternative.' , Upon.'completion of the roadway
project, the haul road and low level bridge across the Des Plaines River installed by the Constructing
Agency will be given to the FPDWC with the Constructing Agency only retaining a right to use the
bridge for inspection and maintenance purposes. The
ConstructinS.;~g~ii~y
will inspect the low level
bridge and repair it as necessary after construction
of the Selected
Alt~rnatAye
:to
insure that it is
in
good
working condition prior to transferring ownership to the FPDWC
.. .At the,request of the FPDWC, a box
culvert will be constructed immediately north
of Spring Creek
f~.r p.~s~~
of horses, bicyclists or
~'
• \:
"' <
PAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
<
10
. ,
Record of Decision
pedestrians. A second box culvert will also be constructed south of Spring Creek for passage of bicyclists
and pedestrians. Prior
to construction of these structures, an agreement will be prepared that identifies the
appropriate agency
to assume jurisdiction of these structures including ownet:Ship, operation, maintenance
and security.
,
,',
.,
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts: The Study Area is undergofugrapid'population and employment
growth. This growth is projected
to continue to year 2020. County and niunicipal governments within
the Project Corridor have planned for this growth and have adopted latld
use, plans
that
designate over 75
percent of the Project Corridor for development. The remaining lands
~e
pf()tected park and preservation
lands. The local governments have formed the Heritage Corridor Planning Council (HCPC) to coordinate
planning within the Project Corridor to aid in managing secondary impacts
of development.
The Selected Alternative combined with other federal actions and local eConomic development efforts
would influence growth and development within the Project Corridor. However, the portion
of future
growth attributable
to the Selected Alternative is low, amounting to 0.6 percent of population and 0.1
percent
of employment growth within the Study Area
(Draft
SEIS, Appendix A - The Socio-Economic.
Land Use and Accessibility Impacts
of the Proposed 1-355 Extension>. ' The influence of the Selected
Alternative on growth within the study area would be to consolidate growth closer to existing urban
development and
at higher densities along the alignment than would have occurred
had
the alternative not
been selected. The key mechanisms providing authority for environmental resource protection within the
Project Corridor include those listed in Table 2.
"
Permits: Construction of the Selected Alternative will involve
wetl~ds,
floodways,
and
waterways and
will require both Federal and State permits. A joint application
to,,~~\.J!.s.,.
~y
Corps of Engineers
(USACE), Dlinois Deparbnent
of Natural Resources - Office of Water Resources (lDNRlOWR), and
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) will be made duritig #Ie
~esign
phase. The USACE
issues Section 404 permits which fulfill their regulatory function
ove~ the,,~~Waters
of the United States"
which includes wetlands. IDNRlOWR issues permits for
constructionj~)l<?pc:iways
and for crossings of
streams with more than 2.59 square kilometers (one square mile) of drainage area. The crossings include:
the main channel
of the Des Plaines River, the Chicago SanitarY. and' Ship Canal, the Illinois and
Michigan Canal, the main channel
of Long Run, the main channel of
Fld~~e~t
Creek, the main channel
of Fraction Run, the south tributary of Fraction Run, the main
chawtet~(SpriIlg
Creek, and the tributary
of Hickory Creek. IEPA provides water quality certification pursuantto Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. This certification is mandatory for all projects requiring a Sectio,ii,404 Permit. The USACE permits
construction within navigable waterways through Section 10
of the qeati Water Act. Section 10 permits
will
be obtained for work within and over the Des Plaines River and for crossing over the Chicago
Sanitary and Ship Canal. The project will result
in the disturbance of one or more acres of total land area.
Accordingly, it is subject
to the requirement for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for stormwater discharges from construction sites in accordance with Section 402(P)
of
the Federal Clean Water Act as amended. Permit coverage for the project will be obtained either under
the IEPA General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Site Activities (NPDES Permit
No.
ILRIOOOOO), or under an individual NPDES permit. Bridges across navigable waters of the United
States are regulated
by the U.S. Coast Guard under Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. A
permit will be obtained from the U.S. Coast Guard for the crossing
of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal.
Construction: Construction measures will
be implemented to
rninimi~e~
to water quality, sensitive
resources, and threatened and endangered species. General
COnstruc4QIl.
n.ritiga~on
measures will include
erosion control procedures
in conformance with the standard specificatiom of the
~onstructing
Agency.
This
will include preparation of an erosion control plan
that
will iden" ':, er6sion control measures
~
irn
lemen
se
me' to minimize the amount 0 exposed soil,
stabiliZIng enuded areas and utilizing temporary erosion control measures
e
spec} c 0
~ective
of
""
;
PAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
11
Record of Decision
, .
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
,retaining all silt on site to prevent silt from entering wetlands and streams. "Tltere
will
be a pay item in the
construction contract for exploratory
trenches,
which win allow a
~J;'
to
l~
,drainage field tiles prior
to major earthwork. ''No Intrusion" fences
will be erected to
restriCt'.'~nstWction
activities between the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and Bluff Road. A ''No Intrusion" fence
;will also be used to prevent
the
contractor from operating outside the required right-of-way to protect.
the,
Black Partridge Nature Preserve.
Similar fences
will be used to prevent disturbance to other environmentally sensitive areas. FPDWC and
Constructing Agency staff will work together to determine the placement of the fences.
VI.
COMMENTS ON THE FINAL SEIS
The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final SEIS was published in the
Federal Register
on September
21,2001. The notice specified October 15,2001 as the end of the wait period, 24 days after the NOA was
published
in the
Federal Register.
FHWA submitted the original request for the NOA to appear in the
September 14, 2001
Federal Register
to allow for a fun 30-day wait perIod. mOT also distributed copies
of the Final SEIS to all agency and public/private interests in advance of the intended September 14,2001
notice. Due to the events that happened on September 11, 2001, the USEP A
was
unable to publish the
NOA in the
Federal Register
until September 21,2001. The USEPAstated in the. notice that all comment
and wait periods for
EIS's originally submitted for filing in the September 14,'2001 publication were
calculated from September 14, 2001.
Comments submitted are addressed below. Federal, State and
Local
Resource Agency comments are
presente~
first
(addressed individually) followed by local
gove~~~
..
~,gene~
public comments
(caregonzed and addressed by category). Resource Agency
conup.~~I''N:~~F
,subll1ltted by the USEPA,
Will County Land Use Department, Forest Preserve District of Will
CQ~ty"and
the Illinois Department
of Natural Resources (IDNR) in response to circulation of the
Fit;l~(S~i$.·
. Local Government and
general public comments consisted of 25 letters.
' ... \1,..
,.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPAl
Commeni~;;'
;',
The
USEPA
stated
in their
comment letter submitted after publication
of the Draft SEIS that.it'ooneurred with the Purpose and
Need criteria, that the need for the Build Alternative
has
been demonstrated, arid that a sufficient
range of build alternatives had been identified.
The USEPA also commented that information
presented
in the Draft SEIS indicated that the Lemont Bypass Alternative may have met Purpose and
Need and commented that the Draft SEIS should be supplemented with an evaluation of
environmental impacts for the Lemont Bypass Alternative.
Aftetrevie~ingthe
Final SEIS, USEPA
stated that based upon all four performance criteria, the
Tollr~r~y
Alternative appeared to
perform substantially better
than
the Lemont Bypass Alternative and deferred to the conclusion of
FHWA and lOOT that
the
Lemont Bypass Alternative was"DQt"yiable enough across all four
performance criteria
to carry forward for full NEPA evaluation
in
the Draft and Final SEIS.
The
USEPA stated
that concerns remain about the indirect effects of the 'project and the cumulative effects
of development. The USEP A commented that, while the Selected Alternative will only act to
promote less
than
one percent of the growth projected for the study area compared to the No-Action
(Baseline) Alternative, growth projected for the No-Action
(~3:S'1I.ne)
Alternative is substantial.
USEPA requested
that information regarding local growth
~e~~nt
and resource protection
measures taken
by the Heritage Corridor Planning Council ..
an:,<:t, ,
th.e;.
t~i>ective
municipalities be
disclosed to the public.
,<>; I,t., '
,
.
. 'j:.,'
Response to Comments:
As
pressure increases for land to
b~ de~~ioped
in the Project Corridor,
the potential also rises for impacts
to environmental features
to
occui. Historically, regulations
and standards have
been adopted by local municipalities and' cotfutiesto assist in the protection
and preservation
of those natural resources. Table I includ¢$a
J:epr~entat;ive
sampling of current
ordinances
or codes that have been established which
provid~.the
19Cal governing agencies with
methods
of controlling land development. Note that the
age~c~.es
listed in Table 1 were selected
FAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
12
Record of Decision
c-,.,".t
t".
as representative of those governmental agencies located
in
the' Project Corridor. There are
numerous additional similar control measures for other govermnent 'agencies
in
the area.
Land or Cash Contributions for Publlc Parks -
As
a condition of approval of a
final
plat,
each
Chapter 153.30,
developer or subdivider will
be
required to dedicate land for
park
and reereatiorud puiposes to serve the Section 020
immediate and
future needs of the residents of the development, or cash cOntrlbl¢ion in lieu of actual land
dedication, or combination
of
both.
at the option of the City.
'
Soil Erosion
and Sedimentation Control- The purpose of this control is to safeguard persons. protect Chapter 153.50,
property, prevent damage to
the environment, and promote the public welfare by guiding. regulating and Section 020
controlling the
design. construction, use and maintenance of any development or other activity which
disturbs or breaks the topsoil and other conditions allowing
the movement of sedimentation with the City.
Drainage and Storm Water Management - This chapter requires
each
development, depending on size, Chapter 153.50,
to submit a drainage plan, in accordance with IDOT
standards
and requirements listed in the ordinance.
Sections
040-
;,. ,':.: "
060
Bikepaths - This chapter requires bikepaths to
be
constructed in locations required by the Official Plan Chapter 153.50,
and
shall
comply with the requirements
listed
in the chapter.
' "
,
Section 090
Landscaping - All subdivisions. whether public or private,
shall
provide for the landscaping of parkways, Chapter 153.50,
parks, open
space
areas, areas to
be
dedicated to the public, and o'ther: areas
in
accordance with this Section 120
Chapter and other City ordinance.' . '." '. .
Development Activity
in Adjacent Lowlands - This chapter's intent is.tO promote
the
health, safety and Chapter 153.60,
general welfare
of
the present and future residents of the City and downstream drainage areas by providing Section 040
for the protection, preservation, proper maintenance, and use
of Lockport watercourses, lakes, ponds,
floodplains. and wetland areas.
":' .'"
Hydrologic Controls and Drainage Control Plan Required - The dmitiage Control plan
shall
identifY Chapter 153,60,
appropriate
measw-es, such as recharge basins and detention basins,
which
will,:limitth~
quantitative and Section 050
qualitative effects
of stonnwater runoff to pre-development conditions.
;'~ '\~:
Natural Vegetation Buffer Strip Required - To minimize erosion, tostabi1ize the Stream
bank,
protect Chapter 153.60,
water quality, maintain
water
temperature at
natural
levels, preserve fish andWlldlife habitat, to screen Section 060
man-made
structures,
and also to preserve aesthetic values of the
natural
watercourse and wetland areas.
Vegetation
and Revegetation Landscape Plan Required - A plan should
be
'submitted with preliminary Chapter 153.60,
and fmal development plans for activity within Lowland Conservatory area :iind should
describe
existing Section 070
vegetative cover and areas
where
the vegetation will
be
removed as part of propOsed construction, as well
as, a plan describing
the proposed revegetation of disturbed areas specifying what material to
be used.
Watercourse Relocation and Minor Modifications - Generally this is' not
Permitted,
however under Chapter 153.60,
certain
circumstances may
be
permitted where certain problems can
be.
mitigated by relocation and/or Section 080
minor modification.
.
Conditions
and Restrictions for Permitting Stream ModiftcationlRelocation - This section lists the Chapter 153,60,
specifications, conditions and restrictions that must
be
followed to modify watercourses.
Section 090
Required Content of Stream ModiftcationlRelocation Plan - This
~tion
lists
criteria to
be
included
in
Chapter 153.60,
a watercourse modification/relocation plan that must
be
submitted
in
otdti to
be
considered for a Section 100
watercourse modification.
Criteria for Permitting Armoring
of Channels and Banks - Annoring
in
the fonnofbulkheads, riprap Chapter 153.60,
or other
materials or devices is not pennitted except in the accordance of this section.
Section 110
PAP 340 (1-355 South Extension)
13
. : .. !
Record of Dedsion
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
Impact Assessment - This section requires that a report must be prepared l>y a qUalified professional and Chapter 153.60,
approved by the City, which assesses the potential impacts of proposed deV'eloPment on a lake, stream. or Section 130
wetland and associated environmentally sensitive
areas,
including loSs. of flOOd storage Potential, loss of
habitat, changes in species diversity and quantity, impacts on water quality, IDcieases in human intrusion
and
impacts on associated streams, lakes, ponds, wetland or downstream 8W)S: .
Floodplain Management and Damage Prevention - This chapter details'Specific
standaIds
that must be
followed for review and approval of subdivisions
and
other developrilent; and
is
applicable to
all
floodplain areas.
Administration and Enforcement of Floodplain Management and 'Damage Pievention - The village
engineer
is
responsible for the general administration
and
enforcement; of this code. The village
engineer's responsibility is detailed in
this
division.
Use
of Flood Fringe Areas - This division details situations and requirements in which developrilent in
and/or filling
of the flood fringe will be
permitted
as well as lists requirements for deve10prilents located
within
the flood fringe.
,_
..'
Use of Identified F100dways - This division applies to proposed
(]e1.~elopmi~t;:
redleve:lopmeIlt. site
modification or building modification within a regulatory
floodway. '.
and
uses will
be permitted which meet the criteria in this division. This division
to floodways.
Use of Special Flood Hazard Areas Where Floodways are not
. . ,TIns division requires that
the cumulative effect of the proposed development in special flood
hazard~,Where
no floodways are
identified
be
evaluated and that the areas meet the criteria detailed in
this
division. ;,
Erosion Control- This article provides the minimum
standards
to
safcr~d penJo~ ~
protect property,
to
control the despoliation of the environment. and
to
protect public Welfafe:bY regutating and controlling
developrilents or other activities which disturb or
break
the topsoil or otnerWish'eSult
iIi
the movement of
earth or land situated in the village.
'. ,,"', '
Stormwater Runoff Control - This ordinance regulates stormwaternmoff quality and developrilent
activities, which could result in excess nmoff
to prevent adverse impacts. ' .
. .
Recommendation for Stream and Wetland Protection - This
ordinance, the
procedures. standaIds
and
requirements
for protection
detailed
in this article, apply
to all
lots wit1ihi
wettaiii:lS
and Streams.
Vegetation, Grading and Seeding Rights-of-Way and Other Public Use Areas -: All improved areas
within the dedicated street area or other public use areas shall
be
8r8ded
and:
Seeded
in an approved
manner according to this ordinance.
. ,'"
,'" .
Vegetation, Parkway Trees - All single-family detached and duplex residential subdivisions
for which a
final
plat
is
applied for
shall
be required
to
have trees planted in the parlcway in compliance with
regulations
of this ordinance.
Landscaping Requirements - This article is established to create uniform landscape, screening and tree
preservation
standaIds
for developments.
< '.:" ,.'. '
Noise Standards - This division sets noise level regulations for variousdeyeloJ>ID:enfactivities.
.... ': .
.:.
.
, ,
,
"t.
Chapter
46,
Article
II.
Code
1981
Chapter
46,
Article
II.
Division 2
Chapter
46,
Article
II.
Division 3
Chapter
46,
Article
II.
Division 4
Chapter
46,
Article
II.
DivisionS
Chapter
38,
Articlell
Chapter
38,
Article
ill
Chapter
38,
Article IV
Chapter
98,
Article 1.
Ord.
No. 1114
Chapter
98,
Article 1.
Ord.
No. 1114
Chapter
106,
Article IX
Chapter
106,
Article
VII,
DivisionS
FAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
14
Record oj Decision
Noise Standards - This section
sets
the required noise performance levels for various development B, page 79
activities. No opemtion or activity shall cause or create noise in excesS of the soUnd levels detailed in
this
section.
,:'~'
.. :'
Earthborne Vibration Standards - This section sets the
required Vibi8ti6n .
performance levels for C, page 80
various development activities. No opemtion or activity shall
causeb¥Ci,e8te earthborne
vibrations in
excess of the displacement values listed in this section.
,',," , .
Smoke and Particulate Matter Standards - This section states that
all operations.
activities and uses 0, page 81
shall be
conducted
so
as to comply with the performance standards govenUDg
fire
and explosion
hazards.
Toxic Matter Standards - This section
sets
the levels of emitted,
toxi~
matter that operations and E, page 83
activities should not exceed.
" ' ,
Odorous
Matter Standards - This section
states
that no operation
or
activity shall cause or create the F, page 83
emission of odorous matter or vapor in amounts or quantities that exceed
the
levels prescribed for
the
zoning
district in which
the
operation or activity is located.
'"
Flood Damage Prevention - This ordinance works to maintain the G9unty's,eligi1>ility in
the
National
Flood Insurance Program;
to minimize potential losses
due
to
periodic
flOOdmg;and to preserve and
enhance the quality
of swface waters, conserve economic and natural values and provide for the wise
utilization of water and related land resources.
SOU Erosion and Sedimentation Control- The intent of this
ordinancei~
to
Iimlt,
as closely as possible.
the delivery
of sediment from sites affected by land disturbing activities to
that
which would have
occurred
if
the land bad
been
left in its natural undisturbed state.
'
,
Stormwater Drainage and Detention - This ordinance regu1ateS:stormwater" runoff quality and
development activities, which could result in excess runoff to prevent
adv~impacts.
Stream and Wetland Protection - This ordinance provides for
th~.pro~tiO\l.preservation,
proper
maintenance, and use of Will County watercourses, lakes, ponds, floodplilin.,and wethmd
iireas.
Note: The resources used to create this table are the current editions in use al of December 2001.
Ordinance 98-
22
(Zoning
Ordinance
Section 9)
Ordinance 98-
23
(Zoning
Ordinance
Chapter 9)
Ordinance 98-
24
Ordinance 98-
25
Will County Land Use Department Comments: In their comment letter dated October 15,2001,
the Will County Land Use Department stated Will County supportsoonstruction of the Selected
Alternative
in the most expeditious manner. However, the Department commented
that
greater
explanation was needed as
to the standards for consideririg 'noise barriers. The Department
commented
that
noise impacts for the Selected Alternative should' be evaluated by combining the
ambient noise levels with the added noise generated
by the Selected Alternative.
It
was also stated as
the Department's understanding that
mOT
and
ISmA monitoLroad,noise,
and
that Will County
expects regular monitoring
of noise levels.
Response to Comments:
The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) policies and procedures,
23 C.F.R 772, served as the procedural guidelines in the 'analysis. Incorporated into the
regulations are Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), which are based
on the type of land use and
activities performed
at the respective sites. In implementing the FHW A 23 C.F.R, Part 772
regulations, the
mOT developed the current Noise Analysis Policy dated April 3, 2000. This
..•.• \t.
FAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
15
Record of Dedsion
-------------------------
,:1
policy is Section 26-6 in the mOT Bureau of Design and Environment Manual and defines traffic
noise impacts to occur under the following circumstances:
"
I. Design-year traffic noise levels are within 1 dB(A)
of or exceed the NAC.
2. Design-year traffic noise levels are greater than 14dB(A) above existing traffic-
generated noise levels.
, : '
Ambient noise monitoring was conducted within the Project
:C~rndor
to
,4~termine
if design-year
traffic noise levels would
be greater than 14 dB(A) above exisWig traffic-generated noise levels
(Criteria 2). The Draft and Final SEIS, Sections 2.14 and
4.1~
discuss in detail the regulations,
methods, and results
of the noise impact analysis conducted for the project.
Although field noise measurements are not taken for
eVery project, they are one way of
examining potentially impacted sensitive receptors. Measurements are not necessary where it is
clear that the existing levels are predominantly from an existing highway
to be improved.
In
this
case, existing levels can
be satisfactorily estimated using the .. apprQyt}d noise prediction methods.
In
the case of the Selected Alternative, the highway does. not.
exiSt~
,Therefore, existing levels
could not
be satisfactorily estimated using the approved noise prediction methods and ambient
monitoring
was warranted.
'
An explanation of the noise level scale is provided to address, the issue of evaluating noise
impacts
of the Selected Alternative by combining the ambient noise' levels with the added noise
generated by the Selected Alternative. The quantity normally,
l
meaSured when dealing with
acoustic noise is sound pressure level measured in decibels,
.• Because' the decibel scale is
logarithmic, the sum
of two separate noise sources does not
e.q~,
each part. The doubling of
acoustic power yields an increase of only three decibels.
Thi~ .~~ i~
also true of traffic noise,
in that the number of vehicles on a traveled way would need to double to produce an increase of
three decibels.
I.
._ ' __ ,,'
,
The noise analysis for the Selected Alternative in 'the vicwt§;bf :iUinois Route 7 depicts the
concept
of "masking". If a listener is simultaneously expose4
to
~o'
different sound sources, it is
a general experience
that when one of the sources is very
lou~f
(exiSting traffic noise from nIinois
Route 7),
the second sound source (projected traffic noise from the proposed Selected
Alternative) is "drowned out" and cannot be heard. The louder sound source is said
to mask the
other sound. The masking effect is explained as a shift in.
~e h~g
threshold caused by the
louder sound and depends upon the frequency difference between the two sounds.
In
the case
described here, the frequencies would
be nearly
identicalJ~c
noise), and thus the masking
would be nearly complete.
;,> >
>~>
, .
~
1
....
...,.
!
~
Jl~
p1
~1
As for on-going noise monitoring, mOT does not implement
a
program to conduct on-going
1£
\
monitoring
impacts of highway
of highway
improvements
noise. Per FHW
to determine
AJIDOT
if
policies
the
imprqye~ents\
and procedures,
warrant
mOT
mitigation.
evaluates
As
noise
for
i
c
~
the Selected Alternative, the Constructing Agency will
re-ev~u. ~te;
tlle need for noise walls along
1<1
~
Forest
October
the alignment
Pres
5,2001,
• ....,
the
District
during
FPDWC
the
of
design
WiD
stated
phase
County
that
prior
concerns
(FPDWC)
to construction
remain
Comm~';~:.
regarding,
l~g.l
the
fu
,1'.,;
..
:their
construction
,
'comment
impacts
letter
of
dated
the]
I
J
Selected Alternative on surface water within the Project Corridor. The FPDWC commented
that ,;
t"
mOT did not indicate in the Final SEIS if a surface water monitoring system and schedule will be
I)
established. Further, the FPDWC commented the Final SEIS is not clear as to actions to be taken by
fI)
mOT if waters do not meet general use water quality standards. ,The ,FPDWC also requested
clarification as
to what actions mOT will take to monitor noise ,levels within Keepataw Forest
Preserve and
if
mOT will agree to take some type of agreed upon'action.to mitigate noise impacts if
FAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
16
Record
0/
Decision
."
'"j'
(" -< •• : ,''''
future levels exceed Noise Abatement Criteria levels.
The . FPDWC also acknowledged its
understanding that IDOT does not intend
to transfer ownership. of the buffer parcel along Lemont
Woods and Black Partridge Preserves and concurred
that as long as the parcel is in public ownership
and protected through an appropriate management
agreemen~~!pOT
has satisfied the FPDWC's
concerns.
Response to Comments:
The Constructing Agency's standard specifications regulating sediment
and erosion control will
be followed during construction. . Measures provided will include
preparation
of an erosion control and stormwater pollution prevention plan.
'fho
plan will specify
temporary
runoff diversions
with
sedimentation controls
~~·uSect
to alpturesediment laden
runoff during construction.
In addition, water quality morii,iQiilig.Of Black Partridge Creek,will
continue with on-going coordination with the Forest
Preserv~DiStrids·of
Cook, DuPage and Will
Counties (refer
to
Draft SEIS,. Section 6.5.2).
If
it
is
dete~~d, ~J~enera1
use water
qu~ity
standards are not being met due to contaminants
resultin!t~'the
Selected
Alternativ~
the
Constructing Agency
win
coordinate with the Illinois
EUVit~~ta1
Protection- Agency.
Regarding noise, as referenced in the 1996 FEIS, traffic noise
was
modeled in Keepataw and
predicted 2010 noise levels did not reach Noise Abatement . Criteria levels. The
I
analysis
conformed to FHW A policies and procedures andIDOT NoiSe Analysis Policy. As for on-going
noise monitoring, IDOT does not implement a program..t9: conduct
on;..going monitoring of
highway noise. Per FHWAIIDOT policies and
procedures~:ID()T
evaluates noise impacts of
highway improvements to determine
if
the improvements wafianfinitigation . .,As for the SeJeged
Alternative, the Constructing Agency will re-evaluate the need . for noise walls along the
allgnment pnor
to
construction Iettmg.
I ", I,'
I
Illinois Department of Natural Resources ODNRl Comments:' The IDNR, Office of Mines and
Minerals stated
in a letter dated September 28, 2001 that the Office had no comments regarding this
~_
1-.
Local Government and General Public Comments: Letters and resolutions in support of the project
were received from the Village
of Bolingbrook, City of Joliet, Village. of Lemont, Village of Mokena,
Village
of New Lenox, Village of Woodridge, the South Suburban
~yo~.·~Mangers
Association, US
Representative Jerry Weller, the Will County Board of
Commissi~~ers ~.
nine letters from private
businesses.
""
:': ,',
~ ;.~~'.::
y;:.,
.
Letters opposed to the project were received from a numberofyinterest . groups, including The
Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC),
the
Business and
Pi;ofes~ional
People for the Public
Interest (BPI), Openlands Project,
and private citizens. ELPCIBPI comments were accompanied by
reports prepared by New Alternatives, Inc., and Resource Systems Group, Inc. The major comments
addressed the Purpose and Need, range
of alternatives considered,
$~evalH~tiQn
of alternatives, and the
public involvement process.
Most
of the issues raised in
thes~ ~Qmments
were also raised after
circulation
of the Draft SEIS and, as such, were responded to in the.FinaI.SEIS. The major points made
in these comments are summarized below.
Comments
on Purpose and Need - comments identified the following issues: the Purpose and Need
was considered too narrow because it contained language .interpreted, to limit alternatives; the
justification for selecting the Regional Transportation Plan objectives comprising the Purpose and
Need was considered inadequate; the Selected Alternative
was .fPllSidered,not to be consistent with
the NIPC growth strategy; and, new criteria considering regional growth policy
was thought to have
been added following publication
of the Draft SEIS.
Response to Comments:
The Purpose and Need is sufficiently broad, and is based upon a sound
technical analysis of transportation needs and
relevanL~Jit~~~
from the 2020 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP).
The transportation needs
wer~prQPeily
, '.
~
... " . ': "
defined, and the resulting
FAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
17
Record of Decision
.i
Purpose and Need was formulated in a way that supported: a'tjroad range of alternatives. The
Alternatives considered in the Draft and Final SEIS inclqded ,transit, transportation system
management, three roadway Build Alternatives and a No-Action (Baseline) Alternative. The
roadway Build Alternatives represented a range
of facilities, types and alignments and were
developed to cover a range
of build scenarios consisting of improvements to local arterials, a
tollroadlfreeway,
and
a combined tollroadlfreeway and principal ;arterial. All roadway Build
Alternatives included transit and transportation system management and a group
of other local
roadway improvements (No-Action -(Baseline)
Alternative)~"
''''',' , .
•
j
••
~,
••
Regarding justification for selecting the Regional TransportationPlan<:objectives comprising the
Purpose and Need, the RTP contains 39 criteria, each having a varying degree
of relevance. The
process
to identify the four Purpose and Need criteria was based upon a detailed review of the
goals and objectives
of the 2020 RTP. Each goal and objective, was carefully reviewed to
determine its relevance to the identified needs
1
•
',,' '
The elements of the Purpose and Need regarding consistency:w.ith local planning are not circular.
The tremendous growth in the study area, which
has
already surpassed the totals predicted for the
year 2010,
has
occurred in the absence of the 1-355 extension. As documented in the analysis
performed
by the Al Chalabi Group (Draft SEIS, Appendix A - The Socio-Economic. Land Use
and Accessibilitv Impacts
of the Proposed 1-355 Extension>. the 1-355 proposal will chiefly
influence the density
of growth in portions of the study area. This technical analysis is consistent
with the trends over the past decade and the reviews perfonne,d,
b~
the professional
staff
from
each
of the municipalities and Will County. With
regar(tB~~l~prsubmitted
from Homer
Township, it should be noted
that
township governments
~:ve,.n.Q
lapd use planning authority.
Among the governmental agencies that do have land use
~"
plamiitigauthority,
• ., J",
there
was
100
percent support for the 1-355 proposal.
'''~d'';'
•
It
was
commented
that
the Selected Alternative fails to fulfill
th,~ e~Y'~~nmental
goals of the 2020
RTP.
As documented in Table 3-3 of the Draft SEIS,
all
alternativ~s
create impacts to sensitive
resources. The Selected Alternative
was developed in an' environmentally responsible way
that
avoids, minimizes and mitigates impacts while still addressing,the transportation needs
of the
region. The project is consistent with the environmental goals
ancl,QbjeCtives of the RTP.
Other comments suggested
that
the Purpose
and
Need
crit~n.~'·c~ged
between the Draft and
Final SEIS. These comments focused on additional discussiqn
1;hat.was added to the Purpose and
Need in the Final SEIS addressing the Northeastern lllinois Regional Planning Commission
(NIPC) regional growth strategy. This additional text
was added for cb¢ty. The need criteria did
not change between publication
of the Draft and Final
SEIS~:'
'BQth the Draft and Final SEIS
addressed the regional development goals
of the NIPC. Thepraft SEISPurpose and Need stated
that " Developing this area [project Corridor] would' be
co~istent
with NIPC regional
development goals" and growth within the project corridor "is consistent with regional, county
and local plans". The Draft SEIS also included the NIPC
~egi9nal.gr()wth
strategy as an overall
measure
of plan consistency in the Alternatives Analysis.,;
J~i~p~~si<,>n
of the regional growth
policy review presented in both the Draft and Final SEIS,
Alt~~v,~Analysis
was added to the
Purpose and Need
of the Final SEIS for clarity
and
did not
~uJt
iIi' a phange of the Purpose and
Need criteria.
'
,;/
,
.,,'
.'
':-i-,
.
~
, . .' ,
1
F AP Route 340 SFEIS Purpose and Need 2020 RTP Goals
and6bjecti~es
Technical
Memorandum, July 2001
'"
:' '.'
FAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
18
Record oj Decision
1 I"
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
Comments on Alternatives - comments identified the following issues'. the range of Alternatives
was considered to
be too narrow and excluded the Action Plan proposed by ELPCIBPI. Also, the
performance analysis
was
considered not to be comprehensive enough because the plan consistency
criteria
was
identified as circular due to a reliance on existing: land use plans that may have
considered construction
of the Selected Alternative. Finally;
m~
anaJysis' of environmental effects
was
considered narrow, performed in a manner that
underestitnat~d'
direct impacts and did not
consider secondary impacts.
"
'
Response to Comments:
Concerning the range of
Alternatives~as
stated in the Final SEIS
response
to comments, the Alternatives analyzed in the Draft SEISCover a 324 square kilometer
(125 square mile) study
area, and
were multi-modal, with each including a network of roadway
improvements, transit upgrades, and TSMlI'DM strategies. The Action Plan proposed
by
ELPCIBPI
was
reviewed prior to the release of the Draft SEIS, and,
was,
found as clearly not an
alternative to the TollroadlFreeway proposal. As discussed iJ;ltht(response letter to ELPCIBPI
dated December 22, 2000, the majority
of the projects liSted
'in
the Action Plan proposed by
ELPCIBPI are either already included in the No-Action (BaseliIie)'Altemative or do not provide
measurable regional travel benefits. The Action Plan
prop<>sed by ELPCIBPI represented an
updated version of the No-Action (Baseline) Alternative, which would, be constructed regardless
of the 1-355 South Extension. This point
was
corifirmed byELPCIBPI analysis that showed the
travel benefits
of the Action Plan proposed by ELPCIBPltO ;be, essentially the same as the No-
Action (Baseline) Alternative, and which show the Action"'Plan proposed by ELPCIBPI to
generally perform worse than the TollroadlFreeway
Alte~ti'{~~id'PUs
was
especially clear for
trips
that
would likely be utilizing the 1-355 South Extension.. .' '
,
Other comments
on the Final SEIS suggested that the
LemOlitBiP~s
Alternative and Enhanced
Arterial Alternative were ''under designed", and
indica~ :J~ ~
'tl!e Action Plan proposed by
ELPCIBPI is significantly different than the No-Action (Baseline) Alternative and the Build
Alternatives
in the Final SEIS. The range of alternatives 'evaluated in:'the Draft and Final SEIS
are thorough
and sound, as evidenced by their strong benefiq
tQ
local,
~vel
and
travel
to
regional
job centers. Again, as stated
~bove,
the Action Plan proJl,9.sedby, ELPCIBPI is essentially an
updated version of the No-Action (Baseline) Alternative.
";,, ' ;,
.~
T' .
~
.
, -;
Despite detailed responses in the Final SEIS, the same issueSwere'nused regarding mOT's travel
demand model.
mOT utilizes state of the practice, FedercdJyaccepted, models in performing
their regional
air quality conformity analysis as well
as'
'the
,d~elopment
of their Regional
Transportation Plan. These models have been calibrated
~~, Wii~~;
and have been in use for
many years. With regard
to travel time savings, modeling professionals accept
that
different
processes will produce different results. The more important issue is
the relative comparison of
the Alternatives, which shows the 1-355 South Extension t() 1>q
sup~por.
Results for the Action
Plan suggested
by ELPCIBPI show primarily single
digit,pet~n~e
changes in performance
when compared
to the No-Action (Baseline)
Alternativ~.;,,,~p~equently,
the Action Plan
proposed
by ELPCIBPI can hardly be characterized as
a~'sQI~tion':'
or, an alternative to the
TollroadlFreeway proposal, given the expected
150 perceni Jvor.senmg -of local travel times over
the next 20 years. Again, a majority
of the Action Plan improvements will be constructed
regardless
of the 1-355 South Extension proposal.
'
Concerning the plan consistency criteria being
circul8ft,-.Pl~f~~~ion,a!:
planning
staff
of the
planning departments
of the communities within the
Proj~: ~om40rrC?~~ewed
the Alternatives
for consistency with the broad goals and objectives
of then: applicable' comprehensive plans.
Planning goals
and objectives articulated in each
community~s'plan
represent the expression of
each community's vision and statement of intent. Goals
arebr~
value statements
and
represent
end desires
of the community in the areas of groWth,: appearance, housing, economic
FAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
19
.. " ..
,~;;;"J~
'. l
,~l
-
Record 0/ Decision
I
..... ;
(
~/";'
·'~M·
.. :
H:r,
,~
development, community facilities, open space and
transpo~<?~~~,Q~jectives
represent a means
by which goals can be achieved. Land use maps are a
synthesi~
of these g<>ais and objectives and
represent a desired means
to achieve the goals and objectives .. l:Iow.eyer,)and use maps are living
documents and are commonly revised based on changing
C?On<;1itipP$, such as the construction or
lack
of construction of a road. Moreover, while land use maps inay change, the overriding goals
and objectives articulated in each community's plan typically
reJt1ain constant to ensure land use
map changes are consistent with the respective
communities'.:vjs!0~fan4
m,t.ent.
The plan consistency review evaluated each Alternative
fo~:~~sl~n~y
With each jurisdiction's
goals and objectives.
Professional, planning
staff
of eacl\ 'mwpclpality within the Project
Corridor
and Will County conducted the plan consistency reView
to
adopted land use plans.
Alternatives reviewed consisted
of the No-Action (Baselme),Alternative and the Build
Alternatives presented
in the Draft and Final SEIS. The profeSsioruu planning
staff
ranked the
TollroadlFreeway Alternative as most consistent with their
jurisdiction'~
goals and objectives as
articulated in their respective land use or comprehensive plan.
It was commented that the Final SEIS was incorrect in stating
~
100 percent of the Project
Corridor ''local governments" supported the Selected Alterna#ve
.. A letter from Homer Township
that did not support the Selected Alternative
was referenced. Homer Township
is
a township
government and therefore
has
no land use planning authority within the Project Corridor. Land
use within Homer Township is regulated by the Will County
ian~Itesource
Management Plan.
The Selected Alternative
was ranked as most consistent,
~~#f:thetg~s.
and objectives of the
adopted Will County Land Resource Management Plan by,Wm;<;!,9P.nttpWming staff. Likewise,
the Selected Alternative
was ranked as the Alternative
mo~~' ~~Dsistei1t
with the goals and
objectives
of adopted municipal land use plans by 100
pe~llt
9f the municipal governments
within the Project Corridor.
.,' ..' .
~.
, :.. f ,.,
I'~
While Homer Township was not included in the above plan,
c()~i~~Jl~Y
reyiew due to its
lack
of
land use planning authority, the opinions of Homer and five"olliettownship governments were
included and given full consideration
in an elected official§
~~~t:.-:'
'Pie'survey achieved a 100
percent response
rate
and asked which Alternative would, best: aid m achieving land use and
transportation goals
of their jurisdiction.
The survey
~
"fdhnd 90
percent selected the
TollroadlFreeway Alternative, 5 percent selected the
E~(:~;.~rial
Alternative, 5 percent
selected the Mass Transit Alternative, and
0 percent selected the Lemont Bypass Alternative. The
survey methods, survey form, governments surveyed and
detailc;:d
,s~rvey
results were presented
in Draft SEIS, Appendix B and Table
3.4.2 in Section 3.4.2.' '.
As
for the analysis of comparative environmental effects across ,tb.eAIternatives, this review was
conducted
in response to comments submitted by the USEPA, after
r~viewing
the Draft SEIS.
The analysis
was integrated into the plan consistency perfol1l13nce criteria because natural
resource protection is a goal
of the municipal and county plans for those jurisdictions within the
Project Corridor. The evaluation was a GIS based,
mac(o~~e ~ysis
that is an accepted
standard and regular practice for reviewing environmentat effects.
at the planning level.
The
environmental analysis
was at the same level of detail
for,.e3:t~'._~ten1ative
and considered the
primary environmental effects
of the Proposed Action ineprpQratedinto the Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences review
of the TollroadlFreeway'
M.t6.~ve.·
The alternatives were
not changed between the Draft and Final SEIS. The Right-Of-Way (ROW) widths defined for
each Alternative in the comparative review
of environmentd effects' analysis reflects reasonable
ROW widths for the proposed facilities and are
consisten~iy,
applied to the roadway type
incorporated into each Alternative. The ROW widths
presellte~i~the.
Draft SEIS, Section 3.2,
Alternatives Defined, were identified as minimum ROW wi4thsfor'eacl1 facility. The analysis
found no substantive difference in environmental
effects,~een'
the Build Alternatives.
PAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
20
Record oj Decision
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
r
Soundwalls
Page 2
ofl0
Approach
- For the purpose of this policy, approaching means within 1 decibel (d
appropriate Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria (Nil
adopted by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority.
dBA
- A weighted decibel. The decibel is a
unit of measurement on a logarithmic !
describes the relative magnitude
of sound levels with respect to a standard referel
Decibels are defined
as ten times the base-lO logarithm of the square of the ratio
square sound pressure
to the reference mean-square sound pressure of 20 micro-
threshold
of human hearing. The A-weighting network is an electronic filter define,
American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) and the International Organization f
Standardization (ISO) that closely simulates the relative response of the human e,
Date of Public Knowledge
- This is the date that the Tollway's Congestion-Relie
(CRP): Open
Roads for a Faster Future was approved. This date, September 30, 2
establishes the "Date
of Public Knowledge" and determines when the Illinois Tollw,
longer responsible for providing noise abatement
for new developments adjacent
1
included in the CRP.
Exterior Traffic-Generated Noise
- This is traffic-generated noise that is meaSI
exterior of the receptor as opposed to the interior. The noise model (TNM®) and F
generally refer to exterior noise only.
Front Line Land Use
- The first line land use
that is immediately adjacent to Toll
right-of-way (ROW).
Insertion Loss
- Is the difference in traffic noise level at a receiver resulting fror
implementation of traffic noise abatement measures between the source and the I
Leq
- The Equivalent Sound Level is the steady-state sound having the same A-w
sound energy
as that contained in the time-varying sound over a specific period o.
Leq correlates reasonably well the effects of noise on people.
Leq(h)
- Is the Equivalent Sound Level over a one-hour period.
Noise
Abatement
- A structure, land configuration, or object that attenuates or
attenuate traffic noise. Generally considered to be a barrier or wall, abatement
COl
the form of earth berms, landscaping, or any combination of the aforementioned.
Noise Sensitive Receptor
- Receptor sites with identified outdoor human activit
residences, picnic areas, recreation areas,
playgrounds, active sports areas, parks
hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
Receptor
- A point used
in a traffic noise study for which the traffic-generated nc
determined. A receptor is generally placed in an area of active outdoor human USE
be at a point five feet above the ground at the first floor-level. Normally, the area!
outdoor human use include areas such as, patios, swimming pools, porches, balco
Sites considered include homes, condominiums, apartments, permanent mobile
h(
communities and parks. The associated type of outdoor human activity and the se
traffic noise will define which parks are considered receptors.
http://www.illinoistollway.com/portaVpage?_dad=portal& _ schema=PORT AL& yageid= 1...
7113/2009
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
Soundwalls
Page 3
of 10
Substantial Increase - Traffic noise levels that are predicted to be more than V
existing traffic noise levels.
Through Lane - A roadway traffic lane exceeding 1.5 miles in length.
Traffic Noise - Noise generated from vehicles traveling on the roadway. Noise is
generated at the tire/pavement interface, from vehicle / truck engines, and from I
exhaust systems.
Traffic Noise Study - A study of traffic-generated noise to determine: the existir
noise level conditions
at receptors representative of normal outside human
activi~
floor-level of receptors; potential future traffic noise levels; an assessment of traff
impacts; and consideration
of potential, feasible and effective economically reasor
noise abatement. The study
is conducted through the use of computer modeling. -
would utilize the
FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM® 2.5) or the most recent versior
methodology
is consistent with
23
CFR 772 which explains processes to be followe
analyses and studies.
Type I Projects - A proposed project for the construction of a roadway on new
Ie
physical alteration of an existing roadway which significantly changes either the he
vertical alignment or increases the number of through-traffic lanes.
Type II Projects - A Community Noise Abatement Retrofit Project proposed for t
abatement on an existing roadway which is not associated with any Type I improv
Undeveloped Properties - Property that is currently vacant or is likely to be red
an approved-for-construction land use by the local governmental body having juri:
be considered eligible for noise abatement the undeveloped property must have
Sl
permits for construction by a governing body prior to September
30, 2004.
3.0 PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING PROJECTS
The Tollway will review the project and evaluate the potential effects
of the traffic
environment. The following steps will
be used to evaluate any traffic noise impact!
3.1. Review existing and proposed land use plans, review aerial photography, revi
studies and any other pertinent information
to identify potential nOise sensitive re'
3.2. The Tollway, or a designated representative, will perform a qualitative assess
evaluate traffic noise impacts on noise sensitive receptors. The assessment will de
qualitatively how implementation of the project will result in changes in traffic and
roadway sections. Section
4.0
and the Illinois Tollway Noise Policy Generalized Trc
Study and Abatement Decision Diagram in Appendix A provide details regarding tt
and considerations for the evaluation. All viable alternatives for all study years (e)
design) will
be examined using approved procedures incorporating the best availal
information and current professional judgment.
3.3. Determine if any of the factors in the qualitative assessment could likely
cau~
in traffic noise levels compared to the No-Action alternative. If it is determined a
t
http://www.illinoistollway.com/portal/page? _ dad=portal& _ schema=PORT AL& J>ageid= 1...
7113/2009
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
Soundwalls
Page 4
ofl0
impact can be reasonably expected, a Traffic Noise Study will be prepared. Some.
locations will involve existing traffic noise levels
that already approach or exceed
t
abatement criterion (NAC). Under these conditions, even if the proposed project VI
the traffic nOise levels to increase substantially above existing levels, traffic noise
will
be considered.
3.4. If, after preparing a computerized traffic noise modeling and the correspondil
Noise Study,
it is determined that traffic noise levels will approach or exceed the r
abatement criteria (NAC)
or the project will cause a substantial traffic noise increa
traffic noise abatement measures will
be considered. The feasibility and reasonabl
for noise abatement consideration are outlined in Section 4.3.
4.0
PROCESS FOR DETERMINING WHEN A TRAFFIC NOISE STUDY AND AB.
WILL BE CONSIDERED
4.1. Sites Eligible for Traffic Noise Study A Traffic Noise Study is warranted when
following conditions are present:
4.1.1. When the Tollway undertakes engineering studies or projects that increase
the mainline
of a Tollway by: adding new through lanes; that propose new interch
that add new toll collection facilities where they did not previously exist; that reco
collection plaza by adding Open
Road Tolling lanes or I PASS lanes; or that substa
reconfigure an interchange by bringing through lanes
or ramps closer to receptors
that do not meet the requirements noted above may be considered eligible if the (
roadway project did not consider
the affect of traffic noise and the traffic volumes
projected to, substantially increase (double) from the initial construction.
4.1.2. When the front line land use consists of identified outdoor human activity, i
residences, picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks
mobile home communities, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospit
considered are locations where undeveloped adjacent properties have secured per
construction
of the above outdoor human activity land uses by the jurisdiction or r
having permit and zoning authority prior
to September 30, 2004. Only locations
w
seventy-five percent (7S%) or more of the existing noise sensitive receptors withi
the Tollway right-of-way are platted
or approved prior to September 30, 2004 will
eligible.
4.1.3. When the location of potential study is no more than SOO-feet from the pro
existing edge
of shoulder.
4.2. Sites Not Eligible for Traffic Noise Study. A Traffic Noise Study is not warrant«
meeting any
of the following conditions:
4.2.1. Where the original design of the roadway provided traffic nOise abatement
design
of the noise abatement considered the traffic-generated noise that would b
planned future roadway widening.
http://www.illinoistollway.com/portal/page?_dad=portal& _ schema=PORTAL& -pageid= 1...
7/13/2009
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
Soundwalls
Page 5
of 10
4.2.2.
Where traffic noise abatement already exists and no work as described in
~
is currently included in a planning or design study.
4.2.3.
Where a Traffic Noise Study has already been completed and it was deterrr
traffic noise abatement
is not warranted.
4.3.
Traffic Noise Abatement Considerations Once a location has been studied, thE
feasibility and reasonableness factors will be evaluated and considered to determil
noise abatement
is warranted.
Feasibility
Relationship
of future levels to abatement criterion:
Is the predicted future I
from the project approaching or above 67 dBA Leq(h)? Will it be within 1dBA of th
more on the order of SdBA or more above the NAC? If the future levels are only e:
approach or barely exceed (1 to 3dBA above) the NAC, abatement may not be wa
would be if the impact were to be greater.
Insertion Loss (IL):
The traffic noise abatement design goal will be 8dBA or mOl
the minimum acceptable insertion loss on the first row of receptors should be SdB.
insertion loss achieved the better the traffic noise abatement, as long as the cost,
impact, etc., do not become excessive.
If a minimum SdBA insertion loss cannot b
noise barrier may not
be considered to be feasible.
Constructability:
Can the noise barrier conceived actually be constructed using r
standard construction methods and techniques? Factors affecting this will include
1
utilities, safety, bridges, overpasses, and similar difficulties.
Maintainability:
Will the noise barrier be constructed in a location that inhibits 01
proper maintenance?
Safety:
A critical factor in determining whether abatement is viable is the impact
on safety.
Utilities:
The impact of noise barriers on utilities and the reverse must be addres!
the process. Overhead power lines, underground water, sewer, gas, oil, fiber optic
have a significant impact
on costs and design options.
Drainage:
One of the most important elements in the physical location and desigl
abatement
is drainage. Directing water along, under, or away from a noise abaten
can be expensive and cause construction and long-term maintenance problems.
Cost:
Cost factors will include the cost of construction (material and labor), the cc
ROW (including easements, etc.), and any other associated costs. Traffic noise ab,
be achieved in a cost-effective manner. The Traffic Noise Study will include a cost
residence analysis
that will be used to assist in the final determination of traffic nc
abatement recommendations. If traffic noise abatement cannot be achieved in a c
and economically reasonable manner, traffic noise abatement will not be included
project.
Reasonableness
http://www.illinoistollway.com/portal/page?_dad=portal& _ schema=PORTAL& J>ageid= 1...
7/13/2009
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
Soundwalls
Page
6of1O
Land Use Stability:
Is the land use for the area expected to change in the future
how?
Land uses tolerant of traffic noise may not warrant traffic noise abatement.
where visual exposure
is integral to their existence and vitality may not warrant tr
abatement.
Local Controls:
What has the local governing
or jurisdictional body done to contr
sensitive land uses from building adjacent
to the Tollway corridor or right-of-way?
that if no controls are used, traffic noise abatement is not a very high priority witt
community.
Community Desires:
Important in determining if traffic noise abatement should
any location
is whether the affected community really desires abatement. This rna
a surveyor community outreach efforts to be conducted to assess the community
the community
is not in favor of the noise abatement, the Tollway may choose no'
traffic noise abatement features. If access rights are required, the Tollway will attl
determine
if the affected property owners are willing to trade those rights for the i
without any exchange of money.
Views of Local Officials:
Consideration should be given to the views of the local
representative authorities who may
be asked to represent the views of the citizen!
Seasonal Usage:
Is the Site occupied or utilized year round? The evaluation will (
usage rates throughout the year.
Noise Level Changes
from Future Build and No-Action Conditions:
This imp
traffic noise levels will
be very similar, whether or not the project is built. If the di'
between the future No-Action and the future Build is 3dBA or less, most people wi
the change.
If the change is SdBA or greater than, traffic noise abatement considE
be given more weight.
Antiquity:
Who was there first, the noise sensitive site
or the roadway? How long
noise sensitive site been there relative
to elevated traffic noise levels? Is the To II
1/\
with original owners or recent purchasers? This implies that someone who builds c
noise sensitive site along
an existing roadway (or within the corridor where a road
planned
for construction) probably doesn't consider traffic noise a significant facto
selection
of the location.
Aesthetics:
This refers to the physical appearance
of the wall from both the road'
the community side.
It also incorporates the landscaping concept, the opinions of
owners and the local community desires.
Right-of-way Needs Including Access Rights, Easements for Construction
Maintenance, and Additional Land:
Right-of-way (ROW) impacts
can include
tt
obtain access rights, easements and land. It also includes the consideration of pur
donation, etc.
If access rights and easements are required, these will typically be
This is in consideration of the construction of the traffic noise abatement wall for t
the property owners.
Other
Environmental Issues: This refers to impacts of traffic noise abatement i
http://www.illinoistollway.com/portal/page?_dad=portal&_ schema=PORT AL& J>ageid= 1...
7/13/2009
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
Soundwalls
Page 7
of 10
that should be considered on a site-by-site basis. Examples include but not limitec
reflection
of sound, pedestrian, bicycle and trail disruption, wetland destruction, g
surface water impacts, animal migration / flight paths,
air quality, shading of vegE
accumulation, etc.
5.0 Community Noise Abatement Retrofit Projects (Type II Projects)
The following establishes a cost-shared policy to consider requests for retrofitting
abatement for projects
that are not associated with any Type I improvement. Retr
are subject
to available funding and will be evaluated for their merits on a case-b)
In order for a retrofit project to be considered for Community Noise Abatement RE
(Type II) funding, the project must have a state or local government sponsor, i.e.
government with the authority
to levee taxes. This includes general-purpose units
governments (e.g. cities, counties and townships)
as well as specialized governin!;
(e.g. sanitary districts, school districts, forest preserve districts, park districts, ain
authorities and publicly owned universities
or colleges).
For a project
to be considered for Community Noise Abatement Retrofit Project (T'
funding, the local agency sponsor must prepare documentation in accordance
witt
noise impact assessment and Traffic Noise Study requirements outlined in Section
above. The local agency sponsor must pass local zoning ordinances regarding
lane
all necessary right-of-way, demonstrate the ability and commitment to provide a I
SO% of the funding for the project, and agree to maintain the traffic noise abatem
and right-of-way
on the community side of the structure.
The Tollway will give priority consideration
to those communities where the Tollwc
constructed through
an eXisting neighborhood and where seventy-five percent
(7~
of the existing noise sensitive receptors within SOO-feet of the roadway preceded 1
Developments platted
or approved after September 30, 2004 will not be eligible fc
Noise Abatement Retrofit Project (Type II) funding consideration.
6.0 Traffic Noise Abatement Techniques
Means and methods for implementation of traffic noise abatement shall be considE
effectiveness of traffic noise attenuation and cost.
Noise Walls: Noise walls are solid structures built between the highway and the r
sensitive receptors along the roadway. Noise walls are typically constructed
of pre
panels, cast-in-place concrete, concrete masonry blocks, masonry
or wood. Absor
will also
be considered in areas where noise sensitive receptors may be affected b
noise
on either side of the wall or in instances where wall heights can be reduced'
comparable effectiveness. Noise walls
can reduce traffic noise levels effectively.
Earth Berms: Traffic noise barriers can be formed from earth mounds along the r
called earth berms. Earth berms have a natural appearance and offer opportunitie
landscaping; however earth berms
can require a significant width across land to a
http://www.illinoistollway.com/portallpage?_dad=portal& _ schema=PORT AL& -pageid= 1...
7/1312009
Soundwalls
Page
80f1O
the height necessary to provide the amount of insertion loss required.
Vegetation:
If high enough, wide enough, deep enough and dense enough (cann
through), vegetation
can decrease the highway traffic noise at a noise sensitive re
200-foot depth of effective dense vegetation can reduce noise by lOdBA, which ca
noise volume in half. It is often impractical to plant enough dense vegetation alon,
achieve such reductions; however
if dense vegetation is already present possibiliti
where
it could be saved with some insertion loss achieved.
Encouraging Compatible Adjacent Land Use:
Traffic noise compatible land USE
a community planning method and proactive responsibility that helps reduce or eli
noise levels
at noise sensitive receptors along roadways. This type of planning me
considering land use options and traffic noise issues more effectively
so that
com~
developments are set up next to the Tollway. Municipalities and counties have the
encourage traffic noise compatible land use planning by developing effective land
zoning
or other legal means (such as subdivision or development standards, buildi
regulations), land
or easement purchases and community education to inform
citi~
developers and local planners about traffic noise compatible land use planning.
Promote Tollway Policy and Encourage Local Governments:
The Illinois Toll'
encourages those who plan and develop land, and local governments controlling d
or planning land use near existing or planned Tollway locations, to exercise their
~
responsibility to minimize the effect of roadway traffic noise on future sensitive rei
through appropriate land use control. Where such land use controls are not in plae
municipalities, townships and counties may not be eligible for traffic noise abatem
consideration
for sensitive receptors by the Tollway.
Reduction of Traffic Noise at the Source:
Reduction of traffic noise impacts by
treatment of the road surface is the most cost-effective traffic noise control availa
Tollway. Within the group
of traffic noise abatement methods that are feasible anc
and after life-cycle cost analysis have selected a pavement type and other technic
financial constraints, the Tollway will use the quietest surface texture available
wh
or reconstructing a roadway in traffic nOise sensitive areas.
Traffic Noise Abatement by Others:
All future planned developments adjacent
Tollway should include a provision in the Subdivision Plat approval requirements tl
the developer to place a covenant running with the land notifying perspective
pure
traffic noise abatement will not be provided by the Illinois Tollway. The Tollway en
developers and local governments to coordinate their efforts to mitigate roadway I
This must be done without encroachment on the Tollway right-of-way, unless it is
to be necessary, and authority granted to permit others to construct a sound barri
landscape in the Tollway's right-of-way. The design must meet the Illinois Tollway
structural, safety and maintenance standards. The Tollway shall assume no liabilit
authority
or responsibility of any kind for the structural integrity or acoustical effel
traffic noise abatement sound barriers constructed by others.
Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)*
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dl
II
II
II
http://www.i11inoistollway.com/portal/page?_dad=portal& _ schema=PORT AL& -pageid= 1...
7113/2009
f
,
Soundwalls
Page
90flO
Land Use
I
Leq(h) dBA
II
Description of Land Use Category
Category
Lands on which serenity and quiet are
of ex
57
significance and serve an important public neE
A
(Exterior)
the preservation of those qualities is essential
to continue to serve its intended
pur~
D
67
Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, c
(Exterior)
areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, scho
libraries, and hospitals.
I
C
I
72
Developed lands, properties,
or activities not
(Exterior)
Categories A
or B above.
I
D
II
--
II
Undeveloped lands.
I
E**
I
52
Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting roc
(Interior)
churches, libraries, hospitals, and audit(
* Title
23
Code of Federal Regulations Part
772 (23
CFR Part
772)
** Use of interior noise levels shall be limited (on a case-by-case basis) to situatic
exterior noise levels are not applicable, i.e., where there are no exterior activities
by traffic noise,
or where exterior activities are far from or physically shielded fror
roadway in a manner that prevents an impact on exterior activities.
Note:
The Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) are noise impact thresholds for conside
abatement. (Abatement must
be considered when predicted traffic noise levels for
year approach [i.e., are within 1 decibel
of] or exceed the noise abatement criteric
the predicted traffic noise levels are substantially higher [i.e., are more than
14
dE
greater] than the existing noise level.) The Noise Abatement Criteria are not atten
criteria
or targets. The goal of noise abatement measures is to achieve a substant
in future noise levels. The reductions
mayor may not result in future noise levels
the Noise Abatement Criteria .
.- Illinois Tollway Construction Alerts July
10, 2009
~
Illinois State Police District
15
and Illinois Tollway Offer Child
Safety Seat Event
at Lombard Babies "R" Us on July 11
(07/06/2009)
.- Grand Avenue Exit Ramp to Re-Open on North Tri-State (1-
94/1-294)
Tollway
(06/30/2009)
~
mOT, Tollway and State Police Urge Drivers to Comply with
Posted Speed Limits
(06/24/2009)
http://www.illinoistollway.com/portal/page? _ dad=portal& _ schema=PORT AL& -pageid= 1...
7113/2009
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
i
•
Soundwalls
Veterans Care
All Kids Health Care
Illinois Department
of
Transportation
Seniors
Ride Free
View All State Links
Page 10 of 10
Read the Tollway's eNewslett
Roads Ahead,
and get timely
personalized for Illinois Tollw.
NBC Chicago Traffic Alerts
I-PASS TERMS
&
CONDITIONS /l;J1PLOY!:1fNI / PRIVACY INFORMATION / .cQNTACT_IJ:lJ: TOLLWA'(
Note: Some links will open in a new window.
Copyright
©
2009 Illinois Tollway
http://www.illinoistollway.com/portallpage?_dad=portal& _ schema=PORT AL& -pageid= 1...
7/13/2009
\'. ",
<'~
:'4.
Detailed modeling and analyses necessary to address air quality, and, groundwater impacts was
beyond the scope
of a macro-scale review. However, these analyses were conducted for the
Selected Alternative. These analyses determined that the. SelC9ted Alternative would not
significantly impact these resources. Secondary and
cumulati~.·
hripacts-.
to
resources were not
part
of the analysis of environmental effects. However;
i
COl.Jntyand~.
municipal governments
within the Project Corridor have planned for over 75 percent, ()f tlie Project Corridor
to be
developed. The remaining lands are protected park and
preserv~tion
lands.
The type and distribution
of secondary growth will be influenced by the Proposed Action. The
secondary growth effects
of the Selected Alternative were ad(,iressed in detail in the Draft and
Final SEIS. Draft SEIS, Appendix A presents an extensive technical report addressing this issue
titled the Socio-Economic. Land Use and Accessibility Impacts
of the Proposed 1-355 Extension.
The study found the TollroadlFreeway Alternative will pr!lvid(! the most focus for which
to
influence growth by providing a single route accommodating )Ugh. volumes of traffic along one
corridor, and
by providing limited and controlled access at specific interchanges. The Lemont
Bypass Alternative would also focus high volumes
of traffic along one corridor, but would
provide less focus providing limited access control along:
;th~
principle arterial portion, which
comprises
two-thirds of the alignment.
The
Enhanced~ri~.Mfernative,
which improves
existing roadways, would provide the least focus for
devel_oR~ent ~d
promote more dispersed
development patterns because
it would increase
traffic.,alo~g"a,·
number of routes located
throughout the Project Corridor.
" .
In
terms of secondary impacts, the Project Corridor is
develop~g'at;a
rapid pace. Between 1990
and 2000 the population
of Will County increased 41
per~n~:~g
it the second fastest
growing county
in the State of Illinois. Demographic
~~i.~,ef~pn~d.
~
the Draft
and
Final
SEIS found the Selected Alternative
to
contribute .less
~,.9J~(~r~nt
.of population and 0.1
percent
of employment growth making the Selected
Alt~y~mc~~equential
in stimulating
this growth and its resultant secondary impacts.
~e~;t:~~~S,
.did, however, find the
TollroadlFreeway Alternative
to provide the greatest focus for development, and as such, would
reinforce the growth management activities
of local
goy,~entand
therefore, best reduce
regional secondary growth impacts compared
to the other
~te~~ves.
In
terms of secondary
impacts
to biological resources associated with operation of eacliJi.cilitY, the Tol1roadlFreeway
Alternative would focus traffic volumes along a single route, thus reducing traffic impacts
elsewhere within the Project Corridor. The
ToI1roadlFree~i!Alte~ve
has
also been designed
to mitigate impacts to the greatest extent practicable .. These.
,n~ure~, wer~
outlined in Section V,
Mitigation and Commitments and are the result
of extensive-
~oordinati~n
'with resource agencies.
The Lemont Bypass Alternative would also focus traffic along a single route and create
comparable secondary impacts related
to operation. The
,
Enhanced
',' '\.. -; .• :. i-,.\1J
Arterial
,.
Alternative would
disburse traffic volumes, add
to
existing secondary impacts
Q~~~~jng~outes
and distribute added
secondary impacts across a larger geographic area.
~Q~,,~~pJ.e,
.:the Enhanced Arterial
Alternative crosses the Des Plaines River
at three locations.,.,'
. ! ,.
-.~
.
.
'.:
',-.I
,~t.
-.
~
In
sum, none of the Alternatives will eliminate secondary impacts, however, the
TollroadlFreeway Alternative will minimize impacts and
was~'f()u#.d
to be most consistent with
county and local planning goals and objectives. Therefore, the Tol1roadlFreeway Alternative
provide~ th~
best opportunity to work with local planning
aedjJ:~~I~~iY
!Dechanisms to manage
cumulative un acts.
'. . ...
~
". .. ., ..
p
(~,:.i.\Jjt
..
~.i::.;y"
:\_
:;'i
";
~
, ..
~'~.:
~ .,~.
~
: \
-:..,.~~
.J.
~
.
Comments on Environmental Consequences - comments identified,
the
following issues.
It
was
commented that additional Alternatives beyond the Selected
Alt~ri1ati~e'~liould
have been subject to
detailed evaluation of the environmental consequences, the
s~~Qn~.
and cumulative impacts
PAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
21
Record of Decision
..
. ,
.
....
analysis was suggested to be inadequate, and it was considered;that
1h~
impacts to ozone were not
adequately addressed. Comments were also received regarding noise and,
salt impacts.
Response to Comments:
The Lemont Bypass Altemative>Enbanced Arterial Alternative and
TollroadlFreeway Alternative were reviewed for comparative environmental effects as
part
of the
alternatives analysis. That analysis found no substantive'difference
in impacts between the
Alternatives. This finding, combined with the performance
of~e
Lemont Bypass Alternative,
Enhanced Arterial Alternative and TollroadlFreeway Alternative
in meeting the four performance
criteria
of the Purpose and Need, resulted in the finding
that
the TollroadlFreeway Alternative
was the only Alternative to meet Purpose and Need and tperefore, the only Alternative to be
reviewed in detail for environmental impacts.
NEP A requires a comparative analysis,
at an equivalent level of detail, which was performed for
each
of the Build Alternatives in the Final SEIS.
It
is well established
that
NEPA does not
require
an excruciating level of detail for every
alternative.Ra1h~"a
mechanism must be used to
ensure that the best alternatives received the most consideration;'
... '.
.J
," The Draft and Final SEIS
accomplish that objective. Further, the key environmental
rCsources~which
are located in the Des
Plaines River Valley, would experience identical impacts
for both the TollroadlFreeway
Alternative and Lemont Bypass Alternative. The roadway design and footprint would
be exactly
the same for both alternatives
at this critical location.
"
With regard
to comments that noise impacts shoul4 be
meas~r¢
from. the edge of the roadway
instead of the centerline of the facility, refer to Section 2.2.L9f:
t#p;s~
2.0 User's Manual,
April 1982 which
states
"A single roadway can be used to
m.od~
anlUlti-lane highway using the
geometric mean distance from source
to receiver, DnDf,
bas~ '~PQn
tJte near-lane (Dn) distance
and the far-lane distance (Df)." The noise models and
aiudysis teChniques are structured to
measure impacts from the centerline of the roadway for a nrunber, of reasons, including the need
to properly account for two-way traffic.
"
'," "
Regarding
the analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts, the atiaIysis was
based
upon a
detailed analysis of the NIPC forecasts and conforms to
th~}J,..~
approach set forth in CEQ
and
FHW A guidance.
The II-step approach is a methodology' developed by USEPA for
identifying and evaluating secondary and cumulative impacts. The detailed analysis
of secondary
and cumulative impacts
was documented in the Draft SEIS, Section 4.20 and Appendix
A.
Socioeconomic data from NIPC was carefully analyzed to
i4~~ti~,!8e
,influence of transportation
improvements upon population and employment growth.
'I'Il,¥
~j9rConclusion
was that the most
substantive growth would occur regardless
of
constructingJl?-~~!;J;55
~~tension.
This finding is
consistent with past trends, which document tremendous growthiIi.ihe' study area
in the absence
of major transportation upgrades.
In fact,
Will County
has
alreadysutP,assed the population total
predicted for the year 2010. This growth cannot
be attributed
to
~
roadway that
has
not been
constructed.
As
for salt impacts, lOOT is committed to the research of sal,t,
imp~
and
has
funded research by
the Illinois State Water Survey to study the salt impacts of the' Selected Alternative. Field studies
indicated a preponderance
of salt tolerant species' adjacent
:,to.
the
~i.rgDkent
of the Selected
Alternative. Impacts to salt intolerant species,
if
present,
maY~~~f~
'Substantial measures have
been taken
to control and treat roadway runoff to reduce the imPacts of salt and other potential
roadway contaminants.
Refer
to Draft SEIS, Section
.~.)O:
..
an~Final
SEIS, Chapter 6.0,
Coordination and CommitmentS for detailed findings
and; comment responses concerning salt
spray. Furthermore,
if
it is determined that general use water quality standards are not being met
due to contaminants resulting from the Selected Alternative, the Constructing Agency will
coordinate with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. ::rhe,presence
of the roadway will
FAP 340
(1-355
South Extension)
22
Record of Decision
\.
,~.
-~
.• i' .. ;
'i;.
, .
,
~
. .
.t'.-.'
. "
not substantially impact the existing management plans of resource agencies for wetlands and
other natuml resources along the roadway.
Nor will the Des Plaines River Valley bridge, being at
an elevation of approximately 24 meters (80 feet)
abovetb,~'yalley.:
floor, create any shading
impacts
to the natuml resources below. Measures, to mitigatcHmpacts:
to.
natuml resources are
presented
in the Final SEIS, Chapter 6.0 Coordination and Corlll11itments:. .
Concerning ozone, impacts
of the Selected Alternative 'on" ozone were addressed. CATS
performed conformity modeling
of the Selected
Alternative,~s<,impact
on VOC and NOx, the
precursors
of ozone. CATS found the emissions ofVOC 'and NOx associated with the Selected
Alternative would have a negligible impact upon ozone levels;
In
addition, the impacts of the 1-
355 extension have been accounted for in the Illinois EPA's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
the area, and will
not hinder reaching attainment by the statutory 4eadline, 2007. The Illinois
EPA stated in a December 6, 2000 letter that an analysis ,of, ozone related impacts is not
warranted.
'
Comments on Public Involvement - ELPCIBPI commented that the public involvement process
was conceived
and implemented in an open house manner that
exc~u4ed
the geneml public and mOT
was considered to have obstructed public participation.
Also~
.. it
,~:commented
that presenting
statistics quantifying support for and against the Proposed Ac#<>ll:
~'considered
unjust, and that
mOT's response to comments presented in the Draft
SEISwer~
perceived as incomplete and
inadequate.
':
Response to Comments:
The public was offered
ampl~';
opportunities for meaningful
participation, including meetings with local officials,
comniunjty:s~tyeys,
newsletters, and a pair
of public hearings that resulted
in
thousands of comments."
fu:~4ition, ~~etings
were held with
ELPCIBPI
on three (3) separate occasions. Ovemll, this
P~~J'~~:,~,~ergone
significant public
involvement for decades, including successive long-range
trartsp~rtation
plan updates that
date
back to the 1960's.
In
addition, public informational meeting$ and:}learings were held in 1987,
1988, 1991, 1994 and 2001.
·''',.'·;~,;W
':
, '
With regard to the Action Plan proposed by ELPCIBPI, commentors presented details of this plan
to the general public, elected officials and the media a full siX motithSprior to the public hearings.
Despite this well publicized effort, the Action Plan propos.t(Q;P'y, ELJ;»CIBPI was not accepted by
the general public as an alternative to the 1-355
prop~sat:; 'Th~
Action Plan proposed by
ELPCIBPI does not represent any new ideas-it's simply a repackaging oflDOT's current TIP,
the majority
of which will be constructed regardless of 1-355 being implemented. Commentors
suggestion that the public's support for 1-355 is somehow based upon a lack of other choices is
not supported by the facts-a number of alternatives were
exan1iD~d
and presented to the public
via meetings, newsletters, the Draft SEIS and the public hearhtS(.F.lu1:her, the summary of those
supporting or opposing the 1-355 proposal is a
:fundamenta):;~4;
appropriate element of any
decision making process. The "substantive issues raised
by
hAAdreds'~
were carefully reviewed
and have been addressed
in the Final SEIS.
'
Commentors claim
that the Final SEIS does not reproduce or respond to all comments is also
unsupported. 40 CFR 1503.4(b) states that "All
substantive>cbt:t}l11~~~
received on the
draft
statement (or summaries thereof where the response
has
be~)'.9~9.m~()us),
should be attached to
the
final
statement ... ".
The comments were indeed voluinirious, but, also referenced and
summarized supporting technical studies.
Therefore,
the'~9~eniswere
published in an
appropriate manner in the Final SEIS. All of the issues raised"by;commentors were carefully
considered
and each major point was addressed, in
accordai1~e;
withFHWA's technical advisory
T6640.8A.
Per this advisory, IDOT summarized the substantive comments on social, economic,
environmental, engineering and other issues generated
t:trro,..gh
#\~,pul?lic
hearings, circulation of
PAP 340 (1-355 South Extension)
23
Record of Decision
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
..
"
VI.
, '1- "',
-I
the Draft SEIS and other public involvement activities. IDOTresponded to these comments by
making indicated revisions to the Final SEIS, or by providing'\witten responses in the Final SEIS.
Key elements
of the overall project documentation such as the 1996 Final EIS and the 2020
Regional Transportation
Plan were available to the public
in
advance of the Draft and Final SEIS.
In
addition, the Draft and Final SEIS documents were availabie','in:'liaper and CD ROM formats;
the CD's contained the 1996 Final EIS as well as the
Dr3.ft.:and,~FitiaI
SEIS, with ''hot links"
established between each
of the documents. Other
options't<>~~pjibli~
review included 10 local
libraries within the study area and an Internet web site. OVetalWtherecord clearly demonstrates
that the public
was provided ample, innovative and manifestly reasonable access to the planning
process and documentation.
CONCLUSION
-'{ .
In
consideration of
all
the above, the FHW A
has
based its deCision
thatt1iiset~d'alternative
1) satisfies
Purpose and Need,
2) poses the least impacts on the environment, 3),the'ptocess satisfies NEPA and other
applicable requirements and
4) the project may be advanced.' .• e;' J .. ';
0'lJ25/02
Date
Original signed by:
NonnanR Stoner, P.E.
D.
,~
Nisio
'e'! rp"r.
Administrator
... . ,
lsi
Norman R Stoner
For
~eF.ederal
Highway Administration
i.
FAP 340 (1-355 South Extension)
24
Record of Decision
"'.
',',:
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
19854
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 77 /Thursday, April 22, 1999/Notices
ACTION:
Cancellation of notice of intent,
FR document 91-15994.
SUMMARY:
The FHWA is issuing this
notice to rescind the previous Notice
of
Intent issued on June 21, 1991, to
prepare
an environmental impact
statement
(EIS) for the proposed
highway project
in Skagit County,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gene
K.
Fong, Federal Highway
Administration, Evergreen Plaza
Building, Suite 501,
711 South Capitol
Way, Olympia, Washington,
98501-
1284, Telephone: (360) 753-9413; Brian
Ziegler, State Design Engineer,
Washington State Department
of
Transportation, Transportation
Administration Building, Olympia,
Washington, 98204, Telephone: (360)
705-7231; or, John Okamoto,
WSDOT
Northwest Region Administrator, 15700
Dayton Avenue North, PO Box 330310,
Seattle, Washington 98133-9710,
Telephone: (206)
440-469l.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The
FHW
A.
in cooperation with the
Washington State Department
of
Transportation (WSDOT) , issued a
Notice
ofIntent on June 21, 1991 to
prepare
an EIS on a proposal to improve
or construct a 4-1/2 mile section of SR
20 from two lanes to four lanes. The
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) was originally circulated on May
30,1995,
and was followed by an EIS/
Design Hearing
on June 28, 1995. Since
then, as the project elements have been
refined, impacts have been more
specifically identified,
and public and
agency comments have been evaluated,
the FHWA
and WSDOT have jointly
decided
that the project will not result
in significant impacts to the
environment
and that an Environmental
Assessment
(EA) is the most appropriate
environmental
document under the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) rather than an EIS. The EA is
available through the above contacts.
Because a previous hearing
was held for
this project, another hearing is
not
planned for the current EA. However,
any person with questions about the
project
or wishing to request a hearing
may write to Bill James at 15700 Dayton
Avenue North, MS 11, PO. Box 330310,
Seattle, WA. 98133-9710, or call
(206)
440-4139.
Authority: Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Program Number 20.205, Highway
Research. Planning
and Construction. The
regulations implementing Executive Order
12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation
of federal programs and
activities apply to this program.
Issued on: April
12. 1999.
Donald A Petersen,
Transportation and Environmental Engineer.
Olympia. Washington.
[FR Doc. 99-10110 Filed 4-21-99; 8:45 amI
BILLING CODe 4910-22-M
" ___ ••
~N
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental Impact Statement; Will,
DuPage, and Cook Counties, IL
AGENCY:
Federal Highway
Administra~ion
(FHWA). DOT.
SUMMARY:
The FHWA is issuing this
notice to advise the public
that a
Supplement to a Final Environmental
Impact Statement will be prepared for a
proposed highway project
in Cook. Will,
and DuPage, Counties, Illinois.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jon-Paul Kohler. Environmental
Engineer. Federal Highway
Administration. 3250 Executive Park
Drive. Springfield, Illinois 62703.
Telephone:
(217) 492-4988
Patrick Pechnick. Bureau Chief
of
Programming, Illinois Department of
Transportation. 201 West Center
Court. Schaumburg, Illinois 61096-
1096. Telephone:
(847) 705-4393
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The
FHW
A.
in cooperation with the Illinois
Department
of Transportation (lDOT) ,
will prepare a Supplement to the Final
Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)
on a proposal for a new highway. The
proposed highway facility would begin
at the interchange of Interstate Routes
55 and 355 east of Bolingbrook, Illinois
and extend southerly approximately 12
miles to Interstate Route 80 northwest of
New Lenox, Illinois. The proposed
highway generally follows the
previously recorded centerline for the
Lake-Will Freeway
(FA Route 61) in
Will, DuPage, and Cook Counties and is
designated F AP Route 340.
The original
EIS for the proposed project (FHWA-IL-
EIS-93-03-F/4(t)) was approved
on
February 21. 1996. The Record of
Decision (ROD) was approved on April
15,1996.
The approved EIS and ROD
indicate that the Illinois State Toll
Highway Authority
would construct and
operate the new highway. The
Supplement to the Final EIS will allow
traffic projections to be
updated to the
current planning year horizon, 2020.
No-Action Alternative
land use forecasts
will be modified based
on revisions to
the Year 2020 transportation network.
Various transportation alternatives
including No-Action. No-Action
with
Transportation System Management.
Mass Transit,
and Build Alternates will
be reexamined with regards to the new
traffic. The Build Alternates include
Further Improvements to the Existing
Highway Network. Expressway,
and
Freeway/Tollway Alternates.
Coordination meetings, three public
meetings,
and a public hearing were
conducted as part of the previous
EIS.
Coordination with Federal, State.
regional. county.
and local agencies,
community organizations. private
industry.
and the public was performed.
Additional coordination
will include
coordination meetings
and a public
hearing. No formal scoping meeting will
be held. If
new information indicates a
need to define issues attendant to the
proposed action. scoping activities will
be
conducted with specific resource
agencies. To ensure
that the full range
of issues related to the proposed action
are addressed
and all significant issues
identified, comments
and suggestions
are invited from all interested parties.
Comments
or questions concerning this
proposed action
and the Supplement to
the Final
EIS should be directed to
FHWA
or lOOT at the addresses
provided above.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205. Highway Research.
Planning
and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation
on
Federal programs and activities apply to this
program)
Issued on: April 15. 1999.
Jon-Paul Kohler,
Environmental Engineer. Springfield. Illinois.
[FR Doc. 99-10056 Filed 4-21-99; 8:45 amI
BILLING CODE 4910-22-M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
[FRA Docket No. FRA-1999-5103; Old
Docket No. RST
-93-3]
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
Railway Co.; Petition for an Extension
and Modification
of a Waiver of
Compliance with Certain Provisions of
49 CFR 213.113(a)(2), Notes C and D
In accordance with 49 CFR 211.41,
notice is hereby given
that The
Burlington Northern
and Santa Fe
Railway Company
(BNSF) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration
(FRA) under date of
December 2. 1998. for extension and
modification of a waiver of compliance
with certain requirements of Title 49,
Code
of Federal Regulations. Part 213:
Track Safety Standards. This proceeding
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEOUENCES
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA
nON
FAP 340 (1-355 sourn EXTENSION)
existing State Implementation Plan and the transportation-related requirements of the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
4.12.3 Measures to Minimize Impacts
No substantive change has occurred to this resource since publication of the 1996 FEIS.
Refer to 1996 FEIS. Section 4.12.5.
4.13 Noise
4.13.1 Introduction to Noise
One decibel (dB(A» is the smallest change in sound level an average person can detect
under ideal conditions. Usually, an observer cannot notice an increase
in noise of 3 to 4
decibels if the increase takes place at a uniform rate over several years. To an average
listener, a difference
of 10 dB(A) is perceived half as loud or twice as loud.
The equivalent, steady-state noise level, Leq is used to analyze traffic noise levels and
identify noise impacts.
Leq is defined as the sound level which, in a stated period of time,
contains the same acoustic energy as the time varying sound level during the same
period.
Federal RegUlations
The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) policies and procedures, 23 C.F.R 772,
served as the procedural guidelines in the analysis. Incorporated into the regulations are
Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), which are based on the type
of land use and activities
performed at the respective sites.
State Policy
In implementing the FHWA 23 C.F.R, Part 772 regulations, the Illinois Department of
Transportation developed the current Noise Analysis Policy dated April 3, 2000. This
policy
is Section 26-6 in the IDOT Bureau of Design and Environment Manual and
defines traffic noise impacts to occur under the following circumstances:
•
Design-year traffic noise levels are within 1 dB(A)
of or exceed the NAC.
•
Design-year traffic noise levels are greater than
14 dB(A) above existing traffic-
generated noise levels.
Noise abatement must
be
considered at receptors where predicted traffic noise impacts
occur. For this study, all development platted prior to April 1999 have been considered
for analysis.
4.13.3 Traffic-Generated Noise Levels
A total of 70 receptors were selected as representing their surrounding area. The
locations
of these receptors are shown in Draft SEIS, Exhibit 2-14. These receptors
represent farmhouses, single-family residences and areas in the Des Plaines River Valley.
Noise levels obtained at these sites are used to assess impacts for nearby sites with
similar characteristics (i.e. distance to the alignment, traffic volumes, location relative to
Project Corridor).
9/5/01
4-12
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009
o
<
•
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEOUENCES
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
AnON
F AP 340 (1-355 SOUTH EXTENSION)
Table E-l, Draft SElS, Appendix E presents noise impacts. Several values for existing
traffic noise exceeded the NAC.
It
can also be noted that there are several cases in which
the modeled traffic noise is considerably less than the existing noise. These occurrences
are due in part to the fact that existing noise measurements include background noise as
well as traffic noise. TNM and
ST AMlNA only model traffic noise. In some cases,
traffic on the existing road
is lower in future modeled current traffic because it is diverted
to the Preferred Alternative.
4.13.4 Consideration of Abatement Measures
The Preferred Alternative is located in gently rolling terrain with the exception of the Des
Plaines River Valley. Due to the level topography
of the Project Corridor, it will be
difficult to use natural terrain features as noise barriers. Every opportunity was made to
depress the roadway to reduce traffic noise levels. The Preferred Alternative was
depressed to an elevation within the limitations
of positive drainage, stream crossings and
grade separations. Deliberately depressing the roadway may be effective in reducing the
sound levels by up to 5 to
10 dB(A).
Refer to Draft SEIS. Section 4.13.4 for a review
of the noise abatement measures.
es
See Draft SEIS. Table 4-6 for areas near the Preferred Alternative that were predicted to
experience traffic noise impacts and were analyzed for noise abatement measures. See
Draft SEIS, Exhibit 4-6 for barrier analysis regions grouped by receptors.
In the Project Corridor, noise abatement measures which are economically reasonable
and feasible are considered likely for each impacted site. There are noise impacts for
which no prudent solution is reasonably available.
Results
of noise abatement analyses are presented in Draft SEIS. Appendix B. Table B-1.
These preliminary indications
of likely abatement measures are based on preliminary
designs for barriers at height, length, cost and noise level reduction potential as given in
Draft SEIS. Table 4-6. Refer to Draft SEIS. Exhibit 4-7 for location
of noise abatement
measures likely to be implemented. From Draft SEIS, Table
E-l, Appendix E it can be
noted that certain impacted receptors displayed no decrease in traffic noise levels when a
barrier was in place (receptors 32, 44,
47 and 55). This is because those receptors were
located closer to busy streets and intersections than they were to the Preferred
Alternative.
Thus, a barrier located along the Preferred Alternative would not
substantially reduce noise levels experienced at those receptors.
This
is due, in part, because the FHW A Transportation Noise Model provides better
accountability for terrain information and acoustics. In addition, the 2010 noise levels
predicted in the 1996 FEIS used STAMINA 2.0 which over-predicts traffic generated
noise levels by 2 to 4 dB(A).
9/5/01
4-13
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, July 15, 2009