7. Comments and Coordination 7.1. Introduction · Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination Exhibit 7-1—Program Logo . 7.3. Public Outreach 7.3.1. Stakeholder Mailing

Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination Tier 1 Draft EIS

7. Comments and Coordination

7.1. Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the public involvement and agency coordination activities that have been completed to date as well as the process in which all activities have been carried out. Also covered in this chapter are the anticipated future public involvement and agency coordination activities that are planned during completion of the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The public involvement and agency coordination task of the program is charged with inviting participation by, and coordinating with, the appropriate federals, state, and local agencies as well as the public in an effort to engage and inform these stakeholders throughout the environmental review process. The purpose of the public involvement program is to educate stakeholders about the program and the process in which the program is being undertaken, and to serve as a communication conduit for the exchange of information on program issues and concerns. The public involvement program is designed to be an inclusive and transparent process that adheres to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The program’s public involvement program is a multifaceted program that utilizes several mediums to engage and inform the public and other key stakeholders. NYSDOT developed a Public Involvement Plan (PIP) for the program, and it outlines the public involvement program and identifies key contacts from targeted groups such as government agencies and organizations, public offices, non-government organizations, special interest groups, civic and business groups, present and potential riders/users, the media and the general public. In addition, the PIP identified NEPA cooperating and participating agencies (refer to Exhibit 7-6) that were invited for involvement in the program. The PIP also outlines how public involvement activities will be linked to key program milestones and identifies the mediums to be used in engaging program stakeholders. The public involvement activities outlined in the PIP and carried out at key program milestones have been planned and developed in close collaboration with program partners including staff from the lead agencies as well as input from cooperating and participating agencies.

7.2. Program Identifier

At the program’s commencement, a logo was developed to give the program a unique and consistent identity. The program logo (refer to Exhibit 7-1) has been prominently featured on all forms of program communication with the public and at public meetings. The program logo incorporates the official program name along with the name of the program sponsor, the New York State Department of Transportation.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page 7-1 New York State Department of Transportation

Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination

Exhibit 7-1—Program Logo

7.3. Public Outreach

7.3.1. Stakeholder Mailing List

A stakeholder mailing list has been developed and maintained in a database created for the program. The stakeholder database includes contact information of all interested stakeholders as well as representatives from all the agencies and organizations involved in the program. The stakeholder database is updated on an ongoing basis as the program progresses and as additional interested parties request to be added to the mailing list. Currently, the stakeholder database contains approximately 500 contacts.

7.3.2. Media Outreach

The program includes a media outreach plan which includes preparing press releases, meeting notice ads and general program related outreach releases for dissemination by local media channels in each of the six major population centers along the program corridor. In addition, press briefings have occurred prior to each of the public scoping meetings in an effort to promote public awareness of the program and encourage public participation and input. The press briefings also provided the media with the opportunity to interview members of the program team.

7.3.3. Newsletters

Since the onset of the program, NYSDOT has produced and distributed three informational newsletters to stakeholders at key program milestones. The first newsletter provided a general overview of the program’s purpose and advertised the public scoping meetings in an effort to promote attendance at the scoping meetings. The second newsletter provided an overview of the comments received at the public scoping meetings and throughout the duration of the scoping period and presented initial analysis and findings from the scoping period. The third newsletter provided an overview of the alternatives development and screening process and identified the alternatives being advanced for detailed evaluation. Program newsletters are distributed to all contacts listed in the stakeholder mailing list and uploaded to the program website.

Page 7-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program New York State Department of Transportation


7.3.4. Program Website

The program website (refer to Exhibit 7-2) was developed at the onset of the program to provide interested parties continuous access to information about the program. The website is accessed on NYSDOTs website at: https://www.dot.ny.gov/empire-corridor. Throughout the course of the program, interested parties have been encouraged to visit the program website to learn more about the program and receive the latest information and updates. Exhibit 7-2—Program Web Site Home Page


https://www.dot.ny.gov/empire-corridor


The program website includes a general overview of the program, the process in which the program is being carried out, and an explanation of the program’s purpose and need and goals and objectives. The website contains several links where interested parties can learn more about the program by reading the latest issue of the program newsletter, reviewing an online briefing about the program and the alternatives under analysis, watching an informational video about the program and exploring the interactive alternatives table which is an innovative web-based public outreach tool that was developed to store and display all the latest program related information in an easy to use and engaging format. The program website also contains information pertaining to schedule, upcoming and past public outreach activities, and frequently asked questions about the program. In addition, several program reports and documents as well as past issues of the program newsletter have been archived on the website and are available for download. The program website also has a page dedicated to informing interested parties how they may contact a member of the program team, submit a comment or question and sign up on the program mailing list to receive upcoming program information. The public involvement materials posted on the program website were specifically developed to engage and inform as many stakeholders and members of the public as possible, given that the Empire Corridor stretches across New York State - a distance of 463 miles. The website allows for stakeholders to receive the latest program related information even if they are unable to travel to attend a live meeting in person. The website received over 3,000 unique hits within the first couple months of being launched. To date, the website has been viewed by nearly 9,000 unique visitors.

7.4. Public Scoping Process

7.4.1. Public Scoping Meetings

Given the length of the Empire Corridor, six public scoping meetings were held in major population centers located along the corridor. As shown in Exhibit 7-3, scoping meetings were held in the following cities: New York City, Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo. The public scoping meetings were conducted in an open house format from 5:30-7:30 p.m. at each location. Attendees were asked to sign-in and were handed a copy of the program newsletter and a comment form and encouraged to view an informational video on the program which played on a continuous loop. At the end of the video, attendees were encouraged to view easel mounted display boards that presented program information and to interact with members of the program team. Meeting attendees were encouraged to fill out a comment card and leave it in one of the many drop boxes located at each public meeting. The public scoping meetings were advertised to the general public in accordance with the program’s media outreach plan. Meeting notice ads and press releases were produced and sent to various media outlets in each of the six locations along the length of the corridor where public scoping meetings were held. In addition to the six public scoping meetings held in different and geographically disbursed cities located along the Empire Corridor, an online scoping briefing was created and posted on the program website for the benefit of interested parties that were unable to attend a public scoping meeting in person. The online scoping briefing contained the same information presented at the public scoping meetings in a downloadable electronic format. The online scoping briefing was a



Exhibit 7-3—Scoping Meetings

Meeting Date Meeting Location Estimated Attendance

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 Connecticut Street Armory 184 Connecticut Street Buffalo, New York 14213

81

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Empire Expo Center (Syracuse Fairgrounds) 581 Fair Boulevard Syracuse, New York 13209

28

Tuesday, October 26, 2010 Sand Creek Middle School 329 Sand Creek Road Albany, New York 12205

86

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Moynihan Station 380 West 33rd Street New York, New York 10001

34

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 Hotel Utica 102 Lafayette Street Utica, New York 13502

23

Wednesday, November 10, 2010 Monroe Community College 1000 East Henrietta Road Rochester, New York 14623

87

TOTAL: 339 very successful public outreach tool that was visited by 231 unique individuals during the scoping period. During the program scoping process in 2010, considerable interest was expressed by the public and other program stakeholders in the potential for higher speed alternatives. These included a 160 mph alternative representing the practical upper limit of electrified dynamic tilt trains, such as the Amtrak Acela; and a 220 mph alternative representing the practical upper limit of high-speed rail operations seen in France, Germany, Spain, Japan, and China. In response to this, a range of higher speed alternatives was examined according to the same metrics as the other alternatives.

7.4.2. Public Scoping Comments

The public scoping meetings held during the fall of 2010 solicited a total of 102 public comments that were collected and recorded during the scoping period. Several options for submitting comments were available to the public, which included: direct submission at the public scoping meetings, standard mail, e-mail, through the program website and via telephone. Based on the public comments received during the scoping period, the majority (70%) of commenters expressed support for the program, as illustrated in Exhibit 7-4.



Exhibit 7-4—Nature of Public Comments

The public comments received at the public scoping meetings as well as from email, standard mail and phone, were documented and categorized to provide a general summary of the comments received during the public scoping process. The comments were grouped into 12 different categories based on the subject of the comment. The 12 categories include: general, alternatives, regional connections, stations, operations, alignment, speed, intermodal, vehicles, scoping meetings, safety and ridership. It is important to note that a comment made by one individual may be broken out into multiple categories; numerous comments addressed more than one subject category. Exhibit 7-5 illustrates the breakdown of comments received by category from public scoping efforts conducted throughout the entire corridor. The majority of comments received were categorized as the following: general, alternatives, regional connection, stations and operations. The remaining comment categories of alignment, speed, intermodal, vehicles, scoping meetings, safety and ridership accounted for a much lower percentage of comments received from public outreach efforts and thus were combined to form the “other” category in Exhibit 7-5, for the purpose of clarity. The “other” category accounts for 28 percent of comments received from the public scoping process throughout the entire corridor. The general comment category is the single largest category of comments received from public outreach efforts at 23 percent. Comments categorized as general do not pertain to any of the other comment categories and are broad in nature. An example of a general comment may include a personal position statement regarding the program such as an individual’s declaration of support toward the program’s goals and objectives. The alternatives and regional connection comment categories accounted for the second largest categories of comments received with each representing 13 percent of the total at the corridor level. In general, these comments were in regard to proposed alignment alternatives or the desire for increased regional connections. The stations category represented the next largest category of comments followed by operations at 12 and 11 percent respectively. The majority of these comments highlighted the desire for local station improvements with multimodal linkages.

70%

20% 10%

Supportive

Neutral

Nonsupportive



Exhibit 7-5—Summary of Public Comments by Category

The public scoping period was successful at soliciting public comments. Public comments have been and will continue to be collected, recorded and considered throughout the duration of the Tier 1 EIS.

7.5. Stakeholder Coordination

7.5.1. Agency Coordination

At the onset of the program, the appropriate federal, state, regional and local agencies were identified as having a role and/or interest in the program. More than 37 formal letters of invitation were sent by NYSDOT and FRA to agencies identified as NEPA cooperating and/or participating agencies. The role and responsibilities of cooperating and/or participating Agencies are set forth under the environmental review provisions of Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU, the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1508.5). Given the magnitude and complexity of the program, the lead agencies, FRA and NYSDOT, are using a tiered process, as provided for in 40 CFR 1508.28, in completing of the environmental review of the program. The initial phase of the program, Tier 1, addresses broad service-level issues and proposals for improving intercity passenger rail service along the corridor. The role of the cooperating agencies is outlined by CEQ 40 CFR 1508.5 whereby a cooperating agency is any federal agency, other than a lead agency, that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed project or project alternative. A state or local agency of similar qualifications or, when the effects are on lands of tribal interest, a Native American tribe, may, by agreement with the lead agencies, also become a

23%

13%

13% 12%

11%

28%

General

Alternatives

RegionalConnection

Stations

Operations

Other




cooperating agency. The responsibilities of cooperating agencies include providing inputthroughouttheentiredurationoftheprogram,participatinginmeetings,reviewingandprovidingcommentsonprogramprogressandreviewingandcommentingontheTier1DraftEISandtheTier1 Final EIS. The actions proposed by the program may require a permit or approval from acooperating agency. Cooperating agencies are also participating agencies, and all references toparticipatingagenciesincludecooperatingagencies.Theroleofparticipatingagencies,afederal,state,tribalorlocalgovernmentagencythatmayhaveaninterestintheprogram,includesparticipationintheNEPAprocess,providinginputthroughouttheentiredurationoftheprogramandidentifyinganyissuesorconcernsregardingtheprogram.According to Section 6002 of SAFETEA‐LU, participating agencies are responsible to identify, asearlyaspracticable,anyissuesofconcernregardingtheprogram’spotentialimpacts.Theprogrammay impact resources thatparticipatingagenciesare involved inmanaging. Exhibit7‐6 lists thecooperatingandparticipatingagenciesinvitedtobeinvolvedintheprogram.Therolesandresponsibilitiesofcooperatingandparticipatingagenciesaresimilar,butcooperatingagencieshaveahigherdegreeof authority, responsibility, and involvement in theenvironmentalreviewprocess. Adistinguishing featureof a cooperatingagency is that theCEQregulations (40CFR Section 1501.6) permit a cooperating agency to "assume on request of the lead agencyresponsibilityfordevelopinginformationandpreparingenvironmentalanalysesincludingportionsoftheenvironmentalimpactstatementconcerningwhichthecooperatingagencyhasspecialexpertise."An additional distinction is that, pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.3, "a cooperatingagencymayadoptwithout recirculation the environmental impact statement of a lead agency when, after anindependent review of the statement, the cooperating agency concludes that its comments andsuggestionshavebeensatisfied." This provision is particularly important to permitting agencies,suchastheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,who,ascooperatingagencies,routinelyadoptU.S.DOTenvironmentaldocuments."

7.5.2. Empire Project Advisory Committee (EPAC)

NYSDOTformedaprojectadvisorycommittee,theEmpireProjectAdvisoryCommittee(EPAC)tohelpshapeandguidedecisionmakingthroughouttheenvironmentalreviewprocess.ThepurposeoftheEPACistocreateaforumtoholdmeetingswithrepresentativesfromkeyagencies,statewidegovernment organizations, major railroads, metropolitan planning organizations and other keystakeholders. An invitation letter was sent to key stakeholders identified as having a potentialinterest or role in the program. The letter formally invited involvement in the program,membership in the program’s advisory committee and attendance at the first agency scopingmeeting. The EPAC also serves as a communication conduit whereby members can share theprogram’sprogresswiththeirconstituents.Presently,theEPACiscomprisedof47uniqueagenciesaslistedinExhibit7‐7.Todate,fourEPACmeetingshavebeenheldinanefforttoseekinputandfeedbackastheprogramprogresses through the environmental review process. The first EPAC meeting presented anoverviewoftheprogramalongwiththeprogram’sgoalsandobjectives.ThemeetingwasheldonOctober18,2010at theCapitalDistrictTransportationCommittee (CDTC)Office inAlbany,NewYork with approximately 40 persons in attendance. The second EPAC meeting presentedpreliminaryfindingsandgatheredinputfromEPACmembersandaddressedquestionsand


Exhibit 7-6—Agency Engagement

Agency Reason for Involvement Responsibility

Amtrak – National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Operates passenger service along the Empire Corridor

Invited Cooperating

United States (U.S.) Fish & Wildlife Service

Consultation regarding effects on aquatic and terrestrial wildlife as well as coordination with threatened and endangered species under Section 7 of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Invited Cooperating

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II

Regulatory concerns include General Conformity under the U.S. Clean Air Act and Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act

Accepted Cooperating

Federal Highway Administration Oversight of the Federal Highway system in the U.S.


Federal Transit Administration Oversight of passenger railroads in the U.S. Accepted Cooperating

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Permitting responsibility under Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act and permitting responsibility under Section 10 of the U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act

Invited Cooperating

National Marine Fisheries Service Consultation regarding proposed alternatives relative to ecological effects on coastal waters

Invited Cooperating

U.S. Coast Guard Permitting administration of Section 9 of the U.S. Rivers and Harbors Act


New York State (NYS) Department of Environmental Conservation

Permitting responsibility under Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and the State’s Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands regulatory program and Article 15 Protection of Waters regulatory program

Invited Cooperating

NYS Department of State Consistency with the State’s Coastal Zone Management Plan

Invited Cooperating

NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation

Oversight office for resources including Section 4(f) and Section 106 resources


National Park Service Responsible for oversight of National Parks Invited Cooperating

NYS Historic Preservation Office Coordinating effects determination for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Invited Cooperating

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Consultation regarding floodplains and modifications to existing floodplains

Invited Participating

Metro-North Railroad Major railroad owner/operator in the Empire Corridor


NYS Canal Corporation Responsible for the operation of the canal system




Exhibit 7-6—Agency Engagement

Agency Reason for Involvement Responsibility

Capital District Transportation Committee

Transportation planning organization for the Albany-Schenectady-Troy metropolitan area

Accepted Participating

Genesee Transportation Council Transportation planning organization for the Genesee-Finger Lakes Region


Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council

Transportation planning organization for the Erie and Niagara counties


Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study

Transportation planning organization for the Herkimer and Oneida counties


Orange County Transportation Council

Transportation planning organization for Orange County


New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

Transportation planning organization for New York City, Long Island and the lower Hudson Valley


Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council

Transportation planning organization for Dutchess County


Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council

Transportation planning organization for Onondaga County and small portions of Madison and Oswego Counties


Ulster County Transportation Council

Transportation planning organization for the Kingston Urbanized area as well as a portion of the Poughkeepsie-Newburgh Urbanized Transportation Management Area


Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA)

Responsible for transportation connections in the Albany-Schenectady-Troy metropolitan area


Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)

Responsible for transportation connections in the New York City, Long Island and lower Hudson Valley


Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA)

Responsible for transportation connections in the Buffalo Niagara region


Central New York Regional Transportation Authority (CENTRO)

Responsible for transportation connections in the central New York community


Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA)

Responsible for transportation connections in Monroe, Genesee, Livingston, Orleans, Wayne, Wyoming and Seneca Counties


Erie County Department of Environment and Planning

Responsible for environmental oversight in Erie County


NYC Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination

Responsible for environmental oversight in New York City


NYC Parks and Recreation Responsible for parks and recreation areas in New York City


NYC Department of Environmental Protection

Responsible for environmental oversight in New York City




Exhibit 7-7—EPAC Member Agencies

TYPE OF AGENCY AGENCY Federal Agencies • Federal Railroad Administration

• Federal Highway Administration • United States Environmental Protection Agency • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Federal Transit Administration • National Park Service • National Marine Fisheries Service • US Fish & Wildlife Service • US Department of Interior • US Coast Guard • Federal Emergency Management Agency

State Agencies • NYS Department of Transportation

• NYS Department of Environmental Conservation • NYS Department of State • NYS Empire State Development Corporation • NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation • State of New York, Office of the Governor • NYS Thruway Authority • NYS Canal Corporation • NYS Historic Preservation Office

Local Agencies • Erie County Department of Environmental Planning

• New York City Mayors Office of Environmental Coordination • New York City Department of Parks and Recreation • NYC Department of Environmental Protection

Transportation Agencies/MPOs

• NYS Metropolitan Planning Organizations • Metropolitan Transportation Authority • Capital District Transportation Committee • Genesee Transportation Council • Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council • Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study • Orange County Transportation Council • New York Metropolitan Transportation Council • Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council • Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council • Ulster County Transportation Council • Capital District Transportation Authority • Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority • Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority • Central New York Regional Transportation Authority

Railroads • CSX Transportation, Inc.

• Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation • Metro-North Railroad • Canadian Pacific Railroad • Finger Lakes Railroad

Rail Transportation Groups • High Speed Rail Coalition

• Empire State Passenger Association • Railroads of New York



comments. The second EPAC meeting was held on March 21, 2011 at the NYSDOT Main Office in Albany, New York. Approximately 30 EPAC members participated in the second meeting. The third EPAC meeting was held on March 8, 2012 at the NYSDOT main office in Albany, New York. Approximately 37 EPAC members participated in the third meeting which provided the advisory committee with an update on the program’s progress including an overview of the alternatives development and screening process. The fourth EPAC meeting was held on March 4, 2013. The focus of this meeting was on the alternatives evaluations and the economic benefits of the program. All four EPAC meetings included a webinar option for EPAC members to participate in the meeting remotely if they were unable to travel to attend the meetings in person.

7.5.3. Program Partners Involvement

In addition to the EPAC, the program team has provided two of the program’s key partners, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation - Amtrak and CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) with briefings on the status of the alternatives development phase of the program. These briefings provided both Amtrak and CSXT with an opportunity to individually view a presentation on the range of alternatives under consideration and provide feedback. Feedback from these key program partners is being taken into consideration as the program progresses.

7.5.4. Consultation with Federally Recognized Tribes and Consulting Parties Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) mandates that federal agencies consider the effect of their actions on any properties listed on or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NR) and afford the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Section 101(d)(6)(B) of the NHPA requires the lead federal agency to consult with any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking. The lead federal agency shall ensure that consultation in the Section 106 process provides the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization a reasonable opportunity to identify its concerns about historic properties, advise on the identification and evaluation of properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance, articulate its views on the undertaking’s effects on such properties, and participate in the resolution of adverse effects. Section 106 also requires consultation with consulting parties, which in addition to SHPO, ACHP, and federally recognized Indian tribes/Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) or Native Hawaiian organizations, includes local governments, and other individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the program, whose participation is subject to approval by the responsible federal agency, as described in 36 CFR 800.2. The lead federal agency, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and appropriate consulting parties, must determine whether a proposed action would have any adverse effects on the characteristics of a property that qualify it for the NR.



Federally Recognized Tribes

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(f)(2), the lead federal agency, FRA, in consultation with NYSDOT and SHPO, identified federally recognized tribes for outreach under Section 106 of NHPA. The tribes were identified on the basis of previously identified geographic areas of interest for Section 106 consultation commonly used by NYSDOT and SHPO. Tribal status and contact information on file with the Bureau of Indian Affairs was also consulted as part of the identification process. On May 3, 2011, FRA sent letters to the following federally recognized tribes inviting them to participate in Section 106 consultation: • Cayuga Nation, • Seneca Nation of Indians, • Tonawanda Seneca Nation, • Onondaga Nation, • Oneida Indian Nation, • Tuscarora Indian Nation, • Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of the Mohican Nation, • Delaware Nation, • Shinnecock Nation, • St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, • Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma. Replies were received from the Mohican Nation, the Oneida Nation, and the Seneca Nation. All of these tribal nations expressed their interest in the program and their desire to participate in consultation on the program in accordance with Section 106 of NHPA. On May 4, 2012, NYSDOT invited all of the federally-recognized tribes listed above (and one additional federally-recognized tribe: the Delaware Tribe of Indians) to an information-gathering meeting in Rochester, New York, on May 30, 2012. At the meeting, the program sponsors presented an overview of the program, the proposed Section 106 methodology and the preliminary program APE, and took comments from the tribes. At the request of several of the tribes that participated in the May 30, 2012 meeting, maps of the alternative alignments showing the approximate locations of previously identified archaeological sites were sent to the tribes. On November 21, 2012, NYSDOT on behalf of FRA sent letters to each of the tribes and SHPO describing and illustrating the boundaries of the proposed APE for their review and comment. In response to comments provided by the Oneida Nation to FRA and NYSDOT in a letter dated December 14, 2012, FRA and NYSDOT engaged in additional correspondence and a face-to-face meeting (April 18, 2013) with the Oneida Nation. On May 2, 2013, FRA and NYSDOT held a meeting to provide project information to the federally-recognized tribes and give them an opportunity to provide comments. On July 26 2013, the Draft Programmatic Agreement was transmitted to the federally recognized tribes and consulting parties for review and comment. The deadline for comment was listed as August 27, 2013. In a letter dated August 13, 2013, FRA received a letter from the Oneida Indian Nation requesting a 30-day extension to provide comments on the Draft Programmatic Agreement. This was granted by the FRA. In advance of the extended deadline for comments, a teleconference meeting was held on September 17, 2013 with FRA, NYSDOT, and the Oneida Indian Nation. As a result of this meeting, FRA revised the Draft Programmatic Agreement and transmitted it to the Oneida Indian Nation on September 26, 2013. FRA coordinated with Oneida Nation in developing the Draft PA, included in



Appendix H.

Other Consulting Parties

In addition to consultation with federally-recognized tribal nations, FRA and NYSDOT have engaged in a parallel process of coordination with consulting parties in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(3) through (5) and 800.3(f). Potential consulting parties for the Tier 1 process were identified by FRA and NYSDOT in consultation with SHPO based on the parties demonstrated interest in broad, corridor-wide, or regional-level aspects of the proposed undertaking. In addition to the SHPO and ACHP, the list of potential consulting parties included the following non-federally recognized tribes and state or region-wide preservation organizations: • Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs, • Unkechaug Nation, • Preservation League of New York State, • Hudson River Valley Greenway, • Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor, • Preservation Buffalo Niagara, • Landmark Society of Western New York, • Preservation Association of Western New York.

A total of three parties responded expressing interest in participating as consulting parties: the Preservation League of New York State; the National Park Service Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor; and Preservation Buffalo Niagara. FRA subsequently approved the consulting party status of these three entities. On May 2, 2013, FRA and NYSDOT held a meeting to provide program information to the consulting parties and give them an opportunity to provide comments. Representatives from the Preservation League of New York State and the Erie Canal National Heritage Corridor attended. In June 2013, the Draft Programmatic Agreement was transmitted to the consulting parties for review and comment. The deadline for comment was listed as August 27, 2013. In a letter dated September 20, 2013, the Preservation League of New York State provided comments.

7.5.5. Future Public Involvement and Agency Coordination Activities

During the public comment period for this Tier 1 Draft EIS, public hearings will be held to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the program through formal testimony and written comment. The public comments collected and recorded at the public hearings and during the public comment period will be considered in selection of a preferred alternative and in preparation of the Tier 1 Final EIS. The cooperating agencies have been provided with the opportunity to review and comment on the Tier 1 Draft EIS. Coordination with the cooperating and participating agencies as well as with the EPAC will continue through completion of the Tier 1 Final EIS.


Documents

7. Comments and Coordination 7.1. Introduction · Tier 1 Draft EIS Chapter 7 – Comments and Coordination Exhibit 7-1—Program Logo . 7.3. Public Outreach 7.3.1. Stakeholder Mailing