project scoping report/ final design report · may 2014 project scoping report/final design report...

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: 2650.40.101

BIN: 2206680 Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek

City of Utica Town of New Hartford

Oneida County

May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

iii

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 ...................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ............................................................................... 1-3 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 .............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.3.1.3 Traffic Control Devices ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3.1.4 Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................. 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 ............................................................................................ 2-2 2.3.1.8 Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis ..................................................... 2-3 2.3.1.9 Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ......................................................................... 2-3

2.3.2 Multimodal .................................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.3.2.1 Pedestrians ....................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.2.2 Bicyclists ........................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.3.3 Infrastructure .............................................................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.3.1 Design Standard ............................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3.3.2 Critical Design Elements ................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.3.3 Other Design Parameters ................................................................................................. 2-6 2.3.3.4 Existing and Proposed Highway/Bridge Plan and Section ............................................... 2-6 2.3.3.5 Non Standard/Non-Conforming Features ......................................................................... 2-6 2.3.3.6 Pavement and Shoulder .................................................................................................... 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

TABLE OF CONTENTS


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 .................................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.2.1 State Freshwater Wetlands ................................................................................................. 3-4 3.3.2.2 Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands ............................................................................................. 3-4 3.3.2.3 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses ............................................................................ 3-4 3.3.2.4 Executive Order 11990 ....................................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.2.5 Mitigation Summary ............................................................................................................ 3-5

3.3.3 Floodplains ................................................................................................................................. 3-5 3.3.3.1 State Flood Insurance Compliance Program ...................................................................... 3-5 3.3.3.2 Executive Order 11988 ....................................................................................................... 3-5 3.3.3.3 Stormwater Management .................................................................................................... 3-5

3.4 Historic and Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 3-5 3.5 Hazardous Materials......................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.5.1 Asbestos .................................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.5.2 Lead-Based Paint ...................................................................................................................... 3-6

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 ...................................................... 1-6 Exhibit 2.3-A - Classification Data .............................................................................................................. 2-1 Exhibit 2.3-B - Existing and Future Traffic Volumes – Chenango Road .................................................... 2-2 Exhibit 2.3-C - Collision Summary for Chenango Road from French Road to Clinton Street ................... 2-3 Exhibit 2.3-D - Critical Design Elements for Chenango Road Over Sauquoit Creek ................................. 2-5 Exhibit 2.3-E - Other Design Parameters ................................................................................................. 2-66 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 - Project Correspondence ..................................................................................................... D-1 Appendix E - Hydraulic Analysis .............................................................................................................. E-1 Appendix F - Non-Standard Features Justification ................................................................................... F-1


1-1

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Introduction This report was prepared in a ccordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual, 17 NY CRR (New York Codes, Rules and Regulations) Part 15, and 23 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 771. Transportation needs have been i dentified (section 1.2), objectives established (1.2.3) to address th e needs, and cost-effective alternative developed (1.3). This project is 99.6% State funded a nd 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 – Chenango Road 3. SH number and official description – Not Applicable


1-2

4. BIN and Feature Crossed – BIN 2206680; Sauquoit Creek 5. Town – Town of New Hartford 6. City – City of Utica 7. County – Oneida County 8. Approximate Project Length – 205 ft. 9. RM - Not applicable

Exhibit 1.2-B – Aerial Image

Bing Maps

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

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

1. Rehabilitate the Chenango Road Bridge over Sauquoit Creek. The new superst ructure will be designed for a service life of at least 75 years 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 m aintain the exist ing Chenango Road Bridge structure, roadway section, and geometry. There would be no improvements made to the structure other than routine maintenance and none of the physical defici encies 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 reconstructi on. In addition, the substandard bearings and utilit y supports and pedestals at the begin abutment will be replaced. T he low rated abutment backwalls and tops of the wingwalls will also be repaired. The new structure will have a span of approximately 100’-0” to accommodate the expected flows of Sauquoit Creek. The proposed profile will closely match the existing grade. The reconstructed roadway width and bridge roadway width will cl osely match the existing roadway t hough the proj ect limits, however minor ROW acquisitions are anticipated. The total projec t length will be approximat ely 205’-0” including bot h approach roadways and the bridge.

Construction will be progressed with an off-site detour.

1.3.3 Alternative 2 – Bridge Replacement This alternative would involve the complete removal of the existing Chenango Road Bridge and replacement with a new structure. The new structure would have a span length of approximately 100’-0” with two 11’-0” travel lanes and 4’-0” shoulders. The approach sections would consist of two 11’-0” travel lanes and 4’-0” shoulders that would match the existing roadway section. New abutments and wingwalls would be constructed and scour protection placed in the stream channel and along the stream embankments. The replacement bridge would be placed approximately on the same horizontal alignment as the existing bridge.

This alternative can be accomplished with an off-site detour utilizing the local road network for commuters and emergency vehicles.

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 bridge supported water and gas lines.

This alternative does not meet the project objective based on the decreased cost effectiveness associated with utility relocations and the scour protection needs, which have been identified and addressed under a separate contract. Therefore, this alternative is being dropped from consideration.

1.4 Environmental Review

1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) This project is being progressed as a Class II ac tion (Categorical Exclusion) because it does n ot individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental impact and is excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (E IS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA), as documented in the discussion under Chapter 3. Specifi cally, in acco rdance with the Federal Highway


1-4

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 Environme ntal Quality Review Act”, Section 15.5. This Project is being advanced as a SEQRA Type II Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR, Part 15. A s a result, no furth er SEQRA processing would be requi red. The Proj ect 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 Proje ct does n ot violate any of the crite ria contained in subdivision (d) of Section 15.14 (See Section 3.2).

1.5 How will the Alternatives Affect the Environment?

Exhibit 1.5 - Comparison of Alternatives

Category Alternatives

Null Alternative 1 (Superstructure

Replacement) Wetland impacts

Temp. None None Perm. None None

100 year floodplain impact

None None

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 0.27 AC

Operation at ETC + 30 LOS C or Better LOS C or Better 30 year Crash Costs None None Construction Cost None $2.0 M

Meets Project Objectives

No Yes

Proposed Mitigation: Refer to Section 3.3 for mitigation measures that are proposed for this Project. Anticipated Permits/Certifications/Coordination: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC):

Protection of Waters Permit Disturbance of The Bed or Banks of a Protected Stream or Other Watercourse

Section 401 Water Quality Certification


1-5

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 Federal Highway Administration Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination with the New York Natural Heritage Program Coordination with the City of Utica Coordination with the Town of New Hartford Coordination with Oneida County

1.6 What are the Costs & Schedules? Design Approval is scheduled for April of 2014. Refer to Exhibit 1.6-A for the Project Schedule and Exhibit 1.6-B for the 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 - Comparison of Alternatives’ Project Costs

Activities Alternative 1

Construction Costs Bridge $1,315,000

Highway $45,000

Wetland Mitigation -

SPDES Permit Compliance -

Incidentals (10%) $140,000

Subtotal 1 $1,500,000

Contingency (15% at Design Approval) $225,000

Subtotal 2 $1,725,000

Field Change Order $55,000

Subtotal 3 $1,780,000

Mobilization (4%) $75,000

Subtotal 4 $1,855,000

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

to arrive at $ amount to be entered here) See HDM 21.6.3.2 B

$1,870,000

Construction Inspection (9%) $170,000

ROW Costs $30,000

Total Alternative Costs $2,070,000

1.7 Which Alternative is Preferred? Alternative 1 has been identified as the preferred alternative because it will meet all 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

Stakeholder Meeting Spring 2014

Meeting with Town Reps. Spring 2014

Public Informational Meeting Spring 2014

Current Project Letting Date October 23, 2014

The Region has sent letters to all muni cipalities, 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 inform ation to a ll local emergency responders. A request for responses by March 7, 20 14 was stated in the lette r. No responses were received as of March 19, 2014. This will complete the publi c outreach prior to des ign 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 “2650.40.101”) Steve Emrich, P.E., Project Manager 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 There are no approved developments planned within the project area that will impact traffic operations.

2.2. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments Chenango Road through t he project site runs approximately east-west between New Hartford Street (to the west) and French Road (to the e ast). The roa dway approaches consist of approximately two 13’-0” wide travel lanes with no defined shoulders. The approach pavement is in generally fair condition. The horizontal alignment (within the project limits) consists of an approximate tangent segment. The vertical alignment consists of a 0. 06% grade. Chenango Road is not a qualifying hig hway in the City of Utica. The clear zone varies through the project site with utility poles, buildings, and trees locat ed close to the shoulders. The ro adway is posted fo r 40 mph. (R efer to App endix A for Plan, Profile, and Typical Sections)

Sauquoit Creek is a non-navigable waterway channelized with rip-rap in the vicinity of the bridge.

The Regional Planning Group has confirmed that there are no plans to reconstruct or widen this highway segment, or the adjoining segments, within the next 20 years.

2.3 Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations

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) Chenango Road

Functional Classification 17 - Urban Collector/Major Collector

National Highway System (NHS) No

Designated Truck Access Route No

Qualifying Highway No

Within 1 mile of a Qualifying Highway Yes

Within the 16 ft vertical clearance network No

2.3.1.2 Control of Access This roadway is currently without control of access and will continue to be without cont rol of access after the project is complete. 2.3.1.3 Traffic Control Devices Traffic control devices in the vicinity of Chenango Road consist of speed limit, curve warning, and general


2-2

information signage. If additional signage is requi red, as identified during final design, they will be provided in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the NYSDOT Supplement. 2.3.1.4 Traffic Volumes The projected ETC and ETC+30 traffic volumes were developed using a growth rate of 0.4% for Oneida County, as p rovided by the de partment. The volu mes shown in Exhibit 2.3 -B were provided by the Department.

Exhibit 2.3-B - Existing and Future Traffic Volumes – Chenango Road

Year ADT DHV Existing (2013)

4075 425

ETC 4160 434

ETC+30 4580 477 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 project’s type of replacement, it is recommended that an (ETC)+30 be used.

2.3.1.5 Speeds The posted speed limit through the p roject site is 40 mph. The NYSDO T has determined that the 85 th percentile operating speed is 45 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 bett er 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. 2.3.1.7 Work Zone Safety & Mobility A. Work Zone Traffic Control (WZTC) Plan During construction the bridge structure will be closed to the public and an off-site detour will be utilized. A bridge closure will allow the work to be completed in the fall, minimize the length of impact to seasonal residents and decrease the length of time under construction. A detour was evaluated along Chenango Road, French Road, Burrstone Road, Clinton Street, and New Hartford Street, which would divert traffic 3.5 mile s and add approximately 5 minutes to the trip duration for traffic traveling to New Hartford. (Refer to Appendix A for the Detour Map.) B. Special Provisions Due to the close proximity to resi dential homes and the ability to maintain traffic with acceptable delays during the daylight hour s, night time construction will not be utiliz ed. The use of time related provisi ons will be evaluated during final design. The work zone traffi c control will need to be coordinated with local officials and residents.


2-3

C. 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 Managem ent 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 in 2013. This section of Chenango Road had an accident rate of 0.99 ACC/MVM based on the 7 accidents that occurred during the study period. Thi s is l ess than the expe cted rate of 3.26 ACC/MVM for two l ane undivided Urban Colle ctor highways with free a ccess statewide. There we re no a ccidents involving pedestrians or 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 for Chenango Road from French Road to Clinton Street

(1/1/2011 – 12/16/2013) Type of Collision Number Percentage

Right Angle 0 0% Rear End 0 0% Right Turn 0 0% Left Turn 0 0%

Sideswipe 0 0% Other 7 100%

Accident Data provided didn’t specific type of collision. 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. 2.3.1.9 Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction The Chenango Road Bridge over Sauquoit Creek (BIN 2206680) is jointly owned and maintained by the City of Utica and Town of New Hartford. Ownership and maintenance jurisdiction will not change as a result of this project.

2.3.2 Multimodal 2.3.2.1 Pedestrians There are no separate provisions for pedestrians due to infrequent demand. Occasional pedestrians may legally use the paved shoulder. No pedestrian accommodations will be provided. (Refer to Appendix A for the Pedestrian Generator Checklist.)


2-4

2.3.2.2 Bicyclists The existing shoulder width is not defined (unstriped). There are no separate provision for bicyclists and no plans for a bicycle route within the project limits. The proposed shoulder width is 4’-0”. Bicyclists may legally use the paved shoulder.

2.3.3 Infrastructure 2.3.3.1 Design Standard 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 Chenango Road Over Sauquoit Creek

BIN: 2206680 NHS (Y/N): No Route No. &

Name: Chenango Road Functional

Classification: 17 - Urban Collector/Major Collector

Project Type: Bridge Superstructure Replacement Design Classification: Urban Collector

% Trucks: 5 Terrain: Level ADT:

(ETC)+30 4580 Truck Access/Qualifying

Hwy. Access-No; Qualifying-No

Element Standard Existing Condition

Proposed Condition

1 Design Speed 30 mph Min. / 60 mph Max. HDM Section 2.7.3.2.A

40 mph (posted) 45 mph1

2 Lane Width

11 ft Min. Bridge Manual (BM) Sections 2.3.1

Table 2-1 and Appendix 2A - Tables R & N, HDM Exhibit 2-6

13’-2½” 11’-0”

Approach Lane Width 13’-2½” 11’-0”

3 Shoulder Width 8 ft Min.

BM Sections 2.3.1 Table 2-1, and App. 2A Tables R & N, HDM Exhibit 2-6/2-5

Included Above 4’-0”**

Approach Shoulder Width Included Above 4’-0”

4 Bridge Roadway Width

26’-5” Min./32’-0” Max Approach Roadway Width

BM Sections 2.3.1 Table 2-1, and App. 2A Table R & Table N

HDM 2.7.3.2.D

26’-5” 30’-0”

Approach Roadway Width 26’-5” 30’-0”

5 Maximum Grade 8% Max. HDM Exhibit 2-6 0.06% 0.06%

6 Horizontal Curvature 711 ft (@ e = 4.0%) HDM Exhibit 2-6 Tangent Tangent

7 Superelevation Rate 4% Maximum HDM Section 2.7.3.2.G Normal Crown Normal Crown

8 Stopping Sight Distance 360 ft Min. HDM Exhibit 2-6 >1,000’ >1,000’

9 Horizontal Clearance 0 ft with barrier, 1.5 ft without barrier

(measured from face of curb) HDM Section 2.7.3.2.I

1’-6” 4’-10”

10 Vertical Clearance (above traveled way)

14’-0” Min., 14’-6” Desirable BM Section 2.4.1, Table 2-2 Unknown >14’-0”

11 Travel Lane Cross Slope 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. HDM Section 2.7.3.1 K 2% 2%

12 Rollover 4% between travel lanes; 8% at edge of

traveled way; HDM Section 2.7.3.2.L

4% 4%

13 Structural Capacity HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit

Vehicle BM Section 2.6.1

H20 HL93 and NYSDOT

Design Permit Vehicle

14 Pedestrian Accommodation

Complies with HDM Chapter 18 None None 1The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of 45 mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th

percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. **Indicates non-standard feature.


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 2206680 WB-40 WB-40

2.3.3.4 Existing and Proposed Highway/Bridge Plan and Section The existing structure has an out-to-out width of 28’-0” with a rai l-to-rail width of 26’-5”. T he highway approaches consist of two 13’-2½” wide lanes with no defined shoulders. The horizontal alignment of the roadway over the bridge consists of an approximate tangent segment. The proposed bridge roadway will be 30’-0” wide consisting of two 11’-0” travel lanes with 4’-0” shoulders. The approaches will be reconstructed to provide a minimum roadway width of 30’-0”, which will transition to match existing at the reconstruction limits. (Refer to Appendix A for Plan, Profile and Typical Sections for both existing and proposed conditions.)

2.3.3.5 Non Standard/Non-Conforming Features There is one non-standard feature proposed on this project. The proposed shoulder width is 4’ -0” wide and the mini mum width based on th e HDM Ch apter 2 for an Urban Collector specifies a minimum shoulder width of 8’ -0”. This feature was proposed due to the proximity of t he R.O.W. as well as to provide an improvement on the exis ting feature. (Refer to App endix E for the Non -Standard Features Justification.)

2.3.3.6 Pavement and Shoulder The 2012 Biennial Inspection rated the approach asphalt pavement a “3” for pavement cracking in the wheel path of the beginning right lane. The beginning left lane has transverse cracks. The end approach right lane is uneven and the left lane is heavily cracked and depressed. The project will include full-depth pavement reconstruction within the project limits. 2.3.3.7 Drainage Systems Storm water runoff from Chenango Road is adequate with no evidence of ponding and there are no plans to reconstruct or upgrade the existing drainage system. Both bridge ap proaches drain away from the bridge and adequately move water away from the bridge. There are no scuppers on the existing bridge. The need for scuppers on the proposed bridge will be evaluated during final design.


2-7

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 piles. 2.3.3.9 Structures The existing structure is a 100’-0” long, single-span, steel multi-girder superstructure, supported by full-height concrete pedestals and founded on piles. The ex isting structure has an out-to-out width of 28’ -0” with a rail-to-rail width of 26’-5”. The existing structure provides a clear opening (perpendicular to the flow) of ap proximately 98’-0” with a m idspan low chord elevation of 502.5±, resulting in a hydraulic opening of approximately 1080 SF. The proposed structure will have a span of approximately 100’-0”. The new superstructure will have a 33’-4” out-to-out width with a 30’-0” clear roadway consisting of two 11’-0” wide travel lanes and 4’-0” wide shoulders. The proposed structur e will provides a clear opening (p erpendicular to the flow) of approximately 98’-0” with a midspan low chord elevation of 502.3±, resulting in a hydraulic opening of approximately 1075 SF.

Exhibit 2.3-G - Structure Data

Data Existing Structure Proposed Structure

BIN 2206680 2206680 Feature Carried/Crossed Chenango Road / Sauquoit Creek Chenango Road / Sauquoit Creek

Type of Bridge Steel Multi-Girder To Be Determined During Final Design

Number and Length of Spans

One 100’-0” Span One 100’-0” Span

Lane Width(s) 13’-2 ½” 11’-0” Shoulder Width(s) No Shoulders 4’-0”

Sidewalk(s) No Sidewalks No Sidewalks Utilities Carried Water Line and Gas Line Water Line and Gas Line

Vertical Clearance(s) Unknown Unknown Federal Sufficiency Rating 72.8 -

State Condition Rating 4.431 6.833

2.3.3.9.(1) History & Deficiencies The existing bridge was originally constructed in 1970. The b ridge is lo cated on an a pproximate tangent horizontal alignment with good sight distances. The ap proach pavement is in ge nerally fair condition with areas of transverse cracking with mapcracking asphalt. Approach drainage is fa ir to poor with a large area of ponding on the westerly approach. The existing bridge currently has non-standard shoulders. The existing bridge rail is not continuous.

2.3.3.9.(2) Inspection Federal Sufficiency Rating – 72.8 State Condition Rating – 4.431


2-8

The 2012 Biennial Inspection assigned the bridge a General Recommendation of “5”, indicating minor deterioration and/or not functioning as originally designed, and a computed Condition Rating of 4.431. The general superstructure recommendation was “5”. The structural deck has moderate to heavy deterioration of the stay-in -place forms and leakage throughout. The structu ral deck has leakage in all four bays with dampness, light efflorescence staining and mapcracked concrete with minor areas of rust stai ning. The cu rbs and sidewalks along both sides of the bridg e are heavily spalled with exposed rebar. Severe spalling of th e fascias has undermined the b ridge rail p osts at isolated locations and there a re several broken box beam attachment clips. The p rimary members have significant section loss and crippling to the webs of all girders in the criti cal bearing areas at both abutments. The general recommendation for both abutments was “5”. Low ratings were due to heavy corrosion of the be arings, severe spalling of the concrete pedestal under Girder G1 at the be gin abutment, minor to moderate deterioration of the remaining begin abutment pedestals and moderate to heavy erosion of the slopes in front of both abutments. The stream channel erosion and bank protection were both rated “3”. The poor rating is based on undercutting of the stream banks, up to 20 feet of ve rtical erosion in the left quadrant and displaced and sloughing bank protection stones in the vicinity of the bridge.

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 Sauquoit Creek is not a USACE or 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) 502.5± 502.3±

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. This bridge has been classified as “scour critical” and under a separate project the scour mitigation measures have been completed. Determination if a hydraulic analysis is required will be made during final design.

2.3.3.11 Utilities

Electric: National Grid

Telephone: Unidentified Cable TV: Time Warner

Gas: National Grid Water: Unidentified Sewer: Unidentified

Overhead electric crosses over the bridge from the north-west quadrant to the south-east quadrant. No relocation of this utility is anticipated. Overhead telephone and cable television lines run alo ng the north edge of Ch enango Road, approximately 6’-0” from edge of ro adway. Shielding or temporary relocation of thi s utility duri ng construction will be evaluated during final design. No permanent relocation of this utility is anticipated. A gas line runs along the south edge of Chenango Road and is supported by the existing bridge structure in bay four. Shielding or temporary relocation of this utility during construction will be evaluated during final design. No permanent relocation of this utility i s anticipated; however provis ions for attachment to the proposed structure will be required. A water line runs along the north edge of Chenango Road and is supp orted by the e xisting bridge structure in bay two. Shielding or temporary relocation of this utility during construction will be evaluated during final design. No pe rmanent relocation of this utility is anticipated; however provisions for attachment to the proposed structure will be required.


2-10

2.3.3.12 Right of Way It is anticipated that there will be minor ROW acquisitions as part of this project. NYSDOT Region 2 has initiated the ROW acquisition process. (Refer to Appen dix A fo r the location of the ROW 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 Chenango Road to smoothly cross over Sauquoit 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 i ndividually 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 p rimarily a repair/reconstruction of an exis ting bridge in the same lo cation 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 SE QRA lead agency for this Project as per 17 NYCRR Part 15 “Procedures for Implementation of State Environmen tal Quality Review Act”, Section 15. 5. This Project is bei ng advanced as a SEQRA T ype II Action in acco rdance with 17 NYCRR, Part 15. As a result, no furthe r SEQRA processing would be required. The Project meets the requirements of a Type II action, pe r 17 NYCRR Section 15.14, Subdivision (e), Item 37, Parag raph (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 mo re than 1 ha (2.5 ac) of publicly o wned or operated park land,

recreational area or designated open space; An effect on a distri ct, building, structure or site eligible for, or listed on, the National Regist er of

Historic Places; or any historic building, structure, site or prehistoric site that has been proposed by the Com mittee on the Registers for consideration by the Ne w York State Board of Hi storic 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 th e 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. Indiana Bat:

- No-Effect – below 900’ NGVD & less than 10 trees to be removed: Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is listed by the USFWS as an endangered species.

Therefore, this species is afforded protection under Section 9 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. This species is to be con sidered for a ny project in Ne w York St ate that involves clearing trees greater than 4” dbh, is located at or below an elevation of 900 feet NGVD, and is within 40 miles of a known hibernaculum. Of p articular importance are projects that involve clearing of trees greater tha n four inches in diameter at breast height. This project is located at approximately 505 feet NGVD, involves clearing of four trees (4” dbh and greater), and is withi n 40 miles of a known hib ernaculum. Clearing of up to and in cluding 10 trees (4” dbh and greater) is generally considered to have n o effect on the Indiana bat if the trees are cut within the winter cutting period of October 1 to March 3 1. 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 Indiana bat and was therefore not subject to regulation under this Part. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has agreed with this d etermination. Based on concurrence from both agencies, no further coo rdination with these a gencies is n eeded in refe rence to threatened and endangered species.

Northern Long-Eared Bat:

- May Affect, But Not Likely to Adversely Affect – Any Trees to be Removed: The Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) whose range encompasses all of

New York State, is proposed for i nclusion on t he USFWS Endangered Species List. Currently available guidance indicates that clearing of one or more trees (4” dbh and greater) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern long-eared bat if the trees are cut within the winter cutting period of October 31 to March 31. This project proposes to remove four trees within the cutting time frame outlined above. Based on the quantity and timing of tree cutting, NYSDOT m ade a preliminary effect determination of “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” for this species. A Biological Evaluation supporting this effect determination was submitted to FHWA for their consultation with USFWS and to NYSDEC. Both agencies have concurred with the “may affect , but not likely to adversely affect” determination. Based on concurrence from both a gencies, no further coordination with these agencies is n eeded in referen ce to threat ened and endangered species.

Bog Turtle:

- No-Effect Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) is listed by the USFWS as a threatened species and

by New York State as an endangered species. This species prefers humid environments including open swamps with hummock‐forming tussocks and shallow, slow flowing, clean clear water. The habitat and soils within and a djacent to the proje ct site consists of Wakeville silt loam. Based on th e lack of essential habitat and soils preferred by the bog turtle within the project footprint, NYSDOT made a preliminary effect determination of “no


3-3

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 takin g of the bog turtle and wa s therefore not subject to regulation under this Part. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has agreed with this d etermination. Based on concurrence from both agencies, no further coo rdination with these a gencies is n eeded in refe rence to threatened and endangered species.

Clustered Sedge:

Clustered sedge (Carex cumulata) is a New York State listed threatened plant species. The associated communities for this species include pitch pine oak‐heath, rocky summits, pitch pine scrub oak barrens, rocky summit grasslands, and shrub swamps. Other probable associated communities may includ e mowed ro adsides / paths, pitch pine‐oak‐heath woodland, and red cedar rock summit. The habitat and soils within and adjacent to the project site does not consi st of pine barrens. Additional site visits will be performed during the growing season. If the species is observed, NYSDOT will coordinate with NYSDEC to discuss recommended conservation measures.

Allegheny Stonecrop:

Allegheny Stonecrop (Hylotelephium telephioides) is a New York state listed endangered plant species. This species naturally occurs only in high bare rock outcrops and on steep cliff-side ridges. It has been documented to be found growing in cracks of limestone rock or along the sides of rocky hills ides. Favorable locations are referred to as “moderate cliffs”, which are characterized by cracks from the surface of the rock into underground caves, deep fissures, or large cracks. Allegheny Stonecrop is d ependent on the cool ai r which circulates to the cave openings, fissures, or cracks and bathes the plant i n condensed moisture and acts as a main sou rce of water consumption for the spe cies. Allegheny Stonecrop is typically found in calcareous soils. The habitat and soils within and adjacent to the project site consists of Wakeville silt loam. Based on the presence of slightly acidic soil on-site instead of the calcareous soils preferred by this species and the lack of the deep fissures and association with u nderground caves required by thi s species, the occurrence of the spe cies within or adj acent to the project area is highly unlikely, therefore NYSDOT made a “no habitat” determination for this species. The NYS Department of Environm ental Conservation has agreed with this determination. Therefore, no further coordination with this agency is needed in reference to threatened and endangered species.

Marsh Valerian: Marsh Valerian (Valeriana uliginosa) is a New Y ork state listed endangered plant

species. This species has been found in a variety of wetland types in New York State. Most sites containing Marsh Valerian sha re certain chara cteristics: damp/moist conditions, alkaline or calcareous groundwater, an open aspect (or small openings within forests), and peaty, saturated soils. The habitat and soils within and adjacent to the project site consists of Wakeville silt loam. Based on the pres ence of slightly acidi c soil on-site instead of the calcareo us soils preferred by this sp ecies, the occurrence of the species within or adjacent to the project area is highly unlikely, therefore NYSDOT made a “no habitat” determination for this speci es. The NYS Department of Envi ronmental 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 th reatened 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


3-4

or adjacent to the proj ect area. NY SDOT made a BGEPA effect determination of “unlikely to disturb nesting bald eagles” for this species and the Federal High way 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 Environm ental 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.

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 n ot located immediately adjacent to an NWI wetlan d. 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 antici pated that the work will comply with Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3 (Maintenance), authorizing the repair, rehabilitation or replacem ent of any prev iously authorized, currently serviceable structure, or fill, or of any currently service able structure or fill authorized by 33 CF R 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 De pt. of Envir onmental Conservation Required General Conditions under Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3.

3.3.2.3 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses Sauquoit Creek is classified as an NYSDEC Class C(T) protected stream. Guidelines and best management practices provided by NYSDEC to assi st in desi gning, installing, and re placing stream crossing structures in small streams will be adhered to during t he construction phase of this Project. In addition, coordination with the NY SDEC pursuant to the ‘NYSDEC/NYSDOT Memorandum of Understanding Regarding ECL Articles 15 & 24” will take place. The New York State De partment of Conservation (NYSDEC) has been consulted to det ermine any restrictions to construction activities due to fish spawning seasons or other water quality concern s. The restrictions identified are as follows: in-stream work is allowed May 15 – October 1. It is antici pated that the work will comply with Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3 (Maintenance), authorizing the repair, rehabilitation or replacem ent of any prev iously authorized, currently serviceable structure, or fill, or of any currently service able structure or fill authorized by 33 CF R 330.3. It is anticipated no PCN will be required.


3-5

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

3.3.2.4 Executive Order 11990

It has been determined that the proposed project activities will comply with the term s and conditions of Programmatic Executive Order 11990 Find (EO). Thi s Programmatic EO has been prepared for Transportation Improvement Project which are F ederally Aided High way Projects classifies as a Categorical Exclusion under 23 CF R 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 prac tices, including implementation of appropriate siltation control and sediment and erosion control meas ures, will be taken during construction to contain di sturbed areas and sediments within the Project site, so as to not adversely affect the stream or previously undisturbed areas outside of the Project site.

3.3.3 Floodplains

3.3.3.1 State Flood Insurance Compliance Program Based on the FIRM for Town of New Hartford, Oneida County, the project is within floodplain limits. In addition to the new structure proposed along the existing alignment, co nstruction 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 evalu ation of the proje ct design in conju nction with hydraulic studies, surveyed el evations, 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 impac t the floodplain fo r Oneida Creek. Therefore no floodplain permitting is anticipated to be necessary.

3.3.3.3 Stormwater Management A General Permit for Sto rmwater 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 plan s and n otes may be in corporated into the proje ct documents if the disturbed area is greater than 1 acre.

3.4 Historic and Cultural Resources The bridge is less than 50 years old (approximately 40 years old) and 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). The project area was previously surveyed for cultural resources as part of the Judd Road/Route 840 Capital Program Project (PIN 2801.27). Due to the proximity of a nearby aqueduct that was identified in the report, construction monitoring was informally recommended by the NYSM in initial coordination before the bridge was added to the CBOW list.


3-6

3.5 Hazardous Materials

3.5.1 Asbestos

Sampling and testing of Potentially Asbestos Containing Materials (PACM) was performed and the following materials were identified as Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM):

Tar/Felt Pipe Wrap (brown/black) – On 12” diameter pipe Tar/Felt Pipe Wrap (gray/black) – On 16” diameter pipe

The following materials were sampled and testing and determined to be Non-ACM:

Dark Brown Fiberboard – Between wingwalls and abutments Black Bearing Pad (Lower) – At abutment bearings Orange Bearing Pad (Upper) – At abutment bearings Gray Caulk – Between bridge deck and steel beams Glossy Tar (black/solid) – Between 16” diameter pipe and penetration through backwall

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 B for additional information.

3.5.2 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, Typical Sections, and Detour Map

BIN 2206680 – Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek

101.094 – Assignment #8

Off-site detour using Chenango Road, French Road, Burrstone Road, Clinton Street, and New Hartford Street.

Detour = 3.46 Miles

N

Google Map

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line

mgebler

Line


Appendix B – Environmental Information

Smart Growth Screening Tool

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 1 PIN 2650.40

PIN 2650.40

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: Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek (BIN2206680)

Location of Project: Town of New Hartford and City of Utica

Brief Description: This project is a superstructure replacement which will consist of replacing the deck, replacing the beams and substructure work.

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 prolong the life of the existing bridge by replacing the deck and beams and improve the substructure condition.

In addition, the bridge width will be increased to add wider shoulders which will improve

accomodations for bicyclists and pedestrians.

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 at the City of Utica/Town of New Hartford border and is within the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study (HOCTS) metropolitan area. The bridge provides important connectivity to and from the greater Utica area to New Hartford and surrounding suburbs.

D. Mixed Use Compact Development:

Replacing the structure will promote sustainability and strengthen communities because it will maintain community 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 the City of Utica and the town of New Hartford and surrounding communities.



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 location. However, it will have no impact on housing, diversity, 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 the existing bus route and provide pedestrian and bicycle accomodations by increasing the shoulder width.

This project is consistent with the NYS Smart Growth criteria and supports NYS Complete

Streets legislation.

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 has been on the list of hopeful projects for a long time. It meets the goals of the City, the Town, the County and the State. There have been discussions over the last 10 years between these municipalities to try to find a way to fund the project.

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: 2650.40

Project Name: Superstructure Replacement: Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek (BIN 2206680)

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 improve existing infrastructure;

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

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

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

5/15/2014 Page 1 of 4 FEAW_Final.doc/Version1.0 BIN 2206680_FEA_Worksheet

PIN: 2650.40 BIN: 2206680

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

DESCRIPTION: Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek

NEPA CLASS: II SEQR TYPE: II

LOCALITY (Village, Town, City): Town of Utica COUNTY: Oneida

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 Offi ce Project Liaison (MOPL) (see PDM Exhibit 4-1). If after consultation with FHWA it is determi ned 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: 2650.40 / BIN 2206680

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: 2650.40 / BIN 2206680 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.

0U. epar rve,,. New York Divisionof TransportationFederal HighwayAdministration April 11, 2014

gin/ / R ,, Cep l Bu;.1..1;^..^ .., p ie era u;.^,^y11A Clinton Avenue, Suite 719

Albany, NY 12207518-431-4127

Fax: 518-431-4121New [email protected]

In Reply Refer To:liP ,-NY

Mr. David Stilv,cll, Field SupervisorU.S. Fish and `Vi4111it 5cr' , ice3 817 Luker RoadCortland, NY 13045

Subject: Critical Bridges Over Water ProgramDetermination: ESA Section 7 Conference/ Consultation,Northern Long-eared BatRequest for Concurrence: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Dear Mr. Stilwell:

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 80 projects within the Critical Bridges Over Water (CROW) Programthat are listed in the attached spreadsheet: "NLEB Batch Summary Table, Projects with TreeCutting".

r . -... r", !. 2. 2H2. r C- ' -(, FT 17 t• 1'

:. F _ 7 _ 1 1'- - _ L_e

Lo eared

<:, .'111..1'i ,z :...,..` .... ..,,.... .....l: .,, \n\ . ., t .:- :`...., .'.i) i'.!,..ri .' :. ..il i Ufl i:.:... : I \L ;\ ,..

i 1. l Ei

.. (il

•. l-7 :fl .. the Northern it

:.' i• :. }..'^' -ear cu it.., t. .. ':: 1Vt111 ... listed ,rider the '

r A \? ifil...

at'j710.11! 1 ate!' ! 11 1 10 1 Li1.ì O f ii;: ,r ( ..C" ' ! :.c:lC. !) a:li II •• r C:CE c?; :::lip i lien l S'.i ei.nes 1`,

ft fli ( ) tit(I t ( , Imo (., i^.^.?i'0 !.!1•:( } \. l l l \\ :\ i

, r`d if ('r)tnfi'i•t, fl(.t,s i.;i^ ,,, ^hh ( .

SHWA has reviewed the attached spreadsheet of 80 projects within the CBO`N' Program, and\ YSOOT's 'ctcrniinnrion tl?."t d 1e F ?-(s iocts \.1.,nv Affect hi;t an_: \nt _ ;i• ,; to _ T t i

t:,., l . ,' - l

_ _ll . ^^ -_ ^ ... _ :( _ . L .a. 1.-L^ .A , ..... ,... ..^.. . ^1. .

t 1i1\ N) till '. 111 i i _I L )I] -.t1) _Il_;t_(_11:)?', ^1^- iltit(: 11i'... I _lt' _! i ll_t'1Tl'll_iil(Ìl of Ì , \_ \I,:\,^^

i )^. . ., .- . 1: L,Ia.--1 L` ' -- -.

L_ll 001'. ttil l .

\V iilli(i i i_ii: I and .v i_rch

i. the i O\ti ,iti1onnt (,i trees _-; I e cut within iii! s program.,.,

C1:1. -. C. l.. l.' t:t .., „ .il::... ...,, .. ^l t;li .. ..: ..... -. ,, li.. . . I f ,. a, ...,a! .î.l: . . .

pl ' . ,. 1 ., \

1. 3ii i ll ll .`!l\.. ill t, . ' L^ ll.l ^ ll îll li . tel:. 1 11:1L.' \^'lIII î I . l^ ^ l 11 111 l^^ l . .^ll .11 l:l 11. . ;l LULL III C11:

I .l iv.. s IiliAl, ,. .,,,, li d : l.11 4,1 i- .i \. ,14. le, ili 1-enter Li nn i.,. -i lc' l. A ..i -. Il i\%,1 ., ilill ld i 111l

lt 1

•()\

%7l till..

.I... c: :i ^t, e the •i„„ /(;1?.:i !l ei I n J ^.o^ Interimm t'er;:^ .^ .. in 1:1C i

::ii a ^ g ^(', ., I' t'a:^C: }sl... (`•i'. 1; c :1Ci

and i'iaiiilii;` ance ni distances to Use for buffers around known locations of Northern Long-eared Bat.

2

Based on our review of the submitted documentation, FHWA concurs that the 80 projects in theCBOW Program will May Affect, but are not Likely to Adversely Affect the Northern Long-eared Bat. The projects in the CBOW Program are proposed to be constructed after theanticipated listing date for the Northern Long-eared Bat. Therefore, FHWA is requesting a"Conference" determination for these 80 projects due to the fact that the species is not listed asof the date of this letter, but with language that allows FHWA to readily convert the"Conference" determination to a "Consultation" determination.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 518-431-8867.

Sincerely,

Is! MELISSA TONI

Melissa ToniEnvironmental Program Coordinator

Attachment: Spreadsheet, NLEB Batch Summary Table, Projects with Tree Cutting

cc: Daniel Hitt, NYSDOTRobert Davies, FHWA

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

1005500US Route 9 over Moordenerkill, Town of Schodack, Rensselaer County. The project

consists of replacement of the bridge BIN 1005500.9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1005490US Route 9 over North Branch Moordenerkill, Town of Schodack, Rensselaer

County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 1005490.9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1005641US Route 9 over Kayaderosseras Creek, Town of Malta, Saratoga County. The

project consists of replacement of BIN 1005641.9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1006690US Route 9N over Kayaderosseras Creek, Town of Greenfield, Saratoga County.

The project consists of replacement of BIN 1006690.3 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 0.5 to 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1029710NYS Route 73 over Beede Brook, Town of Keene, Essex County. The project

consists of replacement of BIN 1029710.9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1029720NYS Route 73 over Beede Brook, Town of Keene, Essex County. The project


1029730NYS Route 73 over East Branch Ausable River, Town of Keene, Essex County. The


1029740NYS Route 73 over Johns Brook, Town of Keene, Essex County. The project


1029750NYS Route 73 over Johns Brook Overflow, Town of Keene, Essex County. The

project consists of reconstructing the bridge BIN 1029750.9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1029760NYS Route 73 over East Branch of the Ausable River, Town of Keene, Essex

County. The project consists of replacing BIN 1029760.9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1029780NYS Route 73 over Cascade Lake Outlet, Town of Keene, Essex County. The


1029790 & 1053630Rt. 73 over W. branch of Ausable River, Town of Keene, Essex County.The project

consists of replacement of BINs 1029790 & 1053630.90 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1007020NYS Route 9N over West Branch Ausable River, Town of Jay, Essex County. The

project consists of replacement of BIN 1007020.5 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 0.5 to 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1017680NYS Route 23 over Huntersfield Creek, Town of Prattsville, Greene County. The


1020370NYS Route 28 over Hudson River, Town of Thruman, Warren County. The project


1025210NYS Route 42 over Westkill, Town of Lexington, Greene County. The project


1025390NYS Route 43 over Black River, Town of Stephentown, Rensselaer County. The


1038570NYS Route 150 over Wynantskill Creek, Town of North Greenbush, Rensselaer


1045150NYS Route 296 over East Kill, , Town of Jewett, Greene County. The project consists

of replacement of BIN 1045150.25 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

4001080US Route 4 over Glens Falls Feeder Canal, Village of Hudson Falls, Washington


4039800NYS Route 196 over Glens Falls Feeder Canal, Village of Hudson Falls, Washington


1016000NYS Rt. 20 over Kinderhook Creek, Town of Nassau, Rensselaer County. The






PIN 2BOW.00

1045640NYS Route 315 over Oriskany Creek, Town of Marshall, Oneida County. The project


4426240Dustin Road over Kayuta Lake, Town of Remsen, Oneida County. The project


1025680NYS Route 46/North Main Street over Oneida Creek, Town of Oneida, Madison


1046750NYS Route 365A/Prospect Street Bridge over Oneida Creek, Town of Oneida,

Madison County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 1046750.8 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

2206680Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek, Town of New Hartford, Oneida County. The


4424090Johnnycake Hill Road over Madison Reservoir Feeder Canal, Town of Hamilton,

Madison County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 4424090.5 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

PIN 3BOW.00

1024380NYS Route 38A over Sucker Brook, Town of Owasco, Cayuga County. The project


1035310NYS Route 96B over Tributary of Buttermilk Creek, Town of Danby, Tompkins


1045920NYS Route 327 over Enfield Creek, Town of Enfield, Tompkins County. The project


Project NEPA StatusTree Removals (see notes 5-8)

Proximity of Cutting to Nearest Known NLEB

(see note 9)

PIN


Local


# Trees

(if < 1 ac)

Acreage



Mist Net Capture

Maternity

Roost Funding

Federal

Permit

Federal Lead

Agency

Date Package

Submitted to FHWA

Date NEPA Doc.

Completed Comments



(see note 9)

1068051 and 1068052I-81 over Spring Brook, Town of Pulaski, Oswego County. The project consists of

replacement of BINs 1068051 and 1068052.12 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

PIN 4BOW.00

1015630NYS Route 30 over Tonawanda Creek, Town of Alexander, Genesee County. The


1015090NYS Route 19 over East Koy Creek, Village of Gainesville, Wyoming County. The


PIN 5BOW.00

1030320NYS Route 78 over Gill Creek, Towns of Amherst and Clarence, Erie County. The


1030330NYS Route 78 over Black Creek, Towns of Amherst and Clarence, Erie County.

The project consists of replacement of BIN 1030330.3 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

PIN 8BOW.00

1006480Route 9H over Taghkanic Creek, Towns of Claverack and Greenport, Columbia


1091510Route 22 over Roeliff Jansen Kill, Town of Hillsdale, Columbia County. The project


1019680Route 28 bridge over Esopus Creek, Town of Shandaken, Ulster County. The project


1019700Route 28 over Esopus and Birch Creeks in Big Indian, Town of Shandaken, Ulster


1025480Route 44 over Mara Kill, Town of Gardiner, Ulster County. The project consists of

replacement of BIN 1025480.9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1026650Route 52 over Verkeerder Kill, Town of Shawangunk, Ulster County. The project


1027090Route 55 over Rondout Creek, Town of Warwarsing, Ulster County. The project


1040750Route 209 over Rochester Creek, Town of Rochester, Ulster County. The project


1040990Route 212 over Beaver Kill, Town of Woodstock, Ulster County. The project consists


1041150Route 213 over the Rondout Creek, Town of Marbletown, Ulster County. The project

consists of replacement of BIN 1041150.15 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 0.5 to 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1025150Route 42 over Bushnellsville Creek,Town of Shandanken, Ulster County. The project


1007110Route 9W over Rockland Lake Outlet, Town of Clarkstown, Rockland County. The


1014470Route 17K bridge over Shawangunk Kill, Town of Wallkill, Orange County. The

project consists of replacement of BIN 1014470.25 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 0.5 to 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1024960Route 42 over Shingle Kill, Town of Deerpark, Orange County. The project consists


1026670Route 52 over Dwaar Kill, Town of Crawford, Orange County. The project consists of

replacement of BIN 1026670.20 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1026750Route 52 over Tin Brook, Town of Montgomery, Orange County. The project consists


1026770Route 52 bridge over Quassaic Creek, Town of Newburgh, Orange County. The


1035330Route 97 over Shingle Kill, Town of Deerpark, Orange County. The project consists


1040970

Route 211 over Harvey Roe Brook, Town of Wallkill, Orange County. This project

proposes to replace the double box culvert that carries the Harvey Roe Brook

beneath Route 211 in the Town of Wallkill, Orange County.

25 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi

1040980Route 211 over Wallkill River, Town of Montgomery, Orange County. The project


1005080

Route 9 over Dickey Brook, Town of Cortlandt, Westchester County. Replace the

twin culverts that carry the Dickey Brook beneath Route 9, with a single span

structure.


5500050

Third Street over Hutchinson River Parkway and Hutchinson River, Village of

Pelham, Towns of Pelham and Mount Vernon, Westchester County. The project

consists of replacement of BIN 5500050.


5500739The Saw Mill River Parkway over Saw Mill River, Town of Greenburg, Westchester


5500870

Bedford Road over Saw Mill River Parkway and Saw Mill River, Village of

Pleasantville and Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County. The project consists

of replacement of BIN 5500870.


5500890

Pleasantville Road and Route 117 over Saw Mill River Parkway and Saw Mill River,

Village of Pleasantville and Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County. The

project consists of replacement of BIN 5500890.


PIN


Local


# Trees

(if < 1 ac)

Acreage



Mist Net Capture

Maternity

Roost Funding

Federal

Permit

Federal Lead

Agency

Date Package

Submitted to FHWA

Date NEPA Doc.

Completed Comments



(see note 9)

5500939Saw Mill River Parkway over Kisco River, Town of New Castle, Westchester


5521680Hutchinson River beneath the EHPA DPW road, Town of Eastchester, Westchester


1032290Route 82 over Sprout Creek, Towns of Wappinger and East Fishkill, Dutchess


1032330Route 82 over Sprout Creek, Town of Union Vale, Dutchess County. The project


1040040Route 199 over Sawkill Creek, Towns of Milan and Red Hook, Dutchess County. The


1027160Route 55 over Jackson Creek, Town of Union Vale, Dutchess County. The project


PIN 9BOW.00

1007750NYS Route 10 over Platner Brook, Town of Delhi, Delaware County. The project


1030860NYS Route 80 over Butternut Creek, Town of Burlington, Otsego County. The project


1035450NYS Route 97 over Pea Brook, Town of Hancock, Delaware County. The project


1035460NYS Route 97 over Pea Brook, Town of Hancock, Delaware County. The project


1035470NYS Route 97 over tributary to Pea Brook, Town of Hancock, Delaware County. The


1014250NYS Route 17C over Campville Creek, Town of Owego, Tioga County. The project


1019990NYS Route 28 over Herkimer Creek, Town of Exeter, Otsego County. The project


1026530NYS Route 52 over Laundry Brook, Village of Jeffersonville, Sullivan County. The


1026540NYS Route 52 over Panther Rock Creek, Town of Callicoon, Sullivan County. The


1035370NYS Route 97 over Beaver Brook, Town of Highland, Sullivan County. The project


1003810NYS Route 7 over Kelsey Brook, Town of Afton, Chenango County. The project


1527

ASBESTOS INVESTIGATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT SURVEY

Prepared for

New York State Department of Transportation

PIN 2650.40.101

Region 2 – Superstructure Replacement

Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek

BIN 2206680

Bridge Rehabilitation

Town of New Hartford and City of Utica

Oneida County

SCE Project No. R10282.D7

By

430 Court Street

Utica, NY 13502

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

January 2014

i

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc

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 CHENANGO ROAD OVER SAUQUOIT CREEK, BIN 2206680, TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD AND CITY OF UTICA, ONEIDA COUNTY, NY .............................................................................. 4-1

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 5-1

5.1 CHENANGO ROAD OVER SAUQUOIT CREEK, BIN 2206680, TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD AND CITY OF UTICA, ONEIDA COUNTY, NY ............................................................................... 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 project, PIN 2650.40.101. The project includes

bridge rehabilitation of the Chenago Road over Sauquoit Creek Bridge (BIN 2206680) in the

Town of New Hartford and City of Utica, Oneida 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 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. The 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 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 asbestos-containing material (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; and

(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 USEPA and OSHA accepted methods (including multi-layered

systems sampling protocols); the subsequent analyses are performed by a

laboratory 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. Materials 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 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. However, 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 presumed

asbestos-containing material (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 categories: 1) friable materials, 2) non-

friable materials, and 3) non-friable organically bound materials (NOBs). 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 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.

Non-friable organically bound (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 protocol. After an initial sample weight is

determined, the sample is reduced organically in a muffle furnace and then digested in acid. The

sample is weighed again and compared to its initial weight. If the post-reduction (residue)

3-2


01/17/14

weight is less than or equal to one percent (≤1%) of the initial weight, it cannot be defined as an

ACM.

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 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 CHENANGO ROAD OVER SAUQUOIT CREEK, BIN 2206680, TOWN OF NEW

HARTFORD AND CITY OF UTICA, ONEIDA COUNTY, NY

ACM was identified at this bridge structure (BIN 2206680) located on Chenango Road over

Sauquoit Creek in the Town of New Hartford and City of Utica, Oneida County, New York. The

bridge is a steel girder structure, with two (2) concrete abutments spanning Sauquoit Creek.

SCE reviewed record plans dated 1969 and identified suspect ACMs are summarized in the

following table:

RECORD PLAN DATE

SUSPECT ACM

LOCATION/COMMENTS

1969 Premoulded Bituminous Joint Filler

At wingwalls and abutment backwall joints.

1969 Bituminous Material (Item 61)

Applied to the backs of all abutments and wingwalls from the tops of footing to the bottom of pavement.

Premoulded Bituminous Joint Filler was indicated to be present between the bridge deck and

wingwall joints. This material was identified as suspect Cheekwall Packing and sampled during

the field assessment. Bituminous Material (Item 61) applied to the backs of all abutments and

wingwalls from the tops of footing to the bottom of pavement was indicated to be present at the

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

nine (9) samples were collected of three (3) homogeneous materials for the bridge structure. An

additional assessment and sample collection was performed on January 10, 2014 and six (6)

4-2


01/17/14

samples were collected of two (2) homogeneous materials beneath two (2) ACM pipe wraps

previously identified 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:

• Bituminous Pipe Wrap – 1 (Top Layer, 16” Pipe)

• Bituminous Pipe Wrap – 2 (Middle Layer, 12” Pipe)

Analytical results determined that the following materials are not ACM:

• Bearing Pad

• Girder/Bearing Pad

• Cheekwall Packing

• Bituminous Coating (24” Pipe Sleeve)

• Tan Pipe Wrap (Top Layer, 12” Pipe)

• Bituminous Tar Coating – 2 (Bottom Layer, 12” Pipe)

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 CHENANGO ROAD OVER SAUQUOIT CREEK, BIN 2206680, TOWN OF NEW

HARTFORD AND CITY OF UTICA, ONEIDA COUNTY, NY

ACM was identified at this bridge structure as Bituminous Pipe Wrap –1 (Top Layer, 16” Pipe)

and Bituminous Pipe Wrap – 2 (Middle Layer, 12” Pipe). The proposed work consisting of a

superstructure replacement as reported by Region 2, is anticipated to impact the Bituminous Pipe

Wrap – 1 (Top Layer, 16” Pipe) and Pipe Wrap – 2 (Middle Layer, 12” Pipe). Remove all

Bituminous Pipe Wrap – 1 (Top Layer, 16” Pipe) and Bituminous Pipe Wrap – 2 (Middle Layer,

12” Pipe), 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 United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), New

York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and New York State

Department of Labor (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. We 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. Although 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: Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek

County: Oneida Town of New Hartford and City of Utica Inspected By: A. MarsdenPIN: 2650.40.101 BIN: 2206680 T. Zotta

SCE No: R10282.D7 Inspection Date: 12-Dec-1310-Jan-14

AREA LOCATION TYPE OF MATERIAL APPROXIMATE QUANTITY

CONDITION ACM Y/N ASSUMED

FRIABLE F/NF

REMOVAL OPTIONS

SPECIFICATION ITEM NUMBER

Underside Under Bridge Bearings at Abutments Bearing Pad - Fair N NF - -Underside Between Bottom Bridge Bearing Plate

and Bridge Bearing at AbutmentsGirder/Bearing Pad - Fair N NF - -

Topside At Abutment Cheekwalls Cheekwall Packing - Fair N NF - -Underside Between Girder 2 and Girder 3 on 16"

Pipe (top layer)Bituminous Pipe Wrap - 1 (16" Pipe)

104 Ln.Ft. Fair Y NF BV 14 210.3211

Underside Between Girder 2 and Girder 3 on 16" Pipe (bottom layer)

Bituminous Tar Coating - 1 (16" Pipe)

- Fair N NF - -

Underside West and East Abutment Between Girder 2 and Girder 3 / 24" Corrugated Pipe Sleeve

Bituminous Coating (24" Pipe Sleeve)

- Fair N NF - -

Underside Between Girder 4 and Girder 5 on 12" pipe (top layer)

Tan Pipe Wrap (12" Pipe) * Fair N NF BV 14 210.3211

Underside Between Girder 4 and Girder 5 on 12" pipe (middle layer)

Bituminous Pipe Wrap - 2 (12" Pipe)

104 Ln.Ft. Fair Y NF BV 14 210.3211

Underside Between Girder 4 and Girder 5 on 12" pipe (bottom layer)

Bituminous Tar Coating - 2 (12" Pipe)

- Fair N NF - -

NOTE: * 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

! l

= d , >

d. auc L * ql v -

e b9o , 9 o )o . = of e ao t r oo ? 0 )o ) = o )I 6 9t r a EO = j 3 Of3= fg.$ H s.O . n O q )> v - >

EgSEEFFEEs s sU) crt co U)

*Y\o(n+

"5 1; r \H@tr. S

q\\orn -<Y l-Xa )= ca\

{.

4l \nELI O

.l ,\tg l No.=l - Cfl>lgl >q.= l ZN

?Al >', Y?- i l g \

f l Sa'F'! F

clrl d .nE l

" r V.= l 5 x r^FI Fd: F'g {= $s'51 :aX cjES.El Ed 3e *=l Es j{S

E l - , ^ . q g

.El 3= .EAe l \ n q 1 q n ZEl

Fv Hi*

=l EnE=i Ee=utl

EoL

oCLot

Ho:ac-coq)

t l

, l

1l l

\Eic)ooEOooo

INlqNI

BINI

=*lg ,vlEsIO '\ l

ael=

' - ) l

u, tilb3l,F Nll . . 1

H'i6tr F ooJ=c'6 .0).coC)

E-E [Rr I

*tell|EJ

g5

o ooo s o 6 { I->

troooooot!'trotu=

hn\

\

$-l

4d

L{,

EsdQ

\)

J

$\\

N"J*

$e1

ooF

troooo

J

$q\5

b-'ta-(l-s3

l71

. tt-)€-aN

$l-'

*

3{

hL$3

N

6sl--

RJ

DA

k

J-l

$I*S

I5gbr&

$\

q

l ' l

t$

{

€\9

h\' 1J

NHl-13-l

f,

\

YffiFp{-,rt

$s(

h3

{

$$Hv,b\

J{

\vl

Lt

$b

JJJ

tBs-.^

R$ts

+*cl?o

OI

O

NI

.o

t ,

.\J

t

=

>o

a

NO

l.oq)

I

Fl-a

*g?No

t-.Ir-la

srr4a

(>-o

Irr\\J

N(Do(Eo!gaho=ctoEc)Etr:ctC

g(oE5

F

oo

.Y

o>

c)oo&

PLM.NOB ANALYTICAL REPORTPage I of I

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

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

12i l2^3t 2 / t 3 / 1 3t2 /17 /13t2/24/13

CLIENT PROJECTT

SCE #:

Region 2-Superstr5ucture Replacement-Chenango Road Over Sauquoit Creek

R10282.D2 PIN #: 2650.40.101 BIN #: 2206680

LAB # CLIENT #

ANALYTICAL METHOD NYS DOH 03101191 (Item 1986)

NOTEBOOK: M.HAY NYSDOHELAP # I I I 29

DESCRIPTION

PLM TEST RESULTSEST. CALC. TOTALASB ASB ASB

68006o

68007o

68008r

68009o

6801 0.

6801 I o

680 I 2r

68013o

68014o

0t -01

0l-02

0r-03

02-Q4

02-05

02-06

03-07

03-08

03-09

BEARING PAD

BEARING PAD

BEARING PAD

GIRDER/BEARING PAD

GIRDER/BEARING PAD

GIRDER/BEARING PAD

CHEEKWALL PACKING

CHEEKWALL PACKING

CHEEKWALL PACKING

77.88o/o 12.61%

75.05o/o 12.490

7Q.40o/o 05.690/o

07.860/o 00.260/o

07.95% 00.960/o

05.99% 00.76yo

91.75o/o 02.54%

84.80% 07.520/o

76.35% 12.93%

09.51o/o

13.45o/o

23.92%

91.88%

9l.09Yo

93.25vo

05.71%

07.670/o

10.72o/o

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

TNC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

TNC

INC

INC

INC

INC

GRAVIMETRIC TESTRESULTS

A%ID.SOL.ORGANIC INORGANIC

C:CHRYSOTILE A:AMOSITE CR=CROCIDOLITE AN=ANTHOPHYLITENAD = NO ASBESTOS DECTECTED PLM = POLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPYINC_INCONCLUSIVE T=TRACE' CLIENTREQUESTEDTEM.

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

..POLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPY IS NOT CONSISTANTLY RELIABLEiN DECTECTING ASBESTOS TN FLOOR COVERINGS AND SIMILAR NONFRIABLE LYBOUND MATERIALS. QUANTITATIVE TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY IS CURRNETLY THE ONLY METHOD THAT CAN BE USED TO DETERMINEIF THIS MATERIAT CAN BE CONSIDERED OR TREATED AS NONASBESTOS CONTAINING" (ELAP 198.66.3.2.I)

Analytical results reported on samples not collected by Fibers LD. Inc.. Report data dependent on information supplied by client andchain of custody. Liability limited to cost of analysis.Any and all reports, chain ofcustodies and/or professional opinions generated by Fibers 1.D., Inc. and transmitted via electronic medianare to be considered preliminary in nature and are not intended or utilizedforfinal reports. They are strictlyfor the convenience oftheclient.

Analyst:

ru167O Westem Aue. BIdg. B, Albang, Nettt York 12203

Laboratory / Office Phone (5 1 8) 4 5 6-4 59 1' [email protected]

Michael H. HayT. Morrison

f t . - l ' I-^ --t-

Eastern Analytical Services, Inc.Bulk SamPle Results

RE: CPN R10282.D7 - Region 2 Superstructure Replacement

68006

22623t8

Not Given

Not Given

Tem

NoNoNoReduced by Client

68007

22623t9

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

86.6

t3.4

Not Given

Tem


0,00.00.0

0.0

0.0

7 6 . 1

23.9

Pagc I of3

68009

2262321

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

Appearance LayeredHomogenousFibrousColor

Not GivenNot Givent2/19/2013t2/20t20t3Ghayath Elias

"#-NYS-DOH I98.4101646-01085 I

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

68008

2262320

Not Given

AsbestosContent

OtherMaterialsPresent

% Amosite% Chrysotile% Other

o/oTotal Asbestos

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0%o Organic 0.0

% Carbonates 90.5

% Other Inorganic 9.5

8 . 1

9 l . 9

Rcsl l tsAppl icsblcToThoscltemsT4tcd. RcpodCaMotbcRcproduced,ExccPtEnt irel t ,WilhoutWri l tcnAPProvslof lhcLaboralory.

Li"ui i i iy l i i " i "afoc"stofAnrlysis. ThisReiorrMusrNolbrUscdbythccl ienttocl . imProduclEndorsemenlbyNVLAPorAnyAtencyoft lEUScovcmmcnl.

AIHA Accreditation No. t0026l Rbde Island DOH No. AAL-0?2T3 M.lrschuictts DOL No. A A O0O0?2 Comecticut DOH No. PH-0622 Msinc DEP No LA-024 Vcmnt DOH No AAS-2095

4 Westfl hrlritr,rr Plar7..fl Hinrskrrci, Nr:w York 10523 i6 10 (914) 592 8l l f j0 nll l):/r 'elv1w. EAS!t.](:.conl

Sample Description

Analytical Method


68010

2262322

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


6801 I

2262323

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

6 .8

q ? ?

68012

2262324

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


Page 2 of 3

6801 3

226232s

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00.00,0

0,0

0.0

92.3

7.7

l n t - r rI v - n l - ' !.--^ -E-

Eastern Analytical Services, Inc.Bulk SamPle Results

RE: CPN R10282.D7 - Region 2 Superstructure Replacement

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 Givent2/19/2013t2t2012013Ghayath Elias

-/ i77?NYS-DOH I98.4101646-0r085 I

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


ohTotal Asbestos

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

94.3

) . /

Yo Organic 0.0

7o Carbonates 8.9

% Other lnorganic 9l. l

RcsulrsAppl icoblcToThoscl lmTeslcd. RcponCamolbcRcprodlced,Exc.ptEnt irely,WithoslWri l t .nApprovalofth.Ltbo.atory.

Ll"ui i iydi inir"afoc"stofAnstyr i r . ThisReportMusrNotbeiJsedbythecl ient. toCtaimProductEndorse@nlbyNVLAPorAnyAgencyoftheUsGovtt l l j l l '

AIHA Accredil8tion No. lo026t Rhodc lsland DoH No. AAL-072T3 Mssrchus[s DOL No. A A 0000?2 comccticut Doit No. PH-0622 M6irc DEP No LA-024 Vemnl DOH No' AAS'2095

4. West#heste! Plili,n Elrnsfc)r'rl, New Ycrrh 10523 1S10 (3141592-Bll{r0 irtto:lrwurw.EAS:'lc.cor]l

Eastern Analytical Services,Bulk SamPle Results

RE: CPN R10282.D7 - Region 2 Superstructure

Inc.

Replacement

Page 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 lD Number

Sample Location

Sample Descript ion

Analyical Method


Not GivenNot Givent2n9/20t312t20/20t3Ghayath Elias

./'GZ?'NYS.DOH I98.4101646-01085 I

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

AsbestosContent


% Amosite

% Chrysotile% Other

oh Total Asbestos

%o Organic

% Carbonates

68014

2262326

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00.00.0

0.0

0 .0

89.3

% Other lnorganic 10.7

ResutsAppl ic.bleToTho$ltctrTestcd, Rcpof,CrMolbeRcproduced,ExccplErt i t . ly,WithoutW.i t tenAPProvl lof thcL.boralory.

Li"uiiiiy iiluit"a ro c"sr ofAnaltsis. This Report Musr Not be Used by the clicnt to chim Prodrct EndoBemil by NVLAP or Any Agcncy ofthe Us cov€mm:li'

AIHA Accrcdilrrion No, t00261 Rhodc tsb;d DOH No. AA!-072T1 Marsachusetts DOL No. A A 00oo?2 comcclicut DOH No. PH"0622 Mline DtsF No LA'024 vemnl DoH No' A s-2095

4 $lr*ilfl hoster Plirzir Lj'rsbrci, Nerw Ycrrh 1fi523 i0i0 {$ 1 4} 5'J2 8380 irlto:1,/rvww.EASi'li:.(;onl

$a

? sFs 'ae3 ESe b9o ) 9 o ,a t , = ( '5 e ao t r oo t oo ) ; c DI 69t r 6 Eo < j = of 5= f8.$ H 8.( l ) r n O q )> v - >

EggEESBEI , ' l , o I9-b b e 'U) cr, o U)

BIr [8U I

\n- $

t ( n

rj*'RI ti!! tE rn IRZl f ' r .

=fq Rf - . o € S9=; *q

r {

eia

h.;

aF{FOts

4l (nE.I O

d No.=l # cngl >sgl Z e.r2l esEl Sa'

-"! tsc E l { n

FI HX9ll 6 rr.

El istiil = r-sl X tt?

EI ENdl (JsEl o f i '

E J I F -

El :e- l< l- l= l- lvirl

o

oo-c)tr

Ho:gcC)o

I

- l

r . l

l lN

r{l:itc)o-a)oOo(uo

oc)'6"o-

=dlo+,ooCLoJ

aLorFEo+,o5oq-

o-.Gs

o

t)i'l\ho(tro

[-

\

kR\\t

+toltoJ

9oVq

s r 01 o € s E rr)q-)

coo(,oooG'co|E=

r - l\\ll

I

-L9

<-To,

I

-\

$k'sh5

{

I

Ha{

N\

6/l

3g

t

l

NNN

s$qi:

R

+

{

ooF

coG(,oJ

N,\.$

-\2.

*J\5

ARIsq.

\9i

l--I

Rq:(LR3

*0NI,\9

5

H'qN'N5*

.J

\N--{.

b'S

tr4)'\9

N$-l

E.

ftAa-\4-

\s

t'RtIhs

suu(us\

N

{*

Rr\i\ -

$sg$

rytvAl'.{

d

tN-/

JrNb+\sq d ,

FI1.. $

$N

sJ.uI

$\,NJU

-rt'{ t'rpr3+\\r$n'hI\\ERUI

V\5$?

\I

\ba?nh

ffi

Hn-,N

L-dl\

$$3

t?. q

€.

Tv"|-.(

AHs)tl--J(.

vI

r$f,

l{l\b

Ta,

7(..{(*j

),tssa-tNl:-Ja{s

cA{l,-q

${*oIto

I+\

I

a

NI

NMTg

=, I

lJ)a

u*()

:I

\)e

\J

$a

qC

;SJ

:th

o

(1)

PLM-NOB ANALYTICAL REPORT

CLIENT:ADDRESS:

Page I of I

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

DATE COLLECTED:DATERECEIVED:DATEANALYZED:DATE REPORTED:

tz l t2 l t3t2/t3lt3t2il'tlt312t24/13

CLIENT PROJECT:

SCE #:

Region 2-superstr5ucture Replacement-Chenango Road Over Sauquoit Creek

R10282.D2 PIN #: 2650.40.101 BIN #: 2206680

LAB # CLIENT #

ANALYTICAL METHOD NYS DOH 03101/97 (ltem 198.6)

NOTEBOOK: M.HAY NYSDOHELAP # I I I 29

DESCRIPTTON


680r 5

68016

680 r7

68018 r

680 I 9o

68020o

6802 l

68022o

68023

04-10

04- l I

04-12

05 -13

05 -14

05 - r5

06-r6

06-17

06-18

BITUMINOUS PIPE WRAP-I

BITUMINOUS PIPE WRAP-I

BITUMINOUS PIPE WRAP.I

BITUMINOUS COATING

BITUMINOUS COATING

BITUMINOUS COATING

TAN PIPE WRAP

TAN PIPE WRAP

TAN PIPE WRAP

4l.59Vo 06.55Yo

96.84o/o 02.17%

74.92% 07.16%

96.12% 02.23o/o

94j0% 04.11%

63,90o/o 08.34o/o

97.92% 0l.85%

97.10% 01.340/o

48.630/o Ql.21Vo

51.860/o 66.66o/o-C

00.99o/o <01.00%

t7.92% N/A

0t.6s% INc

01 .18% INC

2716% INC

00.23% <01.00%

01.560/o INC

00.160/o <01.00%

34.57%-C

RESIDUE

IST

TNC

INC

INC

RESIDUE

INC

RESIDUE

34.57o/o-C

NON-ACM

POSITryE

INC

INC

INC

NON.ACM

INC

NON-ACM

GRAVTMETRIC TESTRESULTS

A%ID-SOL.ORGANIC INORGANIC

RESIDUE

C=CHRYSOTILE A-AMOSITE CR=CROCIDOLIE AN=ANTHOPHYLITENAD = NO ASBESTOS DECTECTED PLM = POLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPYrNC-INCONCLUSIVE T=TRACE' CLIENTREQUESTEDTEM.

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

.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 THATCAN BE USED TO DETERMINE

IF THIS MATERIAL CAN BE CONSIDERED OR TREATED AS NONASBESTOS CONTAINING' (ELAP 198.66.3.2.I)

Analytica! results reported on sanples 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 transmittedvia electonic median

orl to b, cons:idered preliminary in nature and are not intended or utilizedforfinal reports. They are strictlyfor the convenience ofthe

client.

Analyst: Laboratorv

4IEEBS /. D. INC.167O Western Aue. Bldg. B, Albang, Neut York 12203

Laboratory/ OJfice Plwne (5 1 8) 456-4 59 1' fbersid@teri'z'on'net

T. Morrison

....'".'.'...,...4 z g

l r t - - rI ? . r n l ' r !

IlJ* jh:*a

Eastern Analytical Services, Inc.Bulk Sample Results

RE: CPN Rl0282.D7 - Region 2 Superstructure Replacement

68018

2262327

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


68019

2262328

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

98.8

1 . 2

68020

2262329

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


Pagc I of I

68022

2262330

Not Given

Not Given

Tem


0.00.60.0

0.6

0.0

98.4

1 .0

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 Givent2/19/201312t20/2013Ghavath Elias

:#NYS-DOH I98.4101646-01085 I

Client Fibers I.D., Inc.1670 Westem Avenue - Building "8"Albany, NY 12203

AsbestosContent



ohTotal Asbestos

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.00.00.0

0.0

0.0

72.2

27.8

o/o Organic 0.0

% Carbonates 98.4

% Other lnorganic 1.6

Resuhs Appliclble To Thosc ltem Testcd. R.pon Cailot bc Rlprcduccd, Exlrpt Entirely. Withoul Wrillcn Approvsl oflhc Ltbontory.

Li"-u,iiiv ili.i,"o f" crsr of Anol'fis. This Reporr Musr Not bc iJrcd by the Cliint to Claim Product Endorscrenl by NVLAP or Atrv Agscy of lhe Us cove|ment'

AIHA Acc.cdirltion No. 10026l Rhod? Ishnd DoH No. AAL-0?2TI Msss.chu$(s DoL No. A A 000072 comeclicut Doit l'to Pil'0622 Msinc DEP No LA'024 Vemtrl DoH No AAs-2095

,l We{iti}heslfi r P}aui.} Hi,r$torc,, N*.rw t/r:rk 10523 i6 :o (91 4) 502 B3fJ0 nl t!l:././rveliv.FAS;t'li:. ct)rll

e aEq * o -

I b9c t o c D. h . E o5 e Ao t r oo E oo ) = o )

E :Eo < j = ofa=fg$ H sO r n O 0 )> v # >

EggEEBBE

"'t g g

( / ) c f ) ( f , ( h

B[ r]8-[ [

\ns\ns

t\orr)aa6X

= li i l.+ l-\6 r j\n t:

JI\I

=A\

I

cbb 9l

-= c\oNd+ .>=<iEI9.1 6)nZ>$F - 39?

r i

Rta

''.ira

4l (nELI A

d No.= l - COgl >$=l Z c.l

=l bsE l c d aq l . o o o

-'! -cnl d rn

EI HXSl 6 rr'.'e is

r+r-l = f-sl ir tt?

EI ENa lu< fE I ^ , ^Ell r-, QO

C J I - -

El :e- l< l- l= l- l?AI

(!o

.Y

o

=oo*,ooo.o=ol-

o|{-!to{.,o=ota-o?'6

o

Y\9

$2-RN

N\;

\I

t"-..-lKf,vb3

h\9

l

\9

Rf,Hr{+r

qI-N

rl(

+s

(.+\

CLIENT:ADDRESS:

PLM-NOB ANALYTICAL REPORTPage I of I

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

DATE COLLDCTED:DATE RECEIVED:DATE ANALYZED:DATEREPORTED:

t2/t2lt312/t3lt3t2/17n3t2/24113

CLIENT PROJECT:

SCE #r

Region 2-Superstr5ucture Replacement-Chenango Road Over Sauquoit Creek

R10282.D2 PIN #: 2650.40.101 BIN #: 2206680

ANALYTICAL METHOD NYS DOH 03/0t/97 (Item 1986)

LAB #

68024

68025

68026

CLIENT #

07-19

07-20

0'7-21

NOTEBOOK: M.HAY

DESCRIPTION

BITUMINOUS PIPE WRAP-2

BITUMINOUS PIPE WRAP.2

BITUMINOUS PIPE WRAP-2

NYS DOH ELAP #11129

03.65% 33.560/o

01.95% 42.510

00.04% 40.52Vo


62.79%

55.53o/o

59.44%

26.66Vo-C

N/A

N/A

08.94%-C

IST

IST

08.94%,C

POSITryE

POSITryE


A%ID-SOL.ORGANIC INORGANIC

RESIDUE

C=CHRYSOTILE A=AMOSITE CR=CROCIDOLITE AN=ANTHOPHYLITENAD = NO ASBESTOS DECTECTED PLM= POLARIZED LIGHTMICROSCOPYINC - INCONCLUSIVE T=TRACE ' CLIENT REQIJESTED TEM,

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

BOUND MATERIALS. QUANTITATIVE TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPYIS 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 LD. Inc.. Report data dependent on idormation supplied by client and

chain of custody. Liability limited to cost of analysis.

Any an-d all reports, chain ofcustodies ani/or professional opinions generated by Fibers 1.D., Inc. and tansmitted via electronic median

ori to b, coniidered preliminary in nature ancl are not intended or uiitizedforfinal reports. They are strictlyfor the convenience ofthe

client.

Analyst:

T. Morrison

F/BERS_/.D. llrc7670 Western Aue, Bld.g. B, Albang, Neu't Yotk 12203

Laboratory / Olfice Plwne (5 1 8) 4 5 6-4 5Q I' fibersid@terizon'net

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

Laboratory Director,

Michael H. Hay

II

I

I

= Efis aao - = o -- v -

I b9o) () ct)a . c of e ao t r oo E a )o ) ^ o )I 69E a Eo < j = o: =>:s.*H s.O . n O O> v s >' F

A A E

I 33Io t r t r oVF$EetfsU ) o < e U )

[&[ [

(n

c.lc.t o'-i CO. C.lF O \17 lFi C.l>- lt?a - vF^ ,

-o oo< ..,n r V V )

5 4 r^ i lE . : " l , n $crE{ E- t .A

{g -d,s$\ C Q E = I

Eq sqs;d . . l r <9 t xc ; t l \ Z F c d

Q s ^ r { F r

=E' EE rst r t q 1 r a k Z Ys\/ Nif$sRg.lt s r n F *\ J ( . . ,

f,qEntr

j:tEoo-ot,

co:qc-coo-=t

ilqIir(D

+,()ooogoo

e

Trlc lo lJ l

dlIot

c lL lo lo lc lutc lrrl Iotc lP I

5 lU l lt r l

8l ..ild,l o-lEt s=t il=l =lut l ln l

=mo{r,ooCLo5ol-ortsEo+,o5ortsotr(E-co

ido

.Yo

+hci+,c.qo

EN

ltott(E

J

oooo(E'.o(E=

NooEq)

oo=o(Dto)EtrEcf

e(UcL

fF

\\

\

\

t\.\

\.

I- 1 .

tto!to

CLIENT:ADDRESS:

CLIENT PROJECT:

SCE #:

LAB # CLIENT #

PLM-NOB ANALYTICAL REPORTPage I of I

Shumaker Engineering & Land Surveying, P.C.1510 Central AvenueAlbanv. NY 12205

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

01/tolt40v13/L40Ut5t140t/t6/14

Region 2 Superstructure Replacement-Chenango Road Over Sauquoit Creek

R10282.D7 PIN #:2650.40.101 BIN #: 2206680

ANALYTICAL METHOO trtvS oOH O:lOtlgZ (tt.. tg8.0)

NOTEBOOK: M. HAY NYS DOH ELAP #lll29


ACID-SOL.


68333 o

68334r

68335o

68336o

68337o

68338r

08-22

08-23

08-24

09-25

09-26

09-27

DESCRIPTION

BITUMINOUS TAR COATING- I

BITUMINOUS TAR COATING-I

BITUMINOUS TAR COATING.I

BITUMINOUS TAR COATING-2



RESIDUE

72.04o/o 01.35o/o 26.61%0

71.92% 00.68% 27.4l%o

71.92o/o 0l.l3%o 25.95o/o

70.l6Yo 02.54o/o 27.30o/o

66.360/o 00.38% 33.260/o

28.84% 58.91o/o l2.25%o

INC INC

INC INC

INC INC

INC INC

T/C INC T/C N{C

INC INC

INC

INC

INC

INC

T/C/ INC

INC

C=CHRYSOTILE A=AMOSITE CR=CROCIDOLITE AN=ANTHOPHYLITE TR=TREMOLITE AC=ACTINOLITE N/A=NOTANALYZEDNAD = NO ASBESTOS DECTECTED PLM = POLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPY NOB = NONFRIABLE ORGANICALLY BOUND MATERIALSINC_INCONCLUSIVE T=TRACE' CLIENTREQUESTEDTEM,

."OLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPY IS NOT CONSISTANTLY RELIABLE IN DECTECTING ASBESTOS IN FLOOR COVERINGS AND SIMILAR NONFRIABLE LYBOUND MATERIAIS. QUANTITATIVE TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY IS CI,R.RNETLY THE ONLY METHOD THAT CAN BE USED TO DETERMINEIF THIS MATERIAL CAN BE CONSIDERED OR TREATED AS NONASBESTOS CONTAINING" (ELAP 198.66,3.2,I)

Analytical results reported on samples not collected by Fibers LD. 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 1.D., Inc. and transmitted via electronic median

are to be consideredpreliminary in nature and are not intended or utilizedforfinal reports. They are strictlyfor the convenience ofthe

client.

Analyst:

T. Morrison

FIBERS I.D. INC.1670 WesternAue. Bldg- B, Albang, Neut York 12203

Inboratory/ OJfice Phone (5 1 8) 456-45Q I' fibersid@terizon'net

Laboratory Director,

Sarrple Descriptbn

ArulytlalMetbd

Appeararce LaSuedHornogenor:sFibror.rsColor

68333

2766269

Not Gil,en

NotGi"en

Tm

NoNoNoReduced byClbrrt

68334

2266270

Not Given

Not Gir,en

Tm

NoNoNoRedr:ced byCliers

0.00.30.0

0.3

0,0

72.6

z7. l

NotGiren

Tern

NoNoNoRedrred byCliert

Page I of2

68336

2266272

Not Given

NotGhen

Im

NoNoNoRedr.aed by Clbrt

0.0< 0.3

0.0

< 0.3

0.0

12_',7

* - 3 f f i * *ffi *rn t : r

n t * m * " q n.--*, GE .".

Easteru Analvtical Services. Inc.Bulk Saryle Resufts

RE: CPN R10283.D7 - Regbn2 Srperstnrtue Rephcerrnt

Date Colbcted :Colbcted By:Date Receired :Date Arrallzed :Anal5aed By :Sipgunrre :AnatttfualMetlrodNVLAP Lab No.NYS Lab No.

Sarrrcle ID Nurrber

LasvNumber

Lab ID Nuniber

Sarrple Location

AsbestosCorrtent

OtherMaterialsPresett

Not GivenNot Gi'.enaLlrc/20t40I/t6/2013Kevin Stascavaee*5!'.'{.#^NYS-DOH 198.4101646-01085 I

Clbru Fibers I.D.. Irr^1670 \tr:estem Arera-re - Bufldi€ '8"

Albarr. NY 12?03

68335

2266271

Not Giren

9lo Arrpsie% Chr:sotib% Otltr

7o TotalAsbestos

%Orynb

0,6 Cacbonates

0,0< 0.3

0.0

.< 0.3

0.0

?4. I

2,5.9

0.00.J0.0

0.3

0.0

7o Otlrr hmrcarrb 26.3

Reru&r _{pptabl To Thoe lrm Tstid. RrFfr clmr br RlFodurd, Estr Eilirt, $'i*Fu wria-{t+orz!4t}r LabqretLiulb.iit*oa:oC*ttr.{nt}n. Thi'Rlimttr$S}rb€U*db}*EClinECbinltodrrtEdssmh'\-11--l,Pv.1$'Agen'tftrUSGosro'-*:tt.co.dinriro)io. 1c0163- Rbod!:stodDori]iq..{tt-'.ii.Jli t*+r&hstsDoL}io.-4-{c{80?l c+irds}l}ia.Pl{-s6:} $tisDLp$o.L-{-s:{ 1:f*pci{r-o-.tLs-?s9i

,1 tJfi $1{,}is$q4r Pl{tts [i*x$f*f{t. f*i+w Ytrrk 1*5?3. 14 1 |] '$'!41 5?l Ai'iclli h: l l r . iwwvr . l i rA$ i r : . ( ' t f r

* . * ** * f f i *

I t , : : l| | l l r r f f i * " q m

* # * # f f i , -

Easte m Analytical Services, Inr.Bulk Sanple Resuhc

RE: CPN R1028f .D7 - Regbn2 Srgerskr.rcture Repheerx=nt

Pagc 2 of2

Date Colhcted :Collected By:Date Recei\€d :Date Anallzed :Aml1ad By :Sigunrre:AnalyticalMettndNVLAP LabNo.NYS Lab No.

Sanrrle ID Nr:rr$er

LalxNumbcr

Lab ID Nurrber

Sarrple Locatiron

AsbestosContent

OtlxrMaterialsPresenf

Not GiverNot Gir,en0I/16/2014AUrcDO13Kevin Stascavase-_-,*r."'.* tj#"NYS-DOH 198.4101646-01085 I

Clbrrt FSers I.D.. Irc^1670 lltestem Arerar - BuilCirg '8"

Albmy. bIY 1f,203

Sarrple Descriptbn

AnalltbalMetlpd

Appeararce LayeredHormgersusFibrorsColor

6833 7

2266273

NotGir,en

NotGi'*en

Tam

NoNoNoRedr:ced by Clbnt

68338

2266274

NotGirnn

NotGiren

Tcrn

N oNoNoRedrred byClbnt

9/o Annsie% Clrrrotib% Other

7o ToialAsbestos

%Ogantu

o/o Cabormtes

0.0U , J

0.0

0.3

0.0

66.7

0.0< 0.1

0.0

< 0,1

0.0

8? .8

1) .27o Other Irorcafib 33.0

Re*rlaApplizb*ToTbo*lttr?qt.d. [email protected]€dsd,EE?FE**V,E'i&o\rllith-{pFolzldtlELabqrlo*:Lib.iti!'LirirdtoC$rttr3Etil TbirF€pod}.trsNatb€UE*Clry*EClisbChimlodrEtEdsrffib'\"i'I--4Fs.rr-a',q.EFoc)'dfEUSCffiftEd,A:!l{Aer.ii!tba:;o.tc0?6i ibcd.LbdDO!t!b..ll!-0.:tli !!.t*elaef$ml-}io.A,Lt4G0'-l Coffiti|r:(DOHSo.FE$6!l \'qieDEP:-o.L-1-01.1 \:mg(XiNo..4-{S-lti95

.1'.Vetldl:$slrr l l la/ir firlsi*rd. *er, Yrrrit : *ir?3. iS ! fJ t$1;ll f:?ir"S*fS i\11p :.','v{w"i.f &,1ir:f .cnr{r

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

STA

TE O

F N

EW

YO

RK

DE

PA

RTM

EN

T O

F TR

AN

SP

OR

TATI

ON

TRA

FFIC

SA

FETY

DIV

ISIO

NA

CC

IDE

NT

DE

TA

ILS

, H

IST

OR

Y L

OC

AT

ION

Shee

t 1 o

f 1DI

AGRA

M 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

102

/23/

12U

nkU

nkPD

OU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkN

/A

205

/05/

12U

nkU

nkPD

OU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkN

/A

311

/08/

12U

nkU

nkPD

OU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkN

/A

402

/07/

13U

nkU

nkPD

OU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkN

/A

506

/03/

13U

nkU

nkI

Unk

Unk

Unk

Unk

Unk

Unk

N/A

606

/13/

13U

nkU

nkPD

OU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkN

/A

101.

094

Prud

ent E

ngin

eerin

g, L

LP

02/2

4/14

Che

nang

o R

oad

AT IN

TERS

ECTI

ON W

ITH/

OR B

ETW

EEN:

Fren

ch R

oad

to C

linto

n St

reet

/Bur

rsto

ne R

oad

¹Use

Cod

es fr

om M

V 10

4 Po

lice

Rep

ort

Unk

Unk

At C

hena

ngo

Roa

d/Le

mon

d Pl

ace

Inte

rsec

tion

ROUT

E NO

. OR

STRE

ET N

AME:

COUN

TY:

One

ida

P.I.N

.:2B

OW

.00

Utic

a

Unk

Unk

Unk

Unk

At 2

434

Che

nang

o R

oad

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

ENVI

RONM

ENTA

L:U

se C

odes

from

MV

104

(sho

wn

at ri

ght)

for t

hese

ca

tego

ries

No. O

F MO

NTHS

:

LIGHT CONDITIONS

ROADWAY CHARACTER

ROADWAY SURFACE CONDITION

WEATHER

SEVERITY

No. of VEHICLES

At 2

448

Che

nang

o R

oad

At 2

427

Che

nang

o R

oad

At 2

431

Che

nena

go R

oad

At 2

427

Che

nang

o R

oad

10

11

96

78

45

12

3

606

/13/

13U

nkU

nkPD

OU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkN

/A

708

/02/

13U

nkU

nkPD

OU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkU

nkN

/A

Unk

Unk

At 2

434

Che

nang

o R

oad

At 2

448

Che

nang

o R

oad

10

11

96

78

45

12

3

TE 2

13 (9

/79)

PEDESTRIAN FACILITY DESIGN

Exhibit 18-1 Pedestrian Generator Checklist

P.I.N.: 2650.40.101 Project Location: BIN 2206680 Chenango Road 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

7

I N

Regional Design Group (315) 793-2429

February 24, 2014

Kevin W, RevereDirector of Emergency ServicesOneida County Emergency Services120 Base RoadOriskany, New York 13424

RE: FUTURE BRIDGE PROJECTSONEIDA COUNTY

Dear Mr. Revere:

As part of the New York State Department of Transportation's (NY SDOT) increased emphasis onpublic invoh cnlent in the development, planning. and construction of all transportation projects, thisletter is intended to provide information and solicit public input regarding the abo,, e-re I Brent ed capitalproject.

lNlt}lo;l '^1 i!1' onc 11!\ on thc. ,`J!l;Ill ll'Ul.'llll'' l lil 101 .',_":l I! t;1l1/i'.l. 'lic c p!'?l e: Hll

{I^^i^l'C l . Ct 111 ill or 1 t`tl d prone i55UL l ll't ll, Il I'ep I:1Cllll e lll t11 I?C1 11llll e lll conr l'lllllit 0I 11C)O i

s tlsceptl H lc >ll"llcllll'C.. I ll ' > \` 111 enhiicc 1I:e !'csiIlcllc\ 0! 11111' Slide 11'ail^ p t1':'l lllt'll 1 e1\%0" to

\111 l 1 1lll l 111llil't_' "\ii 'I1; \\ .It l^1' C\ cuts. I'llI lKli 1'' 01 these st r llctlli'i , lii N hot hell secllfcu u of \ei. ki.il

h ft! ;; i k' :I\,1ii;( Hi l' illit^ l'c l 1 c k- 1 \ c! I c I c.

It is expected that traffic will be maintained either utilizing stage construction or utilizing an off-site

detour, as shown in the below table. A map of each project area is included for your convenience with

the proposed detour routes shown. I am rcqucstinn that you plcLi c contact the emergency .scr y icepre)\ ti.1crs (i.e. Fir

e D np irtniei 1s . Police DC p,!C1!ilc!l I s. F.!no'!'g e !?c\ \ l d! !! Departments. etc.) for each

bridge location. i'ii a i' note that these ini dec ti arc Cii r i^llii s ti k iii Ci`o ,

Town/City BIN Carried Crossed ; DetourlStaged i€ Town of Marshall j 1445630 ! Route 315 Big Creek j DetourTown of Marshall 1045640 ! Route 315 Oriskany Creek DetourTown of Remsen 4426240 i Dustin Road Kayuta Lake DetourCity of Utica,Town of New Hartford

2206680 Chenango Road Sauquoit Creek Detour

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 .EmrichCddot.ny .gov. .

Sincerely,

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)

E OF NEV

DEPAN1 MENT OF TRANS '`, '? '.TiON

REGION TWC'

207 GENESEE STREET

UTIC,. ," ','ORK 13501www.dot.ny.pov

JOHN R. V _ ;45, P.E. JOAN McDONALDI NTERIrvt REG't i_! DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER


February 19, 2014

Patrick Tyksinski, SupervisorTown of New HartfordButler flall, 48 Genesee StreetNew Hartford, New York 13413

RE: CHENANGO ROAD OVER SAUQUOIT CREEKBIN 2206680CITY OF UTICA, ONEIDA COUNTY

Dear Mr. Tyksinski:

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 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 Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek in the City of Utica. Itis expected that traffic will be maintained utilizing an off-site detour. A snap of the project area is included foryour convenience with the proposed detour route shown. 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 discus the project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (315) 793-2594 or by email atSteve.Emrich a dot.ny.gov .

Sinccrely.Orin inal Signedb y .%E

to%cn G. Emrich. P. E.\cting Regional Structures Engineer

Attachment

L ENT OF' IRA TON

REGION T.

07 GENESE

UTICA, NEW Y 1 3501www, dot. n y . q oy

R. WILLIAMS, P.E. J McDONALD

€ NT : REGIONAL DIRECTOR C MMISSRDNER


February 19, 2014

Honorable Robert M. Palmieri, MayorCity of UticaCity Hall, I Kennedy PlazaUtica, New York 13502


Dear Mayor Palmieri:



This project includes work on the bridge carrying Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek in the City of Utica. Itis expected that traffic will be maintained utilizing an off-site detour. A map of the project area is included foryour convenience with the proposed detour route shown. 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 discu1s the project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (315) 793-2594 or by email atSteve.Emrich ci dot.ny.gov .

Sincerely.Or ii, in a! Signedby SGESteN en G. Emrich, P. E.Acting Regional Structures Engineer

Attachment

)F NEW Y

OF TRANS std

_ _',ION TWC':.; 7 GENESEE STRE

UTICA, NEW YORK 13501www. dot. ny.aov

JOHN I LAMS, P.E.I NTERIM i .3 AL. DIRECTOR CO ;T ONER


February 19, 2014

Bruce Karam, SuperintendentUtica City School District106 Memorial ParkwayUtica, New York 13501


Dear Mr. Karam:




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 atStev e.l :enrich a dot.ny.gov .

Sincerely,Original Signedhr SGESte\ cn Ci. Emrich, P. E.\ctin; Regional Structures Engineer

Attachment

i;' I RANsPof .: TION

ON TWO

1: 07 GENESEE STREET

UTICA, NEW YORK 501www.dot.nY.goy

N R. WILLIAMS, P.E. C: NALD

,. M REGIONAL. DIRECTOR C " ON ER


February 19, 2014

David Langone, SuperintendentNew York Mills School District1 Marauder BoulevardNew York Mills, New York 13417


Dear Mr. Langone:




Plcusc reply with any questions or comments regarding this project by March 7, 2014. If you would like tofitither discu the project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (315) 793-2594 or b y email atStc c.Finrich o dot.ny.gov .

Sinecrely,Ori,, linil Signed

b}- SGL'

l C\ cn ( i. I .nirich. 1'. E..\ctinu RcL)ic,i1al Structures 1.ntinccr

\ttachmcrit

Public Involvement Plan

Bridge Superstructure Replacement Project PIN: 2BOW.00 BIN: 2206680

Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek Oneida County

City of Utica and Town of New Hartford 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 100’-0” and will not need to be skewed to accommodate the expected flows of the Sauquoit Creek. The existing structure is founded on piles and will have an increased hydraulic opening. 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: City of Utica, Town of New Hartford, County of Oneida, Utica City School District, New Hartford Central 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: City of Utica, Town of New Hartford, County of Oneida, Utica City School District, New Hartford Central 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


Appendix F – Non-Standard Feature

Justification

Nonstandard Feature Justification Form

PIN: 2BOW.OO/ BIN 2206680 Route No. & Name: Chenango Road

Project Type: Bridge Rehabilitation Design Classification: Urban Collector/Major Collector

ADT (Design Year): 4580 (ETC+30) Design Speed: 40 mph

DHV (Design Year): 477 (ETC+30) % Trucks: 5.0

1. Description of Nonstandard Feature

Type of Feature: Shoulder Width

Location: Throughout the project

Standard Value: 8 feet Design Speed: 40 mph

Existing Value: N/A

Proposed Value: 4 feet

2. Accident Analysis

Current Accident Rate: 0.99 acc/mvm Statewide Accident Rate: 3.26 acc/mvm

Is the NSF a contributing factor to identified accidents? Choose Yes or No Yes No

If Yes, describe how the feature contributes to accidents

3. Cost Estimates

Cost to Fully Meet Standards: $248,000

Cost(s) For Incremental Improvements: $58,000

4. Measures to Mitigate the Potential Adverse Effects of the NSF (e.g., curve warning signs for a non-standard horizontal curve; ITS for non-standard LOS, etc.)

The Non-Standard shoulder width is an improvement over the existing conditions.

5. Compatibility With Future Plans for Adjacent Segments:

These improvements will be compatible with adjacent segments.

6. Social, Economic & Environmental factors that weigh in the decision to retain or propose the NSF:

Bringing the Non-Standard shoulder width up to the 8-foot standard would require R.O.W. takings due to widening of the road and bridge.

7. Recommendation:

In order to widen the bridge to account for the increased, standard shoulder width, the abutments would need to be replaced. This would effectively result in a bridge replacement, which is not included in the scope of this project. For the reasons listed above, the Non-Standard 4-foot shoulder width identified in this report should be progressed for final design.

project scoping report/ final design report · may 2014 project scoping report/final design report...

Documents