New York State Department of Transportation
|Transportation |
|Project Report |
|[Draft/Final] Design |
|Report |
| |
|Month 20xx |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|[Project Title/Description (e.g., Route______over________)] |
|Project Identification Number (PIN): _______ |
|[Bridge Identification Number (BIN): ________] |
|[Village/Town/City] of________ |
|________ County |
| |
| |
| |
|[pic] |
Delete the FHWA logo below for 100% State funded projects.
[pic][pic]
|ALERT! |
| |
|This document has been formatted as a Word 97 – 2003 compatible file (.doc) due to the web-posting requirements to accommodate accessible |
|reader software. When this file is modified to produce a DAD, it is beneficial to save it as a .doc file. If it is saved as a .docx or .docm|
|file, formatting (particularly on the cover) will potentially be altered and require correction. |
| |
|Project Approval Sheet |
|Note this sheet is formatted as a table. |
|Milestones |Signatures |Date |
|IPP Approval: |The project is ready to be added to the Regional Capital Program and project scoping can begin. |
| | |The IPP was approved by: | | |
| |Name, Regional Director | |
| |
|Scope Approval: |The project cost and schedule are consistent with the Regional Capital Program. |
| | |The scope was approved by: | | |
| |Name, Regional Director | |
| |
|C. Public Hearing Certification |A public hearing was not required. |
|(Pursuant to 23 USC 128 and 23 CFR|OR, A public hearing was held on _______. |
|771.111):Remove “(Pursuant to 23 |OR, A Notice of Opportunity for a Public Hearing was published on ______ and ______. No requests to |
|USC 128 and 23 CFR 771.111)” when |hold a public hearing were received therefore a hearing was not held. . When required by 23 CFR |
|not following FHWA public hearing |771.111(h)(2)(iii) FHWA NEPA regulations require certification of a hearing or offer to hold a |
|requirements |hearing (23 CFR 771.111(h)(2)(vi). |
| | | | | |
| | |Name, |Date |
| |
|Categorical Exclusion |This project qualifies as a Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act per the|
|Determination on Behalf of FHWA |NYSDOT/FHWA Programmatic Agreement Regarding Categorical Exclusions. |
|This certification is required | |
|when the completed FEAW indicates | |
|that NYSDOT makes the CE | |
|determination. Remove this | |
|certification when FHWA makes the | |
|CE determination, for EIS or EA | |
|projects and for 100% State-funded| |
|projects. | |
| | | | | |
| | |Name, | |Date |
| |
|D/E. Recommendation for Design, |All requirements requisite to these actions and approvals have been met, the required independent |
|and Nonstandard Feature Approval: |quality control reviews separate from the functional group reviews have been accomplished, and the |
|OR |work is consistent with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as |
|Recommendation for Design Approval|otherwise noted and explained. Meeting all requirements requisite to these actions and approvals |
| |includes meeting the requirements of the NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA). |
| |Recommendation for Design Approval includes verification that SGPIPA documentation requirements are |
| |met. |
| | |
| |When the project includes justification of nonstandard features, include the following statement: The|
| |nonstandard features have been adequately justified and it is not prudent to eliminate them as part |
| |of this project. |
| |OR, |
| |Include the following when nonstandard feature justifications are not required: No nonstandard |
| |features have been created or retained. |
| | | | | |
| |Name, |Date |
| |
|E/F. Design, and Nonstandard |When project requires justification of nonstandard features, ensure this statement is revised Refer |
|Feature Approval: |to Exhibit 4-2 in PDM Chapter 4 to determine the appropriate authority or authorities for design |
|OR |approval and nonstandard feature approval. The required environmental determinations have been made, |
|Scope and Design Approval |and the preferred alternative for this project is ready for final design. Nonstandard features have |
|Use this row for NYSDOT |been appropriately justified. |
|administered projects. |OR No nonstandard features are being retained or created |
|For local projects remove this | |
|certification and use rows below. | |
| | | | | |
| |Name, |Date |
|Remove rows below for nonlocal projects |
|E/F. Local Project Nonstandard |Nonstandard features on Non-NHS local roadways have been appropriately justified. |
|Feature Approval |OR No nonstandard features are being retained or created on Non-NHS local roadways. |
|Use for local projects. Include | |
|the certifications to the right as| |
|appropriate. | |
| | | | | |
| |Name, |Date |
| |
|F/G. Local Project Scope and |The required environmental determinations have been made, and the preferred | |
|Design Approval |alternative for this project is ready for final design. | |
|Use for local projects. | | |
| | | | | |
| |Name, |Date |
| |
|List of Preparers |
Group Director Responsible for Production of this Final Design Report (FDR): Only stamp the final report.
|__(Name)_____, PE, Regional Design Engineer, NYSDOT Region ___ | |
|OR | |
|__(Name)_____, PE, Regional Maintenance Engineer, NYSDOT Region ___ | |
|OR | |
|__(Name)_____, PE, Regional Director of Operations, NYSDOT Region ___ | |
|OR | |
|__(Name)_____, PE, Director, Design Services Bureau, NYSDOT |PLACE P.E. STAMP |
|OR | |
|__(Name)_____, PE, Principal, ___(Consultant firm name)___ | |
|Description of Work Performed: Directed the preparation of the FDR in accordance with established | |
|standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document. | |
| | |
| | |
Note: It is a violation of law for any person, unless they are acting under the direction of a licensed professional engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor, to alter an item in any way. If an item bearing the stamp of a licensed professional is altered, the altering engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor shall stamp the document and include the notation "altered by" followed by their signature, the date of such alteration, and a specific description of the alteration.
[For NYSDOT prepared reports, include the following section. Only include licensed professionals that are stamping work as part of the main body of the report. Only stamp the final report. Add/remove rows, as needed. Refer to PDM Appendix 7, Section 6.1 for the technical appendices that must be stamped. The professional stamp does NOT apply to the environmental portions of the report, the cost estimate, or the schedule.]
This report was prepared by the following NYSDOT staff:
|__(Name)_____, PE, ____________, NYSDOT, _____ | |
|Description of Work Performed: | |
|Prepared the _____ for the FDR in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and | |
|procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document. | |
| | |
|OR | |
| |PLACE P.E. STAMP |
|Description of Work Performed: Directly supervised the preparation of the FDR Chapters 1, 2 and 3 | |
|in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise| |
|explained in this document. | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |PLACE P.E. STAMP |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| |
|Table of Contents |
|Update page numbers in the TOC below by right clicking on the table and selecting Update Field. Then select Update Page Numbers Only and |
|click OK. Page numbers should be updated whenever changes are made to the report. |
| |
|DO NOT CHANGE THE HEADING SETTINGS (in Styles on the Home tab) for the section titles. They are linked to the Table of Contents. When |
|additional three-digit subsections need to be added in Chapter 3, highlight the created subsection number and title in the text and select |
|“Heading 3” from the Styles Menu on the Home tab. When subsections are added or it becomes necessary to make other changes to section titles,|
|ensure the TOC below is updated by right clicking over the TOC and selecting “Update Field” and then select “Update entire table” and click |
|OK. Ensure that the steps above have been done prior to sending the report for any review. |
PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET i
LIST OF PREPARERS ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
TABLE OFAPPENDICES iv
CHAPTER 1 – PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 1-1
1.1. Introduction 1-1
1.1.1. Project Location 1-1
1.2. Purpose and Need and Objectives 1-1
1.2.1. Project Need 1-1
1.2.2. Project Purpose 1-1
1.2.3. Project Objectives 1-1
1.3. Project Alternatives 1-2
1.4 Project Effects 1-2
1.4.1 Environmental Classification 1-2
1.4.2 Comparison of Considered Alternatives 1-2
1.4.3 Anticipated Permits/Certifications/Coordination 1-3
1.5. Preferred Alternative 1-5
1.6. Project Schedule and Cost 1-5
1.7. Public Involvement 1-7
CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS 2-1
2.1. Project History 2-1
2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use 2-1
2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area 2-1
2.2.2. Transportation Corridor 2-1
2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations 2-2
2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance 2-2
2.3.2. Multimodal 2-6
2.3.3. Infrastructure 2-7
2.3.4. Potential Enhancement Opportunities 2-9
2.3.5. Miscellaneous 2-10
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES 3-11
3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study 3-11
3.2. Reasonable Build Alternatives 3-11
3.2.1. Description of Reasonable Alternatives 3-11
3.2.2 Preferred Alternative 3-2
3.2.3. Design Criteria for Reasonable Alternative(s) 3-2
3.3. Engineering Considerations 3-7
3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance 3-7
3.3.2. Multimodal Considerations 3-10
3.3.3. Infrastructure 3-11
3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements 3-13
3.3.5. Miscellaneous 3-13
CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC and ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS and CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.1.1 Environmental Classification 4-1
4.1.2 Coordination with Agencies 4-2
4.2 Social 4-3
4.2.1 Land Use 4-3
4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion 4-4
4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed 4-5
4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship 4-6
4.3 Economic 4-6
4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies 4-6
4.3.2 Business District Impacts 4-6
4.3.3 Specific Business Impacts 4-6
4.4 Environmental 4-6
4.4.1 Wetlands 4-6
4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses 4-10
4.4.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers 4-13
4.4.4 Navigable Waters 4-15
4.4.5 Floodplains 4-16
4.4.6 Coastal Resources 4-17
4.4.7 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs 4-19
4.4.8 Stormwater Management 4-20
4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources 4-23
4.4.10 Critical Environmental Areas 4-25
4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources 4-26
4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources 4-31
4.4.13 Visual Resources 4-33
4.4.14 Farmlands 4-35
4.4.15 Air Quality 4-36
4.4.16 Energy 4-38
4.4.17 Noise 4-43
4.4.18 Asbestos 4-46
4.4.19 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials 4-46
4.5 Construction Effects 4-49
4.5.1 Construction Impacts 4-49
4.5.2 Mitigation Measures 4-49
4.6 Indirect and Secondary Effects 4-49
4.6.1 Indirect Socioeconomic Effects 4-49
4.6.2 Social Consequences 4-49
4.6.3 Economic Consequences 4-49
4.7 Cumulative Effects 4-49
| |
|Table of Appendices |
|Consult PDM Exhibit 7-11 -Technical Appendices for DADs to the determine the appendices to be included. |
| | |
|A. |Maps, Plans, Profiles & Typical Sections |
|B. |Environmental Information |
|C. |Traffic Information |
|D. |Pavement Information |
|E. |Structures Information |
|F. |Non-Standard Features Justification |
|G. |Public Involvement Ensure the Public Involvement Plan (PIP) is included |
|H. |Right-of-Way Information |
|I. |Miscellaneous |
|J. |Other |
– PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Go to end of this document for instructions on turning on/off GREEN text during document preparation and for Summary of Changes.
This shell is for use with projects identified as Moderate or Complex (see Exhibit 7-1 in PDM Appendix 7).
|ALERT! |
| |
|All text that is only appropriate for the DDR must be updated for the FDR before Design Approval can be granted. |
This chapter should utilize a brochure style format to briefly discuss the highlights of the Project. It shall be limited to 8 pages (including graphics) for moderate projects and 10 pages (including graphics) for complex projects. The page limitation ensures the executive summary focuses on the projects’ critical issues.
1.1. Introduction
23 CFR applies if a federal action is required such as funding or a federal permit.
This report was prepared in accordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual, 17 NYCRR (New York Codes, Rules and Regulations) Part 15, and 23 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 771. Transportation needs have been identified (section 1.2.2), objectives established (1.2.3) to address the needs, and cost-effective alternatives developed (1.3). This project is federally funded 100% State funded.
1 1.1.1. Project Location
Include a project map developed utilizing both Arc Map and snag-it, or similar method. If appropriate include an ortho image. For additional guidance on Arc Map and GIS applications see the Office of Design’s GIS IntraDOT page. The minimum mapping information should include (in a text bubble):
1) Route number
2) Route name
3) SH (state highway) number and official highway description
4) BIN (Bridge Identification Number) and feature crossed
5) City/Village/Township
6) County
7) Length
8) From RM XXXX-XXXX-XXXX to RM XXXX-XXXX-XXXX
9) Any other description information which is pertinent
1.2. Purpose and Need and Objectives
1 1.2.1. Project Need
Identify and describe transportation needs and/or respective concerns which the proposed action is intended to satisfy (e.g., provide system continuity, alleviate traffic congestion and correct safety or roadway deficiencies). In many cases the project need can be adequately explained in one or two paragraphs.
2 1.2.2. Project Purpose
The purpose statement should briefly describe what the project is intended to accomplish and should be stated as the expected positive outcome. The Purpose defines the transportation problem to be solved It should avoid stating a solution—e.g.,the purpose of the project is to build a bypass.
The purpose of this project is to (insert description e.g. “provide geometric and operational improvements to…”)
3 1.2.3. Project Objectives
See Project Development Manual Appendix 4 when establishing project objectives. Project objectives are what the project is meant to accomplish; the desired results of the project; the outcomes of the project that meet the identified needs or remedy stated problems. Therefore, objective(s) will be unique to each project.
Project objectives provide evaluation criteria (measures of effectiveness) for comparing how well alternative solutions fulfill identified needs. Objectives should be listed or grouped in order of importance. When the objectives do not completely satisfy identified needs, an explanation should follow.
A proper statement of project objectives has several characteristics. The statements should include the following:
• Describes the desired results of the project in a manner that is appropriately specific.
• Is consistent with available resources
• Gives time frames for achievement
• Allows achievement to be measured
NOTE: If the proposed project would also assist in accomplishing other objectives not directly identifiable as part of the problem(s), these should be described as well.
Objectives must be written clearly so that design alternatives can be evaluated against them. Objectives should not define or state specific solution(s) to the problem but should define criteria that the project is to achieve. Some examples are listed below. Note that when condition ratings or other such designations are used, a description of what the rating means should be provided. Bridge Condition Rating is a performance measure of the bridge; which is rated on a 1 (Failed) through 7 (New) scale, and can be found in the Bridge Data Information System (BDIS) maintained by the Office of Structures.
CHOOSE THE APPROPRIATE OBJECTIVE:
1) Restore the bridge condition rating to 5 (a rating of 5 means that the bridge remains in fully functional and non-deficient condition) or greater, for at least __ years using cost effective techniques to minimize the life cycle cost of maintenance and repair.
2) Improve overall traffic conditions using cost effective methods to reduce delay and to provide an acceptable level of service, for a design period of ___ years.
3) Address geometric deficiencies to improve traffic flow and facilitate traffic operations.
4) Correct identified pavement deficiencies that will extend the useful life of the highway and maintain it in a structurally sound condition using cost effective pavement treatments which provide low life cycle costs.
5) Restore pavement to good condition using cost effective pavement treatments which provide a service life of ___ years.
6) Correct safety deficiencies using cost effective accident reduction measures such that accident reduction benefits equal or exceed project costs attributable to safety work.
7) Improve existing facilities and services using cost effective measures to eliminate the degradation of mainline level of service, and improve level of service or reduce the hours of delay at LOS E for the design year.
On projects where a law, Executive Order or regulation (e.g. ~ Section 4(f), Executive Order 11990 or Executive Order 11988) mandates an evaluation of avoidance alternatives, the project objective statement(s) should be written so that it can be clearly determined whether avoidance alternatives meet the stated project objective(s).
1.3. Project Alternatives
This section should provide a brief description of the alternatives (that are reasonable and most closely meet the objectives) that are or have been considered, supplemented by a presentation style typical section(s). The no-build/maintenance alternative should be considered and discussed briefly; it must be retained for comparison with the other reasonable alternatives being evaluated, and discussed in chapter 3. Profiles should generally not be included in this chapter. Presentation style plans should be included for realignments, interchange reconfigurations and major intersection work.
When there are numerous alternatives, different colors for each alternative may be useful. More in-depth information/data will be provided in Chapter 3, which will also cover the alternatives that were deemed inReasonable (eliminated from further study).
For projects with a large range of alternatives, the details of alternatives considered and rejected should be included in an appendix and briefly referenced in this section.
For a more in-depth discussion of the design criteria and nonstandard features see Section 3.2.3. Design Criteria for Reasonable Alternative(s).
1.4 Project Effects
1 1.4.1 Environmental Classification
|Exhibit 1.4.1 |
|Environmental Classification Summary |
| |
|NEPA Classification |
|Category |Alternatives Evaluated |
| |Null |Preferred |Alt 2 |Alt 3 |
| | |Alt. 1 | | |
|Topics provided below are examples. Add and remove topic rows as necessary for project |
|Environmental Impacts |
|Wetlands |None |2.81 acres |3.08 acres |3.5 acres |
|Cultural Resources (Section |None |2 sites affected |2 sites affected |3 sites affected |
|106) | |No Adverse Effect |Adverse Effect |Adverse Effect |
|Section 4(f) |None |Programmatic Section 4(f) |Individual Section 4(f) |Individual Section 4(f) |
| | |Evaluation for Minor |Evaluation |Evaluation |
| | |Involvement with Historic | | |
| | |Sites | | |
|Endangered/ Threatened Species|None |May Affect, Not Likely to |May Affect, Not Likely to |May Affect, Not Likely to |
| | |Adversely Affect the northern |Adversely Affect the northern|Adversely Affect the |
| | |long eared bat |long eared bat |northern long eared bat |
|Noise |None |4 Residences |4 Residences |2 residences |
|Social Impacts |
|Property/Relocations |None |10 acres |12.5 acres |20 acres |
| | |6 businesses |8 businesses |8 businesses |
| | |1 residence |2 residences |4 residences |
| | | | |1 relocation |
|Mobility (Pedestrian, bicycle,|No Effect |Improved pedestrian and |Increased pedestrian crossing|Reduction in shoulder width |
|transit, etc.) | |bicycle mobility |distances |used by bicyclists. |
|Environmental Justice |No Effect |No disproportionate high and |No disproportionate high and |No disproportionate high and|
| | |adverse effects to minority or|adverse effects to minority |adverse effects on minority |
| | |low-income populations |or low-income populations |or low-income populations |
|General Social Groups |No Effect |Beneficial impacts for |Increased impacts to elderly |Impacts to children’s’ |
|(elderly, disabled, children, | |disabled (new accessible |population (noise impacts, |access to parks and school. |
|transit dependent, etc.) | |sidewalks and crossings) |increased pedestrian crossing| |
| | | |distance) | |
|Crash Costs |High |Low |High | Low |
|Economic and/or Operational Impacts - Examples of issues that might cause economic impacts are temporary detours, reduction in parking, access |
|management that limits movements into businesses, removal of traffic from a roadway, etc. |
|Economic Impacts |No |Modification to vehicular |Slight modification to |No change to vehicular |
| |Effect |access to businesses |vehicular access to |access to businesses |
| | | |businesses | |
|Temporary Detours |No Effect |6 businesses affected for 2 |6 businesses affected for 2 |6 businesses affected for 2 |
| | |months |months |months |
|Reduction of Parking |No Effect |Loss of 3 on-street parking |Loss of 3 on-street spaces |Loss of 3 on-street spaces |
| | |spaces |and loss of off-street |and loss of off-street |
| | | |parking in 2 private lots. |parking in 2 private lots. |
|Operation at ETC If using |15 min delay |4 min delay |3 min delay |1 min. delay |
|this row insure the | | | | |
|appropriate design year is | | | | |
|used. | | | | |
|Utilities |None |Relocation required |Relocation required |Temporary Relocations |
| | |$0.2M |$0.3M |Required |
|Construction Cost |None |$14M |$15M |$20M |
The above table should be modified to include the items that help differentiate between the alternatives (including the null alternative). For example, load rating might be a row for a bridge project and tons of air pollutants for a capacity improvement project.
If mitigation measures are proposed for the project, include a statement referencing the applicable section(s) in Chapter 4. Example:
Refer to Chapter 4 Section(s) 4.X.X.X. for mitigation measures that are proposed for this project.
2 1.4.3 Anticipated Permits/Certifications/Coordination
In Exhibit 1..4.3 list the agencies from which permits/certifications/coordination are/is anticipated to be needed for the project. Ensure that this is consistent with what has been provided in Chapter 3.
|Exhibit 1.4.3 |
|Anticipated Permits/Certifications/Coordination |
|Permits – remove or add rows for those that apply |
|NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC): |
|State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit |
|Article 24- Freshwater Wetlands Permit |
|Article 25 Tidal Wetland Permit |
|Water Quality Certification |
|Mined Land Permit |
|Floodplain Variance |
|Wild, Scenic, Recreational Rivers Permit |
|Construction Staging Permit |
|Construction Borrow Area Mining Permit |
|Construction Solid Waste Disposal Permit |
|Indirect Source Air Quality Permit |
|Coastal Zone Erosion Permit |
|Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit (Article 34) |
|United States Coast Guard (Reference Appendix H for the USCG Checklist) |
|Section 9 Permit |
|Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): |
|Nationwide Permit # fill in permit # and title. Some of the typical NWPs used for NYSDOT projects are; #3 – Maintenance; #13 - Bank |
|Stabilization; #14 – Linear Transportation Projects; ; #33 – Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering; #43 – Stormwater Management |
|Facilities.) |
|Section 404 Individual Permit |
|Section 10 Permit |
|Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) |
|National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit |
|Adirondack Park Agency (APA) |
|APA General Permit |
|Others |
|Local Permits |
|Coordination – remove or add rows for those that apply |
|NYSDEC (pursuant to the “NYSDEC/NYSDOT Memorandum of Understanding Regarding ECL Articles 15 & 24”) |
|Federal Highway Administration |
|New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) |
|US Fish and Wildlife Service |
|New York Natural Heritage Program |
|National Park Service |
|Adirondack Park Agency |
|Section 1424(e) review by FHWA and EPA (sole source aquifer) |
|Municipality(ies) - List all that apply |
|Metropolitan Planning Organization - |
|Utility(ies) - List all that apply including municipal and private utilities that apply |
|Certifications – remove or add rows for those that apply |
|NYS Department of Labor: Asbestos Variances |
|NYSDEC Airport Air Quality Certification (Licensed Designer Specifications/Notes) |
|NYS Department of State Coastal Zone Consistency Certification Statement |
|NYS Department of State Coastal Zone Local Waterfront Revitalization Certification |
1.5. Preferred Alternative
The example statements provided below is intended for Moderate type projects. It may be expanded if necessary for EIS projects to provide a brief rationale for the preferred alternative.
Option 1:
The reasonable alternative that best meets the project objectives is Alternative ___. See Section 3.2.2 for a discussion of this alternative.
Option 2:
If a Section 4(f) evaluation is required, mention that the preferred alternative is also “Reasonable and prudent.”
The Reasonable and prudent alternative that best meets the project objectives is Alternative ___. See Section 3.2.2 for a discussion of this alternative.
Refer to PPMIS (Program and Project Management Information System) software for the initial cost and schedule. During scoping, the designer is to develop costs and a schedule using accepted practices such as an itemized estimate based on bid histories and MS Project. A MS Project schedule and an excel spreadsheet with the cost estimates is to be maintained in ProjectWise. Activities such as utility involvement, ordering steel for bridges, cultural resource requirements, special local events etc. that have an effect on the schedule should be explained.
Design Approval is scheduled for ___ of 20__ with construction scheduled to last ___ months beginning in ____ of 20__.
For more detail on costs for each alternative refer to Section 3.2.1.
1.6. Project Schedule and Cost
Refer to PPMIS or P6 schedule for the initial cost and schedule. During scoping, the designer is to develop costs and a schedule using accepted practices. The project schedule and cost estimate are to be maintained in ProjectWise. When the desired letting date is critical, a statement to that effect will be included in the request for reviews or approvals. Similarly, if there is flexibility in the schedule, this must be noted in the request memos. Schedule qualifiers such as utility involvement, ordering steel for bridges, meeting cultural resource requirements, special local events, and other schedule constraints should also be described.
|Exhibit 1.6A |
|Project Schedule |
|Activity |Date Occurred/Tentative |
|Scoping Approval | |
|Design Approval | |
|ROW Acquisition | |
|Construction Start | |
|Construction Complete | |
[pic]
1.7. Public Involvement
|ALERT! |
| |
|Some environmental regulations, (such as EO 11990, Sections 106 and 4(f)) have specific requirements for public notification/input based on |
|impacts to resources. For instance, if the project is expected to have a de minimis Section 4(f) impact finding on a park, recreation area or|
|wildlife/waterfowl refuge, public notice of an opportunity for public review and comment must be provided per 23 CFR 771.111(h)(2)(viii) and |
|23 CFR 774.5(b)(2)(i). If a public meeting is planned, this may be done as part of the notice for the public meeting. If no meeting is |
|planned, then a notice should be published in a local newspaper with deadline for acceptance of comments (concerning the Section 4(f) de |
|minimis impact finding). For historic resources, this requirement is met by following Section 106 procedures (23 CFR 774.5(b)(1)(iii). |
| |
|Coordinate with your Regional Environmental Unit. If needed, contact your MOPL or the Office of Environment for information. |
Refer to PDM Appendix 2 for public involvement measures and other information that might be appropriate for the project. Ensure the project Public Involvement Plan (PIP) and any pertinent correspondence with stakeholders and the public is provided in Appendix G and summarized here. Provide a concise summary of meetings and other opportunities to involve stakeholders and the public. Discuss any public hearings or public meetings scheduled/held for the project. Discuss any issues or controversy that has been raised by stakeholders or the public. Summarize efforts to resolve or address issues. When discussing input to be or that has been received from stakeholders or the public ensure that the discussion also mentions that this input will be considered as part of the project development process.
Ensure that efforts made to reach out to minority and Limited English Proficient (LEP) community members in accordance with EO 13166 and NYS EO 26 are discussed. For information on LEP best practices contact the Office of Civil Rights.
Establish contacts with potentially involved stakeholders such as:
• Applicable State & Federal agencies (e.g., NYSDEC, ACOE, NYSTA, SHPO, FHWA, MPO)
• Municipalities
• Commuters
• Local elected officials
• Local property owners
• Emergency services
• Businesses
• Chambers of commerce
• Schools
• Advocacy groups (transit, the disabled, pedestrians, etc.)
Fill in key public involvement activities in Exhibit 1-6. Ensure the activities and dates are consistent with the PIP.
Refer to Appendix G for the project’s Public Involvement Plan and for related project correspondence.
|Exhibit 1.7 |
|Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates |
|Activity |Date Occurred/Tentative |
|Initial Environmental Findings | |
|Field Pre-Scoping Meeting (all groups) | |
|In-house DOT scoping meeting | |
|Stakeholder Meeting | |
|Focus Group Meeting | |
|Meeting with Town Reps. | |
|Meeting with SHPO | |
|Public Informational Meeting | |
|Current Project Letting date | |
For additional information or to provide comments, please contact. . .
|Mailing Address: |Provide Name, Project Manager |
| |New York State Department of Transportation |
| |Region X Design |
| |Street Address |
| |Municipality, New York XXXXX |
|Email Address: |ename@dot. |
|Telephone: |(XXX) XXX-XXXX |
Please include the six-digit Project Identification Number (PIN) XXXX.XX in any correspondence.
. . .or visit the Project website:
The deadline for submitting comments is Month XX, 20XX.
The remainder of this report is a detailed technical evaluation of existing conditions, anticipated impacts of the one reasonable/preferred alternative and comparison to the null alternative, copies of technical reports and plans and other supporting information.
- PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS
Go to end of this document for instructions on turning on/off GREEN text during document preparation and for Summary of Changes.
|ALERT! |
| |
|All text that is only appropriate for the DDR must be updated for the FDR before Design Approval can be granted. |
This chapter addresses the history and existing context of the project site, including the existing conditions, deficiencies, and needs for this part of the Route __ corridor.
2.1. Project History
This section should summarize the project's evolution up to the point where the report begins to provide new information. The problem(s), the severity of the problem(s), titles and dates of previous reports, any community coordination and input which has occurred, correspondence, Department commitments, etc., should be briefly discussed. If the project was part of an approved Congestion Management System (CMS), or has followed the Interim Congestion Management System (ICMS) process and/or is a Major Investment Study (MIS), then the relevant information should be summarized. For EIS projects, NEPA scoping actions, such as publication of the Notice of Intent, scoping meetings, etc., should be briefly described.
NOTE: The following is necessary to avoid reviewers raising questions regarding location alternatives that have been previously considered.
In the case of projects following the one hearing process, this section would reduce to a summary of the project scoping work done to date. However, this section should be more extensive in the case of projects following the two hearing process. It should:
(1) Summarize the location alternatives considered and state which location alternative was chosen and why.
(2) Include a map of the approved location alternative.
(3) List the planning documents that have previously been reviewed by the public and give addresses where they can be reviewed.
(4) Make clear that the alternatives considered in the DR/DEIS are design alternatives and that the question of location alternatives has already been methodically resolved as has the model choice.
2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use
2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area
2.2.1.1. Local Comprehensive Plans (“Master Plan”) - Any adopted local comprehensive plans should be referenced and briefly described in this section. Summarize local planning goals and objectives.
The Regional Planning Group has reviewed the local comprehensive plan prepared for the Town of _______. This project is consistent with the local comprehensive plan.
2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans – Any approved development planned for the area which would change the culture, land use patterns, zoning, traffic volumes, parking conditions (e.g., more on street parking which may add to congestion), rural uninterrupted to suburban interrupted flow, etc., in the area, should be described, with approximate year when implementation of planned development is expected. Indicate if the necessary permits have been obtained and if SEQR process has been completed for the proposed local development.
There are no approved developments planned within the project area that will impact traffic operations.
1 2.2.2. Transportation Corridor
2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment - Discuss the relationship of the project's problem(s) to other existing transportation problems in the area or Region. Is the proposed project a "connecting link" in a systems development plan? How would it fit into the system? Does it complement the system? Is it an "essential gap" in the regional system?
2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes –
There is/are no alternative routes that would be suitable as a permanent detour. Discuss routes that could serve as a detour or alternate route if improvements are not made.
2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs - Does the corridor limit mobility (movement of people and goods) in the area or Region? Have Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) type improvements, or transit, vanpool, rideshare type services been implemented in the project area and if so, what impact are they having. See HDM Chapter 24 for information and discussion concerning mobility issues.
2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans - Identify relationship to any statewide plan. Identify relationship to any adopted urban area transportation plan (i.e., is the project in the Long Range Plan, on the TIP, or expected to be on the TIP?). What is the relative priority of the project, if known?
|ALERT! |
| |
|FHWA requires that projects using federal funding have the full estimated cost allocated on the STIP/TIP. Note that if this is not done, |
|there may be delays for projects with FHWA oversight. Check the STIP/TIP to ensure the project is adequately funded and if not, contact |
|Planning for a STIP/TIP amendment. |
Is the project part of an approved Congestion Management System or adequate Interim Congestion Management System? Is the project subject to a Major Investment Study (MIS)? If so, has the study been completed or will further actions be required in the design stage? Specify, if applicable, whether the results are reflected in the most recent MPO long-range transportation plan?
Is there a plan for implementing the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), TSM and/or TDM type of improvements in the project area to reduce congestion and improve overall operating conditions? Discuss the potential need for coordination of maintenance and protection of traffic since the subject project route may serve as a construction detour for another project.
Include a statement if the project is on the STIP/TIP including TIP #:
This project is on the approved [add MPO name] (20XX – 20YY) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as TIP Number ____. Project funding has been fully allocated on the TIP.
OR
This project is on the 20XX – 20YY State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Project funding has been fully allocated on the STIP.
Other appropriate statements include:
The Regional Planning Group has reviewed the local master plan prepared for the Town of _______. This project is consistent with the local master plan.
There are no approved developments planned within the project area that will impact traffic operations.
2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments -
Briefly describe the existing conditions of the abutting highway segments including lane and shoulder widths, general vertical and horizontal alignment, existing pavement condition, clear zone, and speed limits.
It is important to assure that the work being proposed is consistent with future plans, including long range system plans, for abutting highway segments. Include a brief statement regarding plans to reconstruct or widen the abutting highway segment within 20 years. If the project involves a state highway, a brief statement should be provided by the Regional Planning and Program Manager. If the project is not on a state highway, a written statement from the unit of government having authority over the facility should be obtained.
The Regional Planning Group has confirmed that there are no plans to reconstruct or widen this highway segment, or the adjoining segments, within the next 20 years.
2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations
This section is very important. The transportation conditions, deficiencies and engineering considerations must be clearly described because this section establishes the need for the project, which in turn establishes the objectives for the project (i.e., the purpose or desired results of the project).
This section of the design approval document is intended to build upon the work accomplished during scoping for the ultimate purpose of selecting a preferred alternative and to obtain design approval.
This section will describe existing and expected future no-build design year transportation features/conditions within the logical termini. It is important to properly and adequately describe the transportation features/conditions so they are clearly understood. This is especially important where the existing and expected future features/conditions result in problems or deficiencies that create the need for the project. General references or broad definitions of the features/conditions are not appropriate. Be as specific as possible.
While it is important to document the consideration of each item, only that information or data that is pertinent to the project (i.e., affects scope, quality, cost, or schedule) should be detailed. The level of treatment of any item will depend on a project's problems, complexity and character, and the level of detail and accuracy necessary to refine the scope and cost for the project at design approval.
For items below that are not applicable there should be a brief statement to explain why the subject is not relevant; therefore just using the phrase "Does not apply" is not acceptable. The use of "does not apply" is acceptable for in-house documents such as a Project Scoping Report but a more adequate explanation should be provided for reports that are distributed to the public. For example, for the section on Railroads, a statement such as "There are no railroads in the project area" or "The project has no effect on the adjacent Baltimore and Ohio Railroad mainline" would be appropriate.
1 2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance
2.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS) – Refer to Bridge Manual Section 2.4 for the vertical clearance network. Qualifying Highway and truck access route information can be found on the Department’s web site:
Official Description of Designated Qualifying and Access Highways in NYS (2019)
Functional classification and NHS data is available:
Functional Class Maps and Viewer
|Exhibit - 2.3.1.1 |
|Classification Data |
|Route(s) | | |
|Functional | | |
|Classification | | |
|National Highway System (NHS) | | |
|Designated Truck Access Route | | |
|Qualifying | | |
|Highway | | |
|Within 1 mile of a Qualifying Highway| | |
|Within the 16 ft vertical clearance | | |
|network | | |
2.3.1.2. Access Control - Access control is the regulated limitation of access rights to and from properties abutting the highway facility. State whether access to the highway is fully controlled, partially controlled, or uncontrolled; (see HDM 2.6.15).
Sample statement: Access is unrestricted along Route 43. Seventeen business and residential driveways exit onto the highway within the project limits.
2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices – Signs, traffic signals, pavement markings, motorist information systems, ramp metering, surveillance systems, etc. Describe signal locations, elements (e.g., type of controller, type of activation, if coordinated, number and types of phases and required timing, etc.); and give an overview of sign, traffic signal, or other traffic control device deficiencies including lack of conformance with the latest guidelines and warrants for such devices
2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) – Refer to PDM Appendix 6. Refer to EB 15-040 for information on FHWA Project of Division Interest (PoDI) categorization of ITS projects. Note that a Systems Engineering Review Form (SERF) must be completed for all projects with ITS proposed work to determine the ITS project type. Projects that are determined to be “high risk” must be reviewed by FHWA as a potential PoDI. Add the SERF in Appendix C and add a reference to it from this section.
There is/are no ITS systems in operation or planned for the project area. Include a statement whether Regional ITS Coordinator was involved in identifying needs during scoping.
2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay - Refer to HDM Section 5.2. If different speed limits apply, describe or illustrate on 1: 24,000 (1"=2000') or 1: 9,600 (1"=800') scale map. Preferably determine the operating speed by computing the 85th percentile speed. Alternatively, select an operating speed equal to or above the posted speed limit based on expertise and experience (HDM 5.2.4). Refer to Traffic Impact Study in Appendix C as applicable.
|Exhibit - 2.3.1.5 |
|Speed Data |
|Route | | |
|Existing Speed Limit (mph) | | |
|Operating Speed (mph) and Method Used for | | |
|Measurement | | |
|*Travel Speed and Delay Runs for Existing |Not required since existing LOS is C or better.|Not required since existing LOS is C or better.|
|Conditions | | |
|*Travel Time and Delay Runs Estimates |Not required since existing LOS is C or better.|Not required since existing LOS is C or better.|
*For major capacity projects only.
2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes - Refer to Appendix C of this report for traffic flow diagrams. The traffic data was obtained in the year ____.
2.3.1.6. (1) Existing traffic volumes – Include a statement indicating if school buses, farm machinery, milk trucks, large trucks, etc., routinely use the route.
NOTE: There may be a need to give traffic volumes for other peak periods for commercial generators or special events (e.g., Saturday peak shopping hours, concert performances, fairs, etc). Also, some highways have a noon peak period that should be shown and considered in the project's geometric and traffic signal design. Discuss how the peak period was determined or reference the traffic appendix for a discussion (e.g., this discussion may include a graph of the 24-hour traffic in both directions).
Refer to Exhibits __ through ___ for a summary of the traffic data. A discussion of the traffic count methodology, peak hour, and turning movement volumes for intersections with identified accident problems, all major intersections, & major traffic generator driveways/entrances are included in Appendix __.
|Exhibit - 2.3.1.6-1 |
|Traffic Data |
|Route | | |
|Directional Distribution |___ AM, ___PM |___ AM, ___PM |
|Peak Hour Factor |0.90 |0.90 |
|% Peak Hour Trucks | ___ %AM, ___%PM | ___ %AM, ___%PM |
|% Daily Trucks | | |
|Exhibit - 2.3.1.6-2 |
|Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes |
|Route |From __ to ___ |From __ to ___ |
|Year |ADT |DHV |ADT |DHV |
|Existing | | | | |
|(XXXX) | | | | |
|ETC | | | | |
|(XXXX) | | | | |
|ETC+10 | | | | |
|(XXXX) | | | | |
|ETC+20 | | | | |
|(XXXX) | | | | |
|ETC+30 | | | | |
|(XXXX) | | | | |
Note: ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion
2.3.1.6. (2) Forecast no-build design year traffic volumes – The Estimated Time of Completion (ETC) + XX design year was selected per HDM Chapter 5. If the forecast build volumes are different than the forecast no-build volumes provide additional rows in the table for those values. Note and discuss truck traffic volumes (DDHV or %) as appropriate.
2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility -
2.3.1.7. (1) Existing level of service and capacity analysis – Existing level of service and capacity analysis findings for commuter travel periods (e.g., A.M. and P.M. peak hours) on the mainline and major connecting links, for all approaches of intersections and major traffic generator driveways/entrances for which existing traffic volumes have been provided.
NOTE: There may be a need to give level of service for other peak periods for commercial generators or special events (e.g., Saturday peak shopping hours, concert performances, fairs, etc.). Also, some highways have a noon peak period that should be shown and considered in the project's geometric and traffic signal design.
For non-freeway 3R alternatives and bridge replacement and rehabilitation alternatives where no capacity improvements are proposed, this section should be more general with a brief discussion of conditions on the mainline and at major intersections or traffic generators. For bridge rehabilitation and replacement alternatives this should include discussion of any major intersections or traffic generators adjacent to the bridge.
For low volume roads and intersections it is acceptable to state that by observation, the intersection operates at LOS C or better and, for the no-build alternative, will operate at an acceptable LOS in the design year.
This section should include or reference a discussion of the methodology used. The Highway Capacity Manual's level of service methodology presents the standard procedures for level of service analysis. For locations with poor service during commuter travel periods or other peak periods, estimates of the duration of congestion (period of delay), should be provided.
For complex projects, computed LOS should be presented in either a table or a diagram. The traffic flow diagram format may be used for this purpose. Maps showing queue lengths, travel speed, and delay may be used for areas with LOS less than D.
2.3.1.7. (2) Future no-build design year level of service – Future no-build design year level of service and capacity analysis findings for commuter travel periods (e.g., A.M. and P.M. peak hours) on the mainline and major connecting links, for all approaches at intersections and major traffic generator driveways/entrances for which future no-build design year traffic forecasts have been provided.
|Exhibit - 2.3.1.7-1 |
|Highway Design Year Level of Service and Delays (sec) |
|Route __, From __ to ___ |
|YEAR |LOS |
|Existing (20__) | |
|ETC | |
|ETC+20 | |
|ETC+30 | |
|Exhibit - 2.3.1.7-2 |
|Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec) |
|YEAR |
|ETC | | | | | |
|yyyy | | | | | |
|ETC+20 | | | | | |
|yyyy | | | | | |
|ETC+30 | | | | | |
|yyyy | | | | | |
|Intersection of _____ |
|ETC | | | | | |
|yyyy | | | | | |
|ETC+20 | | | | | |
|yyyy | | | | | |
|ETC+30 | | | | | |
|yyyy | | | | | |
2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis – For general guidance concerning safety problems, see HDM chapter 5, Section 5.3. The study area shall extend 0.3 mile (0.5 km) beyond the project limits. A summary of the accident analysis is to be included in this section of the report.
The section should answer the questions: Is the proposed project necessary to correct an existing or potential safety problem? Does the accident history reveal abnormal patterns or concentrations of accidents? Are the number and/or severity of accidents above the State averages? Are all appurtenances (e.g., guide rail, signs, markings, etc.) satisfactory?
An accident analysis was performed in accordance with the Highway Design Manual chapter 5 in 2008. The accident rate for this segment of Route ___ is ___ accidents per million vehicle miles (acc/mvm). This is above/below the statewide accident rate for similar facilities, which is ____ accidents per million vehicle miles (acc/mvm).
There are no high accident locations within the study area.
The predominate accident types are:
|Exhibit - 2.3.1.8 |
|Collision Summary |
|Route __, From __ to ___ |
|Type of Collision |Number |Percentage |
|Run off the Road |50 |25 |
|Animal |40 |20 |
|Rear End |30 |15 |
|Other |80 |40 |
An accident analysis including an accident summary (TE-213), collision diagrams (TE-56), and recommendations for improvements is in Appendix C. The accident analysis recommends consideration of the following countermeasures:
ADD
2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access - Include a statement indicating if emergency vehicles routinely use this route and to what extent.
The Town of Clay Fire Department is located on Route 31 within the project limits.
2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions –
There are no areas regulated by parking restrictions within the project limits.
Parking on Interstate highways is restricted by law within the project limits.
2.3.1.11. Lighting –
There is no street lighting within the highway limits and no plans for the municipality to install lighting.
2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction – Complete exhibit 2.3.1.11 as information becomes available and the project progresses from scoping to final design phases.
|Exhibit - 2.3.1.12 |
|Existing Maintenance Jurisdiction |
|Part No.|Highway |Limits |Feature(s) being |Centerline |Lane |Agency |Authority |
| | | |Maintained |(mile) |(mile) | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
Refer to Appendix __ for a maintenance jurisdiction map.
2.3.2. Multimodal
2.3.2.1. Pedestrians – Describe how pedestrians are presently accommodated and any other issues relative to pedestrians such as pedestrian traffic generators, planned development that will generate pedestrian traffic, planned local/regional pedestrian facilities, etc. Identify the potential for greater numbers of vulnerable pedestrian groups such as children, the elderly, disabled, etc. (look for schools, parks/playgrounds elderly residences, etc.). Discuss the condition and extent of existing pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, curb ramps, crossings/crosswalks, signals, signal controls and their placement, etc.) The existing accessibility of pedestrian facilities should be described.
Sample statement 1:
There are no existing separate provisions for pedestrians within the project limits. There is low-density residential development in the project area that generates infrequent pedestrian travel. The pedestrian trips that do exist are anticipated to be primarily recreational trips without a specific destination along with some residence to residence travel. Pedestrians legally use the existing 4-ft. paved shoulder per the provisions of NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1156(b).
Sample statement 2:
There are existing generators of pedestrian traffic within the project area. The adjacent land use is primarily commercial, with a few residential streets intersecting and the local high school is within 0.25 miles of the project. Pedestrian travel is more than occasional on the existing 3 ft. shoulders and adjacent roadside. There is a worn path in some areas. Pedestrian travel primarily consists of students using the shoulders to travel to school and to the adjacent commercial areas.
2.3.2.2. Bicyclists – Describe current bicycle use – characterize the existing level of/potential for, bicycle use as low or high based on observation of bicycle travel, land use density, existing development with potential to generate bicycle traffic (commercial centers in proximity to residential areas, recreational facilities parks/playgrounds, shared-use paths, etc.). Discuss;
1) the suitability of existing provisions for the anticipated level of bicycling. (also, discuss the suitability of the facility for any existing/potential special user groups such as children near a school, playground, etc.).
2) if there are problematic locations such as interchanges or intersections that affect bicyclists. Can project address any issues? Contact Regional Bike/Ped Coordinator for information.
3) if there are local or regional existing or planned bicycle facilities, bicycle routes etc. in or within 1 mi of the project limits;
issues identified in the Complete Streets Checklist
Sample statement 1:
The existing level of and potential for bicycling is characterized as low due to the rural nature of the project area. There are generators of infrequent bicycle traffic within and near the project limits, such as a post office, and scattered highway-related restaurants and services. The route is not a designated bicycle route.
Sample statement 2:
The existing potential for bicycling within the project limits is high. There are commercial generators of bicycle traffic within and outside of the project limits. In addition, the roadway has been designated as a bicycle route by the municipality and it is identified on the MPO’s list of preferred routes for bicycle accommodation. High levels of bicycle traffic have not been identified during site visits, however it is anticipated there are higher levels during evening hours and on weekends.
Question 2.3 on the Capital Projects Complete Streets Checklist in Appendix C indicates the existing bicycle accommodations do not meet current standards. The existing lane width of 12 ft and 3 ft shoulder width do not meet the standards for either a shared lane or shoulder width for bicycling.
Sample statement 3:
Bicyclists are legally prohibited from using this limited access roadway per . Use the appropriate V&T Law section from the dropdown. Section 1229 prohibits use of bicycles on interstates and expressways. Section 1621(a)(2) allows the prohibition of bicycles by Official Order of the Commissioner on selected other limited access highways.
2.3.2.3. Transit –
Discuss transit needs along corridor. Reference the Complete Streets Checklist and specifically discuss any transit specific comments on the checklist.
There are no transit providers operating within the project limits.
2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports –
There are no airports, railroad stations or port entrances within or in the vicinity of the project limits. Schenectady County airport is in the vicinity of the project limits. No conflicts exist with the flight paths of aircraft using this airport.
2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands) –
There are no entrances to recreation areas within the project limits.
2.3.3. Infrastructure
2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section – Refer to HDM chapter 21 for the required content of the sections, plans and profiles. Point out any areas which need additional explanation. For projects involving bridge work, it is important that the representative highway section(s) approaching the bridge be identified. Where there are commercial driveways state whether or not they have proper access control, i.e., are they in conformance with NYSDOT Policy and Standards for the Design of Entrances to State Highways (HDM chapter 5, App. A).
See Typical Sections, Plan and Profile sheets in Appendix A.
2.3.3.2. Geometric Design Elements Not Meeting Minimum Standards – This section of the design report only compares the existing geometric elements with the minimum standards for capital improvements (2R/3R or bridge rehabilitation; not reconstruction standards). Critical design elements that do not meet 2R/3R or bridge rehabilitation standards as appropriate are nonstandard and should be evaluated for remediation or mitigation. This section helps ensure these key deficiencies are considered for correction. Design standards for 2R/3R are provided in HDM Chapter 7. In addition, consult the Bridge Manual Section 2 for bridge geometrics and Section 19 for bridge rehabilitation vs. replacement considerations. The design speed and corresponding design criteria that are developed in Section 3.3.3.2 may be different than the operating speed and corresponding criteria used in this section to identify existing nonstandard features.
Begin by identifying the operating speed from Section 2.3.1.5 (the operating speed is a single speed that represents the majority of motorists—HDM 5.2.4.1A). Preferably determine the operating speed by computing the 85th percentile speed. Alternatively, select an operating speed equal to or above the posted speed limit based on expertise and experience (HDM 5.2.4). The existing (current) operating speed is not to be confused with the design speed used when the roadway was originally constructed. List all existing nonstandard features within 0.3 mile/0.5 km of the project limits. Specifically identify any nonstandard feature(s) related to an adverse accident history. A table, similar to Exhibit 2.3.3.2, or listing accompanied by explanatory text and/or a map showing the general location(s) may be helpful.
|Exhibit 2.3.3.2 |
|Existing Nonstandard Features |
|Critical Design |Operating Speed |Standard (from HDM |Existing Condition |Adverse Accident History? |Remarks |
|Element | |Chapter 7, rural, | |(Yes/No) | |
| | |non-freeway 3R | | | |
| | |standards) | | | |
|Horizontal |63 mph (based on 85th |587 ft min. at e=8% |600 ft at e=6% |Yes, 3 accidents | |
|Curvature |percentile speed) |superelevation (from |superelevation |identified as related to | |
|between Sta. | |HDM Exhibit 7-6) | |curve in accident | |
|14+00 and 18+00 | | | |analysis/safety study. | |
|Stopping Sight |45 mph (based on 40 mph|360 ft min. horizontal|285 ft |No |40 mph posted speed limit |
|Distance (SSD) |speed limit and |SSD; no min. value for| | | |
|at approx. Sta. |designer’s judgment) |vertical SSD (from | | | |
|28+00 | |HDM Exhibit 7-7) | | | |
For projects involving bridges, determine whether the structural capacity is nonstandard based on the load carrying capacity of the structure in its current condition.
To determine the existing elements not meeting standards for atypical transportation projects, such as shared-use paths, rest areas, and airports, consult appropriate guidance (e.g. HDM, AASHTO guides) and the Department’s experts.
Design criteria for the proposed alternatives and evaluation of the alternatives should be presented in Chapter 3 of this document.
There are no existing nonstandard features.
2.3.3.2.(1) Other Design Parameters - Geometric features that do not conform to normally accepted practice (such as inadequate acceleration and deceleration lane lengths, short weaving sections, inadequate climbing lane lengths, etc.) should be identified in this section. Specifically identify any non-conforming features which have a related accident history.
There are no existing nonconforming features.
2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder - This section should summarize the results of the Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Report, if one is required by the Comprehensive Pavement Design Manual (CPDM). If a Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Report is not required, a general statement on the condition of the pavement and shoulders in the project area will suffice (i.e., Are there structural or surface pavement deficiencies, what are the causes, and how serious are they?).
The pavement condition rating is ____. A summary of the Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) is included in Appendix D.
2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems - Drainage Needs - Is the proposed project necessary to address routine flooding? Describe:
(1) Type (e.g., open or closed, concrete or corrugated metal pipe culvert, ditch, etc.).
(2) Condition/deterioration.
(3) Deficiencies/needs (e.g., need to replace the headwall and end section, culvert extensions for slope flattening or to reduce fixed objects in the existing clear zone, etc.).
2.3.3.5. Geotechnical – Describe special soil or rock problems or features, if any, which could affect ROW, design and construction schedules and costs. Determine if any rock slopes within or adjacent to the project limits have been identified as potential problems by the Geotechnical Engineering Bureau's Rock Slope Rating Procedure. In addition, consult with the Regional Geotechnical Engineer to determine if any earth slope problems exist within or adjacent to the project limits. If frost heaves and subgrade problems are present discuss where if any test holes are needed
There are no special geotechnical concerns with the soils or rock slopes within the project area.
2.3.3.6. Structure –
Option 1:
There are no bridges within the project limits.
Option 2:
2.3.3.6. (1) Description:
|Exhibit 2.3.3.6 |
|Structure Data |
|Data |Existing Structure |Issues/Comments |
|BIN | | |
|Feature Carried/Crossed | | |
|Type of Bridge | | |
|Number and Length of Spans | | |
|Lane Width(s) | | |
|Shoulder Width(s) | | |
|Sidewalk(s) | | |
|Utilities Carried | | |
|Horizontal Clearance(s) | |Include horizontal clearance restrictions |
| | |where applicable. |
|Vertical Clearance(s) | |Include vertical clearance restrictions |
| | |where applicable. |
|State Condition Rating | |Provide a statement explaining what the |
| | |rating means |
|Year Built | | |
2.3.3.6.(2) History & Deficiencies – Describe the history and geometric deficiencies of the bridge, together with relevant approach deficiencies. Refer to the record plans for historical information.
2.3.3.6.(3) Inspection –Summarize the findings of the biennial bridge inspection and condition report and in-depth inspection Summary Reports.
2.3.3.6.(4) Restrictions – Include whether the bridge is closed, or if a posted loading (or if it is anticipated that a posting) will be required in the near future. List any specific restrictions which may be imposed upon public or emergency equipment.
2.3.3.6.(5) Future Conditions – Discuss the expected future structural conditions of bridge(s) in the problem area, if no improvements are made. The Bridge Needs Assessment Model (BNAM) deterioration condition curves can be used for estimating deterioration. BNAM outputs are available from the RPPM.
2.3.3.6.(6) Waterway – Include for new and replacement structures over a waterway, and for structures (over a waterway) that will undergo rehabilitation that results in a change in the appearance of the structure, or in the navigational clearances.
A Coast Guard Checklist is not required or A Coast Guard jurisdiction checklist is included in Appendix E.
2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts – The New York State Hydraulic Manual for Structures consists of the "Model Drainage Manual" and NYSDOT revisions as indicated on the "green" pages. These green pages are issued by the Structures Division and represent specific information that describes Divisional policy and procedures that are to be used to design the hydraulic opening of bridge structures over streams.
For any streams crossed, a description of the design discharges, flood plain studies, and status of detailed hydraulic analysis should be provided. If a detailed analysis has not been completed, a summary of the Regional Hydraulic Engineer's preliminary hydraulic evaluation (reference green pages provided in Chapter 3 entitled "Hydraulic Evaluation of Bridges Programmed for Rehabilitation") should be presented. Specifically: hydraulic adequacy, failure vulnerability, flooding potential, and scour susceptibility should be discussed. In addition, refer to the green page provided in Chapter 2 entitled "Standard Design Note for Construction in the Floodplain."
When a 2 ft minimum freeboard is difficult or costly to provide, an analysis and evaluation should be performed to determine whether a minimum allowable freeboard of less than 2 ft may be appropriate. Items to be investigated may include (but should not be limited to) the following:
a. History of debris or ice clogging at the existing and/or adjacent structures.
b. Any change in water surface elevations caused by the proposed structure.
c. Characteristics of the underside of the proposed structure that might impede debris or ice.
d. Recommendations by the Regional Office.
e. Consequence(s) of debris or ice clogging.
f. Degree of difficulty or the amount of extra cost necessary to provide the full 2 ft freeboard.
(From green pages NY 10-4C)
In an extreme situation, negative freeboard could be accepted as permissible for a replacement of an existing bridge that is already inundated by the 50 year design flood, but in no case shall the proposed negative freeboard exceed the existing negative freeboard. The report should note measures recommended such as replacing existing abutments/piers with spread footings with abutments/piers founded on piles to address scour vulnerability, and choosing structure type with consideration of debris potential as one of the criteria.
(From green pages NY 10-4D, and also BM 2.4.3)
Verify that the safety of any dams (particularly hydro-electric projects) in the vicinity of the project is not adversely affected. Contact the dam operator and the Office of Energy Projects, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections, New York Regional Office of FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to do so. Contact with FERC may be made thru the Regional Hydraulics Engineer.
There are no bridges or culverts over waterways within the project limits. There are no dams in the vicinity of the project that would be adversely affected.
2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators – Include the condition and type of existing system(s), adequacy and need to upgrade to current standards. Complete exhibit 2.3.3.8 as information becomes available and the project progresses from scoping to final design phases.
|Exhibit - 2.3.3.8 |
|Existing Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators |
|Type |Location/Side |Length |Condition |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
2.3.3.9. Utilities – List overhead and underground utilities within existing ROW and identify owners. Also describe and identify owners of any other utility facilities in the vicinity of the project that could be affected by, or have an effect on the project. Complete exhibit 2.3.3.9 as information becomes available and the project progresses from scoping to final design phases.
Option 1:
|Exhibit - 2.3.3.9 |
|Existing Utilities |
|Owner |Type |Location/Side |Length |Condition/Conflict |
| | | | |Condition unknown; no obvious conflicts. |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
Option 2:
There are no utilities within the project limits.
2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities – For all projects with railroad involvement describe the number of tracks, owner and operators, type of train service (passenger or freight), type of track (mainline, branchline, shoreline), track speeds, length of trains, and number of trains per day or week. Complete exhibit 2.3.3.10 as information becomes available and the project progresses from scoping to final design phases.
For projects involving at-grade crossings with railroads, describe the conditions of the existing crossings including number of tracks, geometrics, type of crossing surface (wood, rubber, etc.), and the condition and location of warning or traffic control devices.
For bridge rehabilitation or replacement projects involving railroads, the existing minimum vertical and horizontal clearance as measured to centerline of track should be described. Existing utilities and location within the railroad boundaries, including railroad utilities, should be described.
Miscellaneous projects (such as bridge painting, bridge railing and lighting, slope protection, drainage projects, etc.) which are in close proximity to a railroad should include a description of the project with respect to the railroad facilities. This should be described sufficiently to determine whether or not there is a need for railroad involvement.
There are no railroads within the project limits and no at-grade crossings within 1 km that could impact traffic conditions.
|Exhibit - 2.3.3.10 |
|Existing Railroad Tracks |
|Owner |Location |Crossing |Side |Length |Condition |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
2 2.3.4. Potential Enhancement Opportunities
This section focuses on the existing areas to identify potential enhancement opportunities related to the project and to help avoid and minimize impacts. Chapter 4 focuses on the impacts, enhancements, and mitigation.
2.3.4.1. Landscape -
Document the assessment of the aesthetic and functional values of the existing roadside landscaping.
2.3.4.1. (1) Terrain - Describe the terrain as flat, rolling or mountainous. Use the classifications as described in the Highway Design Manual, chapter 2, section 2.5.2 Terrain.
2.3.4.1. (2) Unusual Weather Conditions- State whether there are unusual weather conditions which may affect project design (e.g., frequent occurrences of whiteouts, drifting snow, fog, unusual icing problems, etc.).
There are no unusual weather conditions within the project area.
2.3.4.1. (3) Visual Resources - Describe the general visual environment of the existing highway and adjoining lands in terms of visual character and quality in sufficient detail to determine the significance of visual resources. Refer to Engineering Instruction (EI) 02-025 Visual Resource Analysis Procedure for information or contact the Landscape Architecture Bureau.
2.3.4.2. Opportunities for Environmental Enhancements – Refer to Environmental Initiative, EI 99-026. Are there any practical opportunities for environmental initiative actions that should be addressed with the project? Is there a need to enhance the natural and manmade environment above and beyond the required mitigation that should be addressed with the project?
If not already mentioned in more appropriate sections (e.g., scenic overlooks under Section 2.3.4.1(3) and trail development and bikeways under Section 2.3.2.2, describe any existing natural or manmade features that may provide an opportunity for environmental enhancement with the project in accordance with the Department's Environmental Initiative. These are actions to enhance the natural and manmade environment above and beyond the required project mitigation measures. They may include features that provide the opportunity for enhancement by local governments or other agencies or organizations as betterments. Examples include fishing access, boat and canoe launch sites, development of pocket parks, habitat improvements, restored or enhanced wetlands, etc.
There are no practical opportunities for environmental enhancements in the project limits.
2.3.5. Miscellaneous Include other pertinent information on the existing conditions. Describe any other relevant features, conditions, etc. not covered in Section 2.3. Examples are pedestrian underpasses (if not in Section 2.3.3.7), cattle passes, horse trails, rest areas, cemeteries, etc.
– ALTERNATIVES
Go to end of this document for instructions on turning on/off GREEN text during document preparation and for Summary of Changes.
This chapter discusses the alternatives considered and examines the engineering aspects for all reasonable alternatives to address project objectives in Chapter 1 of this report.
3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study
This section of the report should discuss the alternatives considered and eliminated from further study. Include initial alternative(s) that were rejected due to incompatibility with project objectives, environmental impacts or other reasons.
The rationale for rejecting an alternative must be based on laws, regulations, the project’s objectives, cost, or Department goals. This section should specifically address how each rejected alternative does not meet the law, regulation, the project’s objectives, or Department goal.
The no-build/maintenance alternative must be retained for comparison with the other alternatives, and shall be discussed in the reasonable alternatives section. Sufficient information should be provided to explain how and why reasonable alternatives were eliminated from further study. This section should emphasize, where applicable, how those alternatives are eliminated from further study by indicating they did not meet project objectives or stating other reasons for elimination.
For bridge projects, the minimum range of alternatives to be considered should include: (1) no-build/maintenance, (2) bridge rehabilitation, and (3) bridge replacement. Projects may have options or subalternatives which are not alternatives in themselves. For example, a bridge replacement alternative might include options to replace the bridge on existing or new alignment. Work zone traffic control (WZTC) options might include detouring traffic while the replacement bridge is being built, maintaining traffic on the existing structure while a new structure is constructed on a new alignment, maintaining traffic on a portion of the existing structure by staging construction, or installing a temporary structure nearby to carry traffic while the replacement structure is built. These are options and methods to manage traffic (WZTC) while constructing the replacement alternative, but not alternatives themselves. Explanations for discarding no-build/maintenance, bridge rehabilitation or bridge replacement alternatives should be provided. Explanations for discarding options or subalternatives under an alternative should not be provided.. Refer to the following statements for additional guidance.
The no-build/maintenance alternative will result in the continued deterioration of the structure, resulting in increased maintenance and eventually requiring the structure to be closed to traffic. Since this alternative will not satisfy the project objectives, it is not considered a reasonable alternative, but will be used for comparison with the reasonable alternatives for the purpose of evaluating impacts
The bridge replacement alternative was evaluated in accordance with the Bridge Rehabilitation or Replacement Selection Guidelines and was eliminated primarily because of cost and schedule. The replacement cost is 60% greater than rehabilitation, would require a temporary bridge, and would increase the construction duration and corresponding traffic delays by one season.
Rehabilitating the CR 61 Bridge over NY 17 at Interchange 115 does not address the non-standard vertical clearance on NY Route 17 at this structure. The condition rating of the bridge makes it a candidate for rehabilitation. On NY 17, the existing westbound off ramp deceleration lane is too short. To lengthen the deceleration lane, NY 17 would need to be widened, including under the CR 61 Bridge. Widening would impact the northern-most center pier of the bridge. This makes rehabilitating the bridge not reasonable and is eliminated from further study.
3.2. Reasonable Build Alternatives
1 3.2.1. Description of Reasonable Alternatives
Sufficient information should be provided to explain how and why the reasonable alternatives were selected for further study. This section should emphasize how the alternatives still under consideration meet the project objectives.
Each Reasonable alternative should open with a brief summary of the major features particular to that alternative. It should describe the type of improvement, the functional class for new facilities or reclassification if different from existing, length and termini, general description of the typical section and vertical and horizontal alignment, intersections (including turning lanes), interchanges (type, special ramps or auxiliary lanes), structures, major work on intersecting roads, important right-of-way takings or features affecting the alignment and/or typical section, etc. Mobility features included in the alternative, including non-traditional improvements or actions, should be briefly described. Where applicable, include relevant information from other planning studies (e.g., a major investment study (MIS)).
Typical sections (highway and bridge) should be included for all construction and reconstruction projects, including 3R projects on interstates and other freeways, new bridge and bridge replacement projects, bridge rehabilitation projects, intersection improvement projects and non-freeway 3R projects. Plans and profiles should be included when existing vertical and/or horizontal alignments are modified, when roadway widening requires right-of-way takings, and for all bridge projects. Plans should be provided for new construction or when the horizontal alignment is modified, when travel and/or auxiliary lanes are added such as for intersection improvements, when ROW is required, and for all bridge projects. Profiles should be provided for new construction or when the vertical alignment is modified, and for all bridge projects.
Typical sections, plans, and profiles should be included with this description of the proposed alternatives or preferably in the appendix if they constitute numerous sheets. The text of this section should reference the pages of the typical sections, plans and profiles. See HDM Chapter 21 for the format and content of plans, profiles and typical sections for design approval documents.
As appropriate, a scaled map or plan showing the proposed and discarded alternatives should be included. As a summary, the following summary table should be included.
Alternative 1 - This alternative for NY Route 17 consists of a single course overlay with truing and leveling to correct superelevation, and make improvements to roadside safety by increasing the clear zone, and replacing guiderail and median barrier. Key elements of this alternative include:
|Geometry |This alternative includes correcting the superelevation. |
| |This alternative includes widening the shoulder to 1.2 m at five locations, approximately 2 km in length, |
| |along NY Route 17 in the eastbound and westbound directions. |
| |This alternative would retain nonstandard grades at three locations along NY Route 17. Justification for |
| |retaining this nonstandard feature is included in Appendix L of this report. |
|Operational |This alternative does not affect operations. |
|Control of Access |Control of access for this alternative will meet the criteria in HDM Chapter for Other Freeways. |
|Right of Way |NY 17 mainline improvements will not require ROW acquisition. All work will be performed within existing |
| |highway boundaries. |
| |In accordance with the federal Highway Beautification Act and NYS Signs Program existing billboards will |
| |require removal or relocation from within the ROW. |
| |Utility lines accessed from NY Route 17 mainline in the vicinity of Interchange 110 ROW will require |
| |relocation. |
| |Preliminary review estimates approximately 15 km of ROW fencing will be installed in areas prohibited from |
| |access. |
|Environmental |There are no wetland impacts associated with NY Route 17 mainline. |
| |There are no significant noise or visual impacts associated with NY Route 17 mainline improvements. |
|Cost |Total estimated cost of this alternative is $28.28 M. |
|Project Goals |These improvements meet the overall objective to bring this segment of NY Route 17 up to Interstate |
| |standards, and would allow for future designation as I-86. |
2 3.2.2 Preferred Alternative
The following statement should be included at the beginning of this section if a preferred alternative is not identified:
All reasonable alternatives are under consideration. A decision will be made after evaluating the alternatives' impacts, comments on the draft design approval document, and comments from the public hearing (if held).
If a preferred alternative is identified, include the following statement:
While Alternative __ is identified as the preferred alternative, all reasonable alternatives are under consideration. The selection of the preferred alternative will not be finalized until the alternatives' impacts, comments on the draft design approval document, and comments from the public hearing (if held) have been fully evaluated.
3 3.2.3. Design Criteria for Reasonable Alternative(s)
3.2.3.1. Design Standards -The design standards used should be based on the project work type (see PDM Chapter 2, Section2.2); different standards may apply to different Reasonable alternatives. The basis for applying the standards to the project should be stated. Guidance on establishing standards is available in NYSDOT HDM Chapters 2, 4, or 7, and/or the NYSDOT Bridge Manual, Section 2 as applicable.
The following exhibit identifies critical design elements applicable to new and reconstruction projects, 3R projects on interstates and other freeways, new and replacement bridge projects, bridge rehabilitation projects, and intersection improvement projects. Project types are listed in PDM App. 5, Table 5-1. For complex projects that encompass several highway types, several sets of design criteria that apply to different segments of the project may be required. Separate criteria should be developed and included for each reasonable alternative (e.g., a project that has both 3R and reconstruction as reasonable alternatives). Separate criteria must be provided when work is proposed on side-roads, ramps, intersections, and shared-use paths. For further guidance on establishing design criteria refer to HDM Chapters 2, 4 and 7 as appropriate.
In addition to establishing standard values, the existing and proposed values shall be included in the table of Critical Design Elements. The source for the standards (e.g. HDM 2.7.2.1 H and Exhibit 2-3) must be noted. It is recommended that the table illustrated below be used. This exhibit is required for each reasonable alternative. Design criteria for more than one ramp or more than one local road or similar may be listed in one table, where appropriate, to reduce the number of tables.
3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements -
|Exhibit 3.2.3.2-x |
|Critical Design Elements for |
|PIN | |BIN (if applicable) | |
|Functional Class: | (HDM Chapter 2, Exhibit 2-1) |NHS |[pic] |
|Project Type: | (HDM Chapter 2, Section 2.2) |Terrain: | |
|Design Year AADT: | Refer to HDM Chapter 5, |Percentage of Trucks: | |
| |Section 5.2.2.3 for the appropriate| | |
| |design year for the project work | | |
| |type. | | |
|Truck Access or Qualifying Highway |Choose the appropriate designation |If not a QH, is project within 1 mi| |
|(QH)? |or neither |of a QH? | |
|Existing or Proposed Bicycle Route? |Refer to Complete Streets Checklist|Anticipated level of bicycle |Choose NA when bicycling is |
| | |activity |prohibited |
|Element |Standard |Existing Condition |Proposed Condition2 |
|1 |Design Speed |50 mph1 | mph posted | |
| | |HDM Section |Posted speed is distinct from |Enter proposed design speed. |
| | | |design speed but may be noted |Ensure consistency with the RTE|
| | | |here for comparison |design speed recommendation |
| | | | |(Note 1) |
|2 |Lane Width |11 ft | | |
| | |Bridge Manual (BM) Section 2.2.1 and Table 2-1| | |
| | |[OR] HDM Section | | |
| | |For ramps concisely note the R value, Case | | |
| | |I/II/III and Design Traffic Condition, as | | |
| | |applicable, to explain your choice(s) of | | |
| | |Traveled Way Width (HDM Exhibits 2-9a/2-9b). | | |
| | |In addition, specify ramp type such as loop, | | |
| | |direct connection etc. | | |
| |Approach Lane Width |MAKE NO ENTRIES IN THIS CELL; THIS CELL SHOULD| | |
| |Note only for bridge |BE LEFT BLANK |Note existing width measured no| |
| |projects, remove row for | |closer than 100 ft from the | |
| |other project types | |ends of the bridge | |
|3 |Shoulder Width |4 ft | | |
| | |BM Section 2.2.1 Table 2-1, and App. 2A Tables| | |
| | | & [OR] HDM Section | | |
| |Approach Shoulder Width |MAKE NO ENTRIES IN THIS CELL; THIS CELL SHOULD| | |
| |Note only for bridge |BE LEFT BLANK |Note existing width measured no| |
| |projects, remove row for | |closer than 100 ft from the | |
| |other project types | |ends of the bridge | |
|4 |Horizontal Curve Radius |758 ft Min (at emax= ) | | |
| | |HDM Section | |Use HDM Exhibits 2-11 - 2-14a |
| | | | |to determine the appropriate |
| | | | |radius needed based on design |
| | | | |speed and superelevation or |
| | | | |state ”on tangent.” |
|5 |Superelevation |emax = |X% @ emax = |X% @ emax = |
| | |HDM Section Refer to HDM Exhibit 2-1b to | | |
| | |determine emax. | | |
|6 |Stopping Sight Distance |425 ft Min. | | |
| |(Horizontal and Vertical) |HDM Section | | |
|7 |Maximum Grade |7% | | |
| | |HDM Section | | |
|8 |Cross Slope |1.5% Min., 2.5% Max. | | |
| | |HDM Section | | |
|9 |Vertical Clearance |14 ft Min. | | |
| |(above traveled way) |BM Section 2.3.1, Table 2-2 | | |
| | |See Notes to BM Table 2-2 for minimum | | |
| | |clearances at through-truss bridges, | | |
| | |pedestrian bridges and sign structures | | |
|10 |Design Loading Structural |Use Bridge Manual standards for new and | | |
| |Capacity |replacement bridges: |Enter the existing inventory | |
| | |NYSDOT LRFD Specifications |and operating rating | |
| | |AASHTO HL-93 Design Live Load and NYSDOT | | |
| | |Design Permit Vehicle with LRFR 1.2 or higher | | |
| | |BM Sections 1.3 and 1.5 | | |
| | | | | |
| | |Use HDM Chapter 19 standards for new and | | |
| | |replacement culverts: | | |
| | |NYSDOT LRFD Specifications | | |
| | |AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and NYSDOT Design | | |
| | |Permit Vehicle | | |
| | |HDM Section 19.5.3 | | |
|11 |Americans with Disabilities|HDM Chapter 18 |Use one of the following: |Use one or combination of the |
| |Act Compliance3 | | |following as appropriate: |
| | | |No existing pedestrian | |
| | | |facilities |No new proposed pedestrian |
| | | |[OR] |facilities |
| | | |Existing pedestrian facilities |[OR] |
| | | |comply with HDM Chapter 18 |Proposed pedestrian facilities |
| | | |standards |will comply with HDM Chapter 18|
| | | |[OR] |[OR] |
| | | |Facilities will be evaluated in|There are pedestrian facility |
| | | |final design |elements [proposed [OR] to |
| | | | |remain] that cannot be made |
| | | | |compliant and will be justified|
| | | | |as nonstandard4**. |
| | | | |[OR] |
| | | | |If pedestrian facilities are |
| | | | |found to have noncompliant |
| | | | |elements that cannot be made |
| | | | |compliant, they will be |
| | | | |justified as nonstandard.4 |
Notes:
1. The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the proposed Design Speed of mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed and is within the design classification’s range of design speeds for terrain and volume.
2. ** Denotes non-standard feature
3. Refer to Section 2.3.5 for detailed pedestrian facility information.
4. Pedestrian facility nonstandard features to be retained or created will be justified in final design.
3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters -
This section should include the following tables as needed (delete the Roundabout Controlling Features and Primary Design Values for Shared-Use Path tables if they are not applicable to the project). Important parameters that warrant specific mention should be added to the Other Design Parameters table.
Once the Roundabout Controlling Features table is completed, the designer shall highlight any values that are not typical, desired &/or preferred as indicated below:
KEY
|not typical, desired, &/or preferred, but within general range of acceptance (highlight yellow) |
|not typical, desired, &/or preferred and outside general range of acceptance (highlight orange) these are nonconforming features. |
See examples in table below.
|Exhibit 3.2.3.3-x |
|Roundabout Controlling Features |
|Elemen|Parameter1 |North Leg |
|t | | |
| |
| |
1. Exit radius is measured along the right curb line at exit.
2. Consult with the Regional Traffic safety and Mobility Office if the highway is designated as a Truck Access Route. A larger design vehicle may be needed.
3. Not typical, desired or preferred, but within the general range of acceptance.
4. Not typical, desired, or preferred and outside the general range of acceptance. These are nonconforming features.
5. Noncompliant pedestrian facilities that must be retained or created are nonstandard and will be justified as nonstandard in final design.
|Exhibit 3.2.3.3-x |
|Other Design Parameters |
|Highway or Feature |
| |Element |Criteria |Proposed Condition |
|1 |Level of Service | | |
| |(for non – interstate projects) | | |
|2 |Drainage Design Storm | | |
|3 |Freeboard (BM 2.4.3) |2 ft for the 50 year design flood | |
For a comprehensive list of potential Other Design Parameters refer to the Nonconforming Features Checklist found on the HDM Chapter 5 webpage.
Note: Level of Service is an Other Design Parameter only for non-interstate projects.
When determining the Design Vehicle(s) the designer shall assume multiple design vehicles may need to be considered at different locations of the project. Consideration shall include school bus routes, designated qualifying and access highways and the needs of individual property owners. The designer shall consult with the Regional Traffic and Safety Group. If the design vehicle cannot be accommodated, this feature will be non-conforming.
|Exhibit 3.2.3.3-x |
|Other Design Parameter: Design Vehicle |
|Location |Design Vehicle (HDM Ch. 5) |Vehicle Accommodated |
|Rte 34 |HDM 5.7.1 / SU |SU |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|Exhibit 3.2.3.3-x |
|Primary Design Values for Paved Shared-Use Path |
|Element |Standard Value |Source1 |Proposed Value |
|Design Speed |20 mph |AASHTO | |
|Shared Use Width |10 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Adjacent Graded Width |2 ft min. |AASHTO | |
| |1:6 max. cross slope | | |
|Maximum Grade |5% max. or match grade of adjacent roadway |AASHTO | |
|Cross Slope |2% max. |HDM Chapter 18 | |
|Horizontal Curvature |74 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Stopping Sight Distance |195 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Horizontal Sight Distance |56 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Crest Vertical Curve |423 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Horizontal Clearance |2 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Vertical Clearance |10 ft min. |AASHTO | |
|Bridge Path Width |12 ft min. clear width |BM Table 2-1 | |
|Separation from Roadways |5 ft min. from face of curb or edge of |AASHTO | |
| |shoulder | | |
1. 2012 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
← Nonconforming Feature
Notes on Primary Design Values for Paved Shared Use Path Exhibit:
20 mph is typically used as a general maximum operating speed. A design speed of 18 mph may be used in relatively flat areas (grades less than 2%). However, a higher design speed up to 30 mph may be needed if the path has grades steeper than 5%. A design speed as low as 15 mph may also be used if conditions warrant. Such conditions could include flat topography or where frequent conflicts or constraints exist. It may be necessary to assign different design speeds to different segments of a shared-use path as conditions warrant. A separate Primary Design Values Table should be used for each segment with a different design speed.
10 ft width is the minimum two-way width for typical path use and conditions. AASHTO recommends less than 10 ft (down to 8 ft. (2.4 m) min.) only when the following conditions exist:
• Bicycle traffic is expected to be low even on peak days or during peak hours;
• Pedestrian use is not expected to be more than occasional;
• There will be adequate horizontal and vertical alignment providing safe, frequent passing and resting opportunities;
• The path will not be subject to maintenance vehicle loadings that would cause pavement edge damage.
See the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities for more information.
Where proposed values do not meet or exceed the standard values derived for the project, document the proposed values as non-conforming features in the Design Approval Document.
3.3. Engineering Considerations
The following subject headings and their sequence are to be used so the reader can quickly find the discussion on any of these subjects. For any alternative, such as the no-build/maintenance or rehabilitation alternative, there is no need to duplicate information that has been provided in Chapter 2. Provide all necessary information in a clear and concise manner, and strive to avoid duplication and unnecessary text.
1 3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance
3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System - This project will not change the functional classification of the highway.
3.3.1.2. Control of Access - Access to the highway will be [fully controlled, partially controlled, uncontrolled]. See HDM Section 2.6.15.
3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices -
3.3.1.3. (1) Traffic Signals - No new traffic signals are/is proposed.
3.3.1.3. (2) Signs - Existing signs will be evaluated and replaced as necessary. New signs will be added where required. Curve warning and speed advisory signs will be added for the non-standard curvature.
3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) – No ITS measures are proposed.
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) improvements included in the project should be described. Traffic related mobility features such as ramp metering, reversible lanes, truck prohibitions during peak hours, etc. should be described. When federally-funded ITS elements are proposed, FHWA must be provided with a systems engineering analysis report (SEAR) per 23 CFR 940.11.
3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay -
3.3.1.5. (1) Proposed Speed Limit - The posted speed limit within the project limits will be __ mph. OR The existing posted speed limit of __mph will be retained upon completion of the project.
3.3.1.5. (2) Travel Time Estimates –
If the LOS is C or better travel times are not needed. See HDM Section 5.2.2.
Travel time estimates are not applicable for a bridge replacement project OR Travel time estimates are not included as the reasonable alternatives will not change the capacity.
|Exhibit - 3.3.1.5 |
|Speed Data |
|Route | | |
|Posted Speed Limit | | |
|Operating Speed and Method Used to Measure | | |
|*Travel Speed and Delay Runs for Existing |Not required since existing LOS is C or better.|Not required since existing LOS is C or better.|
|Conditions | | |
|*Travel Time and Delay Runs Estimates |Not required since existing LOS is C or better.|Not required since existing LOS is C or better.|
3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes –
Include a statement indicating the impact on school buses, farm machinery, milk trucks, large trucks, etc., that routinely use the route.
Since there are no anticipated changes in traffic volumes see Section 2.3.1.6 for existing traffic volumes. Refer to Appendix _ for traffic flow diagrams. Refer to Exhibits 2.3.1.6-1 and 2.3.1.6-2 for a summary of the traffic data. Peak hour turning movement volumes for intersections with identified accident problems, all major intersections, & major traffic generator driveways/entrances are included in Appendix __.
|Exhibit 3.3.1.6 |
|Traffic Data |
|Route | | |
|Directional Distribution |___ AM, ___PM |___ AM, ___PM |
|Peak Hour Factor | | |
|Peak Hour Percent Trucks |___ % AM, ___% PM |___ % AM, ___% PM |
|Daily Trucks | | |
3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility –
3.3.1.7 (1) At Project Completion & Design Year –
Describe design year level of service and capacity analysis findings for commuter travel periods (e.g., A.M. and P.M. peak hours) on all links, intersections, interchanges and major traffic generators driveways/ entrances for all approaches for which design year traffic and forecasts were given. For interchanges, the levels of service should be established for all ramps, merges, diverge, and all weave areas. For projects that improve on sustain capacity (?) the capacity analysis calculations should be included in the Appendix.
For locations with poor service during commuter travel periods or other peak periods, estimates of the duration of congestion should be provided.
NOTE: There may be a need to give level of service for other peak periods for commercial generators or special events (e.g., Saturday peak shopping hours, concert performances, fairs, etc.). Also, some highways have a midday peak period that should be shown.
For complex projects, presenting the LOS data on diagrams will be much clearer and should be used in those situations where it is appropriate to do so. The traffic flow diagram format can also be used for this purpose.
Normally the level of service objectives should be met throughout the project. However, if the levels of service objectives are not met, such as, at specific intersection(s) or at specific merges or diverges on an urban freeway, an explanation of reasons (unacceptable impacts, unaffordable costs, etc.) for not meeting the level of service should be provided.
On some congested urban and suburban projects normally accepted levels of service cannot be achieved and the objective is to reduce hours of congestion. For these projects the capacity improvements should be quantified by showing the number of reduced hours of congestion at levels of service "E" or "F" or by the reduced hours of delay.
For projects that improve capacity, this section should address the project's compliance with the Department's goal of vehicle hours of delay (VHD) at LOS E eliminated per million dollars of investment.
For low volume roads it is sufficient to state that the project will operate at LOS C or better in the design year.
Exhibits 3.3.1.7 - 1 and 3.3.1.7 – 2 will cover the major intersection(s). If there are minor intersection(s) their exhibits will be in stored in Appendix J Traffic Data and Analysis.
|Exhibit 3.3.1.7 - 1 |
|Highway Design Year Level of Service |
|YEAR |Alternative 2 |Alternative 3 |Alternative 4 |
|ETC | | | |
|yyyy | | | |
|ETC+20 | | | |
|yyyy | | | |
|ETC+30 | | | |
|yyyy | | | |
|Exhibit 3.3.1.7 - 2 |
|Intersection Level of Service and Delays (sec) Alternative X |
|YEAR |
|ETC | | | | | |
|yyyy | | | | | |
|ETC+20 | | | | | |
|yyyy | | | | | |
|ETC+30 | | | | | |
|yyyy | | | | | |
|Intersection of _____ |
|ETC | | | | | |
|yyyy | | | | | |
|ETC+20 | | | | | |
|yyyy | | | | | |
|ETC+30 | | | | | |
|yyyy | | | | | |
3.3.1.7 (2) – Work Zone Safety & Mobility –
A. Work Zone Traffic Control Plan -
|ALERT! |
| |
|Ensure that the social, economic and environmental impacts related to proposed work zone traffic control schemes are discussed and evaluated |
|for significance in Chapter 4. For example, if the project will propose restrictions to residential parking that would impact elderly, |
|disabled, EJ, etc. populations, or if there is potential for economic impacts to businesses due to an off-site detour, the impacts need to be |
|evaluated under the appropriate headings in Chapter 4. |
Proposed work zone traffic control plan(s) should be described, and discussion(s) of the assessment of any off-site versus on-site analysis (in accordance with HDM Chapter 16) included.
Discussion on detours should describe, among other matters, the effects on providers of essential services (e.g., schools, fire departments, ambulance service), pedestrians, bicyclists, school children, etc. When on-site and off-site detours are discussed, the user benefits and user costs as well as construction costs should be part of the evaluation of detour alternatives. Safety of any detour routes and cost(s) to improve a detour route to minimum safety standards and rideability should be discussed. This section should also show coordination with local officials, businesses and residents as appropriate. If coordination has not been completed, it should be stated and proposed coordination list given. The report should contain documentation of these coordination efforts.
Consideration should also be given to make temporary work zone traffic control measures permanent during construction, if they have longer term benefits worth retaining. This consideration also applies, but is not limited to, temporary improvements in transit service, and motorist information systems.
B. Special Provisions –
Special provisions such as peak hours or seasonal restrictions, incident management plans, time related contract provisions (e.g., A+B Bidding), and coordination with other projects or special events should be described. Additionally, consideration of nighttime construction should be given in accordance with the latest requirements.
Choice #1:
Due to the close proximity to residences and the ability to maintain traffic with acceptable delays during the daylight hours, night time construction will not be utilized. The use of time related provisions will be evaluated during final design. The work zone traffic control will need to be coordinated with local officials and residents.
C. Significant Projects (per 23 CFR 630.1010) -
Significant projects are defined in 23 CFR 630.1010. The applicability of the provisions in 23 CFR 630.1012(b)(2) [Transportation Operations] and 630.1012(b)(3) [Public Information] is dependent upon whether a project is determined to be significant.
The Region shall identify upcoming projects that are expected to be significant. (Note that this designation is separate and distinct from “significant impacts” from an environmental standpoint and the “Statewide Significant” determination described in the Highway Design Manual Chapter 21 and recorded in the PS&E Transmittal Memo.)
Significant projects are all Interstate system projects within the boundaries of a designated Transportation Management Area (TMA) that occupy a location for more than three days with either intermittent or continuous lane closures shall be considered as significant projects. A TMA is an area designated by the US Secretary of Transportation, having an urbanized area population of over 200,000. The following TMAs have been designated in New York State:
• New York--Newark, NY-NJ-CT.
• Buffalo, NY
• Rochester, NY
• Albany, NY
• Syracuse, NY
• Poughkeepsie--Newburgh, NY
The exact geographical boundaries of TMAs should be obtained from the Regional Planning and Program Manager.
For an Interstate system project or categories of Interstate system projects that are classified as significant, but in the judgment of the Region they do not cause sustained work zone impacts, the Region may document (in the project files) an exception to § 630.1012(b)(2) and § 630.1012(b)(3). Exceptions to these provisions may be granted by the Regional Director or FHWA (consistent with the PS&E column of the Design Related Approval Matrix in the Project Development Manual) based on the ability to show that the specific Interstate system project or categories of Interstate system projects do not have sustained work zone impacts. FHWA approvals should be progressed through the Design Quality Assurance Bureau’s Project Development Section similar to Design Approval.
For other significant projects identified by the Region, the Department’s work zone policy provisions, the project’s characteristics, and the magnitude and extent of the anticipated work zone impacts should be considered when determining if a project is significant.
The Region has determined that the subject project is, is not (pick one) significant per 23 CFR 630.1010.
Choice #1: FOR SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS
A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared for the project consistent with 23 CFR 630.1012. The TMP will consist of:
• A Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan
• A Transportation Operations (TO) component
• A Public Information (PI) component
Choice #2: FOR PROJECTS WHICH THE REGION BELIEVES ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT PER 23 CFR 630.1010
A Transportation Management Plan (TMP) will be prepared for the project consistent with 23 CFR 630.1012. The TMP will consist of a Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan. Transportation Operations (TO) and Public Information (PI) components of a TMP will be considered during final design.
3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis –
For projects for which accident reduction or prevention needs have been identified, the accident countermeasure(s) should be discussed along with the project's anticipated effect on the accident history and rationale for these anticipated effects.
Minimum clear zone(s) for the facility, its basis, and what is proposed should be discussed. If it is proposed not to provide the desirable clear zone or to not place guide railing where it is normally warranted an explanation should be provided. Important factors to be evaluated include the accident history, existing protection, the impacts on adjacent property and other resources, existing ROW widths, cost of improvements and benefits expected, etc.
Appurtenances to be provided such as guide railing, median barrier, signing, impact attenuators, etc. should be briefly described. In addition, any other special safety related considerations and appurtenances such as the special roadside barrier systems, dragnets, variable message signs, etc. should be discussed in this section. Indicate that the guide railing will be installed to current standards and warrants or explain why it will not be installed to standards and warrants.
1 3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access -
Refer to Section 3.3.1.7(2) for a discussion of the anticipated impacts during construction. Include a statement indicating the impact of the reasonable alternatives on emergency vehicles that routinely use this route.
3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues –
No changes are proposed.
3.3.1.11. Lighting –
If street lighting is proposed it should be described with a discussion of the warrants for providing lighting.
No changes are proposed.
3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction – If no changes are proposed refer to Chapter 2 Section 2.3.1.12.
NYSDOT will continue ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the highway.
3.3.1.13. Constructability Review -Include a statement to indicate that the Regional Construction Group has reviewed the project and their concerns, if any, have been addressed.
2 3.3.2. Multimodal Considerations
Include the Capital Projects Complete Streets Checklist in Appendix C and reference it in this section. Discuss results of the checklist and whether the consideration of complete street features is warranted and whether these features will be included in the project.
3.3.2.1. Pedestrians –
Appropriate discussion should be provided to assure consideration of the project area's existing and potential pedestrian traffic and to assure adequate pedestrian facilities or other accommodations will be provided. Also provide sufficient discussion to assure that all pedestrian facilities constructed or altered as part of the project will, to the maximum extent reasonable, be accessible and useable by people with disabilities.
It is federal and Department policy to consider safe accommodations for pedestrians on highway and street projects and to provide for the special needs of disabled and elderly persons on all projects that include pedestrian facilities. Designers are reminded that access for disabled persons is a civil right and that all pedestrian facilities must be designed in accordance with requirements consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. Include Pedestrian Generator Checklist as an attachment. Note that when pedestrian specific facilities will not meet the design standards in HDM Chapter 18, a nonstandard feature justification must be prepared using Exhibit 2-15a in HDM Chapter 2. This form is typically completed in final design.
Sample statement 1:
Based on the low-density residential development and infrequent pedestrian travel, no pedestrian-specific accommodations are warranted. This is consistent with HDM Chapter 18 and the Capital Projects Complete Streets Checklist in Appendix C. Pedestrians may legally use the 6-ft. paved shoulder per the provisions of NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1156(b).
Sample statement 2:
The Capital Projects Complete Streets Checklist (in Appendix C) has indicated a need for sidewalks. Pedestrians will be accommodated on a new sidewalk on the east side of the roadway and marked pedestrian crosswalks will be provided. The sidewalk will be constructed to meet the ADA compliant standards for pedestrian facilities in HDM Chapter 18.
3.3.2.2. Bicyclists –
Describe current bicycle use – characterize the existing level of/potential for, bicycle use as low or high based on observation of bicycle travel, land use density, existing development with potential to generate bicycle traffic (commercial centers in proximity to residential areas, recreational facilities parks/playgrounds, shared-use paths, etc.). Discuss;
4) the suitability of existing provisions for the anticipated level of bicycling. (also, discuss the suitability of the facility for any existing/potential special user groups such as children near a school, playground, etc.).
5) if there are problematic locations such as interchanges or intersections that affect bicyclists. Can project address any issues? Contact Regional Bike/Ped Coordinator for information.
6) if there are local or regional existing or planned bicycle facilities, bicycle routes etc. in or within 1 mi of the project limits;
7) issues identified in the Complete Streets Checklist and any proposed accommodation to address issues.
Sample statement 1:
Given the rural nature of the roadway, a shoulder is the primary means of accommodating bicyclists. Bicyclists may legally use the paved shoulder and roadway consistent with the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 1234.
The existing shoulder width is 3 ft. The Capital Projects Complete Streets Checklist provided in Appendix C indicates the existing shoulder width is inadequate for bicycling. The proposed shoulder width is 6 ft. per the shoulder width standard for a non-NHS rural arterial with a design year ADT of 8,263.
Sample statement 2:
The standard lane width for a NHS Urban Arterial is 13 ft when a 0-4 ft shoulder is being provided. An outside lane width of 13 ft is proposed which will accommodate shared use of the lane. The shoulder width will be reduced to 2 ft.
Sample statement 3:
Bicyclists are legally prohibited from using this limited access roadway per . Use the appropriate V&T Law section from the dropdown. Section 1229 prohibits use of bicycles on interstates and expressways. Section 1621(a)(2) allows the prohibition of bicycles by Official Order of the Commissioner on selected other limited access highways.
3.3.2.3. Transit –
Discuss transit needs along corridor. Reference the Complete Streets Checklist and specifically discuss any transit specific comments on the checklist.
3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports –
No changes are proposed; no conflicts are expected.
Possible conflicts between construction equipment, e.g. a tall crane that will erect bridge girders, and the flight paths of aircraft using the Schenectady County airport nearby have been considered and no conflicts are expected.
3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) –
No changes are proposed.
3 3.3.3. Infrastructure
3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section –
Refer to Appendix A for a typical section.
3.3.3.1. (1) Right of Way -ROW Briefly describe proposed right-of-way takings, including a statement on whether takings are with or without access. Without access takings at ramp intersections should be described and any exceptions to the standard treatment (HDM Section 6.04.09) explained. Any identified encroachments that remain after construction should be noted and the proposed treatment of the encroachments discussed. Provide a table right of way acquisitions (Exhibit 3.3.3.1). Provide a table for each alternative being fully evaluated.
|Alert! |
| |
|Discuss whether takings are de minimis or non-de minimis (discuss with Regional Right-of-Way Group). Note that a non-de minimis finding may |
|require a public hearing or the offer to hold a public hearing. Refer to PDM Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2 – Moderate Project Steps, Public |
|Hearings for CE Projects for detailed information on public hearings. |
There are no proposed ROW acquisitions. The cost (to the Dept.) of the proposed ROW acquisitions is $275,000.
OR use table:
|Exhibit 3.3.3.1.x |
|Anticipated Right-of-Way Acquisitions for Alternative Y |
|Owner |Tax Map |Type of |Estimated |Parcel Size |Percentage of |
| |No. |Acquisition |Acquisition Area | |Acquisition |
|Provide a table for each alternative | | | | | |
|being fully evaluated | | | | | |
* Take is identified by the Regional Right of Way Group as non-de minimis.
3.3.3.1. (2) Curb –
[Route Name] will not have curbs OR ___ inch [traversable, mountable, or vertical faced] curb will be provided on both sides of the highway within the project limits.
3.3.3.1. (3) Grades – The proposed maximum grade will be ___.
The grade does not warrant a climbing lane.
3.3.3.1. (4) Intersection Geometry and Conditions –
The existing intersection geometry will be retained.
Refer to Figures 3.3.3.1-1 and 3.3.3.1-2 for the geometry of the proposed intersections.
3.3.3.1. (5) Roadside Elements:
(a) Snow Storage, Sidewalks, Utility Strips, Bikeways, Bus Stops -
(b) Driveways - The driveways will be modified to comply with the current NYSDOT “Policy and Standards for Design of Entrances to State Highways.”
(c) Clear Zone - The clear zone will be approximately __ ft wide and will be refined during final design to adjust for slopes, roadway curvature, etc.
(Show on typical sections.)
3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements -
3.3.3.2. (1) Nonstandard Features –
This section should include a statement that the reasonable alternatives comply with the geometric features and cross section elements in the design criteria and a statement of the features that do not meet design criteria.
For each critical design element that does not comply with the design criteria, a description of the feature and information in accordance with the Highway Design Manual, Section 2.8, Requirements for Justification of Nonstandard Features, to support approval of the nonstandard feature shall be included. As necessary, use HDM Exhibit 2-15 - Nonstandard Feature Justification. Note that HDM Exhibit 2-15a – Nonstandard Feature Justification Form for Pedestrian Facilities is used to justify non-standard elements on pedestrian facilities (sidewalks, curb ramps, ramps, etc.). Per ED 15-004, this form is included in the project file. If there are pedestrian facility nonstandard features and the information is available prior to design approval to complete the form, it should be included in the appendices with a description provided in this section.
NOTE: Approval of nonstandard features (also termed design exceptions) must be obtained from the appropriate person as per the SAFETEA-LU Design Related Approval Matrix in Chapter 4 of the PDM at, or prior to, Design Approval. For approval of pedestrian facility nonstandard feature justifications see ED 15-004.
3.3.3.2. (2) Non-Conforming Features –
This section should also describe and provide values and support for features that do not comply with normally accepted engineering policy or practice. The degree of explanation for the non-conforming features should be proportionate to the amount of the variations from normal practice. Examples include inadequate length of acceleration, deceleration, climbing and turning lanes, inadequate transitions to horizontal curves, skewed intersections, compound or broken back curves, inadequate intersection corner radii for the design vehicle, no curb offset, less than recommended width for bicyclists, etc.
In addition this section of the report may describe and provide support for features that are more than normal practice. Include statements indicating that a wider than normal shoulder will be provided on a bridge to provide better intersection sight distance as appropriate.
There will be no non-conforming features within the project limits.
3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder –
This section should summarize the discussion and recommendations presented in the Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Report and/or Pavement Type Selection Analysis, if required by EI 01-017,"Project- Level Pavement Selection Process" and the Material Bureau's manual titled Pavement Rehabilitation Manual - Volume II: Treatment Selection. If the project is not covered under the "Project-Level Pavement Selection Process", a brief description of the proposed pavement rehabilitation treatment and/or pavement type is sufficient. Discuss pavement life cycle alternatives as required. If special pavement treatments are proposed, provide a justification in this section. e.g., Ice Retardant HMA
Refer to Figure 3 - __ for the proposed pavement section. Appendix D contains a summary of the Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Report.
3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems –
The type of drainage system should be described with a description of any special features, SPDES measures, and an explanation of any modifications to standard drainage design practices, such as modification of the design storm.
Existing drainage ditches/structures will be cleaned as part of all reasonable alternatives. Other work will consist of ___.
3.3.3.5. Geotechnical –
Describe any special or costly treatments for soils or foundation problems. Contact Geotechnical Engineer for input in this section.
No special techniques or considerations are needed.
3.3.3.6. Structures –
Bridge projects must consider, evaluate and document rehabilitation and replacement options in accordance with Section 19.2.2 of the Bridge Manual. For examples of the type of work considered major or minor rehabilitation, see Section 19.1 of the Bridge Manual. Include the Bridge Rehabilitation Justification Report in Appendix E as needed (see Exhibit 7-11 in PDM Appendix 7).
If the project will address a structure, provide structural information on the existing structure (generated from BDIS) as shown in the table below (Option 1). If the project will not address structures include a statement indicating this (Option 2). Where the project proposes a new/replacement structure, provide information on the proposed structure.
Option 1: The existing bridge is described below. The project proposes to _________________ (describe the work proposed)
Option 2: No work is proposed on the existing bridge(s) and no new bridge is proposed.
Option 3: There is no proposed bridge work within the project limits. Delete below Exhibit.
|Exhibit 3.3.3.6 |
|Structure Data |
|DATA |EXISTING STRUCTURE |PROPOSED STRUCTURE |
|BIN | | |
|Feature Carried/Crossed | | |
|Type of Bridge | | |
|Number and Length of Spans | | |
|Lane Width(s) | | |
|Shoulder Width(s) | | |
|Sidewalk(s) | | |
|Utilities Carried | | |
|Horizontal Clearance(s) | | |
|Vertical Clearance(s) | | |
|State Condition Rating | | |
History & Deficiencies – Describe the history, the age and geometric deficiencies of the bridge, together with relevant approach deficiencies. Refer to the record plans for historical information.
Inspection - Summarize the findings of the biennial bridge inspection and condition report and in depth inspection Summary Reports.
Restrictions – Include whether the bridge is closed, posted for load, or if a load posting will be required in the near future. List any specific restrictions which may be imposed upon public or emergency vehicle/equipment.
Waterway – Include for new and replacement structures over a waterway, and for structures (over a waterway) that will undergo rehabilitation that results in a change in the appearance of the structure, or in the navigational clearances.
A Coast Guard Checklist is not required or A Coast Guard jurisdiction checklist is included in Appendix E.
3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts –
For projects that will address bridges and or culverts, refer to Section 3 of the Bridge Manual for standards and information on Scoping and Preliminary Design DAD requirements.
For any waterway crossing, a description of the existing design discharges, over topping history, history of and consequences of debris or ice clogging at the existing and/or adjacent structures, floodplain studies, and status of hydraulic analysis should be provided. An analysis is required unless the Main Office Hydraulic Engineering Unit, based on a hydraulic assessment, has determined that there will be no significant effect on hydraulics. If a determination of no significant effect on hydraulics has been made, document this in this section.
Per Exhibit 7-11 in PDM Appendix 7, the Bridge Site Data Package with Hydraulic Study must be included in Appendix E for all bridge replacement projects and referenced here. Items of concern identified from the site data package must be discussed here. Ensure that any recommendations from the Regional Hydraulics Engineer are discussed.
The following items must be discussed for the anticipated proposed condition:
• Whether it is anticipated a minimum freeboard of 2 ft for the Q50 will be met. Provide reasons if it is not anticipated to be met. Also document as a nonconforming feature in Section 2.5.2 Other Controlling Parameters.
• Whether it is anticipated that the Q100 flow will pass beneath the proposed low chord.
• Whether it is anticipated that the proposed structure will raise upstream or downstream water surface elevation compared to the existing conditions for Q50 and Q100 flows.
• Whether It Is anticipated the proposed low chord will be lower than the existing.
• Whether it is anticipated recommendations from the Regional Hydraulics Engineer are to be met.
In an extreme situation, negative freeboard for the Q50 could be accepted as permissible (document as nonconforming) for a replacement of an existing bridge that is already inundated by the 50 year design flood, but in no case shall the proposed negative freeboard exceed the existing negative freeboard. The report should note measures recommended such as replacing existing abutments/piers with spread footings with abutments/piers founded on piles to address scour vulnerability, and choosing structure type with consideration of debris potential as one of the criteria.
Verify that the safety of any dams (particularly hydro-electric projects) in the vicinity of the project is not adversely affected. Contact the dam operator and the Office of Energy Projects, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections, New York Regional Office of FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to do so. Contact with FERC may be made thru the Regional Hydraulics Engineer.
There are no bridges or culverts over waterways within the project limits.
There are no dams in the vicinity of the project that would be adversely affected.
A dam (hydro-electric power project) is located 100 ft downstream of the bridge and to the east. This dam is operated by Brookfield Power of Queensbury, NY. The safety of the dam will not be adversely affected; however, FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) has been contacted and will be reviewing work proposed around the dam and the canal.
3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators –
Complete Exhibit 3.3.3.8 as information becomes available and the project progresses from scoping to final design phase.
All guiderail within the project limits including bridge railing will be evaluated during final design for conformance to design standards and replaced or repaired, if necessary.
|Exhibit 3.3.3.8 |
|Proposed Location of Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators |
|Type |Location |Side |Length (m) |
| |Between 1st and 3rd St | |100± |
| | | | |
| | | | |
3.3.3.9. Utilities –
List all publicly and privately-owned overhead and underground utilities within existing ROW or in the vicinity of the project that could be affected by or have an effect on the project using the table below. Any modifications of utilities should be identified under Condition/Conflict (include a description of major utility relocations that will be project costs).
|Exhibit - 3.3.3.9 |
|Utilities |
|Owner |Type |Location/Side |Length |Condition/Conflict |
| | | | |Condition unknown; no obvious conflicts. |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities –
The proposed improvements that affect railroad facilities should be described, including any modifications to the tracks or other railroad facilities, any railroad detours or highway detours with temporary at-grade crossings, utility or drainage impacts, etc. For bridge replacement projects state the vertical and horizontal clearance from the centerline of track to be provided. The need for a railroad force account agreement, if applicable, should also be noted. Complete exhibit 3.3.3.10 as information becomes available and the project progresses from scoping to final design phase.
|Exhibit 3.3.3.10 |
|Location of Proposed Railroad Tracks |
|Owner |Location |Side |Crossing |Length (m) |Impact |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements –
Refer to Chapter 4 for complete discussion.
3.3.4.1. Landscape Development and Other Aesthetics Improvements –
Sufficient discussion should be provided to assure the proposed project's positive and negative aesthetic impacts are adequately addressed. "Highways must not only blend with our natural social and cultural environment, but also provide pleasure and satisfaction in their use." (Quote from 23 CFR 752.2 Policy (a) page 378). Landscape development features to be noted include, as applicable, plantings, various pavement types, wall surfaces, street furniture, etc.
Landscape development should be considered and addressed whenever highway and street improvements are undertaken. In general, projects located in urban areas will require more sophisticated landscape development than projects in rural areas.
The purpose of this section is to propose, when appropriate, new plantings and vegetation management methods. Proposed roadside vegetation may provide functional values such as; screening residential properties from a highway, snowdrift abatement, wildlife habitat, dust attenuation. Proposed roadside vegetation management practices include adding mowing delineation to reduce maintenance costs and enhance wildlife and wetland habitat. The Landscape Architect/Environmental Specialist should be consulted for specific treatments.
The Department will provide/replace landscaping as a part of the overall enhancement and aesthetic improvement efforts for this project. Refer to Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion.
3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements –
Discuss proposed enhancements such as fishing access, critter crossings, scenic overlooks, etc.
3.3.5. Miscellaneous
NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA)
An evaluation of how projects meet the ten criteria (as described in ECL § 6-0107) of the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA) is required for all projects. Note that the Recommendation for Design Approval signature (Item E of the Project Approval Sheet) signifies, in part, verification that the SGPIPA documentation requirements are met.
Include the following two paragraphs for all projects. Note: Modify the first paragraph by adding appropriate information from the Smart Growth Screening Tool to back up the first sentence.
Pursuant to ECL Article 6, this project is compliant with the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA). Describe how by citing results from the project’s Smart Growth Screening Tool. The Screening Tool shell can be found on the NYSDOT Smart Planning webpage.
To the extent practicable this project has met the relevant criteria as described in ECL § 6-0107 The Smart Growth Screening Tool was used to assess the project’s consistency and alignment with relevant Smart Growth criteria; the tool was completed by the Region’s Planning and Program Management group on insert date and reflects the current project scope.
Other Miscellaneous Information
Include other pertinent information on the proposed alternative(s).
- SOCIAL, ECONOMIC and ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS and CONSEQUENCES
Go to end of this document for instructions on turning on/off GREEN text during document preparation and for Summary of Changes.
EIS projects should have a general introductory statement here. Moderate projects can leave this introductory statement out and proceed with subsections below.
NEPA EIS and EA projects must include Sections 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10.
4.1 Introduction
Ensure that information presented here is consistent with all other sections of the design report, and particularly with Chapter 1.
1 4.1.1 Environmental Classification
1 4.1.1.1 NEPA Classification -
[For projects with no federal funding]
This project is 100% State funded; therefore, following the FHWA NEPA process is not required.
On 100% state projects, NYSDOT does not follow the NEPA process. However, when the project requires the granting of a permit by a federal agency (e.g., Corps permit), that agency is required to follow their own NEPA process. In such cases, the Region may be required to submit additional information to the federal agency in support of the agency’s NEPA requirements.
OR
[For projects with Federal funding that are NEPA Class II Categorical Exclusion with one reasonable alternative]
This project is being progressed as a Class II action (Categorical Exclusion) because it does not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental impact and is excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) as documented in the Federal Environmental Approvals Worksheet (FEAW) and following discussion in this chapter.
Specifically, in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s regulations in 23 CFR 771.117(d) this project is one of the project types described in the ‘D’ list as primarily a repair/reconstruction of an existing bridge in the same location with no additional capacity (no added thru lanes) and does not significantly impact the environment. Refer to Appendix B for the FEAW.
OR
[For projects with Federal funding that are NEPA Class II Categorical Exclusion with more than one reasonable alternative]
This project is being progressed as a Class II action (Categorical Exclusion) for both/all reasonable alternatives. Both/all alternatives will not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental impact and are excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) as documented in the Federal Environmental Approvals Worksheet (FEAW) and following discussion in this chapter.
Specifically, in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s regulations in 23 CFR 771.117(d) this project is one of the project types described in the ‘D’ list as primarily a repair/reconstruction of an existing bridge in the same location with no additional capacity (no added thru lanes) and does not significantly impact the environment. Refer to Appendix B for the FEAW.
OR
[For projects with Federal funding that are NEPA Class III requiring preparation of an Environmental Assessment]
This project is being progressed as a NEPA Class III (Environmental Assessment) action. NEPA Class III actions are projects for which the significance of the environmental impact is not clearly established. This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to assist in making the determination of whether the project requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The completed Federal Environmental Approvals Worksheet with supporting documentation is included in Appendix B.
OR
[For projects with Federal funding that are NEPA Class I requiring preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement]
This project is classified as a NEPA Class I project in accordance with 23 CFR 771. NEPA Class I projects require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement to determine the likely impact the proposed project alternatives will have on the environment. FHWA is the Lead Federal Agency and NYSDOT is the Joint Lead Agency for this action. [If other agencies are serving as Joint Lead Agencies mention them here]
2 4.1.1.2 SEQR Classification -
Projects where NYSDOT is the SEQRA Lead Agency per 17 NYCRR Section 15.5 must follow the provisions of 17 NYCRR Part 15. For local and other projects where another agency is the SEQRA Lead Agency the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 are followed and if any of the statements below are used they must be modified accordingly. For projects that are following 6 NYCRR Part 617, add a statement that identifies the agency that is the SEQRA Lead Agency.
17 NYCRR Part 15 can be found here.
SEQR Project Classification: Select/Modify the following samples:
[For SEQR Type II projects]
In accordance with 17 NYCRR, Part 15, “Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act”, the Department has determined that this project is a SEQR Type II Action. No further SEQR processing is required. The project has been identified as a Type II action, per 17 NYCRR Part 15, Section 15.14, Subdivision (e), Item 37, Paragraph [insert subparagraph number from below]. This permits the project to be classified as Type II since the project does not violate any of the criteria contained in subdivision (d) of Section 15.14.
OR
[For SEQR Non-Type II Environmental Assessment (EA) projects]
The Department has determined that this project is a SEQR Non-Type II Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR Part 15 - Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act. SEQR Non-Type II projects include actions for which the environmental impacts are not clearly established and require an Environmental Assessment (EA). The project is being progressed as SEQR Non-Type II (EA) because: cite the applicable section(s) of 17 NYCRR Part 15.14(d), e.g., the need to acquire more than one acre in an agricultural district, or the extent or significance of the effects is unknown.
Example language: The Route 7 Bridge has been determined to be National Register Eligible. Under 17 NYCRR Part 15.14(d) (6), a Type II action has “no effect on any district, site, structure or object that is listed, or may be eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places.” This project, with its potential effects to the bridge, does not meet the Type II criteria, and is therefore classified as a Non-Type II (EA) project.
(Guidance on preparing a Determination of No Significant Effect (DONSE) notice is available in the PDM; also, notice examples are included in PDM App. 3 and samples posted on the PDM web page.)
OR
[For only SEQR Non-Type II Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) projects]
This project is 100% state funded. The project is classified as a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Non-Type II action (EIS) in accordance with 17 NYCRR Part 15 - Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act.
2 4.1.2 Coordination with Agencies
1 4.1.2.1 NEPA Cooperating and Participating Agencies -
Cooperating and Participating Agencies are defined by 40 CFR 1508.5 and 23 USC 139(d) respectively. Cooperating Agencies are specifically those that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact. Participating Agencies are agencies that may have an interest in the project. See question 1 in FHWA’s Frequently Asked Questions on the Environmental Review Process for more information.
According to 23 CFR 771.111(d), agencies with special expertise may be invited to become cooperating agencies. However, agencies with jurisdiction by law must be requested to become cooperating agencies. For CE projects, these agencies must be listed as shown in the second text choice below.
[For projects with no federal funding]
This project is 100% State funded; therefore, the FHWA NEPA requirements for Cooperating and Participating Agencies do not apply.
OR
[For federally funded projects not subject to the requirements of SAFETEA-LU Section 6002]
The following agencies are Cooperating Agencies in accordance with 23 CFR 771.111(d):
List agencies
OR
[For projects subject to the requirements of SAFETEA-LU Section 6002] For EIS projects and other projects as determined by FHWA, SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 will apply which requires that invitations be sent to agencies that are identified as Cooperating and Participating.
The following agencies have accepted an invitation sent on [insert date] to become a Cooperating or Participating Agency per 23 USC 139(d)(2). [Example Letters 3-6 and 3-7 from Appendix 3 of the Project Development Manual (PDM), and links within, may be helpful]
List agencies
4.2 Social
This section should include:
• A brief statement regarding the purpose of this section.
• A succinct summary description of the social environment of the area(s) to be affected (the subsections below can provide more detail).
• A brief summary description of beneficial and adverse social and related environmental impacts for each alternative under consideration (in order to help compare effects and assess the significance of any impacts)
In the subsections below describe beneficial and adverse effects of each alternative for each topic. The description should be in sufficient detail so that the reader understands the social effect(s) of each reasonable alternative.
The discussion of the social and related environmental consequences must be factual and supporting data presented whenever applicable. The discussion may be tied by references to supporting plans and/or maps in the appendices or other supporting information in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of this document. Additional plans, maps figures or graphics may be needed to show the project's effects on identified features and mitigation measures proposed. Maps or plans should clearly show any features discussed in the accompanying text such as: historic sites, parks, zoning areas, gathering places, sensitive receptors for air and noise pollution, etc.
Guidance from FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A:
Where there are foreseeable impacts, the draft EIS should discuss the following items for each alternative commensurate with the level of impacts and to the extent they are distinguishable:
(a) Changes in the neighborhoods or community cohesion for the various social groups as a result of the proposed action. These changes may be beneficial or adverse, and may include splitting neighborhoods, isolating a portion of a neighborhood or an ethnic group, generating new development, changing property values, or separating residents from community facilities, etc.
(b) Changes in travel patterns and accessibility (e.g., vehicular, commuter, bicycle, or pedestrian).
(c) Impacts on school districts, recreation areas, churches, businesses, police and fire protection, etc. This should include both the direct impacts to these entities and the indirect impacts resulting from the displacement of households and businesses.
(d) Impacts of alternatives on highway and traffic safety as well as on overall public safety.
(e) General social groups specially benefited or harmed by the proposed project. The effects of a project on the elderly, handicapped, non-drivers, transit-dependent, and minority and ethnic groups are of particular concern and should be described to the extent these effects can be reasonably predicted. Where impacts on a minority or ethnic population are likely to be an important issue, the EIS should contain the following information broken down by race, color, and national origin: the population of the study area, the number of displaced residents, the type and number of displaced businesses, and an estimate of the number of displaced employees in each business sector. Changes in ethnic or minority employment opportunities should be discussed and the relationship of the project to other Federal actions which may serve or adversely affect the ethnic or minority population should be identified.
Example language
The purpose of this section is to discuss the social environment in the vicinity of the project. This project involves the Route 17 corridor over the Neversink River which is a rural, lightly developed section of the Town of Bridgeville. With the exception of the no-build alternative, each alternative will involve replacing the existing bridge on a raised alignment. The replacement bridge will be built adjacent to the existing bridge, requiring a moderate approach road realignment, and embankment to raise the elevation of the replacement bridge. Additionally, this project will merge with the on and off ramps of exit 107. This may potentially result in a residential relocation for each alternative due to the realignment of the roadway.
1 4.2.1 Land Use
This section shall contain the following unnumbered subsections:
• Demographics and Affected Population
• Comprehensive Plans and Zoning
Cross-Reference:
• 2.2.1 Local Plans for the Project Area
• 2.2.1.1 Local Comprehensive Plans (“Master Plan”)
• 2.2.1.2 Local Private Development Plans
• 2.2.2.5 Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments
• 4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed
• 4.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
Guidance from FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A:
This discussion should identify the current development trends and the State and/or local government plans and policies on land use and growth in the area which will be impacted by the proposed project.
These plans and policies are normally reflected in the area's comprehensive development plan, and include land use, transportation, public facilities, housing, community services, and other areas.
The land use discussion should assess the consistency of the alternatives with the comprehensive development plans adopted for the area and (if applicable) other plans used in the development of the transportation plan required by Section 134. The secondary social, economic, and environmental impacts of any substantial, foreseeable, induced development should be presented for each alternative, including adverse effects on existing communities. Where possible, the distinction between planned and unplanned growth should be identified.
Joint Development - Where appropriate, the draft EIS should identify and discuss those joint development measures which will preserve or enhance an affected community's social, economic, environmental, and visual values. This discussion may be presented separately or combined with the land use and/or social impacts presentations. The benefits to be derived, those who will benefit (communities, social groups, etc.), and the entities responsible for maintaining the measures should be identified.
1 4.2.1.1 Demographics and Affected Population -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
1) Affected environment
2) US Census Bureau data: See , also Census Bureau’s American FactFinder tool
a. Demographics
b. Vital statistics
c. Presence of Environmental Justice populations and/or areas
Example language
The project area is rural and lightly developed; with single family homes predominate on the southwest quadrant of the bridge, wooded unoccupied land at the northeast and southeast quadrants, and a mixed use of residential and an automotive repair business at the northwest quadrant.
The 2010 US Census reports that the Town has a population of 2,943 persons. The median reported age was 35.7, with 14.1% of the population being reported at age 65 or older. 95.7% of the population was identified as white. 0.5% of the population was identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP), i.e., speaking English “less than very well.”
Based on data collected from the US Census’s 2012 American Community Survey, approximately 15.7% of the Town’s population identified as disabled, (although specific disabilities were not listed). This percentage is higher than the percentage for Broome County, 14.7%, and New York State, 10.9 %.
The Town had 13.2% of its population reported to be below the poverty level, which is only slightly above that year’s national average of 12.4%. This project is not located in a potential NYSDEC Environmental Justice Area.
The US Census reported that in 2010, 77% of the Town’s working population commuted individually by car or truck to work with an average travel time of 28.8 minutes. This is approximately three minutes longer than the national average and considered by many to be reasonable for a work commute or shopping. The area has been transitioning from a rural agricultural center to a bedroom community for the Triple Cities/Binghamton area and Cortland. The proximity of Interstate 81 provides reasonable commuting times for many residents to these employment centers.
2 4.2.1.2 Comprehensive Plans and Zoning -
• Topics may include, but are not limited to:
1) Regional and local planning
2) Zoning
3) Current proposed and permitted development
4) Current development trends
5) Existing conditions
6) Regional and local development policies and plans on land use and growth
7) Current land use
8) Land use trends
9) Transportation system
10) Public facilities
11) Housing
12) Community services
13) Identify distinctions between planned and unplanned growth
14) Consistency of reasonable alternatives with development plans and policies
15) Joint development
16) Effects assessment
17) Benefits
18) Mitigation
19) Future maintenance responsibility
[Use for non-complex projects]
Replacement of the existing bridge on the same horizontal and vertical alignment is consistent with the community’s comprehensive plan and will not affect local zoning.
OR
[Use for non-complex projects]
The reconstruction of Route -- is consistent with local planning goals. The Town of -- recently had a Draft Comprehensive Plan completed which includes the project corridor.
OR
[Use for non-complex projects]
The project objectives are consistent with the Town of -- Comprehensive Plan and the Corridor Transportation and Land Use Study. The majority of recommendations in the Corridor Transportation and Land Use Study have been incorporated into the proposed project.
2 4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion
This section may contain the following subsections:
• Community Cohesion
• Home and Business Relocations
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
Uniform Relocation Assistance Act
Cross-Reference:
• 4.2.1 Land Use
• 4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed
• Appendix N Conceptual Relocation Plan
Section 4.2.2 applies to 100% State funded projects, Federal-aid funded projects, and any project requiring a Federal permit. Completion of study for this section must be complete prior to Design Approval.
Guidance from FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A:
The relocation information should be summarized in sufficient detail to adequately explain the relocation situation including anticipated problems and proposed solutions. Project relocation documents from which information is summarized should be referenced in the draft EIS. Secondary sources of information such as census, economic reports, and contact with community leaders, supplemented by visual inspections (and, as appropriate, contact with local officials) may be used to obtain the data for this analysis. Where a proposed project will result in displacements, the following information regarding households and businesses should be discussed for each alternative under consideration commensurate with the level of impacts and to the extent they are likely to occur:
(a) An estimate of the number of households to be displaced, including the family characteristics (e.g., minority, ethnic, handicapped, elderly, large family, income level, and owner/tenant status). However, where there are very few displaces, information on race, ethnicity and income levels should not be included in the EIS to protect the privacy of those affected.
(b) A discussion comparing available (decent, safe, and sanitary) housing in the area with the housing needs of the displaced. The comparison should include (1) price ranges, (2) sizes (number of bedrooms), and (3) occupancy status (owner/tenant).
(c) A discussion of any affected neighborhoods, public facilities, non-profit organizations, and families having special composition (e.g., ethnic, minority, elderly, handicapped, or other factors) which may require special relocation considerations and the measures proposed to resolve these relocation concerns.
(d) A discussion of the measures to be taken where the existing housing inventory is insufficient, does not meet relocation standards, or is not within the financial capability of the displaces. A commitment to last resort housing should be included when sufficient comparable replacement housing may not be available.
(e) An estimate of the numbers, descriptions, types of occupancy (owner/tenant), and sizes (number of employees) of businesses and farms to be displaced. Additionally, the discussion should identify (1) sites available in the area to which he affected businesses may relocate, (2) likelihood of such relocation, and (3) potential impacts on individual businesses and farms caused by displacement or proximity of the proposed highway if not displaced.
(f) A discussion of the results of contacts, if any, with local governments, organizations, groups, and individuals regarding residential and business relocation impacts, including any measures or coordination needed to reduce general and/or specific impacts. These contacts are encouraged for projects with large numbers of relocates or complex relocation requirements. Specific financial and incentive programs or opportunities (beyond those provided by the Uniform Relocation Act) to residential and business relocates to minimize impacts may be identified, if available through other agencies or organizations.
(g) A statement that (1) the acquisition and relocation program will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and (2) relocation resources are available to all residential and business relocates without discrimination.
1 4.2.2.1 Community Cohesion -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Neighborhood character (visual quality of neighborhood, historic, walkability, percentage of multi-family housing, etc.)
• Neighborhood stability (recent and anticipated changes in neighborhood)
• Population changes
• Transportation options (existence of transit, existing sidewalks, conditions for bicycling)
• Property values (existing and anticipated changes)
[Use for projects that will not impact neighborhoods or community cohesion]
The project will not divide neighborhoods, isolate part of a neighborhood, generate new development or otherwise affect community cohesion. The age and ethnic background of the affected population is of a similar composition as the rest of the Town of --. All of the occupied dwellings (-- of --) to be acquired are owner-occupied single family units and do not contain a disproportionate number of minority or low-income populations.
Example language:
The project corridor is predominately older, relatively well-kept 19th century residential homes with some scattered commercial, town offices and agricultural fields. There is a concentration of these residential properties in the Hamlet of ------. Most of the residential homes associated with the Hamlet are on the north side of Route ----. Two of the houses on the south side of Route ---- are abandoned and are in severe disrepair. Additionally, on the south side of Route ---- there is an abandoned gas station. There are sidewalks that service a portion of the north side of Route ---- but none on the south side. Sidewalks are not continuous throughout the project corridor. Outlying residential neighborhoods, to a large degree, have been planned and built independently of one another and are remote from necessary support services. There are no schools located along Route ----. Two churches and a synagogue exist along Route ---- in the project corridor. Retail uses along the corridor are vehicle oriented including the large mall immediately west of the project. As a result, automobiles are the primary mode of transportation. There is some pedestrian activity, primarily youths walking to the mall and is evidenced by the worn paths continuing beyond the west end of the sidewalk on the north side. In the Hamlet, where speeds are lower and the development pattern is more residential, conditions for bicycling are relatively good. However the pavement condition may deter some. Speeds increase in the commercial area outside of the Hamlet and conditions are less conducive to bicycling. The more recent commercial and residential development to the west of the proposed project has been vehicular oriented and lack sidewalks.
2 4.2.2.2 Home and Business Relocations -
• Topics may include, but are not limited to:
1) Discuss total estimated number of households and businesses displaced
2) Discuss each proposed relocation and need
3) Availability of replacement property
4) Comparison of available housing in the area
5) Discuss if there are families with special relocation needs
6) Reference the Conceptual Stage Relocation Plan as appropriate
7) Discuss available sites for business relocation
8) Number of displaced employees
9) Discuss Uniform Relocation Assistance Act provisions
[Use for non-complex situations]
Since this project involves the repair of an existing highway on predominately the existing alignment and does not require the acquisition of occupied dwellings/businesses, it will not cause adverse impacts upon neighborhood character and stability. The proposed alternative would require no displacement of residences or businesses and there would be no relocation impacts.
Example language:
The proposed building removals will have mixed effects on the community. The removal of three abandoned residential homes and the one abandoned gas station will improve the character of the community by eliminating structures that give the impression of a deteriorating neighborhood. This improvement is offset by the removal of four viable residential structures, however, these structures are generally scattered throughout the project corridor. Overall, the effects of this project will not cause adverse impacts upon neighborhood character and stability.
3 4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed
This section may contain the following subsections:
• Elderly and/or Disabled Persons or Groups
• Transit Dependent
• Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups (Environmental Justice)
Note that discussion of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) efforts (identification of LEP populations and outreach) should be discussed in Section 1.7 – What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement as these efforts are primarily for reaching out to and involving (seeking input from) LEP populations.
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Executive Order 12898
Cross-Reference:
4.2.1 Land Use
4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion
Appendix N Conceptual Relocation Plan
1 4.2.3.1 Elderly and/or Disabled Persons or Groups -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Elderly and/or Disabled population characteristics of neighborhood or area
• Access to local businesses and health care facilities
• Transportation options (discuss existence of transit, existing pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks, crossings, adequacy of traffic signal timing, etc. as appropriate)
• Impacts to accessibility for disabled persons. Add statement that pedestrian accommodations must meet HDM Chapter 18/ADA requirements.
Example language
A review of US Census data in Section 4.2.1.1 indicates that there is no significant concentration of elderly or disabled persons in the project area. However, the Pedestrian Generator Checklist found in Appendix ___ indicates that the existing highway lacks infrastructure accommodations for pedestrians including the handicapped and elderly, due to the lack of existing sidewalks and crosswalks. This project proposes new sidewalks and crosswalks and will improve accessibility accommodations for these user groups.
2 4.2.3.2 Transit Dependent -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Existing transit facilities, such as bus/train/light rail lines transit boarding locations, stations, stops, park and ride lots, etc.
• Adequacy of access to transit facilities from surrounding areas (including pedestrian and bicyclist access)
• Reference pedestrian generator checklist as necessary
3 4.2.3.3 Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups (Environmental Justice) -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Reference to overview of population of study area in Section 4.2.1.1.
• Demographic data of race, color and national origin
• Demographic data for low income areas or communities
• Existence of Environmental Justice areas
• Adverse changes in employment opportunities for low income, minority or ethnic populations
• Disproportionate impacts to low income, minority or ethnic groups
• Executive Order 12898
• Mapped Title VI Environmental Justice areas can be found on the P drive under:
GIS data files/environmental/region/Cultural resources/environmental justice/shapefile.
Title VI and Environmental Justice requires reviewing projects for disproportionately high and adverse effects on Minority and Low-Income Populations. Adverse impacts include; air, noise, destruction or disruption of community cohesion or economic vitality, destruction or disruption of the availability of both public and private facilities and services, displacement of persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit organizations; increased traffic congestion. For a full description of Environmental Justice see the following FHWA guidance:
Environmental Justice at the (US) Department of Transportation
The discussion should address whether any social group is disproportionally impacted and identify possible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any adverse impacts. Secondary sources of information such as census data and personal contact with community leaders supplemented by visual inspections normally should be used to obtain the data for this analysis. However, for projects with major community impacts, a survey of the affected area may be needed to identify the extent and severity of impacts on these social groups.
[Use for projects not in an Environmental Justice area]
The project is not located in or near an environmental justice area.
OR
[Use for minor projects within an Environmental Justice area]
This project is located in a Environmental Justice Area, however the scope of project activities are limited to normal maintenance activities which will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effect on minority or low-income populations.
OR
[Executive Order 12898 Example Statement]
Consistent with Executive Order 12898 and FHWA Guidance on Environmental Justice, the project has not directly or indirectly used criteria, methods or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or income level. Whenever feasible, mitigation measures outlined or analyzed in this document address significant adverse environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.
4 4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship
This section may contain the following subsections:
• School Districts
• Recreational Areas
• Places of Worship
Cross-Reference:
• 4.2.1 Land Use
• 4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion
• 4.2.3 Social Groups Benefitted or Harmed
Perform a GIS data search of the project corridor looking at the planimetric level and aerial photos which will show the locations of most schools, parks and recreational areas and places of worship. Some locations may require field identification or other data searches (i.e. phone book, internet) to verify their existence. A GIS map may be included in the Environmental Appendix to illustrate the location and relationship of these entities to the project
1 4.2.4.1 School Districts -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Locations of schools
• Types of schools (parochial/public/charter/magnet, elementary, middle, high school, etc.) and characteristics of student bodies e.g., single gender
• Transportation options
• Walking/Bicycling conditions for students
[Use for projects that will not affect schools]
The proposed project is within the -------- School District. There are no schools or school properties within or near the project corridor.
OR
Example Language:
The proposed project corridor is within the -------- School District and is adjacent to --------- School. The school is served by a school bus system located on the property. Sidewalks exist along the project corridor and are used by students from the adjacent neighborhood. It is not expected that there would be any long term adverse impacts to the school. During construction there may be delays for some motorists traveling thru the corridor, and temporary on-site detour sidewalks will be used during construction. This would be a temporary and relatively minor impact. In the long-term, effects will be positive with improved road conditions, traffic flow, new shoulders and new sidewalks.
2 4.2.4.2 Recreational Areas -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Existing recreational areas such as:
• Local parks
• State parks
• School grounds
• Trails
• Waterfront areas
• Mobility and access needs to recreation areas
3 4.2.4.3 Places of Worship -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Locations of places of worship e.g. churches, synagogues, mosques, temples.
• Relationship of place of worship to surrounding neighborhood or area
• Transportation options for congregation
4.3 Economic
The purpose of this section is to evaluate and analyze the economic effects of design alternatives as well as construction activities. Alternatives that divert traffic (customers) away from businesses, eliminate parking spaces, or require the acquisition of businesses may create impacts. Construction activities such as detours and lane closures may direct vehicular and pedestrian traffic away from businesses resulting in impacts. Alternatively, there may be long term beneficial impacts to the local economy. Project specific Context Sensitive Solutions are of particular importance where improving or maintaining an area’s character is beneficial or essential to business activity.
Guidance from FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A:
Where there are foreseeable economic impacts, the draft EIS should discuss the following for each alternative commensurate with the level of impacts:
(a) The economic impacts on the regional and/or local economy such as the effects of the project on development, tax revenues and public expenditures, employment opportunities, accessibility, and retail sales. Where substantial impacts on the economic viability of affected municipalities are likely to occur, they should also be discussed together with a summary of any efforts undertaken and agreements reached for using the transportation investment to support both public and private economic development plans. To the extent possible, this discussion should rely upon results of coordination with and views of affected State, county, and city officials and upon studies performed under Section 134.
(b) The impacts on the economic vitality of existing highway-related businesses (e.g., gasoline stations, motels, etc.) and the resultant impact, if any, on the local economy. For example, the loss of business or employment resulting from building an alternative on new location bypassing a local community.
(c) Impacts of the proposed action on established business districts, and any opportunities to minimize or reduce such impacts by the public and/or private sectors. This concern is likely to occur on a project that might lead to or support new large commercial development outside of a central business district.
1 4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies
Topics to discuss as appropriate:
• General economic conditions
• Tax base
• Employment opportunities
• Economic Development Zones
• Property values
• Cross-Reference:
4.2.1 Land Use
4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion
Appendix N Conceptual Relocation Plan
2 4.3.2 Business District Impacts
Topics to discuss as appropriate:
• Location of district or districts
• Character of business district (downtown, suburban, etc) and types of businesses present
• Transportation options in and out of district
• Existing traffic volumes
• Parking
• Walking/Bicycling conditions
• Changes to:
o existing traffic volumes
o character of surrounding neighborhood or area
o parking ease and availability
o access to businesses for transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists
• Cross-Reference:
4.2.1 Land Use
4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion
4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies
3 4.3.3 Specific Business Impacts
Topics to discuss as appropriate:
• Character of specific businesses
• Character of surrounding neighborhood or area
• Existing traffic volumes
• Parking
• Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access to businesses
• Acquisition of any businesses
• Changes to:
o existing traffic volumes
o character of surrounding neighborhood or area
o parking ease and availability
o access to businesses for transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists
4.4 Environmental
1 4.4.1 Wetlands
This section may contain the following subsections:
• State Freshwater Wetlands
• State Tidal Wetlands
• Federal Jurisdictional Wetlands
• Executive Order 11990
• Mitigation Summary
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
1) ECL Article 15 - NYSDEC Section 401 Water Quality Certification
2) ECL Article 24 - NYSDEC Project Specific Freshwater Wetlands Permit
3) ECL Article 24 - NYSDEC Programmatic Freshwater Wetlands Permit
4) ECL Article 25 - NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands Permit
5) NYCRR 608 - NYSDEC Section 401 Water Quality Certification
6) 6 NYCRR 661 - Joint Permit Application
7) 6 NYCRR 663 - Exempt Actions
8) 6 NYCRR 663 - regulatory procedures, standards for permits, exempt actions
9) 9 NYCRR, Part 578 – Adirondack Park Regulations
10) APA General Permit (2002G-3)
11) USACOE Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands
12) FHWA IP-82-23, FHWA IP-82-24 methodology guidance
13) 33 CFR 328.3(b) - wetland identification criteria
14) Section 401 Blanket WQC - NYSDEC, USACOE
15) Section 401 Project Specific WQC - NYSDEC, USACOE
16) Section 404 Individual Permit - USACOE
17) Section 404 Nationwide Permit - USACOE
18) 23 CFR 771.125(a)(1) - Wetland Finding
19) EO 11990 - Wetland Finding as per 23 CFR 771.125(a)(1)
20) EO 11990 - Programmatic Wetland Finding as per 23 CFR 771.117
21) 23 CFR 777 - criteria for creation of new wetlands
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, submissions, correspondence, permit needs or consultation, etc.)
• NYSDEC – review/approve Joint Application for Permit
• NYSDEC – review/approve Section 401 Blanket or Project Specific WQC
• NYSDEC – review/approve Article 24/25 State Freshwater/Tidal Wetland Permit, permit conditions
• NYSDEC – review/verify wetland boundary, mitigation and monitoring
• USACOE – review Section 401 WQC
• USACOE – approve Section 404 Individual or Nationwide Permit, Section 10 Permit
• USACOE – approval of wetland boundaries and Wetland Delineation Report
• USACOE – concurrence with preferred alternative based on least wetland impacts
• USACOE – general consultation, permit conditions
• USACOE – acceptance of preferred alternative and consideration of wetland impacts
• USACOE – approval of mitigation, permits, and conditions
• FHWA – approval of EO 11990 Wetland Finding (Programmatic and Individual)
• Cornell University – provides national wetlands inventory maps
• US Fish & Wildlife Service – maintains National Wetlands Inventory, review wetland mitigation/monitoring
• National Marine Fisheries Service – reviews tidal wetland impacts
Cross-reference:
Appendix: Wetland Delineation Report, Wetland Mitigation Report,
Programmatic/Individual EO 11990
4.4.8 Stormwater Management
4.6 Construction Effects
4.7 Indirect (Secondary) Effects (EIS)
4.8 Cumulative Effects (EIS)
4.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources (EIS)
See GIS data maps for locations of hydric soils (partial coverage of NY), NWI maps, and NYSDEC jurisdictional wetlands. These wetlands also have a 100-foot regulated area adjacent to them. Activities within the 100-foot regulated area also require a permit.
Include a general statement here about the wetlands in the project area. Document how the different alternatives affect them. Discuss avoidance, minimization and mitigation of impacts, if known.
FHWA guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A
When an alternative will impact wetlands the draft EIS should (1) identify the type, quality, and function of wetlands involved, (2) describe the impacts to the wetlands, (3) evaluate alternatives which would avoid these wetlands, and (4) identify practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetlands. Wetlands should be identified by using the definition of 33 CFR 328.3(b) (issued on November 13, 1986) which requires the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Exhibits showing wetlands in the project impact area, in relation to the alternatives, should be provided.
In evaluating the impact of the proposed project on wetlands, the following two items should be addressed: (1) the importance of the impacted wetland(s) and (2) the severity of this impact. Merely listing the number of acres taken by the various alternatives of a highway proposal does not provide sufficient information upon which to determine the degree of impact on the wetland ecosystem. The wetlands analysis should be sufficiently detailed to provide an understanding of these two elements.
In evaluating the importance of the wetlands, the analysis should consider such factors as: (1) the primary functions of the wetlands (e.g., flood control, wildlife habitat, ground water recharge, etc.), (2) the relative importance of these functions to the total wetland resource of the area, and (3) other factors such as uniqueness that may contribute to the wetlands’ importance.
In determining the wetland impact, the analysis should show the project's effects on the stability and quality of the wetland(s). This analysis should consider the short- and long-term effects on the wetlands and the importance of any loss such as: (1) flood control capacity, (2) shore line anchorage potential, (3) water pollution abatement capacity, and (4) fish and wildlife habitat value. The methodology developed by FHWA and described in reports numbered FHWA-IP-82-23 and FHWA IP-82-24, "A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment Volumes I and II," is recommended for use in conducting this analysis. Knowing the importance of the wetlands involved and the degree of the impact, the HA (Highway Agency) and FHWA will be in a better position to determine the mitigation efforts necessary to minimize harm to these wetlands. Mitigation measures which should be considered include preservation and improvement of existing wetlands and creation of new wetlands (consistent with 23 CFR 777).
If the preferred alternative is located in wetlands, to the fullest extent possible, the final EIS needs to contain the finding required by Executive Order 11990 that there are no practicable alternatives to construction in wetlands. Where the finding is included, approval of the final EIS will document compliance with the Executive Order 11990 requirements (23 CFR 771.125(a)(1)). The finding should be included in a separate subsection entitled "Only Practicable Alternative Finding" and should be supported by the following information:
(a) A reference to Executive Order 11990;
(b) An explanation why there are no practicable alternatives to the proposed action;
(c) An explanation why the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands; and
(d) A concluding statement that: "Based upon the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use."
1 4.4.1.1 State Freshwater Wetlands -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Type, location, and extent of existing wetlands
• Result of review of GIS data maps, etc.
• Adirondack Park freshwater wetland involvement
• Wetland classification, dominant plant species, cover types, functions
• Certification of wetland evaluators
• Effects assessment
For SEQR Exempt Actions, see 6 NYCRR 663.
[For projects that do NOT impact State freshwater wetlands]
There are no NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetlands or regulated adjacent areas (100ft) within the project area, as per the NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Maps for --- Specify County, identify quadrangles and date. A site visit was performed to verify this. No further investigation is required and Environmental Conservation Law, Article 24 is satisfied.
OR
[For projects that impact State freshwater wetlands and mitigation is required]
Based on a review of NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands maps for --- Specify County, identify quadrangles, and date, and as verified by a site visit, there are NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetlands in or adjacent to the project. A wetland field delineation will be required to confirm the type, size, and boundaries of the wetlands.
OR
[For projects in the Adirondack Park that do NOT impact APA wetlands]
There are no Adirondack Park Agency regulated wetland areas within the project area, as per review of the Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetland Maps, Specify County, identify quadrangles, and date, and as verified in a site visit.
OR
[For projects in the Adirondack Park that impact APA wetlands]
The project area is located within the Adirondack Park boundary, where wetlands are regulated by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). APA wetlands are noted within the project area, as indicated on the Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetland Maps, Specify APA map name and include date.
OR
[Use if the project is in the Adirondack Park and APA wetlands are affected, and an APA General Permit is needed]
APA-regulated wetlands are located within the project area, as indicated on the Adirondack Park Freshwater Wetland Maps, Specify APA map name and include date. It is anticipated that the proposed activities will be covered under the APA General Permit (2002G-3), and include only minor regulated activities, as defined in the General Permit Summary and Authorization. The permit will be obtained once the location and extent of the impacts are ascertained.
OR
[Use if a State ECL Article 24 Project Specific Freshwater Wetland Permit is needed]
The project may require a NYSDEC Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit, pursuant to 9 NYCRR 578, for proposed work in the state-regulated wetland or regulated adjacent area (100ft). The permit will be obtained from NYSDEC once the location and extent of the impacts are ascertained.
OR
[Use if a State ECL Article 24 Programmatic Freshwater Wetland Permit is needed]
Based on a review of DEC Freshwater Wetlands maps for Specify county, identify quadrangles, and date, and as verified by a site visit, there are NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetlands in or adjacent to the project. The proposed project involves describe project wetland impacts, and will qualify for Article 24 Programmatic Permit Number 95-XX.
OR
Select appropriate permit choice from below -
95-01 Bank Stabilization
95-02 Minor Fills
95-03 Utility Line Work
95-04 Rehabilitation or Replacement of Existing Transportation Facilities
95-05 Associated Survey and/or Exploratory Activities
• Project activities must comply with all requirements and thresholds of programmatic permit. Permits 95-01 and 95-02 require notification to DEC, as well as authorization from DEC. The other three only require notification to DEC.
[Use if a NYSDEC/USACOE Section 401 Water Quality Certification is NOT needed]
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is not required for the proposed project, since it does not involve work within the waters of the United States, including wetlands (Section 10 or Section 404).
OR
[Use if a NYSDEC/USACOE Blanket Section 401 Water Quality Certification is needed]
A Blanket Section 401 Water Quality Certification applies to this project, since the work required will meet the requirements of a Section 404 or Section 10 Nationwide Permit # --- .
OR
[Use if a NYSDEC/USACOE Project Specific Section 401 Water Quality Certification is needed]
It has been determined that the proposed activities will require a Project Specific 401 WQC, pursuant to 15 NYCRR 608, Protection of Waters. NYSDOT will obtain the permit prior to commencement of project activities and will adhere to any conditions or requirements. Further coordination will be required with the NYSDEC during the final design to determine the nature and extent of potential surface quality impacts posed by the project alternatives during and after construction. Public Notification requirements will apply.
2 4.4.1.2 State Tidal Wetlands -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Type, location, and extent of existing wetlands
• Result of review of GIS data maps, etc.
• Wetland classification, dominant plant species, cover types, functions
• Certification of wetland evaluators
• Effects assessment
[Use if NO State tidal wetlands are affected by the project]
A review of the NYSDEC GIS wetland data files indicates that there are no NYSDEC jurisdictional tidal wetlands or regulated adjacent areas within or near the project limits, and ECL Article 25 does not apply.
OR
[Use if State tidal wetlands are affected by the project]
A review of the NYSDEC GIS wetland data files indicates that there are NYSDEC jurisdictional tidal wetlands, or regulated adjacent areas, within or near the project limits. Based upon a review of the preliminary plans, the impacts to the adjacent area are --- acres and impacts to the wetland are --- acres.
OR
[Use if a State ECL Article 25 Tidal Wetland Permit is needed]
The project may require a NYSDEC Article 25 Tidal Wetlands Permit for proposed work in the state-regulated tidal wetland or regulated adjacent area (100ft). The permit will be obtained from NYSDEC once the location and extent of the impacts are ascertained.
3 4.4.1.3 Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
1) Type, location, extent, of existing wetlands
2) Delaware River Basin jurisdictional area
3) Review of existing data (DEC maps and data files)
4) Summary of Wetland Delineation Report
5) Wetland boundary delineation from field review
6) Exhibits - wetland boundary map(s)
7) Effects (impacts) assessment
8) Effects on stability and quality of the wetland
9) Importance of impacted wetland
10) Severity and significance of impact(s)
11) Primary function of the wetland(s)
12) Relative importance of the functions to total area wetland resource
13) Uniqueness, etc. that contribute to the wetland's importance]
[Use if NO Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands are impacted]
The project site has been reviewed for wetlands in accordance with the criteria defined in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. It has been determined the project will not impact areas that meet these criteria.
OR
[Use for Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands impacts with USACOE NWP]
Federal jurisdictional wetlands exist within the project limits as shown in the wetland delineation report in Appendix B. It is anticipated that the proposed project will require impacts to wetlands as noted in Exhibit 4.4.1.3 below. There is no alternative to construction in wetlands since avoidance is not practicable. However, all practicable measures to minimize impacts to wetlands will be utilized. [If necessary, add discussion of minimization efforts here, such as steepening of side slopes] Mitigation for these impacts is required and is discussed in Section 4.4.1.5. It is expected that this work will be authorized under Nationwide Permit(s) # ---. Work will not commence until the permit is acquired, and work will adhere to all permit conditions. [Discuss any special restrictions or requirements. If necessary, add discussion of relative importance of wetland(s) and whether impacts will affect the identified functional values in Exhibit 4.4.1.3]
[Add if the project complies with Section 401 Blanket NYSDEC Water Quality Certification]
A Blanket Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) applies to this project, since the work required will meet the requirements of Nationwide Permit # --- and it will comply with the NYSDEC General WQC Conditions.
[Add if the project requires an Individual NYSDEC Water Quality Certification]
An Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) is required for this project, since the work does not comply with the NYSDEC WQC General Conditions (specifically WQC General Condition #3 – Discharges and Disturbances).
[Add if the project is within the Delaware River Basin]
• See the Delaware River Basin Commission's web site, , for a map of the Delaware River Basin jurisdictional area
The proposed project is located within the Delaware River Basin Commission’s jurisdictional area, and any impacts due to this project must comply with these regulations.
OR
[Use if a USACOE Individual Section 404/Section 10 Permit is needed]
Federal jurisdictional wetlands exist within the project limits as shown in the wetland delineation report in Appendix B. It is anticipated that the proposed project will require impacts to wetlands as noted in Exhibit 4.4.1.3 below. Based on these impacts, an Individual Section 404/Section 10 Permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers will be required. There is no alternative to construction in wetlands since avoidance is not practicable. However, all practicable measures to minimize impact to wetlands will be utilized. [Add discussion of minimization efforts here, such as steepening of side slopes, use of construction fencing, etc.] Refer to Section 4.4.1.5 for information on required mitigation for impacts. Work will not commence until the permit is acquired, and work will adhere to all permit conditions.[Discuss any special restrictions or requirements] Due to the need for the Individual Permit, public notification of the wetland impacts is required and will be included in the public hearing notice. [Discuss relative importance of wetland and whether impacts will affect the identified functional values in Exhibit 4.4.1.3]
[Add for NYSDEC Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification]
The proposed activities will require an Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification, pursuant to 15 NYCRR 608, Protection of Waters. NYSDOT will obtain the permit prior to commencement of project activities, and will adhere to all conditions. Further coordination will be required with NYSDEC during the final design to determine the nature and extent of potential surface quality impacts posed by the project alternatives during and after construction.
|Exhibit 4.4.1.3 |
|Wetland Impacts |
|Wetland |Identified |Total Size |Impacts (acre) |
| |Functional Values |(acre) | |
|ID |Type | | |Alt. 1 |Alt. 2 | | |
|2 |Shrub/ |Highway & Roadside drainage/filtering|> 0.280 |0.15 |0.21 |0.15 |0.27 |
| |Scrub |Storm water drainage/storage | | | | | |
|Total Impacts |0.15 |0.29 |0.15 |0.43 |
4 4.4.1.4 Executive Order 11990 -
FHWA guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A
If the preferred alternative is located in wetlands, to the fullest extent possible, the FEIS needs to contain the finding required by Executive Order (EO) 11990 that there are no practicable alternatives to construction in the wetlands. Where the finding is included, approval of the FEIS will document compliance with EO 11990 requirements (23 CFR 771.125(a)(1)). The finding should be included in a separate subsection entitled “Only Practicable Alternative Finding” and should be supported by the following information:
(a) A reference to Executive Order 11990;
(b) An explanation why there are no practicable alternatives to the proposed action;
(c) An explanation why the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetlands, and;
(d) A concluding statement that “Based upon the above considerations, it is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands, and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.”
For EO 11990 to be satisfied, include the following: (1) A brief narrative describing the wetlands location, classifications, wetland area, cover types, and the area of proposed wetland impact; (2) A plan showing the wetland location, boundaries, areas to be affected, etc.; (3) Discussion of the type and size of the impacts on the wetlands; (4) A statement that there are no practicable alternative to construction in wetlands (and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetlands); (5) A brief discussion of all practicable measures to minimize harm.
[Use if the project does NOT involve any federal-aid funding]
Federal funding will not be used in the design or construction of this project. The requirements of Executive Order 11990 do not apply to this project.
OR
[Use if no wetlands are within the project’s area of potential effect]
Based on a site visit, there are no wetlands located within the project’s area of potential effect. Executive Order 11990 does not apply to this project.
OR
[Use if there are wetlands within the project’s area of potential effect, but they will not be affected]
A site visit has determined that there are wetlands within the project area. However, the proposed project activities will not affect them. Executive Order (EO) 11990 does not apply.
OR
[Use if the project has wetland impacts and Programmatic EO 11990 is applicable]
A programmatic Executive Order 11990 applies to this project, based on its classification as a Categorical Exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117 and its qualification for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404/Section 10 Nationwide Permit(s). Minor impacts to federal jurisdictional wetlands are proposed however there is no practicable alternative to construction in the wetland, and all practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetland will be incorporated. The project satisfies the requirements of EO 11990. No further approval from FHWA is required.
OR
• Note that projects using a Nationwide Permit #23 are excluded from applicability for a Programmatic Wetland Finding, and an Individual Wetland Finding will be required, unless FHWA determines that a Programmatic Finding will be allowed.
[Use if an Individual EO 11990 Wetland Finding is needed – Draft DAD statement]
An Executive Order 11990 Wetland Finding will need to be approved by Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) stating and supporting that (1) there are no practicable alternatives to construction in the wetland(s), and (2) the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetland(s) which may result from such use.
• Note that Final DAD must include the Individual Wetland Finding Statement complying with FHWA guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A noted above.
• Note that NEPA Class III projects require an Individual EO 11990 Finding.
5 4.4.1.5 Mitigation Summary -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
• Conceptual wetland mitigation analysis and site plans
• Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
• Mitigation goals and objectives
• Creation of new wetlands
• Activities to be performed in final design phases
Generally, projects which impact 1/10 of an acre or more of wetlands will require compensatory creation wetlands or other USACOE approved mitigation - banking site, purchase, etc.
[Use if compensatory mitigation is proposed]
Compensatory wetland mitigation also may be required to minimize impacts to the State freshwater, State tidal, APA, Federal wetlands. Discuss specific mitigation measures, if known: i.e., restoration, creation, and/or enhancement OR if unknown, indicate that mitigation will be determined in the final design phase, OR compensatory mitigation may be required as determined by the USACOE. Discuss how mitigation will replace identified functional values.
OR
[Use for all cases]
All appropriate measures will be taken to avoid and minimize any impacts.
OR
[Use if no wetland is affected]
No wetland mitigation/monitoring plan is required for this project, since no wetlands are impacted.
OR
[Use if NO wetland mitigation and monitoring is needed because of size threshold]
No wetland mitigation/monitoring plan is required for this project, since impacts to wetlands are 1/10 of an acre or less, and a Nationwide Permit applies to the proposed activities.
OR
[Use if wetland mitigation and monitoring is needed]
Wetland mitigation will be required for this project due to the amount of wetland impacts, which is --- acres. The impacted wetlands consist of --- acres of forested wetlands, --- acres of shrub-scrub wetlands, and --- acres of emergent wetlands. Coordination with the ACOE indicates that --- acres of compensatory wetland creation will be required.
There are several sites adjacent to the existing wetlands which would be suitable candidates for wetland creation. These sites generally were fills into wetland areas occurring from the late 19th century until the 1970s. Part or all of these properties are also slated for acquisition for highway widening or reconstruction purposes. Discuss how mitigation will replace identified functional values.
A wetland monitoring plan will be required for the proposed wetland creation areas. Add other mitigation measures, if appropriate. Coordination with the ACOE will determine the frequency of the reports and the information required.
2 4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses
This section shall contain the following subsections:
• Surface Waters
• Surface Water Classification and Standards
• Stream Bed and Bank Protection
• Airport and Airway Improvement
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• ECL Article 17, Title 3 - Aquatic Pesticides
• ECL Article 15, Title 5 - Protection of Bed and Banks of Streams
• ECL Article 17, Title 7 – Point Source Discharges
• NYCRR 608 - NYSDEC Section 401 Water Quality Certification
• NYSDOT/NYSDEC Memorandum of Understanding on Surface Water
• Section 303(d) - State listed polluted waterbodies
• Federal Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982
• Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Watershed
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permits, needs, consultation, etc.)
• NYSDEC – review/approve Joint Application for Permit
• NYSDEC – ECL Article 15, Title 5 - Protection of Waters Permit
• NYSDEC – ECL Article 17, Title 3 - Aquatic Pesticides Control Permit
• NYSDEC – Section 401 - Blanket WQC
• NYSDEC – Section 401 - Project Specific WQC
• USACOE – Section 401 WQC concurrence with NYSDEC recommendation
• USACOE – US Waters and Section 404 Permit
• USACOE – US Waters and Section 10 Permit
• FAA – Airport involvement and consultation
Cross-reference:
1.4 How will the Alternative(s) Affect the Environment
4.4.1 Wetland permits
4.4.4 Navigable Waters/Section 10 Permit
4.4.8 Stormwater Management
4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources
4.6 Construction Effects
4.7 Indirect (Secondary) Effects
4.8 Cumulative Effects
4.10 Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided or Adequately Mitigated
1 4.4.2.1 Surface Waters -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Existing waterbodies, watercourses, drainage basins
• Regulated waterbodies and watercourses
• Office of General Services Lands and Navigable Waters
• Permit requirements
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Impacts of snow and ice control materials
Include a general statement about the surface waters present in the project’s area of potential effect. Briefly mention streams, rivers, etc., where they are located and where they flow to.
FHWA guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A
The draft EIS should include summaries of analyses and consultations with the State and/or local agency responsible for water quality. Coordination with the EPA under the Federal Clean Water Act may also provide assistance in this area. The discussion should include sufficient information to describe the ambient conditions of streams and water bodies which are likely to be impacted, and identify the potential impacts of each alternative and proposed mitigation measures. Under normal circumstances, existing data may be used to describe ambient conditions. The inclusion of water quality data spanning several years is encouraged to reflect trends.
For each alternative under detailed study, the draft EIS should contain exhibits and discussions identifying the location and extent of water body modifications (e.g., impoundment, relocation, channel deepening, filling, etc.). The use of the stream or body of water for recreation, water supply, or other purposes should be identified. Impacts to fish and wildlife resulting from the loss, degradation, or modification of aquatic or terrestrial habitat should also be discussed. The results of coordination with appropriate Federal, State and local agencies should be documented in the draft EIS. For example, coordination with FWS under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958.
[Use if no permits are anticipated]
The project activities do not involve excavation in or the discharge of dredged or fill material into, Waters of the U.S. No permits under this Section are anticipated.
Statements for ACOE permits:
[Use if a USACOE Section 404 Nationwide #3 or #33 Permit is anticipated]
The project activities will require temporary fills in Waters of the U.S. for cofferdams and dewatering of the work site. It is anticipated that this work can be authorized under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3 - Maintenance Activities in All Waters of the U.S. and Nationwide Permit #33 - Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering. Nationwide Permit #33 requires the Department to provide a pre-construction notification to the USACOE and to receive an authorization prior to undertaking the proposed activities. The permits will be obtained once the location and the extent of the impacts are ascertained. Work will not commence until the permit(s) are acquired and will adhere to any conditions set forth by the permit requirements.
OR
[Use if a USACOE Section 404 Nationwide #23 Permit is anticipated]
The Department, in concurrence with the FHWA, has determined this project will be progressed under US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Nationwide Permit #23 (Approved Categorical Exclusion). The ACOE agrees with the classification of the project as a Categorical Exclusion subject to review of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) during final design. See Appendix --- for correspondence.
OR
[Use if a USACOE Section 404 Nationwide Permit is anticipated]
It is anticipated that the proposed project activities will require impacts to Waters of the U.S. It is expected that this work will be authorized under Nationwide Permit #---. The permit(s) will be obtained once the location and the extent of the impacts are ascertained. Mitigation to minimize impacts may be required. Work will not commence until the permit is acquired, and will adhere to any conditions set forth by the permit requirements. Discuss permit and any special restrictions or requirements.
OR
[Use if a USACOE Section 404 Individual Permit is anticipated]
It is anticipated that the proposed project activities will require impacts to Waters of the U.S. It is expected that this work will be authorized under an Individual Permit. The permit will be obtained once the location and the extent of the impacts are ascertained. Mitigation to minimize impacts may be required. Work will not commence until the permit is acquired, and will adhere to any conditions set forth by the permit requirements. Discuss permit and any special restrictions or requirements.
NYSDEC/USACOE Section 401 Water Quality Certification and USACOE Section 10 Permit are not anticipated:
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification and USACOE Section 10 Permit are not required for the proposed project, since it does not involve work within the Waters of the U. S.
NYSDEC/USACOE Blanket Section 401 Water Quality Certification is anticipated:
A Blanket Section 401 Water Quality Certification applies to this project since the work required will meet the requirements of a (Section 404) (Section 10) Nationwide Permit #----.
Use if a NYSDEC/USACOE Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification is anticipated:
An Individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required for this project since an Individual (Section 404) or (Section 10) Permit is required. Public Notification requirements will apply.
2 4.4.2.2 Surface Water Classification and Standards -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• NYSDOT/NYSDEC Memorandum of Understanding
• Section 303(d) listed waterbodies
• Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Watershed
• Effects (impacts) assessment
[Use if no surface waters are present within the project’s area of potential effect]
Based upon a review of the NYSDEC GIS data maps for regulated streams, there are no surface waterways within the proposed project limits.
OR
[Use if regulated surface waters are identified within the project’s area of potential effect]
Based upon a review of the NYSDEC GIS data maps for regulated streams, there are two regulated streams, --- Creek and --- Creek, as well as one regulated water body, --- Pond, within the project limits.
The two regulated streams are rated Class C and are not 303(d) segments[Refer to the “FINAL New York State 2006 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters,” located on the NYSDEC web site: ]. The trout pond is rated a class B (t) water body and is not a 303(d) water body.
[Insert following paragraphs, as applicable]
The best usages for Class/Standard “A-S” waters are: source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes, primary and secondary contact recreation, and fishing. The water quality is suitable for fish propagation and survival.
The best usages for Class/Standard “A” waters are: source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes; primary and secondary contact recreation; and fishing. The water quality is suitable for fish propagation and survival.
The best usages for Class/Standard “B” waters are for primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing. The water quality is suitable for fish propagation and survival.
The best usage for Class/Standard “C” waters is fishing. Water quality is suitable for fish propagation and survival. The water quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for these purposes.
The best usage for Class/Standard “C(t)” waters is fishing. The water quality is suitable for trout propagation and survival. Water quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may list the use for these purposes.
The best usage for Class/Standard “C(ts)” waters is fishing. The water quality is suitable for trout propagation, survival and spawning. Water quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for these purposes.
The best usage for Class/Standard “D” waters is fishing. Due to such natural conditions as intermittency of flow, water conditions not conducive to propagation of game fishery, or stream bed conditions, the waters will not support fish propagation. The water quality shall be suitable for fish survival, primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use of these purposes.
AND
• The New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) should be consulted to determine any restrictions to construction activities due to fish spawning seasons or other water quality concerns. Discuss any restrictions due to trout waters, etc. Coordination should continue up to Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) submittal. Although NYSDOT is exempt from Article 15 and no permit is required, it is necessary to coordinate with NYSDEC with respect to the above-mentioned memorandum.
The New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) will be [has been] consulted to determine any restrictions to construction activities due to fish spawning seasons or other water quality concerns. Their response is located in Appendix B. The restrictions identified are. . .
The project is not located within or adjacent to a TMDL Watershed. OR The project is located within or adjacent to a TMDL Watershed (--- Watershed). The project will be evaluated for water quality treatment practices to reduce pollutant and phosphorous loadings.
3 4.4.2.3 Stream Bed and Bank Protection -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Permit requirements
[Use if there are no protected streams, or regulated stream areas present]
Based upon a review of the NYSDEC GIS database, and as verified by a site visit, there are no protected streams, nor 50-foot regulated stream banks (on either side of a regulated stream) in the project area.
OR
[Use if there are protected streams within the project’s area of potential effect]
Based upon a review of the NYSDEC GIS database, and as verified by a site visit, there are protected streams in the proposed project area. These include list streams or rivers and where/what they flow into.
NYSDOT GIS information indicates that identify streams/rivers are designated as Class ---, Standard --- Surface Waters as defined by Title 6, Part 701 of the Water Quality Regulations. Coordination with NYSDEC will continue pursuant to 1997 “DEC/DOT MOU Regarding ECL Articles 15 and 24”.
OR
[Use for projects with a stream within the project’s area of potential effect, that DO NOT need a DEC Article 15 Protection of Waters permit]
Based on the classification of the insert name of waterbody located within the project area, a NYSDEC Protection of Waters permit is not required for this project. Although a permit is not required, this project should not diminish the water quality standards of the – waterbody. During construction, precautions should be taken to prevent contamination of the waterbody by silt, sediment, fuels, solvents, lubricants, or any other pollutants. Promptly after construction, care will be taken to stabilize all disturbed areas. Vegetated pipe outlet locations will be utilized, as well as plantings in old roadbed locations to allow water to percolate prior to entering the waterbody.
4 4.4.2.4 Airport and Airway Improvement -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Airplane deicing and consequent runoff
5 4.4.2.5 Mitigation Summary -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
Include a general statement here about any efforts to mitigate impacts for the different alternatives.
3 4.4.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers
This section shall contain the following subsections:
• State Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers
• National Wild and Scenic Rivers
• Section 4(f) Involvement
• Mitigation Summary
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• ECL Article 27 - State Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers
• 6 NYCRR Part 666: Regulation For Administration and Management Of The Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System In New York State Excepting Private Land In The Adirondack Park
• APA Section 814 Order
• National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc.)
• NYSDEC - ECL Article 15, Title 27 WSR River Permit
• APA - Section 814 consultation
• NPS - consultation
• USFWS - consultation
• FHWA - approval of 4(f)
Cross-reference:
1.4 How will the Alternative(s) affect the Environment?
4.4.1 Wetlands
4.4.8 Stormwater Management
4.4.9 General Ecology/Wildlife or Waterfowl Refuges
4.6 Construction Effects
4.7 Indirect (Secondary) Effects
4.8 Cumulative Effects
FHWA guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A
If the proposed action could have foreseeable adverse effects on a river on the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, or a river under study for designation to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the draft EIS should identify early coordination undertaken with the agency responsible for managing the listed or study river (i.e., National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), or Forest Service (FS)). For each alternative under consideration, the EIS should identify the potential adverse effects on the natural, cultural, and recreational values of the listed or study river. Adverse effects include alteration of the free-flowing nature of the river, alteration of the setting or deterioration of water quality. If it is determined that any of the alternatives could foreclose options to designate a study river under the Act, or adversely affect those qualities of a listed river for which it was designated, to the fullest extent possible, the draft EIS needs to reflect consultation with the managing agency on avoiding or mitigating the impacts (23 CFR 771.123(c)). The final EIS should identify measures that will be included in the preferred alternative to avoid or mitigate such impacts.
Publicly owned waters of designated wild and scenic rivers are protected by Section 4(f). Additionally, public lands adjacent to a Wild and Scenic River may be subject to Section 4(f) protection. An examination of any adopted or proposed management plan for a listed river should be helpful in making the determination on applicability of Section 4(f). For each alternative that takes such land, coordination with the agency responsible for managing the river (either NPS, FWS, BLM, or FS) will provide information on the management plan, specific affected land uses, and any necessary Section 4(f) coordination.
1 4.4.3.1 State Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers -
Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Existing State WSRRs
• Inventory and classification
• Permit requirements
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Water quality
Refer to NYSDEC’s web site for a listing of WSRRs in New York State:
[Use if no NYSDEC designated WSRR’s are within/adjacent to project area of potential effect]
There are no NYSDEC Designated, Study or Inventory State Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers within or adjacent to the proposed project site. No further review is required.
OR
[Use if a NYSDEC designated WSRR is within/adjacent to project area of potential effect, but not affected]
The --- River, within the project area, is an Inventory State Scenic and Recreational River on the State Wild, Scenic and Recreational River System. The project has been reviewed for adverse impacts and the project activities will not adversely affect the free-flowing characteristics of the river or alter or preclude the river’s status. Document findings and briefly discuss efforts to avoid or minimize impacts if applicable. No further review is required.
OR
Use if a NYSDEC designated WSRR’s is within/adjacent to project area of potential effect, and has only allowed activities]
• Refer to the overview of 6 NYCRR Part 666.13.A (Table of Use Guidelines), for allowed activities, on NYSDEC’s web site:
The proposed project contains an Inventory OR Study River, --- River, as designated by NYSDEC, within the project area. The project’s activities involve maintenance, restoration, rehabilitation, or replacement of an existing structure on the same scale in the same location and is allowed under ECL Article 15, Title 27 and 6 NYCRR Part 666.13.A.1. No further investigation is required.
OR
[Use if a NYSDEC Study/Inventory WSRR is within/adjacent to project area of potential effect, and has only allowed activities]
According to the NYSDEC’s Wild, Scenic and Recreational River System list, the --- River is designated as a Study/Inventory River at this location. Discuss the effects of the project on the river.
• Depending on the scope and location of the project, a NYSDEC permit may be required. If required, the permit should be obtained prior to PS&E submission.
2 4.4.3.2 National Wild and Scenic Rivers -
Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Existing National WSRs in New York
• Compatibility with State WSRR requirements
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• 1/2 mile distance criteria
• Inventory and classification
At this time, the Upper Delaware River is the only NY designated river in the federal National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. See the National Park Services website for the boundaries (included in the management plan) at:
[Use for projects with no National WSR within the project’s area of potential effect]
The project does not involve a National Wild and Scenic River as shown by the Nationwide Rivers Inventory List of National Wild and Scenic Rivers. No further review is required.
OR
[Use for projects with a National WSR within the project’s area of potential effect, but no adverse effect identified]
The Delaware River is located within the project area, and is a designated river on the National, Wild and Scenic River System. The proposed project activities will not adversely affect the river’s free-flowing character and/or involves normal maintenance of existing structures. The project will not alter or preclude the river’s designation as per the Federal Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act. Consultation with the National Park Service is not required. If a letter informing NPS of NYSDOT’s activities has been sent, mention it here and included it in Appendix ---.
OR
[Use for projects with a National WSR within the project area and the potential for adverse effect]
The Delaware River is located within the project area and is a designated river on the National Wild and Scenic River System. The project impacts have the potential to adversely affect the river’s free-flowing character or its resource values. Discuss how the river will be affected, and if the river’s status may be altered. Refer to coordination with The National Park Service (NPS) and if proposed project activities will require avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation for impacts to the river.
3 4.4.3.3 Section 4(f) Involvement -
Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation
• Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
• No feasible and prudent alternative to use of 4(f) land……
• FHWA approval of 4(f)
For 4(f) to apply, the officials having jurisdiction over the site must determine that the entire site is significant
[Use if no Federal-aid is involved]
The proposed project is 100% State funded, therefore Section 4(f) does not apply.
OR
[Use if Federal-aid is involved and the project is not in or near a wildlife or waterfowl refuge]
The proposed project does not involve work in or adjacent to a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. No further consideration is required.
OR
[Use if Federal-aid is involved and the project is in or near a wildlife or waterfowl refuge, but doesn’t affect it]
The proposed project is located within OR adjacent to a wildlife and waterfowl refuge (name of refuge). However, the project will not adversely affect the wildlife and waterfowl refuge and does not involve “use” of such land. This project qualifies as a Programmatic 4(f) for Federally-Aided Highway Projects with Minor Involvements with Public Parks, Recreation Lands, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges. A Programmatic 4(f) evaluation has been prepared and is included in Appendix ---, along with related correspondence.
OR
Use if Federal-aid is involved and project does affect a wildlife or waterfowl refuge
The proposed project involves a change of use or easement in a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. A separate 4(f) document has been prepared to justify the “use” of this land. It includes the findings that (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the property, and (2) the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting in such use. The 4(f) document is included in Appendix ---, along with related correspondence.
4 4.4.3.4 Mitigation Summary -
Discuss any proposed mitigation efforts with regard to each alternative. State what measures will be taken to minimize, eliminate or reduce any alteration of the free-flowing nature of the river, alteration of the setting or potential deterioration of water quality. Discuss how mitigation efforts will rectify impacts.
4 4.4.4 Navigable Waters
This section shall contain the following subsections:
• State Regulated Waters
• Office of General Services Lands and Navigable Waters
• Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 9
• Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• 33 U.S.C. 401
• Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 9
• Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10
• ECL Article 15, Title 5 - Excavation & Fill in Navigable Waters
• ECL Article 15, Title 5 - Stream Disturbance
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc.)
• US Coast Guard – Section 9 Permit, Rivers and Harbors Act
• USACOE – Section 10 Permit, Rivers and Harbors Act
• NYSDEC – Permit for Excavation and Fill in Navigable Waters
Cross-reference:
• 4.6 Construction Effects
1 4.4.4.1 State Regulated Waters -
State navigable waters include lakes, rivers and other waterways and water bodies on which water vessels with a capacity of one or more persons are operated or can be operated. A Protection of Waters Permit is required for:
1) Excavating or placing fill in navigable waters of the state, below the mean high water level, including adjacent and contiguous marshes and wetlands. Some examples of activities requiring a permit are:
2) Installation of support piers (larger than 12" in diameter) and cribs for docks or boathouses
3) Placement of fill for access, construction or structure installation (i.e., bridges, culverts, pipeline crossings)
4) Excavations associated with construction activities and dredging for navigation channel establishment or maintenance;
5) Sand or gravel mining
An exemption from the requirement to obtain a Protection of Waters Permit for Excavation or Placement of Fill in Navigable Waters is for Waters that are surrounded by land held in single private ownership at every point in their total area.
The NYS Canal Corporation manages lands under and along the state's canals and canalized rivers (Erie, Champlain, Oswego and Cayuga and Seneca canals) and at 12 canal reservoirs (Canachaagala Lake, Chub Pond, Delta Reservoir, Forestport Pond, Hinckley Reservoir, Kayuta Lake, Leland Pond, North Lake, Sand Lake, South Lake, Twin Ponds, Woodhull Lake). Activities undertaken in and along these waterways and water bodies may require approval from the Canal Corporation.
[Use for projects that do NOT impact state regulated, navigable waters]
There are no state regulated navigable waters located within the project’s area of potential effect that will be impacted by the work.
OR
[Use for projects that impact state regulated navigable waters]
• The NYSDEC Protection of Waters Permit is included on the USACOE Joint Application for Permit, located on the DEC web site:
The --- River and ---Canal, state regulated navigable waters, are located within the project area. The two waterways are used for both recreational and commercial traffic, with approximately 2,500 boats per year using each of them. The project work will require placement of fill in these waters. Navigability of the waters will not be affected. A NYSDEC Protection of Waters Permit for Excavation or Placement of Fill in Navigable Waters will be required, pursuant to ECL Article 15, Title 5. The permit will be obtained once the location and extent of the impacts are ascertained.
2 4.4.4.2 Office of General Services Lands and Navigable Waters -
In most cases, the State of New York owns the land beneath coastal waters, and waters of large lakes and rivers. The New York State Office of General Services manages most underwater holdings. It is NYSDOT’s responsibility to determine when a project involves any New York State-owned underwater lands and to obtain necessary approvals or easements for their use from OGS. During review of your application, DEC will notify OGS of your project if state-owned underwater lands appear to be involved.
[Use for projects the do NOT impact OGS Lands and Navigable waters]
There are no OGS underwater holdings located within the project’s area of potential effect that will be impacted by the work.
OR
[Use for projects impacting OGS Lands and Navigable waters]
--- Lake is located within the project area and the work will require the use of underwater OGS holdings in the lake. NYSOGS has been contacted and arrangements for an easement will be finalized once the location and extent of the impacts are ascertained.
3 4.4.4.3 Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 9 -
To determine if a Section 9 permit is required, fill out the U.S. Coast Guard Jurisdiction Checklist, and include the list in the Appendices.
[Use for projects that do NOT require a Section 9 Permit]
Since the project does not involve the construction or modification of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over any navigable water of the United States, Section 9 is not applicable.
OR
[Use for projects that require a Section 9 Permit]
The project will involve the modification of a bridge over a navigable water of the United States, the --- River. The river is used primarily for recreational traffic, with approximately --- boats using it per year. The modification of the bridge will not reduce the existing vertical clearance or affect the navigability of the river. The US Coast Guard has been consulted and a USCG Section 9 Permit Application Package will be assembled and submitted them for approval.
4 4.4.4.4 Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10 -
The jurisdiction of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 includes all navigable waters of the United States which are defined (33 CFR Part 329) as, "those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible to use to transport interstate or foreign commerce." This jurisdiction extends seaward to include all ocean waters within a zone three nautical miles from the coast line. Activities requiring Section 10 permits include structures (e.g., piers, wharfs, breakwaters, bulkheads, jetties, weirs, transmission lines) and work such as dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, filling, or other modifications to the navigable waters of the United States
[Use for projects that do NOT require a Section 10 Permit]
Since the project does not involve the creation of any obstruction to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States, or in any manner alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of any navigable water of the United States, Section 10 is not applicable.
OR
[Use for projects that require a Section 10 Permit]
The project will involve the reconstruction of a bridge over a navigable water of the United States, the --- River. The construction will necessitate dredging and the discharge of fill into the river, and will require a USACOE Section 10 Permit. A permit application will be submitted to the USACOE once the extent of the impacts is fully ascertained, and the permit will be obtained prior to the commencement of work.
5 4.4.5 Floodplains
This section shall contain the following subsections:
• State Flood Insurance Compliance Program
• Federal Floodplain Management
• Executive Order 11988
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• 6 NYCRR 502 - Floodplain Management for State Projects
• National Flood Insurance Act
• National Flood Insurance Program
• 23 CFR 650 Part A - Location Hydraulic Studies
• Executive Order 11988
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc.).
• NYSDEC - consultation
• FEMA – consultation
Cross-reference:
• Discussion of Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts
• Appendices - Floodplain Management Report
• Appendices - Stakeholder and Public Input
• 4.6 Construction Effects
• 4.7 Indirect (Secondary) Effects
• 4.8 Cumulative Effects
FHWA guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) maps or, if NFIP maps are not available, information developed by the highway agency, should be used to determine whether an alternative will encroach on the base (100-year) floodplain. The location hydraulic studies required by 23 CFR 650, Subpart A, must include a discussion of the following items, commensurate with the level of risk or environmental impact, for each alternative which encroaches on base floodplains
(a) The flooding risks;
(b) The impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values;
(c) The support of probable incompatible floodplain development (i.e., any development that is not consistent with a community's floodplain development plan);
(d) The measures to minimize floodplain impacts; and
(e) The measures to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial floodplain values.
The draft EIS should briefly summarize the results of the location hydraulic studies. The summary should identify the number of encroachments and any support of incompatible floodplain developments and their potential impacts. Where an encroachment or support of incompatible floodplain development results in substantial impacts, the draft EIS should provide more detailed information on the location, impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. In addition, if any alternative (l) results in a floodplain encroachment or supports incompatible floodplain development having significant impacts, or (2) requires a commitment to a particular structure size or type, the draft EIS needs to include an evaluation and discussion of practicable alternatives to the structure or to the significant encroachment. The draft EIS should include exhibits which display the alternatives, the base floodplains and, where applicable, the regulatory floodways.
If the preferred alternative includes a floodplain encroachment having significant impacts, the final EIS must include a finding that it is the only practicable alternative as required by 23 CFR 650, Subpart A. The finding should refer to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650, Subpart A. It should be included in a separate subsection entitled "Only Practicable Alternative Finding" and must be supported by the following information.
(a) The reasons why the proposed action must be located in the floodplain;
(b) The alternatives considered and why they were not practicable; and
(c) A statement indicating whether the action conforms to applicable State or local floodplain protection standards.
For each alternative encroaching on a designated or proposed regulatory floodway, the draft EIS should provide a preliminary indication of whether the encroachment would be consistent with or require a revision to the regulatory floodway. Engineering and environmental analyses should be undertaken, commensurate with the level of encroachment, to permit the consistency evaluation and identify impacts. Coordination with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and appropriate State and local government agencies should be undertaken for each floodway encroachment. If the preferred alternative encroaches on a regulatory floodway, the final EIS should discuss the consistency of the action with the regulatory floodway. If a floodway revision is necessary, the EIS should include evidence from FEMA and local or State agency indicating that such revision would be acceptable.
1 4.4.5.1 State Flood Insurance Compliance Program -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• State floodplain management
• Floodplain variances (SEQR)
[Use for projects with no work within a floodplain]
As shown on the GIS data base for the 100 year floodplains, part of the Normans Kill watershed, which is located within the project corridor, is within regulated floodplains. However, no work is proposed within this floodplain.
OR
[Use for projects with work within a floodplain, but no significant effect]
The proposed project, in some locations, is within the 100 year floodplain of the Green River, as indicated by FEMA on the GIS data base. In accordance with the provisions of 6 NYCRR 502 - Flood Plain Management for State Projects, this action has considered and evaluated the practicality of alternatives to any floodplain encroachments. As a result of this evaluation, it is concluded that: (1) a significant encroachment does not exist, (2) there is no significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility which is needed for emergency vehicles, (3) there are no significant impacts on natural beneficial floodplain values.
A floodplain hydraulic analysis will be performed by the NYSDOT Regional Hydraulics Engineer during the advance detail plan phase.
OR
[Use for projects with work within a floodplain, but no significant effect and wetland creation areas]
The proposed project, in some locations, is within the 100 year floodplain of the Mud Dog Creek, as indicated by FEMA on the GIS data base. In accordance with the provisions of 6 NYCRR 502 - Flood Plain Management for State Projects, this action has considered and evaluated the practicality of alternatives to any floodplain encroachments. The results of this evaluation indicate that the amount of flood plain area will not change, since proposed wetland creation areas will convert previous floodplain encroachments. Additionally, this evaluation finds that, (1) a significant encroachment does not exist, (2) there is no significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility which is needed for emergency vehicles, (3) there are no significant impacts on natural beneficial floodplain values.
A floodplain hydraulic analysis will be performed by the NYSDOT Regional Hydraulics Engineer during the advance detail plan phase.
2 4.4.5.2 Executive Order 11988 -
Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Reasons why project must be located in floodplain
• Alternatives considered and why they were not practicable
• Action conforms to State/local floodplain protection standards
• Only practicable alternative finding
[Use for projects with no effects on floodplains]
The project will not impact any floodplains. EO 11988 does not apply.
OR
[Use for projects that adversely affect floodplains]
In order to comply with EO 11988, there will be an evaluation of potential effects of any actions taken within the floodplain, and alternatives to avoid any adverse effects shall be considered. If the project alternatives require the use of a floodplain, there will be an attempt to minimize potential impacts, and consistent with the regulations issued in accord with section 2(d) of this Order, the Department will prepare and circulate a notice containing an explanation of why the action is proposed to be located within the floodplain.
6 4.4.6 Coastal Resources
This section shall contain the following subsections:
• State Coastal Zone Management Program
• State Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
• Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Program
• Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• 19 NYCRR 600.5
• 19 NYCRR 600.4(c)
• 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(vi)
• Coastal Management Plan - Policy 7
• ECL Article 34 - NYSDEC Coastal Erosion Permit
• 6 NYCRR Part 505, Coastal Erosion Management Regulations
• 6 NYCRR 600.4(c) - Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
• Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act
• Coastal Zone Management Act
• Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
• Federal Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA)
• Federal Coastal Consistency Certification
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc.).
• NYSDOS - approval of Coastal Assessment Form
• NYSDEC - approval of Article 34 Coastal Erosion permit
• NYSDEC - review of coastal fish/wildlife habitat
• Local Officials - review for consistency with local waterfront programs
• EPA - review of projects within Federal Coastal Zone Management Areas
• USFWS - review of coastal fish/wildlife habitat
• FEMA - review of projects within Federal Coastal Barrier System
• NOAA - review of projects within Federal Coastal Zone Management Areas
• OCZM (Office of Coastal Zone Mgmt.) - review of projects within Federal Coastal Zone Management Areas
Cross-reference:
4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife/Habitat Areas
4.6 Construction Effects
4.7 Indirect (Secondary) Effects
4.8 Cumulative Effects
FHWA guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) establishes certain coastal areas to be protected by prohibiting the expenditure of Federal funds for new and expanded facilities within designated coastal barrier units. When a proposed project impacts a coastal barrier unit, the draft EIS should include a map showing the relationship of each alternative to the unit(s); identify direct and indirect impacts to the unit(s), quantifying and describing the impacts as appropriate; discuss the results of early coordination with FWS, identifying any issues raised and how they were addressed, and; identify any alternative which (if selected) would require an exception under the Act. Any issues identified or exceptions required for the preferred alternative should be resolved prior to its selection. This resolution should be documented in the final EIS.
Where the proposed action is within, or is likely to affect land or water uses within the area covered by, a State Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) approved by the Department of Commerce, the draft EIS should briefly describe the portion of the affected CZMP plan, identify the potential impacts, and include evidence of coordination with the State Coastal Zone Management agency or appropriate local agency. The final EIS should include the State Coastal Zone Management agency's determination on consistency with the State CZMP plan. (In some States, an agency will make a consistency determination only after the final EIS is approved, but will provide a preliminary indication before the final EIS that the project is "not inconsistent" or "appears to be consistent" with the plan. For direct Federal actions, the final EIS should include the lead agency's consistency determination and agreement by the State CZM agency.)
If the preferred alternative is inconsistent with the State's approved CZMP, it can be Federally funded only if the Secretary of Commerce makes a finding that the proposed action is consistent with the purpose or objectives of the CZM Act or is necessary in the interest of national security. To the fullest extent possible, such a finding needs to be included in the final EIS. If the finding is denied, the action is not eligible for Federal funding unless modified in such a manner to remove the inconsistency finding. The final EIS should document such results.
1 4.4.6.1 State Coastal Zone Management Program -
Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• State Coastal Zone Management Area
• Significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat
• Coastal zone consistency review
• NYSDOS 44 coastal zone policies
• State Coastal Assessment Form (CAF)
• Federal Coastal Assessment Form (FCAF)
• Federal Aid Notification letter (FAN)
• Coastal Consistency Certification
• Required statement - Consist with applicable NYSDOS policies…..
• NYSDOS review and approval
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
To determine if the project is within a State Coastal Zone Management area, refer to the NYS Coastal Atlas on the DOS Division of Coastal Services web site:
[Use for projects that are NOT within a State CZM area]
The proposed project is not located in a State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) area, according to the Coastal Zone Area Map from the NYS Department of State’s Coastal Zone Management Unit.
OR
[Use for projects that are within a State CZM area, using NO federal-aid funding or federal permits other than an ACOE Nationwide Permit]
The proposed project is located in a State Coastal Zone Management Area, identify area name. However, the project is a SEQR Type II and is 100% State funded, requires no Federal Permits (excluding Nationwide Permits) and is, therefore, exempt from the consistency requirements of the State Coastal Zone Management Program.
OR
[Use for projects that are within a State CZM area and classified as a SEQR Non-Type II action]
• A consistency determination stating that the project’s actions are consistent with applicable State coastal policies in 19 NYCRR Part 600.5 must be provided to the DOS, as per requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(5)(vi). If the project involves federal permits, actions, approvals, or funds, a Federal Consistency Assessment Form (FCAF) must be completed. If the project only involves a state action under a state agency, a Coastal Assessment Form (CAF) must be completed. Discuss coordination with the DOS. If the project involves federal funding, a copy of the application or notification for federal assistance (Federal Aid Notification- FAN) must be submitted to the DOS.
• To determine if the project is within a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program area, refer to the “List of Approved Coastal Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRPs),” on the NYS DOS Division of Coastal Services web site:
The proposed project is a SEQR Non-Type II action and within a State Coastal Zone Management area. The project limits are within 300 meters (1,000 feet) of the shores of Lake Erie. Lake Erie and its adjacent jurisdictional lands are governed by New York State’s Coastal Zone Management regulations, administered by the NYS Department of State (DOS). Additionally, the Town of Hamburg has an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). Coordination with the Town of Hamburg will be required, including a notification that the project will occur within the boundaries of its LWRP, and requesting the municipality’s coastal consistency determination. Additionally, a State Consistency Review will be required. This review includes completion of the State Coastal Assessment Form (CAF) and Federal Consistency Assessment Form (FCAF) and submission to NYSDOS.
OR
[Use for projects that are within a State CZM area, using NO federal-aid funding or needing federal permits other than a Nationwide]
This SEQR Type II OR SEQR Non-Type II project is located in a State Coastal Zone Management area, identify area name. However, the project is not federally funded, nor does it require any federal permits (other than a Nationwide Permit). A Federal Consistency Assessment does not need to be completed.
OR
[Use for projects that are within a State CZM area, using federal-aid funding, but NOT needing any federal permits other than a Nationwide]
This SEQR Type II OR SEQR Non-Type II project is located in a State Coastal Zone Management area, identify area name, and is federally funded, but does not require any federal permits (other than a Nationwide Permit). A Federal Aid Notification will be completed and sent to NYSDOS.
OR
[Use for projects within a State CZM area, using federal-aid and needing a federal permit other than a Nationwide]
This SEQR Type II OR SEQR Non-Type II project is located in a State Coastal Zone Management area (identify area name), is federally funded and requires a federal permit (other than a Nationwide Permit). A Federal Coastal Consistency Assessment Form will be completed and sent to NYSDOS.
OR
[Use for projects that are NOT within a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat]
• To determine if the project is within a SCFWH, refer to the SCFWH list and NYS Coastal Atlas on the DOS Division of Coastal Services web site:
The project is not located in a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, as defined by the NYSDOS Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization. No further action is required.
OR
[Use for projects that are within a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, but have no significant effects on the habitat]
• To determine if the project is within a SCFWH, refer to the SCFWH list and NYS Coastal Atlas on the DOS Division of Coastal Services web site:
• To determine if the project has a significant effect on a SCFWH, refer to the NYS Coastal Policies (policy 7) on the DOS Division of Coastal Services web site:
--- River is defined by the NYSDOS Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization as a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Policy 7 of New York’s Coastal Management Program provides guidance regarding the potential for impact to this habitat. The proposed project activities do not destroy or significantly impair the viability of this area as a habitat. The project is consistent with, and will be progressed pursuant to, Policy 7. No further action is required.
2 4.4.6.2 State Coastal Erosion Hazard Area -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
• Permit needs
NYSDEC has designated the following coastal areas that are to be protected and preserved:
• Lake Erie and the Niagara River
• Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River
• Atlantic Ocean and Long Island Sound
• Hudson River south of the federal dam in Troy
• East River
• Harlem River
• Kill van Kull and Arthur Kill
• All connecting water bodies, bays, harbors, shallows, and wetlands
[Use for projects that are NOT within a State Coastal Erosion Hazard Area]
The proposed project is not located in or near a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area.
OR
[Use for projects that are within a State Coastal Erosion Hazard Area]
The proposed project is located in or near a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, identify area. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 505, the Department has considered all reasonable alternatives, and has determined that work in this area is necessary. During the design phase, the Department will identify and pursue measures to minimize adverse effects on natural protective features and their functions and protective values, existing erosion protection structures and natural resources. A NYSDEC Coastal Erosion Control Permit will be required.
3 4.4.6.3 Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Program -
Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
• Local Coastal Consistency Determination
• Consistency with regulations
To determine if the project is within a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program area, refer to the “List of Approved Coastal Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRPs),” on the NYS DOS Division of Coastal Services web site:
[Use for projects that are NOT within a Local Waterfront Revitalization Area]
According to NYS DOS “List of Approved Coastal Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRPs),” dated March 2007, the proposed project is not located in a Local Waterfront Revitalization Area. No further action is required.
OR
[Use for projects that are within a Local Waterfront Revitalization Area]
According to NYS DOS “List of Approved Coastal Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRPs),” dated March 2007, the proposed project is located in a Local Waterfront Revitalization Area. Municipality name has an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). Coordination with the municipality name will be required, including a notification that the project will occur within the boundaries of its LWRP, and requesting the municipality’s coastal consistency determination.
OR
[Use for projects that are within a pending Local Waterfront Revitalization Area]
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of a pending Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) area, which is being developed by municipality name, but has not yet been approved. The municipality will be consulted throughout the design phase to ensure consistency with their proposed program.
OR
[Use for projects that are within an approved LWRP area and will have substantial effects]
19 NYCRR 600.4(c) states that …if the action will substantially hinder the achievement of any policy or purpose of the applicable approved local Waterfront Revitalization Program, the State agency shall instead certify that the following three requirements are satisfied:
(1) No reasonable alternatives exist which would permit the action to be taken in a manner which would not substantially hinder the achievement of such policy or purpose;
(2) The action taken will minimize all adverse effects on the local policy and purpose to the maximum extent practicable; and
(3) The action will result in an overriding regional or statewide public benefit.
The proposed project is located within the boundaries of an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) area, identify area name. The project will substantially hinder the achievement of one (or more) of the policies or purposes of the approved LWRP. Identify policies or purposes affected. Pursuant to 19 NYCRR 600.4(c), the Department has determined that there are no reasonable alternatives that would permit the action to be taken without hindering these LWRP purposes. During the design phase, the Department will identify and pursue any practicable ways to minimize adverse effects on the LWRP. While some impacts will be unavoidable, the action will result in an overriding regional OR statewide benefit.
4 4.4.6.4 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) -
Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Mapped CBRA/CBIA areas
• Prohibited activities in mapped areas
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
• Compliance with Act requirements
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), Public Law 97-348 (96 Stat. 1653; 16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), enacted October 18, 1982, designated various undeveloped coastal barrier islands, depicted by specific maps, for inclusion in the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Areas so designated were made ineligible for direct or indirect Federal financial assistance that might support development, including flood insurance, except for emergency life-saving activities. Exceptions for certain activities, such as fish and wildlife research, are provided, and National Wildlife Refuges and other, otherwise protected areas are excluded from the System.
The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) of 1990 reauthorized the Coastal Barrier Resources Act and expanded the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System by adding new units in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Great Lakes, and enlarging some previously designated units along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The CBIA also designated a new category of lands called “otherwise protected areas” (OPAs). OPAs are based on areas established under Federal, state, or local law, or held by a qualified organization, primarily for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource conservation purposes. Most of the land within OPAs is publicly held for conservation or recreational purposes; however, OPAs can contain private land held for conservation purposes, as well as private properties not held for conservation that are in holdings. The only Federal spending prohibition within OPAs is Federal flood insurance.
To determine if a project impacts a Coastal Barrier, refer to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resource System maps on the US Fish and Wildlife Service web site:
[Use for projects that are NOT within a CBRA or CBIA coastal jurisdiction area]
The proposed project is not located in, or near a coastal area under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) or the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA).
7 4.4.7 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs
This section may contain the following subsections:
• Aquifers
• Drinking Water Supply Wells (Public and Private) and Reservoirs
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• 6 NYCRR 602 - NYSDEC Long Island Well Permit
• NYSDEP regulations relative to watersheds
• NYSDOT/NYCDEP Memorandum of Understanding
• ECL Article 17, Title 3
• 6 NYCRR Part 703 Standards
• Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act
• 49 CFR 149
• Executive Order 12372
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc.)
• NYSDOH health standards
• Local Officials review of special groundwater areas
• Local Officials consultation involving wells, wellheads, reservoirs, etc.
• NYCDEP review of NYC reservoirs, watersheds
• EPA 1424(e) review and approval
Cross-reference:
• 4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses/Airport & Airway Improvement
• 4.4.8 Stormwater Management
• 4.6 Construction Effects
• 4.7 Indirect (Secondary) Effects
• 4.8 Cumulative Effects
• Appendices - Stakeholders and Public Input
FHWA guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A
Where an area designated as principal or sole-source aquifer under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act may be impacted by a proposed project, early coordination with EPA will assist in identifying potential impacts. The EPA will furnish information on whether any of the alternatives affect the aquifer. This coordination should also identify any potential impacts to the critical aquifer protection area (CAPA), if designated, within affected sole-source aquifers. If none of the alternatives affect the aquifer, the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act are satisfied. If an alternative is selected which affects the aquifer, a design must be developed to assure, to the satisfaction of EPA, that it will not contaminate the aquifer (40 CFR 149). The draft EIS should document coordination with EPA and identify its position on the impacts of the various alternatives. The final EIS should show that EPA's concerns on the preferred alternative have been resolved.
Wellhead protection areas were authorized by the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Each State will develop State wellhead protection plans with final approval by EPA. When a proposed project encroaches on a wellhead protection area, the draft EIS should identify the area, the potential impact of each alternative and proposed mitigation measures. Coordination with the State agency responsible for the protection plan will aid in identifying the areas, impacts and mitigation. If the preferred alternative impacts these areas, the final EIS should document that it complies with the approved State wellhead protection plan.
1 4.4.7.1 Aquifers -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• State Primary and Principle Aquifer Areas
• Federal Sole Source Aquifer Areas
• Special Groundwater Protection Area (SGPA) in Nassau/Suffolk Counties
• Geology of the aquifer area
• Aquifer description and location
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Qualitative assessment of qroundwater quality and flow, water table elevations, etc
• Impacts of project runoff on water quality
• Toler Analysis
• Vehicle pollutant analysis for each reasonable alternative
• Health issues
• Documentation of EPA review and approval
Primary aquifers in New York State are shown on the NYSDEC web site:
An overview of Principal and Primary aquifers in New York State is shown on the NYSDEC web
site:
Maps of NYS Sole Source and Primary Aquifers are also included in Chapter 4.4 of the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual
Maps of unconsolidated aquifers in upstate New York are available on the USGS web site
• Finger Lakes sheet - WRI 87-4122: Lower Hudson sheet -WRI 87-4274:
Hudson-Mohawk sheet - WRI 87-4275:
Adirondack sheet - WRI 87-4276:
Niagara sheet - WRI 88-4076:
NYSDOT staff can view GIS files showing aquifers:
P:\GIS\Environmental\region1\Water_ecology\Water\Aquifer
EPA designated Sole Source Aquifers are identified on the EPA website:
[Use for projects NOT located in a State aquifer area]
NYSDEC aquifer GIS data files have been reviewed and it has been determined that the proposed project is not located in an identified Primary Water Supply or Principal Aquifer Area. No further investigation for NYSDEC designated aquifers is required.
OR
[Use for projects within a State aquifer area]
NYSDEC aquifer GIS data files have been reviewed and it has been determined that the proposed project is located in the Niskayuna state jurisdictional primary aquifer. This project will take measures in design and construction to avoid, minimize or mitigate any possible adverse impacts to the aquifer. These measures are intended to minimize contamination from highway runoff and construction activities. Project activities will comply with the applicable standards in 6 NYCRR Part 703.
OR
[Use for projects with federal aid that are NOT located within a Federal Sole Source Aquifer Area]
A review of the EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer Areas Federal Register Notices, Maps, and Fact Sheets indicates that the project is not located in a Sole Source Aquifer Project Review Area. No federal review and/or approvals are required pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
OR
[Use for projects with federal aid that are within a Federal Sole Source Aquifer Area, and does NOT require FHWA or EPA review]
A review of the EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer Areas Federal Register Notices, Maps and Fact Sheets, the proposed project is located within the Sole Source Aquifer Boundary of the -- Aquifer. Coordination with EPA and preparation of a Groundwater Assessment Report is not required, since the project scope consists of work that does not require a Federal Sole Source Aquifer Section 1424(e) review by FHWA and EPA, pursuant to Executive Order 12372.
OR
[Use for projects with federal aid that are within a Federal Sole Source Aquifer Area, and require FHWA or EPA review]
A project in a Sole Source Aquifer area requires Section 1424(e) review by FHWA and EPA, pursuant to Executive Order 12372, if it involves:
1) Construction of additional through-traffic lanes (this does not include turning lanes), interchanges, or rotaries on existing roadways;
2) Construction of a two or more lane highway on new alignment;
3) Construction of rest areas with on-site sewage disposal facilities; or,
4) Other projects which, in the opinion of FHWA, may effect on the water quality of the aquifer to the extent that the goal outlined above (protection of Sole Source Aquifer drinking water supplies) would not be achieved.
Guidelines for the preparation of a Groundwater Assessment Report are available in Attachment 4.4.C of the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual
Documentation of USEPA Section 1424(e) review, if required, must be presented in the DAD before it can be approved.
A review of the EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer Areas Federal Register Notices, Maps, and Fact Sheets illustrates the project is located in the -- Aquifer Project Review Area. The proposed project requires Federal Sole Source Aquifer Section 1424(e) review by FHWA and EPA, pursuant to Executive Order 12372 due to the nature of the project activities. Discuss consultation and coordination with EPA. A Groundwater Assessment Report has been prepared and is included in Appendix --.
2 4.4.7.2 Drinking Water Supply Wells (Public and Private Wells) and Reservoirs -
Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• NYS Dept of Health Atlas of Community Water System Sources
• NYSDEC GIS data file records
• Municipal drinking water wells
• Reservoirs
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Toler Analysis
• Wellhead influence zones
• Health issues
If there are wells, wellheads, reservoirs, etc. within the area of potential effect, and they will be affected, discuss coordination with the municipality served. Discuss if measures need to be taken to ensure protection. Refer to the Environmental Manual (TEM) for details.
[Use for projects with NO wells, wellheads, reservoirs, etc. within the project’s area of potential effect]
There are no municipal drinking water wells, wellhead influence zones, or reservoirs within or near the project area, according to the NYS Atlas of Community Water System Sources, dated 1982, issued by the NYS Department of Health
OR
[Use for projects located within a wellhead influence zone, near reservoirs, etc.]
Generally, highway construction materials and activities which are prohibited within Wellhead Zone of Influence include:
• Disposal or storage of construction and demolition debris;
• Petroleum or hazardous materials storage;
• Fertilizer, herbicide or insecticide storage;
• Deicing compounds or salt storage;
• Disposal of waste water; and
• Mining or extraction of soils, sands and gravels except within the highway right-of-way.
The -- reservoir is located partially within the project’s area of potential effect. The reservoir serves the Town(s) of --, and municipal officials have been consulted. Include and reference any documentation in Appendix --.
During the design phase, measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to the Sole Source Aquifer will be identified. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect the aquifer will be employed, including Erosion and Sediment Control, Stormwater Management and Construction Chemical Storage and Handling.
8 4.4.8 Stormwater Management
This section contains a general discussion only with no subsections. Topics to address may include:
• Existing drainage basins
• How existing soils, vegetation, topography, climate, etc. may affect erosion/sedimentation
• Potential sources of water pollution from motor vehicles, etc.
• Polluted Water bodies - Section 303(d)
• Point Source Discharges
• Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Watershed (SEQR)
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Effects on water quality
• Toler Analysis
• First Flush Analysis
• Permanent stormwater quality practices
• Stormwater quantity practices
• Erosion prevention and sediment control
• Pollutant Loadings and Impacts from Highway Stormwater Runoff
• State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
• Mitigation (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in final design
• Erosion/sediment control specifications and notes in final design
• Stormwater management specifications and notes in final design
• Activities to be done in final design (i.e., SWPPP design, SPDES/NPDES approval)
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• ECL Article 17, Title 7 - Point Source Discharges
• NYSDOT’s Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) for policies regarding stormwater
• NYSDOT HDM Chapter 8: Design Requirements and Guidance for SPDES General Permit GP--0-10-001
• NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual, Chapter 5
• NYSDOT Standard Specifications, Section 209 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Interagency Coordination
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit needs, consultation, etc.).
• NYSDEC - Stormwater Notice of Intent
• NYSDEC - SPDES Permit review and approval
• NYSDEC - Protection of Waters (ECL Article 15)
• EPA - Notice of Intent (Federal)
• EPA - NPDES Permit review and approval
Cross-reference:
• 2.3.3.4 Drainage Systems (existing)
• 3.3.3.4 Drainage Systems (proposed)
• 4.4.2 Regulated Waterbodies and Watercourses
• 4.6 Construction Effects
• 4.7 Indirect (Secondary) Effects
• 4.8 Cumulative Effects
Permits should be obtained prior to advertisement; permits must be obtained prior to award.
If consulting with the NYC Dept. of Environmental Protection, SWPPP plans must be submitted at least 30 days prior to PS&E.
A Notice of Intent, signed by the Regional Director or a designee, to use SPDES General Permit GP-0-10-001, may be required to be submitted to NYSDEC.
FHWA guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A
The draft EIS should also identify any locations where roadway runoff or other non-point source pollution may have an adverse impact on sensitive water resources such as water supply reservoirs, ground water recharge areas, and high quality streams. The 1981 FHWA research report entitled "Constituents of Highway Runoff," the 1985 report entitled "Management Practices for Mitigation of Highway Stormwater Runoff Pollution," and the 1987 report entitled "Effects of Highway Runoff on Receiving Waters" contain procedures for estimating pollutant loading from highway runoff and would be helpful in determining the level of potential impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. The draft EIS should identify the potential impacts of each alternative and proposed mitigation measures.
To access NYSDEC’s Stormwater Interactive Map use this link:
[Use for projects that DO NOT require a SPDES permit]
This project will disturb less than one acre and will not require a SPDES permit. While this project is not required to assess the requirements for stormwater management practices, they will be considered where reasonable.
OR
[Use for projects that DO NOT require a SPDES Permit with Erosion and Sediment Control Measures]
See the design guidance in HDM Chapter 8. A SPDES permit is required for projects or non-maintenance activities which disturb more than one acre. Soil disturbance includes grading existing vegetated areas, as well as the removal of existing pavement that exposes soil or disturbs the bottom 6” of subbase material. Permanent stormwater quality practices may be required.
Erosion and sedimentation control plans will be developed and incorporated into the project. Erosion and sedimentation control measures may include: straw mulch, erosion control fabric, temporary seeding, silt fence, check dams, inlet protection, and temporary sedimentation/detention ponds.
OR
[Use for projects that DO require a SPDES permit]
A SPDES General Permit GP-0-10-001 will be required because the project has more than one acre of soil disturbance. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with the appropriate sediment and erosion control measures will be developed. Based on the SWPPP, permanent stormwater management practices may be required depending on the total amount of disturbance and changes in total impervious area.
OR
[Use for projects that DO require a SPDES permit]
This project will disturb more than one acre and will require a SPDES General Permit GP-0-10-001. This project is required to assess the requirements for stormwater management practices. The results of the SPDES assessment indicate that stormwater quantity controls are not required since the project outlets into a fourth order stream OR stormwater quantity controls are required since the project outlets into a insert order number order stream.
OR
[Use if the project corridor does NOT involve a TMDL watershed or 303(d) water body]
• NYSDEC’s 303(d)/TMDL List is available on the DEC web site:
The project corridor is not adjacent to or discharging runoff to a TMDL Watershed or a listed 303(d) water body.
OR
[Use if the project involves a TMDL watershed or 303(d) water body]
• NYSDEC’s 303(d)/TMDL List is available on the DEC web site:
The project corridor is located within a TMDL Watershed (Unnamed Lake Watershed). This project will be evaluated for water quality treatment practices to reduce pollutant and phosphorous loadings.
OR
[Use for projects that add through lanes in urban areas and DO NOT need a SPDES permit]
Projects that disturb soils and increase the extent of impervious surfaces have the potential to affect the quality and quantity of stormwater run-off that may discharge into subsurface or surface waters. Although the project will increase impervious surfaces, and will disturb more than one acre of soil cumulatively, the run-off will not drain directly into any waters of the United States. Under these circumstances, the project is not subject to the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) general permit for construction activities (GP-0-10-001) issued to NYSDOT and implemented in accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between NYSDOT and the NYS Department of Environmental Conversation (NYSDEC). Under the MOU, the “project site” refers to the area within the contract limit lines and the “disturbance of one or more acres of total land area” is defined as “any activity that disturbs or exposes soil” by clearing, grubbing, excavating or grading operations during the life of the project. Construction activities involving previously paved travel lanes and shoulders are excluded from the SPDES general permit.
Currently, for most of the project length, extending from --- to ---, there is no effective control of stormwater run-off. Precipitation within the existing project area highway boundary either recharges to soils directly, or through occasional leaching basins. One part of the project, between -- and -- has a semi-closed drainage system comprised of a few leaching basins connected together and discharging into ---. The part of the project, between --- and ---, has a closed drainage system and discharges into --.
Due to the presence of a topographic high in the vertical alignment of ---, at approximately ---, the project right-of-way lies within two watersheds. The –- watershed, which extends from the high point to --- contains --- (stream, recharge basin, etc.). The –- watershed, which extends --- contains –- (stream, recharge basin, etc.). The proposed widening of --- involves the provision of a comprehensive closed drainage system that will discharge into the existing --- at --- and into ---, within the limits of the project. The drainage design for the -- portion of the project includes a new (recharge basin, leaching basin, etc.) located at ---. Another possible scenario that will be evaluated during the final design phases involves an extension of the proposed drainage system to discharge into an existing --- located at ---.
The provision of the closed drainage system will alleviate existing flooding problems and will prove beneficial by reducing roadway maintenance costs associated with the lack of adequate drainage. For more information about existing drainage and stormwater run-off, refer to Section 2.3.3.4 Drainage Systems. For more information about proposed drainage and stormwater run-off, refer to Section 3.3.3.4 Drainage Systems.
The project will employ effective erosion and sediment control practices during construction, as set forth in NYSDOT’s statewide stormwater and erosion and sedimentation control specifications, standard construction details, and design and construction guidance procedures. Erosion and sediment controls will be employed as part of an environmental initiative to restore wetlands described in Section 4.4.1.
OR
[Use for projects in urban areas, requiring a SPDES permit, no Toler analysis, and a first flush analysis]
Route -- is located within the urbanized area of the City of -- and all Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer Systems (MS4s) serving Route --- are automatically designated by the NYSDEC as “regulated” MS4s. This designation requires the City of --- to develop a Phase II stormwater program, including a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must be implemented in order to protect water quality and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) and the Clean Water Act.
Since the limits of grading associated with the proposed construction of this project are expected to exceed 1 acre, a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Construction Activities (GP-0-10-001), issued by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), will be required.
The majority of increases in impervious area are directly related to adding traffic lanes AND/OR pedestrian and bicycle accommodations within the project limits. The effects of the increased area on water quality and quantity will be analyzed.
--- drainage areas within the project limits were identified using USGS contour maps and digital mapping. Pre- and post-development peak runoff discharges were calculated using the Rational Method for the two-year 24 hour storm event. Discharges for each drainage area are summarized below in Table --.
Table --: Peak Flow Analysis
|Drainage Area # |Pre-Construction.Peak Flow |Post-Construction. Peak Flow |Change in Peak Flow |
|1 |x.xxx |x.xxx |x.x% |
NYSDEC typically requires peak flow attenuation when peak flows for the two-year storm are increased by 10% if post-development peak flow is greater than 5 ft³/s (cubic feet per second). The results of the peak flow analysis indicate that -- % would be the largest increase, and therefore peak flow attenuation will not be required. The largest increase occurs in Area --, which is where the curbing was removed from the roadway to allow the runoff to sheet drain to --. This is a documented Best Management Process that also provides a water quality benefit. The smaller peak flow increases will be tempered by reducing the culvert outlet lengths and establishing stone lined ditches along with stone check dams to slow the outfall.
Potential impact on surface water quality associated with the project would be the result of stormwater runoff and associated pollutants. Pollutants associated with the project could include deicing salts, particulates, nutrients, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons, including polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s). Pollutant sources may include road surface material, vehicle exhaust and degradation, lubrication system losses, roadway maintenance activities, and by-products of combustion. Of these pollutants, deicing salts are considered a primary pollutant due to the potential quantity of salts applied to the roadway during snow removal operations, and because they are potentially the most difficult to mitigate. Based on the very large watershed of ---- and no increase in lane-miles from pavement widening, an analysis quantifying the effects of deicing salts was not performed for the project.
There is the potential for an effect from the non-primary pollutants. An analysis of the first flush contaminants was performed for the project area to determine this effect. First flush pollutants refer to the high percentage of stormwater pollutants that are present in the runoff generated in the early part of storms due to the accumulation of pollutants that are present in the pavement surface. “First flush” is defined as the first ½ inch of runoff off land that has been made more impervious than pre-construction conditions. The pre-construction and post-construction impervious areas are then compared for each of the drainage areas to determine the amount of runoff requiring first flush attenuation. Refer to Table --.
Table --: First-Flush Volumes
|Drainage Area # |First-Flush Volumes (ft³) |
|1 |XX |
Based on the proposed design, there will be a minimal increase in the impervious area within the watersheds. The largest increase is from --- which is --- ft long and will sheet drain through the vegetated areas between --- and ---. The attenuation of first flush volumes would be accomplished by following the hierarchy of methods for managing storm water quality, which can be found in Chapter 5 of the NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual. For this project, water would be treated by maintaining sheet flow over vegetated areas, and utilizing open channels and grass channels where space permits.
Soil erosion plans and details will also be developed during the advance detail design phases of the project in accordance with Section 209 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control of the NYSDOT Standard Specifications in order to satisfy the SWPPP. These plans and details will include both temporary and permanent measures to prevent soil erosion and provide fences, seeding, mulching, and stabilized construction access points. These measures will serve to minimize the potential for pollutants from the proposed project to reach ---.
9 4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources
This section may contain the following unnumbered subsections:
• Fish, Wildlife, and Waterfowl
• Habitat Areas, Wildlife Refuges, and Wildfowl Refuges
• Federal Endangered and Threatened Species
• Invasive Species
• Roadside Vegetation Management
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
• CMP Policy 7 - Ecology and Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats
• ECL Article 15 Title 3 - Aquatic Pesticides Control
• ECL Article 15 Title 5 - Protection of Waters
• 6 NYCRR 329 - NYSDEC Insect Permit
• 6 NYCRR 327 - NYSDEC Aquatic Vegetation Permit
• 6 NYCRR 328 - NYSDEC Fish Permit
• 16 USC 760(c) to 760(g) - migratory birds
• Endangered Species Act, Section 7
• Endangered Species Act Section 103 - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
• Executive Order 11990 - waterfowl breeding areas
• Executive Order 13112 - invasive species
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc.).
• NYSDEC - consultation, data files, review, permits
• USFWS - consultation
• NPS - consultation
• USDA - consultation regarding waterfowl breeding areas
• National Marine Fisheries Service – consultation
Cross-reference:
• 4.4.6 Coastal Resources/ Ecology and Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats
• 4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources/Adirondack Park
• 4.6 Construction Effects
• 4.7 Indirect (Secondary) Effects
• 4.8 Cumulative Effects
• Appendices - Environment/Endangered and Threatened Species Report
• Appendices - Environment/Biological Assessment
• Appendices - Stakeholders and Public Input
• Appendices - 4(f) Evaluation, if required
1 4.4.9.1 Fish, Wildlife, and Waterfowl -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Field and initial study survey
• Special habitats
• Breeding areas
• Consistency with EO 11990
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Interruption of wildlife movements
• Biological Assessment
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
[Use in all cases]
A cursory review of the project’s area of potential effect indicates that there is OR is not a special habitat OR breeding area for certain species of plants OR animals. Describe habitat, location and species.
NYSDOT will consult with USFWS OR NYSDEC OR other agency and conduct an assessment of possible impacts to this species OR habitat OR area, and identify measures to mitigate them.
Sample: NYSDEC GIS information indicates that the segment of the Batten Kill adjacent to the project corridor is suitable for trout spawning. NYSDOT will consult with NYSDEC and conduct an assessment of possible impacts to the trout habitat. Precautions will be taken to ensure that water temperatures and quality are protected, and that the movement of the trout is not affected during critical spawning periods.
2 4.4.9.2 Habitat Areas, Wildlife Refuges, and Wildfowl Refuges -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Wildlife or Waterfowl Refuges
• Habitat Areas
• Ecology and Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
• Section 4(f) involvement
For 4(f) to apply, the officials having jurisdiction over the site must determine that the entire site is significant.
[Use for projects having no Federal-aid]
The proposed project is 100% State funded, therefore Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act does not apply.
OR
[Use if no refuge is within the project’s area of potential effect]
The proposed project does not involve work in, or adjacent to, a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. No further consideration is required.
OR
[Use is a wildlife/waterfowl refuge is within the project’s area of potential effect, but is not affected]
The proposed project is located within a wildlife OR waterfowl refuge, identify refuge. However, the project will not adversely affect the refuge and does not involve “use” of such land. This project qualifies as a Programmatic 4(f). Associated correspondence is included in Appendix --.
OR
Use if a wildlife/waterfowl refuge is affected by the project]
The proposed project involves a change of use or easement in a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. A separate 4(f) evaluation has been OR will be prepared to justify the “use” of this land. It will includes the findings that: (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the property; and (2) the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting in such use. If evaluation had been prepared, include it in Appendix --.
3 4.4.9.3 Endangered and Threatened Species -
For details on types of projects that are exempt from State endangered or threatened species review NYSDOT’s Environmental Procedures Manual on the NYSDOT web site: .
The proposed project is considered exempt from State endangered or threatened species review. No further investigation or consultation is required.
OR
[Use for projects with NO State endangered or threatened species in or near the area of potential effect]
According to the NYSDEC GIS information database, there are no state-protected, threatened, or endangered species located in or near the proposed project area. NYSDEC will be contacted to confirm that no state endangered or threatened species will be affected by the project.
OR
[Use if there IS a likelihood of State endangered or threatened species within the project’s area of potential effect]
According to the NYSDEC GIS information database, there is a possibility that a state-protected, threatened, OR endangered plant OR animal species is located in or near the proposed project area. NYSDEC will be contacted to identify the species and a site species assessment will be performed to confirm its presence. NYSDOT will take appropriate measures during design and construction to ensure that impacts to it are avoided or minimized.
OR
[Use if the project is exempt from Federal endangered or threatened species review]
The proposed project is considered exempt from Federal endangered and threatened species review. Additionally, there is no grading of unpaved areas or work in, over, or within 100 feet of surface waterbodies, including wetlands. No further investigation or consultation is required.
OR
[Use if NO Federal endangered or threatened species are in the project’s area of potential effect]
According to the Department’s GIS information database, there are no Federally-protected, threatened, or endangered species located in or near (within ½ mile) the proposed project area. If the USFWS was also contacted, mention their response here and include it in Appendix --.
OR
[Use if Federal endangered or threatened species are identified in the project’s area of potential effect]
According to the Department’s GIS information database, there is a Federally-protected, threatened, or endangered species located in or near (within ½ mile) the proposed project area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been OR will be contacted for confirmations that a rare, threatened, or endangered species may exist in the project impact area. A field survey has been OR will be completed to determine if the species does, in fact, occupy the habitat within the project boundaries. Necessary actions to be taken during design and construction to avoid any direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the species. If the USFWS was contacted, mention their response here and include it in Appendix --.
The USFWS indicated in a there letter of April 12, 2207 that the federally- and state-listed endangered Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) could be present within the proposed project area, which is approximately -- miles from a known hibernaculum. However, the USFWS also stated that this hibernaculum has such small numbers of Indiana bats, it was unlikely that they would be present at this location and impacted by this project. Additionally, tree removals will be minimal for this project.
4 4.4.9.4 Invasive Species -
Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Existing and potential for invasive species
• Consistency with EO 13112 and EPM Chapter 4.8 – Invasive Species
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
Projects need to be evaluated for the potential of introducing invasive species and assessing the presence of invasive species in the existing project corridor. See the following link for a copy of the EO: .
Regional priority invasive species identified by the Partnership for Regional Invasive Species Management may be located at: .
Examples of invasive species controls in compliance with the EO include: identifying the locations of any invasive plants within the project corridor, priority and feasibility of removal, eliminating the introduction of invasive plants by specifying straw mulch in lieu of hay (which has seeds of invasive), specifying geographical native plants for landscaping and eliminating the use of invasive landscape plants such as barberry, autumn olive, etc. The location of the project is also part of the assessment, such as the; Adirondack Park, State Parks, Nature Preserves, and areas of rare, endangered or protected species.
[Use if invasive species are NOT identified in the existing corridor]A review of the existing corridor did not indicate any significant presence of known invasive species within the right-of-way. Precautions will be taken to prevent the introduction of invasive species during project design and construction.
OR
[Use if invasive species are identified in the existing corridor]
A review of the existing corridor indicates that there is a location of purple loosestrife within the right-of-way. Removal or other treatments will be considered for the purple loosestrife. Precautions will be taken to prevent the introduction of additional invasive species during project design and construction.
OR
[Use if invasive species are identified and the project is within the Adirondack Park]
A review of the existing corridor indicates that there is a location of Japanese Knotweed within the right-of-way. Removal or other treatments will be considered for the Japanese Knotweed. Only straw will be used for erosion control, seeding, etc.
OR
[Use if invasive species are identified, and the project is within an urban area with no natural areas or parks present]
This project is located within an urbanized and suburbanized corridor with maintained lawns and no natural adjacent areas or parks. While several invasive species such as garlic mustard and barberry are present, removal or control of these species is not feasible, considering the extent, quantity and location of these plants in the corridor.
5 4.4.9.5 Roadside Vegetation Management -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
• Activities to be done in final design
• Surface Transportation and Relocation Assistance Act Wildflower planting requirement
• Future maintenance responsibilities
[Use in all cases]Existing roadside vegetation consists primarily of maintained lawn areas, wooded areas AND/OR waste areas. Efforts will be made to replace wildlife-supporting vegetation that is removed in the course of construction.
10 4.4.10 Critical Environmental Areas
This section may contain the following unnumbered subsections:
• State Critical Environmental Areas
• State Forest Preserve Lands
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• ECL Article 8
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc.)
• NYSDEC
• local governmental bodies (village, city, town, county).
1 4.4.10.1 State Critical Environmental Areas -
• A listing of State Critical Environmental areas, by county, is available on the NYSDEC web site: .
[Use for projects that do not involve critical environmental areas]
According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the proposed project does not involve work in or near a Critical Environmental Area.
OR
[Use for projects that do involve, but do not impact, critical environmental areas]
According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the proposed project is located within the designated name Critical Environmental Area (CEA). However, the Department has determined that the project does not significantly, adversely affect the CEA. No further investigation is required.
OR
[Use for projects that do impact critical environmental areas]
According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the proposed project is located within the designated name Critical Environmental Area (CEA). The Department has determined that the project will adversely affect the CEA by describe impacts.
The Town of --, the designating authority, has been contacted to initiate consultation, and to participate in the identification measures to mitigate impacts to the CEA.
2 4.4.10.2 State Forest Preserve Lands -
• The Forest Preserve consists of public lands in the Adirondack and Catskill Parks within "forest preserve counties," as defined by the New York State Legislature. Forest Preserve lands are protected by Article XIV of the New York State Constitution.
[Use for projects that do not impact state forest preserve lands]
According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the proposed project does not involve work in or near state forest preserve lands.
OR
[Use for projects that DO impact state forest preserve lands]
According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the proposed project will involve work in or near state forest preserve lands, identify preserve. NYSDEC has been contacted, and once the full extent of potential impacts is identified, NYSDEC will be consulted to assist in evaluating and establishing measures to mitigate them.
11 4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources
This section may contain the following subsections:
• National Heritage Areas Program
• National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 or State Historic Preservation Act – Section 14.09. This subsection may have the following subheadings:
• Architectural Resources
• Historic Bridges
• Historic Canals
• Historic Parkways
• Archaeological Resources
• Other Historic Resources
• Native American Involvement
• Section 4(f) Involvement
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• State Historic Preservation Act, Section 14.09
• National Heritage Areas Partnership Act (Each heritage area is currently created by an individual law enacted by Congress. The NHAP Act had been approved by the Department of the
• Interior and introduced in Congress as of October 2007.)
• National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106
• 36 CFR 800
• Section 4(f) - 49 USC 303
• Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
• American Indian Religious Freedom Act
• Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities
• Historic Bridge Programmatic 4(f) Agreement
• Section 123(f) - Uniform Relocation Assistance for Historic Bridges
• National Registry of Natural Landmarks
• National Historic Preservation Act - Section 110 for Historic Sites
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc.).
• NYSOPRHP - consultation
• SED (State Education Department) - cultural resource surveys
• SHPO - effect opinion
• THPO (Tribal Historic Preservation Officer) - consultation, effect opinion
• NYSTA - consultation on canal and canal bridge issues
• FHWA - approval of Section 106 (36 CFR 800) process
• ACHP (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) - consultation on adverse effects
• Local Officials - consultation with officials having jurisdiction over the resource
Cross-reference:
• Appendix Cultural Resource Survey Report(s)
• Appendix Memorandum(s) of Agreement
• Appendix 4(f) Evaluation(s)
• Data Recovery Plan
• 4.2.1 Land Use (historic districts)
• 4.6 Construction Effects
• 4.7 Indirect (Secondary) Effects
• 4.8 Cumulative Effects
• Appendix Structures Information – Bridge Inspection Reports, Winbolt Historic Bridge Listing
• Appendix Stakeholder and Public Input
1 4.4.11.1 National Heritage Areas Program -
The National Heritage Areas in New York are:
• Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area
• Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor
• Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership
• A designation bill was introduced in Congress in October 2007 for a Niagara Falls National Heritage Area.
A list and map of National Heritage Areas is available on the National Park Service web site:
The Management Entity should be contacted regarding the Heritage Area to see if the project is consistent with any existing Heritage Area Management Plan. Include coordination in the Appendix.
[Use for projects with no effect on National Heritage Areas]
The proposed project will not impact areas identified as National Heritage Areas.
OR
[Use for projects that DO affect National Heritage Areas]
The proposed project is located in -- National Heritage Area. The Management Entity has been contacted to ensure that the project is consistent with the Heritage Area Management Plan. Reference and include any correspondence in the Appendix.
2 4.4.11.2 National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 / State Historic Preservation Act – Section 14.09 -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Project specific programmatic Section 106 procedure
• Required documentation - FHWA concurrence on completion of 36 CFR 800 requirements
• ACHP participation in adverse effects
Discuss if a Cultural Resource Screening was, or will need to be, conducted, and the date, outcome and recommendations. Structures older than fifty years need to be screened for historic significance.
NR properties can be identified and researched on the NYSOPRHP web site:
FHWA guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A:
The draft EIS should contain a discussion demonstrating that historic and archeological resources have been identified and evaluated in accordance with the requirements of 36 CFR 800.4 for each alternative under consideration. The information and level of effort needed to identify and evaluate historic and archeological resources will vary from project to project as determined by the FHWA after considering existing information, the views of the SHPO and the Secretary of Interior's "Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation." The information for newly identified historic resources should be sufficient to determine their significance and eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. The information for archeological resources should be sufficient to identify whether each warrants preservation in place, or whether it is important chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value for preservation in place. Where archeological resources are not a major factor in the selection of a preferred alternative, the determination of eligibility for the National Register of newly identified archeological resources may be deferred until after circulation of the draft EIS.
The draft EIS discussion should briefly summarize the methodologies used in identifying historic and archeological resources. Because Section 4(f) of the DOT Act applies to the use of historic resources on, or eligible for, the National Register, and to archeological resources on, or eligible for, the National Register, and which warrant preservation in place, the draft EIS should describe the historical resources listed in, or eligible for, the National Register, and identify any archeological resources that warrant preservation in place. The draft EIS should summarize the impacts of each alternative on and proposed mitigation measures for each resource. The document should evidence coordination with the SHPO on the significance of newly identified historic and archeological resources, the eligibility of historic resources for the National Register, and the effects of each alternative on both listed and eligible historic resources. Where the draft EIS discusses eligibility for the National Register of archeological resources, the coordination with the SHPO on eligibility and effect should address both historic and archeological resources.
The draft EIS can serve as a vehicle for affording the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment pursuant to Section 106 requirements if the document contains the necessary information required by 36 CFR 800.8. The draft EIS transmittal letter to the ACHP should specifically request its comments pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6.
To the fullest extent possible, the final EIS needs to demonstrate that all the requirements of 36 CFR 800 have been met. If the preferred alternative has no effect on historic or archeological resources on, or eligible for, the National Register, the final EIS should indicate coordination with, and agreement by, the SHPO. If the preferred alternative has an effect on a resource on, or eligible for, the National Register, the final EIS should contain (a) a determination of no adverse effect concurred on by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, (b) an executed memorandum of agreement (MOA), or (c) in the case of a rare situation where FHWA is unable to conclude the MOA, a copy of comments transmitted from the ACHP to the FHWA and the FHWA response to those comments.
The proposed use of land from an historic resource on, or eligible for, the National Register will normally require an evaluation and approval under Section 4(f) of the DOT Act. Section 4(f) also applies to all archeological sites on, or eligible for, the National Register and which warrant preservation in place.
[Use for projects with no NR or NRE properties within the project’s area of potential effect]
According to the National Register (NR) of Historic Places, there are no historic properties eligible, or listed, within the project’s area of potential effect.
OR
[Use for projects with an NR or NRE property identified within the project’s area of potential effect – No effect]
A historic property, eligible for inclusion in, or listed on, the National Register, has been identified within the project’s area of potential effect. Describe property and nature of its historic significance. However, the project’s activities do not have the potential to cause effects on this historic property. A Finding of No Effect Document was sent to FHWA and copied to EAB and SHPO.
• FHWA must concur if SHPO doesn’t respond in 30 days. Refer to correspondence with FHWA and SHPO’s involvement. The “Finding Document” should be put in the Appendix and referred to here.
Correspondence with SHPO, along with the Finding Document, is included in Appendix --.
OR
[Use for projects with an NR or NRE property identified within the project’s area of potential effect – No adverse effect]
A historic property listed on, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places has been identified within the project’s area of potential effect. Describe property and nature of its historic significance. However, the project’s activities do not have the potential to adversely affect the historic property. The undertaking will not alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register, in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. The Department has prepared a No Adverse Effect Finding Document and sent it to SHPO, with a copy to FHWA.
• SHPO then has 45 days to respond or ask for further information. After 45 days, if no SHPO objection or comment, FHWA sends concurrence memo to Region. State whether SHPO or FHWA responded and if they concur or any other correspondence.
Correspondence with SHPO, along with the Finding Document, is included in Appendix --.
OR
[Use for projects with an NR or NRE property identified within the project’s area of potential effect - adverse effect]
A historic property, eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, exists within the project’s area of potential effect. Describe property and nature of its historic significance. The project will have an adverse effect on the property. Describe effects, mitigation, correspondence, etc. Include “adverse effect” finding in appendices.
• FHWA will make final adverse effect determination and notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). They have 15 days from receipt to participate in the 106 process.]
[ADD one of the following to the above statement, to address archeological sites:]
The proposed project will not require project activities within previously undisturbed areas that have the potential to contain archeological resources. Thus, an archeological survey will not be required. This concludes the Section 106 Process.
OR
The project may require minor ROW acquisition, with minor earth moving activities in previously undisturbed areas that have the potential to contain archeological resources. An archeological survey will be conducted to determine the presence of such resources. In the event that resources are found, their significance will be determined (through coordination with SHPO) and the project will be designed to mitigate any impacts to these resources as appropriate.
OR
If archeological resources were found, discuss where, if they will be removed, the effects the project will have on them, and whether the effects are considered adverse. Include appropriate correspondence in Appendix --.
Use for projects that will follow the Federal Section 106 process:
Because the project is a federally funded action, involves a federal permit, or is state funded with the possibility of becoming federally funded, the Department will be following the Section 106 Process of the National Historic Preservation Act. This ensures compliance with the NYSHPA Section 14.09 process.
3 4.4.11.3 Architectural Resources -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Cultural Resource Survey Report
• Eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places
• Section 110 Preservation Plan
• Cultural Resource Survey Report
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
• Effect finding
• Effect determination
If an NRE property is located on site and needs to be taken or will be adversely affected (“used”), you need to state, “There is no Reasonable and prudent alternative” and, “The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm.” Describe the property and project’s effects on it. Refer to correspondence and/or concurrence from SHPO, FHWA, or ACHP. See Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator for more details.
[Use for projects that have no federal-aid]
The proposed project is 100% State funded, therefore Section 110 does not apply.
OR
[Use for projects that have NO NR eligible properties identified within the project’s area of potential effect]
The proposed project does not involve federally owned, jurisdictional or controlled property that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, Section 110 does not apply.
OR
[Use for projects that have NR eligible properties identified within the project’s area of potential effect]
The proposed project involves work on federally owned, jurisdictional or controlled property that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Describe property and nature of its historic significance. The proposed project will comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as well as 36 CFR Part 800 - Protection of Historic Properties.
• If a Section 110 property exists, a Preservation Plan from the federal agency must be in place.
The Federal Preservation Plan for the property has been reviewed and the project will comply, to the greatest extent possible, with the goals of the plan. Briefly summarize or cite preservation plan goals and explain how the project complies with them.
OR
[Use for projects that have NR eligible properties identified within the project’s area of potential effect and will have “no adverse effect”]
A property listed on, or eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places is located within the project’s area of potential effect. The proposed project will have no adverse effect on the historic property. Please refer to the subsection above, National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106, for more detailed information.
Discuss if a Cultural Resource Survey was completed, a Determination of No Adverse Effect was sent to SHPO, FHWA, or ACHP, and correspondence with the agencies.
4 4.4.11.4 Archaeological Resources -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Cultural Resource Survey Report
• Archaeological Resources Protection Act
• Phase I Archeological Site Examination
• Phase Archeological Intensive Site Examination
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
• Effect finding
• Effect determination
• Data Recovery Plan
• Memorandum of Agreement for archaeological resources
If archeological resources were found, discuss where, what their significance is, the effects the project will have on them, and if an Individual 4(f) evaluation is required. Include appropriate correspondence in Appendix --.
[Use for projects where all activities will be within disturbed areas, with no archeological potential]
The proposed project will not require project activities within previously undisturbed areas that have the potential to contain archeological resources. Thus, a 4(f) evaluation will not be required for archaeological resources.
OR
[Use for projects with an archeological survey that identified NO resources]
A Phase I archeological survey was conducted to determine the presence of archeological resources. No such resources were found in the project vicinity. A copy of this conclusion from the survey is included in Appendix --. A 4(f) evaluation will not be required for archaeological resources.
OR
[Use for projects with an archeological survey that identified resources]
A Phase I archeological survey was conducted to determine the presence of archeological resources, and indicated that resources were found in the project vicinity. A copy of this conclusion from the survey is included in Appendix --. Describe what their significance is, the effects the project will have on them, etc. Use citations from the survey, if applicable. A 4(f) evaluation will be required for archaeological resources.
A Phase II archaeological survey will be conducted to more precisely determine the locations, quantity and significance of the resources. This report will make it possible to fully identify and evaluate potential impacts from the project, and to determine if a Data Recovery effort will be necessary, and to determine what mitigation measures will be appropriate.
5 4.4.11.5 Historic Bridges -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Historic bridges in project area of potential effect
• Historic bridge inventory
• Bridge in a historic district
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
Address all bridges over 50 years old, bridges eligible or listed on the National Register, or bridges within or contributing to a historic district.
The “Programmatic Agreement Concerning Bridges over the National Register Eligible New York State Canal System” is in a draft status at the time of this writing.
NYSDOT’s Historic Bridge Inventory and Historic Bridge Management Plan are available on the NYSDOT web site: . The Historic Bridge Inventory database is not always correct regarding bridges in Historic Districts. Check to see if the bridge may be contributing to a Historic District, but is not listed as such.
NYSDOT employees can refer to Winbolts (historic page) for detailed information on a specific bridge.
If a historic bridge is affected within the project, comply with the Section 106 process, 36 CFR 800.
[Use for projects with no bridges over 50 years old or NR eligible]
There are no bridges over 50 years old or listed on NYSDOT’s Historic Bridge Inventory that are located within the project’s area of potential effect.
OR
[Use for projects with a bridge that is NR eligible and NOT affected]
The -- Bridge located over the -- River is listed on NYSDOT’s Historic Bridge Inventory as being National Register listed OR eligible, OR it contributes to a Historic District. Identify qualities listed that make the bridge historic. The proposed project activities will not affect the historic bridge, nor will they affect the qualities that make it historic.
OR
[Use for projects with a bridge that is NR eligible and affected]
The -- Bridge located over the -- River is listed on NYSDOT’s Historic Bridge Inventory as being National Register listed OR eligible, OR it contributes to a Historic District. Identify qualities listed that make the bridge historic. The proposed project activities will affect the historic bridge. Describe how. This project meets the criteria of a “Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for FHWA Projects that Necessitate the Use of Historic Bridges” that will be OR has been prepared, and is included in Appendix --.
OR
[Use for projects with a bridge that is NR eligible and will be removed/replaced]
The -- Bridge located over the -- River is listed on NYSDOT’s Historic Bridge Inventory as being National Register listed OR eligible, OR it contributes to a Historic District. Identify qualities listed that make the bridge historic. The proposed project activities will affect the historic bridge. Describe how. This project meets the criteria of a “Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation and Approval for FHWA Projects that Necessitate the Use of Historic Bridges,” which has been prepared and is included in Appendix –
A Memorandum of Agreement, regarding the removal of the NRE bridge and mitigation measures, will be OR has been executed by SHPO, FHWA and NYSDOT. For more detail on this topic refer to the Programmatic 4(f) evaluation and Memorandum of Agreement included in Appendix --.
OR
[Use for projects with NO canal bridges listed as NR eligible]
NYSDOT’s Historic Bridge Inventory has no listing of any historic canal bridges within the project’s area of potential effect.
OR
[Use for projects with NR eligible canal bridges]
The -- Bridge over the -- Canal is listed in NYSDOT’s Historic Bridge Inventory as an historic bridge. Identify qualities listed that make the bridge historic. This project meets the criteria for a “Programmatic 4(f) Agreement Concerning Bridges over the National Register Eligible New York State Canal System” that will be OR has been prepared, and is included in Appendix --.
6 4.4.11.6 Historic Parkways -
Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Parkway issues
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
Most of New York’s Parkways are also New York State Scenic Byways.
[Use for projects with NO Historic Parkway involvement]
This project does not have to potential to impact any Historic Parkways.
OR
[Use for projects with Historic Parkway involvement]
This project will involve work on OR near the -- Parkway.
7 4.4.11.7 Native American Involvement -
Discuss potential topics as appropriate. Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Native American consultation
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
The Act for the preservation of American Antiquities applies if a portion of the proposed project lies within Federal or Native American-owned property. A permit may be required to examine ruins and other Archeological resources on such property should they be encountered. See the Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator for details if necessary.
[Use for projects with NO identified Native American places or artifacts and following the Section 106 process]
The Department will be following the Section 106 Process of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). This ensures compliance with this Act. In addition, places or artifacts of religious importance to Native Americans were not found within the project impact area.
OR
[Use for projects NOT affecting Native American freedoms]
In accordance with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (amended 1994), the project alternatives are being advanced such that they will not interfere with Native Americans’ inherent right of freedoms, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rights.
OR
[Use for projects with NO federal-aid or potential for federal permits, and having Native American involvement]
The proposed project is 100% State funded, therefore the Act for the Preservation of American Antiquities does not apply.
OR
[Use for projects with federal-aid or potential for federal permits and NOT affecting Native American involvement]
The proposed project does not lie within Federal or Native-American-owned property. American Antiquities Act does not apply. No further investigation is required.
OR
[Use for projects NOT within Native American property, and following the Section 106 process]
The proposed project does not lie within Federal, Tribal, or Indian-owned property. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 does not apply. Furthermore, conformance with this Act is covered in the Section 106 Process.
OR
[Use for projects following the Section 106 process]
The Department will be following the Section 106 Process of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). This ensures compliance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.
8 4.4.11.8 Section 4(f) Involvement -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Section 4(f) - Involvement with Architectural Resources
• Section 4(f) - Involvement with Archaeological Resources
• Section 4(f) - Archeological Discovery During Construction
• Section 4(f) - Programmatic for Minor Involvement with Historic Bridges
• Section 4(f) - Programmatic for Minor Involvement with Historic Sites
• Section 4(f) - Programmatic for Net Benefit
The FHWA may not approve the use of land from a significant publicly owned public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site unless a Section 4(f) determination is made.
See the Regional Cultural Resources Coordinator for details on Programmatic Section 4(f) findings.
[Use for projects with NO federal-aid or NO potential for a federal permit]
The proposed project is 100% State funded, therefore Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act does not apply.
OR
[Use for projects with NO NR eligible properties identified within the project’s area of potential effect]
The Department has determined that there are no properties on, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places, or properties over 50 years old that may be eligible within the project’s area of potential effect. Therefore, a Section 4(f) evaluation for historical resources is not required.
OR
[Use for projects with NR eligible properties identified, and requiring a Programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation]
A historic property that is listed on, or eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places is located within the project’s area of potential effect. Identify and describe historic property. The programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation applies to this project. Describe the project and how it affects the site.
OR
[Use for projects having all activities within disturbed areas, with NO archeological potential]
The proposed project will not require project activities within previously undisturbed areas that have the potential to contain archeological resources. A 4(f) evaluation will not be required for archaeological resources.
OR
[Use for projects with an archeological survey that identified NO resources]
An archeological survey was conducted by consultant or agency on date to determine the presence of archaeological resources. No such resources were found in the project vicinity. A 4(f) evaluation will not be required for archaeological resources.
12 4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources
This section may contain the following unnumbered subsections:
• Park and Recreational Resources
• State Heritage Area Program
• National Heritage Area Program
• National Registry of Natural Landmarks
• Section 4(f) Involvement
• Section 6(f) Involvement
• Section 1010 Involvement
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
• 49 U.S.C. Section 303
• Section 1010 of the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Act.
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc.)
• NYSDEC consultation, data files, review, permits
• NYSOPRHP consultation
• NPS consultation, approval for involvement with federally-funded parkland
Cross-reference:
• 4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources – State Heritage Area Program
• 4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources – National Heritage Area Program
• Appendix 4(f) evaluation(s)
1 4.4.12.1 State Heritage Area Program -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• State Heritage Area management program
A listing and map of State Heritage Areas is available on the NYS Parks web site:
[Use for projects with no effect on State Heritage Areas]
The proposed project will not impact areas identified as State Heritage Areas.
OR
[Use for projects that DO affect State Heritage Areas]
The proposed project is located in -- State Heritage Area. The name of Administering Body has been contacted, and the Heritage Area Management Plan will be OR has been reviewed, to ensure that the project is consistent with the goals identified for the area.
2 4.4.12.2 National Heritage Areas Program -
[Use for projects with NO effect on National Heritage Areas]
The proposed project will not impact areas identified as National Heritage Areas.
OR
[Use for projects that DO affect National Heritage Areas]
The proposed project is located in -- National Heritage Area. Please refer to 4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources – “National Heritage Area Program,” for detailed information on the Heritage Area, potential impacts, and coordination with the management entity.
3 4.4.12.3 National Registry of Natural Landmarks -
There are approximately 26 National Natural Landmarks (NNLs) listed in NY on the National Park Service website:
[
Use for projects that do NOT impact an NNL]
There are no listed nationally significant natural areas within, or adjacent to, the project area.
OR
[Use for projects that do impact an NNL]
The Secretary of the Interior has designated a nationally significant natural area in/adjacent to the project area, and this area is listed on the National Registry of Natural Landmarks. Describe area, reason for designation and designation date.
4 4.4.12.4 Section 4(f) Involvement -
Originally Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966. In January 1983, as part of an overall recodification of the DOT Act, Section 4(f) was amended and codified in 49 U.S.C. Section 303
Section 6009(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) amended existing Section 4(f) legislation to simplify the process and approval of projects that have only de minimis (de minimis=small, minor, trivial) impacts on lands impacted by Section 4(f). Under the new provisions, once the US DOT determines that a transportation use of Section 4(f) property results in a de minimis impact, analysis of avoidance alternatives are not required and the Section 4(f) evaluation process is complete.
[Use for projects without federal aid]
The proposed project is 100% State funded. This section does not apply.
OR
[Use for projects with federal aid, that do NOT affect a 4(f) property]
There are no publicly owned parks or recreational facilities, protected under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act, in or adjacent to the project area. No further action is required under this section.
OR
[Use for projects with federal aid, near a 4(f) property, that do NOT affect the 4(f) property]
The proposed project is located adjacent to --- Park, a significant publicly-owned park. However, the project will not affect the park and a Section 4(f) evaluation is not required.
OR
[Use for projects with federal aid, and de minimis impacts to a 4(f) property]
The proposed project is located adjacent to --- Park, a significant publicly owned park. However, the Department anticipates that the project will have only de minimis impacts on the park. Written concurrence of the official(s) with jurisdiction over the facility will be sought, along with a de minimis impact finding from FHWA, to satisfy Section 4(f) requirements. Include any correspondence in the appendix and refer to it here.
OR
[Use for projects with federal aid, and minor impacts to a 4(f) property]
• FHWA must review the project and determine that it meets the criteria and procedures for a Programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation. Include correspondence in the Appendix
-- Park a publicly owned park, lies within the proposed project area. The project activities meet the criteria for a Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation for Minor Involvements with Parks, Recreation Areas and Waterfowl and Wildlife Refuges AND/OR Transportation Projects That Have a Net Benefit to a Section 4(f) Property. There is no other prudent and feasible alternative to the use of this land. Refer to Appendix -- for the Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation.
OR
Use for projects with federal aid, and impacts to a 4(f) property]
-- Park, a publicly owned park, lies within the proposed project area. The project activities include:
- land to be permanently incorporated into a transportation facility AND/OR
- a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s preservationist purposes AND/OR
- a constructive use of the Park land
There is no other prudent and feasible alternative to the use of this land. The proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to -- Park. An Individual 4(f) evaluation is required and is included in Appendix --.
5 4.4.12.5 Section 6(f) Involvement -
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act
If 6(f) funds were used to fund even a small part of the park or the development of the park, the entire property is considered by OPRHP to be “6(f).” Also, any non-recreational use of LWCF land that exceeds 6 months is considered “permanent” by the NPS and requires a permanent land conversion.
A land conversion proposal must be prepared, reviewed by OPRHP and submitted to NPS for approval.
[Use for projects that do NOT involve 6(f) lands]
The project does not impact parklands or facilities that have been partially or fully federally funded through the Land and Water Conservation Act. No further consideration under Section 6(f) is required.
OR
[Use for projects that involve 6(f) lands]
This project will impact parklands or facilities that have been partially or fully federally funded through the Land and Water Conservation Act. Describe facility, nature of 6(f) grant, and impacts.
All practical alternatives have been evaluated and there is no other prudent and feasible alternative to the use of this land. A portion of the recreational land will be transferred to the public highway right-of-way. Written approval from the National Park Service will be sought for the non-recreational use and conversion of this parkland. NYSDOT will work with NYSOPRHP to identify appropriate replacement lands required for converted properties under Section 6(f). NYSOPRHP will review the conversion proposal documentation and submit it to NPS. A copy of the conversion proposal is included in Appendix --.
6 4.4.12.6 Section 1010 Involvement -
Go to (NPS UPARR Program website) to identify UPARR-funded sites.
[Use for projects with NO Section 1010 involvement]
This project does not involve the use of land from a park to which Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program funds have been applied.
OR
[Use for projects with Section 1010 involvement]
• Written approval from the National Park Service (NPS) should be obtained before PS&E submission and the Department must “provide” property of equal value and of reasonable equivalent usefulness as that being converted. The NPS should indicate that an exchange of land can be reasonably expected.
The project will involve the transfer of a portion of recreational land created using Section 1010 funds for a public highway right-of-way. All practical alternatives have been evaluated. Replacement land will be provided and written approval from NPS has been obtained OR will be sought for the conversion. Include any correspondence in the Appendix and reference it here.
13 4.4.13 Visual Resources
This section may contain the following unnumbered subsections:
• Introduction
• Effects Assessment
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• EI 02-025
Cross-reference:
• Reference related sections of the DAD as appropriate:
• App. E Visual Resource Assessment
• 4.6 Construction Effects
• 4.7 Indirect (Secondary) Effects
• 4.8 Cumulative Effects
• 4.10 Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided or Adequately Mitigated
1 4.4.13.1 Introduction –
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Methodology
Refer to EI 02-025 (or, if superseded, the applicable EI) regarding Visual Resource Analysis Procedures. The Regional Landscape Architect or designee should do a visual resource scoping of the project to determine if there are any significant visual resources in the project area. Based upon the findings in the scoping assessment, a Visual Impact Analysis may be required if it is found that there is a potential for significant visual impacts. A summary of the visual resource scoping documentation and findings should be included in the body of the report. For projects which do not have a significant impact on the visual resources, a summary of the aesthetics of the project alternatives should be included in the body of the report.
FHWA guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A
The draft EIS should state whether the project alternatives have a potential for visual quality impacts. When this potential exists, the draft EIS should identify the impacts to the existing visual resource, the relationship of the impacts to potential viewers of and from the project, as well as measures to avoid, minimize, or reduce the adverse impacts. When there is potential for visual quality impacts, the draft EIS should explain the consideration given to design quality, art, and architecture in the project planning. These values may be particularly important for facilities located in visually sensitive urban or rural settings. When a proposed project will include features associated with design quality, art or architecture, the draft EIS should be circulated to officially designated State and local arts councils and, as appropriate, other organizations with an interest in design, art, and architecture. The final EIS should identify any proposed mitigation for the preferred alternative.
2 4.4.13.2 Effects Assessment -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Visual resource scoping and findings
• Summary of aesthetics of the project
Sample project discussion:
The proposed project, which is a highway reconstruction on the existing alignment, is adjacent to a number of historic structures. There will be three primary viewer groups of the proposed project: highway traffic users, residential occupants, and pedestrians.
The Village is a collection of 18th, 19th, and 20th century buildings, oriented toward the roadway, most of which were reconstructed early in the 20th century. Toward the southern end of the project limits, there are several abandoned and poorly maintained buildings, as well as a number of newer but inexpensively constructed buildings. The sidewalk system is deteriorated and not maintained. Toward the northern end of the project limits, there are several examples of restored and well-maintained historic homes and commercial buildings. The proposed roadway reconstruction will result in minor alterations to the streetscape settings of these structures.
The existing streetscape is noticeably lacking in typical improvements such as street trees, benches, and curbs ramps for handicapped accessibility. The viewshed of the pedestrian and motorist viewer groups, passing through the project corridor, is generally contained by the residential and commercial buildings. Residents’ viewshed is primarily the same, with the exception of those in two- and three-story structures that afford views over the facing buildings to the surrounding farmed and wooded areas. Exceptions to this limited viewshed are found at the roadway approaches to the Village from the south, and east, due to their somewhat higher topography. The proposed project will have minor impacts to the extent of the viewshed, due to the introduction of street trees.
The most prominent proposed streetscape alteration will be the curbed bump-outs proposed to define parking areas, provide traffic calming and define pedestrian crossings. Additional streetscape alterations include new sidewalks with accessible curb ramps, street tree plantings, some period benches, and possibly, as the budget allows, period lighting. The existing concrete sidewalk will be replaced with a concrete sidewalk, bordered by a stamped concrete in a traditional red brick pattern. There will also be minor alteration of street intersection radii. Twelve existing street trees will have to be removed in order to perform underground utility work, which will be replaced with similar street tree species.
The project is expected to have significant, positive effects to the existing visual corridor. New elements and fixtures introduced to the streetscape will be selected to reflect and enhance the context and architecture of the existing structures.
Sample project discussion:
The Proposed project is located in Albany County at the base of the Helderberg Escarpment, in a Village which is predominately composed of 19th Century residential and commercial structures. The surrounding land, along the perimeter of the Village of Altamont, which was once composed of agricultural lands and curving streams, is transitioning to suburban residential development.
The project consists of the intersection and two of the streets within the village, Route 146 (or Main street) and Maple Avenue. These roadways were widened in the 1950’s and constructed of concrete. Within the project limits, the southern and northern ends of Route 146 are lined with 20th Century commercial structures, with parking lots and formal landscaping in front. Between the northern and southern ends, it is primarily 19th Century residential and commercial structures, which contribute to the village’s Historic District qualifications.
The major visual features of the project corridor are the; 1) roadways, including on-street parking, 2) the treed residential lawns, and 3) the 19th Century residential structures. Additional visual features include overhead utilities with luminaries, sidewalks, the Village Park across from Maple Avenue, the railroad station and crossing, and the Bozen Kill and its tributaries.
There will be 3 primary viewer groups of the proposed project; highway traffic users (commuters, tourist, bicyclist, delivery trucks), residential occupants, and pedestrians. Since both roads (Main and Maple) lack any significant topographical change, and are bordered on both sides by structures, parked vehicles and vegetation, the lateral viewsheds of highway users and pedestrians are narrow, and limited to the highway corridor.
The intersection of Main and Maple streets, along with the village park and railroad station, is considered to be the main focal point of this project. Main Street has some diversity since there is a horizontal curve along one section approaching Maple Avenue, and elevation changes along the entire road within the project limits.
Maple Avenue is a straight and flat section of the highway, and is a constant visual feature in an otherwise diverse viewshed of 19th century homes and landscaped lawns. There are no other dominant or significant views or vistas from the project area. In addition, there are no other significant vantage points which the roadways are visible from which would necessitate subsequent visual analysis from these areas. However, several photo simulations have been created to serve as representative samples of the areas where the greatest proposed visual change will occur. These images are included in Appendix --.
Overall, the proposed alterations to the existing view sheds will result in a positive effect to the visual landscape. The visual elements that will be most altered will be the existing roadways, Main and Maple. These roadways, in themselves, are of low visual quality, and the resultant project will significantly improve them. The projects will improve and enhance the aesthetics of the village by incorporating street tree plantings, brick paving, period lighting, and continuous sidewalks separated from the street by green space/brick pavers. It is anticipated that the enhancements will be generally perceived as a positive change by most viewer groups.
Sample project discussion:
This project will have negligible effects on the existing visual corridor. Route 29/40 is classified as a Rural Minor Arterial, with a mix of commercial and residential development. The project site has 2 apparent visual roadway characteristics; an older residential village and a mixed commercial/residential (strip.( The overall existing visual quality is moderate in the residential section and low in the (strip( section. The commercial buildings in the ‘strip’ section are generally surrounded by large asphalt parking areas. A few blocks of older residential structures exist which are of moderate visual quality, this being the area where the historic eligible properties are located. The project corridor has very little landscaping.
Impacts to the visual environment include the introduction of new visual elements, such as sidewalks, streetscaping, and reconfigured intersections. To enhance the visual corridor of the proposed highway alignment, trees and shrubs will be planted. The predominate viewer groups will be motorists and pedestrians, and from their perspective, there will be a positive visual improvement.
14 4.4.14 Farmlands
This section may contain the following unnumbered subsections:
• State Farmland and Agricultural Districts
• Federal Prime and Unique Farmland
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• State Agricultural and Markets Law
• State Agriculture and Market Law, Article 25-AA
• State Agriculture and Market Law, Section 305(4)
• 1 NYCRR 371, Section 371.8 - Land Owner Waiver
• Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 CFR 658)
• USDA Farmland Conversion Rating Form AD-1006, Parts I, III, VI, VII
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc.)
• NYS Dept of Agriculture and Markets Consultation
• County Natural Resources Conservation Service Consultation
• USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service Consultation
Cross-reference:
• Reference related sections of the DAD as appropriate:
• Appendix Stakeholder and Public Input
1 4.4.14.1 State Farmland and Agricultural Districts -
Discuss potential topics as appropriate. Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Review of NYS Agricultural District Maps, soil survey maps, etc
• 305(4) certification requirements
• Preliminary Notice of Intent
• Final Notice of Intent
• Public review procedure
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Determination of "Action" criteria
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
• Land owner waiver
A Notice of Intent (NOI) and a Public Review Procedure must be submitted to the commissioner of Agriculture and Markets and the County agricultural and farmland protection board. The NOI must be complete before ROW acquisition. However, an NOI is not required if the land owner signs a document waiving the provisions of law pursuant to 1 NYCRR Part 371, Section 371.8 OR the project is an “emergency”. The project will require evaluation under Article 25-AA of the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law. The County Natural Resources Conservation Service should be advised of this determination.
[Use for projects NOT located in an Agricultural District]
Based on a review of the NYS Agricultural District Maps for -- County, the proposed project is not located in or adjacent to an Agricultural District.
OR
[Use for projects located in an Agricultural District, and not meeting size threshold criteria]
Based on a review of the NYS Agricultural District Maps for --- County, the proposed project is located thru portions of NYS Agricultural Districts #-- and #-- for --County. However, since the proposed project will not acquire more than one acre from an actively operated farm within any of the Agricultural Districts, or more than ten acres within any of the individual Agricultural Districts, the notification requirements of the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law do not apply.
OR
[Use for projects affecting an Agricultural District]
The project is located in -- County Agricultural District # --. The project will not acquire more than 4.0 hectares (10 acres) from within an agricultural district. However, the project will acquire more than 0.40 hectares (1.0 acre) from one individual farm since 2.25 hectares is required from the ------ farm.
The Agriculture and Market Law, Article 25-AA, requires prior notice to the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets for these right-of-way acquisitions in an Agricultural District. A Preliminary and Final Notice of Intent (PNOI and FNOI) must be filed with the New York State Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets and the -- County Agriculture and Farmland Protection Board. The FNOI must include a report justifying the proposed action including an evaluation of alternatives that would not require action within the Agricultural District. After the FNOI is accepted by the NYS Ag & Markets, a certification by the Regional Director is required, certifying that NYSDOT has met the requirements of State Agriculture and Market Law, Section 305(4) and to the maximum extent practicable, adverse agricultural impacts revealed in the Final Notice of Intent will be avoided, minimized and mitigated.
4.4.14.2 Federal Prime and Unique Farmland -
Discuss potential topics as appropriate. Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Existing farmland
• Prime/unique classification
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Acquisition or conversion of prime/unique farmland
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
• USDA Form AD-1006, “Farmland Conversion Impact Rating”
Existing land converted to non-farm uses or land slated for development is not considered prime or unique farmland.
FHWA Guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A:
Farmland includes 1) prime, 2) unique, 3) other than prime or unique that is of statewide importance, and 4) other than prime or unique that is of local importance.
The draft EIS should summarize the results of early consultation with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and, as appropriate, State and local agriculture agencies where any of the four specified types of farmland could be directly or indirectly impacted by any alternative under consideration. Where farmland would be impacted, the draft EIS should contain a map showing the location of all farmlands in the project impact area, discuss the impacts of the various alternatives and identify measures to avoid or reduce the impacts. Form AD-1006 (Farmland Conversion Impact Rating) should be processed, as appropriate, and a copy included in the draft EIS. Where the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment score (from Form AD-1006) is 160 points or greater, the draft EIS should discuss alternatives to avoid farmland impacts.
If avoidance is not possible, measures to minimize or reduce the impacts should be evaluated and, where appropriate, included in the proposed action.
[Use for projects with NO federal-aid or NO potential for a Federal permit]
The proposed project is 100% State funded, therefore the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply.
OR
[Use for projects that will NOT convert any farmland to nonagricultural use]
The proposed project activities will not convert any prime or unique farmland, or farmland of state or local importance, as defined by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, to a nonagricultural use.
OR
[Use for projects that MAY affect Federal farmland]
Acquisition of prime or unique farmland, or farmland of state or local significance, will be required for this project. Identify area and impacts. A site visit will be scheduled to determine whether the land has previously been converted to non-farm use. Completion of the US Department of Agriculture Farmland Conversion Rating (Form AD 1006) and its submission to the NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) is required, as well as consultation with the NRCS and a review of alternatives that do not require farmland acquisition.
OR
[Use for project that will affect Federal farmland]
The provisions of the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 CFR Part 658) will apply to the proposed project. The proposed project will involve permanent conversion of some prime or unique farmland. The US Department of Agriculture Farmland Conversion Rating (Form AD-1006) was submitted to the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The total ROW taking of all farmland is 3.76 ha (9.3 acres) and of this amount, 0.20 ha (0.50 acre) is Prime Farmland and 1.74 ha (4.3 acres) are Statewide Importance Farmland. Land that has been converted to residential use is not included in the above areas. The -- County Soil Survey Maps, the lists of Prime and Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Form AD-1006 are included in Appendix --.
15 4.4.15 Air Quality
This section may contain the following unnumbered subsections
• Regulatory Framework
• Transportation Conformity
• Carbon Monoxide (CO) Microscale Analysis
• Mesoscale Analysis
• Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
• Particulate Matter (PM) Analysis
• Greenhouse Gas Analysis
Regulatory Framework and Guidance
• Clean Air Act
• Federal Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982
• For projects needing air conformity see TIP at: .
• 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 – Transportation Conformity regulations
• 40 CFR Section 93 – Transportation Conformity exempt criteria
• NEPA
• SEQRA
• NY County Indirect Source Air Quality Permit
Interagency Coordination: Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies such as meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc. Agencies that may be involved with this section include:
• MPOs
• Interagency Consultation Group (ICG) – consists of NYSDOT, NYSDEC, FHWA, FTA and EPA
Cross-reference:
• Appendix Stakeholder and Public Input
• Appendix Environment/Air Quality
• 4.6 Construction Effects
• 4.7 Indirect (Secondary) Effects
• 4.8 Cumulative Effects
1 4.4.15.1 Regulatory Framework -
Discuss all topics listed above in Regulatory Framework and Guidance as appropriate.
Determine if the project is within a ‘non-attainment’ area for Ozone, and/or particulate matter and/or within a ‘Maintenance Area’ for carbon monoxide.
Refer to the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual maintained by the Environmental Analysis Bureau for current guidance for Federal and State Air Quality Legislation and Regulation.
FHWA Guidance from Technical Advisory 6640.8A:
The draft EIS should contain a brief discussion of the transportation-related air quality concerns in the project area and a summary of the project- related carbon monoxide (CO) analysis if such analysis is performed. The following information should be presented, as appropriate.
(a) Mesoscale Concerns: Ozone (O3), Hydrocarbons (HC), and Nitrogen Oxide x) air quality concerns are regional in nature and as such meaningful evaluation on a project-by-project basis is not possible. Where these pollutants are an issue, the air quality emissions inventories in the State Implementation Plan (SIP) should be referenced and briefly summarized in the draft EIS. Further, the relationship of the project to the SIP should be described in the draft EIS by including one of the following statements:
(1)This project is in an area where the SIP does not contain any transportation control measures. Therefore, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project.
(2)This project is in an area which has transportation control measures in the SIP which was (conditionally) approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on (date). The FHWA has determined that both the transportation plan and the transportation improvement program conform to the SIP. The FHWA has determined that this project is included in the transportation improvement program for the (indicate 3C planning area). Therefore, pursuant to 23 CFR 770, this project conforms to the SIP.
Under certain circumstances, neither of these statements will precisely fit the situation and may need to be modified. Additionally, if the project is a Transportation Control Measure from the SIP, this should be highlighted to emphasize the project's air quality benefits.
(b) Microscale Concerns: Carbon monoxide is a project- related concern and as such should be evaluated in the draft EIS. A microscale CO analysis is unnecessary where such impacts (project CO contribution plus background) can be judged to be well below the 1- and 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards (or other applicable State or local standards). This judgment may be based on (1) previous analyses for similar projects; (2) previous general analyses for various classes of projects; or (3) simplified graphical or "look-up" table evaluations. In these cases, a brief statement stating the basis for the judgment is sufficient.
For those projects where a microscale CO analysis is performed, each reasonable alternative should be analyzed for the estimated time of completion and design year. A brief summary of the methodologies and assumptions used should be included in the draft EIS. Lengthy discussions, if needed, should be included in a separate technical report and referenced in the EIS. Total CO concentrations (project contribution plus estimated background) at identified reasonable receptors for each alternative should be reported. A comparison should be made between alternatives and with applicable State and national standards. Use of a table for this comparison is recommended for clarity.
As long as the total predicted 1-hour CO concentration is less than 9 ppm (the 8-hour CO standard), no separate 8-hour analysis is necessary. If the 1-hour CO concentration is greater than 9 ppm, an 8-hour analysis should be performed. Where the preferred alternative would result in violations of the 1 or 8-hour CO standards, an effort should be made to develop reasonable mitigation measures through early coordination between FHWA, EPA, and appropriate State and local highway and air quality agencies. The final EIS should discuss the proposed mitigation measures and include evidence of the coordination.
2 4.4.15.2 Transportation Conformity –
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Inclusion in current approved Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
• Interagency Coordination
• Project Level Conformity Analysis requirements
The conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to State Implementation plans (SIPs), and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP ensures that transportation plans, programs, and projects do not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). According to the Clean Air Act, federally supported activities must conform to the implementation plan’s purpose of attaining and maintaining these standards.
If the project is not on the TIP, discuss when it will be put on the TIP. The Regional Transportation Committee should at least be aware of the project and planning to include it on the TIP by the design phase. Then, the conformity of the project as it relates to the TIP must be addressed. If the project is not exempt from Regional Emissions Analysis, discuss if this has been done and the results, or when it will be done.
Be sure to double check whether the project is on the TIP. Also, verify the scope hasn’t changed. See the TIP on the Capital District Transportation Committee website: . TIP approval dates, numbers. etc. are also available at this site. Refer to DR/EA Chapter 2 Sections 2.1 Project History and 2.2.2.4 Transportation Plans.
[Use for projected designated as air conformity exempt, per 40 CFR Section 93]
This project is located in -- County which is considered an ozone attainment area. The project is considered an exempt project as per Table 2 in Section 93.126 of 40 CFR. In addition, this project is also exempt from Regional Emissions Analysis as per Table 3 in Section 93.127 of 40 CFR. Therefore, no additional analysis is required for this project.
OR
[Use for projects that are NOT exempt from air conformity, and on the TIP]
This project has been reviewed by the Regional Transportation Committee and is on the TIP.
In accordance with the CAA Amendments of 1990, the proposed project has been assessed to determine if it conforms to the purpose of the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Final Conformity Regulations on Transportation Conformity (40 CFR, Parts 51 and 93) published by USEPA on November 24, 1993 and effective January 31, 1994, has been used to ensure that the project addresses the conformity requirements.
OR
[Use for project NOT in non-attainment area and NOT needing air conformity]
The project is located – County, which contains a marginal non-attainment area located at the top of Whiteface Mountain (above the elevation of 4500 feet). The actual project site is not located within the non-attainment area, therefore, the transportation conformity regulations, published by the EPA on August 15, 1997 (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93), do not apply.
OR
[Use for projects designated as air-conformity exempt, and on the TIP]
The project site is located in -- County, which is considered an ozone marginal non-attainment area. The project is designated as an exempt project on the Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Capital District Urban Area. This TIP has been found to conform by the Capital District Transportation Committee and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), approved by amendment to the May 1999 TIP on September 6, 2000, by CDTC and signed by FHWA on October 11, 2000. The project’s design scope and concept have not changed since the TIP amendment determination was made.
3 4.4.15.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Microscale Analysis -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• LOS Screening
• Capture Screening
• Volume Screening
• Level I Analysis for CO and PM
• Level II Analysis for CO and PM
• See link for Web Applications for Air Quality Analysis:
o ”
• See EPM Section 1.1.14 for guidance related to PM microscale analyses.
[Use for projects not needing a CO analysis or project-level conformity determination]
An air quality analysis for CO is not required since this project will not increase traffic volumes, reduce source-receptor distances by 10% or more, or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to jeopardize attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The project does not require a project-level conformity determination.
OR
[Use for projects needing a CO analysis]
An air quality analysis for CO will be required for this project since the project state reason – (i.e.- increases the number of queued lanes by adding a turn lane or traffic signal; or increases the traffic volume by 10% within 20 years after the estimated time of completion). Discuss if this will be a microscale analysis or mesoscale and the details.
OR
[Use for projects using federal-aid NOT needing a PM analysis]
This project is determined to be a SEQR Type II Action and is classified as a NEPA Class II Categorical Exclusion. As such, the project actions do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on PM emissions. It can therefore be concluded that the project will have no significant adverse impact on ambient PM levels.
OR
[Use for projects NOT using federal-aid or having potential for a Federal permit and NOT needing a PM analysis]
This project is determined to be a SEQR Type II Action. As such, the project actions do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on PM emissions. It can therefore be concluded that the project will have no significant adverse impact on ambient PM levels.
OR
[Use for projects NOT classified as NEPA Categorical Exclusions and NOT needing a PM analysis]
This project has not been classified as a NEPA Categorical Exclusion or a SEQR Type II Action, but has been determined to result in no increased traffic volumes. The project actions do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on PM emissions. It can therefore be concluded that the project will have no significant adverse impact on ambient PM levels.
OR
[Use for projects needing a PM analysis]
This project has been determined to be a SEQR Non-Type II Action and NEPA Class I OR Class III with significant impact, and will result in increased traffic volumes. Therefore, PM analysis is required for both the PM10 and PM2.5 emission thresholds.
4 4.4.15.4 Mesoscale Analysis -
Mesoscale analysis is a methodology adopted for air quality effects when a project would significantly affect conditions over a large area (i.e. regionally significant). Mesoscale analysis (regional air quality) covers a geographic area that is larger than the immediate project area, but smaller than the entire network system. The size of the analysis area would depend upon the scale and scope of the project, but it should include at a minimum, all the roadways that are affected by the project. Thus, a mesoscale analysis would consider the regional effects for all five air pollutants (PM2.5, PM10, CO, VOC, and NOx). See EPM Section 1.1.14 for guidance related to PM mesoscale analyses.
Some examples of regionally significant projects include:
• HOV lanes vs. general use lanes,
• New or significant modifications to interchanges on access-controlled facilities,
• Large-scale signal coordination projects,
• In attainment area, projects having alternatives (including the no-build) with significantly different (10%) VMT,
• Widening to provide additional travel lanes more than a mile in length
If a project meets any of the above criteria, then a quantitative mesoscale analysis for both PM fractions (in addition to CO, VOCs and NOx) is required for each proposed alternative. (Source – EAB: NYSDOT Project Level Particulate Matter Analysis Guidance, Final Policy September, 2004.)
[Use for projects that will not need a mesoscale analysis]
A Mesoscale Analysis is not required for this project since it does not significantly affect air quality conditions over a large area and is not a regionally significant project.
5 4.4.15.5 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) Analysis -
Discuss potential topics as appropriate. Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Mitigation (avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
Analyze MSATs in accordance with Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, FHWA; February 3, 2006:
•
For qualitative analysis use the procedures and documentation requirements in the FHWA interim guidance.
For quantitative analysis contact ESB for guidance.
6 4.4.15.6 Particulate Matter (PM) Analysis -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Microscale analysis requirements and procedures
• Mesoscale analysis requirements and procedures.
• Relationship to Transportation Conformity, including Hot Spot requirements and procedures.
7 4.4.15.7 Greenhouse Gas Analysis -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Effects (impacts) assessment
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
16 4.4.16 Energy
This section may contain the following unnumbered subsections:
• Introduction
• Effects Assessment
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• Executive Order 12185
• Draft Project-Level Energy Analysis Guidelines, 2003
• For energy analysis guidance, see Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis, NYSDOT, November 25, 2003
Cross-reference:
Reference related sections of the DAD as appropriate:
• Appendix Environmental/Energy Analysis
• 4.6 Construction Effects
• 4.7 Indirect (Secondary) Effects
• 4.8 Cumulative Effects
• 4.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
• 4.10 Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided or Adequately Mitigated
FHWA Guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A
Except for large scale projects, a detailed energy analysis including computations of BTU requirements, etc., is not needed. For most projects, the draft EIS should discuss in general terms the construction and operational energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives under consideration. The discussion should be reasonable and supportable. It might recognize that the energy requirements of various construction alternatives are similar and are generally greater than the energy requirements of the no-build alternative. Additionally, the discussion could point out that the post-construction, operational energy requirements of the facility should be less with the build alternative as opposed to the no-build alternative. In such a situation, one might conclude that the savings in operational energy requirements would more than offset construction energy requirements and thus, in the long term, result in a net savings in energy usage.
For large-scale projects with potentially substantial energy impacts, the draft EIS should discuss the major direct and/or indirect energy impacts and conservation potential of each alternative. Direct energy impacts refer to the energy consumed by vehicles using the facility. Indirect impacts include construction energy and such items as the effects of any changes in automobile usage. The alternative's relationship and consistency with a State and/or regional energy plan, if one exists, should also be indicated.
The final EIS should identify any energy conservation measures that will be implemented as a part of the preferred alternative. Measures to conserve energy include the use of high-occupancy vehicle incentives and measures to improve traffic flow.
[Use for projects with no Federal-aid]
The proposed project is 100% State funded. This section does not apply.
OR
[Use for projects with Federal-aid and with a NEPA Class II, Categorical Exclusion classification]
The proposed project is classified as a categorical exclusion and will not require an energy analysis since, by definition; it will not significantly impact energy utilization.
OR
[Use for projects that do NOT meet the threshold criteria that requires a energy assessment]
An energy assessment is not required for the proposed project since it is not expected to:
a. Increase or decrease VMT;
b. Generate additional vehicle trips;
c. Significantly affect land use development patterns;
d. Result in a shift in travel patterns; or
e. Significantly increase or decrease vehicle operating speeds.
Therefore, the project will not significantly affect energy consumption.
The Following Sections are for EIS projects, or for projects which require an energy assessment because the project affects a, b, c, d, or e in the above mentioned section.
1 4.4.16.1 Introduction -
Discuss potential topics as appropriate. Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Applicability
• Methodology
[Use for projects that are associated with a previous energy assessment]
An energy assessment was completed on May 25, 2005. Describe outcome.
2 4.4.16.2 Energy Analysis -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Energy Analysis
• Direct Energy
• Indirect Energy
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• CO2 Emissions from Direct Energy Consumption
• CO2 Emissions from Indirect Energy Consumption
The energy analysis should follow the procedures outlined in the Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis, published by NYSDOT, dated November 25, 2003. The purpose of the analysis is to determine the direct and indirect energy consumption associated with the No-Build alternative and the proposed build alternatives.
3 4.4.16.3 Mitigation Summary -
A. Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
[Use for complex projects (typically EIS/EA) with full energy analysis]
A. Introduction
Federal Highway Administration 1987 guidelines for preparing environmental impact statements require quantifying direct and indirect energy consumption due to a highway project. The State Energy Plan, adopted in 2002, calls for the State’s transportation sector to be more energy efficient and sets goals for reducing consumption. Accordingly, the potential energy effects of the reconstruction and operation of NY Route – are compared to taking no action (the No-Build alternative).
Because the Build alternative for NY Route -- will increase operating speeds and change travel patterns along the project corridor, the proposed project has the potential to affect energy consumption. Both the potential direct and indirect energy impacts of the proposed project are analyzed based on guidance and procedures developed by NYSDOT for estimating the energy impacts from construction and operation of transportation projects.
B. Methodology
1. Energy Analysis
The NY Route -- Energy Analysis is based on NYSDOT’s Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis, dated November 2003. The energy analysis addresses two elements: direct and indirect energy consumption. Direct energy refers to the fuel consumed by vehicles using the highway facility. Indirect energy refers to energy associated with construction and operation of the facility.
1.1 Direct Energy
Direct energy impact is the energy consumed by vehicles using a facility based on vehicular volumes, weight and average travel speeds. The direct energy analysis uses the Urban Fuel Consumption Method (UFCM) for light duty vehicles and medium and heavy trucks described in NYSDOT’s energy analysis guidelines. The UFCM is modified for the XX km (XX miles) long NY Route ------ corridor by including a spreadsheet that incorporates all assumptions on a link-by-link basis and produces estimates of energy use for the two scenarios that are more precise than generalized corridor-long analytic approaches. The links used are intersection to intersection taken from the mesoscale air quality analysis. Input assumptions:
• Vehicle volumes are derived for each facility segment, producing vehicle miles of travel (VMT) per link.
• Vehicle weights are based on vehicle classifications which are used to identify fuel consumption rates.
• The effect of slowdowns and stops associated with urban traffic on vehicle speeds is built into the average travel speeds and fuel consumption rates of the UFCM.
For this analysis, average speeds and traffic volumes (and thus VMT) are estimated by link for the worst-case morning and evening peak hours, summed and factored to produce an average daily and annual fuel consumption for each alternative.
Average Speeds
Average travel speeds were measured by NYSDOT for all links along the NY Route -- corridor for both morning and evening peak periods, in 2000 for the segment from -- to --, and in 2002 for the segment from -- to --. These speeds were used as the basis for estimating future speeds for No-Build and Build conditions for ETC (2010), ETC+10 and ETC+20. For segments from -- to --, future speeds were predicted by the Synchro model. For segments from -- to --, future speeds were estimated using equations that relate traffic volumes to travel speeds, estimating the reduction in speeds as traffic volumes grow, consistent with field observations. These equations have been approved for various projects undertaken for NYSDOT, NYCDOT and the TBTA.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Vehicle Mix
Traffic volumes for each link were obtained from traffic counts for baseline conditions in the year 2000. Future volumes were estimated by multiplying these volumes by growth factors provided by NYSDOT. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) was then calculated for each alternative for the morning and evening peak hours. The annual VMT for each alternative was calculated based on daily VMT along NY Route --. NYSDOT’s vehicle mix for Region -- was applied to the VMT to determine the appropriate mix of light duty vehicles and medium and heavy trucks for each link in the corridor for No-Build and Build conditions for ETC, ETC+10 and ETC+20.
Fuel Consumption Rate/Fuel Economy
Based on an average vehicle weight, and average speed for each link and time period, the fuel consumption rates for light duty vehicles and medium and heavy trucks were determined using values provided in NYSDOT’s Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines, which adjusts 1980 base year factors for No-Build and Build conditions for ETC, ETC+10 and ETC+20.
Total Vehicular Fuel Use
To estimate the total corridor fuel use for No-Build and Build conditions for ETC, ETC+10 and ETC+20 for the morning and evening weekday peak hours, VMT by link by time period was multiplied by its corresponding fuel consumption rate and summed. The peak hour results were then factored using 24-hour ATR counts to get daily fuel use, even though the higher off-peak travel speeds would reduce actual fuel usage slightly. The daily usage was multiplied by 350 to estimate annual fuel use. This multiplier, which accounts for the difference in traffic volume on weekends versus average weekday usage of NY Route --, was developed from ATR counts for the period 2000 through 2004 provided by NYSDOT.
1.2. Indirect Energy
The remaining energy impacts are the indirect energy associated with constructing, operating and maintaining a facility. The indirect energy analysis was conducted using the Input-Output Approach in NYSDOT’s Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines for Project-Level Analysis. Maintenance Energy is based on the lane-miles of pavement type for a facility. The indirect energy analysis is focused on the differences in the energy consumed due to construction between the No-Build and the Build alternatives. Construction energy covers production and transport of materials, powering on-site equipment, worker transportation and other factors plus the materials used in construction itself.
Construction Energy
Construction energy is the energy consumed during construction based on an established energy factor per dollar of construction costs, annualized by dividing total project costs by 20 years. The cost of construction reported for all segments of NY Route -- is $--. The energy coefficient per unit cost of construction is derived from a highway construction price index provided in the guidance document, in which the published 1977 dollar values are adjusted for future years by a factor of --. For this analysis, the construction factor for “Urban Conventional Highway Widen” is used for the Build alternative. The No-Build is assumed not to have construction costs or related energy consumption.
Energy Required for Roadway Maintenance
The energy required to operate and maintain each alternative is based on the energy consumed for roadway maintenance (patching, crack sealing, lighting, landscape maintenance, etc.) based on the total lane-miles for each alternative. Annual energy consumption for maintenance per lane mile is provided in the guidance document.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
The majority of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project is in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), resulting from the combustion of carbon-based fossil fuels. Fossil fuels account for virtually all energy use by motor vehicles (direct energy), and for virtually all energy embedded in the construction materials and used during construction and maintenance of the roadway (indirect energy). Thus, this analysis of potential emissions of greenhouse gases uses the results from the direct and indirect energy analyses above and is reported as total carbon emissions.
2.0 CO2 Emissions Estimates from Direct Energy Consumption
It is assumed that CO2 emissions from Direct Energy Consumption of a roadway project are the result of the combustion of motor vehicle fuel. Therefore, this analysis employed Carbon Emission Coefficients for motor vehicle fuel to calculate the carbon equivalent of CO2 emissions resulting from operation of each of the project alternatives. These coefficients were provided in NYSDOT’s Draft Energy Analysis Guidelines.
C. Probable Impacts of the Project Alternatives
1.0 Energy Analysis
1.1 Direct Energy
The results of the analysis show that the potential direct annual energy consumption of the Build Alternative would be less than the energy consumption of the No-Build alternative in spite of the substantial growth in traffic. This is because the roadway improvements included in the Build alternative would achieve higher travel speeds in the NY Route -- corridor and result in less energy consuming delay and congestion. Table 1 compares the vehicle miles of travel along the NY Route -- corridor for 2010, 2020 and 2030 for No Build and Build conditions. Table 2 reports the resulting direct (vehicular) energy consumption. It shows that the Build Alternative requires slightly less energy for vehicles (4.7% less in 2010, 5.5% less in 2020, 9.5% less in 2030) than is required for the less efficient No-Build (existing) roadway configuration in spite of an increase in vehicular travel of 12.4% in 2030 for the Build compared to the No Build condition (see Addendum A).
Table 1: Annual Travel Along NY 112
|Alternative |Vehicle Miles of Travel |
| |(millions) |
| |2010 |2020 |2030 |
|No Build |32.2 |36.4 |40.6 |
|Build |33.8 |39.7 |45.6 |
|Difference Build vs. No-Build |+ 5.2% |+ 9.2% |+ 12.4% |
Table 2: Annual Direct Energy Consumption
|Alternative |Direct Energy Consumption |
| |(billion Btu) |
| |2010 |2020 |2030 |
|No Build |232 |272 |322 |
|Build |221 |257 |291 |
|Difference Build vs. No-Build |- 4.7% |- 5.5% |- 9.5% |
1.2 Indirect Energy
The indirect energy calculations account for the energy expended due to the construction proposed under each of the proposed alternatives. Between the No-Build and Build alternatives, the analysis predictably shows that the No Build alternative would result in the least amount of indirect energy expended, and that construction of the Build alternative would produce higher indirect energy demands than for the No-Build alternative. A summary of the indirect energy results is presented in Table 3. The resulting indirect energy consumption has been annualized over 20 years (i.e., the total Indirect Energy Consumption for roadway construction has been divided by 20).
Table 3: 2010 Construction Year Indirect Energy Consumption
|Alternative |2010 Construction Cost |Indirect Energy Consumption |
| | |(billion BTU)(1) |
|No Build |$0 |1.47 |
|Build |$41,360,245 |19.40 |
1) Includes energy required annually for roadway maintenance and operation.
Table 4: Total Energy Use Estimated for the NY Route -- Project
|Alternative |Total Energy Consumption |
| |(billion Btu) |
| |2010 |2020 |2030 |
|No Build |233 |273 |324 |
|Build |240 |276 |311 |
|Difference Build vs. No-Build |+ 3.1% |+ 1.1% |- 3.9% |
2. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
2.1 CO2 Emissions Estimates From Direct Energy Consumption
Since the No-Build alternative resulted in higher direct energy effects than the Build alternative, it follows that the greenhouse gas emissions for the No-Build alternative were also predicted to be slightly higher than for the Build alternative. CO2 emissions for the Build alternative were 95.3% in ETC, 94.5% in ETC+10 and 90.5% in ETC+20 of No-Build emissions. In other words, reconstructing NY 112 will reduce slightly direct (vehicular related) CO2 emissions. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Annual Carbon (CO2) Emissions Estimated from Direct Energy Consumption
|Alternative |Carbon Emissions |
| |(Tons per Year) |
| |2010 |2020 |2030 |
|No Build |4,894 |5,743 |6,792 |
|Build |4,666 |5,425 |6,150 |
2.2 CO2 Emissions Estimates From Indirect Energy Consumption
Between the two project alternatives, the analysis shows that the No-Build alternative would result in a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions. As stated above, the construction work required under the Build alternative would contribute to higher indirect energy requirements, and therefore higher predicted emissions of greenhouse gases than for the No-Build alternative analyzed. A summary of the CO2 emissions estimates from indirect energy consumption, reported as tons of carbon, are presented in Table 6. It shows that the Build alternative produces 13 times the carbon emissions annually than does the No-Build alternative due entirely to the energy required to reconstruct and maintain NY 112.
Table 6: Total Carbon (CO2) Emissions Estimated from Indirect Energy Consumption
|Alternative |Carbon Emissions |
| |(Tons per Year) |
| |2010 |2020 |2030 |
|No Build |32 |32 |32 |
|Build |422 |422 |422 |
(1) Construction energy and therefore carbon emissions is analyzed over 20 years.
2.3 Annual CO2 Emissions Estimated For the Total Project
Total carbon emissions in 2010, 2020 and 2030 for the project are presented in Table 7 with the Build alternative producing slightly higher emissions than No-Build in 2010 (by 3.3%) and in 2020 (by 1.2%), and slightly lower emissions than No-Build in 2030 (by 3.7%). This increase from No-Build to Build in 2010 and 2020 is due to the energy required for construction exceeding the energy savings from the improved fuel efficiency of the Build alternative. A comparison with Table 5 shows that vehicular use makes up 91.7-93.6% of total carbon emissions for Build conditions and more than 99% for No-Build.
Table 7: Total Carbon (CO2) Emissions Estimated from the NY Route ------ Project
|Alternative |Carbon Emissions |
| |(Tons per Year) |
| |2010 |2020 |2030 |
|No Build |4,926 |5,775 |6,824 |
|Build |5,088 |5,847 |6,572 |
|Difference Build vs. No-Build |+ 3.3% |+ 1.2% |- 3.7% |
D. Mitigation
The proposed Build alternative improves operating efficiency of the NY -- corridor and, therefore, in spite of moving more traffic at higher speeds, reduces vehicular fuel consumption slightly. Likewise, total direct carbon emissions (and therefore CO2 emissions) are slightly reduced as well. Due to the indirect energy used during and embedded in the construction, the total CO2 emissions are increased slightly in 2010 and in 2020, and decreased slightly in 2030, for the Build alternative, as compared to No-Build. The slight carbon emissions benefits in 2030 may be eroded with the widespread introduction of hybrid vehicles (not factored into this analysis), which are far less prone to inefficiencies at very low travel speeds.
The results are so close, however, that no mitigating action is recommended for energy related effects.
As part of the April 2006 conformity determination for the 2006-2010 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and 2005-2030 Regional Transportation Plan, NYMTC conducted a Consistency Assessment of the TIP and Plan with the New York State Energy Plan. That assessment, which included this project, found that the regional TIP and Plan demonstrate consistency with the State Energy Plan, and illustrate the regional focus and commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
17 4.4.17 Noise
This section may contain the following unnumbered subsections:
• Regulatory Framework
• Methodology
• Existing Conditions
• Effects Assessment
• Mitigation Summary
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• 23 CFR 772 -
• For noise analysis guidance see: NYSDOT Environmental Science Bureau’s Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 3
Cross-reference:
Reference related sections of the DAD as appropriate:
FHWA guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A
•
From FHWA Sec. 772.5 Definitions.
• (h) Type I projects. A proposed Federal or Federal-aid highway project for the construction of a highway on new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through-traffic lanes.
• Type II projects. A proposed Federal or Federal-aid highway project for noise abatement on an existing highway.
From FHWA Sec. 772.9 Analysis of traffic noise impacts and abatement measures.
(a) The highway agency shall determine and analyze expected traffic noise impacts and alternative noise abatement measures to mitigate these impacts, giving weight to the benefits and cost of abatement, and to the overall social, economic and environmental effects.
(b) The traffic noise analysis shall include the following for each alternative under detailed study:
(1) Identification of existing activities, developed lands, and undeveloped lands for which development is planned, designed and programmed, which may be affected by noise from the highway;
(2) Prediction of traffic noise levels;
(3) Determination of existing noise levels;
(4) Determination of traffic noise impacts; and
(5) Examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts.
[Use for projects with NO impact]
The project will not significantly change either the horizontal or vertical alignment, or increase the number of through-traffic lanes. Therefore, this project is not a Type I project and does not require a traffic noise analysis as per 23 CFR 772.
OR
[Use for projects with minimal impact]
This project is essentially on the same location, with minor realignments of existing lanes due to the removal of the traffic circle. It does not increase the number of through traffic lanes, nor does it significantly change the horizontal or vertical alignment in the vicinity of a receptor. This project is not a Type I project, as defined by 23 CFR 772 and does not require a formal noise study. However, a noise analysis was done for Alternatives 2 and 3 that close the New Big Tree Road connection to the Route 5 Access Ramp. Through traffic, which previously used New Big Tree Road, would now utilize Old Big Tree Road. This would result in an increase of traffic of about 48 % onto Old Big Tree Road up to Route 75. This would result in about a 2 decibel increase in noise to receptors along this route. Much of the traffic would continue on Old Big Tree Road at the intersection with Route 75, but a percentage of this traffic would turn onto Route 75 to Lakeshore Road Extension. The noise level increase along this section of Old Big Tree Road would be less than the noise level increase on the section below Route 75, that is, less than a 2 decibel increase.
OR
[Use for projects that are on new alignment, or have ‘significant’ vertical or horizontal realignment changes, but noise abatement is not practicable or cost effective since there is only one receptor impacted]
The proposed project is classified as a Noise Regulation Type 1 under 23 CFR 772 since the project will significantly realign bridges, approach roads, ramps and adjacent roads closer to residential and commercial receptors. A Traffic Noise Assessment was completed for existing Interchange alternatives at identify locations. Only one receptor at Interchange 110 will be impacted, with a 3 decibel increase over the no build alternative. Since this is a singular residence, providing noise abatement is not practicable or cost effective. See Appendix -- for details or the Traffic Noise Assessment.
OR
[Use for projects that are on new alignment or have ‘significant’ vertical or horizontal realignment changes]
• A noise impact occurs when the predicted noise level approaches or exceeds the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) or the predicted design year noise level is substantially higher than the existing noise level.
The proposed project is classified as a Noise Regulation Type 1 under 23 CFR 772 since the project will describe reason, i.e. significantly change the horizontal alignment for the I-87 ramps, and it requires a traffic noise analysis OR a traffic noise analysis was completed. Discuss if project will cause noise impacts, abatement measures to be included (23 CFR 772.13c), mitigation, etc. Also refer to traffic noise analysis in Appendix --.
OR
[Use for projects with a Type I analysis]
A noise study was conducted to assess the impacts of both traffic generated noise and construction noise which may be expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. The procedures followed for this analysis are in accordance with the Federal-Aid Program Guide, 23 CFR 772, (Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise,( and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), (Noise Analysis Policy(. A Noise Study Report was prepared and is available for viewing at the NYSDOT Regional Office in Syracuse. Refer to Exhibit 4.2.3.8.-1 for a summary of the Traffic Noise Levels.
As part of this study, a survey of existing conditions was performed and land uses were identified. Sixteen (16) analysis sites that represent residential and non-residential areas were selected for study in the project corridor.
OR
[Use for EIS/EA projects with substantial noise issues]
Computed noise levels are summarized in Appendix B. The following two (2) criteria were used to determine if noise impacts would occur:
1. A 6 dBA increase between existing and design year 2034 build alternative noise levels.
The predicted design year 2034 build alternative noise level for an analysis site approaches, or exceeds the appropriate FHWA(s Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). The NYSDOT has defined (approach( to be one decibel less than the NAC for a site. Residential sites have a NAC of 67 dBA.
|Exhibit 4.4.17 Summary of Traffic Noise Levels |
|Group |Number of analysis sites with noise |Number of residential properties |
| |impacts* |associated with the analysis sites. |
|Existing Conditions |5 |13 |
|Null Alternative |11 (note #1) |27 (note #1) |
|Build Alternative |10 (notes #1 and #2) |22 (notes #1 and #2) |
Notes:
(#1) The increase in the number of impacted sites from the Existing Condition to the Null or Build Conditions is due to the projected increase in traffic volumes that will occur over the next 30 years whether the project is built or not. In all cases, the existing noise levels at the additional sites that are considered impacted in the Build or Null Conditions are just below the threshold (within 1 to 2 dBA) of being considered impacted under the Existing Conditions.
(#2) The Build Alternative has one less impacted analysis site than the Null Alternative due to the shift in the Route 31 alignment, away from site R2, thereby reducing the noise levels at the five properties associated with site R2.
Mitigation Summary (generally for EIS/EA projects):
[Use for projects with noise impacts]Noise abatement considerations that are available include:
1) Traffic management measures such as traffic control devices and signing for prohibition of certain vehicle types, time-use restrictions for certain vehicle types, modified speed limits, and exclusive lane designations.
2) Alteration of horizontal and vertical alignments
3) Construction of noise barriers
Noise abatement considerations are not feasible or reasonable on this project. The only areas of affected residential receptors are along Old Big Tree Road, otherwise most of the project corridor is commercial or manufacturing. Noise walls, at the residential block on Old Big Tree Road, would not be feasible due to the many access drives which would require many openings in the wall, thereby negating the effectiveness of the wall. Additionally, a wall at this location would be a significant visual alteration to the neighborhood. The other measures (traffic management and vertical/horizontal alignment alteration) are also not reasonable. Altering the profile of Old Big Tree Road would severely affect driveway access, and, traffic management for this one street would be difficult to enforce and would result in a very small decibel reduction - less than the projected 2 decibel increase. For this project, since the noise level increase is not significant and the noise abatement measures are not reasonable or feasible, no noise abatement measures are planned.
Short term construction noise may impact abutting receptors to some extent due to the character of the project and some of the operations involved. However, no unusual noise mitigation is expected to be necessary for the work proposed under these alternative(s). Daytime construction activity during the regular work week should limit sleep disturbance problems. Locating high noise level equipment away from sensitive receptors, awareness of potential noise problems and complaints, and maintenance of proper muffling devices should minimize construction noise impacts.
OR
[Use for projects with noise impacts]
In order to reduce the noise impact associated with this project, noise abatement techniques would need to be employed. Noise abatement measures must be considered reasonable and feasible to warrant implementation. Feasible is defined as the practical capability of the abatement being built as well as achieving a substantial decibel reduction. A substantial reduction in noise level of 10 dBA is desirable, while a 7 dBA reduction is considered a minimum. Reasonable is when the cost of the noise abatement measure is less than a specified cost index based on the total cost per dwelling unit benefited, and that the impacted residents concur with the abatement recommendation.
Four (4) noise abatement techniques were reviewed for this project: traffic management techniques, alternative highway locations, noise barriers, and acquisition of real property to serve as a buffer zone. None of the techniques were found to be reasonable and feasible since they do not provide the substantial noise reduction required or would be considered cost effective for implementation. Therefore, no noise abatement measures are recommended for this project. The Noise Study Report in the Environmental Appendix provides a complete evaluation of mitigation measures.
18 4.4.18 Asbestos
This section may contain the following subsections:
• Screening
• Assessment and Quantification
• Mitigation Summary
Regulatory Framework and Guidance:
• NYSDOT’s Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 1.3
• NYSDOL Code Rule No. 56
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc.)
• NYSDEC disposal/handling permits
• NYSDOL
1 4.4.18.1 Screening -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Bridges, Utilities, Culverts, Building Demolition
[Use for projects for projects with no asbestos involvement]
An asbestos screening has been performed for this project and it has been determined that there are no areas of potential asbestos material present, since the scope of this project is limited and does not involve underground utilities, bridges, large culverts, or structure demolitions.
OR
[Use for projects with potential for asbestos due to demolitions of bridges, buildings, utilities]
An asbestos screening has been performed for this project and it has been determined that there are three areas of potential asbestos material: 1) the potential for the acquisition and demolition of an existing building, 2) the existing utility lines which will be removed and replaced, and 3) 2 culverts and a bridge structure which will be demolished. An Asbestos Assessment will be performed which will review the “as builts” of the utilities, culverts and the bridge. A consultant will be retained for a sampling/testing report for the building to be demolished and the bridge, if the “as builts” are not available or insufficient. If asbestos is determined to be present on the project, an Asbestos Special Note and Specifications will need to be prepared by NYSDOT personnel or a consultant with an Asbestos Designer License.
2 4.4.18.2 Assessment and Quantification -
Topics may include, but are not limited to the following:
• Bridges, Utilities, Culverts, Building Demolition
An asbestos assessment has been completed for this project. The results of this assessment included a review of the underground utilities and concrete box culverts “as builts,” which indicated that no Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) was present. A review of the bridge “as builts” indicates that there is an ACM bond breaker between the abutment and approach slab. The results of the consultant sampling testing of the building scheduled for demolition indicate ACM in several locations. A summary of these findings will be sent to the NYSDOL at PS&E to comply with NYSDOL’s Industrial Code Rule No. 56 preconstruction notification requirements. A copy of the “as builts” and the consultant sampling results will be kept in the project files, and is available for review.
3 4.4.18.3 Mitigation Summary -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Blanket Variances, Site Specific Variances
[Use for projects with Blanket Variances]
No special site specific variances are anticipated for this project. Existing Departmental blanket variances or existing variances will be sufficient for this project.
19 4.4.19 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials
This section may contain the following unnumbered subsections:
• Screening
• Assessment and Quantification
• Mitigation Summary
• Handling and Disposal
Regulatory Framework and Guidance: For guidance see NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 5
Interagency Coordination:
Document any consultation or coordination with outside agencies (meetings, site visits, major submissions and correspondence, permit, needs, consultation, etc.)
• NYSDEC
• EPA
• NYS Dept of Labor
• Local Health Agencies
Cross-reference:
• Appendix HW/CM Screening Report
• Appendix HW/CM Detailed Site Investigation Report
• Appendix Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Assessment
• 4.6 Construction Effects
• 4.7 Indirect (Secondary) Effects
• 4.8 Cumulative Effects
1 4.4.19.1Screening -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Site screening for sites with potential HW/CM
• Review of existing land use info: NYSDEC data files and records
• Site visit visual inspection results
• List of properties having potential for containing HW/CM
• Recommendation for detailed site assessment
FHWA Guidance from Technical Advisory T6640.8A
Hazardous waste sites are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). During early planning, the location of permitted and non-regulated hazardous waste sites should be identified. Early coordination with the appropriate Regional Office of the EPA and the appropriate State agency will aid in identifying known or potential hazardous waste sites. If known or potential waste sites are identified, the locations should be clearly marked on a map showing their relationship to the alternatives under consideration. If a known or potential hazardous waste site is affected by an alternative, information about the site, the potential involvement, impacts and public health concerns of the affected alternative(s), and the proposed mitigation measures to eliminate or minimize impacts or public health concerns should be discussed in the draft EIS.
If the preferred alternative impact is a known or potential hazardous waste site, the final EIS should address and resolve the issues raised by the public and government agencies.]
2 4.4.19.2 Assessment and Quantification -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Impacts and effects assessment
• Petroleum Contamination
• Sampling and testing plan for potential HW/CM properties
• HW/CM Detailed Site Investigation Report summary
• Recommendation for further testing
3 4.4.19.3 Screening and Site Assessment -
[Use the following two paragraphs for all projects as an introduction and then select/modify the applicable statements in the following section]
A Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening has been conducted in accordance with NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 5, in order to document the likely presence or absence of hazardous/contaminated environmental conditions. A hazardous/contaminated environmental condition is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products (including products currently in compliance with applicable regulations) on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property.
The Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening included a review of NYSDEC regulatory data files and a site ‘walkover’ on [date].[Where additional studies are warranted and appropriate, include from the following list: reviews of local municipal records; aerial photographs and/or Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, topographic, and wetlands maps; and interviews with local fire/health/other department officials, subject property representatives, adjacent landowners, and/or other persons familiar with the current and former usage of the Site (list names and titles of individuals interviewed, as well as interview dates).]
OR
[Use for projects where NO Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials are identified within or adjacent to project area]
No hazardous waste/contaminated materials were identified within or adjacent to the project area during the course of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening. The potential risk for involvement with documented or undocumented inactive hazardous waste/contaminated materials is low. The Department does not believe that additional studies or investigations are warranted.
OR
[Use for projects where Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials are identified adjacent to the project area, but not within, and no impact is anticipated]
No hazardous waste/contaminated materials were identified within or adjacent to the project area during the course of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening; however, a hazardous waste/contaminated materials site is located on a property adjacent to the project. Given describe factors, the potential risk for involvement with documented or undocumented inactive hazardous waste/contaminated materials is low. The Department does not believe that additional studies or investigations are warranted.
OR
[Use for projects where Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials are identified adjacent to the project area, but not within, and a minor impact is anticipated]
No hazardous waste/contaminated materials were identified within or adjacent to the project area during the course of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening; however, a Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials site is located on a property adjacent to the project. Given describe factors; it is possible that the adjacent property may have a minor impact on the project area. Describe minor impact and mitigation measures. No other hazardous waste/contaminated materials were identified during the course of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening. The potential risk for involvement with documented or undocumented inactive hazardous waste materials is low. The Department does not believe that additional studies or investigations are warranted.
OR
[Use for projects where Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials are identified adjacent to the project area, but not within, and a significant impact is anticipated]
A hazardous waste/contaminated materials site is located on a property adjacent to project. Given describe factors, it is likely that this property will impact the project area. Describe significant impact and mitigation measures. No other hazardous waste/contaminated materials were identified within or adjacent to the project area during the course of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening.
OR
[Use for projects where Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials are identified within the project area that require some attention, but no further review or investigations are warranted.]
The Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening indicates the presence of hazardous waste/contaminated materials within the project area. There is a potential that identify materials may be encountered in the subsurface during construction. All encountered impacted material should be segregated into appropriate waste streams and disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations. A contingency plan for the removal and mitigation of any encountered identify other potential impacts (i.e., buried petroleum tanks) should be developed.
No other hazardous waste/contaminated materials were identified during the course of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening. The potential risk for involvement with documented or undocumented inactive hazardous waste materials is low. The Department does not believe that additional studies or investigations are warranted.
OR
[Use for projects where Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials are identified (within the project area or on adjacent property) that warrant additional records review, but not necessarily a Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Assessment]
The Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening identified a Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site within OR adjacent to the project corridor, near the northeast portion of Alternative X. The regulatory review indicates that this Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site involves identify factors. A review of identify pertinent records is warranted in order to determine the potential for impacts to the ROW that NYSDOT may acquire if this alternative is chosen. If a records review has been completed, inset the information from the records review here. Based on this review, state whether or not additional investigation is warranted.
No other hazardous waste/contaminated materials were identified during the course of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening. The potential risk for involvement with documented or undocumented inactive hazardous waste materials is low. The Department does not believe that additional studies or investigations are warranted.
OR
[Use for projects where Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials are identified that warrant a Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Assessment]
The Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening identified a Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site located within the ROW. Describe Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site, contributing factors, and whether or not remediation is known to have taken place. Include and reference any supporting information/evidence in the appendix.
Based on the findings of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening, it is recommended that identify type of investigations be performed at identify locations to determine the scope of the impacts.
OR
A Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site is located on a parcel adjacent to the ROW for alternative X. The identify source of information indicated that this parcel has identify conditions and potential impacts in detail.
It is recommended that identify type of investigations be performed at identify locations. If a Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Assessment has been completed, incorporate the findings into this section and make recommendations for remedial actions, if warranted.
4 4.4.19.4 Mitigation Summary -
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
• Mitigation (avoidance, minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, compensating)
• Proposed remediation methods
• Remediation study findings and preferred remediation method
• Concurrence by State of preferred remediation method
[Use for projects where NO Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials are identified within or adjacent to project area]
No hazardous waste/contaminated materials were identified in the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening. No remediation activities are likely warranted for this project.
OR
[Use for projects where Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials IS identified within or adjacent to project area]
Several hazardous waste/contaminated materials possibly warranting remediation were identified in the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Screening. Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Assessment will be performed to assess potential impacts to the Site. If necessary, a Remediation Plan will be developed after a complete review of the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Assessment.
OR
[Use for projects where Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials IS identified within or adjacent to project area]
The Remediation Plan (Appendix X) has been developed to address identify impacts identified in the Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Site Assessment. Field conditions encountered during remedial activities may necessitate modifications to the Remediation Plan. If applicable, add: Modifications to the Remediation Plan will only be made after consultation with NYYSDEC/NYSDOH/etc. personnel.
4.5 Construction Effects
This section may contain the following unnumbered subsections:
• Construction Impacts
• Mitigation Measures
1 4.5.1 Construction Impacts
Short-term construction impacts should be discussed as they relate to particular topics including but, not limited to:
1) Surface waters
2) Wetlands, water quality
3) Navigable waters
4) Critical environmental areas
5) Aquifers
6) Coastal areas
7) Wildlife
8) Farmland
9) Endangered species
10) Air quality
11) Hazardous wastes
12) Cultural resources
13) Noise
14) Flood plains
15) Invasive species
16) Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE)
2 4.5.2 Mitigation Measures
4.6 Indirect and Secondary Effects
This section may contain the following unnumbered subsections:
• Indirect Socioeconomic Effects
• Social Consequences
• Economic Consequences
1 4.6.1 Indirect Socioeconomic Effects
The proposed project has the potential to indirectly affect social conditions, by impacting land use, community character, the local economy, and by spurring growth.
2 4.6.2 Social Consequences
Topics may include, but are not limited to
1) Land Use, Planning, and Zoning.
2) Sprawl
3) Habitat fragmentation
4) Automobile dominant transit
5) Discouraging bike/Ped. movement
6) Discouraging open space preservation
7) Population and Demographic Effects
8) Recreational effects
9) Historic Resource Effects Analysis
10) Relocation Impacts and Community/neighborhood Cohesion
11) Changes to Travel Pattern or Accessibility
12) Impacts on School Districts,
13) Effects on Churches, Businesses
14) Impacts on Police, Fire Protection, and Ambulance Access
15) Impacts on Highway Safety, Traffic Safety, and Overall Public Safety and Health
16) General Social Group Benefited or Harmed:
17) Children, elderly, disabled,
18) Low income, minority and ethnic groups
19) Transit dependent Pedestrians and bicyclists
3 4.6.3 Economic Consequences
Topics may include, but are not limited to
• Impacts on Regional and Local Economies
• Impacts on Existing Highway-related Business(es)
• Impacts on Established Business District(s)
• Impacts on Relocated Business(es)
4.7 Cumulative Effects
4.8 Short-Term Uses of Man’s Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity
[Include for EIS projects and NEPA Class III EA projects only]
4.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
[Include for EIS projects and NEPA Class III EA projects only]
Guidance from FHWA T6640.8A:
The EIS should discuss in general terms the proposed action’s irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. This general discussion might recognize that the build alternative(s) would require a similar commitment of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. An Example follows:
“Implementation of the proposed action involves a commitment of a range of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. Land used in the construction of the proposed facility is considered an irreversible commitment during the time period that the land is used for a highway facility. However, if a greater need arises for the use of the land, or if the highway facility is no longer needed, the land can be converted to another use. At present, there is no reason to believe such a conversion will ever be necessary or desirable.
Considerable amount of fossil fuels, labor, and highway construction materials such as cement, aggregate, and bituminous material are expended. Additionally large amounts of labor and natural resources are used in the fabrication and preparation of construction materials. These materials are generally not retrievable. However, they are not in short supply and their use will not have an adverse effect upon continue availability of these resources. Any construction will also require a substantial one-time expenditure of both State and Federal funds which are not retrievable.
The commitment of these resources is based on the concept that residents in the immediate area, State, and region will benefit by the improved quality of the transportation system. These benefits will consist of improved accessibility and safety, savings in time, and greater availability of quality services which are anticipated to outweigh the commitment of resources.”
4.10 Adverse Environmental Impacts that cannot be Avoided or Adequately Mitigated
[Include for EIS projects and NEPA Class III EA projects only]
Guidance on using this shell:
• RED text offers choices; choose one or all paragraphs that apply.
• BLUE text is hyperlinks to web pages.
• GREEN text instructs the writer of action to be taken or informs the writer of important information.
• BLACK text is to be included in the report (after selecting one of the choices and deleting the non-selected choices)
• ALL GREEN text IS TO REMAIN IN THE DOCUMENT AND MAY BE TURNED ON/OFF AS REQUIRED DURING DOCUMENT PREPARATION.
• To turn hidden text on/off in Word, on the Home tab, in the Paragraph group, click Show/Hide (¶).
[pic]
• To reformat hidden text so that it will be always viewable and print in Word:
1. Highlight the portion you wish to unhide.
2. Right-click and select Font…If Font doesn’t appear in the menu choices then click on the diagonal down arrow on the right of Font in the menu bar at the top of the screen, while the text is highlighted.
3. In the Effects section, deselect Hidden.
4. Click OK.
[pic]
Summary of Changes:
12/9/11 –
• Added Regional Director of Operations as signature option on Project Approval Sheet and List of Preparers Sheet.
• Revised invasive species statements in Section 4.4.9.
8/8/12
• Revised Table of Contents to add automatic feature (as suggested by R7)
• Revised Section 3.3.3.1 (1) and Exhibit 3.3.3.1 (based on suggestions from R1 ROW).
• Added choices under 3.3.1.7 (2) C Significant Projects.
• Section 2.2.1.1: Changed Master Plan to Comprehensive Plan (as suggested by R9)
8/21/12
• Minor revisions to Exhibit 3.2.1; also, made it consistent with Exhibit 1.5B (as suggested by R1)
• Minor revision to Section 3.3.1.2 (based on suggestions from R1).
• Added choices under Section 4.1.2.
• Revised Section 4.4.8 Stormwater Management to update SPDES General Permit references to read GP-0-10-001.
• Revised Section 1.1 (as suggested by R1 and R11)
• Minor revision to Exhibit 3.3.3.1
11/07/12
• Revision to Exhibit 1.4-A
• Guidance text added to Section 1.6 and revisions made to example statements
• Section title and text modified for Section 1.7
• Subsection numbers added to topics in Chapter 4
• Added a statement about significant projects to section 3.3.1.7(2)C
• EIS statement in Section 4.1.1.1 revised to add lead agency language
• Guidance text added to Section 4.1.1.2 to discuss SEQRA Lead Agency status
• Added “overall” column to Exhibits 2.3.1.7-2 and 3.3.1.7-2
• Slight rewording in Section 2.3.1.8
• Slight revision in Section 2.3.3.6.(4)
06/24/13
• Guidance related to Smart Growth added to Project Approval Sheet item E (“Recommendation for Design Approval includes verification that SGPIPA documentation requirements are met”)
• Slight revision in List of Preparers sheet (deleted “by firm” from the end of “Description of Work Performed”)
• Improved guidance in Section 1.3
• Slight rewording in Section 2.3.3.2.(1) related to existing nonstandard features and in title of Section 2.3.3.2
• Improved guidance on alternatives in Section 3.1
• Some modifications to Exhibit 3.2.3.2, primarily for bridge projects
• Smart growth additions to Section 3.3.5
09/19/14
• Modified “bubble” on cover page to move up Village/Town/City to appear before County
• Added local county planning dept. to coordination list in section 1.4
• Added guidance on operating speed in Section 2.3.1.5 to match guidance added to Section 2.3.3.2 (see next bullet)
• Revised Section 2.3.3.2 to improve guidance for evaluating existing nonstandard features; added Exhibit 2.3.3.2
• Revised Sections 2.3.3.7 and 3.3.3.7 to add guidance on coordination with dam operator and FERC where applicable. Added guidance on freeboard to Section 2.3.3.7.
• Minor improvements to exhibit 3.2.1; modified exhibit 1.5B
• Minor improvements to exhibits 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.3a and b
• Revised Section 3.3.3.2 (1) to refer to new Exhibit 3.3.3.2 a Nonstandard Feature Justification for Pedestrian Facilities; modified Exhibit 3.3.3.2 to match revised HDM Exhibit 2-15 (see EB 13-054)
• Changes made to Exhibit 1.4-A and Section 4.1.1.1 to incorporate the Federal Environmental Approvals Worksheet (FEAW)
• Statement for NEPA Class III projects added to Section 4.1.1.1
• Updated text and clarified guidance provided in Sections 4.2, 4.2.1.1, 4.2.3 and 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.3.3 and 4.2.4.1.
• Revised example statements and guidance in Section 4.4.1.3 and added Exhibit 4.4.1.3.
05/28/15
• New NYSDOT logo added to DDR cover
12/11/15
• Term “feasible alternative(s)” changed to “reasonable alternative(s)” throughout document to be consistent with regulatory language.
• Added note on page ii suggesting that the page be deleted for USC units projects
• Spelled out SH and BIN in section 1.2.1
• Added USC units to Exhibit 2.3.1.1 and Exhibit 3.2.3.2; fixed link in Section 2.3.1.1 and added link for functional classification
• Added units for speed to Exhibit 2.3.1.5
• Minor improvements to section 2.3.1.8
• Added guidance to Section 3.3.1.4 regarding requirement for a systems engineering analysis report (SEAR)
• Added guidance text to Section 4.1.2.1 regarding Cooperating and Participating Agencies
11/6/17
• Cover sheet updated to add logo with new commissioner
• Project Approval Sheet updated to be consistent with other DAD shells
12/14/18
• New cover page added
• Project Approval Sheet modified to accommodate Local Projects and to include signature line for NEPA environmental determination by NYSDOT (RD) on behalf of FHWA; includes dropdowns for selections
• Project Cost table inserted as Exhibit 1.6B and Exhibit 3.2.1 was removed.
• Addition of “Alert” text boxes provide focused guidance
• Chapter 1 renamed Project Development and the subheadings have been reorganized and renamed to remove the question format
• More guidance provided on pedestrian and bicyclist needs
• Exhibits revised for consistency with PSR/FDR and IPP/FDR shells
5/28/19:
• Project Approval Sheet: Public Hearing Certification was revised for applicability when public hearing per FHWA regulations is not required.
• Exhibit 2-8 was revised to:
o Change the new and replacement bridge standard statement for Design Loading Structural Capacity due to Bridge Manual revision.
o Add statement options for the existing and proposed conditions columns for ADA Compliance.
• Exhibit 2-9 was revised to revise Element 15 from Pedestrian Accommodation to ADA Compliance and to add Note 10 regarding need to address noncompliant pedestrian facilities as nonstandard.
4/1/20:
• Critical Design Elements exhibit was revised to comply with EB 20-018.
7/9/20:
• Design Loading Structural Capacity standard in the Critical Design Elements exhibit was revised to better reference use of the Design Permit Vehicle per Office of Structures comment.
• Links in Chapter 2 were updated.
-----------------------
Project Location
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- new york state department of transportation
- welcome back warren county head start
- state lotteries history practices issues and the south
- math framework chapter 8 curriculum frameworks ca
- home nyu school of law
- individual southern nazarene university
- blue ridge condos medford ny a great place to live and
- resources for teaching mathematics
Related searches
- new york state department of education
- new york state department of financial services
- new york state department of corporations
- new york state department of the professions
- new york state department of state licensing
- new york state department of professions
- new york state department of education nyc
- new york state department of public service
- new york state department of nursing
- new york state department of professional licensing
- new york state department of license services
- new york state department of health licensure