PROJECT SCOPING REPORT/ FINAL DESIGN REPORT...2014/06/06 · May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.41.101/BIN 1002720 1-1 CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1

PROJECT SCOPING REPORT/

FINAL DESIGN REPORT May 2014

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANDREW M. CUOMO, Governor JOAN MCDONALD, Commissioner

Superstructure Replacement PIN: 2650.41.101

BIN: 1002720 West Main St over Steele Creek

Village of Ilion Herkimer County

May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.41.101/BIN 1002720

iii

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2.1. Where is the Project Located? .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed? ..................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.3. What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project? ................................................................... 1-2

1.3 What Alternative is Being Considered? ............................................................................................ 1-3 1.3.1 Null Alternative ........................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.2 Alternative 1 – Bridge Superstructure Replacement ................................................................. 1-3 1.3.3 Alternative 2 – Bridge Replacement .......................................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Environmental Review ...................................................................................................................... 1-4 1.4.1 NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) ............................................................................... 1-4 1.4.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) ................................................................... 1-4

1.5 How will the Alternatives Affect the Environment? ........................................................................... 1-4 1.6 What are the Costs & Schedules? ................................................................................................... 1-5 1.7 Which Alternative is Preferred? ........................................................................................................ 1-6 1.8 What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement? ........................................................................ 1-7

CHAPTER 2 – PROJECT INFORMATION .............................................. 2-1 2.1 Local Plans for the Project Area ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments ........................... 2-1 2.3 Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations ...................................... 2-1

2.3.1 Traffic and Safety and Maintenance Operations ....................................................................... 2-1 2.3.1.1 Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS) ................................... 2-1 2.3.1.2 Control of Access .......................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3.1.3 Traffic Control Devices .................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3.1.5 Speeds .......................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3.1.6 Level of Service ............................................................................................................. 2-2 2.3.1.7 Work Zone Safety & Mobility ......................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1.8 Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis ................................................. 2-3 2.3.1.9 Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ..................................................................... 2-4

2.3.2 Multimodal .................................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.2.1 Pedestrians ................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.2.2 Bicyclists ........................................................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.3 Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.3.1 Design Standards .......................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.3.2 Critical Design Elements ............................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.3.4 Existing and Proposed Highway/Bridge Plan and Section ........................................... 2-6 2.3.3.5 Non Standard/Non Conforming Features be in the report or an appendix. .................. 2-6 2.3.3.6 Pavement and Shoulder Conditions ............................................................................. 2-6 2.3.3.7 Drainage Systems ......................................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.3.8 Geotechnical ................................................................................................................. 2-7 2.3.3.9 Structures ...................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.3.3.10 Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts ............................................................................... 2-9 2.3.3.11 Utilities ........................................................................................................................... 2-9 2.3.3.12 Right of Way ................................................................................................................ 2-10 2.3.3.13 Landscaping/Environmental Enhancement ................................................................ 2-10

2.4 Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................................. 2-10 2.4.1 NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA) ............................................... 2-10


iv

CHAPTER 3 – SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) .......................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Additional Environmental Information ............................................................................................... 3-2

3.3.1 General Ecology & Endangered Species .................................................................................. 3-2 3.3.2 Wetlands .................................................................................................................................... 3-3

3.3.2.1 State Freshwater Wetlands ................................................................................................. 3-3 3.3.2.2 Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands ............................................................................................. 3-3 3.3.2.3 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses ............................................................................ 3-3 3.3.2.4 Executive Order 11990 ....................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3.2.5 Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................ 3-4

3.3.3 Floodplains ................................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.3.3.1 State Flood Insurance Compliance Program ...................................................................... 3-4 3.3.3.2 Executive Order 11988 ....................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3.3.3 Stormwater Management .................................................................................................... 3-4

3.4 Historic and Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 3-4 3.5 Hazardous Waste Assessment ........................................................................................................ 3-5

3.5.1 Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................. 3-5 3.5.2 Asbestos .................................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.5.3 Lead-Based Paint ...................................................................................................................... 3-5

EXHIBITS Exhibit 1.2-A – Project Location ................................................................................................................. 1-1 Exhibit 1.2-B - Aerial Image ....................................................................................................................... 1-2 Exhibit 1.5-A - Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................ 1-4 Exhibit 1.6-A - Project Schedule ................................................................................................................ 1-5 Exhibit 1.6-B - Construction Costs ............................................................................................................. 1-5 Exhibit 1.8-A - Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates ...................................................... 1-7 Exhibit 2.3-A - Classification Data .............................................................................................................. 2-1 Exhibit 2.3-B - Existing and Future Traffic Volumes .................................................................................. 2-2 Exhibit 2.3-C - Collision Summary for West Main Street From NY 5S to Central Ave .............................. 2-3 Exhibit 2.3-D - Critical Design Elements for West Main Street Over Steele Creek ................................... 2-5 Exhibit 2.3-E - Other Design Parameters ................................................................................................... 2-6 Exhibit 2.3-F - Other Design Parameters: Highway Design Vehicle .......................................................... 2-6 Exhibit 2.3-G - Structure Data .................................................................................................................... 2-7 Exhibit 2.3-H - Hydraulic Data .................................................................................................................... 2-8

APPENDICES Appendix A - Plans, Profiles & Typical Sections ...................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B - Environmental Information .................................................................................................. B-1 Appendix C - Traffic Information and Pedestrian Generator Checklist ................................................... C-1 Appendix D - Public Information .............................................................................................................. D-1 Appendix E - Hydraulic Analysis .............................................................................................................. E-1


1-1

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction 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), objectives established (1.2.3) to address the needs, and cost-effective alternative developed (1.3). This project is 99.6% State funded and 0.4% Federally funded.

1.2 Purpose and Need

1.2.1. Where is the Project Located? The general project location is shown in the figure below.

Exhibit 1.2-A – Project Location

1. Route Number – Not Applicable 2. Route Name – West Main Street 3. SH Number and Official Description – Not Applicable


1-2

4. BIN and Feature crossed – BIN 1002720; Steele Creek 5. Town – Town of German Flatts 6. Village – Village of Ilion 7. County – Herkimer County 8. Approximate Project Length – 445 ft 9. RM – Not Applicable

Exhibit 1.2-B – Aerial Image

Google Maps

1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed? This project was initiated by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) because of the deteriorated condition of this bridge. This bridge is vital to local residents, regional travelers, and businesses to maintain uninterrupted movement, mobility, and connectivity within the Village of Ilion.

1.2.3. What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project? The objective of this project is to:

1. Restore the crossing to a condition which provides a minimum 75 year service life, using cost effective techniques to minimize the life cycle cost of maintenance and repair.

N


1-3

1.3 What Alternative is Being Considered?

1.3.1 Null Alternative This alternative will maintain the existing West Main Street Bridge structure, roadway section, and geometry. There would be no improvements made to the structure other than routine maintenance and none of the physical deficiencies would be corrected. This alternative would not accomplish any of the project objectives, but it will remain feasible in the event that funding is not available or the environmental impacts of the other alternatives are deemed too great to continue.

1.3.2 Alternative 1 – Bridge Superstructure Replacement This alternative would involve complete replacement of the superstructure on the existing alignment with minor highway approach reconstruction. In addition, the substandard bearings, bridge seats and utility supports will be replaced. The low rated abutment backwalls and tops of the wingwalls will also be repaired. The new structure will have a span of approximately 59’-0” and will be skewed approximately 42 degrees to accommodate the expected flows of Steele Creek. The proposed structure will have an anticipated service life of 75 years, which will accomplish the objective of this project. The profile will be raised a maximum of approximately 1-foot on the bridge to improve the hydraulic opening of the bridge. However, off of the bridge, the grade will be raised slightly and all work will be completed within the existing ROW. The reconstructed roadway width and bridge roadway width will closely match the existing roadway though the project limits, which will result in no Right-of-Way impacts. The total project length will be approximately 445’-0” including both approach roadways and the bridge.

Construction will be progressed in two stages utilizing alternating one-way traffic controlled by temporary traffic signals.

1.3.3 Alternative 2 – Bridge Replacement This alternative would involve the complete removal of the existing West Main Street Bridge over Steele Creek and replacement with a new structure. The new structure would have a span length of approximately 80 feet with two 12’-0” travel lanes and 5’-6” shoulders. The approach sections would consist of two 12’-0” travel lanes and 5’-6” shoulders that would match the existing roadway section. New abutments and approximately 1,000 feet of new creek channel would need to be constructed. The removal of 550 feet of existing concrete flume and laid up stone wall channel, and 500 feet of wall (150 feet of stacked stone wall upstream and 350 feet of concrete wall downstream of the manmade channel) would be required. The replacement bridge would be placed approximately on the same horizontal alignment as the existing bridge. The vertical alignment would need to be raised to provide the 2’-0” bottom chord freeboard above the 50-year flood event. This alternative can be accomplished with staged construction due to the bridge’s multi-girder layout. The work zone traffic control will be alternating one way traffic controlled by a temporary signal. This alternative would have significant R-O-W impacts and require approximately six property relocations due to the increase of the vertical alignment and the resultant 1,000 feet of creek channel removal and widening in the project limits. Additionally, a portion of the B.P.O. Elks parking lot would need to be removed and other properties would be impacted by the raised vertical alignment. All utilities would be located and identified and the utility owners notified of the project. It is anticipated that there would be significant utility relocations under this alternative, which include overhead electric, cable, telephone and a bridge supported gas line. Additionally, a Village of Ilion owned powerhouse site would require the relocation of several main utility poles and overhead wires.


1-4

This alternative does not meet the project objectives based on the decreased cost effectiveness associated with property relocations and related community disruptions and required modifications to the manmade channel. Therefore, this alternative is being dropped from further consideration.

1.4 Environmental Review

1.4.1 NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) 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 discussion under Chapter 3. Specifically, in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s regulations 23CFR 771.117(d) this project meets the project description of 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.

1.4.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is the SEQRA lead agency for this Project as per 17 NYCRR Part 15 “Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act”, Section 15.5. This Project is being advanced as a SEQRA Type II Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR, Part 15. As a result, no further SEQRA processing would be required. The Project meets the requirements of a Type II action, per 17 NYCRR Section 15.14, Subdivision (e), Item 37, Paragraph (iv) – “replacement, reconstruction or rehabilitation, at present site or immediately adjacent thereto, of existing bridges, culverts or other transportation structures, including railroad crossing structures, not involving substantial expansion of the structure”. The Project does not violate any of the criteria contained in subdivision (d) of Section 15.14 (See Section 3.2).

1.5 How will the Alternatives Affect the Environment?

Exhibit 1.5-A - Comparison of Alternatives

Category Alternatives

Null Alternative 1 - Replacement Wetland impacts

Temp. None None Perm. None None

100 year floodplain impact

Zone A Zone A

Archeological Sites Impacted

None None

Section 106/Section 4(f) impacts

None None

Impact to forested areas

None None

Property Impacts

Temp. None None Perm. None None

Operation at ETC + 30 LOS C or Better LOS C or Better 30 year Crash Costs None None Construction Cost None $1,705,000

Meets Project Objectives

No Yes

Proposed Mitigation: Refer to Section 3.3 for mitigation measures that are proposed for this Project.


1-5

Anticipated Permits/Certifications/Coordination: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC):

Section 401 Water Quality Certification Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE):

Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3 – Maintenance Coordination

Coordination with NYSDEC pursuant to the “NYSDEC/NYSDOT Memorandum of Understanding Regarding ECL Articles 15 & 24”

Coordination with US Army Corps of Engineers Coordination with Federal Highway Administration Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination with the New York Natural Heritage Program Coordination with the Village of Ilion Coordination with Herkimer County

1.6 What are the Costs & Schedules? Total Cost = $1.200 M: State = $1.196 M, Federal = $0.004 M. Design Approval is scheduled for April 2014. Refer to Exhibit 1.6-A for the Project Schedule and Exhibit 1.6-B for estimated project costs.

Exhibit 1.6-A - Project Schedule

Activity Date Occurred/Tentative

Scope Approval April 2014

Design Approval April 2014

ROW Acquisition N/A

Construction Start Spring 2015

Construction Complete Fall 2015


1-6

Exhibit 1.6-B – Construction Costs

Activities Alternative 1

Construction Costs Bridge $1,050,000

Highway $85,000

Wetland Mitigation -

SPDES Permit Compliance -

Incidentals (10%) $115,000

Subtotal 1 $1,250,000

Contingency (15% at Design Approval) $190,000

Subtotal 2 $1,440,000

Field Change Order $45,000

Subtotal 3 $1,485,000

Mobilization (4%) $60,000

Subtotal 4 $1,545,000

Expected Award Amount (Inflate current costs/prices at 3%/yr to midpoint of construction)

$1,565,000

Construction Inspection (9%) $140,000

ROW Costs -

Total Alternative Costs $1,705,000

1.7 Which Alternative is Preferred? Alternative 1 has been identified as the preferred alternative because it will meet all of the project objectives, and is being advanced for Design Approval.


1-7

1.8 What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement?

Exhibit 1.8-A Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates

Activity Date Occurred/Tentative

Initial Environmental Findings November 2013

Field Pre-Scoping Meeting (all groups) December 2013

Stake Holder Meeting Spring 2014

Meeting with Town Representatives Spring 2014

Public Informational Meeting Spring 2014

Current Project Letting date October 23, 2014

The Region has sent letters to all municipalities, schools and County emergency coordinators informing them of the bridge project and proposed work zone traffic control (off site detour). The County emergency coordinators were asked to forward the information to all local emergency responders. A request for responses by March 7, 2014 was stated in the letter. No responses were received as of March 19, 2014. This will complete the public outreach prior to design approval. The Region will hold public information meetings at specific sites and times and locations to be determined after design approval. You can contact: New York State Department of Transportation (Please include “2650.41.101”) Steve Emrich, P.E. New York State Department of Transportation Region 2 Utica State Office Building 207 Genesee Street Utica, New York 13501 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (315) 793-2736 The remainder of this report is a detailed technical evaluation of the existing conditions, the proposed alternatives, the impacts of the alternatives, copies of technical reports and plans and other supporting information.


2-1

CHAPTER 2 – PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Local Plans for the Project Area The Village of Ilion and the Town of German Flatts do not have a comprehensive plan in place for the future development of their community. This project will maintain mobility, reliability and safety along the corridor for the travelling public. There are no approved developments planned within the project limits that will impact traffic operations.

2.2. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments West Main Street through the project site runs approximately east-west between NYS Route 5S (to the west) and Central Ave (SR 51) (to the east). The roadway approaches consist of two approximately 17’-6” travel lanes with no defined shoulders. The approach pavement is in generally fair condition. The horizontal alignment within the project limits consists of an approximately tangent segment. The vertical alignment consists of a 0.12% grade west of the bridge and a 0.60% grade east of the bridge. West Main Street is not a qualifying highway in the Village of Ilion. The clear zone varies through the project site with sidewalks, curbs, utility poles, buildings, and trees all located in close proximity to the roadway. The roadway speed is posted for 35 mph. (Refer to Appendix A for Plan, Profile and Typical Sections.)

The New York State Department of Transportation 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

2.3.1 Traffic and Safety and Maintenance Operations

2.3.1.1 Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS)

Exhibit 2.3-A

Classification Data

Route(s) West Main Street

Functional Classification

16 – Urban Minor Arterial

National Highway System (NHS)

No

Designated Truck Access Route

Yes

Qualifying Highway

No

Within 1 Mile of a Qualifying Highway

Yes

Within the 16 ft vertical clearance network

No


2-2

2.3.1.2 Control of Access West Main Street is currently without control of access and will continue to be without control of access after the project is complete.

2.3.1.3 Traffic Control Devices

Traffic control devices in the vicinity of the West Main Street Bridge consist of speed limit, curve warning, and general information signage. If additional signage is required, as identified during final design, they will be provided in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the NYSDOT Supplement. A temporary signal system will be utilized during construction to regulate alternating one-way traffic through the project site. During final design, the locations and timing of the temporary signals will be evaluated in consideration of the available sight distance, driveways or roads within alternating one-way traffic zone, distance between signals, etc. 2.3.1.4 Traffic Volumes The projected ETC and ECT+30 traffic volumes were developed using a growth rate of approximately 0.4% for Herkimer County, as provided by the Department. The volumes shown in Exhibit 2.3-B were provided by the Department.

Exhibit 2.3-B Existing and Future Traffic Volumes

WEST MAIN STREET Year ADT DHV

Existing (2013)

7950 810

ETC (2015)

8005 815

ETC+30 (2045)

8850 901

Note: ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion. The Estimated Time of Completion in the PDM Appendix 5 is defined as (ETC)+20 for superstructure replacement. However, due to the life expectancy of this type of project, it is recommended that (ETC)+30 be used.

2.3.1.5 Speeds The posted speed limit through the project site is 30 mph. The NYSDOT has determined that the 85th percentile operating speed is 35 mph. (Refer to Appendix C for NYSDOT Region 2 memo.)

2.3.1.6 Level of Service The roadway currently operates at a LOS C or better and will operate at a LOS C or better in the design year. The Regional Planning and Program Manager does not anticipate capacity improvements within 20 years.


2-3

2.3.1.7 Work Zone Safety & Mobility 2.3.1.7.(1) Work Zone Traffic Control (WZTC) Plan During construction, traffic will be maintained on the bridge using staged construction methods. A stage line will be established approximately along the centerline of the bridge with a single lane of traffic being maintained on one half while the other half is under construction. Temporary signals will be installed on both approaches to the bridge to facilitate the shared single lane highway. The travelled way will be 13’-0” (one 11’-0” travel lane and two 1’-0” wide shoulders). A temporary concrete barrier will be installed along the stage line to separate vehicular traffic from the construction activities. (Refer to Appendix A for Staged Construction Typical Sections.)

2.3.1.7.(2) Special Provisions Due to the close proximity of the bridge to residential homes and businesses 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. 2.3.1.7.(3) Significant Projects (per 23 CFR 630.1010) The Region has determined that the subject project is 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.

2.3.1.8 Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis An accident analysis was performed in accordance with NYS Highway Design Manual Chapter 5. This section of West Main Street had an accident rate of 3.03 ACC/MVM based on the 29 accidents that occurred during the study period. This is less than the expected rate of 3.26 ACC/MVM for two lane undivided Urban Minor Arterial highways with free access statewide. There was one accident involving pedestrians and no accidents involving bicycles. There were no accidents attributable to the bridge. There are no high accident locations (HALs) within the study area. The predominate accident types are:

Exhibit 2.3-C Collision Summary - West Main Street From NY 5S to Central Avenue

(1/1/2010 – 12/31/2012) Type of Collision Number Percentage

Right Angle 9 31%

Rear End 9 31%

Right Turn 3 10%

Left Turn 3 10%

Sideswipe 1 3%

Other 4 15% An accident analysis including an accident summary (TE-213) is included in Appendix C. The accident history did not identify any safety issues that need to be addressed within this project.


2-4

2.3.1.9 Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction The West Main Street Bridge over Steele Creek is owned and maintained by the Village of Ilion. Ownership and maintenance jurisdiction will not change as a result of this project.

2.3.2 Multimodal

2.3.2.1 Pedestrians The West Main Street Bridge currently provides pedestrian accommodations with a 9’-0” wide sidewalk along the north fascia. The sidewalk along the south fascia is currently closed due to the deteriorated condition of the bridge. The proposed bridge will provide pedestrian accommodations with 5’-0” wide sidewalks along both fascias. (Refer to Appendix C for the pedestrian generator.)

2.3.2.2 Bicyclists The existing shoulder width is undefined (unstriped). There are no separate provisions for bicyclists. There are no plans for a bicycle route within the projects limits. The proposed shoulder width is 5’-0”. Bicyclists may legally use the paved shoulder.

2.3.3 Infrastructure

2.3.3.1 Design Standards The design standards for this project are taken from the NYSDOT Bridge Manual (BM) and the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual (HDM).


2-5

2.3.3.2 Critical Design Elements

Exhibit 2.3-D Critical Design Elements for West Main Street Over Steele Creek

BIN: 1002720 NHS (Y/N): No Route No. & Name: W. Main St Functional Classification: 16 – Urban Minor Arterial

Project Type: Major Bridge Rehabilitation

Design Classification: Urban Arterial

% Trucks: 6 Terrain: Level

ADT: (ETC)+30

8850 Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy.

Access-Yes; Qualifying-No

Element Standard Existing

Condition Proposed Condition

1 Design Speed 30 mph Min. / 60 mph Max.

HDM Section 2.7.2.2.A For Central Business District

30 mph (posted)

35 mph1

2 Lane Width 11’-0” Min.

BM Table 2-1 and HDM Exhibit 2-4 17’-6” 12’-0”

Approach Lane Width 17’-6” 12’-0”

3 Shoulder Width 5’-0” Min.

BM Table 2-1 and HDM Exhibit 2-4 Included Above 5’-6”

Approach Shoulder

Width Included Above 5’-6”

4 Bridge Roadway Width Approach Roadway Width

BM Section Table 2-1 and HDM Exhibit 2-4 35’-0” 35’-0”

Approach Roadway

Width 35’-0” 35’-0”

5 Maximum Grade 8% Max.

HDM Exhibit 2-4 0.60% 1.12%

6 Horizontal Curvature 371 ft (@ e = 4.0%)

HDM Exhibit 2-4 Tangent Tangent

7 Superelevation Rate 4% Max.

HDM Section 2.7.2.2.G N/A N/A

8 Stopping Sight Distance 250’-0” Min.

HDM Exhibit 2-4 1518’-0” 892’-0”

9 Horizontal Clearance 0’-0” with barrier, 1’-0” without barrier

(measured from face of curb) HDM Section 2.7.2.2.I

1’-11” 1’-11”

10 Vertical Clearance

(Above Travelled Way) 14’-0” Min., 14’-6” Desirable BM Sect. 2.4.1, Table 2-2

Unknown >14’-0”

11 Travel Lane Cross Slope 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. HDM Section 2.7.2.2.K

2% 2%

12 Rollover 4% between travel lanes;

8% at edge of traveled way HDM Section 2.7.2.2.L

4% 4%

13 Structural Capacity

(LRFD)

NYSDOT LRFD Specifications (AASHTO HL-93 Live Load and

NYSDOT Design Permit Vehicle) BM Section 2.6.2

Unknown

HL-93 and NYSDOT

Design Permit Vehicle

16 Pedestrian

Accommodation Complies with HDM Chapter 18 9’-0” sidewalk 5’-0” sidewalk

1 The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of 35 mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume.


2-6

2.3.3.3 Other Design Parameters

Exhibit 2.3-E - Other Design Parameters

Element Standard Existing Conditions Proposed Condition

Freeboard Q50 + 2 ft (BM 2.4.3) Existing water surface elevation not provided

2’-0”

* Indicates non-conforming element

Exhibit 2.3-F - Other Design Parameters: Highway Design Vehicle

Location Design Vehicle Vehicle Accommodated

BIN 1002720 WB-40 WB-40

2.3.3.4 Existing and Proposed Highway/Bridge Plan and Section The existing superstructure has an out-to-out width of 54’-0” feet with a curb-to-curb width of 35’-0” feet. The highway approaches consist of two 17’-6” foot wide lanes with no defined shoulders. The horizontal alignment of the roadway over the bridge consists of a tangent that extends beyond the project limits. The proposed bridge roadway width (curb-to-curb) will be 35’-0” wide consisting of two 12’-0” travel lanes and two shoulders that vary with a minimum width of 5’-6”. The approaches will be reconstructed to provide a minimum roadway width of 35’-0” which will transition to match existing at the reconstruction limits. (Refer to Appendix A for Plans, Profiles and Typical Sections for the existing and proposed conditions.)

2.3.3.5 Non Standard/Non Conforming Features be in the report or an appendix. There are no proposed nonstandard or nonconforming features within the project limits.

2.3.3.6 Pavement and Shoulder Conditions The existing roadway at the approaches consists asphalt paved travel lanes and shoulders. The approach pavement rating is “4” and the deck wearing course is rated “4” according to the 2012 Biennial Inspection report. The pavement is in generally fair condition with transverse cracking on both approaches. The project will include full-depth pavement reconstruction within the project limits.

2.3.3.7 Drainage Systems Storm water runoff from the highway is directed into a closed drainage system with drainage inlets throughout the project site. The drainage system is functioning adequately and there are no plans to reconstruct or upgrade the existing closed drainage system. However, due to the raise in the vertical profile, vertical adjustment of the existing catch basins is anticipated and will be evaluated during final design. Both bridge approaches drain away from the bridge and adequately move water away from the


2-7

bridge. There are scuppers present on the existing bridge. The need for scuppers on the proposed bridge is anticipated and will be evaluated during final design.

2.3.3.8 Geotechnical There are no special geotechnical concerns with the soils or rock slopes within the project area. The proposed rehabilitated bridge will re-use the existing substructure which is founded on spread footings.

2.3.3.9 Structures The existing structure is a 59’-0”, single span steel multi-girder superstructure supported by stone masonry abutments founded on spread footings. Wingwalls are stone masonry and founded on spread footings. The existing bridge is on a 42° skew and has an out-to-out width of 54’-0” with a curb-to-curb width of 35’-0”. The existing structure provides a clear opening (perpendicular to the flow) of approximately 40’-0” with a midspan low chord elevation of 399.9±, resulting in a hydraulic opening of approximately 406 SF. The proposed structure will have a single 59’-0” span and will be skewed approximately 42°. The new bridge will have an out-to-out width of 50’-0” with a curb-to-curb width of 35’-0” consisting of two 12’-0” lanes with two shoulders that vary with a minimum width of 5’-6”. The proposed structure will provide a clear opening (perpendicular to the flow) of approximately 40’-0” with a midspan low chord elevation of 401.0±, resulting in a hydraulic opening of approximately 467 SF.

Exhibit 2.3-G Structure Data

DATA EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTURE

BIN 1002720 1002720

Feature Carried/Crossed West Main Street Over Steele Creek West Main Street Over Steele Creek

Type of Bridge Steel Multi-Girder With Armored Floor

I-Beam Lok Deck and Asphalt Wearing Surface

To Be Determined During Final Design

Number and Length of Spans

One 59’-0’ Span One 59’-0” Span

Lane Width(s) 17’-6” 12’-0”

Shoulder Width(s) No Shoulders Varies (Minimum 5’-6”)

Sidewalk(s) 9’-0” 5’-0”

Utilities Carried Water Line and Unknown Utility Duct

(Gas Line Adjacent to Southerly Fascia) Water Line and Unknown Utility Duct

(Gas Line Adjacent to Southerly Fascia)

Horizontal Clearance(s) 35’-0” 35’-0”

Vertical Clearance(s) Unknown Unknown

Federal Sufficiency Rating 56.5 -

State Condition Rating 3.917 6.567

2.3.3.9.(1) History & Deficiencies The existing bridge was originally constructed in 1937. A rehabilitation project was completed in 1989 and involved replacement of the asphalt wearing surface and installation of a waterproofing membrane. The bridge is located on an approximate tangent horizontal alignment with good sight distances. The sidewalk along the south fascia is currently closed due to the deteriorated condition of the bridge.


2-8

2.3.3.9.(2) Inspection Federal Sufficiency Rating – 56.5 State Condition Rating – 3.917 The 2012 Biennial Inspection assigned the bridge a General Recommendation of “3”, indicating serious deterioration and/or not functioning as originally designed, and a computed Condition Rating of 3.917. The general superstructure recommendation was “3”. A Red Structural Flag and a Yellow Structural Flag were issued for primary member section losses and web crippling. The structural deck has moderate to heavy deterioration of the stay-in-place forms with leakage through the deck for its entire area. The curbs and sidewalks along both sides of the bridge are heavily spalled and the scuppers along both curblines have moderate debris with severely rusted downspouts. The primary members have significant section loss and crippling to the webs of all girders in the critical bearing areas at both abutments. The general begin abutment recommendation was “4”. The general end abutment recommendation was “5”. The low ratings were due to large, heavily spalled areas on the concrete bridge seats, cracks, spalls and delamination in several locations on the backwalls and delamination of the exposed steel bearings at the begin abutment. The ratings for all wingwalls are “4”. The cast-in-place concrete caps on the stone wingwalls have significant spalling in all four bridge quadrants and there is severe deterioration of the mortar joints between the stone blocks on both end wingwalls. The bridge hydraulic opening was rated “4”. The low rating is primarily due to an apparent lack of freeboard and reports of overtopping of the bridge during periods of heavy flows. The stacked stone bank protection walls were also rated “4” due to deterioration of the mortar joints and spalling of the concrete caps. 2.3.3.9.(3) Restrictions The bridge is not currently posted for loads. The bridge width is consistent with the approach roadway width with no restrictions to horizontal clearance.

2.3.3.9.(4) Waterway Steele Creek is neither a USACE nor a US Coast Guard navigable waterway.


2-9

2.3.3.10 Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts The following table summarizes the existing and proposed hydraulic conditions at the bridge site

Exhibit 2.3-H - Hydraulic Data

Data Existing Proposed

Q50 (cfs) - -

Q100 (cfs) - -

Low Chord Elevation (ft) 399.8 ± 401.0 ±

Q50 Design High Water (ft) - -

Q100 Design High Water (ft) - -

Q50 Freeboard (ft) - -

Q100 Freeboard (ft) - -

Velocity (ft/s) - -

The hydraulic data table above is incomplete due to this being a superstructure replacement project and a hydraulic analysis is not required at this time. In order to significantly improve the hydraulic capacity of the structure, approximately 550 feet of concrete flume and creek approach wall reconstruction would be required along both sides of Steele Creek and two upstream structures would require modifications. Determination if a hydraulic analysis is required will be made during final design. (Refer to Appendix E for Steele Creek flooding history.)

2.3.3.11 Utilities

Electric: Unidentified

Telephone: Verizon Cable TV: Time Warner Cable

Gas: National Grid Water: Village of Ilion Sewer: Village of Ilion

Street lighting is present on both approaches, along the northerly side of West Main Street and adjacent to the east corner of the bridge. Shielding or temporary relocation of this utility during construction will be evaluated during final design. Permanent relocation of the utility pole in the northeast bridge quadrant may be required and will be determined during final design.

Overhead electric, telephone and cable television lines run along the northerly side of West Main Street with several service crossings of the road. Shielding or temporary relocation of this utility during construction will be evaluated during final design. Permanent relocation of the utility pole in the northeast bridge quadrant may be required and will be determined during final design.

A self-supported gas line crosses Steele Creek approximately 3’-0” south of the southerly bridge fascia at the approximate top of existing sidewalk elevation. Shielding or temporary relocation of this utility during construction will be evaluated during final design. Permanent relocation of the gas line is not anticipated but will be evaluated during final design.


2-10

A sanitary sewer line runs under the approximate centerline of West Main Street and under the bridge. Shielding or temporary relocation of this utility during construction will be evaluated during final design. Permanent relocation of the sanitary sewer line is not anticipated but will be evaluated during final design. A water line runs under the approximate centerline of the sidewalk on the southerly side of West Main Street and is supported across the bridge in Bay 10. Shielding or temporary relocation of this utility during construction will be evaluated during final design. Provisions for attachment to the proposed structure will be required and will be evaluated during final design. In addition, there is an unknown utility duct supported across the bridge in Bay 1. Shielding or temporary relocation of this utility during construction will be evaluated during final design. Provisions for attachment to the proposed structure will be required and will be evaluated during final design.

2.3.3.12 Right of Way No easements or FEE takings will be required for the proposed project but it is anticipated that Grading Releases may be required. All work will be completed within the existing highway boundaries. See Appendix A for the approximate location of the R.O.W. on the plan sheet.

2.3.3.13 Landscaping/Environmental Enhancement The existing terrain through the project limits is considered level. The bridge approaches have been raised to allow the profile of West Main Street to smoothly cross over Steele Creek. The bridge site will look similar to its current appearance upon completion of the project. The scope of this rehabilitation project is not large enough to have an effect on any of the visual resources. There are no practical opportunities or needs for environmental enhancements within the project limits.

2.4 Miscellaneous

2.4.1 NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA) Pursuant to ECL Article 6, this project is compliant with the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA). To the extent practicable this project has met the relevant criteria as described in ECL § 6-0107. The Smart Growth Screening Tool has been completed, and is included in Appendix B.


3-1

CHAPTER 3 – SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The Department has determined that this project is 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 following discussion under Chapter 3. Specifically, in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s regulations 23CFR 771.117(d) this project meets the project description of 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.

3.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)

The NYSDOT is the SEQRA lead agency for this Project as per 17 NYCRR Part 15 “Procedures for Implementation of State Environmental Quality Review Act”, Section 15.5. This Project is being advanced as a SEQRA Type II Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR, Part 15. As a result, no further SEQRA processing would be required. The Project meets the requirements of a Type II action, per 17 NYCRR Section 15.14, Subdivision (e), Item 37, Paragraph (iv) – “replacement, reconstruction or rehabilitation, at present site or immediately adjacent thereto, of existing bridges, culverts or other transportation structures, including railroad crossing structures, not involving substantial expansion of the structure”. The Project does not violate any of the criteria contained in subdivision (d) of Section 15.14 shown below:

The acquisition of an occupied dwelling or business structure; Significant changes in passenger or vehicle traffic volumes, vehicle mix, local travel patterns or

access; More than minor social, economic or environmental effects upon occupied dwelling units,

businesses, abutting properties or other established human activities; Significant inconsistency with current plans or goals that have been adopted by local government

bodies; Physical alteration of more than 1 ha (2.5 ac) of publicly owned or operated park land,

recreational area or designated open space; An effect on a district, building, structure or site eligible for, or listed on, the National Register of

Historic Places; or any historic building, structure, site or prehistoric site that has been proposed by the Committee on the Registers for consideration by the New York State Board of Historic Preservation for a recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer for nomination for inclusion in said National Register;

More than minor alteration of, or adverse effect upon, any property, protected area, or natural or man-made resource of national, State or local significance, including but not limited to:

Freshwater or tidal wetlands and associated areas; Floodplains; Prime or unique agricultural land; Agricultural districts, when more than one acre may be affected; Water resources, including lakes, reservoirs, rivers and streams; Water supply sources; Designated wild, scenic and recreational rivers; Unique ecological, natural wooded or scenic areas; Rare, Threatened or Endangered species; Any area designated as a critical environmental area pursuant to 6 NYCRR, Part 617;

and Requirement for an indirect air source quality permit pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 203.


3-2

3.3 Additional Environmental Information

3.3.1 General Ecology & Endangered Species The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) website and the New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) database were consulted to obtain a project-specific species list of all the federal and state protected threatened, endangered, or proposed plant and animal species. A discussion of each of these species, their likelihood of being impacted by the project, and NYSDOT’s effect determination for each is summarized below. Northern Long-Eared Bat:

- No-Effect - no trees to be removed:

The Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) whose range encompasses all of New York State, is proposed for inclusion on the USFWS Endangered Species List. At this time, clearing of zero (0) trees (4” dbh and greater) is generally considered to have no effect on the northern long-eared bat. Since this project proposes to not cut any trees, NYSDOT made a preliminary effect determination of “no effect” for this species and the Federal Highway Administration has concurred with this determination. Additionally, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182, NYSDOT determined that the proposed activity is not likely to result in the take or taking of northern long-eared bat and was therefore not subject to regulation under this Part. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has agreed with this determination. Based on concurrence from both agencies, no further coordination with these agencies is needed in reference to threatened and endangered species.

Schweinitz’s Sedge:

Schweinitz’s Sedge (Carex schweinitzii) is a New York state listed threatened plant species. This species prefers strongly calcareous, perennially wet habitats often in association with rich fens. It does particularly well in and on the margins of rivulets and small drainage channels that have strongly calcareous water. This includes perennially wet roadside ditches which act as drainage channels. The habitat and soils within and adjacent to the project site consists of generally dry soils in an urban environment. Given the lack of wetlands, seeps or ditches and the presence of highly acidic soils on-site instead of the alkaline and calcareous soils preferred by this species, the occurrence of this species within or adjacent to the project area is highly unlikely, therefore NYSDOT made a “no habitat” determination for this species. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has agreed with this determination. Therefore, no further coordination with this agency is needed in reference to threatened and endangered species.

Bald Eagle

- No Effect

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and is a New York State listed threatened species. Coordination with both the NYNHP and NYSDEC indicates bald eagle nests are not present in the project area. During the site visit, no bald eagle nests were observed within or adjacent to the project area. NYSDOT made a BGEPA effect determination of “unlikely to disturb nesting bald eagles” for this species and the Federal Highway Administration has concurred with this determination. Additionally, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182, NYSDOT determined that the proposed activity is not likely to result in the take or taking of bald eagle and was therefore not subject to regulation under this Part. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has agreed with this determination.


3-3

Based on concurrence from both agencies, no further coordination with these agencies is needed in reference to threatened and endangered species.

3.3.2 Wetlands

3.3.2.1 State Freshwater Wetlands

The NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper, accessed on November 13, 2013, identified there are no NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetlands in or adjacent to the project, this was confirmed by a site visit. As such, no wetlands impacts are anticipated during construction. 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 #3.

3.3.2.2 Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands

The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Mapper, accessed on February 17, 2014, indicates that the Project site is not located immediately adjacent to an NWI wetland. In addition, site-specific investigations did not indicate the presence of federally-regulated wetlands. As such, the construction and excavation work required is not anticipated to disturb Federally Jurisdictional wetlands

It is anticipated that the work will comply with Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3 (Maintenance), authorizing the repair, rehabilitation or replacement of any previously authorized, currently serviceable structure, or fill, or of any currently serviceable structure or fill authorized by 33 CFR 330.3. It is anticipated no PCN will be required.

A Blanket Section 401 Water Quality Certification applies to this project, since the work required will meet the requirements set forth in NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Required General Conditions under Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3.

3.3.2.3 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses

Steele Creek is classified as an NYSDEC Class C(TS) protected stream. Guidelines and best management practices provided by NYSDEC to assist in designing, installing, and replacing stream crossing structures in small streams will be adhered to during the construction phase of this Project. In addition, coordination with the NYSDEC pursuant to the “NYSDEC/NYSDOT Memorandum of Understanding Regarding ECL Article 15 & 24” will take place. The New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) has been consulted to determine any restrictions to construction activities due to fish spawning seasons or other water quality concerns. The restrictions identified are as follows: in-stream work is allowed May 15 – October 1. It is anticipated that the work will comply with Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3 (Maintenance) and all General and Regional Conditions. It is anticipated no PCN will be required.

A Blanket Section 401 Water Quality Certification applies to this project, since the work required will meet the requirements set forth in NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Required General Conditions under Section 404 Nationwide Permits #3.


3-4

3.3.2.4 Executive Order 11990

It has been determined that the proposed project activities will comply with the terms and conditions of Programmatic Executive Order 11990 Find (EO). This Programmatic EO has been prepared for Transportation Improvement Project which are Federally Aided Highway Projects classifies as a Categorical Exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117 and project which require only a USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit for work which will affect waters of the United States.

3.3.2.5 Mitigation Summary

Best management practices, including implementation of appropriate siltation control and sediment and erosion control measures will be taken during construction to contain disturbed areas and sediments within the Project site, so as to not adversely affect the stream or previously undisturbed areas outside of the Project site. Type and location of erosion and sediment control features will be determined during final design.

3.3.3 Floodplains

3.3.3.1 State Flood Insurance Compliance Program Based on the FIRM for the Town of German Flatts. Herkimer County, the project is within floodplain limits. In addition to the new structure proposed along the existing alignment, construction practices will be implemented to minimize impacts to floodplain functions and values. Compared to existing conditions, the project will improve the hydraulic capacity at the crossing (see Hydraulics Analysis in Appendix E). Based on the evaluation of the project design in conjunction with hydraulic studies, surveyed elevations, and existing culvert capacities, the project will satisfy the requirements of 6 NYCRR 502 and EO 11988.

3.3.3.2 Executive Order 11988

In order to comply with Executive Order 11988, potential effects of any actions taken within the floodplain have been evaluated, and the proposed Project will not impact the floodplain for Steele Creek. Therefore no floodplain permitting is anticipated to be necessary.

3.3.3.3 Stormwater Management A General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (SPDES) for Erosion and Sediment Controls (ESC) is not anticipated for this project. Erosion and sediment control measures will be evaluated during final design and ESC plans and notes may be incorporated into the project documents if the disturbed area is greater than 1 acre.

3.4 Historic and Cultural Resources The bridge is 50 years old or older, but has been determined Not Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The project will not disturb any previously undisturbed soils and therefore has no potential to affect archeological resources. There are no known listed or eligible historic buildings, structures, or districts in or adjacent to the project area that require consideration in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800).


3-5

3.5 Hazardous Waste Assessment

3.5.1 Hazardous Materials During the construction phase of this Project, reconstruction of this bridge is projected to involve minor earthwork within the Project Right-of-Way (R-O-W). Current assessments have identified no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) within the Project site. However, historical uses of a property directly adjacent to the Project do` include a former service station with documented soil contamination. This property’s address is 123 West Main Street and is located immediately to the south west corner of the Project Bridge. Such conditions represent a recognized environmental condition. However, because only minor earthwork is anticipated, and this work will occur entirely within the Project R-O-W, there is limited potential for exposure of the hazardous materials located off-site. This site is not on the National Priorities List (NPL) any exposure will be addressed in the final design.

3.5.2 Asbestos Based upon visual inspections conducted at the site and a review of the record plans, the following Asbestos Containing Material (ACM) was determined via sampling and analysis:

Insulation pipe wrap (top 3 layers, 8-inch pipe – black) All ACM impacted as part of this project will be removed and disposed of in accordance with NYSDOT Standard Specification Section 210 and all applicable State and Federal regulations. (Refer to Appendix C for Asbestos Survey.)

3.5.3 Lead-Based Paint

Materials coated with lead-based paint could potentially exist at the bridge. A lead-based paint screening and sampling of potential materials should be conducted during final design. Applicable notes shall be placed into the contract documents indicating the presence, or absence, of lead-based paint. All lead-based paint impacted as part of this project will be removed and disposed of in accordance with NYSDOT Standard Specification Section 571 and all applicable State and Federal regulations.


APPENDICES


Appendix A – Plans, Profiles, and Typical Sections


Appendix B – Environmental Information

Smart Growth Screening Tool

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 1 PIN 2650.41

PIN 2650.41

Prepared By: Region 2

Smart Growth Screening Tool (STEP 1)

NYSDOT & Local Sponsors – Fill out the Smart Growth Screening Tool until the directions indicate to STOP for the project type under consideration. For all other projects, complete answering the questions. For any questions, refer to Smart Growth Guidance document.

Title of Proposed Project: Superstructure Replacement, West Main Street over Steele Creek (BIN 1002720)

Location of Project: Village of Ilion, Herkimer County

Brief Description: Superstructure Replacement. The project will consist of replacing the deck, replacing the beams and repairing the abutments. Existing sidewalks will be maintained.

A. Infrastructure:

Addresses SG Law criterion a. – (To advance projects for the use, maintenance or improvement of existing infrastructure) 1. Does this project use, maintain, or improve existing infrastructure?

Yes No N/A

Explain: (use this space to expand on your answers above – the form has no limitations on the length of your narrative)

This project will improve and prolong the life of the existing structure which has been red flagged since October 2012 through the replacement of the bridge beams, replacing the bridge deck and repairing the abutments.

The bridge has a sidewalk on each side. Currently, however, one of the sidewalks are closed. Upon completion of this project, both sidewalks will be accessible.

This superstructure replacement project will also address flooding concerns by enlarging the opening while maintaining the existing aligment. Total channel reconstruction is not within the scope of this project and at this point cost prohibitive.

Maintenance Projects Only a. Continue with screening tool for the four (4) types of maintenance projects listed below, as

defined in NYSDOT PDM Exhibit 7-1 and described in 7-4: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/pdm

https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/smart-planning/repository/SG%20Tool%20GuidanceJuly2013_FINAL.pdf

https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/pdm



Shoulder rehabilitation and/or repair; Upgrade sign(s) and/or traffic signals; Park & ride lot rehabilitation; 1R projects that include single course surfacing (inlay or overlay), per Chapter 7 of the NYSDOT

Highway Design Manual.

b. For all other maintenance projects, STOP here. Attach this document to the programmatic Smart Growth Impact Statement and signed Attestation for Maintenance projects.

For all other projects (other than maintenance), continue with screening tool.

B. Sustainability:

NYSDOT defines Sustainability as follows: A sustainable society manages resources in a way that fulfills the community/social, economic and environmental needs of the present without compromising the needs and opportunities of future generations. A transportation system that supports a sustainable society is one that:

Allows individual and societal transportation needs to be met in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health and with equity within and between generations.

Is safe, affordable, and accessible, operates efficiently, offers choice of transport mode, and supports a vibrant economy.

Protects and preserves the environment by limiting transportation emissions and wastes, minimizes the consumption of resources and enhances the existing environment as practicable.

For more information on the Department’s Sustainability strategy, refer to Appendix 1 of the Smart Growth Guidance and the NYSDOT web site, www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites/sustainability

(Addresses SG Law criterion j : to promote sustainability by strengthening existing and creating new communities which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and do not compromise the needs of future generations, by among other means encouraging broad based public involvement in developing and implementing a community plan and ensuring the governance structure is adequate to sustain and implement.)

1. Will this project promote sustainability by strengthening existing communities?

Yes No N/A

2. Will the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Yes No N/A

Explain: (use this space to expand on your answers above)

http://axim22.nysdot.private:7779/pls/portal/url/ITEM/CCBE60D606E17038E043AA03204A7038

http://axim22.nysdot.private:7779/pls/portal/url/ITEM/CCBE60D606E17038E043AA03204A7038

http://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites/sustainability



C. Smart Growth Location:

Plans and investments should preserve our communities by promoting its distinct identity through a local vision created by its citizens.

(Addresses SG Law criteria b and c: to advance projects located in municipal centers; to advance projects in developed areas or areas designated for concentrated infill development in a municipally approved comprehensive land use plan, local waterfront revitalization plan and/or brownfield opportunity area plan.)

1. Is this project located in a developed area?

Yes No N/A

2. Is the project located in a municipal center?

Yes No N/A

3. Will this project foster downtown revitalization?

Yes No N/A

4. Is this project located in an area designated for concentrated infill development in a municipally approved comprehensive land use plan, waterfront revitalization plan, or Brownfield Opportunity Area plan?

Yes No N/A


This project is located in the Village of Ilion and is within the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study (HOCTS) metropolitan area. The bridge provides important connectivity to and from the Village of Illion to arterial highways and the NYS thruway.

D. Mixed Use Compact Development:

Replacing the structure will promote sustainability and strengthen communities because it will maintain community multi-modal connectivity and prevent traffic issues at nearby intersections, thus reducing idling fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. It will also maintain an important travel route between Route 51, Route 5 and Route5S.



Future planning and development should assure the availability of a range of choices in housing and affordability, employment, education transportation and other essential services to encourage a jobs/housing balance and vibrant community-based workforce.

(Addresses SG Law criteria e and i: to foster mixed land uses and compact development, downtown revitalization, brownfield redevelopment, the enhancement of beauty in public spaces, the diversity and affordability of housing in proximity to places of employment, recreation and commercial development and the integration of all income groups; to ensure predictability in building and land use codes.)

1. Will this project foster mixed land uses?

Yes No N/A

2. Will the project foster brownfield redevelopment?

Yes No N/A

3. Will this project foster enhancement of beauty in public spaces?

Yes No N/A

4. Will the project foster a diversity of housing in proximity to places of employment and/or recreation?

Yes No N/A

5. Will the project foster a diversity of housing in proximity to places of commercial development and/or compact development?

Yes No N/A

6. Will this project foster integration of all income groups and/or age groups?

Yes No N/A

7. Will the project ensure predictability in land use codes?

Yes No N/A

8. Will the project ensure predictability in building codes?

Yes No N/A


This project will improve the aethetics of the existing bridge. Due to the fact that the bridge will remain on the existing alignment there will not be impact on housing, land use or building codes.



E. Transportation and Access:

NYSDOT recognizes that Smart Growth encourages communities to offer a wide range of transportation options, from walking and biking to transit and automobiles, which increase people’s access to jobs, goods, services, and recreation.

(Addresses SG Law criterion f: to provide mobility through transportation choices including improved public transportation and reduced automobile dependency.)

1. Will this project provide public transit?

Yes No N/A

2. Will this project enable reduced automobile dependency?

Yes No N/A

3. Will this project improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities (such as shoulder widening to provide for on-road bike lanes, lane striping, crosswalks, new or expanded sidewalks or new/improved pedestrian signals)?

Yes No N/A

(Note: Question 3 is an expansion on question 2. The recently passed Complete Streets legislation requires that consideration be given to complete street design features in the planning, design, construction, reconstruction and rehabilitation, but not including resurfacing, maintenance, or pavement recycling of such projects.)


This project will maintain existing transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic use. Specifically, this project will improve pedestrian conditions by reopening a sidewalk that has been previously closed.

F. Coordinated, Community-Based Planning:

Past experience has shown that early and continuing input in the transportation planning process leads to better decisions and more effective use of limited resources. For information on community based planning efforts, the MPO may be a good resource if the project is located within the MPO planning area.

(Addresses SG Law criteria g and h: to coordinate between state and local government and inter-municipal and regional planning; to participate in community based planning and collaboration.)

1. Has there been participation in community-based planning and collaboration on the project?



Yes No N/A

2. Is the project consistent with local plans?

Yes No N/A

3. Is the project consistent with county, regional, and state plans?

Yes No N/A

4. Has there been coordination between inter-municipal/regional planning and state planning on the project?

Yes No N/A


This project meets the goals of the Village, the County and the State. There have been discussions over the past few years about rehabilitating the bridge and how to obtain funding.

G. Stewardship of Natural and Cultural Resources:

Clean water, clean air and natural open land are essential elements of public health and quality of life for New York State residents, visitors, and future generations. Restoring and protecting natural assets, and open space, promoting energy efficiency, and green building, should be incorporated into all land use and infrastructure planning decisions.

(Addresses SG Law criterion d :To protect, preserve and enhance the State’s resources, including agricultural land, forests surface and ground water, air quality, recreation and open space, scenic areas and significant historic and archeological resources.)

1. Will the project protect, preserve, and/or enhance agricultural land and/or forests?

Yes No N/A

2. Will the project protect, preserve, and/or enhance surface water and/or groundwater?

Yes No N/A

3. Will the project protect, preserve, and/or enhance air quality?

Yes No N/A

4. Will the project protect, preserve, and/or enhance recreation and/or open space?

Yes No N/A

5. Will the project protect, preserve, and/or enhance scenic areas?



Yes No N/A

6. Will the project protect, preserve, and/or enhance historic and/or archeological resources?

Yes No N/A


At this time there are no known historic or cultural items to preserve.



Smart Growth Impact Statement (STEP 2)

NYSDOT: Complete a Smart Growth Impact Statement (SGIS) below using the information from the Screening Tool.

Local Sponsors: The local sponsors are not responsible for completing a Smart Growth Impact Statement. Proceed to Step 3.

Smart Growth Impact Statement

PIN: 2650.41

Project Name: Superstructure Replacement, West Main Street over Steele Creek ( BIN 1002720)

Pursuant to ECL Article 6, this project is compliant with the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act. This project has been determined to meet the relevant criteria, to the extent practicable, described in ECL Sec. 6-0107. Specifically, the project:

Will protect, preserve and enhance the state's resources, specifically air quality

Will provide mobility through transportation choices including improved public transportation and reduced automobile dependency

Will improve existing infrastructure

This publically supported infrastructure project complies with the state policy of maximizing the social, economic and environmental benefits from public infrastructure development. The project will not contribute to the unnecessary costs of sprawl development, including environmental degradation, disinvestment in urban and suburban communities, or loss of open space induced by sprawl.



Review & Attestation Instructions (STEP 3)

Local Sponsors: Once the Smart Growth Screening Tool is completed, the next step is to submit the project certification statement (Section A) to Responsible Local Official for signature. After signing the document, the completed Screening Tool and Certification statement should be sent to NYSDOT for review as noted below. NYSDOT: For state-let projects, the Screening Tool and SGIS is forwarded to Regional Director/ RPPM/Main Office Program Director or designee for review, and upon approval, the attestation is signed (Section B.2). For locally administered projects, the sponsor’s submission and certification statement is reviewed by NYSDOT staff, the appropriate box (Section B.1) is checked, and the attestation is signed (Section B.2). A. CERTIFICATION (LOCAL PROJECT) I HEREBY CERTIFY, to the best of my knowledge, all of the above to be true and correct. Preparer of this document: Signature Date Title Printed Name Responsible Local Official (for local projects): Signature Date Title Printed Name

Federal Environmental Approval Worksheet

5/21/2014 Page 1 of 4 FEAW_Final.doc/Version1.0 BIN 1002720_FEA_Worksheet

PIN: 2650.41 BIN: 1002720

Comp. by: K. Patterson Date Comp. : 3/19/14 FUNDING TYPE: Federal

DESCRIPTION: West Main Street over Steele Creek

NEPA CLASS: II SEQR TYPE: II

LOCALITY (Village, Town, City): Village of Ilion COUNTY: Herkimer

Purpose of this Worksheet: Communicate project National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) classification to Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA).

Identify additional required FHWA environmental determinations, approvals and/or concurrences required before the Categorical Exclusion (CE) determination can be made

Reflect the documentation in the Design Approval Document (DAD) and enable the approving authority (per PDM Exhibit 4-2) to make the CE determination

Instructions: (also see “WorkshheetInstructions.doc”) Complete the worksheet prior to the end of Design Phase I. If project parameters or site condition changes result in potential resource impacts, re-do worksheet prior to Design Approval to confirm NEPA determination and recertify (on page 4)

Categorical Exclusion (CE)- a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency (40 CFR 1508.4). Actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect are excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (23 CFR 771.115(b)).

Step 1: Unusual Circumstances Threshold Determination – 23 CFR 771.117(b)

Any action which normally would be classified as a CE but could involve unusual circumstances (or even uncertainty) will require consultation with FHWA to determine if the CE classification is proper or whether an EA or EIS is required.

Do any, or the potential for any, unusual circumstances exist?

1. Significant environmental impacts; YES NO

2. Substantial controversy on environmental grounds; YES NO

3. Significant impact on properties protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; or YES NO

4. Inconsistencies with any Federal, State, or local law, requirement or administrative determination relating to the environmental aspects of the action. YES NO

If yes to any of the above, contact the Main Office Project Liaison (MOPL) (see PDM Exhibit 4-1). If after consultation with FHWA it is determined that the project cannot be progressed as a CE, skip to step 4 and see PDM Chapter 4 for NEPA Class I (EIS) or Class III (EA) processing.

-or- If no to all, then this project qualifies as a Categorical Exclusion (CE); proceed to step 2.



PIN: 2650.41 / BIN 1002720

Step 2: Other FHWA environmental actions required prior to CE Determination Classification as a CE does not exempt the project from further environmental review. Compliance with Federal Statutes, Regulations and Executive Orders (EO’s) must be documented. Refer to the Department’s Project Development Manual (PDM) and Environmental Manual (TEM) to determine the requirements.

2.1 Other required FHWA environmental independent determinations

FHWA Independent

Determination and/or

Concurrence Required & Received1

Date FHWA determination

issued

FHWA Independent

Determination and/or

Concurrence not required or resource not present1

A B C

EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands Individual Finding Date Received

ESA Section 7 Threatened and Endangered Species 4/11/2014

Section 106 (National Historic Preservation Act) Date Received 4(f) (Park, Wildlife Refuge Historic Sites and National Wild and Scenic Rivers)

Date Received

2.2 Other FHWA environmental compliance and/or approvals/concurrence required

Resource present and threshold1 exceeded

Resource not present, or present but

threshold1 not exceeded

EO 11988 Floodplains EO 13112 Invasive Species

EO 12898 Environmental Justice

Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1424(e)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404/10 NW 23

Section 6(f) (Land and Water Conservation Funds)

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

23CFR772 Type I Noise abatement

2.3 Other Environmental Issues requiring FHWA notification

Resource present and threshold1 exceeded

Resource not present, or present but

threshold1 not exceeded

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404/10 Individual Permit

National Wild and Scenic Rivers

U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit

Known hazardous waste site (only EPA National Priority list)

Project on or affecting Native American Lands

Proceed to step 3.

1 See thresholds.doc



PIN: 2650.41 / BIN 1002720

Step 3: Who makes the NEPA Categorical Exclusion Determination? FHWA Regulations describe two types of CEs; CEs listed in 23 CFR 771.117(c) [aka the C list], and CEs such as those listed in 23 CFR 771.117 (d) [aka the D list]. NYSDOT can make the CE determination for C list projects once all required approvals and concurrences have been secured. NEPA determination for d list projects has been retained by FHWA. NYSDOT can also make the CE determination where a project meets the July 15, 1996 FHWA NY Division NEPA Programmatic Categorical Exclusion memo criteria. To determine by whom, FHWA or NYSDOT, and how the CE determination is made, follow the instructions beginning in section 3.1 of the table below:

Condition Action

3 Determine whether FHWA or NYSDOT makes the CE determination.

3.1

If the project is an action that would normally be a CE in 23 CFR 771.117 (c) (drop down list), check the “Yes” box. If not, check the “No” box.

If yes, NYSDOT can make the CE determination once all the approvals and coordinations required are complete. Is the project an action that would normally be a CE in 23 CFR771.117(c)? YES NO Choose an item. If yes, choose an item and proceed to step 3.1.1. If no, proceed to step 3.2.

3.1.

1

Determine if any of the required environmental determinations, compliance and/or approvals/ concurrences are outstanding.

If there are: outstanding environmental determinations (Table 2.1:checks in column A

without dates in column B) and/or circumstances requiring demonstration of applicable EO compliance

or issues requiring FHWA environmental review (checks in column A in Table 2.2)

The project will use Memo Shell 2 (FHWA needs to review this project). Proceed to step 4.

If the project does not meet the conditions above proceed to step 3.1.2.

3.1.

2

Determine if any issues are present that require FHWA notification.

If there are: any issues requiring FHWA environmental notification (checks in column A in

Table 2.3); then The project will use Memo Shell 3 (FHWA must be notified of this project). Proceed to step 4.

If the project does not meet the conditions above proceed to step 3.1.3.

3.1.

3

No Determinations, Approvals, Concurrences or Notifications required.

The project will use Memo Shell 1 (memo to file). Proceed to step 4.

3.2

The project is a D list CE as per 23 CFR 771.117(d). Choose appropriate entry from drop down list. If “other” provide an explanation.

Certain actions eligible for categorical exclusion require NYSDOT to transmit documentation and a determination that a CE applies. Examples of activities that may proceed as a CE are listed in 23 CFR 771.117(d) (D list). Activities not directly listed on the D List also have the potential to proceed as a CE with submitted documentation (other). All other environmental, social and economic factors that affect the project’s NEPA classification, as per 23 CFR 771.117 and the July 1996 FHWA NY Division NEPA Programmatic Categorical Exclusion memo must still be addressed, for example the project: does not change the functional class; does not add mainline capacity; is not on new location; will not change travel patterns; acquires only minor amounts of ROW (temporary or permanent); does not cause displacements; does not change access control; is air quality exempt; is consistent with NYS Coastal Zone Management Plan; and the analysis and requirements of the Farmland Protection Policy Act have been satisfied.

The project is an action that would normally be a CE in 23 CFR 771.117(d). "Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement or the construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.".

Other: provide explanation here Proceed to step 3.2.1.

►C`JU.S. Departmentof TrrnsportcafionFederal HighwayAdministration

New York Division

April 11, 2014

Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building11A Clinton Avenue, Suite 719

Albany, NY 12207518-431-4127

Fax: 518-431-4121New York. FHWA [email protected]

In Reply Refer To:HPE-NY

Mr. Daniel Hitt, RLAChief, Office of EnvironmentNew York State Department of Transportation50 Wolf RoadAlbany, NY

Subject: Critical Bridges Over Water ProgramDetermination for ESA Section 7 Conference, Northern Long-eared BatNo Effect Concurrence

Dear Mr. Hitt:

This letter is in regards to the Conference Process for projects under Section 7 of the EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA), specifically regarding Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis).This letter applies to the 13 projects within the Critical Bridges Over Water (CBOW) Programthat are listed in the attached spreadsheet: "NLEB Batch Summary Table, No Trees Being Cut".

On October 2, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed to list the NorthernLong-eared Bat for protection under the ESA for its range. The range of the Northern Long-eared

i FHWAnBat encompasses the entire state of New York, with no known exclusion areas. isanticipating that the Northern Long-eared Bat will be formally listed under the ESA withinapproximately 12 months of the proposal date. During the period of time when a species is"proposed" to be listed under the ESA, FHWA is required to "conference" on the species.

FHWA has revievei v;; r letter and s,ub ,-,iss.c n of March 17, 2014 requesting FHWA'sconcurrence with ai determination that 13 projects within the CBOW Program will result in "NoEffect" to the Northern Long-eared Bat based on the lack of tree cutting for each project, andbased on the fact that all of the project sites are located greater than 5 miles from a knownhibernaculum, greater than 3 miles from a mist net capture site, and greater than 1.5 miles from aknown maternity roost site. These distances are cited in the January 6, 2014 Northern Long-earedBat Interim Conference and Planning Guidance as distances to use for buffers around knownlocations of \orfl,ern Long-eared Bat.

Based on our review of the submitted documentation, FHWA concurs that the 13 projects in theCBOW Pragru m will have "No Effect" on the Northern Long-eared Bat, due to the fact that theprojects ha4c no potential to remove habitat because there is no tree cutting, and due to the fact

that the projects are outside the distance buffers where noise and vibration could affect known`hibernacula, maternity roost sites. or known capture areas. This letter conclude. the ConferenceProcess for Section 7 of the ESA for this species. If you have any questions or concerns, pleasecontact me at 518-431-8867.

Sincerely,

Melissa ToniEnvironmental Program Coordinator

Attachment: Spreadsheet, NLEB Batch Summary Table, No Trees Being Cut

PIN

(see notes 2-3) Project Description (see notes 2-3)

Local

Project PS&E Date Let Date

# Trees

(if < 1 ac)

Acreage

(if ≥ 1 ac) Cutting Schedule Hibernaculum

Acoustic Detection /

Mist Net Capture

Maternity

Roost Funding

Federal

Permit Federal Lead Agency

Date Package

Submitted to FHWA

Date NEPA Doc.

Completed Comments

PIN 1BOW.00

1038200NYS Route 145 over Fox Creek, Town of Rensselaerville, Albany County. The project

consists of replacement of the bridge BIN 1038200.0 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

PIN 2BOW.00

1020120Rte 28 over Multanner Creek, Town of Middleville, Herkimer County. The project


1039040NY Rte 168 over Tributary to Otsquago, Town of Stark, Herkimer County. The project


1045630NYS Route 315 over Big Creek, Town of Marshall, Oneida County. The project

consists of replacement of BIN 1045630.0 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1051360NYS Route 168 over Otsquago Creek, Town of Stark, Herkimer County. The project


1002720West Main Street over Steele Creek, Town of Ilion, Herkimer County. The project


PIN 3BOW.00

1034370NYS Route 392 over Gridley Creek, Town of Virgil, Cortland County. The project


1045930NYS Route 327 over West Branch of Enfield Creek, Town of Enfield, Tompkins

County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 1045930.0 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

PIN 4BOW.00

1001690NYS Route 5 over Tonawanda Creek, Town of Batavia, Genesee County. The project


1016120NYS Route 20A over Cayuga Creek, Town of Sheldon, Wyoming County. The project


1015310NYS Route 19 over Sandy Creek, Town of Hamlin, Monroe County. The project


1015680NYS Route 20 over Oatka Creek, Town of Pavillion, Genesee County. The project


PIN 5BOW.00

1041550US Route 219 over Crowley Creek, Town of Ellicottville, Erie County. The project


Project NEPA StatusTree Removals (see notes 5-8)

Proximity of Cutting to Nearest Known NLEB

(see note 9)

ASBESTOS INVESTIGATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT SURVEY

Prepared for:

New York State Department of Transportation Region 2 – Superstructure Replacement

West Main Street over Steele Creek Bridge Rehabilitation

Village of Ilion, Herkimer County, New York PIN 2650.41.101 BIN 1002720

SCE Project No. R10282.D8

By

430 Court Street Utica, NY 13502

Telephone No.: (315) 724-0100 Fax No.: (315) 724-3715

January 2014

i

V:\2010\R10282.D8 REG2SuperWestMainStoverSteeleCreek\Report\R10282.D8 Report.docx

01/17/14

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 1-1 2.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 2-1 3.0 ANALYTICAL PROTOCOL .......................................................................................... 3-1 4.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 WEST MAIN STREET OVER STEELE CREEK, BIN 1002720, VILLAGE OF ILION, HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK .......................... 4-1

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 5-1 5.1 WEST MAIN STREET OVER STEELE CREEK, BIN 1002720,

VILLAGE OF ILION, HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK .......................... 5-1 6.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................ 6-1

FIGURES

Figure No.

3.1 ASBESTOS BULK SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL FLOWCHART

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT SPREADSHEET

APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL LABORATORY RESULTS

APPENDIX C: BLANKET VARIANCE 14 (BV 14)

APPENDIX D: CERTIFICATIONS

1-1


01/17/14

1.0 BACKGROUND

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), Region 2 is in the design phase

of the Region 2 – Superstructure Replacement (PIN 2650.41.101) project. The project includes

the bridge rehabilitation of West Main Street over Steele Creek (1002720) in the Village of Ilion,

Herkimer County, New York.

Shumaker Consulting Engineering & Land Surveying, D.P.C. (SCE) was contracted by the

NYSDOT to complete an Asbestos Assessment Survey for the identification of asbestos-

containing materials (ACM) at the bridge and to recommend asbestos removal measures, if

needed, prior to demolition, reconstruction, and replacement activities.

This “Asbestos Assessment Investigation Technical Memorandum” identifies materials that were

determined to be ACM from sampling and testing performed. This report describes the work

performed and the analytical results obtained. T he survey was limited to materials that were

exposed or accessible. SCE was granted access to the structures for the purpose of bulk sample

collection by NYSDOT. SCE maintained safety standard policies as set forth by NYSDOT.

2-1


01/17/14

2.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

ASBESTOS SURVEY REQUIREMENT: New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL)

Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR 56) requires an asbestos survey to be completed by a licensed

asbestos contractor using inspectors certified in compliance with Section 56-3.2(d), to determine

whether or not the building or structure, or portion(s) thereof to be demolished, renovated,

remodeled, or have repair work, contains ACM, presumed ACM (PACM) or suspect ACM

(SACM).

The asbestos survey includes a thorough inspection for and identification of all PACM, SACM,

or known asbestos material throughout the building/structure or portion thereof to be

demolished, renovated, remodeled, or to have repair work. The required inspection must be

performed by a certified asbestos inspector and include identification of materials by the

following methods:

1. Review of building/structure plans and records, if available, for references to asbestos,

ACM, PACM, or miscellaneous SACM used in construction, renovation or repair.

2. Visual inspection for PACM and miscellaneous SACM throughout the building/structure

or portion thereof to be demolished, renovated, remodeled, or repaired. All PACM and

miscellaneous SACM observed is assumed to be ACM and must be treated and handled

as ACM, unless bulk sampling is conducted as per standard United State Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) accepted methods (including multi-layered systems sampling protocols); the

subsequent analyses are performed by a l aboratory that meets the requirements of ICR

56; and the analyses satisfies both New York State and Federal requirements, to

document the material as non-ACM.

2-2


01/17/14

Prior Department bulk sample analysis records generated by either in-house or consultant

inspection staff are considered in the inspector’s review, but not exclusively accepted as

evidence of negative results. M aterials shall be additionally sampled when plans, records,

contributing uses/locations or visual observations identify a material as SACM. Similarly, if the

prior documentation is not sufficient to definitively indicate the material is asbestos, or the prior

sampling and/or analysis does not meet currently accepted protocols (such as New York State

Department of Health (NYSDOH) requirements), then additional sampling is warranted.

If additional sampling is not deemed necessary, an inspector’s narrative will discuss reasoning

behind decision. All narrative discussions are broken down by bridge.

SCE conducted this asbestos assessment in accordance with the above described methodology.

Sample locations were randomly chosen from each homogeneous sample area so as not to bias

sample results. H owever, samples were preferentially collected from damaged areas and/or

easily/safely accessible locations. The sample was then placed in a referenced numbered vial or

sample bag. The chain-of-custody information was completed, including the location, material

type, and analyses to be performed. Samples obtained by SCE were sent to Fibers I.D., Inc. of

Albany, New York and Eastern Analytical Services, Elmsford, New York for analyses.

3-1


01/17/14

3.0 ANALYTICAL PROTOCOL

A material is considered to be asbestos-containing under OSHA regulation 29 CFR 1926.1101, if

it is demonstrated by approved laboratory techniques that bulk samples from a homogeneous

sampling area contain greater than one percent (>1%) asbestos by weight or if it is a PACM. A

PACM is defined as thermal system insulations and surfacing material in a structure constructed

no later than 1981. The designation of PACM may be refuted by the collection and analysis of

bulk samples in accordance with the triple-sampling and the 3-5-7 Rule protocol established in

the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).

In New York State, bulk samples are divided into three (3) categories: 1) friable materials, 2)

non-friable materials, and 3) non-friable organically bound m aterials (NOB). Asbestos bulk

samples can be analyzed by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM). PLM utilizes a light

microscope to identify asbestos fibers based on visual properties of the sample. Each is divided

into sub-samples and mounted on four (4) slides in the same refractive index oil. A stratified

point count method is then performed to determine asbestos content. This enables the analyst to

determine accurately the percentage of asbestos and non-asbestos components. This method is

effective in determining asbestos content for friable and many non-friable materials.

NOB materials encompass a wide range of building materials that have an embedded flexible to

rigid asphalt or vinyl matrix such as floor tiles, mastics, and roofing. The matrix composition of

these materials limits the effectiveness of PLM analysis. In order to more accurately determine

asbestos content, NOB samples are first Gravimetrically Reduced (GR) in accordance with NYS

ELAP 198.4 pr otocol. After an initial sample weight is determined, the sample is reduced

organically in a muffle furnace and then digested in acid. T he sample is weighed again and

compared to its initial weight. If the post-reduction (residue) weight is less than or equal to one

percent (≤1%) of the initial weight, it cannot be defined as an ACM.

3-2


01/17/14

If the post-reduction (residue) weight is greater than one percent (>1%) of the original sample

weight, the sample is analyzed by PLM analysis. If the PLM analysis results in asbestos

concentrations greater than one percent (>1%), the sample is identified as an ACM. If the

analysis indicates asbestos concentrations less than or equal to one percent (≤1%), the sample

then must be analyzed by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) in order to finally

determine if the NOB sample is an ACM.

Any one (1) positive sample from a homogeneous sampling area determines the material to be

classified as asbestos-containing. In accordance with NYSDOT protocol, a “positive stop

approach” is utilized. The laboratory is instructed to not analyze remaining samples from a

given homogeneous sampling area following the first positive result. Any NOB homogeneous

sampling area that yields all negative results by PLM after GR must have all samples undergo

TEM analyses on a first positive basis. The material is determined not to be asbestos-containing

if all samples are analyzed by TEM and found to be less than or equal to one percent (≤1%)

asbestos. The sampling and analytical protocols are depicted in Figure 3.1.

3-3


01/17/14

4-1


01/17/14

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 WEST MAIN STREET OVER STEELE CREEK, BIN 1002720, VILLAGE OF

ILION, HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK

ACM was identified at this bridge structure (BIN 1002720) located on West Main Street over

Steele Creek in the Village of Ilion, Herkimer County, New York. The bridge is a steel girder

structure, with two (2) concrete abutments spanning Steele Creek.

SCE reviewed record plans dated 1936 and 1989. Identified suspect ACMs are summarized in

the following table:

RECORD PLAN

DATE SUSPECT ACM LOCATION/COMMENTS

1936 Tar Paper Abutment Bridge Seat

1936 Pre-moulded Joints (Item 71) Bridge Deck Expansion Joints

1936 Bituminous Material Bridge Deck Expansion Joints

1989 Membrane Waterproofing System for Concrete Slab (Item 15558.50) Applied to Bridge Deck Before Wearing Surface

Tar Paper was indicated to be present at the west and east abutment bridge seats. This material

was not visually evident, therefore, not sampled during the field assessment. Pre-moulded Joints

(Item 71) and Bituminous Material at bridge deck expansion joints were indicated to be present

at the bridge structure. Bridge deck expansion joints were previous paved over, therefore, the

Pre-moulded Joints (Item 71) and Bituminous Material was not visually evident, therefore, not

sampled during the time of assessment. Membrane Waterproofing System for Concrete Slab

(Item 15558.50) applied to bridge deck before wearing surface was indicated to be present at the

4-2


01/17/14

bridge structure. This material was not visually evident, therefore, not sampled during the field

assessment.

SCE performed asbestos assessment and sample collection on December 12, 2013. A total of 24

samples were collected of eight (8) homogeneous materials for the bridge structure. Copies of

the chain-of-custody and analytical results are included in Appendix B.

Analytical results determined that the following items are ACM:

• Insulation Pipe Wrap (top three (3) layers, 8-inch Insulated Pipe – black).

Analytical results determined that the following materials are not ACM:

• Green Paint (smooth).

• Masonry Coating.

• Clay Pipe – 1 (6-inch red).

• Clay Pipe – 2 (12-inch tan).

• Bituminous Coating – 1 (16-inch Pipe).

• Bituminous Coating – 2 (bottom, layer, 8-inch Insulated Pipe).

• Bituminous Coating – 3 (12-inch Gas Line).

Detailed information including location, suspect materials, approximate quantities, determination

of condition, removal options, and NYSDOT specification numbers can be found in Appendix A.

The laboratory reports for the bridge are attached in Appendix B. Refer to these appendices for

more detailed information.

5-1


01/17/14

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 WEST MAIN STREET OVER STEELE CREEK, BIN 1002720, VILLAGE OF

ILION, HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK

ACM was identified at this bridge structure as Insulated Pipe Wrap (top three (3) layers, 8-inch

Insulated Pipe – black). The proposed work consisting of superstructure replacement as reported

by Region 2 is anticipated to impact the Insulated Pipe Wrap (top three (3) layers, 8-inch

Insulated Pipe – black). Remove all Insulated Pipe Wrap (top three (3) layers, 8-inch Insulated

Pipe – black) prior to rehabilitation activities.

Removal, transport, and disposal of ACM shall be performed in accordance with Federal, State,

and local regulations, including, but not limited to, those of the USEPA, OSHA, New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and NYSDOL. Applicable regulations

include National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) promulgated by

USEPA and NYSDOL Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR 56).

6-1


01/17/14

6.0 LIMITATIONS

The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted

professional principles and practices and with our agreement with our client. This report is for

the use and information of our client, unless otherwise noted. Reliance on this report by another

must be at their risk, unless, of course, we are consulted on the use or limitations.

Opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions existing when

services were performed and are intended for our client, within the purposes, locations, time

frames, and project parameters indicated. W e cannot be responsible for the impacts of any

changes in environmental standards, practices, or regulations subsequent to performance of

services without our further consultation. We can neither vouch for the accuracy of information

supplied by others, nor accept consequences for unconsulted use of segregated portions of this

report.

The Asbestos Assessment Survey assessed the presence of accessible and/or exposed suspect

ACMs. A lthough due diligence was given during the assessment, suspect ACMs may exist

behind or beneath inaccessible spaces.

A-1


01/17/14

APPENDIX A

ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT SPREADSHEET

ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATION

Project: Region 2 - Superstructure ReplacementBridge Address: West Main Street over Steele Creek

County: Herkimer Village of Ilion Inspected By: A. MarsdenPIN: 2650.41.101 BIN: 1002720 T. Zotta

SCE No: R10282.D8 Inspection Date: 12-Dec-13

AREA LOCATION TYPE OF MATERIAL APPROXIMATE QUANTITY

CONDITION ACM Y/N ASSUMED

FRIABLE F/NF

REMOVAL OPTIONS

SPECIFICATION ITEM NUMBER

Underside Structural Steel and 2" Conduit Between Girder 1 and Girder 2

Green Paint (smooth) - Fair N NF - -

Underside West and East Abutment at upper Backwall

Masonry Coating - Fair N NF - -

Underside West and East Abutment in Lower Backwall

Clay Pipe - 1 (6" red) - Fair N NF - -

Underside East Abutment in Lower Backwall Clay Pipe - 2 (12" tan) - Fair N NF - -Underside East Abutment North of Girder 1 at

Storm Water DrainBituminous Coating - 1 (16" Pipe)

- Fair N NF - -

Underside On 8" Pipe Between Girder 10 and Girder 11 (top 3 layers)

Insulation Pipe Wrap (8" Insulated Pipe - black)

61 Ln.Ft. Poor Y NF B.V. 14 210.3211

Underside On 8" Pipe Between Girder 10 and Girder 11 (3 layers)

Non-suspect Horse Hair Insulation

* Fair - NF BV 14 210.3211

Underside Applied to 8" Pipe Between Girder 10 and Girder 11 (bottom layer)

Bituminous Coating - 2 (8" Insulated Pipe)

- Fair N NF - -

Topside On 12" Pipe South of Girder 11 Bituminous Coating - 3 (12" Gas Line)

- Fair N NF - -

* Where Multiple Layers of ACM Exist, Payment will be based on the Pipe Length.

Shumaker Consulting Engineering & Land Surveying, D.P.C.

430 Court StreetUtica, New York 13502

A-2


01/17/14

APPENDIX B

ANALYTICAL LABORATORY RESULTS

3 , .3J Y U Js 'Ero * o .

v -

s b9o ) o q )o , E o

o t r oo ? q )o r ; o ,I 6P5=.95fa= l8.$ H 8.9(9e I

EggEEEBET-"nTe*b b gA o o u )

Y-ssa[ nY$t

Awv3

E{

1Np

tr|

No* Cr')

>sZ"\trsE ^

.o oo{ r n\/ (a

3 x r ' i lFd: F J{s €'HTEI : QEU=

E* = e*?Ot i< t r ' .

;3 ;fsF-v H;fS| Y i a 6 - i

HE*T

.E|gEIfl;l5l

3goo-ou

c.o.9cc,oc)

Eoo_ooC)goo

oo

.Y

o

oo.6.

o-

:th

o

oC)

=oC)

{-rooCLo5oLorts!to*,o5orFoc(EF

o

E5=c.9,o

;o!q)c.23qco

o)

(u.g)@

;IEq)E.9,5

IteIG

J

r-oooo(E

oo=

$\

$g\E1d\)It

$h3

1oF.l\a!1J

$f$tA

htr

t'ltd.

t-v?(d

)\)

J-

Je:J

v1

,JD

J$.sxNarN

E)

tR,].

$\zlf i

d6t

NF,'AqIt-

N

{3

}:lvfa

th)&N

(

/{

k'aFIvN

B.J

, J

*

{

{6

N

rCII'li

En

jI

\5l"-'t

il-\u(.

t -\tt

fr:ft

e!toh

CLIENT:

ADDRESS:

PLM-NOB ANALYTICAL REPORTPage I of I

Shumaker Engineering & Land Surveying, P.C.l5l0 Central AvenueAlbany, NY 12205

DATE COLLECTED:DATE RECEIVED;DATEANALYZED:DATE REPORTED:

t2n2n3tz t13n312/t7lt3t2/24n3

CLIENT PROJECT:

SCE #:

Region 2-Superstr5ucture Replacement-W. Main St Over Steele Creek

R10282.D8 PIN #:2650.41.101 BIN #: 1002720

ANALYTICAL METHOD NYS DOH 0310t197 (Item 1986)

LAB # CLIENT #

NOTEBOOK: M.HAY

DESCRIPTION

GREEN PArNT (SMOOTH)



MASONRY COATING

MASONRY COATING

MASONRY COATING

CLAY PIPE (6'RED)

CLAY PIPE (6" RED)

CLAY PIPE (6"RED)

NYSDOHELAP # I1 I29

PLM TEST RESULTSEST. CALC. TOTALASB ASB ASB

68027o

68028o

68029o

68030r

6803 I r

68032o

6803 3 o

68034o

6803 5.

0l -01

0r-02

0l -03

02-04

02-05

02-06

03-07

03-08

03-09

50.48vo

49.25Vo

5t.21%

29.22%

05.85%

32.30Vo

92.31%

96.02%

92.54Yo

INC

TNC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

44.95% 04.57%

43.65% 07.10%

41 ,87o/o 06.920/o

60.630/o 10.160/o

43.76% 05.40%

55.71% 1r,99%

06.36Vo 0l.33Yo

02.91o/o 01.0701o

03.50% 03.960

C=CHRYSOTILE A=AMOSITE CR=CROCIDOLITE AN=ANTHOPHYLITE TR=TREMOLITE AC=ACTINOLITE N/A=NOTANALYZED

NAD = NO ASBESTOS DECTECTED PLM = POLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPY NOB = NONFRIABLE ORGANICALLY BOUND MATERIALS

INC-INCONCLUSIVE T=TRACE O CLIENTREQUESTEDTEM.

.POLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPY IS NOT CONSISTANTLY RELIABLE IN DECTECTING ASBESTOS IN FLOOR COVERINGS AND SIMILAR NONFRIABLE LY

BOUND MATERIAIS. QUANTITATIVE TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY IS CIJRRNETLY THE ONLY METHOD THAT CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE

IF THIS MATERIAL CAN BE CONSIDERED OR TREATED AS NONASBESTOS CONTAINING'(ELAP I98.66.3.2.I)

Analytical results reported on samples not collected by Fibers I.D. Inc., Report data dependent on information supplied by client and

chain of custody. Liability limited to cost of analysis

Any and all reports, chain ofcustodies and/or professional opinions generated by Fibers LD., Inc. and transmitted via electronic median

ori to b, considered preliminary in nature and are not intended or utilizedforrtnal reports. They are strictlyfor the convenience ofthe

client.

Analyst:

MichaelH. Hay

11.M167O Western Aue, Bldg. B, Albang' New York 12203

Laboratory / Office Phone (5 1 8) 4 56-45Q I' fibersid@terizon'net

GRAVIMETRIC TESTRESULTS

A%ID-SOL.ORGANIC INORGANIC

RESIDUE

68027

2262331

Not Given

Not Given

Tem

NoNoNoReduced by Client

68028

2262332

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


68029

2262333

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00 .00.0

0.0

0 .0

48.8

51.2

Page I of3

68030

2262334

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00,00.0

0.0

0.0

70.8

29.2

Eastern Analytical Services, Inc.Bulk SamPle Results

CPN R10282.D8 - Region 2 Superstruch'rre Replacement

Date Collected :

Collected By :

Date Received :Date Analyzed :

Analyzed By :

Signature :

Analytical Method :

NVLAP Lab No.

NYS Lab No.

Samnle ID Number

Layer Number

Lab ID Number

Sample Location

Sample Description

Analyical Method

Appearance LayeredHomogenousFibrousColor

RE:

Not GivenNot Givenr2^9/201312t20/2013Ghavath Elias-re=NYS-DOH I98.4l0 1646-01085 I

Client Fibers I.D., lnc.1670 Western Avenue - Building "B"Albany, NY 12203

AsbestosContent

OtherMaterialsPresent

% Amosite% Chrysotile% Other

YoTotal Asbestos

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

50.8

49.2

% Organic 0.0

o/o Carbonates 49.5

% Other Inorganic 50.5

Results Appticobte To Those ll.ms Tcsled. RePod csmol bc llcprodulcd' Exccpt Enlitcly, withoul wrilten APprovol ofth€,Lobototory'

Li*-uii i iyi i i-t.ar"c"srofAnalysis. ThisReporrMustNotbeiJsedt-ythecti int.toclaimPrcducrEndotsercntbyNVLAPorAnvAgencyoftheusGovctment'AIHA Accrcdiration No. 10026i Rhodc lsland DoH No. AAj-.0?2T: raassrchusetts pol No. A A 0000?2 bomecticut Doit N-0. Pil'0622 Maine DEP No LA'024 vomnl DoH No AAs-2095

4 "8(rs1{::h0ster PlaTtt f;tm*lorcl, Nr:w Yotk I 0523 1 61 0 ({114} S92 *1"1UO irt t1}: /./wrrrw. FA$il'tc.c()rrl

Date Collected :Collected By :Date Received :Date Analyzed :Analyzed By :Signature :Analytical Method :

NVLAP Lab No.NYS Lab No.

Sample ID Number

Layer Number

Lab ID Number

Sample Location

AsbestosContent


Not GivenNot Givent2n9l201312120/2013Ghayath Elias

;#NYS-DOH I98.4l0 1646-01085 I

Fibers I.D., Inc.1670 Western Avenue - Building "B"Albany, NY 12203

Page 2 of 3

68034

2262338

Not Given

Not Given

Tem



RE: CPN R10282.D8 - Region 2 Superstructure Replacement

Sample Description

Analytical Method

Appearance LayeredHomogenousFibrousColor

6803 I

226233s

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


Client

68032

2262336

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

67.7

7 ) 1

68033

2262337

Not Given

Not Given

Tem



% Total Asbestos

Yo Organic

o/o Carbonates

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

94.2

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

7.7

92.3

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

4.0

96.0% Other lnorganic 5.8

ResultsAppl icableToThorcl lcruTcslcd. RePoicamotbeRePtod*cd,Exc.PtEnl i rc ly,wi lhoulwt i t tcnAPprovalof lh€-L6bo'8lory '

Li" t i i i i rLi i l i "afrc"srofAnsl ls is. ThisReportMusrNotbci ,s€dbythecl ienttoclaimProdrctEndorsetrenlbyNVLAPorAnvAgencyofthcUScov€mment '

AIHA Accredirarion No. l0026l Rhodc lsb;d DoH No. AAL-0?2TI Massachuscts DoL No. A A 000072 connccticut Doil No. PH-0622 Mainc DEP No' LA-024 vemil DoH No AAs-2095

,! Wr*rii:herils' Plazil Flrretord Nevr '/orh 10523 i$ 1{,1 (914) 502 8::!fX) i tl lt.r: /:'rwzvu. FASiili:.(.;oru

*r , ! - l n rI t . in : i l " rn

r..J:. *:Ja

Eastern Analytical Services,Bulk SamPle Results

CPN R10282.D8 - Region 2 Superstructure

Inc.

Replacement

Pagc 3 of 3

Date Collected :Collected By :Date Received :Date Analyzed :Analyzed By :Signature :Analytical Method :

NVLAP Lab No.

NYS Lab No.

Sample ID Number

Layer Number

Lab ID Number

Sample Location

Sample Description

Analyical Method

Appearance LaYeredHomogenousFibrousColor

RE:

Not GivenNot Givenr2n9l20l3L2/20t20t3Ghavath Elias

-4-744--NYS-DOH I98.4101646-010851

Client Fibers LD., Inc.1670 Western Avenue - Building "B"Albany, NY 12203

AsbestosContent


YoTotal Asbestos

68035

2262339

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

7 .5

Other % OrganicMaterialsPresent o/o Carbonates

% Other Inorsanic 92.5

R€sul lsAppl icrblcToThorcl temsTest€d. RcPodcsmolbeRePfodltcd,ExclPtEnt irety,withoutwri l tcnApProvalofth.Lobotatory'

r-- i " t i r ' iy i i . i t "afoc"stofAnatysis. Thi$Rc;ortMustNotbei jscdbythect i ;nl toClaimProductEndotserenlbyNVLAPorAnyAgmcyof lheUsGovernment

AIHA Accrediration No. 100263 Rhodc tstsnd DoH No. AAL-072T3 Massschusdtr DoL No. A A 0000?2 connccticut Doi.l No. Pi{-0522 MEinc DEP No LA'02d vemnt DoH No AAS-2095

.! westcl'leritef Plazir fii,ns{ord, New Ycrrh I 0523' 16 I 0 {914} 51)2 83f}o nIl$i //"w1 ''.F-ASIt1.:.c(lrn

sfr'Q3

6+5po g ,. 9 at r oF 6

8Bs5>fu J 6F qo oe >

EEFs$Ec a :b .0'c{t A

uE-u I

gJgo=Iq,

ofoc(l)o)oEP>aa* t

9o' F A'6 a)0 0 -cL t:

Egl o5tu) <f,

&utt'6J\)

{t>JI

\qr$

\$\s

N

+to.ctoJ

sMccxq

M M s I JCTJ

{j

?:J

co.Fct(,ooo(E'=oo=

/,r(F

, 'Fl

\;

N, ,

blo"

Or

\qs

)

--(t

-\

N{.

sv}..,-

.9V\

fTF-s

-l

--l

dN'd

1E:s\xw$vo

$Et'n

I

-t

{

ooF

coGoo

J

Ah\tJ

g*sJ5a\)I

k\\

\

$\/.1

N

0$N${.J

$s*.5!

h

RRraIR

6\J

t

$R

5

RhN

$C!

tr

N'-,'

G\\

\

Rsrs\

L', (

s' .J\A-q

hrs

NN\

\>

:\i--"\

{N\drj*\

$EJ

sh

l\h

$s€-\

Jv$dNY

tr-B$l-

R

NK5d16u-d\D

a.b

.-$*-

-l

T\",

B\AR

IRlqI L| ,lzl

l\S

/o\?o

Ts-i

\J

I}(v?F'

frhl

Mr -Nt rsSP4fifl' N* :

t \F- ,.>

w3

i^ lwl?l\ l7l\9 I!)v,,

Io lut.J,U7RL!

t'otiNN:t$Nl r E

l , !n$t:\

+te!tofi

TJ-t--F

i5I

Jq

$I

rs

f.4)

!(\J

T)

t ?

O

\\t

TL.>()

:3)

<a

\l

-*9a

=,

\5s

8\h*

.dooEgEn5 lE r to lE \o \E\

F I

E

5

eoE

.+a )ED<

EgoEi::b -6c]

ls

s

)E IetE1s:AStr$-*

t!a-

oo

.9)\e*

6Eo'do0)K

N\ \

€\@\E \

fl\

ct

IB>dlrol oLclo

lalcbE.

r l

kIa

t iul

Fr)eH

Nrf,l INI

- c aon

t r Nr ( h: - ' ! f ,

C g , ^: o o{ 'r,

v, : 9X' 6 f J .

eo\ c.)- l\.

:Y \Nj f lt r Ni o r n

, ( J $. t ^r l v o o, l -

t t --l \n tn:l ti \-/

IIri

"sa t n. n SE- \6bbn SEN*g* r<t r l .F > . ; . ,

s.? (.) lr)6 7 *

= e$f- ,O oo:<;

EI-31EIut

EIEIEI.=lo l

9lJ l

EIaetnlEl

IEoo-ov.

'c(U

:qC-c()o

ijoo-ooog(Uo

+ioo.6-

o-

?n){

,*t

oo0.o=o*-ot-

tto*.oor|-oc(s?

o

hio

.Y

o

+t

3c.9

I PLM-NOB ANALYTICALPage I of I

Shumaker Engineering & Land Surveying, P.C.I 5 l0 Central AvenueAlbany, NY 12205

REPORT

CLIENT:ADDRESS:

DATE COLLECTED:DATE RECEIVED:DATE ANALYZED:DATE REPORTED:

tz l l2 l l3tzlt3l1312l t7 l t312t24/13

CLIENT PROJECT:

SCE #:

Region 2-superstr5ucture Replacement-w. Main St over Steele creek

R10282.D8 PIN #:2650.41.101 BIN #: 1002720

ANALYTICAL METHOD NYS DOH 03101/97 (ltem 1986)

LAB # CLIENT #

NOTEBOOK: M.HAY

DESCRIPTION

CLAY PrPE-2 (12" TAN)

CLAY PIPE-2 (12" TAN)

CLAY PIPE-2 (12" TAN)

BITUMINOUS COATING.l

BITUMINOUS COATING.I

BITUMINOUS COATING.I

BITUMINOUS COATING.2

BITUMINOUS COATING.2

BITUMINOUS COATING-2

NYSDOHELAP # I I I 29

04.06% 00.96% 94.98%

05.54o/o 00.80% 96.66%

05.29% 00.20o/o 94.5lYo

99.07% 00'53Yo 00.40Yo

91.tt% 00.03% 02.86%

95.36% 01,59% 03.05%

72.66% 00.06% 27.28%

72.24Yo 00.80% 26.96%

69.27% 02.03o/o 28.71%


68036r

68037o

68038o

68039

68040

6804 I

68042o

68043 o

68044o

04-r0

04- l l

04-12

05 -13

05-14

05 -15

06-16

06-17

06-18

INC INC

INC INC

INC INC

<OI.OO% RESIDUE

T/C INC T/C INC

INC INC

INC INC

INC INC

INC INC

INC

INC

INC

NON.ACM

T/C INC

INC

INC

INC

INC


A%ID-SOL.ORGANIC INORGANIC

RESIDUE

C=CHRYSOTILE A=AMOSITE CR=CROCIDOLITE AN=ANTHOPTryLITENAD = NO ASBESTOS DECTECTED PLM = POLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPYINC - INCONCLUSIVE T:TRACE ' CLIENT REQUESTED TEM.

.POLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPY IS NOT CONSISTANTLY RELIABLE IN DECTECTING ASBESTOS IN FLOOR COVERINGS AND SIMILAR NONFRIABLE LY

BOUND MATERIALS. QUANTITATIVE TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY IS CURRNETLY THE ONLY METHOD THAT CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE

lF THIS MATERIAL CAi.l BE CONSIDERED OR TREATED AS NONASBESTOS CONTAINING" (ELAP 198.66.3 2.1)

Analytical results reported on samples not collected by Fibers LD. Inc.. Report data dependent on idormation supplied by client and

chain of custody. Liability limited to cost of analysis.

Any anh ail reports, chaii ofcustodies orio, professional opinions generated by Fibers 1.D., Inc. and transmitted via electronic median

ore to b, coniidered pretiminary in nature and are not intended or uttlizedforfinal reports They are strictlyfor the convenience ofthe

clienl.

Analyst:

TR=TREMOLITE AC=ACTINOLITE N/A=NOTANALYZEDNOB = NONFRIABLE ORGANICALLY BOI"JND MATERIALS

ru1670 Western Aue. Btdg. B, Albang, New York 12203

Laboratory / Office Ptone (5 1 8) 456-459 1' fibersid@terizon'net

"fr#/brr4t*-- --.;

T. Morrison

..* ": z

r r l n rr t - f l ' r :

M,i^ #rtta- * w



68036

2262340

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

5 .0

95,0

68037

2262341

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


68038

2262342

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


Pagc I of2

68040

2262343

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


Date Collected :Collected By :Date Received :Date Analyzed :Analyzed By :Signature :Analytical Method:NVLAP Lab No.NYS Lab No.

Sample ID Number

Layer Number

Lab ID Number

Sample Location

Sample Description

Analytical Method


Not GivenNot Givent2n9/2013t2/20/2013Ghayath Elias

;l-iTZNYS-DOH I98.4101646-01085 I

Client Fibers 1.D., Inc.1670 Western Avenue - Building "8"AlbanY, NY 12203

AsbestosContent



o/oTotal Asbestos

o/o Organic

% Carbonates

% Other Inorganic

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

J . J

96.7

0.0< 0 .9

0.0

< 0.9

0.0

5 . 5

94.5

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

91.1

2 .9

Rcsuls Applic6blc To Those llem Test.d. RcPon c6Mol bc Reprndlccd, ExcrPt Enlitcly, withoul w.illen APpfoval ofthc,Lsbolalory'

i - i "- t i i iy i i i l i " l r"c"stofAnalysis. ThisRe;orrM!$NotbeiJ-rc_dblrhecl i rntmclaimProductBndonemmtbyNVLAPorAnvAgcncyoftheuscovemmcnl '

AIHA Accrcditalion No. 100261 Rhodc lsh;d DoH No. AAL-072T1 t'tassa"husctts DoL No. A A 000072 Louccticut Doit No. Pil-0622 Mainc DEP No LA-024 vcmDnl DoH No AAs-2095

4 lv{,{iiilt1eslsf PlaTtr f . : r rst ( l r r l . NewYcrrk 1 i l523 1610 (914' li02 $3{io I l t l D : . ' J w \ i 1 w . [ i A S l r l ; . ( ; ( ) r l I



68041

2262344

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


68042

2262345

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


68043

2262346

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

73.0

z7.0

Pagc2 of7

68044

2262347

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

7 l . 3

28.7

Date Collected :

Collected By :

Date Received :

Date Analyzed :

Analyzed By :

Siglature:Analytical Method :

NVLAP Lab No.

NYS Lab No.

Sample ID Number

Layer Number

Lab ID Number

Sample Location

Sample Descriptton

Analytical Method


Not GivenNot Givenr2n9l20r3t2t2012013Ghayath Elias

:#NYS-DOH I98.4101646-01085 I

Client Fibers I.D., lnc.1670 Western Avenue - Building "8"Albany, NY 12203

AsbestosContent



YoTotal Asbestos

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

1 ' 1

27.3

% Organic 0.0

% Carbonates 97.0


R€sulls Applicable To Those ltems Tesl€d, Repotl caMol be RcPlodlrcd, Except Enlitelt withoul written Approvdl o,flhc-Labodtory'

i-"iiii , iiL"i.a r" c"st of Analysis. rlis neport tausr Not te iJsed by the client.to claim Produd Endonercnt by NVLAP or Any Agency of thc us Govc|menl

AIHA Accredirarion No, 100261 Rhorlc lstand DoH No, Air-o?2Tl M8lsch$c$s DoL No. A A m0072 Comcclicut Doi{ N-o Pil-0522 Mainc DEP No LA-024 VcmDnl DoH No AAs-2095

,l ' i lt$l*hester Pli.lru Elrn:,rlcrlcJ. New Yr.:rk I0523 i610 {91'{} 592 8ile0 nt tn: //worv,'. E AS!r1r;.(:oil l

rn

No-r Cel

>sZc\hsc g , ^

-o oo{ n' \ / l n

3x n^ t.Bd: F U.l o bbgr I;F UEN*E: E;!r (-3s j<f d $=9 iErP -5r r r n , l nZ i IFv

H#*u YF84* R

3J

Io5eC',at5ocoo)oEP>

I

EEs t

9o' F A' 6 a9 0 -T f F

E$: ( a.s- ba o

3rl

eeq=6+O Eo c ' )E at r oF 68geE5 - cIb- oo q )€ >an 'E

o ' AFeNEf.'' o-ogo A

lsrIrl

t

A1"J

E1NVI

juooE(1)o

t q )l =l q

leAtEtI t r \IE\ld \lgIF

olJEg<tr\bcrs$

oEi=E_oo

@0)oz

c)

I

cG

e)-$\

SF

N'r<F

EidrE,P!,oEo.:oooiry

\,

h,A

N

c)

o.91@

;(nEo

.t4=ctc. oE,

;l1l

t{:,{i)oo,o;,

c\

o:tfJ

ocnttr,u

PLM.NOB ANALYTICALPage I of I

Shumaker Engineering & Land Surveying, P'C,

1510 Central AvenueAlbany, NY 12205

Region 2-superstr5ucture Replacement-W.

REPORT

CLIENT:ADDRESS:

DATE COLLECTED:DATE RECEIVED:DATE ANALYZED:DATE REPORTED:

Main St Over Steele Creek

tz l t2 l l3t2lt3lt3r2lt7lr312/24t13

CLIENT PROJECT:

SCE #: RI0282.D8 PIN #:2650.41.101 BIN #: 1002720

ANALYTICAL METHOD NYS DOH 03101197 (Item 1986)

LAB # CLIENT #

NOTEBOOK: M.HAY N Y S D O H E L A P # I I I 2 9

DESCRIPTION


68045

68046

68047

68048o

68049o

68050o

07-19

07-20

07-21

08-22

08-23

08-24

INSLTN PIPE WRAP

INSLTN PIPE WRAP

INSLTN PIPE WRAP




43.67% 04.38%

41.48% 00.73%

93.67% Q4.57o/o

66.010/o 1l.28Yo

71.52% 13.26Vo

73.04o/o ll.57Yo

51.95o/o 40.00%'C

57.790 N/A

01j7% N/A

22.70% INC

t521% INC

15.39o/o INC

20,780 -C

POSITWE

POSITryE

INC

INC

INC

20.78%-C

I S T

IST

INC

INC

INC


A%ID.SOL.ORGANIC INORGANIC

C=CHRYSOTILE A=AMOSITE CR=CROCIDOLITE AN=ANTHOPHYLITENAD = NO ASBESTOS DECTECTED PLM = POLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPYINC - INCONCLUSIVE T=TRACE . CLIENT REQUESTED TEM.

.POLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPY IS NOT CONSISTANTLY RELIABLE TN DECTECTING ASBESTOS IN FLOOR COVERINGS AND SIMILAR NONFRIABLE LY

BOUND MATERIALS. QUANTITATIVE TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY IS CURRNETLY THE ONLY METHOD THAT CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE

IF THIS MATERIAL CAN BE CONSIDERED OR TREATED AS NONASBESTOS CONTAINING" (ELAP I98.66.3.2.I)

Analytical results reported on samples not collected by Fibers I.D. Inc.. Report data dependent on information supplied by client and

chain of custody. Liability limited to cost of analysis.

Any an'd all reports, chain of custodies ani/or professional opinions generated by Fibers 1.D., Inc. and transmitted via electronic median

or, ,o b, considered prehmTnary in nature oni oi, not intended or uiilizedforfinal reports, They are strictlyfor the convenience ofthe

client.

Analyst:

L."\r\*

TR=TREMOLITE AC=ACTINOLITE N/A=NOTANALYZEDNOB - NONFRIABLE ORGANICALLY BOUND MATERIALS

FTBERS /.D. //TC.167O Western Aue. Btdg. B, Albang, Neu't York 12203

Laboratory / Olfice Plane (5 1 8) 4 5 6-4 5Q I' fibersid@teri'zon'net

Director,

a#e&B;

Pagc I of I



Date Collected :Collected BY :Date Received :Date Analyzed :Analyzed BY :Signature :AnalYical Method:NVLAP Lab No'

NYS Lab No.

Sample ID Number

Layer Number

Lab ID Number

Sample Location

Sample Descrlptlon

Anallical Method


Not GivenNot Givent2lt9l2013t2/20/2013Ghayath Elias

; f f i -NYS-DOH I98.4I 0 I 646-01085 I

Client Fibers I.D., Inc'1670 Western Avenue - Building "B"AIbanY, NY 12203

68050

2262350

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


68048

2262348

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00.00.0

0.0

68049

2262349

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


AsbestosContent



YoTotal Asbestos

Yo Organic 0'0

o/o Carbonates 77.3


0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

84.8

15.2

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

84.6

I 5 .4

R.sultsApp| icableToThosel lmTcsl.d.R.ponc'MolbcReprodN.d'Exc.pt.Enl i rc lv.wi lhou|wri t l .nApprovalof lhcLabotalory.

ifl,ljl[T"*:"""'1".1*tii*i$ljfnll*y;iiyi":',':,T":[Tjii':']^'ff,1TJ''iH.'#"1'#ii'.:Ti-*'] ""o""'J."'Ji$']1.. LA'024 vernbn, DoH No AAs'20e'

4 lvestchestet Pl.rzr.l fiirrr:.itorcl, Ne,w York 10523- 16 i 0 tg 1 4} 592 {J38i} rrttp:/rlvr,rrlt. EAS!l tc. c0fl l

A-3


01/17/14

APPENDIX C

BLANKET VARIANCE 14 (BV 14)

A-4


01/17/14

APPENDIX D

CERTIFICATIONS

unry von*.,$f*r,g:';ogP*,nr'mrntr,(}F tlEArTx .,'i, ': ' 'r''r,'i,: " = "::":::"1::;i:',::,W4O$IIUQRT.H..CEH.T,ER

i : t : t : : ' : : : : t : : : : ! : : ! : . ! ! : . ! i ! ! ! ! : ! : ! ! : : ! ! ! : : ! ! : : : : :

:iii

ii:i:l:'i::rii ra.

,' e*nrmrcn#'orippnouAii'ox..#[ ..be**ce ,ii.,,.:., ;r,::lsgtedirt: acrcrdus,,udfi,affi,Furffif,fo'ga@-n s2 Publi,c,Wh tawof fSew y.s#;$effi..'.'''..''''

.,

. . :,,,:,...,.:.,.''.:,',::' ::.,:'..,,:..,',.:,,..,,',' ,'..,:..::'

: : . i : : : . . : : i . . . . : : : . : : : : . . : . : : . . , : : : -_ , , . . , . . . ' , , . ' . , . ' . . , , . , . , , , , , , , , : , , . , , , , : ' , . , , , , : , . , . .

:;, ,:,, ,, ';:,,Expirs$ilZ:gt,,AM *tri{:,,CIf , 20t.4,,,,,,,, , . ' ,,ts5ued: Apfi1.01 ,2O13,..- ' ,, ' , ' ,

,,,,,...,,i,,,,,, i,,.,.,,,, .,..,,.,:NYLa6 :ttd.'Ii#l:,,l tr1|;29,. , ; ' . . ' . . l ; , ' , , , , . , , , , . , , . , , ' . , ' ' ' , , , , , ' ' . , . , , , , , , r ' , , , . , . ' ' , , , , i '

. : : . ' : : ' : : ' : : ' ' : ' : ' : ' ' : : ' ' '

: : ' ' : : ' ' : : l ' ' : : : : ' ' : : : ' : : : . . , , . , , , . : : , : , . :_

'.,MR,,;W1CUAIE+,,,I{, ttiif:,:',:', ; ;, ,, ,,:i : ,:,,;',',',,':,,,,,,' 'FIBERE'IdrwG,. '

' , ' , ; , , , i , ' , i , i i , , ' , ' ' . i

7 67? lggSIFRAt *VF iBf.DG,; BALEAIIV,,',,NY.,.,," 1 2203427 8,:"',"'

.:.:14...Ill\,,i;:ii;i:ii;i:rl :ii;::ii;::i;: : : : : : ! t : : I : : : I t : : : : : :: : : i i : : : : : : : : ry : : : ! : i :

, : . i : l : : : :. . : r - - : - , . : i ! , . ! ! , . !,, i ' ; - ,: ' : ": "

' : ' i i : :: ::]:

. ! ; r * * : : l

r_r',3llai:ililllliiiili:liiiiia:ii:6

tlpcBnaneous,:: ,.,:,,,1:,, , . , l:rt,::,: ,, ,, 1 ,:,,,; ,:

Asb :io,Friailo,MatErtat .'. '

. . '[email protected]#*ry'rarariarrum

;t;:;r:;;rrrr;;*iiiill .,rrrr:. . t . t i - : , . . . .i '.,,.i ',,,., ,....:.i: ; --'1,,

....., . r.... ..' ' l ..... ..,,l i ; : i r : - . , ; . l r : ' r : : : : ':'::.::,*:J.':lii;:iiilil:::::":.:li:l:iii:illi:i;:.lt:i;:

',rrlr,ii ltili'i irr

:ii:ili:j:l:

ar*,na|id- qltfi f, fs,.WFi;iiliic.rcpi#il:itr{:t{i*tei.}* opnFd8

m €fe,@.6 cdl:(51flIneF''7oto :


Appendix C – Traffic Information and Pedestrian Generator Checklist

1

Mark Fabend

From: Dan Huffaker [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 8:03 AMTo: [email protected]: Fw: CBOW, Design Speed Concurrence

This what we have at this time. DMH ----- Original Message ----- From: Emrich, Steve (DOT) To: Kelley Kircher ; Dan Huffaker ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 2:24 PM Subject: FW: CBOW, Design Speed Concurrence FYI

From: Papaleo, Jim (DOT) Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:23 AM To: Emrich, Steve (DOT) Cc: Hoffmann, Brian (DOT); Lubey, Linda A (DOT) Subject: CBOW, Design Speed Concurrence The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred the use of a design speed for the following CBOW locations are consistent with the anticipated off‐peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. (Refer to Section 2.3.1.5 Speeds and Delays and Appendix C of this report for additional information on speed data): BIN 1046750 Rte. 365A, Oneida Design Speed 45 MPH BIN 4426240 Dustin Rd., Remsen Design Speed 40 MPH BIN 1025680 Rte. 46, Oneida Design Speed 60 MPH BIN 4424090 Johnny Cake Rd., Madison Design Speed 45 MPH BIN 1045740 Rte 315, Marshall Design Speed 60 MPH BIN 1002720 W. Main St., German Flats Design Speed 35 MPH BIN 2206680 Chenango Rd., Utica Design Speed 45 MPH

James J. Papaleo, P.E. Assistant Regional Traffic Engineer, R-2 New York State Department of Transportation 207 Genesee Street, Utica, NY 13501 [email protected] Tele: (315) 793-2462 Fax: (315) 793-2522

ST

AT

E O

F N

EW

YO

RK

DE

PA

RT

ME

NT

OF

TR

AN

SP

OR

TA

TIO

N

TR

AF

FIC

SA

FE

TY

DIV

ISIO

N

AC

CID

EN

T D

ET

AIL

S,

HIS

TO

RY

LO

CA

TIO

NSh

eet 1

of 2

DIAG

RAM

No.:

CASE

No.

:TO

WN

FILE

:CI

TYBY

:VI

LLAG

E OF

DATE

:

TIME

PER

IOD

FROM

:20

10TO

:20

12 36

ACCI

DENT

No.

DATE

TIME

DIRE

CTIO

NTY

PE¹

REFE

RENC

E MA

RKER

101

/13/

1012

:16

2PD

O1

12

28/

71

N/A

201

/20/

108:

282

PDO

12

44

3/1

1N

/A

301

/22/

1012

:15

2PD

O1

11

13/

31

N/A

401

/29/

1015

:12

2PD

O1

15

22/

71

N/A

502

/06/

1017

:30

2I

31

11

2/7

1N

/A

605

/25/

1011

:00

2PD

O1

11

17/

71

N/A

No. O

F MO

NTHS

:

LIGHT CONDITIONS

ROADWAY CHARACTER

ROADWAY SURFACE CONDITION

WEATHER

SEVERITY

APPA

RENT

CON

TRIB

UTIN

G FA

CTOR

S

DESC

RIPT

ION

Ligh

t Con

ditio

ns:

1. D

aylig

ht2.

Daw

n3.

Dus

k4.

Dar

k R

oad

Ligh

ted

5. D

ark

Roa

d U

nlig

hted

Roa

dway

Cha

ract

er:

1. S

traig

ht &

Lev

el2.

Stra

ight

& G

rade

3. S

traig

ht &

Hillc

rest

4. C

urve

& L

evel

5. C

urve

& G

rade

6. C

urve

& H

illcre

st

Roa

dway

Sur

face

Con

ditio

n:1.

Dry

2. W

et3.

Mud

dy4.

Sno

w/Ic

e5.

Slu

sh

10. O

ther

Wea

ther

:1.

Cle

ar2.

Clo

udy

3. R

ain

4. S

now

5. S

leet

/Hai

l/Fre

ezin

g R

ain

6. F

og/S

mog

/Sm

oke

10. O

ther

No. of VEHICLES

Rea

r end

at W

est S

t int

erse

ctio

n

Rig

ht tu

rn n

ear X

tra M

art

Rig

ht a

ngle

at W

eisb

ecke

r Hill

inte

rsec

tion

Rea

r end

at B

arrin

ger R

d in

ters

ectio

n

Left

turn

at W

est S

t int

erse

ctio

n

ENVI

RONM

ENTA

L:U

se C

odes

from

MV

104

(sho

wn

at ri

ght)

for t

hese

ca

tego

ries

ROUT

E NO

. OR

STRE

ET N

AME:

COUN

TY:

Her

kim

erP.

I.N.:

2BO

W.0

0

Ilion

4 66 9 7

¹Use

Cod

es fr

om M

V 10

4 Po

lice

Rep

ort

18 9

Left

at M

cGow

en in

ters

ectio

n

Wes

t Mai

n St

reet

AT IN

TERS

ECTI

ON W

ITH/

OR B

ETW

EEN:

NY

SR 5

S to

Cen

tral A

venu

e

101.

094

Prud

ent E

ngin

eerin

g, L

LP

02/2

2/14

10

11

96

78

45

12

3

605

/25/

1011

:00

2PD

O1

11

17/

71

N/A

709

/08/

108:

501

PDO

12

12

516

N/A

809

/30/

1019

:04

2PD

O4

12

32/

71

N/A

910

/01/

1011

:27

2PD

O1

22

27/

51

N/A

1011

/24/

1013

:45

2PD

O1

41

11/

71

N/A

1110

/30/

1016

:00

2PD

O1

11

28/

71

N/A

1212

/06/

106:

312

PDO

41

44

4/7

1N

/A

1312

/12/

1011

:39

2PD

O1

12

34/

71

N/A

1401

/04/

1118

:13

2I

41

22

3/3

1N

/A

1502

/09/

1116

:06

2I

14

22

3/7

1N

/A

1603

/08/

117:

503

PDO

11

41

3/3

1N

/A

1707

/07/

119:

481

I1

11

17

11N

/A

1808

/26/

1113

:25

1I

11

11

731

N/A

1910

/20/

1116

:00

2I

11

12

7/7

1N

/A

2012

/15/

1114

:32

2PD

O1

12

32/

31

N/A

2103

/05/

1213

:20

2PD

O1

11

17/

71

N/A

Rea

r end

at W

est S

t int

erse

ctio

n

Left

turn

at W

est S

tate

Stre

et in

ters

ectio

n

Rig

ht a

ngle

at A

diro

ndac

k Ba

nk e

xit

Ran

into

bui

ldin

g at

197

Wes

t Mai

n St

reet

40 7 64R

ight

ang

le a

t Tru

e Va

lue

66C

hain

reac

tion

on W

est M

ain

440 75 9R

ear e

nd a

t Elk

's Lo

dge

4R

ight

ang

le a

t Bar

ringe

r Rd

inte

rsec

tion

40Ve

ered

off

road

7Sw

erve

d to

avo

id c

ar a

t Elk

's Lo

dge

9 7 7

Rig

ht a

ngle

at W

est S

treet

inte

rsec

tion

Rig

ht a

ngle

at X

tra M

art

Rig

ht a

ngle

at X

tra M

art

Rig

ht tu

rn a

t Xtra

Mar

t

Rea

r end

at B

arrin

ger R

d in

ters

ectio

n

4R

ear e

nd n

ear B

arrin

ger R

d in

ters

ectio

n

10

11

96

78

45

12

3

TE

213

(9/

79)

ST

AT

E O

F N

EW

YO

RK

DE

PA

RT

ME

NT

OF

TR

AN

SP

OR

TA

TIO

N

TR

AF

FIC

SA

FE

TY

DIV

ISIO

N

AC

CID

EN

T D

ET

AIL

S,

HIS

TO

RY

LO

CA

TIO

NSh

eet 2

of 2

DIAG

RAM

No.:

CASE

No.

:TO

WN

FILE

:CI

TYBY

:VI

LLAG

E OF

DATE

:

TIME

PER

IOD

FROM

:20

10TO

:20

12 36

ACCI

DENT

No.

DATE

TIME

DIRE

CTIO

NTY

PE¹

REFE

RENC

E MA

RKER

No. O

F MO

NTHS

:

LIGHT CONDITIONS

ROADWAY CHARACTER

ROADWAY SURFACE CONDITION

WEATHER

SEVERITY

APPA

RENT

CON

TRIB

UTIN

G FA

CTOR

S

DESC

RIPT

ION

Ligh

t Con

ditio

ns:

1. D

aylig

ht2.

Daw

n3.

Dus

k4.

Dar

k R

oad

Ligh

ted

5. D

ark

Roa

d U

nlig

hted

Roa

dway

Cha

ract

er:

1. S

traig

ht &

Lev

el2.

Stra

ight

& G

rade

3. S

traig

ht &

Hillc

rest

4. C

urve

& L

evel

5. C

urve

& G

rade

6. C

urve

& H

illcre

st

Roa

dway

Sur

face

Con

ditio

n:1.

Dry

2. W

et3.

Mud

dy4.

Sno

w/Ic

e5.

Slu

sh

10. O

ther

Wea

ther

:1.

Cle

ar2.

Clo

udy

3. R

ain

4. S

now

5. S

leet

/Hai

l/Fre

ezin

g R

ain

6. F

og/S

mog

/Sm

oke

10. O

ther

No. of VEHICLES

ENVI

RONM

ENTA

L:U

se C

odes

from

MV

104

(sho

wn

at ri

ght)

for t

hese

ca

tego

ries

ROUT

E NO

. OR

STRE

ET N

AME:

COUN

TY:

Her

kim

erP.

I.N.:

2BO

W.0

0

Ilion

¹Use

Cod

es fr

om M

V 10

4 Po

lice

Rep

ort

Wes

t Mai

n St

reet

AT IN

TERS

ECTI

ON W

ITH/

OR B

ETW

EEN:

NY

SR 5

S to

Cen

tral A

venu

e

101.

094

Prud

ent E

ngin

eerin

g, L

LP

02/2

2/14

10

11

96

78

45

12

3

2203

/29/

1216

:33

2PD

O1

11

13/

31

N/A

2306

/14/

1214

:54

1I

11

11

12

N/A

2406

/20/

1217

:32

2I

12

11

3/3

1N

/A

2509

/18/

1215

:50

2I

11

23

7/7

1N

/A

2610

/04/

1216

:04

2PD

O1

11

24/

31

N/A

2712

/05/

1217

:37

2PD

O3

42

27/

71

N/A

4R

ear e

nd a

t Six

th A

ve in

ters

ectio

n

66R

ear e

nd a

t Wes

t St i

nter

sect

ion

13Si

desw

ipe

near

Wes

t St i

nter

sect

ion

4R

ear e

nd a

t Mid

tow

n W

ings

and

Whe

els

14C

ollis

ion

with

ped

estri

an c

ross

ing

Wes

t Mai

n St

7R

ight

turn

at 1

11 W

est M

ain

St d

rivew

ay

2712

/05/

1217

:37

2PD

O3

42

27/

71

N/A

2812

/19/

1214

:06

2PD

O1

11

21/

61

N/A

2912

/29/

1222

:41

2PD

O4

14

41/

71

N/A

6613

Rig

ht a

ngle

at S

ixth

Ave

inte

rsec

tion

Rig

ht a

ngle

at S

ixth

Ave

inte

rsec

tion

Side

swip

e ne

ar W

est S

t int

erse

ctio

n

7

TE

213

(9/

79)

PEDESTRIAN FACILITY DESIGN

Exhibit 18-1 Pedestrian Generator Checklist

P.I.N.: 2650.41.101 Project Location: BIN 1002720 West Main Street

PEDESTRIAN GENERATOR CHECKLIST

Note: The term “generator” in this document refers to both p3destrian generators (where pedestrians originate) and destinations (where pedestrians travel to). A check of “yes” indicates a potential need to accommodate pedestrians and coordination with the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator is necessary during project scoping. Answers to the following questions should be checked with the local municipality to ensure accuracy.

1. Is there an existing or planned sidewalk, trail, or pedestrian-crossing facility? YES NO

2. Are there bus stops, transit stations or depots/terminals located in or within 800 m of the project area?

YES NO

3. Is there more than occasional pedestrian activity? Evidence of pedestrian activity may include a worn path.

YES NO

4.

Are there existing or approved plans for generators of pedestrian activity in or within 800 m of the project that promote or have the potential to promote pedestrian traffic in the project area, such as schools, parks, playgrounds, places of employment, places of worship, post offices, municipal buildings, restaurants, shopping centers, or other commercial areas, or shared-use paths?

YES NO

5. Are there existing or approved plans for seasonal generators of pedestrian activity in or within 800 m of the project that promote or have the potential to promote pedestrian traffic in the project area, such as ski resorts, state parks, camps, amusement parks?

YES NO

6. Is the project located in a residential area within 800 m of existing or planned pedestrian generators such as those listed in 4 above?

YES NO

7. From record plans, were pedestrian facilities removed during a previous highway reconstruction project?

YES NO

8. Did a study of secondary impacts indicate that the project promotes or is likely to promote commercial and/or residential development within the intended life cycle of the project?

YES NO

9. Does the community’s comprehensive plan call for development of pedestrian facilities in the area?

YES NO

10. Based on the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school, would the project benefit from engineering measures under the Safe-Routes-To-School program? Eligible infrastructure-related improvements must be within a 3.2 km radius of the project.

YES NO

Note: This checklist should be revisited due to a project delay or if site conditions or local planning changes during the project development process. Comments: Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator: Project Designer: Prudent Engineering, LLP

§18.5.1 03/30/06


Appendix D – Public Information

Regional Design Group (315) 793-2429

February 24, 2014

Robert VandawalkerDirector of Emergency ServicesHerkimer County E911 Center71 Reservoir RoadHerkimer, New York 13350

RE: FUTURE BRIDGE PROJECTSHERKIMER COUNTY

Dear Mr. Vandawalker:

As part of the Acu York State Department of Transportation's (NYSDU'1) increased emphasis onpublic involhcl]]clit in the k clopment, planning. and construction of all transportation prujccts. thislkttcr is intcndcd to provide information and solicit public input rcnaarding the above-referenced capital

cc

. '\ t ?OLIIch] tilt co pc of work on f? c ^c i rticular sinicturc has not hccn III? 1117CC , t hc C p mJc Ct A\111

( dd i'css SC ( M1' and of flood prollm ucs iliroul! b rc p l:Ic c lllclll perin(Il?clit scour I IIf )Ilis 1 IT ndl sl cj ll h li tlli c tlll c. . This \\ ' I f c111ILII`CC th]c.' lcsiii 11CA i ll llf Siiiics l^;lis1't!flat ii IIctV\ur{k to

.;j .

I _ Ti2;.;..;.I tk.i tii] ULh L I' 1

It is expected that traffic will be maintained either utilizing stage construction or utilizing an off-sitedetour, as shown in the below trble. A map of each project area is included for your convenience withthe proposed detour routes :> 1 1o\\ It , I and requesting t1M1 you please contact the emergency service

FO\iders (i.e. Fire Department. Police 1 ) hci,;,re„ts. ! n,: g:nc \ led i:,it I)e; p ;,rtirents,. etc.) fur eachbridge location. Please note tF e L these bridges are currc iii. S,11c to cross.

Town/City BIN Carried Crossed ; Detour/Staged €Village of Middleville 1020120 j Route 28 Maltanner Creek j StagedTown of Stark ; 1039040 Route 168 Trib. Otsquago Creek ; DetourTown of Stark ; 1051360 Route 168 Otsquago Creek DetourTown of German Flatts,Village of Ilion

! 1002720 W. Main Street Steele Creek Staged

Please reply with any questions or comments regarding this project by March 7, 2014. If you would liketo further discuss the project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (315) 793-2594, or by email atSteve.Emrich@a dot.ny.gov .

Sincerely,

i k t e

Steven G. Emrich, P. E.Acting Regional Structures Engineer

Attachment

bce: J. Williams, Region ? Interim Regional DirectorD. Windecker, Assistant to the Regional Director.`Re^zioiiul Real Estate Officer (via email)A. Rommmnvch, Rc nomni Pfanninig & Pro rim Gi ul, \ fai m ^cr (\ is email)M. Pu\\losLi. I lcrLimet ( cniiil\ l sici.'nt I ri in ec r ( _!11 sillNI. „ ,(I^,..i 1 " t ,• , a l.•., i. i' t . i.. !)z, .. . I

t'i i, c. .... ..aulutl^i ^.ii iii:;

J. Bronk, Oneida Wiest. Madison Resident Liigineer (via email)J. Piccola, Regional PIO (via email)W. Albert, Director of Structures Design, MO (via email)

DEvAIr1LN G -

R E G207 GENESE

UTICA. NEW YCwww.dot. n^

ORK

SPOORTATFON

WoSTREET

iRK 1 3501qov

LLCC

OH N : I LLIAMS, P.E.

N-N L C ONAL DIRECTOR

Regional Design Group (315) 793-2429February 19, 2014

Frank P. Spatto, SupervisorTown of German FlattsP.O. Box 57

Mohawk, New York 13407

RE: WEST MAIN STREET OVER STEELE CREEKBIN 1002720

TOWN OF GERMAN FLATTS, HERKIMER COUNTY

Dear Mr. Spatto:

As part of the New York State Department of Transportation's (NYSDOT) increased emphasis on publicinvolvement in the development, planning, and construction of all transportation projects, this letter is intendedto provide information and solicit public input regarding the above-referenced capital project.

Although the scope of work on this particular structure has not been finalized, this project wi ll address scourand/or flood prone issues through replacement or permanent scour retrofits of flood susceptible structures. Thiswill enhance the resiliency of our State's transpo rtation network to withstand future extreme weather events.Funding of these structures has not been secured as of yet, but is expected to be made available through FederalAgencies.

This project includes work on the bridge carrying West Main Street over Steele Creek in the Town of GermanFlatts. It is expected that traffic will be maintained utilizing stage construction. A map of the project area is

included for your convenience. Please note that this bridge is currently safe to cross.

Please reply with any questions or comments regarding this project by March 7, 2014. If you would like tofurther discuss the project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (315) 793-2594 or by email atSte\ e. Emrich a dot.ny.gov .

Sincerely.

Orr;; inul .Signedhi SGLSte\ en G. Emrich, P. F.\cling Regional Structures Tninecr

Attachment

fl r: .. .. Vb+ .:iATION

WO

UTtC/ E N 'j Q; 1 3501

www.dot. ny.gov

JON ` IILLEAMS, P.E. JOAN, ,, :. DC1r,1_.!)

: NT_. . G OVAL DIRECTOR

Regional Design Group (315) 793-2429February 19, 2014

Honorable Beth Neale, MayorVillage of Ilion49 Morgan StreetIlion, New York 13357

RE: WEST MAIN STREET OVER STEELE CREEKBIN 1002720TOWN OF GERMAN FLATTS, HERKIMER COUNTY

Dear Mayor Neale:


Although the scope of work on this particular structure has not been finalized, this project will address scourand/or flood prone issues through replacement or permanent scour retrofits of flood susceptible structures. Thiswill enhance the resiliency of our State's transportation network to withstand future extreme weather events.Funding of these structures has not been secured as of yet, but is expected to be made available through FederalAgencies.

This project includes work on the bridge carrying West Main Street over Steele Creek in the Town of GermanFlatts. It is expected that traffic will be maintained utilizing stage construction. A map of the project area isincluded for your convenience. Please note that this bridge is currently safe to cross.

Please reply with any questions or comments regarding this project by March 7, 2014. If you would like tofurther disco ,, the project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (315) 793-2594 or by email atSte%c.Emricli a dotiiy.gov .

Sincerely,Original Signedhr SGEStc%en G. f.nirich, P. E.Acting Re uional Structures Engineer

Attachment

t. ,v YORK

D PAE NSPORTATION

WO

207 ; f_N ::t: =:i:::: STREET

UTICA. N E: %• YORK 13501Clot.n Qoy

P.E.wTE. ONLL O: zECTOR

Regional Design Group (315) 793-2429

February 19, 2014

Cosimo Tangorra, Jr., SuperintendentCentral Valley School District111 Frederick StreetIlion, New York 13357

RE: WEST MAIN STREET OVER STEELE CREEKBIN 1002720TOWN OF GERMAN FLATTS, HERKIMER COUNTY

Dear Mr. Tangorra:


Although the scope of work on this particular structure has not been finalized, this project will address scourand/or flood prone issues through replacement or permanent scour retrofits of flood susceptible structures. Thiswill enhance the resiliency of our State's transportation network to withstand future extreme weather events.Funding of these structures has not been secured as of yet, but is expected to be made available through FederalAgencies.

This project includes work on the bridge carrying West Main Street over Steele Creek in the Town of GermanFlatts. It is expected that traffic will be maintained utilizing stage construction. A map of the project area isincluded for your convenience. Please note that this bridge is currently safe to cross.

Please reply with any questions or comments regutrding this project by March 7, 2014. If you would like tofurther discuss the project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (315) 793-2594 or by email atSteve.Emricli o dot.ny.gov .

Sincerely,Original Signedhi SGEStc\ cii G. Emrich, P. E.Acting Regional Structure Ingineer

LD

Attachment

Public Involvement Plan

Bridge Superstructure Replacement Project PIN: 2BOW.00 BIN: 1002720

West Main Street over Steele Creek Herkimer County

Village of Ilion and Town of German Flats Name of Preparer: Jonathan Tibbitts, Project Team Leader Date Prepared: 03/25/2014 Preparer’s Functional Area: Regional Design Group Current Phase (check one): Scoping Phase I-IV Phase V-VI Construction Other Project Schedule as of Date Prepared IPP Approved --------------------------------------------------------------Unknown Scoping & Design Approval --------------------------------------------Spring 2014 PS&E -----------------------------------------------------------------------Winter 2014 Construction Begins ------------------------------------------------------Spring 2015 Construction Completion ------------------------------------------------Fall 2015 1. IPP update List changes that have occurred since IPP: Unknown 2. Project Data Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . ____Fed-Aid NHS __X__Fed-Aid Non-NHS ____100% State Check Project Type (s). ____NEPA Class I __X__NEPA Class II ____NEPA Class III

____ SEQR Non-Type II __X__ SEQR Type II Brief Description of Project Work: Replace the existing bridge with a new superstructure on the existing alignment. The new structure will have a span of approximately 59’-0” and will be skewed 42 degrees to match existing and accommodate the expected flows of the Steele Creek. NYSDOT person designated as community contact Steve Emrich Public Involvement prior to IPP (y/n) No If yes, describe Attach relevant correspondence and/or meeting minutes.

3. Project Scoping PI Objectives in Scoping: 1. Identify Stakeholders 2. Inform stakeholders of project and proposed project scope/needs. 3. Gather information on the project context. 3.1 Identify Stakeholders Internal Stakeholders: Regional Planning; Regional Design Group; Regional Structures Group; Regional Landscape/Environmental Group; Regional Traffic and Safety Group; Regional Construction Group; Regional Maintenance Group. External Stakeholders: Village of Ilion, Town of German Flats, County of Herkimer, Central Valley School District, USACOE, FHWA, NYSDEC, Local Businesses, Emergency Services, local/seasonal residents, traveling public 3.2 Potential community concerns: Increased hydraulic opening, impacts to local businesses, work zone traffic control by off-site detour, emergency services during construction. 3.3 Communication Methods to be used to inform Stakeholders: Meetings with public officials: Direct mailings to local governments, County emergency managers and school district. Public information meetings: None planned Is a citizen’s advisory committee necessary? No If yes, attach description of how it will be organized, list committee make-up and affiliation, and committee objectives. Other public involvement techniques: News releases 3.4 Schedule for Public Involvement Activities: Meetings with stakeholders will be as needed.

4. Design PI Objectives during Design:

Preliminary Design: Summarize information gained from Scoping. Seek consensus on preferred alternative. Detailed Design: Update stakeholders on progress, discuss any changes.

4.1 Information Internal Stakeholders: Regional Planning; Regional Design Group; Regional Structures Group; Regional Landscape/Environmental Group; Regional Traffic and Safety Group; Regional Construction Group; Regional Maintenance Group. External Stakeholders: Village of Ilion, Town of German Flats, County of Herkimer, Central Valley School District, USACOE, FHWA, NYSDEC, Local Businesses, Emergency Services, local/seasonal residents, traveling public 4.2 Communication Methods to be Used: Meetings with public officials: Meetings may be held to introduce the project to the

municipalities involved and receive feedback from them. Public information meetings:

Meeting formats: Open house meetings with presentations followed by Q & A session Brochure: yes

Comment Form: yes Visualizations: yes Other public involvement techniques:

Direct mailings News releases Website E-mail

4.3 Schedule for Public Involvement Activities: If requested by local governments an a public information meeting will be held during final design. In addition, a website may be created for public access with an email account. Direct mailings and news releases will also be used to notify the public of the meetings. 5. Construction Phase PI Objective During Construction:

Inform and maintain contact with affected residents/businesses/other stakeholders concerning construction activity schedule and impacts.

5.1 Issues requiring continued public outreach: Maintenance and protection of traffic (MPT): Proposed stage construction will require continual interaction with local highway owner and effected stakeholders. Public education for operational features (e. g., roundabout): None Minimizing community economic impacts during construction: Provide incentive and disincentive clauses in the contract to help assure project efficiency and adherence to schedule. Post-construction community feedback: As needed Other issues: None

5.2 Communication Methods to be Used: Variable message signs Website 5.3 Schedule for Public Involvement Activities: Keep the public informed through the media, use of highway message signs, and project website.


Appendix E – Hydraulic Analysis

Documents

PROJECT SCOPING REPORT/ FINAL DESIGN REPORT...2014/06/06 · May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.41.101/BIN 1002720 1-1 CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1