SEQR State Environmental Quality Review Notice of Completion of Draft / Final EIS

14-12-8 (3/99)-9c SEQR State Environmental Quality Review Notice of Completion of Draft / Final EIS

Project Number Date: This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law.

A 9 Draft or 9 Final (check one) Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and accepted by the ______, as lead agency, for the proposed action described below.

If a Draft EIS: Comments on the Draft EIS are requested and will be accepted by the contact person until______.

Name of Action:

Description of Action:

Location: (Include street address and the name of the municipality/county. A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended.) SEQR Notice of Completion of Draft / Final EIS Page 2 of 2

Potential Environmental Impacts:

A copy of the Draft / Final EIS may be obtained from:

Contact Person:

Address:

Telephone Number: A copy of this notice must be sent to: Department of Environmental Conservation, 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-1750

Chief Executive Officer, Town/City/Village of

Any person who has requested a copy of the Draft / Final EIS

Any other involved agencies

Environmental Notice Bulletin, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-1750

Copies of the Draft/Final EIS must be distributed according to 6NYCRR 617.12(b). PROJECT: Lockport IDA Park South 11. Lockport City School District 1. Town of Lockport Town Board ATTN: Michelle T. Bradley, Supt. of Schools 6560 Dysinger Road 130 Beattie Avenue Lockport, New York 14094 Lockport, New York 1094

2. Town of Lockport Planning Board 12. South Lockport Fire Company 6560 Dysinger Road 5666 S. Transit Road Lockport, New York 14094 Lockport, New York 14094

3. Town of Lockport Highway Department 13. Cambria Fire Company ATTN: David J. Miller, Highway Supt. 4631 Cambria Wilson Road 6560 Dysinger Road Lockport, New York 14094 Lockport, New York 14094 14. City of Lockport 4. Town of Lockport Building Department ATTN: Mayor Anne E. McCaffrey ATTN: Brian Belson One Locks Plaza 6200 Robinson Road Extension Lockport, New York 14094 Lockport, New York 14094 15. City of Lockport 5. Niagara County Water District ATTN: Rolando Moreno ATTN: Herbert A. Downs Director of Engineering 5450 Ernest Road One Locks Plaza PO Box 315 Lockport, New York 14094 Lockport, New York 14095 16. General Motors Holdings Components 6. Niagara County Sewer District No. 1 Lockport Operations ATTN: Thomas W. Blodgett, PE 200 Upper Mountain Road 7346 Liberty Drive Lockport, New York 14094 Niagara Falls, New York 14094 17. NYSDEC 7. Niagara County Department of Public Works 625 Broadway County Highway Department/Engineering Albany, New York 12233-1750 ATTN: Richard W. Eakin, PE 59 Park Avenue Lockport, New York 14094

8. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation ATTN: David S. Denk 270 Michigan Avenue Buffalo, New York 14203-2915

9. NYS Department of Transportation ATTN: Ed Rutkowski 100 Seneca Street Buffalo, New York 14203

10. Niagara County Planning Board ATTN: Amy Fisk 6311 Inducon Corporate Drive Sanborn, New York 14132

*If you would like a hardcopy of the FSGEIS, please request one by e-mailing [email protected]

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Lockport Industrial Park South Expansion

DATE: March 9, 2017

LOCATION: Lockport Junction Road Town of Lockport Niagara County, New York

LEAD AGENCY: Town of Lockport IDA Board 6560 Dysinger Road Lockport, New York 14094

STATEMENT PREPARED BY: Wendel Companies 375 Essjay Road, Suite 200 Williamsville, New York 14221 (716) 688-0766

Date of Acceptance of the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement: December 8, 2016____

Date of Public Hearing on Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement: February 9, 2017_____

Deadline for Submission of Comments: March 3, 2017______

Date of Acceptance of the Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement: March 9, 2017

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….… 1 - 1

2. Summary of DSGEIS/FSGEIS ……………………………………..………………….. 2 - 1

3. Project Changes, Revisions to the DSGEIS……………………………………….. 3 - 1

4. Comments Received and Responses……………………………………………….. 4 - 1

FIGURES AND MAPS Figure 2: Preferred Development Plan: Option A Map 5: Environmental Features [Note: Figure 1: Lockport Industrial park has been removed]

APPENDICES Appendix A: SEQR Documentation for the FSGEIS . Resolution: Accepting DSGEIS as Complete . Notice of Completion Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement . Public Hearing Notice

Appendix B: Comments Received on DSGEIS . Comment Letter: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) . Comment Letter: New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) . Comment Letter(s) from General Motors Components Holdings, LLC (GMCH) -Unsigned Comments Distributed at Public Hearing -Comment Letter Submitted on 20Feb2017 -Addendum to the Comment Letter Submitted on 20Feb2017

Appendix C: Minutes . Minutes from the February 9, 2017 Public Hearing

Appendix D: Revisions to the DSGEIS

Appendix E: Additional Studies . Cultural Resources Study

DSGEIS is included herein by reference only. The full document can be accessed on the Town of Lockport IDA’s website through the following link: http://lockporteconomicdevelopment.com/uploads/DGEISLkptIDAReportFINALDraft.pdf

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

1. INTRODUCTION

This Final Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FSGEIS) is prepared pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Article 8 of the New York Environmental Conservation Law, and its implementing regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 617. It has been prepared on behalf of the Town of Lockport IDA Board, acting as Lead Agency, in relation to the environmental review of the proposed Lockport Industrial Park South Expansion.

The Town of Lockport Industrial Development Agency (IDA) has an existing Industrial Park located near Route 93 and Upper Mountain Road to the west of the City of Lockport, which was the subject of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), with the Final GEIS accepted in 1984. The Town has since acquired approximately 89.8-acres1 south of the Industrial Park. It is the intent of the Town of Lockport IDA to include these lands as part of the existing Industrial Park and market these lands for development to prospective businesses. The Town has prepared this FSGEIS to document any potential impacts associated with the proposed expansion of the Industrial Park.

The Project Site is bounded on the west by Route 93 and on the south by lands owned by the railroad – Consolidated Rail. The eastern boundary is irregular. A private access drive to the Co-Gen facility and the GM Components Holding (GMCH) facility splits the property. The Project Site is made up of two tax parcels: parcel 108.00-1-35.1 and parcel 108.00-1-36. The Project Site was formerly owned by GMCH and has been vacant for many years. There are no structures on the proposed development site. The land is nearly level with some areas of woodlands, and an area of wetlands and drainage ways on the southern end of the site. The site has frontage along both Lockport Junction Road (Route 93) and the private access drive servicing the Lockport Co-Generation Facility and GMCH properties (portions of which are currently owned by the Lockport IDA).

The proposed action involves including this site as an addition to the existing Lockport Industrial Park in the Town of Lockport to help facilitate future development. The intent is to develop these lands with uses similar to those in the existing Industrial Park and to create a location for economic development, as recommended in the Town of Lockport Comprehensive Plan, in order provide employment opportunities on-site that would benefit the Town and surrounding region, and offer increased tax revenues to help support local community services.

The preferred concept for future development would involve improving the current access drive into a Town roadway that would provide access to the entire Project Site and to the existing facilities utilizing the road (including GMCH). The goal is develop the lands north of the road into one to three businesses and the lands south of the road could accommodate one to nine businesses.

The sub-alternative of this preferred concept, that is also a preferred plan, would have the lands south of the access drive having a properly located driveway accessing Lockport Junction Rad and the lands north of the access drive accessing the access drive.

The Town has had success at the existing Industrial Park, but it is nearing capacity and additional lands are needed if continued economic development is to occur. This project will help provide the additional lands needed – perfectly located adjacent to the existing Industrial Park – for continued business development that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.

1 This revised figure differs from the figure cited in the DSGEIS, as noted in Section 3.

Part I - Introduction: Page 1

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

On September 8, 2016 the Coordinated Review process was initiated by the Lockport IDA through issuance of a solicitation letter to Interested and Involved Agencies to declare its interest in being designated the Lead Agency for the SEQR and its intent to have a Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) completed, as the original Industrial Park was the subject of a previous GEIS and the proposed action involves potential use of the subject property with no site-specific development plans yet determined. On October 13, 2016 the Lockport IDA was established as the Lead Agency for this action.

On the same date, the Lockport IDA Board determined that the project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that Draft Environmental Impact Statement needed to be prepared (Positive Declaration), and directed that a SGEIS be prepared to assess said potential impacts. The notification of the Positive Declaration was posted in the Environmental Notice Bulletin on October 26, 2016. Scoping is an optional step, and since the original Industrial Park was subject of a GEIS, it was determined that scoping was not necessary. Rather, it was determined that the new SGEIS would provide an updated analysis of all the environmental topics in the original GEIS and those identified in the positive declaration.

Wendel Companies, on behalf of the Lead Agency, the Town of Lockport IDA Board, prepared a Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DSGEIS). The DSGEIS was accepted as compete and ready for public review by Lockport IDA Board on December 8, 2016. Copies of the DSGEIS were provided to all Involved and Interested Agencies and made available in-person at the Lockport Town Hall and online on the IDA’s website. The Notice of Completion of the DGEIS and the Notice of Public Hearing on the DGEIS were posted in the Environmental Notice Bulletin on January 25, 2017. (See Appendix A).

A public hearing was held on February 9, 2017 in the Lockport Town Hall to receive public comments on the DSGEIS (please see Appendix C for transcript). No formal comments were provided during the public hearing. A representative for GMCH submitted a document requesting additional time to review and provide comment to the DSGEIS. Written comments were accepted through March 3, 2017. Both the NYSDOT and the NYSDEC provided written comments, these comments are included in Appendix B. Comments were also received from GMCH, and this comment letter and its addendum (delivered together) are also provided in Appendix B. No other written comments were received.

The DSGEIS for the Town of Lockport Industrial Park Expansion is considered part of this FSGEIS, as required in Section 617.9(b)(8) of the SEQR regulations. This FSGEIS describes changes to the DSGEIS and addresses all substantive issues raised about the DSGEIS. Initially, the IDA intended to achieve Shovel Ready Designation for the proposed project, as part of the Build Now-NY program that gives official recognition to sites that have completed intensive state and local government review necessary to accelerate future investment and development. However, the DSGEIS revealed a number of unexpected contingencies that would have required the IDA to spend considerable funds to achieve the designation. In the end, the IDA decided to defer these costs to a future time or to prospective developers and forgo the desired designation for the immediate future.

Shovel Ready Designation has been removed from the proposed project and represents a significant change since completion of the DSGEIS. Achieving Shovel Ready Designation would have been the preferable option, but it was too cost prohibitive for the IDA to undertake at this time.

Part I - Introduction: Page 2

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

2. SUMMARY OF THE DSGEIS/FSGEIS

As noted previously, the DSGEIS for the Lockport Industrial Park South Expansion is considered part of the FSGEIS, and it is hereby incorporated by reference, subject to the changes explicitly provided for in this FSGEIS. The identified environmental impacts associated with the proposed development of the Project Site are summarized (and updated) in the chart below to assist in review of the FSGEIS and are discussed in greater detail in Section 4 of the DSGEIS and Parts 3 and 4 of this FSGEIS.

Potential Environmental Impacts:

Environmental Factor Potential Impacts and Proposed Mitigations Topography, Geology, and Soils Temporary, short-term impacts to land and soils associated with construction related activities. Contractor will be required to abide by the provisions of a fully compliant Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

There will be permanent changes to the use of land. Future activity is expected to include construction of buildings and parking areas. Provisions regarding maximum lot coverage and required landscaping will be governed under the proposed conditions of this SGEIS, similar to the original GEIS, which will help mitigate these impacts. Water Resources - Groundwater and USGS topographic and Niagara County Soil Survey data Surface Water revealed that the groundwater table in the project area may lie at a depth of less than three feet below the grade. There are no primary or principal aquifers underlying the project or surrounding area.

Building construction will involve excavation and buildings on the site, but buildings will be restricted from having subsurface levels or basements. Water Resources - Stormwater Future site development could alter natural drainage Management patterns. The increase in impervious surfaces will increase the rate and volume of stormwater runoff.

Site development proposals will have to adhere to the Town’s Stormwater Management Plan and will require the acquisition of an approved permit from the Town. In addition, any proposals that seek to disturb over 1-acre will require a fully compliant SWPPP.

A SWPPP is a plan for controlling runoff and pollutants generated during and after construction of on-site facilities, with the end goal of controlling increased rates of runoff to pre-development levels and controlling water quality. The SWPPP must comply with the requirements of the New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) for General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP-0-15-002).

Part 2 - Summary of DSGEIS/FSGEIS: Page 1

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

Finally, future site development proposals will be required to follow the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (SMDM), which will require proposals to incorporate green infrastructure practices into their design. A target runoff reduction volume will be developed. In the event it is not possible to reach the targeted reduction, the SMDM provides a formula for calculating a minimum required runoff reduction volume. If the proposal cannot achieve this minimum, they will be required to apply for an individual SPDES permit. Water Resources - Floodplains No portion of the project site falls within the 100-year floodplain. Ecological Resources – Vegetation The project site consists of a majority herbaceous upland and Wildlife meadow habitat, but also contains areas of wetlands. None of the vegetative species identified on the site are listed as threatened, endangered, or species of special concern. According to the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper and other State records, there are no threatened, endangered, or species of special concern known to exist on the project site. See comments from the NYSDEC. Ecological Resources – Wetlands A wetlands delineation was conducted in May/June 2014, with six (6) Federal wetlands being identified on or near the site, totaling approximately 29-acres, and falling under USACE jurisdiction. Approximately 18 acres of wetlands fall within the property boundaries. No NYS wetlands were identified at the time. See comments from the NYSDEC.

The Preferred Concept Plan illustrates a future site development that would be designed to avoid the existing areas of wetlands (see new preferred concept plan).

If, in the final layout, small areas of wetland disturbance totaling less than 0.1-acres are required, they could be accommodated under the Nationwide Permit. All development will be consistent with Federal wetland regulations (and potentially NYS regulations- see NYSDEC letter). Climate and Air Quality The project is proposed to include the development of warehouse or high technology manufacturing uses. Limited emissions are expected.

Impacts to air quality from proposed site development may include those created through the potential increases in project-related vehicular exhaust emissions, although based on the result of the traffic impact analysis, the proposed project is not expected to result in large enough increases in traffic volumes to result in noticeable impacts to the ambient air quality in the area.

Air emissions discharges may also result from any back-up generators or similar devices that would be used for back-up

Part 2 - Summary of DSGEIS/FSGEIS: Page 2

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

power supply to potential site users. Any use of such equipment is expected to be temporary in nature.

The NYSDEC Division of Air Resources regulates air emissions through 6 NYCRR Part 201. Any and all emissions discharges that may occur on the project site would be in full compliance with state and federal air quality permitting standards. Land Use and Zoning Land uses in the area will change once development occurs. Lands that are currently undeveloped open space will be converted to lands associated with an industrial park.

The subject parcels have been identified in the Town of Lockport Comprehensive Plan as appropriate for commercial and industrial development and the land is zoned for industrial use. Land Use and Zoning - Agricultural The subject parcels are not farmed and are not part of a Resources State designated Agricultural District. Land Use and Zoning – Zoning The project site is presently zoned for industrial use. Most of the areas along IDA Park Drive and Lockport Junction Road are zoned Industrial. Socioeconomics Short-term job growth is anticipated for construction of buildings, access roadways, and related infrastructure. Development of the property will result in increased tax revenues for the Town, for the School District, for the County, and for the State.

New industrial businesses located within the expanded IDA park will provide employment opportunities for area residents, and will make expenditures on goods and services in the region. Specific information on the construction and permanent jobs that may be created, etc., will be dependent upon the types of industries that locate on the site and the incentives or PILOT agreements that would be offered to attract such development. Community Facilities The development of the Lockport IDA Park South project will have no immediate impact on community facilities. Site development could create additional demand for fire, police, and emergency services, but such demands are expected to be minimal. The site is serviced by existing public water and fire hydrant infrastructure.

No direct impact to schools, parks, or recreational programs are anticipated, as there are no residential uses proposed on the site. Future site development is expected to increase tax revenues that will benefit the collective ability of the Town, the School District, the County, and the State to provide services to the community as a whole. Historic and Cultural Resources Database searches indicated there were no previously recorded historic or archeological resources in the project area.

Part 2 - Summary of DSGEIS/FSGEIS: Page 3

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

As part of the documentation required for Shovel Ready designation, Panamerican Consultants, Inc. conducted a Phase 1A cultural resources investigation of the project area in December 2016. For the purposes of this Phase 1A cultural resources investigation, the project area was the area of potential effect (APE).

While no previously recorded archaeological sites or historic buildings were identified within the project area, historical maps revealed that three farmsteads, including at least one with outbuildings, were once located within the northwestern corner of the project area along Lockport Junction Road.

The area around each of these Map Documented Structures (MDS) was determined to be sensitive for historic archaeological resources, unless significant soil disturbances occurred at some point. Panamerican notes that disturbances could have happened when the MDS were demolished/removed from the site.

According to the Natural Resources Conservation Services soil report, approximately 20-acres of the project area is Made Land (Me), the remainder is comprised of Churchville silt loam (CIA, CIB), Odessa silty clay loam (OdA), and Ovid silt loam (OvA). It was found that most of the soils within the project area appear to be undisturbed.

In conclusion, Panamerican Consultants, Inc. recommended that a Phase 1B cultural resources investigation of the project area be completed to determine the presence or absence of buried historic and/or prehistoric cultural resources. It was determined that the western portion of the project area along Lockport Junction Road was archaeologically sensitive for historic cultural resources due to the MDS.

The undisturbed land within the project area was determined to be archaeologically sensitive for prehistoric resources due to the close proximity of Lockport escarpment and previously identified prehistoric resources located within the vicinity. Note- much of this is likely wetlands & would remain undisturbed.

Part 2 - Summary of DSGEIS/FSGEIS: Page 4

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

recommended limited subsurface testing of the 20-acres of Made Land.

Visual Resources Future development of the Lockport IDA South project will change the visual character of the project site, with views of buildings and other structures replacing those of open and generally flat vacant land.

The new development will be similar or better in built character than existing adjacent industrial uses, which include a co-generation facility, an asphalt plant, a DOT garage, and other similar uses.

The closest home is located 300 feet from the project site, in the neighboring Town of Cambria. Another two single- family homes abut the project site’s northeast corner. The views from these homes will change as a result of the proposed work. These homes will be subject to views of light industrial lands, rather than open lands (with Industrial behind these fields). Proper screening is requirement of the Code and will be a condition/mitigation of this SGEIS.

All the proposed development will be consistent with the Town’s zoning requirements. Existing vegetation and landscaping features, along with new vegetative visual buffers, could be used to soften the appearance of buildings and improve aesthetics, and screen from sensitive receptors, such as the adjacent residential structures.

Site lighting will be introduced in the form of lighting standards for parking areas and aesthetic or security lighting on buildings. This will change the visual character of the site at night and could potentially impact surrounding land uses.

Future site development would be required to implement measures to reduce or eliminate glare from the site, including the use of dark sky compliant lighting fixtures, to help reduce potential impacts. Public Utilities and Infrastructure - The existing waterlines provide an available source of public Water water to support future development on the project site. Proposed uses are not known at this time, but the types of uses that are expected to occupy the site generally are not large consumers of public water.

The DSGEIS set a threshold for the quantity of water that may be utilized. Peak demand in excess of 3,800 gpm (as determined by the Town Engineer) would require evaluation and potential mitigation. A proposed user would be required to model their proposed demands and their impact on the Town’s water system to determine if any mitigations would be needed.

Part 2 - Summary of DSGEIS/FSGEIS: Page 5

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

Local fire officials confirmed that the waterlines servicing the project site would be sufficient for their firefighting needs. If the proposed applicant needs fire flows in excess of the 3,800 gpm threshold, they would be required to provide onsite water storage for their project. Public Utilities and Infrastructure – The City of Lockport wastewater treatment facility has Wastewater capacity to accommodate future flow from the Town’s existing 8 inch forcemain. The nearest sanitary sewer collection point is east of the proposed project site. The existing 8-inch forcemain has about 0.85 MGD capacity which discharges into the City of Lockport’s 24-inch interceptor.

The proposed action is not anticipated to result in adverse environmental impacts, however, the NYSDEC and Niagara County Health Department require each individual business to address inflow and infiltration (I & I) issues, which typically requires mitigation at a level based on potential flows. Public Utilities and Infrastructure – The proposed future development of the site will increase Other Utility Services the demand for utilities including, but not limited to: telephone, natural gas, electricity, and cable service/ telecommunications.

New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) cannot commit reserve capacities to future development but presently the capacity of the existing electrical grid is sufficient to meet required electrical demands. There are existing natural gas supplies that have excess capacity for future growth. Telecommunications would have to be extended to the project site. Typically, such installations would be undertaken by the local service providers, with the costs borne by the user. Service is available in the area to service project development. Public Utilities and Infrastructure – Increased amounts of solid waste will be generated by future Solid Waste Management users on the project site. The Town requires non-residential uses to be responsible for contracting with commercial waste disposal services for the collection and disposal of solid waste materials.

If small quantities of regulated hazardous waste are generated on-site, users must comply with NYSDEC regulations and special provisions for waste management. Transportation and Traffic A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was conducted in accordance with Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in support SEQRA Actions. It included utilizing updated traffic counts in the area that included the traffic from existing businesses in the area.

Future site development will increase traffic on the adjacent road network. The traffic analysis showed that the road

Part 2 - Summary of DSGEIS/FSGEIS: Page 6

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

network and accompanying intersections in the study area currently operate at a Level of Service D or better during both the morning and evening peak hours. In addition to the turning moving counts, other traffic data such as intersection geometries, traffic signal timing, and roadway speed limits were collected, as needed, to complete a capacity analysis.

The TIS assessed impacts for a potential Phase 1 (200,000 square foot of light industrial), and Full Build (up to 800,000 square foot of light industrial and warehousing). No mitigations were recommended for the minor impacts to the Upper Mountain Road and Lockport Junction Road intersection associated with Phase 1. At full build, mitigations to three intersections on Lockport Junction Road were recommended:

 @ Saunders Settlement Road: reconfiguration  @ Upper Mountain Road: traffic signal  @ Site access driveway: traffic signal and possible intersection reconfiguration

Development in excess of 800,000 square feet (up to a potential 1,000,000 square feet- depending on peak trips that are generated) could require additional mitigation if the maximum trips are exceeded, and would require an update to the TIS. Section 4 of the DSGEIS provides a complete discussion of potential traffic impacts.

The addition of traffic from the development of this site to the access drive will also not significantly impact the current operations of GMCH per the traffic study. Noise Existing noise levels in the project area reflect a typical rural setting with an insignificant amount of background noise.

There will be short-time increases in ambient noise levels due to construction related activities. According to the NYSDEC guidelines found in Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts, noise impacts are pertinent when there is a significant increase over ambient levels. These guidelines also note that no noise evaluation is necessary when the proposed use is allowed by right under zoning.

The future development of the project site is not expected to significantly change noise levels in the vicinity. The primary sounds generated at typical high technology facilities generally come from cooling equipment and emergency power generation facilities. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental During the construction phases of the proposed action it is Impacts – Unavoidable Short-Term anticipated that increased traffic levels, increased noise Impacts levels, creation of fugitive dust due to soil disturbance and

Part 2 - Summary of DSGEIS/FSGEIS: Page 7

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

truck movement, and minute, localized increases in air emissions from construction equipment will occur. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Construction and operation of buildings on the project site Impacts – Unavoidable Long-Term will result in the following long-term environmental impacts: Impacts Traffic volumes in the vicinity will increase as a result of site development. With proper mitigation, this roadway, and other surrounding roads, will have the capacity to handle the additional traffic that will result from future site development. However, overall traffic will increase.

The loss of approximately 61-acres (or less than 50 acres if NYS wetlands are found) of existing open space is an associate impact of future, long-term site development. This may result in a slight reduction of wildlife habitat in the area. Wherever possible, the wetland areas will be avoided. Where natural vegetative buffers do not exist, and in the vicinity of proposed structures, landscaping will be used to fill the void and supplement the remaining natural habitat.

Views will change once structures, driveways, and parking areas are constructed on what are now vacant fields. Site lighting will be increased. Structures will be designed to be aesthetically compatible with the existing Industrial Park and mitigation measures will be taken to reduce or eliminate glare from the site, including the use of vegetative buffers, and dark sky compliant lighting fixtures.

Energy usage will increase. Structures on the site will require a long-term commitment of electric and natural gas services for heating, cooling, and lighting. There will be a permanent commitment of building materials for structures, parking areas, and infrastructure built on the site. Public water from the Town and the County will be utilized, along with an increase in the amount of wastewater processed. Solid waste generated on the site must also be handled and disposed of locally.

Economic resources will be used for the costs associated with construction materials, labor, and equipment. Fuel will be utilized during construction and during the long-term operation and maintenance of structures on-site. Cumulative Impacts At this time, there are no other projects proposed or currently under development in the vicinity of the subject property that should be taken into consideration as part of this environmental assessment. Growth Inducing Impacts Development of the Lockport IDA Park South project site will result in the creation of employment opportunities for residents in the Town of Lockport and surrounding region.

Part 2 - Summary of DSGEIS/FSGEIS: Page 8

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

Site development is reasonably expected to result in some secondary growth in the form of residential development. The increased population and residential development would likely impact enrollment in the local school district and create elevated demand for emergency services.

It is expected that any population increases would be less than recent population losses experienced in the region. Future site development may generate a demand for new or expanded support businesses and service providers in the surrounding area to accommodate the needs of on-site workers. The project will result in a direct increase in the tax base in the Town.

Part 2 - Summary of DSGEIS/FSGEIS: Page 9

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

3. PROJECT CHANGES, REVISIONS TO THE DSGEIS

This section of the FSGEIS discusses changes to the DSGEIS resulting from comments, project redesign and other information that has arisen since the publication of the DSGEIS. It is divided into two sections. Section A describes project changes that have occurred and Section B outlines specific revisions to the DSGEIS.

A. Project Changes The following project changes have occurred since the publication of the DSGEIS.

*Clarification: The access drive which services this site, the co-gen facility, and GMCH is a private access drive; a portion of which is owned by the Lockport IDA and the remainder owned by GMCH. The portion owned by the IDA has an access easement to GMCH for their use. There is no commitment or condition that this access drive must be dedicated to the Town of Lockport.

1. Shovel-Ready Designation: New York State Shovel Ready Designation will not be pursued for this site at the present time. This decision does not change the potential environmental impacts of this project.

2. Developable Area/ Wetlands: While there are no mapped New York State wetlands on the site, it is possible that the federal wetlands on the site may also be designated as New York State wetlands (per the NYSDEC letter). Under New York State regulations, wetlands must include a 100-foot adjacent area, and there are different rules and regulations for the potential disturbance of these areas.

Designation as a State wetland does not change, in general, the Proposed/Preferred Development option (see revised map), but it reduces the amount of land that may be developable to a prospective developer due to the need to accommodate the 100-foot adjacent areas. At this time we are assuming the wetlands are New York State regulated wetlands (NYSDEC walk-over to occur later in 2017) and that future development must take into consideration the adjacent areas to minimize environmental impacts.

3. Cultural Resources: As noted in the DSGEIS, a cultural resources study was conducted by Panamerican as part of the Shovel Ready permitting process. The report has been completed and is included in Appendix E of this FSGEIS. The study recommended the completion of a Phase 1B study of the project site. Historical maps indicated the presence of former homesteads, suggesting that an area along Lockport Junction Road was sensitive for historic cultural resources. Undisturbed land within the project area was determined to be archaeologically sensitive for prehistoric resources due to the close proximity of Lockport escarpment and previously identified prehistoric resources located within the vicinity.

The purpose of the Phase 1B cultural resources survey would be to determine the presence or absence of buried historic and/or prehistoric cultural resources and whether or not these potential resources are eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Panamerican noted that the areas of “Made Land” (fill) had low archeological sensitivity, and only limited subsurface testing would be necessary in those areas. The Lockport IDA is no longer pursuing Shovel Ready designation and therefore will not be undertaking the Phase 1B survey at this time. Future development will be required to avoid disturbance in potentially sensitive areas, or complete Phase 1B surveys. Development would not be allowed to take place until these required additional studies are completed and the issues resolved with New York State (including any mitigations required – removal of “finds”).

Part 3 – Changes, Revisions to the DSGEIS: Page 1

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

4. Natural Gas Metering Station: A small parcel with a natural gas meter station located on it, is located in-between the subject project site and the east side Lockport Junction Road. This parcel is separate and is not part of this project.

B. Corrections to the DSGEIS

Corrections to the DSGEIS are described here. Where relevant, replacement pages are included in Appendix D.

1. Cover Page: The cover page is revised to include the dates for acceptance of the DSGEIS, public hearing date, and deadline for submission of comments. Cover page is amended to correct the address of the proposed action, which is “Lockport Junction Road” (not “Lockport Road”).

2. Reference to GM: All references to “GM,” “General Motors,” “General Motors Corporation,” etc. have been removed and replaced and/or amended to denote “GMCH” or “General Motors Component Holdings.”

3. Executive Summary: The Executive Summary is corrected as follows:

. Page 1: o Revise site acreage to 89.9 acres (first paragraph: two references)

. Page 3: o In the paragraph on Ecological Resources, delete the sentence reading: “A copy of the Threatened and Endangered Species Study is included in Appendix C.”

o In the paragraph on Stormwater Management, delete the sentence reading: “A stormwater engineering documentation is included in Appendix H.”

. Page 5: o Amend the sentence in the paragraph on Visual Resources to read as follows: “The FSGEIS will include any additional design standards to help mitigate visual impacts, including height, building design, buffer, and site lighting restrictions.”

o In the paragraph on Noise and Odors, delete the reference to the SGEIS, so that the sentence reads: “Allowed uses are not likely to produce odors and the Town regulates noise (restricted in current zoning and through this SGEIS).”

. Page 6: o Replace “Niagara County Wastewater Treatment Plant” with “City of Lockport Wastewater Treatment Plant.”

4. Section 1: Introduction and Project Background

. Project Site Description: (page 1) o Revise site acreage to 89.9 acres

o Amend the sentence in the paragraph in 1.2 Project Site Description to read as follows: “The eastern border is irregular and bordered by lands owned by LEA and GMCH. An

Part 3 – Changes, Revisions to DSGEIS: Page 2

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

access drive to the Lockport Co-Generation facility and the GMCH manufacturing facility splits the property.”

o Amend the sentence in the paragraph in 1.2 Project Site Description to read as follows: “The Project Site, which was formerly owned by General Motors Corporation, and more recently by GMCH, has been vacant for many years, and there are no structures on the proposed development site.”

o Amend the sentence in paragraph in 1.4 Project Purpose to read as follows: “This project will provide an attractive location near the existing industrial park.”

5. Section 3: Environmental Setting is revised as follows:

. Section 3.3.1: Vegetation (page 5) o Delete the paragraph reading: “Based on the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper, there are no threatened, endangered or species of special concern known to exist on the project site, and the site does not contain specialized habitats. However, a Threatened and Endangered Species study along with a follow-up field visit will be completed by Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Service, D.P.C. to confirm that there are no endangered species at the site. This report will be included in the Final SGEIS”.

. Section 3.3.2: Wetlands (page 5) o Clarification: the Wetland Delineation showed six wetlands totaling approximately 29.0 acres on or near the project site. There are approximately 18 acres of wetlands that fall within the study area boundary.

o Clarification: the Wetland Delineation Study was conducted to determine the existence and extent of federal wetlands on the project site. State wetlands were not delineated and may be present on the site.

. Section 3.3.3: Wildlife (page 6) o Delete the sentence reading: “The Town has hired a contractor to conduct a Threatened and Endangered Species Study to confirm this information.”

o Replace with sentence reading: “A desktop analysis for threatened and endangered species was conducted and no threatened or endangered species or species of special concern were identified.”

. Section 3.5.2 Existing and Surrounding Land Use (page 8) o Revise site acreage to 89.9 acres

o Remove reference to former Harrison Radiator and insert reference to GMCH manufacturing facility.

o Amend the sentence in paragraph 3.5.2 Existing and Surrounding Land Use to read as follows: “The existing IDA Industrial Park is located to the north of the Site.”

. Section 3.8.1 Historic Resources (page 14) o Add the following sentence at the end of this sub-section: “A cultural resources study is being completed and will be included in its entirety in the FSGEIS.”

Part 3 – Changes, Revisions to DSGEIS: Page 3

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

. Section 3.9 Visual Resources (page 15) o References to the active CSX rail service system have been inserted, reference to “abandoned railroad” has been removed.

o Added the following sentence: “A small parcel with a natural gas meter station located on it is located in-between the subject project site and the east side Lockport Junction Road. This parcel is separate and is not part of this project.”

. Section 3.11.1 Existing Transportation System (page 20) o Removed the following sentence: “The need for rail access to this site is not anticipated.”

o Amend the sentence in paragraph 3.11.1 Existing Transportation System to read as follows: “IDA Park Drive begins at the intersection with Upper Mountain Road and ends at the private access drive to the GMCH manufacturing complex.”

6. Section 4: Potential Environmental Impacts is revised as follows:

. Section 4.3.1 Vegetation and Wildlife (page 3) o Revise the following sentence as follows: “As part of the requirements of the Shovel Ready designation, further documentation of potential impacts to wildlife on the site will may be provided through a Threatened and Endangered Species Study. Results of that study will may be included in the Final SGEIS.”

. Section 4.3.2 Wetlands (page 3) o Change the acres of wetlands from 29 acres to 18.01 acres to account for wetlands within the property boundaries only.

. Section 4.8 Historic and Cultural Resources (page 6) o Amend the last sentence in the paragraph to read: “It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts to any historic resources or prehistoric and historic archaeological resources.”

. Section 4.9 Visual Resources (page 6) o Amend the sentence in paragraph 4.9 Visual Resources to read as follows: “Another aspect of visual resources is site lighting. At present, GMCH has a series of light poles located along the access drive within the project site that it may use through a lighting easement.”

. Section 4.11 Transportation and Traffic Impacts (page 11) o Delete the sentence that reads: “Possibly add NB Right and SB Left Turn lanes on Lockport Junction Road at the Site Access Drive intersection to address safety concerns.”

o Replace with the following sentence: “Based on post-operation traffic volume analysis, assess the need for a southbound Left Turn and on Lockport Junction Road to remove turns from southbound through movements.”

Part 3 – Changes, Revisions to DSGEIS: Page 4

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

o Add the following sentence: “The addition of traffic from the development of this site to the access drive will also not significantly impact the current operations of GMCH per the traffic study.”

. Section 4.13.2 Unavoidable Long-Term Impacts (page 12) o Revise acreage of wetlands to approximately 18 acres to reflect wetlands located within the project boundaries.

7. Section 5: Mitigation Measures is corrected as follows:

. Section 5.2 Wetlands and Ecological Resources (page 1) o Add the following sentence: “If the wetlands are designated as State-regulated wetlands, restrictions on development within the 100-foot adjacent area would be controlled by NYS DEC regulations.”

o Add the following sentence: “All future development will need to consider these wetlands in their designs (mapping and survey extent on their site plans). Any proposed development that occurs after the delineations ‘have expired’ will require new delineations.”

. Section 5.3: Stormwater Management (page 1) o Revise language of first sentence to read: “Stormwater runoff that is generated by future site development activities will be managed by detention or retention facilities and required green infrastructure components.”

o Add the following sentence: “All individual future designs will be reviewed by the Town to ensure meeting of all state and local requirements.”

. Section 5.4 Land Use (page 1) o Replace the first sentence with the following sentence: “The purpose of the proposed Action is for industrial purposes.”

o Revise acreage to 89.9 acres.

o Amend last sentence to read: “The design and layout of the site reduces impacts to any surrounding uses, eliminates or minimizes, any impacts to wetlands, creates a safe traffic pattern, and allows development of the site with minimal new infrastructure (fixing the existing roadway and extending utilities down this road if needed). If state wetlands are found, the developable area of the site south of the roadway could be reduced and less lots/sites could be developed.”

. Section 5.7 Transportation (page 3) o Delete mitigation for mitigation for Lockport Junction Road and Site Access Driveway Intersection.

o Replace mitigation for that intersection with the following: “Based on post-operation traffic volume analysis, assess the need for a southbound Left Turn and on Lockport Junction Road to remove turns from southbound through movements.”

. Section 5.8 Cultural Resources (page 3)

Part 3 – Changes, Revisions to DSGEIS: Page 5

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

o Delete paragraph and replace with the following: “As discussed in Section 4, Phase 1A: Literature Search and Sensitivity Study is being conducted on the project site. In the event that resources are identified, appropriate mitigations will be discussed in the FSGEIS.”

o Add the following sentences: “Since the Phase 1A identified potential resources, a large portion of the site will require Phase 1B: Field Investigation. This investigation will be a requirement for any future site developers. If required, the Phase 1B investigation may result in further archaeological excavation at the site; a responsibility of the developer.”

Section 5.11 Public Utilities and Infrastructure o Add the following sentence: “The Town is working to resolve Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) issues in the area, and as a requirement of development, the developer may need to remediate I/I from the system.”

8. Section 6: Alternative Analysis is corrected as follows:

Section 6.1 Alternative 3: Proposed Preferred Development Pattern (page 2) o Amend the second paragraph to read: “This alternative utilizes, to the maximum extent practicable, the existing infrastructure in the area and can have the access drive remaining a private access drive or having the section owned by the Lockport IDA dedicated to the Town. The Plan is flexible and allows the lands located to the north and south of this road to be developed into a number of lots or as single lots.”

Section 6.2 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative (page 2) o Remove the following sentence: “The site is arguably an eye-sore at this time and will continue to be an unmaintained field.”

Section 6.4 Alternative 3: Proposed/Preferred Alternative (page 4) o Amend the paragraph that discusses the sub-alternative by adding the following sentence to the end: “This sub-alternative could also allow a user to connect to the private access drive for access to the Lockport Junction Road. The same traffic mitigations and thresholds would still be applicable.”

9. Section 7: Thresholds for Future Environmental Review is corrected as follows:

Section 7.3 Thresholds for Development of Project Site: Zoning Thresholds o Revised the opening bullet to read as follows: “Maximum buildable site area established by the Preferred Alternative: 61-acres for no state wetlands, approximately 33.23-acres, if wetlands are classified as state wetlands.”

o Amend the “Bulk requirements” zoning District chart to reflect the setbacks needed to the existing residential lots (setbacks from residential or non-Industrial zoning). Please see Appendix D: Revisions.

10. Section 8: Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources is corrected as follows:

Revise site acreage to 89.9 acres.

Part 3 – Changes, Revisions to DSGEIS: Page 6

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

11. Section 9: Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources is corrected as follows (following the section):

Delete the six pages labeled “Transportation” that follow Section 9. The content of this section is included in the various sections of the document and was not intended to be a separate section (it was a printing error).

12. Maps Map 5: A new map 5, Environmental Features, has been created to depict the 100-foot ‘adjacent area” for wetlands that may be State wetlands. The old map 5 remains in the DSGEIS.

Figure 1: Lockport Industrial Park is being removed (contains errors).

Figure 2: A new Preferred Development Plan figure has been created to depict the 100- foot ‘adjacent area’ for wetlands that may be State wetlands. The old figure remains in the DSGEIS.

Part 3 – Changes, Revisions to DSGEIS: Page 7

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

. Section 5.11 Public Utilities and Infrastructure o Add the following sentence: “The Town is working to resolve Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) issues in the area, and as a requirement of development, the developer may need to remediate I/I from the system.”

8. Section 6: Alternative Analysis is corrected as follows:

. Section 6.1 Alternative 3: Proposed Preferred Development Pattern (page 2) o Amend the second paragraph to read: “This alternative utilizes, to the maximum extent practicable, the existing infrastructure in the area and can have the access drive remaining a private access drive or having the section owned by the Lockport IDA dedicated to the Town. The Plan is flexible and allows the lands located to the north and south of this road to be developed into a number of lots or as single lots.”

. Section 6.2 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative (page 2) o Remove the following sentence: “The site is arguably an eye-sore at this time and will continue to be an unmaintained field.”

. Section 6.4 Alternative 3: Proposed/Preferred Alternative (page 4) o Amend the paragraph that discusses the sub-alternative by adding the following sentence to the end: “This sub-alternative could also allow a user to connect to the private access drive for access to the Lockport Junction Road. The same traffic mitigations and thresholds would still be applicable.”

9. Section 7: Thresholds for Future Environmental Review is corrected as follows:

. Section 7.3 Thresholds for Development of Project Site: Zoning Thresholds o Revised the opening bullet to read as follows: “Maximum buildable site area established by the Preferred Alternative: 61-acres for no state wetlands, approximately 33.23-acres, if wetlands are classified as state wetlands.”

o Amend the “Bulk requirements” zoning District chart to reflect the setbacks needed to the existing residential lots (setbacks from residential or non-Industrial zoning).

10. Section 8: Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources is corrected as follows:

. Revise site acreage to 89.9 acres.

11. Section 9: Effects on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources is corrected as follows (following the section):

Part 3 – Changes, Revisions to DSGEIS: Page 6

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

4. COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES

This chapter contains the responses to the comments received on the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement. The DSGEIS was released for public review and comment on December 8, 2017. A comment letter was received from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). These comment letters are included in Appendix B of this FSGEIS. General Motors Components Holdings, LLC (GMCH) also provided comments and they too are included in Appendix B of this FSGEIS.

A public hearing to receive comments was held on February 9, 2017 at 08:00 at the Lockport Town Hall, Lockport, New York. The minutes from this meeting have been included in this FSGEIS in Appendix C. Public comments were accepted to March 3, 2017. No written comments were received by the Town Board from the general public.

As there were not a large number of comments that were received from Involved or Interested Agencies on the project, each comment will be addressed individually.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) The comment letter from the NYSDEC is included in Appendix B of this FSGEIS.

Comment: Rare/Threatened/Endangered (RTE) Species

“The DSGEIS indicates that a Threatened and Endangered Species Study will be conducted. There are several Natural Heritage Program RTE grassland birds within 5 miles of the site and our biologists are aware of other nearby RTE grassland bird occurrences that are not in the Heritage database. Moreover the project site appears to support good (if not excellent) grassland bird habitat and the surrounding area is dominated by open habitats, some of which also appear to be grassland habitat. Therefore, several species of RTE grassland birds may occur within the site, as detailed below. Please coordinate completion of that study with NYSDEC Biologists Connie Adams and Charles Rosenburg. They can both be contact at 716/851-7010.”

Response: A Threatened and Endangered Species Study was not conducted. The Lead Agency is not pursuing New York State Shovel Ready Designation and will not be conducting this study at this time. It will become a condition of future development of the site and potential mitigations will be proposed.

Comment: Winter Grassland Raptors

“The potential for short-eared owl and northern harrier occurrence needs to be addressed immediately. Enclosed is a winter raptor survey protocol and we ask you to have a survey plan prepared as soon as possible (please coordinate with the biologists listed above. You will see that the protocol is still labeled draft – please note that it is a working version that has been released to many applicants for similar projects across the state.”

Response: At this time, the Lead Agency is not pursuing New York State Shovel Ready Designation, and therefore will not be completing this study. This study will be incorporated as a condition of future development at the site, including any appropriate mitigations.

-Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 1

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

Comment: Summer Breeding Grassland Raptors

“Based on a solid knowledge of RTE grassland bird occurrence in Niagara County, our biologists believe there is potential for breeding season occurrences of the following species in the project area: northern harrier (T), upland sandpiper (T), sedge wren (T), Henslow’s sparrow (T), vesper sparrow (SC), grasshopper sparrow (SC), and horned lark (SC). Therefore, the proposed Threatened and Endangered Species Study should address potential occurrences of those species. Connie Adams should be coordinated with directly regarding breeding bird surveys and other aspects of the breeding RTE bird concern.

Additionally, including surveys in this area for peregrine falcons is important. There is a known nesting pair of peregrine falcons in the City of Lockport, at or near the building called The Spires (address: 45 Ontario Street, Lockport 14094) owned by the City of Lockport Housing authority. Their territory and forays for food could conceivably encompass this site. Their hunting territory greatly expands in the winter, and peregrines in western New York remain in residence, and do not migrate south in the winter.”

Response: At this time, the Lead Agency is not pursuing New York State Shovel Ready Designation (see previous comments related to conditions on future development).

Comment: Possible Unmapped Wetlands

“After review of the Wetland Delineation Report there is the potential for state wetlands jurisdiction within the site, Charles Rosenburg will need to complete a field inspection during the 2017 growing season before making a determination whether one or more wetlands within the project area exceed the 12.4-acre threshold (or potentially meet other state wetland triggers). Also enclosed is the Region 9 wetland delineation request form. Once the form is received, Mr. Rosenburg will coordinate a schedule with LaBella Associates for the field inspection.”

Response: This field investigation and determination will be a condition/mitigation in the SEQR Findings document. For the purposes of this GEIS and its Findings, the wetlands on the site (see new figure, Amended Map 5 (FSGEIS): Environmental Features) will be assumed to be NYS wetlands and include a 100 foot adjacent area, until determined otherwise.

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) The comment letter from the NYSDOT is included in Appendix B of this FSGEIS.

Comment: Lockport Junction Road, Saunders Settlement Road, and Campbell Boulevard

“The recommended mitigation in the TIS at this intersection is to ‘Reconfigure the southbound approach on Lockport Junction Road from a shared left/through land and right turn lane to a 200 foot southbound left turn bay and a shared through/right lane.’ A simple reconfiguring of the lanes by changing pavement markings will not be possible, if that is the intent. This recommendation would require intersection widening and/or reconstruction to meet standards for taper lengths, lane shifts and to construct a lane on the Campbell Boulevard leg to accept the southbound through movement. Also, modifications to the existing traffic signal or the intersection requires

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 2

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

further analysis whether there is sufficient Right-of-Way available to perform the necessary widening.”

Response: The Findings Statement will include the following at the end of the Traffic and Transportation Mitigation section: All mitigation measures listed above shall require further analysis to determine if there is sufficient Right-of-Way at each site to implement the recommended intersection improvements.

Comment: Lockport Junction Road & Upper Mountain Road

“The TIS recommends the installation of a traffic signal as mitigation for Full Build Conditions and it would be based on a subsequent post-operation signal warrant analysis. Incidentally, NYSDOT recently performed a Signal Warrant Study and determined that a traffic signal is not warranted at this time. We concur with the recommendation to perform a subsequent warrant study, however, multiple ones may be necessary to determine at what point the warrants are actually met. We request that the Findings Statement includes thresholds to perform the traffic warrant studies and recommend that they are performed at the end of Phase 1 development and at every 200,000sf of development until full build or until the warrants are met based on actual counts.”

Response: We recommend that additional warrant studies are performed when additional certain number of trips are added in lieu of every additional 200,000sf of development. The additional development can have multiple uses which may result in a fixed square footage threshold to be inconsistent with traffic impacts (i.e. warehouse use versus call center use).

The Findings Statement will include the following in the Transportation Thresholds section:

Additional development of the site which generates additional 150 morning peak hour and/or 150 evening peak hour trips shall require an updated Traffic Impact Study and additional traffic warrant studies. The Applicant/Lockport IDA or its Developer(s) shall be responsible for the analysis.

Comment: Lockport Junction Road & Site Access Driveway

“In the TIS, this intersection was analyzed without a northbound right turn lane, but one already exists. Also the TIS recommends a northbound right turn lane as possible mitigation. The TIS should be revised to include the existing northbound right turn lane in the analysis and eliminate the construction of one as mitigation.

The TIS states to possible add a southbound left turn lane. This recommendation will require further analysis to verify if there is sufficient Right-of-Way available to widen the highway, which would be necessary to add a southbound left turn lane.

Similar to above, we concur with the recommendation to perform a subsequent warrant study, however multiple ones may be necessary to determine at what point the signal is warranted based on actual counts. We request that the Findings

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 3

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

Statement includes thresholds to perform the traffic warrant studies and recommend that they are performed at the end of Phase 1 development and at every additional 200,000sf of development until full build or until the warrants are met based on actual counts.”

Response: Corrections have been made and are shown in the Revisions section of this document. This revision does not impact the result of the traffic study and the Final Traffic Impact study will address the elimination of this lane in the mitigation. The mitigation is revised as follows: Possibly add a southbound Left Turn lane on Lockport Junction Road to remove turns from southbound through movements based on post-operation traffic volume analysis.

The Findings Statement will include the following at the end of the Traffic and Transportation Mitigations section: All mitigations listed above shall require further analysis to determine if there is sufficient Right-of-Way at each site to implement the recommended intersection improvements.

We recommend that additional warrant studies are performed when additional certain number of trips are added in lieu of every additional 200,000sf of development. The additional development can have multiple uses which may result in a fixed square footage threshold to be inconsistent with traffic impacts (i.e. warehouse use versus call center use). The Findings Statement will include the following in the Transportation Thresholds section:

Comment: “We request that the Findings Statement stipulates that the mitigation for full build conditions, with exception of the proposed new signals, should be implemented prior to Phase 2 development. Also, the Findings Statement shall clearly identify that the Applicant/Lockport IDA or its Developer(s) will be responsible for any subsequent traffic or signal warrant studies and of the design and construction of any mitigation necessary for the proposed development including the construction of turn lanes and the installation or modifications of traffic signals at the above 3 intersections, even if the site access road becomes a public road.”

Response: The Findings Statement will include the following at the end of the Traffic and Transportation Mitigations and Transportation Threshold sections: Mitigations Section:

The Applicant/Lockport IDA or its Developer(s) shall be responsible for the design and construction of any of the above mitigations for the proposed development at the three intersections listed above, unless otherwise determined.

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 4

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

Transportation Thresholds Section:

The Applicant/Lockport IDA or its Developer(s) shall be responsible for the analysis, unless otherwise determined.

Comment: “A NYSDOT Highway Work Permit will be required for any work located within the State Highway Right-of-Way. More detailed plans will be required for the Highway Work Permit application. Additional site engineering review will be performed as part of the Highway Work Permit process. This correspondence does not constitute approval for the purpose of a Highway Work Permit.”

Response: The Findings Statement will include the following at the end of the Traffic and Transportation Mitigations section: A New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Work Permit will be required to implement the mitigations listed above for any work located within State Highway Right-of-Way. More detailed plans of the improvements will be required for the Highway Work Permit application. Additional site engineering review by NYSDOT will be performed as part of the Highway Work Permit process.

General Motors Holdings Corporation (GMCH) The Comment Letter and Addendum received from GMCH are included in Appendix B of this FSGEIS.

1. Letter submitted at public hearing on February 9, 2017

Comment: “As to the version of the draft SGEIS presented for public review, is it the version found by clicking the link in the January 25, 2017 edition of the Environmental Notice Bulletin? Is there a paper copy of the draft SGEIS that we can obtain from the consultant that prepared the SGEIS?”

Response: The draft SGEIS utilized for public review and available through a link in the ENB are the same documents. A hard copy of the DSGEIS was provided to GMCH for their review.

Comment: “Looking at the draft SGEIS that we have from the Environmental Notice Bulletin link, we noticed references to reports that are not included with the draft SGEIS. How can we obtain copies of these reports to review?”

Response: All reports that were relevant to the DSGEIS were included in the hard copies and in the document on the website. Some references in the DSGEIS for copies of reports in the Appendix were in error and are being corrected in this document.

Comment: “Nancy Brooks, formerly the Town Clerk, is listed as the contact person in the ENB notice. However, we understand Ms. Brooks has since retired. Who is the new contact person that should receive our comment letter?”

Response: Nancy Brooks was the Town Clerk at the time of publication of the DSGEIS and the Notices. All inquiries, requests and letters have been forwarded to Marc Smith of the Lockport Industrial Development Agency, since her retirement.

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 5

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

Comment: “To provide us with adequate time to complete our review of the draft SGEIS, we would like an additional two weeks to submit our comments, that is, until Friday, March 17.”

Response: We are not changing the due date for comments and we have provided GMCH with a hard copy. We thank GMCH for getting us their comments in the appropriate time period (see below).

2. GMCH letter submitted to Mr. Marc R. Smith on February 20, 2017

Executive Summary: “GMCH operates a manufacturing facility that is located to the east of the Site (see the aerial view of the project site attached as Exhibit A). The IDA prepared the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (‘GEIS’) in 1984 to create the existing Industrial Park, which would support the manufacturing operation then owned and operated by General Motors Corporation. The GMCH manufacturing facility has 1,400 employees and is currently the 9th largest employer in the Buffalo/Niagara region…

According to its draft SGEIS, the IDA now proposes to expand the existing Industrial Park to include the Site and qualify the property for ‘Shovel Ready’ Designation under the Build-Now Shovel Program Initiative (the ‘IDA Proposal’). As part of the qualification process, the IDA is required to conduct an environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (‘SEQRA’). This means that the IDA must identify the relevant areas of environmental concern related to future development of the Site, take a ‘hard look’ at them before making its final decision, and provide a reasoned elaboration for the basis of its determination…”

The Executive Summary then also summarizes the overall comments in the letter; Transportation, Wastewater Management, Stormwater Management and Procedural deficiencies.

SEE ATTACHMENT FOR COMPLETE COMMENTS

Response: General Motors Holdings Corporation (GMCH) provided a history of the area and the project site and their contribution and ongoing commitment to the local and regional economy is both noted and very much appreciated.

Working in conjunction with the Town of Lockport, the Lockport IDA has acted to expand the existing industrial park by utilizing a takings order to acquire the project site from GMCH, a site that has sat vacant and underutilized for approximately 40- years (to include: tax parcels 108.00-1-36 and 108-1-35.12). As part of the process of developing the DSGEIS and this FSGEIS, the Lockport IDA has identified areas of the project site’s environment that will be impacted. This happened by the IDA fully engaging in the DSGEIS process and, thus, properly taking a “hard look” at the project’s potential impacts.

It must be clearly understood that this is a FSGEIS that builds upon the work done in the original GEIS, as described in 6NYCRR Part 617.10:

“Generic EISs may be broader, and more general than site or project specific EISs and should discuss the logic and rationale for the choices advanced. They

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 6

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

may also include an assessment of specific impacts if such details are available. They may be based on conceptual information in some cases. They may identify the important elements of the natural resource base as well as the existing and projected cultural features, patterns, and character. They may discuss in general terms the constraints and consequence of any narrowing of future options. They may present and analyze in general terms a few hypothetical scenarios that could and are likely to occur.”

One outcome of this process has been the IDA’s decision not to pursue Shovel Ready Designation at this point in time. This decision was made for several reasons. One, the SGEIS process has achieved the goal of identifying any limitations to the development of this site. It then minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions those mitigative measures that are practicable. Second the costs associated with carrying out a wetlands delineation, completing a Phase 1B archaeological survey, and conducting a threatened and endangered species study were deemed too cost prohibitive for the IDA to undertake at this point in the planning process, although, this could change at some time in the future should the IDA decide to do so. As will be explained, this decision will not be any less protective of the environment. The following will address the specific comments referenced in the Executive Summary in the letter and further clarified in the body of the letter:

Comment #1: “The draft SGEIS assessment of transportation impacts is deficient because its traffic impact study fails to fully account for the use of the Access Road and other area roadways by the existing GMCH manufacturing facility.”

Response: A Traffic Impact Analysis (to supplement the traffic study in the original GEIS) was prepared to assess existing and future traffic operations on the street network in the vicinity of the project site, to evaluate potential traffic impacts resulting from the full build out of the project site, and to identify appropriate mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts to the transportation system (the Traffic Impact Analysis is included in Appendix C of the DSGEIS). Here are the primary roadways in the vicinity of the site:

 Lockport Junction Road is a north-south oriented, two-lane State road classified as an urban minor arterial.

 Saunders Settlement Road (SR 31) is located approximately one mile to the south of the site and intersects with Lockport Junction Road at a signalized intersection. Saunders Settlement Road is an east-west oriented, divided four- lane State road classified as an urban principal arterial other.

 Upper Mountain Road is located to the north of the site and intersects with Lockport Junction Road at an unsignalized intersection. Upper Mountain Road is an east-west, two to four-lane road classified as an urban minor arterial.

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 7

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

 Enterprise Drive is located approximately 1600 feet to the north of the project site and intersects Lockport Junction Road at an unsignalized “T” intersection. Enterprise Drive is an east-west oriented two-lane road classified as urban local.

 IDA Park Drive is located approximately 1200 feet to the north of the project site. IDA Park Drive is a north-south oriented two-lane road classified as urban local. IDA Park Drive intersects with Upper Mountain Road and Enterprise Drive at unsignalized intersections.

 Sunset Drive is located approximately 3700 feet to the east of the Upper Mountain Road and IDA Park Drive intersection and intersects with Upper Mountain Road at a signalized intersection. Sunset Drive is a north-south oriented, two-lane State road classified as an urban minor arterial.

The existing access drive from Lockport Junction Road does indeed serve the GMCH facility and was accounted for in the study, as traffic counts were taken, but it is not a primary road, and as the transportation logs supplied by the GMCH indicate the amount of truck traffic on the road is inconsequential with respect to the trip distribution projected for the project site at full build out. Moreover, GMCH will still have unfettered use of the access drive, allowing it to utilize the road without any limitations. An Errata will be issued for the Final Traffic Impact study to address the omission of the use of the access drive by the GMCH manufacturing facility. The existing transportation description for the access drive is as follows in the Errata: “Primary roadways in the vicinity of the site include Lockport Junction Road, Saunders Settlement Road, Upper Mountain Road, Enterprise Drive, IDA Park Drive, and Sunset Drive. These roadways are described as follows. In addition, a private access drive runs through the northern portion of the site, to provide access to the co-generation facility east of the property.” The omission of reference to the type of Traffic Impact Study guidance used will be addressed in the Errata. The Executive Summary revision is as follows in the Errata: “This Traffic Impact Study (Study) was conducted as part of the Niagara County Shovel Ready Project in accordance with Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies in support of SEQRA Actions to assess potential impacts of the proposed development on the existing transportation system. Future development associated with the Niagara County Shovel Ready site will increase traffic on the adjacent road network.” The selection of the time of day to perform the manual turning movement counts was developed by referencing 24 hour count data for the project area provided by the Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council (GBNRTC) website. Per GBNRTC, the AM Peak hour is 7:00-8am and the PM Peak Hour is 4:00-5:00pm. The results of the manual counts corresponded with this data. Wendel is confident that the existing traffic patterns were captured effectively to demonstrate existing traffic conditions.

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 8

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

An Errata will be issued for the Final Traffic Impact study to address why these hours were selected for manual counts. The Existing Traffic Operations paragraph revision is as follows in the Errata: Manual turning movement counts used in the development of the Study were taken during both the morning (7:00-9:00am) and evening (4:00-6:00pm) on Tuesday, November 15, 2016. The traffic count periods were selected using 24 hour count data for the project area provided by the Greater Buffalo Niagara Regional Transportation Council (GBNRTC) website. Per GBNRTC, the AM Peak hour is 7:00- 8am and the PM Peak Hour is 4:00-5:00pm. The following intersections were counted and then modeled to evaluate traffic operations: The truck logs provided by GMCH were reviewed and the number of truck trips were extracted for the manual traffic count hours (as described above). From 7:00- 9:00am, 36 total truck trips are generated and from 4:00-6:00pm, 17 total truck trips are generated. These truck trips do not have an adverse effect on the traffic analysis performed as part of the Traffic Impact Study. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided by improving/updating the existing access drive that runs perpendicular to and intersects Lockport Junction Road on the northern portion of the project site. The traffic analysis for the existing conditions provided for this report resulted in the following:

 Saunders Mountain Road and Upper Mountain Road – Level of Service B  Upper Mountain Road and Sunset Drive – Level of Service B The other intersection reference above were not part of the analysis for this development. Comment #2: “The draft SGEIS fails to properly assess the potential adverse impacts associated with wastewater generated by facilities in the proposed expanded Industrial Park because it did not verify that the City WWTP has both the capacity and the desire to accept increased loadings and the resources to address any potential impacts to downstream users.”

Response: The wastewater from the proposed project area will discharge first into the Town of Lockport sewer system, and then into the City of Lockport’s sewer system which will convey the wastewaters to the City of Lockport Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The limiting factor in the capacity of wastewaters to be generated from the project area is the Town of Lockport’s sewer system, which is an eight (8) inch force main. The Town of Lockport’s eight inch force main, according to the Town Engineer, has approximately 0.85 MGD (million gallons per day) of capacity for the existing Industrial Park and this new area.

The Town Engineer has been in contact with City representatives to confirm the capacities committed to the Town of Lockport. The Town of Lockport has also begun flow monitoring in this area to also provide additional data to the City and Town and potential mitigations that could be necessary.

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 9

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

The EAF and Executive Summary incorrectly references the Niagara County wastewater treatment plant. The remainder of the SDGEIS correctly analyzes the wastewater systems.

The omission of the City of Lockport as an Involved Party does not nullify the assessment of environmental impacts contained in the DSGEIS, nor does it represent a procedural deficiency. See later response under Procedural deficiencies.

Comment #3: “The draft SGEIS fails to identify the full extent of potential stormwater impacts by neglecting to consider an existing stormwater management problem and offering no adequate mitigation measures.”

Response: The Town did not request to expand its stormwater network. We only asked to clean what is existing. There are no known stormwater issues on the proposed project area. Applicants would be required to install their own stormwater management in accordance with all Town of Lockport and NYSDEC regulations and will not be allowed to adversely affect any downstream properties.

Comment #4: “The IDA has not followed all the required procedures under SEQRA for preparing and issuing the draft SGEIS.”

Response: We are aware that the SEQRA requires strict procedural compliance, but the missing of an Involved or Interested Agency is not a fatal flaw. On the contrary, sometimes other Involved or Interested Agencies are identified through the EIS process itself. In this case, we are addressing this issue in the FSGEIS. As to all the other studies being completed prior to completing the DSGEIS, we agree that most of the time this is the case. In the specific case of the Threatened or Endangered Species study, there was no evidence that this was needed, but we stated that if one would be needed, it would be addressed in the FSGEIS. The wording of this was wrong in the DSGEIS. The Cultural Resource Study was being completed for the requirements of Shovel Ready Designation even though first indications were that one would not be required under SEQR. It was in process at the time of the publication of the DSGEIS and we referenced that the results would be in the FSGEIS. Knowing that this work would need sign off by the NYSSHPO, we proceeded with the DSGEIS knowing that this issue would need to be worked out with their office prior to completing the process.

Comment: “The draft SGEIS has a number of inaccuracies that are reflected in the attached Addendum to this comment letter and each of them needs to be addressed in finalizing the SGEIS.”

Response: Responses are addressed below to the Addendum comment letter dated February 20, 2017

3. Letter submitted as an Addendum on February 20, 2017

Comment: “On the cover page, the location of the Project Site is given as ‘Lockport Road.’ That should be corrected to read ‘Lockport Junction Road.’”

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 10

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

Response: The address has been corrected on the cover page of the FSGEIS.

Comment: “There is also a map of the Lockport Industrial Park that appears as the first figure at the end of the text of the draft SGEIS. This figure appears to show the Industrial Park within a red border. However, that includes parcels owned by both LEA and GMCH. That figure and border need to be corrected.”

Response: The was an existing map that was not prepared for this GEIS, but was included to provide overall context. It is agreed that the map is not accurate; therefore, it has been removed from the GEIS.

Executive Summary

Comment: “1. Introductory section, second paragraph (page 1):

This section needs to be corrected by making the edits identified below in bold typeface:

The project site is comprised primarily of vacant lands formerly owned by the General Motors Corporation and more recently, by GM Components Holdings, LLC (GMCH). There are no existing structures on the site. The land is primarily level. It does contain areas of wetlands. An access drive to the Lockport Co-Generation Facility and GMCH cuts through the site...”

Response: This correction has been made in the FSGEIS.

Comment: “2. Land and Soils (page 2). This section currently reads in pertinent part:

The subject property is primarily comprised of open fields…. At full build out, approximately 61 acres of land will be committed to building and parking.

There needs to be a basis given for the 61 acre limit on the amount of buildout as there is no explanation in the text. Furthermore, there is no bar to the development of the full 89.8 acres (the ‘Site’) that make up the area taken from GMCH for development.

Response The developable acreage determined for the site was the threshold established to minimize environmental impacts. It cannot be presumed that wetlands will be allowed to be filled through a permitting process. The 61 acre number did include minor filling of wetland areas under Nationwide permits to allow access to greater portions of the site. The Preferred layout and figure illustrate how the acreage was determined.

For the purposes of this FSGEIS we are proceeding under the assumption that the wetlands that have been identified on the site will be classified as State wetlands, which do not have Nationwide type permits, are supposed to be avoided, and will require a 100 foot adjacent area (i.e. a buffer zone) extending out from each of the identified wetlands, thus reducing the developable area of the site to numbers described in this FSGEIS.

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 11

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

Taking into the account the wetlands and their accompanying 100 foot adjacent areas, the amount of easily developable land on the project site will be approximately 33 acres (see new Figure 2).

Comment: “3. Ecological Resources (Vegetation and Wildlife) (pp. 2-3). This section currently reads in pertinent part:

No rare, threatened, or endangered species were identified on the site; the site is not a significant habitat… A copy of Threatened and Endangered Species Study is included in Appendix C; the Wetlands Delineation Study is found in Appendix D).

Emphasis supplied.”

Response: A Threatened and Endangered Species Study was not conducted, it should have stated that a “desk-top” review was done and nothing was noted. As part of the Shovel Ready process it is a requirement to get “sign-off” from NYSDEC. We then received a comment letter from NYSDEC noting the need for further study.

The Lead Agency is now not pursuing New York State Shovel Ready Designation and will not be conducting this study at this time. It will become a condition of future development of the site and mitigations will be proposed.

Comment: “4. Stormwater Management (p. 3). Detailed comments on this portion of the environmental review are set forth in the GMCH Comment Letter.

Comment: “5. Transportation (p. 4). Detailed comments on this portion of the environmental review are set forth in the GMCH Comment Letter.

Response: Please see the response to Comment #1 in Part 4.

Comment: “6. Historic and Cultural Facilities (p. 5). This section states as follows: A cultural resource assessment is being performed for the site. Based on the findings to date, the proposed action is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to historic or cultural resources. A final report will be included in the FSGEIS.

Emphasis supplied.

As the cultural resource assessment has not yet been completed, the issuance of the draft SGEIS is premature, because it does not allow the public an opportunity to review the assessment before the SGEIS goes final. Simply placing a final version of the assessment in the final GEIS does provide for the required public review. (See the detailed discussion in the GMCH Comment Letter).

Response: The Cultural Resource Study was being completed for the requirements of Shovel Ready Designation even though first indications were that one would not be required

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 12

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

under SEQR. It was in process at the time of the publication of the DSGEIS and we referenced that the results would be in the FSGEIS. Knowing that this work would need sign off by the NYSSHPO, we proceeded with the DSGEIS knowing that this issue would need to be worked out with their office prior to completing the process.

Draft SGEIS Sections

Section 1.0 Introduction and Project Background

Comment: “1.2 Project Site Description

This section needs to be corrected by making edits identified below in bold typeface:

The Project Site consists of approximately 91 acres of land located south of the Lockport Industrial Park, it is bounded on the west by Route 93, and on the south by lands owned by Consolidated Rail. The eastern border is irregular and bordered by lands owned by LEA and GMCH. An access road to the Lockport Co-Generation facility and the GMCH manufacturing facility splits the property. The property is currently made up of two tax parcels: Parcel 108.00-1-35.12 and parcel 108.00-1-36. The property is depicted on Map 2 – Site Location Map.

The project site which was formerly owned by General Motors Corporation, and more recently by GMCH, has been vacant for many years, and there are no structures on the proposed development site. The land is nearly level with some areas of woodlands, and an area of wetlands and drainageways in the southern end of the site. It has frontage along both Lockport Junction Road (Route 93) and frontage along the road servicing the Lockport Co-Generational Facility and GMCH properties.

Response: The correction has been made in the FSGEIS.

Comment: “1.4 Project Purpose: Need and Benefit

This section needs to be corrected by making edits identified below in bold typeface (see the border of the Industrial Park that appears as the first Figure following the text of the draft SGEIS):

‘… This project will provide an attractive location near adjacent to an existing the existing industrial park…’”

Response: The correction has been made in the FSGEIS.

Comment: “2.2 Summary of Public and Agency Involvement

Among the listed Interested Agencies is the City of Lockport District. However, one of the tax map parcels located within the Site, tax parcel 108.00-1-36, is located in an adjoining school district, that is, the Starpoint Central School District. That School district should have been notified of this project as well. (Reference to this school district is made in section 3.7.3 of the text.)”

Response: Duly noted. The Starpoint Central School District is an Interested Agency.

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 13

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

Comment: “3.2.2 Surface Water

This section states in pertinent part as follows:

‘…There is unnamed tributary (UT) that starts on the south side of Enterprise Drive, heads south toward the project site and then east past the Co-generation facility where it discharges into the City of Lockport and ultimately into Gulf Creek’

This tributary carries stormwater drainage and the draft SGEIS fails to mention that the discharge into the City of Lockport is into the GMCH manufacturing site and that a rail spur runs north/south over this tributary. If development could impact the amount and rate of stormwater flowing through this tributary, the impact needs to be asses because of the adverse consequences it can have downstream, including on GMCH manufacturing operations. ”

Comment: “3.3.1 Vegetation

The section states in pertinent part as follows:

‘Based on the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper, there are no threatened, endangered or species of special concerned [sic] known to exist on the project site, and the site does not contain specialized habitats. However, a Threatened and Endangered Species Study along with a follow-up field visit will be completed by Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Service, D.PC. to confirm that there are no endangered species at the site. This report will be included in the Final SGEIS.’

See also section 3.3.3. Wildlife where it states:

‘…As noted in Section 3.3.1, information from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation indicated that no threatened, endangered plants or species of special concern are known to inhabit the project area. The Town has hired a contractor to conduct a Threatened and Endangered Species Study to confirm this information.’

Under SEQRA, all reports that are to be included in a final GEIS must be provided to public for prior review. It is not acceptable under SEQRA to do a report outside of this opportunity for public participation (see the detailed discussion in the GMCH Comment Letter).”

Response: In the specific case of the Threatened or Endangered Species study, there was no evidence that this was needed, but we stated that if one would be needed, it would be addressed in the FSGEIS. The wording of this was wrong in the DSGEIS..

Comment: “3.3.2 Wetlands

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 14

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

This section states in pertinent part as follows:

‘The Environmental Assessment Form Mapper identified potential wetlands at the project site. Existing NYS and Federal wetlands mapping indicate no wetlands on this site but based on soils and concerns about wetlands, a Wetland Delineation Study was conducted during the period or May 27 to June 4, 2014 to determine the existence and extent of wetlands on the project site (refer to Appendix D – The Wetland Delineation Report). The results of the investigations showed six wetlands totaling approximately 29.0 acres. (see Map 5 – Environmental Features).’

The reference to 29 acres of wetlands is an error and must be corrected. That acreage includes the wetlands located in the Town of Lockport that is owned by GMCH and that was the subject of discussions between the IDA and GMCH as to a possible transfer. That transfer did not take place and the IDA revised its request to the Army Corps of Engineers for a preliminary wetland jurisdictional determination to cover only the approximately 89.8 acres that were acquired by eminent domain and not the entire 120 acres that was owned by GMCH prior to the IDA taking.

The attached Wetland Delineation Report (Appendix D to the draft SGEIS) includes the approximately 29 acres owned by GMCH within the original 120 acreage (see tax map # 108.00-1-35.11 on tax parcel map attached as Exhibit C). This report should be deleted from the SGEIS in favor of the report prepared by LaBella to support the request for a preliminary jurisdictional determination for only the wetlands within the area taken by the IDA. The wetland acreage was 18.01 acres (see Exhibit L).

The section references the fact that six wetland areas were delineated, and as noted, not all are within the project Site. This section needs to be revised to delete those wetland areas that lie outside the Site.”

Response: This has been revised and updated; see Section 4, Page 2 and Amended Map 5 (FSGEIS): Environmental Features.

Comment: “3.5.2 Existing and Surrounding Land Use

The reference to the ‘former Harrison Radiator’ should be deleted, because it is an outdated reference. To avoid confusion and ensure consistency in the discussion in the text, the phrase ‘GMCH manufacturing facility’ should be inserted as that is the current manufacturing facility that is in operation.

The text also provides in pertinent part – ‘The existing IDA Industrial Park adjoins the property to the north.’ However, NYSDOT and GMCH property actually adjoin the Site to the north. The IDA Industrial Park is further to the north. The reference should be revised accordingly.”

Response: This correction has been made in the FSGEIS.

Comment: “3.8.2 Archaeological Resources

This section states in pertinent part as follows:

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 15

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

‘According to the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) database, there are no archaeological sites on or near the project site. However, as part of the requirements for Shovel Ready designation, the Town has hired a contractor to conduct a Cultural Resources Survey to determine whether there are any historic or pre-historic artifacts on the site. The final results of this survey will be included in the Final SGEIS.’

As previously noted, under SEQRA, all reports that are to be included in a final GEIS must be provided to public for prior review. It is not acceptable under SEQRA to do a report outside of this opportunity for public participation (see the detailed discussion in the GMCH Comment Letter.”

Response: The Cultural Resource Study was being completed for the requirements of Shovel Ready Designation even though first indications were that one would not be required under SEQR. It was in process at the time of the publication of the DSGEIS and we referenced that the results would be in the FSGEIS. Knowing that this work would need sign off by the NYSSHPO, we proceeded with the DSGEIS knowing that this issue would need to be worked out with their office prior to completing the process.

Comment: “3.9 Visual Resources

Section 3.9 has this reference in the first paragraph: ‘There is a small area onsite for electrical buildings with no other structures anywhere on the site.’ These ‘electrical buildings,’ which are also shown in photo 1A, are on the natural gas ‘meter station parcel’ (Parcel A) that was deeded to LEA. The map of the Industrial Park includes this parcel within the boundaries of the proposed expanded Industrial Park (see map of the Lockport Industrial Park that appears as the first figure at the end of the draft SGEIS or page 78 of the pdf version). However, there is no indication that the IDA sought LEA’s agreement to include this parcel as part of the Industrial Park. This needs to be clarified.

The text also states in pertinent part at page 21:

‘Finally, as with the abandoned railroad on the southern border of the site, most views of future site development on the project site from the north will be limited or not available due to the extent of existing hedgerows and wooded land….’

Emphasis supplied.

There is no abandoned railroad on the southern border of the site. That line is an active part of the CSX rail service system. Customers include GMCH, Poly-One and the Heorot Power Somerset coal-fired electrical generating facility on Lake Ontario.

The draft SGEIS refers to the existing railroad again in § 3.11.1 under Existing Transportation System as follows:

‘Railroad

There is a railroad line (Siding) that borders the southern edge of the project site. The need for rail access to this site is not anticipated.’

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 16

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

Emphasis supplied.

To properly assess transportation impacts, there needs to be an explanation of why rail access to the site is not anticipated, particularly given the fact that the targeted use for the expanded Industrial Park is industrial (see § 5.4 of the draft SGEIS). There is no indication that CSX, which operates the railroad line was contracted in connection with this conclusory assessment.

Note also that the Niagara County Center of Economic Development is already promoting the expanded area as being within the Lockport Industrial Park. See the following link – http://www.niagaracountybusiness.com/lockport.asp. The Center refers to the availability of rail services under the heading ‘Access Details.’”

Response: This correction has been made in the FSGEIS.

Comment: “3.10.2 Wastewater Disposal

Detailed comments on this portion of the environmental review are set forth in the GMCH Comment Letter.”

The EAF and Executive Summary incorrectly references the Niagara County wastewater treatment plant. The remainder of the SDGEIS correctly analyzes the wastewater systems.

Comment: “3.10.3 Other Utility Services

This section states in pertinent part as follows:

‘Electric – Electric service in the project area is supplied by New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG), a division of Iberdola USA…. Heavy power users may also take advantage of the 115kV service to the Lockport General Motors manufacturing facility; the bus ring on this sire [sic] has a capacity of providing additional kV feeds for nearby users.’

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 17

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

What is the basis of the statement that access is available to the 115 kV service? NYSEG is not identified as either an Involved or Interested Agency in the draft SGEIS proceeding and there is no indication in the text that NYSEG was consulted in making this statement.

Furthermore, under an agreement between GMCH and NYSEG, NYSEG cannot add anyone to the system without GMCH concurrence. See the following provision from the Supplemental Substation Use Agreement between GMCH and NYSEG:

‘NYSEG agrees to notify GM in writing before NYSEG serves any additional New Customer(s) using the New Customer Facilities, which notice shall specify the expected additional load of the additional New Customers(s) so that GM may evaluate power quality effects on its production. NYSEG may provide electric service to such additional New Customer(s) using the New Customer Facilities; provided that, (i) NYSEG’s provision of electric service to such additional New customer(s) shall not materially and adversely affect GM’s operations, (ii) GM is allowed to review the potential impact the provision of electric service to such additional New Customer(s) may have on its operation before the electric service is provided to such additional New Customer(s), and (iii) NYSEG provides information to GM as is reasonably necessary to ascertain the potential impact the provision of electric service to such additional New Customer(s) may have on its operations.’”

Response: NYSEG is the public utility servicing this area and site. The existing Industrial site and this proposed site are and will be serviced by NYSEG. Public Utilities do not provide letters guaranteeing service to future customers. When users are proposed for a site, the utility reviews the specific needs and energy profiles of that user and makes a decision on their ability to service that customer and any improvements that may be necessary. In general, this area and site have electric service available. Thank you for supplying the above information about your “agreement” with this public utility and we assume that NYSEG will honor this agreement to consult with GM (GMCH).

Comment: “3.11.1 Existing Transportation System

The text states in pertinent part at page 20:

‘In addition, a private access road runs through the northern portion of the site, to provide access to the co-generation facility east of the property.’

The foregoing statement is true, but it is incomplete. This Access Road also provides critical access to the employees and truckers who serve the GMCH manufacturing facility. A basic deficiency of this draft SGEIS is a failure to account for the operations of the GMCH manufacturing facility.

On page 20, there is the following reference to IDA Park Drive:

‘IDA Park Drive begins at an intersection with Upper Mountain Road and ends at the private access drive to Mahle Behr Troy Inc.’

This is incorrect. The Mahle Behr Troy access drive is not connected to IDA Park Drive but rather is located entirely within the GMCH manufacturing complex. See Exhibit A

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 18

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

that provides an aerial view of the Project Site. IDA Park Drive is the roadway running below the caption Town Industrial Park that ends on the northern boundary of the approximately 29 acre parcel owned by GMCH. The Mahle Ctr is east of this roadway.”

Response: For comment on private access drive, please see the response to Comment #1 in Part 4. For comment on the Mahle Behr Troy access drive, please note that the correction has been made in the FSGEIS.

Comment: “4.2.1 Groundwater and Surface Water Resources

The text states in pertinent part:

‘To limit potential impacts to groundwater on the project site, building construction will not involve excavation and buildings will not have subsurface levels or basements.’

However, it is unstated how this limitation will be binding on future users so it is clear that there can be no adverse environmental impacts to these resources. Is there to be a deed restriction placed in any deed used to convey lots within the project site? It is also unclear how the construction of the desired buildings will not involve excavations even if there is a prohibition against subsurface levels or basements.”

Response: Building construction will involve excavation and buildings on the site, but buildings will be restricted from having subsurface levels or basements.

Comment: “4.2.2 Stormwater Management

In this section, there is a reference to the Town’s Stormwater Management Plan. However, a copy of that Plan is not provided with the draft SGEIS or on the Town of Lockport web site. A copy of this Plan should be made available for review in connection with this draft SGEIS.”

Comment: “4.9 Visual Resources

The text states in pertinent part:

‘Another aspect of visual resources is site lighting. At present, the project site is open land with no buildings or other structures.’

The foregoing sentence is not accurate insofar as GMCH has a series of light poles located along the Access Road within the project Site that it has a right to use and operate in accordance with a Lighting Easement obtained in the context of the eminent domain taking. See the Takings Order (Exhibit B) that identifies the Lighting Easement and a copy of the sketch attached as Exhibit I that shows the location of the lighting poles.”

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 19

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

Response: This correction has been made in the FSGEIS.

Comment: “4.10.1 Public Water Supply

The text states in pertinent part as follows:

‘… Proposed uses are not known at this time but the general types of uses that are expected to occupy the site would not be large consumers of public water. This DGEIS will set a threshold for the quantity of water that may be utilized. The new water services in the area would most likely accommodate this demand. The 8-inch waterline has available fire flows of 3,800 gallons per minute at 20 psi, which based on discussion with local fire officials, should be sufficient for their firefighting needs.’

The draft SGEIS sets the threshold for the quantity of water that may be utilized. What is that threshold for an individual project? It appears that the only threshold relates to fire flow requirements. See the text in Section § 7.3 where the following utility threshold is stated at page 5: ‘Peak Water demand [f]or fire flow in excess of 3800 gpm will require evaluation and potential mitigations.” Is this number a hard cap? Who makes the specified evaluation?

The draft SGEIS says that the new water service ‘would most likely accommodate the demand.’ What if it does not?

The draft SGEIS states that water is sufficient for firefighting based on discussions with local fire officials. Who are those fire officials? They should be identified in the SGEIS. “

Response: Duly noted. Town of Lockport Fire Board are the referenced “local fire officials.”

Comment: “4.10.2 Wastewater Disposal

Detailed comments on this portion of the environmental review are set forth in the GMCH Comment Letter”

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 20

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

The EAF and Executive Summary incorrectly references the Niagara County wastewater treatment plant. The remainder of the SDGEIS correctly analyzes the wastewater systems.

Comment: “4.10.3 Other Utility Services

See the discussion in 3.10.3 of this Addendum.”

Comment: “4.11 Transportation and Traffic Impacts

Detailed comments on this portion of the environmental review are set forth in the GMCH Comment Letter.”

Response: Please see the response to Comment #1 in Part 4.

Comment: “Section 6.0 Alternatives Analysis

This section involves the analysis of the following development scenarios

Alternative 1 (No-Action Alternative)

The text states in pertinent part: ‘The site is arguably an eye-sore at this time and will continue to be an unmaintained field.’ We see no basis for concluding that this undeveloped land is an ‘eyesore’ and the draft SGEIS does not identify the basis for this conclusory assessment.

Going forward under this alternative, the site does not need to be neglected by the IDA; that would be the IDA’s choice. It would also be a poor choice if the desire is to market the site. In the interim, GMCH has been mowing lawn areas under license with the IDA, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit J and so the area continues to be maintained.

Alternative 3 (Proposed Preferred Development Pattern)

The text states in pertinent part: ‘This alternative…assumes the Town owning and maintaining a portion of current Co-Generation facility/GM access road.’ We agree that having the Town own the Access road is preferred to having the Access Road operate as a private roadway for site development purposes. However, simple

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 21

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

municipal ownership of the Access Road does not address the concerns over traffic impact, wastewater disposal, and stormwater management that have been presented in the concerns over traffic impacts, wastewater disposal, and stormwater management that have been presented in the GMCH Comment Letter.”

Response: For the comment on Alternative 1, duly noted – the text has been revised in the FSGEIS. For the comment on Alternative 3, please see the responses to Comment #1, Comment #2, and Comment #3 in Part 4 of this document.

Comment: “Section 7.2 SEQRA Procedures/Compliance for Future Actions

The correctly states that if the Planning Board finds that the environmental impacts associated with a future project have been addressed in the final SGEIS, no further SEQRA review will be required. However, it should be clear that there will be a need to do a site-specific EIS if a proposed future action exceeds the development thresholds specified in the final GEIS. See the following Q&A from the SEQRA Handbook prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

‘13. Are supplemental EISs always required following generic EISs?

The course of action following a final generic EIS will depend on the level of detail within the generic EIS, as well as the specific follow up actions being considered. A lead agency considering a subsequent action must evaluate the generic EIS to determine whether the subsequently proposed action was not addressed, or inadequately addressed, in the generic EIS, and whether the subsequent action is likely to have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts. If significant adverse impacts of the subsequent action are identified, and they were not adequately addressed in the generic EIS, then a site- or project-specific supplemental EIS must be prepared. Many generic EISs and Findings identify the environmental issues of thresholds that would trigger the need for such a supplement.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf at page 150. Emphasis supplied.”

Response: Thank you for this reference, we thoroughly understand the requirements and procedures for a Generic Environmental Impact Statement and these issues (how future projects will be reviewed, how decisions will be made and the four potential decisions that can be made) will be addressed in the SEQR Findings Statement.

Comment: “7.3 Thresholds for Development of Project Site

Thresholds for development of the project site cannot be established until the potential environmental impacts associated with traffic impacts, wastewater demands and stormwater have been adequately addressed, together with the series of individual concerns addressed in this Addendum.

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 22

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

Zoning Thresholds (§ 7.3 at page 2)

It is not possible to assess the potential environmental impacts of a particular proposed use simply by identifying its footprint on the project site and reciting that wetland areas will be avoided (§ 7.3 at page 2 that identifies proposed zoning thresholds). One needs to know the specifics of the proposed operation. The list of permitted uses recited in this section can have different levels of operation and therefore different potential environmental impacts.

Utility Thresholds (§ 7.3 at page 5)

It is not possible to assess the thresholds for sewage (wastewater) generation until the treatment facility to be used has identified and that treatment facility‘s concurrence in the suggested threshold obtained.

In terms of storm water, the text states in pertinent part:

‘…Building square footages exceeding those illustrated on the preferred development plan will require re-evaluation of the areas set aside for storm water facilities.’

There is no indication in the text what storm water detention/impoundment areas will be required for buildings that fall within the recited square footages. As noted in the GMCH Comment Letter, an existing storm water management issue within the Industrial Park needs to be addressed first before an evaluation of storm water management elsewhere within the Site can be assessed.”

Response: For the portion of the comment related to zoning, we do not have a potential tenant, and thus, no specific user identified at this time; those are the specific reasons to do a GEIS. A GEIS does not need to evaluate all potential types of users that may occur at the site, as limitations and conditions can be placed upon those users. We can place conditions or thresholds such as avoiding wetland areas. For stormwater, we have identified the condition that stormwater must be accommodated/treated on each site and meet the requirements of the Town and NYS. For traffic and utilities, we have identified the thresholds/ limits that can be accommodated at the site and in some cases the mitigations that would be necessary if these thresholds are exceeded. Please see Section 4, Page 7 for more on the portion of the comment related to utility thresholds.

Comment: “After the discussion at 9.0 Effects on Use and Conservation of Energy Resources, there are 6 pages of text in the draft SGEIS that appear to be duplicative of what is found earlier in the text. Please clarify.”

Response: Thank you pointing this out. The duplicative text has removed for the FSGEIS.

Comment: “Appendix E Phase I ESA

What is actually attached is a Phase Ii report that was prepared by LaBella.

 Purpose of Inclusion of Report. This Appendix is neither identified nor referenced in the text of the draft SGEIS. Please clarify the purpose for its inclusion of the Report.

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 23

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Lockport Industrial Park South

 Addendum to Phase II ESA. In the course of prior discussions with the IDA, GMCH identified certain items in the LaBella reports that needed to be corrected and in response, LaBella prepared addenda for both its Phase I and Phase II reports. A copy of the Addendum to the Phase II report is missing from the attached Phase II ESA and so we have attached a copy as Exhibit K with a copy of related LaBella correspondence.

Appendix 2 to the LaBella Phase II report contains ‘GZA Groundwater Information from On-Site Monitoring Wells.’ This information was provided to the IDA in confidence (see the legal correspondence included in the Appendix.) It therefore should not be included in the Phase II ESA and must be removed.”

Comment: We have fixed this reference and have removed the confidential information.

Part 4 – Comments Received and Responses: Page 24

FIGURES AND MAPS

TOWN OF LOCKPORT IDA - SOUTH 15680216 N GEIS SITE PLAN 3/1/17 SITE PLAN - OPTION A 1 SCALE: 1" = 300' PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT PLAN OPTION A 1 5055 Junction Rd 4928 Ida Park Dr 4929 Ida Park Dr

«¬93 5063 Junction Rd

5069 Junction Rd

5071 Junction Rd

5075 Junction Rd Lockport IDA South 5077 Junction Rd Business Park Expansion Amended Map 5 (FSGEIS) Environmental Features

Y 4

LEGEND

O Site

I d Railroad

P Stream

o O i FEMA 100 Year Floodzone

M t

A Preliminary Wetland

n T Boundary C

J Preliminary Wetland

t F 1000 Junction Rd

r Boundary Buffer (100')

p State Wetland

k N Lockport Energy Associates

c 5077R Junction Rd State Wetland

L State Wetland Checkzone

T Federal Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland 1070 Junction Rd Riverine

0 50 100 200 Feet

ail Project # 15680216 CSX R Map Created: February, 2017 93 1045 Old Saunders Sett Rd Wendel WD Architecture, Engineering, Surveying & Landscape «¬ Architecture, P.C. shall assume no liability for 1. Any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information 5411 Old Saunders Sett Rd provided regardless of how caused or; 2. Any decision or action taken or not taken by the reader in reliance upon any information or data furnished hereunder. Data Sources: Town of Lockport, Niagara County Real Property Services, NYS Office of Information Technology Services, GIS 1030 Junction Rd Program Office, LaBella Associates, P.C.

APPENDIX A: SEQR DOCUMENTAION FOR THE FSGEIS

ENB - Region 9 Notices 1/25/2017 - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Page 1 of 6

ENB - Region 9 Notices 1/25/2017 Notice of Complete Application Notice of Legislative Public Hearings Applicant:

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation Empire Pipeline, Inc. 6363 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14221-5887

Project:

National Fuel Gas Northern Access 2016 Project

DEC Application ID's:

9-9909-00123/00001 9-2932-00111/00001 9-1442-00039/00015

Permit(s) Applied for:

Article 24 - Freshwater Wetlands Article 15 - Title 5 Stream Disturbance Section 401 - Clean Water Act - Water Quality Certification Article 19 - Air State Facility

Project is Located:

Multiple Towns, Allegany, Cattaraugus, Erie and Niagara Counties

Project Description:

The Northern Access 2016 Project includes: 1) the construction of a new 24 inch diameter transmission pipeline totaling approximately 97 miles from McKean County, Pennsylvania through Allegany, Cattaraugus and Erie Counties in New York; 2) construction of approximately 2.1 miles of 16 inch/24 inch transmission pipeline in the Town Pendleton in Niagara County, New York and 3) a pipeline interconnection with Tennessee Gas Pipeline in the Town of Wales, Erie County, New York.

This project proposed by National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation and Empire Pipeline, Inc. both subsidiaries of National Fuel Gas Company, is a new and upgraded gas pipeline with compressor upgrades to access markets in the northeastern US and Canada for delivery of natural gas. Approximately 78% of the project pipeline would be co-located with existing pipeline and powerline rights-of-way.

The project will provide an outlet for natural gas production in north-central Pennsylvania, connecting it to the interstate pipeline system. That system connects to markets in the northeastern United States as

http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20170125_not9.html 2/2/2017 ENB - Region 9 Notices 1/25/2017 - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Page 2 of 6

well as eastern Canada. The new sections of pipeline will interconnect specifically with the existing Trans Canada and Tennessee Gas Pipeline systems.

The project includes:

• A new, 24 inch diameter transmission pipeline totaling approximately 71 miles in New York State from the Pennsylvania border through Allegany, Cattaraugus and Erie Counties; • Construction of approximately 2.1 miles of an existing 16 inch/24 inch transmission pipeline in the Town of Pendleton in Niagara County, New York; • A pipeline interconnection with Tennessee Gas Pipeline in the Town of Wales, Erie County, New York; • A new approximately 15,000 horsepower compressor station in Town of Pendleton, Niagara County; • Addition of approximately 5,000 horsepower of compression at National Fuel Gas Supply's existing Porterville Compressor Station in the Town of Elma, Erie County, New York; and • A new natural gas dehydration facility in the Town of Wheatfield, Niagara County, New York.

Water Quality Certification (WQC) Application

In accordance with CWA Section 401, applicants seeking a federal license or permit for activities that may result in a discharge to navigable waters must obtain a WQC from New York Sate Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) indicating that the proposed activity will comply with State water quality standards. In New York State the project includes:

• The crossing of 192 streams which include: 60 perennial streams; 77 intermittent streams, 48 ephemeral streams and 7 dry ditches (NOTE: 35 of the 192 are temporary bridge crossings with no pipeline crossing) • 19 streams with a classification of C(t) or higher (protected streams) and 28 intermittent or ephemeral streams flow into a protected streams • The crossing of 5 streams (4 crossings) using a horizontal directional drill (HDD) method, 3 streams will be bored and all remaining streams will be crossed using the dry crossing method • The crossing of 13 NYS DEC Regulated Freshwater Wetlands totaling 2.20 miles in length with 10.84 acres of permanent impact located within the 50-ft. ROW and 6.49 acres of additional temporary workspace impact with no permanent wetland fill.

Additional information is available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20170125_reg9.html.

Air State Facility (ASF) Permit Applications

Pendleton Compressor Station (New Facility - Killian Road)

The two new turbines will be equipped with Solar turbine's SoLoNOx which guarantees emissions at all temperatures above 0° F and will meet New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) emission limits. Additionally, oxidation catalysts will be installed on both turbines for control of CO, VOC and HAP emissions. There is no regulatory requirement for installation of these oxidation catalysts. The facility will be required to comply with the leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements of NSPS Subpart OOOOa. To further reduce fugitive emissions the turbines will utilize electric drive starting motors, a vent gas recovery system, and dry gas seals. Compressed air pneumatic controls will also be implemented where appropriate and all gas-driven pneumatic devices will be of a "low bleed" or "intermittent bleed" design. The facility has committed to these emission reduction measures which go

http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20170125_not9.html 2/2/2017 ENB - Region 9 Notices 1/25/2017 - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Page 3 of 6

beyond regulatory requirements. An emergency generator will be equipped with a NSCR (non-selective catalytic reduction) catalyst.

Additional information is available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20170125_reg9.html.

Porterville Compressor Station (Existing Facility)

Two additional new engines equipped with oxidation catalysts to control CO, VOC, HAP and hydrocarbons to meet NSPS requirements. The facility will be required to comply with the leak detection and repair (LDAR) requirements of NSPS Subpart OOOOa. To further reduce fugitive emissions, engines will utilize a vent gas recovery system, compressed air pneumatic controls will be implemented where appropriate, and all gas-driven pneumatic devices will be of a "low bleed" or "intermittent bleed" design. The facility has committed to these emission reduction measures which go beyond regulatory requirements. An emergency generator will be equipped with a NSCR (non-selective catalytic reduction) catalyst.

Additional information is available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20170125_reg9.html.

Availability of Documents

Filed application documents, and NYS DEC draft permits where applicable, are available for inspection during normal business hours at the address of the contact person listed below. To ensure timely service at the time of inspection, it is recommended that an appointment be made with the contact person.

Application documents, and NYS DEC draft permits where applicable, are also available for inspection during normal business hours at the public libraries listed below:

Aurora Town Library 550 Main Street East Aurora, NY 14052

Delevan - Yorkshire Public Library 28 School Street PO Box 185 Delevan, NY 14042

Olean Public Library 134 North Second Street Olean, NY 14760

North Tonawanda Public Library 505 Meadow Drive North Tonawanda, NY 14120

In addition, application documents can be viewed on-line at: http://www.natfuel.com/supply/NorthernAccess2016/nydec.aspx

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Determination

FERC is the lead agency for the environmental review of interstate gas pipelines. FERC staff prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), dated July 27, 2016, for the National Fuel Gas Northern Access 2016 Project, Docket No. CP15-115-000, in accordance with the requirements of

http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20170125_not9.html 2/2/2017 ENB - Region 9 Notices 1/25/2017 - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Page 4 of 6

NEPA. The EA can be viewed and downloaded at: http://elibrary.ferc.gov:1/idmws/file_list.asp? document_id=14480659.

NYS DEC relies upon the federal review process conducted by FERC pursuant to NEPA and the permit applications submitted by applicants to NYSDEC to ultimately make a determination regarding issuing its authorizations.

State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Determination:

Project is not subject to SEQR because it is a Type II action.

SEQR Lead Agency: None Designated

State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA) Determination:

The proposed activity is not subject to review in accordance with SHPA. The activity is being reviewed in accordance with federal historic preservation laws (Section 106 of NHPA) and the project area of potential impact is substantially the same.

Coastal Management:

This project is not located in a Coastal Management area and is not subject to the Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act.

DEC Commissioner Policy 29, Environmental Justice and Permitting (CP-29)

It has been determined that the proposed action is not subject to CP-29.

Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

The above referenced applications were filed and reviewed pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 3, Title 3 (General Functions, Powers, Duties and Jurisdiction), and Article 70 (Uniform Procedures Act or UPA); and pursuant to Title 6 of Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (6 NYCRR) Part 621- Uniform Procedures. The relevant regulations are found at: Part 608 (Protection of Waters), Part 663 (Freshwater Wetlands) and Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USCA 1341). For the Pendleton and Porterville Compressor Station projects the relevant regulations are found at: ECL Article 19 (Air Pollution Control).

In addition to these permits being considered under UPA, the project is required to demonstrate the ability to obtain coverage under the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater General Permit for Construction Activities (GP-0-10-001) prior to conducting any construction activities that disturb greater than one acre.

Legislative Hearing

Pursuant to 6 NYCRR 621.8, legislative public hearings for the receipt of public comments on the permit applications will be held on dates and at the location listed below. The public hearings will commence at 6:00 p.m. All persons, organizations, corporations, or government agencies which may be affected by the proposed project are invited to attend the hearing and to submit oral or written comments. It is not necessary to notify NYS DEC in advance to speak at the legislative hearing. Equal weight will be afforded to both oral and written statements. Lengthy statements should be in writing and summarized for oral presentation.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20170125_not9.html 2/2/2017 ENB - Region 9 Notices 1/25/2017 - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Page 5 of 6

The presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) may set reasonable time limits for each speaker to afford everyone an opportunity to be heard. The hearings are fully accessible to persons with a mobility impairment. Interpreter services will be made available to the hearing impaired at no charge upon written request to the NYSDEC contact person named below, no less than one week prior to the hearing.

The Legislative Public Hearings are scheduled as follows:

Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 Time: 6:00 p.m. Location: St. Bonaventure University Doyle Hall 3261 W. State Road Bonaventure, NY 14778

Date: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 Time: 6:00 p.m. Location: Iroquois High School 2111 Girdle Road Elma, NY 14059

Date: Thursday, February 9, 2017 Time: 6:00 p.m. Location: Niagara County Community College 3111 Saunders Settlement Road, Room E-140 Sanborn, NY 14132

Public Hearing and Comment

Written comments submitted to NYS DEC during this comment period and oral comments given at the Legislative Hearing are considered part of the record. At the conclusion of the public comment period NYS DEC will determine pursuant to 6 NYCRR 621.8 whether substantive or significant issues have been raised in the public comments or legislative hearing to warrant an Adjudicatory Hearing, or whether the permits should be issued without any further review. If no issues are raised to warrant further adjudication, NYS DEC will proceed to develop a response to comments, provide public notice of the approval of the permits and issue the requested permits.

Individuals and parties may also file written comments to the NYSDEC representative listed below. All written comments must be postmarked or submitted electronically by fax or email no later than February 24, 2017.

Contact: Michael Higgins, NYSDEC - Division of Environmental Permits, 625 Broadway, 4th Floor, Albany, NY 12233-1750, Phone: (518) 402-9179, Fax: (518) 402-9168, E-mail: [email protected].

Negative Declaration (Correction) Niagara County - The Town of Somerset Town Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed 2016 Somerset Comprehensive Plan Update will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. The action involves the completion of an update to the Town of Somerset's 2012 Comprehensive Plan. The project is located throughout the Town of Somerset, New York.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20170125_not9.html 2/2/2017 ENB - Region 9 Notices 1/25/2017 - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Page 6 of 6

Contact: Dan Engert, Town of Somerset, 8700 Haight Road, Barker, NY 14012, Phone: (716) 795- 3575 extension 3.

Notice of Acceptance of Draft SGEIS and Public Hearing Niagara County - The Town of Lockport Industrial Development Agency (IDA), as lead agency, has accepted a Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Industrial Park. A public hearing on the Draft SGEIS will be held on February 9, 2017 at 8:00 a.m. at the Lockport Town Hall, 6560 Dysinger Road, Lockport, NY 14094. Comments on the Draft SGEIS will be accepted until March 3, 2017. The Draft SGEIS is available from the contact listed below and on line at: http://lockporteconomicdevelopment.com/uploads/DGEISLkptIDAReportFINALDraft.pdf.

The action involves the expansion of the Town of Lockport Industrial Park onto approximately 91 acres of land along the east side of Junction Road south of the existing IDA Industrial Park. The project is located on the east side of Junction Road in the Town of Lockport, New York.

Contact: Nancy Brooks, Town of Lockport, 6560 Dysinger Road, Lockport, NY 14094, Phone: (716) 439-9524.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/enb/20170125_not9.html 2/2/2017

STATE OF NEW YORK NIAGARA COUNTY,} SS,

Janet M. Slipko, of.said county, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is now and during the whole time hereinafter mentioned was the Clerk of

LOCKPORT UNION-SUN & JOURNAL

A newspaper published in the County and State aforesaid, and that the annexed printed legal # 193264 was printed and published in said paper on the following dates:

01.t1912017

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ';l' /q? "t 7 fi-ezat Y< ).rl"C*r+ Teresa L McCarthy 0212612018-

Notary Public Expiration Date

APPENDIX B: COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DSGEIS

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

Division of Environmental Permits, Region 9 270 Michigan Avenue, Buffalo, NY 14203-2915 P: (716) 851-7165 | F: (716) 8s1-7168 www.dec ny.gov

December 22,2016

Mr. Marc Smith Lockport Industrial Development Agency 6560 Dysinger Road Lockport, NY 14094

Dear Mr. Smith:

REVIEW OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT LOCKPORT IDA PARK SOUTH TOWN OF LOCKPORT, NIAGARA COUNTY

This office has reviewed the preliminary Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental lmpact Statement (DSGEIS) received by this Department on December 16, 2016for the above referenced project and offers the following comments:

Rare/Threatened/Endanqered (RTE) Species:

The DSGEIS indicates that a Threatened and Endangered Species Study will be conducted. There are several Natural Heritage Program RTE grassland birds within 5 miles of the site and our biologists are aware of other nearby RTE grassland bird occurrences that are not in the Heritage database. Moreover, the project site appears to support good (if not excellent) grassland bird habitat and the surrounding area is dominated by open habitats, some of which also appear to be grassland habitat. Therefore, several species of RTE grassland birds may occur within the site, as detailed below. Please coordinate completion of that study with NYSDEC Biologists Connie Adams and Charles Rosenburg. They can both be contacted at 716t851-7010.

Winter Grassland Raptors: The potential for short-eared owl and northern harrier occurrence needs to be addressed immediately. Enclosed is a winter raptor survey protocol and we ask you to have a survey plan prepared as soon as possible (please coordinate with the biologists listed above. You will see that the protocol is still labeled draft - please note that it is a wo-rking version that has been released to many applicants for similar projects across the state.

Summer Breedinq Grassland Birds: Based on a solid knowledge of RTE grassland bird occurrence in Niagara County, our biologists believe there is potential for breeding season occurrences of the following species in the project area: northern harrier (T), upland sandpiper (T), sedge wren (T), Henslow's sparrow (T), vesper sparrow (sc), grasshopper sparrow (Si), and horned lark (SC). Therefore, the proposed Threatened and Endangered Species Study should address potential occurrences of those species. Connie Adams should be coordinated with directly regarding breeding bird surveys and other aspects of the breeding RTE bird concern.

Department of Environmental Conservation Mr. Marc Smith Decembelr 22,2016 Page 2

Additionally, including surveis in this area for peregrine faleons is important. There is a known nesting pair of peregrine falebns in the City of Lockport, at or near the building called The Spires (address: 45 Ontario Street, Lockport 14094) owned by the Ccity of Lockport Housing authority, Their territory and forays for food could conceivably encompass this site, Their hunting tr:rritory greatly expands in the winter, and the peregrines in western New York remain in residerrce, and do not migrate south in the winter.

After review of the Wetland Delineation Reporl there is the potential for state wetlands jurisdiction within the site. Charles Rosenburg wil complet n during the 2017 growing season before making a determina her one within the project area exceed the 12.4-acre threshold (or p meet ot triggers). Also enclosed is the Region 9 wetland delineation request form. Once the form is received, Mr. Rosenburg wili coordinate a schedule with LaBella Associates for the field inspection.

Thank you for providing this office the oppoftunity to review the preliminary DSGEIS. lf you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Mark Passuite of my staff or me at 7161851-,7165.

David S. Denk Regional Permit Administrator

MFP:

Enclosures

cc: Mr. Charles Rosenburg, NYSDEC, Divisron of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources Ms. Connie Adams, NYSDEC, Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources Mr. Andrew Reilly, Wendel Matthew T. Bowling

From: Andrew C. Reilly Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:50 PM To: Christopher M. Lama Cc: Matthew T. Bowling Subject: FW: Lockport Industrial Park South-Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DEGEIS)

Categories: Filed by Newforma

Please see below for the official comments from the NYSDOT.

Andrew C. Reilly, PE, AICP Director of Planning & Environmental Services Principal

Wendel, Centerpointe Corporate Park, 375 Essjay Road, Suite 200, Williamsville, NY 14221

p. 716.688.0766 tf. 877.293.6335 m. 716.946.3355 e. [email protected] w. wendelcompanies.com

ARCHITECTURE | ENGINEERING | PLANNING | ENERGY EFFICIENCY | CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission is confidential and is intended only for the person(s) named above. Any distribution, copying or disclosure of this email is strictly prohibited.

From: Rutkowski, Edward (DOT) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:34 PM To: Andrew C. Reilly Subject: Lockport Industrial Park South-Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DEGEIS)

Drew,

New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) reviewed the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) included within the DGEIS for the subject project and has the following comments:

• Lockport Junction Road, Saunders Settlement Road and Campbell Boulevard

o The recommended mitigation in the TIS at this intersection is to “Reconfigure the southbound approach on Lockport Junction Road from a shared left/through lane and right turn lane to a 200 foot southbound left turn bay and a shared through/right lane.” A simple reconfiguring of the lanes by changing pavement markings will not be possible, if that is the intent. This recommendation would require intersection widening and/or reconstruction to meet standards for taper lengths, lane shifts and to construct a lane on the Campbell Boulevard leg to accept the southbound through movement. Also, modifications to the existing traffic signal or the installation of a new traffic signal system will be necessary. The proposed mitigation at this intersection requires further analysis whether there is sufficient Right-of-Way available to perform the necessary widening.

• Lockport Junction Road & Upper Mountain Road

o The TIS recommends the installation of a traffic signal as mitigation for Full Build Conditions and it would be based on a subsequent post-operation signal warrant analysis. Incidentally, NYSDOT recently performed a Signal Warrant Study and determined that a traffic signal is not warranted at this time. We concur with the recommendation to perform a subsequent warrant study, however multiple ones may be necessary to determine at what point the warrants are actually met. We request that the Findings Statement includes thresholds to perform the traffic warrant studies and recommend that they are performed at the end of Phase 1 development and at every additional 200,000sf of development until full build or until the warrants are met based on actual counts.

• Lockport Junction Road & Site Access Driveway

o In the TIS, this intersection was analyzed without a northbound right turn lane, but one already exists. Also, the TIS recommends a northbound right turn lane as possible mitigation. The TIS should be revised to include the existing northbound right turn lane in the analysis and eliminate the construction of one as mitigation.

o The TIS states to possibly add a southbound left turn lane. This recommendation will require further analysis to verify if there is sufficient Right-of-Way available to widen the highway, which would be necessary to add a southbound left turn lane.

o Similar to above, we concur with the recommendation to perform a subsequent warrant study, however multiple ones may be necessary to determine at what point the signal is warranted based on actual counts. We request that the Findings Statement includes thresholds to perform the traffic warrant studies and recommend that they are performed at the end of Phase 1 development and at every additional 200,000sf of development until full build or until the warrants are met based on actual counts.

• We request that the Findings Statement stipulates that the mitigation for full build conditions, with exception of the proposed new signals, should be implemented prior to Phase 2 development. Also, the Findings Statement shall clearly identify that the Applicant/Lockport IDA or its Developer(s) will be responsible for any subsequent traffic or signal warrant studies and for the design and construction of any mitigation necessary for the proposed development including the construction of turn lanes and the installation or modifications of traffic signals at the above 3 intersections, even if the site access road becomes a public road.

• A NYSDOT Highway Work Permit will be required for any work located within the State Highway Right-of- Way. More detailed plans will be required for the Highway Work Permit application. Additional site engineering review will be performed as part of the Highway Work Permit process. This correspondence does not constitute approval for the purpose of a Highway Work Permit.

If you have any questions, please contact me by phone or email.

Sincerely, Ed

Edward S. Rutkowski, P. E. SEQR/Site Plan Review Coordinator NYSDOT - Region 5

2 100 Seneca Street Buffalo, New York 14203 716-847-3575

GM Components Holdings, LLC Lockport Operations 200 Upper Mountain Road Lockport, NY 14094 February 20,2017

HAND DELIVERY

Mr. Marc R. Smith Coordinator of Economic Development Town of Lockport, Industrial Development Agency 6560 Dysinger Road Lockport, New York 14094 [email protected]

Re: Town ofLockport Industrial Development Agency Comments on Draft Supplemented Generic Environmental Impact Statement - Proposed Expansion of Town ofLockport Industrial Park

Dear Mr. Smith:

The Town of Lockport Industrial Development Agency (the "IDA") has submitted for public comment a draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("SGEIS") that was prepared in connection with the IDA's intention to develop vacant land acquired from GM Components Holdings, LLC ("GMCH") in 2015 through eminent domain (the "Site"). It is our understanding that the draft SGEIS is the version found using the link in the project notice published in the January 25, 2017 edition of the Environmental Notice Bulletin, which specified that comments on the draft SGEIS will be accepted until March 3, 2017. This letter (with attachments) that was prepared by the GMCH review team sets forth GMCH's comments on the draft SGEIS.1

Executive Summary ofGMCH Comments

GMCH operates a manufacturing facility that is located to the east of the Site (see the aerial view of the project site attached as Exhibit A). The IDA prepared the Generic Environmental Impact Statement ("GElS") in 1984 to create the existing Industrial Park, which would support the manufacturing operation then owned and operated by General Motors Corporation.2 The GMCH

At the public hearing of February 9, Roy Knapp, the Environmental Manager at the GMCH Lockport facility, had indicated that we wanted an extension until March 17 to submit our comments and intended to follow up the request at the public hearing with a formal written request. However, we understand that the IDA desires to complete its environmental review by its next meeting of March 9. Given that, we decided to accelerate our review of the 853 page draft SGEIS as a courtesy to the IDA.

2 Copies of the original GElS documents for the establishment of the original IDA Industrial Park are attached as Appendix B to the SGEIS. It statesin pertinent part, "Market studies undertaken for the project

2839862.9212012017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 2

manufacturing facility has 1,400 employeesand is currently the 9th largest employer in the Buffalo/Niagara region.

By order dated June 25,2015 (the "TakingsOrder" - copy attached as Exhibit B), the IDA took the Site by eminent domain and, in connection with that acquisition, the IDA reserved an easement to GMCH to use a private access road that connects its manufacturing facility to Lockport Junction Road (the "Access Road'').3 The former GMCH parcels that were acquired appear as tax map parcels 108.00-1-36 and 108-1-35.12 as shown on the copy of the tax parcel map that is attached as Exhibit C.4

According to its draft SGEIS, the IDA now proposes to expand the existing Industrial Park to include the Site and qualifY the property for "Shovel-Ready" Designation under the Build-Now Shovel Program Initiative (the "IDA Proposal"). As part of the qualification process, the IDA is required to conduct an environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"). This means that the IDA must identifY the relevant areas of environmental concern relatedtofuture development of the Site, take a "hard look" at them before making its final decision, and provide a reasoned elaboration for the basis of its determination. See WEOK Broadcasting Corp. v. Planning Bd. o/Lloyd, 79 N.Y.2d 373, 382 (1992).

With respect to satisfYing SEQRA's requirements, the Build Now-NY Program web site provides in pertinent part as follows:

Once a local govemment determines appropriate development types for its community, it can use the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GElS) to identifY and, if necessary, mitigate any environmental concerns. The GElS provides for a single comprehensive review, and a public process to address community concerns with specific types of development without unduly delaying individual projects. https://esd.ny.gov/businessprograms/datalbuildnow/srgseqr.htm.

In sum, a proper SGEIS needs to adopt a comprehensive view of the proposed area to be developed, identifY environmental impacts and offer appropriate mitigation measures. It is critical that it be done in strict conformance with SEQRA requirements. The environmental

indicated the demand for a high-quality, park-like development of 500+/- acres for industrial suppliers/services to complement GMClHarrison RadiatorDivision (the regions [sic) largest employer) and adjacent industries, and for light and research industries."

The location of the Access Road is shown on the aerial view of the Project area (see Exhibit A).

4 There are references throughout the draft SGEIS to 91 acres of land being added to the existing Lockport Industrial Park. However, the Town's tax map parcel references a total of 89.8 acres for the two tax parcels that make up the IDA taking - see the taxparcel map attached as Exhibit C. The actual acreage proposed to he added to the Industrial Park should he identified and incorrect references in the draft SGEIS corrected.

2839862.92/20/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 3

review not only is important to satisfY SEQRA requirements, but it also represents good land use planning by developing a protocol for incorporating into future decision-making the best strategies on how to develop property in a manner that fits within existing infrastructure with minimal environmental impacts.

Our review finds the draft SGEIS to be deficient in the following respects:

1. Transportation. The existing Access Road from Lockport Junction Road serves both the cogeneration facility of Lockport Energy Associates, L.P. ("LEA") and also the GMCH manufacturing facility. GMCH uses the Access Road during normal work days for its truck traffic to avoid potential safety concerns for employees, visitors and the community, as well as to minimize disturbance to the residential community on Upper Mountain Road.

Section 4.11 of the draft SGEIS states:

Trip distribution for site generated traffic was based generally on existing traffic patterns, and indicated where site generated traffic originates or is destined for ...

Despite this pronouncement, there is no mention of the use of the Access Road by GMCH in the traffic impact study prepared to identifY environmental impacts related to increased traffic associated with Site development and there was no outreach to GMCH to seek that information. Under the Takings Order, GMCH holds an easement allowing it to utilize the Access Road without any limitations and this right remains ineffect unless and until the Town takes over the roadway aspart ofa municipal dedication.

The traffic impact study must be revised to take into account the GMCH manufacturing operation so that all environmental impacts associated with the projected increase in traffic can be accurately assessed, appropriate mitigation measures identified and implemented, and development thresholds established.

2. Wastewater Management. The draft SGEIS is inconsistent with the full Environmental Assessment Form ("EAF") on this issue and fails to fully assess the potential impacts. Wastewater in the Town is treated at two treatment facilities owned by the Niagara County Sewer District ("NCSD") and the City of Lockport (the "City"). Although the EAF identified NCSD as the entityto treat wastewater from the expanded Industrial Park, the draft SGEIS identifies the City of Lockport Wastewater Treatment Plant (the "City WWTP") as the treatment facility to be used.

However, the draft SGEIS fails to assess the potential adverse impacts of the use of the City WWTP because it didnot identifY the City of Lockport as an Involved Party and did not verify with the City that the City WWTP has both the capacity and the desire to accept increased loadings from outside the City as well as the resources to address any potential impacts to downstream users of the City WWTP from the increased loadings.

2839862.92120/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 4

3. Stormwater Management. The IDA does not identify the fact that there is currently a stormwater management issue in its existing Industrial Park, which the Town of Lockport (the "Town") sought to address by seeking GMCH's permission to expand the existing stormwater ditch network south of the existing Industrial Park. The stormwater problem requires a site-wide solution, but the draft SGEIS does not identify the magnitude of the environmental issue and offers no mitigation measures that adequately address it. This is despite the fact that the GElS flagged stormwater as a significant issue - seethe following GElS excerpt:

Drainage

As the site is headwaters of tributaries to two creeks (Bull and the Gulf), adequate storm water retention is required to mitigate downstream capacity limitations and reduce potential problems; both size and area retention will be utilized.

Findings of Fact for the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix B to draft SGEIS at page 7.

4. Procedural Deficiencies. Procedural deficiencies must be corrected before a Final SGEIS is issued in order to satisfy SEQRA's mandate. Both the Court of Appeals and the Fourth Department have recognized that SEQRA requires strict procedural compliance with its proVISIOns.

In this case, the IDA has violated two procedural requirements, curtailing the public participation process that is central to SEQRA, by:

• Failing to identify all involved agencies and coordinate with them in the SEQRA decision-making process. The omitted Involved Agency was the City of Lockport,5 whose wastewater treatment plant was identified as being the facility to receive the wastewater loadings of the proposed expanded Industrial Park; and

• Failing to complete the assessment reports in time to incorporate them into the draft SGEIS and make them available for public review during the available comment period. The two omitted assessments at issueare the Threatened and Endangered Species Study and the Cultural Resources Survey.

A more detailed discussion on these deficiencies and other required revisions to the draft SGEIS is set forth in the following discussion.

As discussed further below, the Empire State Development Corporation, which is in charge of the Shovel Ready certification program, is also potentially an Involved Agency that should have been included in this coordinated SEQRA review.

2839862.92/20/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 5

Discussion

Comment # 1. The draft SGEIS assessment of transportation impacts is deficient because its traffic impact study fails to fully account for the use of the Access Road and other area roadways by the existing GMCH manufacturingfacility.

The Executive Summary of the draft SGEIS addresses Transportation impacts as follows:

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS)6 was conducted in accordance withGuidelines forTraffic Impact Studies in support ofSEQRA Actions to assess potential impacts of the proposed development on the existing transportation system. Future site development will increase traffic on the adjacent road network. The traffic analysis showed that the road network and accompanying intersections in the study area currently operate at a Level of Service D or better.

Emphasis supplied.

The guidance document referenced as "Guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies" needs to be identified. The New York State Department of Transportation has guidance for the development of Traffic Impact Study - see https://www.dot.ny.gov/CommerciaIHWP/traffic-impact. However, it is unclear what the IDA consultant was using for its Traffic Impact Study guidance7 and that guidance document needs to be identified in connection with this public consideration of potential adverse environmental impacts.

In any event, the traffic study is fundamentally flawed because it does not account for the existing traffic associated with GMCH's manufacturing operations, how future development of the Site could be impacted by that traffic, or vice versa. For example, the traffic study was based upon the assumption that "morning peak hours" are 7:00 to 9:00 AM and "evening peak hours" are 4:00 to 6:00 PM. The vast majority of the 1400+ people that work at the GMCH manufacturing facility travel to and/or leave here to meet shift changes scheduled for 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM, and the majority of incoming and outgoing truck traffic would not be expected to typically fall within the "peak" hours that the IDA's consultant assumed.

Furthermore, the potential uses of the developed Site contemplated by the traffic study (e.g. light industrial (data center) or warehousing8) are operations that would likely have employees working multiple shifts that fall outside of the "peak hours" studied. Rather than truly accounting for the potential industrial uses that could arise in the expanded Industrial Park, the

6 The Traffic Impact Study is found in the draft SGEIS at Appendix C under the heading "Traffic Impact Analysis."

7 Attached as Exhibit D is the outline of the NYSDOT Traffic Impact Study guidance that is to be followed.

8 See, e.g., Draft SGEIS Appendix C, Traffic Impact Study, at 20.

2839862.92/20/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20,2017 Page 6

traffic study's focus appears limited to the traffic patterns more typical of a commercial or office building use.

Given the nature of the Industrial Park, and the potential developments that could be built on the Site, the traffic study should be revised to also account for the environmental impacts associated with traffic during 24/7, multi-shift, industrial operations.

The Traffic Impact Study also fails to consider GMCH's use of the Access Road and the rights and obligations attached to it for both GMCH and any future development at the Sitethat may use the Access Road. The Traffic Impact Study describes the Existing Transportation System as follows:

Primary roadways in the vicinity of the site include Lockport Junction Road, Saunders Settlement Road, Upper Mountain Road, EnterpriseDrive, IDA ParkDrive and Sunset Drive These roadways are described as follows. In addition; a private access road runs through the northern portion of the site, to provide access to the co-generation facility east of theproperty.

Emphasis supplied.

The reference to a "private access road" is a reference to the Access Road that connects GMCH truck traffic to thepublic roadways. There is no mention of this in the Traffic Studl or the fact that this Access Road carries approximately 90 to 95 trucks per delivery day along this road. The traffic turning data that was collected for the Traffic Study did not include any of this information at the intersection of the Access Road and Lockport Junction Road. Attached as Exhibit E is a sample GMCH truck log for the day (November 15, 2016) when traffic counts were reportedly taken. 10

9 Section 1.2 of the SGEIS does note that the Site has "frontage along the road servicing the Lockport Co Generation Facility and GM properties." However, that reference didnot cany over into the traffic study. In fact, the reference to the Site Access Road on the various maps in the Traffic Impact Analysis shows the Site Access Road as extendingonly up to the driveway to the Lockport Energy Associates rather than continuing on to the GMCH manufacturing facility (see Figures 4 to 10 ofthe Traffic Impacts Study.)

10 GMCH Plant Security records this information at the truck entrance designated as 7C, which is located at the east end of the Access Road. Although all trucks are required to entertheplant from Lockport Junction Road (Route 93) viathe AccessRoad, some truckers havebeen observed to access truck entrance 7C by entering what used to be referred to as road #4 off of Upper Mountain Road (referred to as Upper Mountain Road @ Sunset Drive/Mahle Driveway in the draft SGEIS Traffic Study). (Note the right-most column on the Truck Log is cut off from the attachment; it is an indication whether a plant-issued safety vest was returned. Also, information on certain columns has been redacted for business reasons.)

2839862.9 2120/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20,2017 Page 7

GMCH is authorized to use the Access Road under the Reserved Easement provided in the Takings Order, which must be considered in the assessment of potential environmental impacts associated with transportation. The grant ofaneasement carries with it well-established rights and responsibilities for both the easement holder and the easement grantor which must be considered as part of the evaluation of the IDA Proposal. Whoever uses an easement associated with the Access Road has a duty to maintain and repair it. Raksin v. Crown-Kingston Realty Assocs., 254 A.D.2d 472, 473 (2d Dep't 1998). If there are multiple easement holders, all of those users must contribute their pro rata share of the costs of maintenance and repair, which includes the grantor of the easement. Green Harbour Homeowners' Ass 'n v. G.B Dev. & Const., Inc., 307 A.D.2d 465, 466-67 (3d Dep't 2003); Cohen v. Banks, 169 Misc.2d 374, 377 (N.Y. J. Ct. 1996). Most importantly, the grantor of an easement cannotunreasonably interfere with the exercise of the right to the use of the easement by the easement holder(s). Tagle v. Jakob, 275 A.D.2d 573, 573 (3d Dep't 2000) (citation omitted).

Local, county and state regulations on truck traffic do not apply to this Access Road, which is in need of repair. There is no mention of the current condition of the Access Road, any private obligation to maintain it, or the general obligations and rights of those on both sides of the grant. II

Given the foregoing, the SGE1S fails to adequately address transportation impacts. This is particularly significant as one of the reasons for issuing a Positive Declaration in the SEQRA process was because of the "impacts to the local transportation network" (see SGE1S at section 2.3 at page 3). See the Town of Lockport Comprehensive Plan 12 that notes existing traffic problems in the area at issue:

5.4 Central West Area Assessments and Findings. The following assessments and findings are geared towards the Central West Area of the Town.

This area is primarily located south of Leete Road, west of the City of Lockport and the Lockport Bypass, and north of Lockport Road (the Lockport! Pendleton boundary). It is proximate to an area of the City of Lockport that includes a large Industrial! automotive facility ....

II If the Town of Lockport were to assume responsibility for the Access Road as part of a municipal dedication of the roadway, the maintenance obligation would be assumed by the Town. In fact, the SGEIS refers to this asthe "preferred concept forfuture development" (see SGEIS, section 1.3 at page 2). However, we are not awareofany pending request to the Town to take over the Access Road, in whole or in part, and the roadway condition needs to be upgraded before there can beany development ofthe Site.

12 See for the Town of Lockport Comprehensive Plan that was adopted on December 3, 2014 - http://www.elockport.com/pdf/TownofLockportCompPlanOct20 14Adoptedwmaps. pdf

2839862.92/20/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20,2017 Page 8

14. The area is serviced by a strong system of roadways. Upper Mountain road and Saunders Settlement road are principal arterials (carrying 8,000 to 11 ,000 vehicle trips per day). Hinman road is considered a Collector road, but it only carries about 400 to 500 vehicle trips per day. Existing traffic problems though were identified at the intersections of Saunders Settlement Road and Upper Mountain Road/ SW Lockport Bypass, Upper Mountain Road and Sunset Drive, Lower Mountain Road and Lockport Junction Road, and Leete Road and Sunset Drive.

Town of Lockport Comprehensive Plan at 9 5.4 at pages 14 and 17. Emphasis supplied.

In sum, a revised traffic impact study must be performed that incorporates data associated with the GMCH operations, and identifies mitigation measures to be taken prior to Site development to address adverse impacts associated with developing what is now vacant land.13

Section 5.7 of the draft SGEIS states in pertinent part:

To address the potential adverse impacts to the local transportation system, thresholds will be established for the implementation of highway improvements. The improvements will be implemented in accordance with the findings of the analysis that was performed aspart of the Traffic Impact Study ....

Because the Traffic Impact Study defines thresholds for required highway improvements and ultimate Site development, the data on which it is based must be accurate and complete.

Comment # 2. The draft SGEIS fails to properly assess the potential adverse impacts associated with wastewater generated by facilities in the proposed expanded Industrial Park because it did not verify that the City WWTP has both the capacity and the desire to accept increased loadings and the resources to address any potential impacts to downstream users.

According to the Town of Lockport Comprehensive Plan, wastewater in the Town is treated at two treatment facilities owned by NCSD and the City of Lockport and "[t]he sewer system primarily discharges into the Niagara County Sewer District Interceptor at various locations throughout the Town." (See 9 3.8.A of the Plan at page 37.) The use of the NCSD is consistent with the EAF prepared in connection with the IDA Proposal, which stated that the IDA Proposal

13 Even without taking into account the volume of existing and projected GMCH transportation use, there is projected a need for mitigation measures for full build out at the Lockport Junction Road and Site Access Driveway intersection (see 5.7 ofthe draft SGEIS at page 3).

2839862.92120/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 9 will generated liquid wastes that will go to the Niagara County Wastewater Treatment Plant.14 The EAF was provided to the list of Involved and Interested Agencies.

The EAF went on to state that (a) the treatment plant has the capacity to serve the project, (b) existing sewer lines serve the project site, and (c) a line extension within an existing district will be necessary to serve the project.

The Executive Summary of the draft SOEIS is consistent with the EAF:

Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts

... The Niagara County Wastewater Treatment Plant has the capacity to accommodate future flow from the project of up to 0.85 MOD ....

Executive Summary at p. 6.

Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

... The unavoidable commitment of public water from the Niagara County system, as well as increases in wastewater that must be processed at County facilities.

Id. at p. 7; Draft SOEIS S 4.13 at page 13.

However, the body of the draft SOEIS is inconsistent with the EAF and the Executive Summary, indicating that wastewater from any future development at the Site would go to the City WWTP, not the County. The draft SOEIS states:

The project site is located within Town of Lockport Sewer District No 3, and is a service area of the City of Lockport Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Cityof Lockport wastewater treatment plant has the design capacity of 22 million gallons of water daily (MGD). The existing average daily flow rate is approximately 12 MOD, but heavy rains can increase the volume offlow via discharges into storm sewers, resulting in peak flows on the order of 80 MGD. Wastewater generated by future site development would be processed at this plant.

. Based upon existing businesses that discharge into the existing 8-inch forcemain, there is approximately 0.85 MOD of capacity within the existing forcemain to be used by the remaining vacant space within the existing Town of Lockport IDA Park as well as those areas proposed under this Lockport IDA South site.

. • . As the Cityof Lockport wastewater treatment plant has capacity to accommodate future flow from the project site, and the existence of the24- inch

14 See EAF Section D.2.d.

2839862.92/20/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 10

interceptor would allow for the management of greater wastewater flow from future site development, the proposed action is not anticipated to result in adverse environmental impacts ..•.

Draft SGElS at Ii 4.10.2 (Emphasis supplied)Y

There is no explanation given for the change in the selected treatment facility, and most importantly, the City of Lockport whose treatment plant is projected to accept this additional flow was not identified by the IDA as an Involved or Interested Party at the beginning of the SEQRA review process. It is critical to know whether the City of Lockport agrees that there is capacity to accept additional wastewater flow and that it would be willing to accept the increased wastewaterflow from outside the City limits.

Even if there is capacity, given the age of the City system, it is unclear if it could accommodate increased flows without improvements or address the potential for adverse impacts to downstream users, such as the GMCH manufacturing facility, if there were to be a break in the line due to any significant expanded use.

For example, the reference to the 24 inch interceptor at Ii 4.10.2 of the draft SGEIS neglects to point out that that this interceptor sewer (known as the Gulf Interceptor Sewer) is not 24" diameter all the way to the City WWTP; it reduces down to 18" diameter in the Gulf ravine east of the GMCH manufacturing facility. That section of 18" diameter sewer was identified in the original GElS as being over capacity and in need of replacement with a 36" diameter sewer if southern sections of the Industrial Park were to be developed. See the following excerpt from the GElS:

For ultimate park development, i.e the southern sections, flow monitoring and probable improvements to the upstream sections of the Gulf interceptor will be necessary. The primary area of improvement will involve an existing section (section #10) of I8-inch sewer which is presently shown by exhibit as being over capacity. Previous studies have indicated a need for replacement with a 36-inch sewer.

GElS, Appendix B to the draft SGEIS at page 34.

The need for replacement should be reiteratedin the SGElS.

As is clear by the recited information on wastewater flows in the text of the draft SGEIS, there is a significant wet weather issue at the City WWTP and this would appear to be a product of the fact that like many older cities, the City of Lockport has its sewageand stormwater lines combined. This combined sewer overflow ("CSO") issue underscores that should be a plan in

15 See also 3.10.2 of the draft SGEIS.

2839862.9 212012017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 11

place to address how the WWTP can receive any more wastewater flow with this CSO challenge. 16

The draft SGEIS recites the existing wastewater load of existing businesses, but there is no detail provided in the document to support the recited calculation of available capacity. That information should be provided.

Comment # 3. The draft SGEISfails to identify the fullextent ofpotential stormwater impacts by neglecting to consider an existing stormwater management problem and offering no adequate mitigation measures.

The Executive Summary of the draft SGEIS addresses Stormwater Management as follows:

At present, stormwater on the project site follows the topography, draining from northwest to southeast. Future site development will alter drainage patterns; impervious surfaces will increase the rate and volume of stormwater runoff. During construction, exposed soils may be subject toerosion. Future site development will require a permit for stormwater management activities and the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to manage runoff at pre-development levels and to capture pollutants conveyed in stormwater during and after site development (quantity and quality controls). The design and construction of stormwater detention basins and improvements, as required, to highway culverts along Lockport [Junction]17 Road or the existing ditch that discharges into the Cityof Lockport will mitigate potential impacts. A stormwater engineering documentation is included in Appendix H.

Draft SGEIS, Executive Summary at page 3.

The Town of Lockport Comprehensive Plan provides in pertinent part as follows:

. . . Local stormwater requirements and NYSDEC requirements require that new developments detain stormwater onsite so that the stormwater is not added to the drainage system at a quicker rate then [sic] that of the previously disturbed site. Operation and maintenance of the stormwater detention ponds are [the] responsibility of the property owner.

Town Comprehensive Plan at 3.8.C at page 38.

16 Given that the City of Lockport recently received a $50,000 grant from New York State 10 assist it in monitoring the CSO problem, the CSO issue appears to be an ongoing concern. See https://www.governor.ny .gov/newslgovernor-cuomo-announces-more- 380000-improve-monitoring-and-reporting combined-sewer-overflows

17 The reference should be to Lockport Junction Road as that is the road that intersects with the Access Road that bisects the proposed expanded Industrial Park area.

2839862.92/20/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 12

What is ignored in the assessment of stormwater management is an existing problem with ponding in the IDA Industrial Park north of the Sitethat needs to be addressed. In the summer of 2016, the Town requested that GMCH provide the Town an easement to clean out a ditch on GMCH property south of the Access Road in the Town of Lockportl8 so that ponding water on the Yahoo property within the IDA Industrial Park could flow out. See the copy of the 9/12/13 Wendel drawing attached as Exhibit F that was provided in connection with the request and it provides some details on the proposed project under "Construction Notes."

In addition, the site map found in the Industrial Park brochure (copy attached as Exhibit G) shows that any stormwater discharge into the City of Lockport would be in close proximity to an existing rail spur located on the GMCH manufacturing site. GMCH previously raised a concern about flooding the area and impacting rail operations. Cleaning only a portion of the ditches also has the potential to simply move a slow-moving sectionlbottleneck further downstream, which could result in flooding on downstream properties, including the GMCH manufacturing property, during high-flow or ice-jam events.

Roy Knapp, the Environmental Manager at the GMCH facility, advised the Town Engineer, Rob Klavoon, that GM policy would not allow excavated sediments to be directly removed by the Town or to be placed in an unpermitted storage facility; sediment would have to be segregated on-site and tested for contamination prior to disposal in a permitted, GM-approved, landfill. In response, Mr. Klavoon noted his first step was to estimate the volume of material that would be generated, and communicate that information back to the Town attorney. However, afterthis exchange with the Town Engineer, there was no further outreach by the Town on this initiative.

Looking at the SGEIS, we see that in an Appendix H, there was to be stormwater engineering documentation. However, when we followed up with the Town Clerk, who was the listed point of contact in the ENB for the draft SGEIS, we were advised that the reference to Appendix H is a "typo." There should be more stormwater assessment of the entire existing and proposed Industrial Park areas with the resulting documentation available for public review.

Only one mitigation measure offered in the draft SGEIS- cleanout the existing ditch that discharges into the City of Lockport - addresses certain stormwater flow in the area of the project site but neither the IDA nor the Town currently have access to address this bottleneck.19

18 This ditch also receives stormwater from the adjacent co-generation facility owned and operated by Lockport Energy Associates, L.P. in the Town of Lockport.

19 Looking at past IDA meeting minutes, it appears that the issue was brought to the IDA's attention back in July 2015 when it was reported that the Town needed to get an easement from Central Transport to "perform ditching from the Industrial Park south to the newly acquired 91 acre site." A copy of these meeting minutes is attached as Exhibit H.

2839862,9 2120/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 13

Furthermore, that option:

• is not identified and properly assessed in the EAF prepared by the IDA for this project (see EAF D.2.b.iii where the IDA denies that the project would disturb bottom sediments); and

• appears inconsistent with the EAF that states that stormwater runoff will be directed to "On site management facilities to be created" and that there will be no stormwater flow to adjacent properties (see D.2.e.iii and iv). See also Section 5.3 of the draft SGEIS that states that "[s ]tormwater runoff that is generated by future site development activities will be managed by detention or retention facilities," but there is no indication where such facilities will be located or when they would be constructed. We note that in the original GElS there is an indication of the placement of four stormwater retention areas. One of the four was constructed in the existing Industrial Park. However, the three other potential locations identified are not on what is now the proposed IDA southern section of the Industrial Park (see Figure 11 of the GElS that is attached as Appendix B to the draft SGEIS.)

There is no discussion in the draft SGEIS about the existing stormwater management issue and the need for third party cooperation to resolve it. Furthermore, the plan forfuture stormwater management is unclear as to whether an onsite or an off-site management solution is to be pursued.2o These stormwater issues must be addressed or the draft SGEIS will be deficient and non-compliant with SEQRA requirements.

Comment # 4. The IDA has not followed all the required procedures under SEQRA for preparing and issuing the draft SGEIS.

The IDA has failed to comply with several critical procedural requirements in its SEQRA review conducted to date. These procedural deficiencies must be corrected beforea Final SGEIS is issued in order to satisfY SEQRA's mandate. Both the Courtof Appeals and the Fourth Department have recognized that SEQRA requires strict procedural compliance with its provisions. See, e.g. New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v. Vallone, 100 N.Y.2d 337,348 (2003); Dawley v. Whitetail 414, LLC, 130 AD3d 1570, 1571 (4th Dept. 2015).

20 The EAF hasa reference in section D.l.h to the creation of a stormwater retention impoundment (D.2.a.1 references the "construction of a pond."). However, there is no indication of where an impoundment might be located and thecreation ofan impoundment appears inconsistent with the stormwater mitigation options identified. Furthermore, in its December 13,2016 resolution accepting lead agency status for purposes of the SEQRA review, the IDA identified Impact on Water, which "will require a new drainagesystem." However, there is no mention of this new drainage system in the draft SGElS.

2839862.92/20/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 14

A. Need to Include Involved Agencies

The IDA has failed to identiry all the involved agencies21 in this matter, and consequently has also failed to coordinate appropriately and send all necessary filings and notices to the involved agencies. SEQRA imposes on obligation on the IDA, as lead agency, to communicate with the other involved and interested agencies to obtain their input on the determination of significance and any draft EIS. See 6 NYCRR 9 617.9(a)(4). Similarly, the involved agencies have a responsibility to participate in the lead agency coordination process, to comment on an EIS, and to issue independent SEQRA findings if a final EIS is issued. See 6 NYCRR 99 617.3(e), 617 .11 (c), (d). A notice of completion for a draft EIS, and the draft EIS itself, must be circulated to all involved agencies. 6 NYCRR 9 617.12(b)(l)(iii). These proceduresapply equally to the preparation of a generic EIS. See SEQRA Handbook (DEC, 3rd ed., 2010) at 147, available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_eLoperationsJldf/seqrhandbook.pdf.22

Here, the draft SGEIS states that wastewater would be discharged to the City WWTP. Under Section 150-38 of the City of Lockport Code, a permit is required for an entity to discharge to theCity's wastewater system.23 Thus, any development thatarises in the expanded Industrial Park will need to seek approval from the City for a permit to discharge its wastewater to the plant. This means that the City would have approval authority over any project that is eventually constructed in the expanded Park. Accordingly, the City of Lockport qualifies as an "involved agency" under SEQRA and the IDA was required to give the City noticeso that it could participate in the coordinated SEQRA review and receive notice about the draft SGEIS.

Furthermore, we note that although the IDA is undertaking this environmental review to obtain a certification approving the expanded Industrial Park area as official "NYS Designated Shovel Ready Lands" (see draft SGEIS at page I of the Executive Summary), the Empire State Development Corporation ("ESD") is not identified as either an Involved Agency or an Interested Agency in the EAF or the draft SGEIS.

21 An "involved agency" is defined "an agency that has jurisdiction to fund, approve or directly undertake an action." 6 NYCRR 9 617.2(s).

22 The SEQRA Handbook states: "The basic procedures arethe same for all EISs. After the lead agency has issued a positive declaration to require a generic EIS, it may conduct scoping. The lead agency must then prepare and accept the draft generic EIS; allow a public review period, possibly including a hearing; prepare and accept the final generic EIS; and, finally, issue fmdings based on the final generic EIS. Noticing and filing requirements for generic EISs are the same as for other types of EISs."

23 Section 150-38 of the City of Lockport Code entitled Permit to discharge required, provides: "It shall be unlawful to discharge withoutapermit to the POTW any wastewater except as authorized by the Commissioner of Public Works and/or the Director of Utilities or their designee in accordance with the provisionsofthis chapter."

2839862.92/20/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 15

It is unclear whether an application for designation as "NYS Designated Shovel Ready Lands" entails a discretionary or non-discretionary (that is, ministerial) action on the part of ESD. If discretionary, ESD should have been identified as an Involved Agency and the failure to include it makes the SEQRA process deficient.24 There is no discussion on this point in the draft SGEIS and it should be determined whether ESD needs to be a part of this SEQRA review process.

Also, the map of the Industrial Park includes a parcel improved by a meter station that was conveyed by the IDA to LEA subsequent to the IDA taking. This parcel is shown to be within the boundaries of the proposed expanded Industrial Park (see map of the Lockport Industrial Park that appears as the first figure at the end of the draft SGEIS or page78of the pdf version). However, there is no indication that the IDA sought LEA's agreement to include this parcelas part of the Industrial Park. This needs to be clarified.

B. Inclusion of All Supporting Documentation in Draft SGEIS for Public Review.

Aftera draft EIS is prepared, the lead agency must determine whether it is satisfactory as to its scope, content and adequacy for purposes of commencing public review. 6 NYCRR S 6l7.9(a)(2). All draft EISs must include "a list of any underlying studies,reports, EISs and other information obtained and considered in preparing the statement including the final written scope." 6 NYCRR S 617.9(b)(5)(viii). A draft EIS may also reference other documents containing information relevant to the statement, and in such cases, the "referenced documents must be made available for inspection by the public within the time period for public comment in the places where the agency makes available copies of the EIS." 6 NYCRR S 6l7.9(b)(7).25

Once the lead agency accepts the draft EIS, it must issue a notice of completion informing the involved agencies and thepublic that the draft EIS is available for review and comment. 6 NYCRR S 6l7.9(a)(3). It is important that the draft EIS accepted by the lead agency and noticed for public comment be complete in order for the public to have the necessary opportunity to review and comment on its contents. Public participation is a critical feature of the SEQRA review process, with the Legislature explicitly recognizing when it adopted SEQRA that"[ e]very citizen has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation andenhancement of the quality of the environment." NY ECL S 8-0103(2). The public has an affirmative right to comment on a draft EIS. See 6 NYCRR S 6l7.l2(a)(2)(iii).

24 The need for SEQRA compliance is highlighted on the ESD Build Now-NY/Shovel Ready Guide web site - see https://esd.ny .govlbusinessprogramsldatalbuildnow/srgseqr.htm.

25 A draft ElS must also contain a cover sheet stating the date of its formalacceptance by the lead agency and the date by which comments must be submitted. 6 NYCRR 617.9(b)(3)(vi)-(vii). The noticedversion of the draft SGEIS published by the IDA hasonly blank lines for these pieces of information, so it has failed to comply with this procedural requirement as well. See page 2 at http://lockporteconomicdevelopment.com/uploadslDGEISLkptIDAReportFINALDraft. pdf.

2839862.92120/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 16

Here, the IDA improperly accepted the draft SGEIS because not all the studies and reports on which its conclusions are based havebeen completed and therefore have not been produced for public review. Specifically, the following reports are pending:

• the Threatened and Endangered Species Study

Based on the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper, there are no threatened, endangered or species of special concerned [sic] known to exist on the project site, and the site does not contain specialized habitats. However, a Threatened and Endangered Species Study along with a follow-up field visit will be completed by Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Service, D.pe. to confirm that there are no endangered species at the site. This report will be included in the Final SGEIS.

Draft SGEIS at S 3.1.1. Emphasis supplied.26

• Cultural Resources Survey

A cultural resource assessment is being performed forthe site. Basedon the findings to date, the proposed action is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to historic or cultural resources. A final report will be included in the FSGEIS.

Executive Summary, draft SGEIS atp. 5. Emphasis supplied.

Although the draft SGEIS indicated that further review is required for these two subject areas, the IDA concluded that it will "proceed with the Final GElS document development" anyway and if it "decides to proceed with these additional studies, ... [it] may do so at a later date and then amend the GElS document to show the additional study fmdings.'027 Furthermore, the agenda for the February 9, 2017 IDA meeting states that it may consider a "[P]ossible resolution to accept the FSGEIS as complete" and it "[n]eed[ s] to approve the FSGEIS at 3/9/17 meeting .. . because our grant requires the project be completed by 3/31/2017."28

Because the draft SGEIS references other documents in making its environmental assessments, those documents must be made available for the public to review. This should have occurred

26 The Executive Summary of the draft SGEIS (at pp 2-3) indicates, "A copy of the Threatened and Endangered Species Study is included in Appendix c." However, no such report is attached to the draft SGEIS.

27 See IDA Meeting Minutes for January 12,2017 at pg. 1, http://lockporteconomicdevelopment.com/uploads/2017J anuaryminutes.pdf.

28 See agenda at http://lockporteconomicdevelopment.comluploads/2017Februaryagenda.pdf.

2839862.92120/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 17

before the draft SOEIS was accepted, and it certainly must be done before the SOEIS is accepted as Final. The IDA's indication that it will accept the Final SOEIS on March 9 suggests that the outcome has been predetermined, but these deficiencies must be corrected to comply with SEQRA's procedural mandates.

These significant procedural deficiencies must be corrected before this SEQRA review process moves forward. New York requires strict compliance with SEQRA's procedures,because:

... Strict compliance with SEQRA is not

a meaningless hurdle. Rather, the requirement of strict compliance and attendant spectre ofde novo environmental review insure that agencies will err on the side of meticulous care in their environmental review. Anything less than strict compliance, moreover, offers an incentive to cut corners and then cure defects only after protracted litigation, all at the ultimate expense of the environment.

Vallone, 100 N.Y.2d at 348 (quoting Matter of King v. Saratoga County Bd. of Supervisors, 89 N.Y.2d 341, 348 (1996)).

Comment #5. The draft SGEIS hasa number of inaccuracies that are reflected in the attached Addendum to this comment letter and each of them needs to be addressed in finalizing the SGEIS.

We are willing to explore a resolution of our concerns at your earliest convenience. We welcome the development of the Site, but caution that it must be done in a manner that properly addresses adverse environmental impacts and takes into account the operations of the OMCH manufacturing facility and the surrounding uses.29 Please contact Roy Knapp, the Environmental Manager at the OMCH Lockport facility ((716) 439-2192; [email protected]), to pursue a dialogue on the concerns that are expressed in this letter.

Sincerely,

OM Components Holdings, LLC .------William Tiger Plant Manager

W/Exhibits

29 The IDA, as lead agency, must consider the public comments it receives on the draft SGEIS and it must respond to the comments in the final EIS. See NY ECL 9 8-0109(2)U); 6 NYCRR 9 617.9(b)(8).

2839862.92/20/2017 Mr. Marc R. Smith February 20, 2017 Page 18

cc: NYSDOT, Attn. Ed Rutkowski, 100 Seneca Street, Buffalo, New York 14203 NYSDEC, Attn: David S. Denk, 270 Michigan Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14203-2915 Niagara County Department of Public Works, County Highway Department/Engineering, Attn: Richard W. Eakin, PE, 59 Park Avenue, Lockport, New York 14094 NYSEG, Attn: Michael Conroy, Senior Vice President & COO, 89 East Avenue, Rochester, New York 14649 CSX Transportation, Inc. 500 Water Street, Jacksonville, Florida City of Lockport Wastewater Treatment Plant, Attn: Victoria A. Haenle (Pretreatment Coordinator), 611 West Jackson Street, Lockport, New York 14094 Empire State Development Corporation, Western New York Region, Attn: Christopher Schoepflin, Executive Director, 95 Perry Street - Suite 500, Buffalo, New York 14203-3030 Lockport Energy Associates, L.P., Attn: Thomas Gesicki, Managing Director, 5087 Lockport Junction Road, Lockport, New York 14094

List of Attached Exhibits

A Aerial View of Project Site B Takings Order of June 25, 2015 C Tax Parcel Map D NYSDOT Traffic Impact Study Guidance E GMCH Traffic Log F Wendel Drawing for Ditch Cleaning Project G IDA Industrial Park site map H IDA meeting minutes of July 2015 I Sketch of LightPoles on Project Site J IDA License to GMCH to mow grass K Addendum to LaBella Phase II report and related LaBella correspondence L November 9,2015 Letter from the Army Corps on preliminary jurisdiction determination

2839862.92f20/2017 ADDENDUM to COMMENT LETTER on the DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL GEIS (SGEIS)

The following comments supplement the comments made in the letter dated February 20, 2017 from William Tiger, the Plant Manager of Lockport manufacturing facility owned and operated by GM Components Holdings, LLC (“GMCH”) (the “GMCH Comment Letter”). Overall, it would be very helpful to the reader if the final SGEIS used consecutive numbering that is reflected in the Table of Contents. Currently, individual sections are separately numbered and there are no page numbers in the Table of Contents.

On the cover page, the location of the Project Site is given as “Lockport Road.” That should be corrected to read “Lockport Junction Road.”

There is also a map of the Lockport Industrial Park that appears as the first figure at the end of the text of the draft SGEIS. That figure appears to show the Industrial Park within a red border. However, that includes parcels owned by both LEA and GMCH. That figure and border need to be corrected.

A. Executive Summary

1. Introductory section, second paragraph (page 1):

This section needs to be corrected by making the edits identified below in bold typeface:

2. Land and Soils (page 2). This section currently reads in pertinent part:

The subject property is primarily comprised of open fields. . . . At full build out, approximately 61 acres of land will be committed to building and parking.

There needs to be a basis given for the 61 acre limit on the amount of buildout as there is no explanation in the text. Furthermore, there is no bar to the development of the full 89.8 acres (the “Site”) that make up the area taken from GMCH for development.

There is a later reference to wetland areas consisting of 29 acres (see page 7 of the Executive Summary),1 but that is an error. That wetland acreage refers to what the IDA’s consultant, LaBella, determined were wetlands within the entire 120 acres belonging to GMCH in the Town of Lockport, which was considered for transfer to the IDA. However, the IDA commenced an

1 This draft SGEIS states: “Wherever possible, existing open space will be preserved on the property, including 29 acres of wetland areas that will be avoided.” That erroneous reference is repeated at § 4.13.2 under the heading Unavoidable Long-Term Impacts.

2839847.7 2/20/2017 eminent domain proceeding instead and only took the 89.8 acres that make up the Site. The Site contains only contains 18.01 acres of wetlands according to the Army Corps’ preliminary jurisdictional (PJ) determination.2 Even as to the wetland areas, it is possible to develop them if the Army Corps were to grant a permit. Consequently, the environmental review should assess the potential development of the entire 89.8 acres.

There are references throughout the draft SGEIS to 91 acres of land being added to the existing Lockport Industrial Park. However, the Town’s tax map parcel references a total of 89.8 acres for the two tax parcels that make up the IDA taking – see the tax parcel map attached as Exhibit C. The actual acreage proposed to be added to the Industrial Park should be identified and incorrect references in the draft SGEIS corrected.

3. Ecological Resources (Vegetation and Wildlife) (pp. 2-3). This section currently reads in pertinent part:

No rare, threatened or endangered species were identified on the site; the site is not a significant habitat. . . . A copy of the Threatened and Endangered Species Study is included in Appendix C; the Wetlands Delineation Study is found in Appendix D).

Emphasis supplied.

The Table of Contents of the SGEIS lists the Traffic Impact Analysis as Appendix C. There is no Threatened and Endangered Species Study included in Appendix C. If such a study was prepared, a copy of the report should be made available for public review.

4. Stormwater Management (p. 3). Detailed comments on this portion of the environmental review are set forth in the GMCH Comment Letter.

5. Transportation (p. 4). Detailed comments on this portion of the environmental review are set forth in the GMCH Comment Letter.

6. Historic and Cultural Facilities (p. 5). This section states as follows:

A cultural resource assessment is being performed for the site. Based on the findings to date, the proposed action is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to historic or cultural resources. A final report will be included in the FSGEIS.

Emphasis supplied.

2 A copy of the November 9, 2015 letter from the Army Corps on its PJ determination is attached as Exhibit L. A copy is also included in the draft SGEIS with the LaBella Wetland Delineation Report of December 2014 (Appendix D to the draft SGEIS). 2

2839847.7 2/20/2017 provide for the required public review. (See the detailed discussion in the GMCH Comment Letter).

B. Draft SGEIS Sections

Section 1.0 Introduction and Project Background

1.2 Project Site Description.

This section needs to be corrected by making the edits identified below in bold typeface:

The Project Site consists of approximately 91 acres of land located south of the Lockport Industrial Park, It is bounded on the west by Route 93, and on the south by lands owned by Consolidated Rail. The eastern border is irregular and bordered by lands owned by LEA and GMCH. An access road to the Lockport Co-Generation facility and the GMCH manufacturing facility splits the property. The property is currently made up or two tax parcels: Parcel 108.00-1-35.12 and parcel 108.00-1-36.3 The property is depicted on Map 2 — Site Location Map.

The Project Site, which was formerly owned by General Motors Corporation, and more recently by GMCH, has been vacant for many years, and there are no structures on the proposed development site. The land is nearly level with some areas of woodlands, and an area of wetlands and drainageways in the southern end of the site. It has frontage along both Lockport Junction Road (Route 93) and frontage along the road servicing the Lockport Co-Generation Facility and GMCH properties.

1.4 Project Purpose: Need and Benefit

This section needs to be corrected by making the edit shown below in bold typeface (see the border of the Industrial Park that appears as the first Figure following the text of the draft SGEIS):

. . .This project will provide an attractive location near adjacent to an existing the existing Industrial Park . . .

2.2 Summary of Public and Agency Involvement

Among the listed Interested Agencies is the City of Lockport District. However, one of the tax map parcels located within the Site, tax parcel 108.00-1-36, is located in an adjoining school district, that is, the Starpoint Central School District. That school district should have been notified of this project as well. (Reference to this school district is made in section 3.7.3 of the text.)

3 A copy of the updated tax parcel map is attached as Exhibit C.

2839847.7 2/20/2017 3.2.2 Surface Water

This section states in pertinent part as follows:

. . . there is an unnamed tributary (UT) that starts on the south side of Enterprise Drive, heads south toward the project site and then east past the Co-generation facility where it discharges into the City of Lockport and ultimately into Gulf Creek.

This tributary carries stormwater drainage and the draft SGEIS fails to mention that the discharge into the City of Lockport is into the GMCH manufacturing site and that a rail spur runs north/south over this tributary. If development could impact the amount and rate of stormwater flowing through this tributary, the impact needs to be assessed because of the adverse consequences it can have downstream, including on GMCH manufacturing operations.

3.3.1 Vegetation

The section states in pertinent part as follows:

Based on the NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper, there are no threatened, endangered or species of special concerned [sic] known to exist on the project site, and the site does not contain specialized habitats. However, a Threatened and Endangered Species Study along with a follow-up field visit will be completed by Environmental Design & Research, Landscape Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Service, D.PC. to confirm that there are no endangered species at the site. This report will be included in the Final SGEIS.

See also section 3.3.3 Wildlife4 where it states:

. . . As noted in Section 3.3.1, information from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation indicated that no threatened, endangered plants or species of special concern are known to inhabit the project area. The Town has hired a contractor to conduct a Threatened and Endangered Species Study to confirm this information.

3.3.2 Wetlands

The section states in pertinent part as follows:

The Environmental Assessment Form Mapper identified potential wetlands at the project site. Existing NYS and Federal wetlands mapping indicate no wetlands on this site but

4 See also 4.3.1 Vegetation and Wildlife for a similar reference.

2839847.7 2/20/2017 based on soils and concerns about wetlands, a Wetland Delineation Study was conducted during the period or May 27 to June 4, 2014 to determine the existence and extent of wetlands on the project site (refer to Appendix D - The Wetland Delineation Report). The results of the investigations showed six wetlands totaling approximately 29.0 acres. (see Map 5 - Environmental Features).

The reference to 29 acres of wetlands is an error and must be corrected.5 That acreage includes the wetlands located in land in the Town of Lockport that is owned by GMCH and that was the subject of discussions between the IDA and GMCH as to a possible transfer. That transfer did not take place and the IDA revised its request to the Army Corps of Engineers for a preliminary wetland jurisdictional determination to cover only the approximately 89.8 acres that were acquired by eminent domain and not the entire 120 acres that was owned by GMCH prior to the IDA taking.

The attached Wetland Delineation Report (Appendix D to the draft SGEIS) includes the approximately 29 acres owned by GMCH within the original 120 acreage (see tax map # 108.00- 1-35.11 on tax parcel map attached as Exhibit C). The report should be deleted from the SGEIS in favor of the report prepared by LaBella to support the request for a preliminary jurisdictional determination for only the wetlands within the area taken by the IDA. The wetland acreage was 18.01 acres (see Exhibit L).

The section references the fact that six wetland areas were delineated, and as noted, not all are within the project Site.6 This section needs to be revised to delete those wetland areas that lie outside the Site.

3.5.2 Existing and Surrounding Land Use

The reference to the “former Harrison Radiator” should be deleted because it is an outdated reference. To avoid confusion and ensure consistency in the discussion in the text, the phrase “GMCH manufacturing facility” should be inserted as that is the current manufacturing facility that is in operation.

The text also provides in pertinent part – “The existing IDA Industrial Park adjoins the property to the north.” However, NYSDOT and GMCH property actually adjoin the Site to the north. The IDA Industrial Park is further to the north. The reference should be revised accordingly.

3.8.2 Archaeological Resources

This section states in pertinent part7 as follows:

5 A similar incorrect reference is made at section 4.3.2 Wetlands and 5.1 Soils.

6 This erroneous reference is also made at § 5.1 of the draft SGEIS under Soils.

7 See also § 4.8 Historic and Cultural Resources and § 5.8 Cultural Resources for similar references.

2839847.7 2/20/2017 According to the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation (NYSOPRHP) database, there are no archaeological sites on or near the project site. However, as part of the requirements for Shovel Ready designation, the Town has hired a contractor to conduct a Cultural Resources Survey to determine whether there are any historic or pre-historic artifacts on the site. The final results of this survey will be included in the Final SGEIS.

3.9 Visual Resources

Section 3.9 has this reference in the first paragraph: “There is a small area onsite for electrical buildings with no other structures anywhere on the site.” These “electrical buildings,” which are also shown in photo 1A, are on the natural gas “meter station parcel” (Parcel A) that was deeded to LEA.8 The map of the Industrial Park includes this parcel within the boundaries of the proposed expanded Industrial Park (see map of the Lockport Industrial Park that appears as the first figure at the end of the draft SGEIS or page 78 of the pdf version). However, there is no indication that the IDA sought LEA’s agreement to include this parcel as part of the Industrial Park. This needs to be clarified.

The text also states in pertinent part at page 21:

Finally, as with the abandoned railroad on the southern border of the site, most views of future site development on the project site from the north will be limited or not available due to the extent of existing hedgerows and wooded land. . . .

Emphasis supplied.

The draft SGEIS refers to the existing railroad again in § 3.11.1 under Existing Transportation System as follows:

Railroad

There is a railroad line (Siding) that borders the southern edge of the project site. The need for rail access to this site is not anticipated.

8 The deed was recorded on June 30, 2016 in the Niagara County Clerk’s office as Instrument # 2016-11289. Note that the LEA parcel is shown as being outside of the expanded area in the Wendel figure attached to the draft SGEIS that is entitled “Preferred Development Plan, Option A.” 6

2839847.7 2/20/2017 Emphasis supplied.

To properly assess transportation impacts, there needs to be an explanation of why rail access to the site is not anticipated, particularly given the fact that the targeted use for the expanded Industrial Park is industrial (see § 5.4 of the draft SGEIS). There is no indication that CSX, which operates the railroad line was contacted in connection with this conclusory assessment.

Note also that the Niagara County Center of Economic Development is already promoting the expanded area as being within the Lockport Industrial Park. See the following link - http://www.niagaracountybusiness.com/lockport.asp. The Center refers to the availability of rail services under the heading “Access Details.”

3.10.2 Wastewater Disposal

Detailed comments on this portion of the environmental review are set forth in the GMCH Comment Letter.

3.10.3 Other Utility Services

The text states in pertinent part:

· Electric – Electric service in the project area is supplied by New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG), a division of Iberdola USA. . . . Heavy power users may also take advantage of the 115kV service to the Lockport General Motors manufacturing facility; the bus ring on this sire [sic] has a capacity of providing additional kV feeds for nearby users.

What is the basis of the statement that access is available to the 115 kV service?9 NYSEG is not identified as either an Involved or Interested Agency in the draft SGEIS proceeding and there is no indication in the text that NYSEG was consulted in making this statement.

NYSEG agrees to notify GM in writing before NYSEG serves any additional New Customer(s) using the New Customer Facilities, which notice shall specify the expected additional load of the additional New Customer(s) so that GM may evaluate power quality effects on its production. NYSEG may provide electric service to such additional New Customer(s) using the New Customer Facilities; provided that, (i) NYSEG's provision of electric service to such additional New customer(s) shall not materially and adversely affect GM's operations, (ii) GM is allowed to review the potential impact the provision of electric service to such additional New Customer(s) may have on its operations before the electric service is provided to such additional New Customer(s),

9 See also a similar statement made in Section 4.10.3 of the draft SGEIS. 7

2839847.7 2/20/2017 and (iii) NYSEG provides information to GM as is reasonably necessary to ascertain the potential impact the provision of electric service to such additional New Customer(s) may have on its operations.

3.11.1 Existing Transportation System

The text states in pertinent part at page 20:

In addition, a private access road runs through the northern portion of the site, to provide access to the co-generation facility east of the property.

On page 20, there is the following reference to IDA Park Drive.

IDA Park Drive begins at an intersection with Upper Mountain Road and ends at the private access drive to Mahle Behr Troy Inc.

This is incorrect. The Mahle Behr Troy access drive is not connected to IDA Park Drive but rather is located entirely within the GMCH manufacturing complex. See Exhibit A that provides an aerial view of the Project Site. IDA Park Drive is the roadway running below the caption Town Industrial Park that ends on the northern boundary of the approximately 29 acre parcel owned by GMCH. The Mahle Tech Ctr is east of this roadway.

4.2.1 Groundwater and Surface Water Resources

The text states in pertinent part:

To limit potential impacts to groundwater on the project site, building construction will not involve excavation and buildings will not have subsurface levels or basements.

4.2.2 Stormwater Management

2839847.7 2/20/2017 4.9 Visual Resources

The text states in pertinent part:

Another aspect of visual resources is site lighting. At present, the project site is open land with no buildings or other structures.

4.10.1 Public Water Supply

The text states in pertinent part as follows:

. . . Proposed uses are not known at this time but the general types of uses that are expected to occupy the site would not be large consumers of public water. This DGEIS will set a threshold for the quantity of water that may be utilized. The new water services in the area would most likely accommodate this demand. The 8-inch waterline has available fire flows of 3,800 gallons per minute at 20 psi, which based on discussion with local fire officials, should be sufficient for their firefighting needs.

The draft SGEIS sets the threshold for the quantity of water that may be utilized. What is that threshold for an individual project? It appears that the only threshold relates to fire flow requirements. See the text in Section § 7.3 where the following utility threshold is stated at page 5: “Peak Water demand [f]or fire flow in excess of 3800 gpm will require evaluation and potential mitigations.” Is this number a hard cap? Who makes the specified evaluation?

The draft SGEIS says that the new water service “would most likely accommodate the demand.” What if it does not?

The draft SGEIS states that water is sufficient for firefighting based on discussions with local fire officials. Who are those fire officials? They should be identified in the SGEIS.

4.10.2 Wastewater Disposal

Detailed comments on this portion of the environmental review are set forth in the GMCH Comment Letter.

4.10.3 Other Utility Services

See the discussion in 3.10.3 of this Addendum.

2839847.7 2/20/2017 4.11 Transportation and Traffic Impacts

Detailed comments on this portion of the environmental review are set forth in the GMCH Comment Letter.

Section 6.0 Alternatives Analysis

This section involves the analysis of the following development scenarios:

Alternative 1 (No-Action alternative)

The text states in pertinent part: “The site is arguably an eye-sore at this time and will continue to be an unmaintained field.” We see no basis for concluding that this undeveloped land is an “eye- sore” and the draft SGEIS does not identify the basis for this conclusory assessment.

Going forward under this alternative, the site does not need to be neglected by the IDA; that would be the IDA’s choice. It would also be a poor choice if the desire is to market the site. In the interim, GMCH has been mowing lawn areas under a license with the IDA, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit J and so the area continues to be maintained.

Alternative 3 (proposed preferred development pattern)

The text states in pertinent part: “This alternative . . . assumes the Town owning and maintaining a portion of the current Co-Generation facility/GM access road.” We agree that having the Town own the Access road is preferred to having the Access Road operate as a private roadway for site development purposes. However, simple municipal ownership of the Access Road does not address the concerns over traffic impacts, wastewater disposal, and stormwater management that have been presented in the GMCH Comment Letter.

Section 7.2. SEQRA Procedures/Compliance For Future Actions

The text correctly states that if the Planning Board finds that the environmental impacts associated with a future project have been addressed in the final SGEIS, no further SEQRA review will be required. However, it should be clear that there will be a need to do a site-specific EIS if a proposed future action exceeds the development thresholds specified in the final GEIS. See the following Q&A from the SEQRA Handbook prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation:

13. Are supplemental EISs always required following generic EISs?

2839847.7 2/20/2017 significant adverse environmental impacts. If significant adverse impacts of the subsequent action are identified, and they were not adequately addressed in the generic EIS, then a site- or project-specific supplemental EIS must be prepared. Many generic EISs and Findings identify the environmental issues or thresholds that would trigger the need for such a supplement.

However, if the lead agency determines that the final generic EIS adequately addresses all potential significant adverse impacts of the subsequently proposed action, then no supplemental EIS is necessary. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/seqrhandbook.pdf at page 150. Emphasis supplied.

7.3 Thresholds for Development of Project Site

Zoning Thresholds (§ 7.3 at page 2).

It is not possible to assess the potential environmental impacts of a particular proposed use simply by identifying its footprint on the project site and reciting that wetland areas will be avoided (see § 7.3 at page 2 that identifies proposed zoning thresholds). One needs to know the specifics of the proposed operation. The list of permitted uses recited in this section can have different levels of operation and therefore different potential environmental impacts.

Utility Thresholds (§ 7.3 at page 5)

It is not possible to assess the thresholds for sewage (wastewater) generation until the treatment facility to be used has been identified and that treatment facility's concurrence in the suggested threshold obtained.

In terms of storm water, the text states in pertinent part:

. . . Building square footages exceeding those illustrated on the preferred development plan will require re-evaluation of the areas set aside for storm water facilities.

2839847.7 2/20/2017 After the discussion at 9.0 Effects on Use and Conservation of Energy Resources, there are 6 pages of text in the draft SGEIS that appear to be duplicative of what is found earlier in the text. Please clarify.

Appendix E Phase I ESA

What is actually attached is a Phase II report that was prepared by LaBella.

· Purpose of Inclusion of Report. This Appendix is neither identified nor referenced in the text of the draft SGEIS. Please clarify the purpose for its inclusion of the Report.

· Addendum to Phase II ESA. In the course of prior discussions with the IDA, GMCH identified certain items in the LaBella reports that needed to be corrected and in response, LaBella prepared addenda for both its Phase I and Phase II reports. A copy of the Addendum to the Phase II report is missing from the attached Phase II ESA and so we have attached a copy as Exhibit K with a copy of the related LaBella correspondence.

Appendix 2 to the LaBella Phase II report contains “GZA Groundwater Information from On- Site Monitoring Wells.” This information was provided to the IDA in confidence (see the legal correspondence included in the Appendix.) It therefore should not be included in the Phase II ESA and must be removed.

2839847.7 2/20/2017

APPENDIX C: MINUTES

TOWN OF LOCKPORT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS Meeting Minutes February 9th, 2017 8:00 AM - IDA Board Meeting Room

1.0 PUBLIC HEARING – Chairman Tom Sy opened the Public Hearing of the DSGEIS Environmental Impact Statement on Lockport Industrial Park South at 8:02am Thursday February 9, 2017.

Roy Knapp the Environmental Manager at the GM Components Holdings, LLC. “My name is Roy Knapp and I am the Environmental Manager at the manufacturing facility operated by GM Components Holdings, LLC here in Lockport. The property where GMCH is located is adjacent to both the existing IDA Industrial Park and the expansion site that the IDA plans to offer for development. That site is the subject of this draft SGEIS and it is also bisected by an Access Road from Lockport Junction Road that serves the GMCH manufacturing facility for both truck and employee traffic. As GMCH and the surrounding area will be affected by any development that occurs on the site, GMCH intends to submit comments on the draft SGEIS. To that end, we need to confirm that we are reviewing the correct draft of the SGEIS, have all the relevant reports and sufficient time to complete our review.

First, as to the version of the draft SGEIS presented for public review, is it the version found by clicking the link in the January 25, 2017 edition of the Environmental Notice Bulletin? Is there a paper copy of the draft SGEIS that we can obtain from the consultant that prepared the SGEIS?

Second, looking at the draft SGEIS that we have from the Environmental Notice Bulletin link, we noticed references to reports that are not included with the draft SGEIS. How can we obtain copies of these reports to review?

Third, Nancy Brooks, formerly the Town Clerk, is listed as the contact person in the ENB notice. However, we understand Ms. Brooks has since retired. Who is the new contact person that should receive our comment letter?

Fourth, finally, to provide us with adequate time to complete our review of the draft SGEIS, we would like an additional time to complete our review of the draft SGEIS, we would like an additional two weeks to submit our comments, that is, until Friday, March 17. We will follow up with a formal request for that extension of time.

Thank you for your consideration.”

1.1 Need to confirm that they are reviewing the correct draft of the Environmental Impact Statement and requested a paper copy be made available to GM for further review. 1.2 There is a reference within the document that refers to reports that are not attached. 1.3 Nancy Brooks, formerly the Town Clerk is listed as the contact person. Mrs. Brooks has since retired. Who is the new contact person that should receive GM’s comment letter? 1.4 GM would like an additional two weeks to review and submit comments until Friday March 17th, 2017. There being no other individuals in attendance to speak at the Public Hearing, the hearing was closed by Chairman Tom Sy at 8:06am Thursday February 9, 2017. 1

2.0 GENERAL BUSINESS Chairman Thomas Sy convened the regular meeting of the Town of Lockport Industrial Development Agency at 8:07 AM.

3.0 Roll Call Present –Chairman Thomas Sy, Vice Chairman – Eric Connor, Treasurer - Sallie Reed and Board members Todd Fragale, Robert Runk and Legal Counsel – Brian Seaman, Daniel Seaman; Administrative Director – Marc Smith.

Excused: Harold Anderson, Dan Antkowiak Guest: Roy Knapp – Environmental Manager for GM Component Holdings, LLC.

4.0 SECRETARYS REPORT On a motion by Mrs. Reed and seconded by Mr. Runk the Board voted to approve the Minutes from the January 12th, 2017 Board Meeting.

5.0 TREASURERS REPORT Mrs. Reed reviewed the financial reports for the period ending January 31st, 2017. On a motion by Mr. Fragale and seconded by Mr. Connor the Board voted to approve the January 31st, 2017 financial reports.

On a motion by Mrs. Reed and seconded by Mr. Runk the Board voted to approve the payment of all invoices and bills as presented with the January 31st, 2017 financial statement.

6.0 DSGEIS Draft Proposal Wendel Planner Drew Reilly updated the IDA Board on the comments received from NYSDEC, NYSDOT, NYS Historic Preservation and the US Army Corp. All of these items will be referenced in the final copy of the Environmental Impact Statement. 6.1 Wetlands – need further review by NYSDEC to see if they will have jurisdiction over the area. 6.2 Rapture/endangered species review. 6.3 Historic Preservation – further review of several areas within the proposed site. 6.4 NYSDOT will issue their written findings soon.

7.0 ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTORS REPORT

7.1 Administrative Director Smith reviewed his report dated January 31st, 2017. 7.2 Lockport Development News Sample document was shown to the Board of Directors. The IDA will begin distribution of the newsletter via Constant Contact as soon as the email list has been reviewed. Currently over 1300 names are on the distribution list. 7.3 Authority Programs, Finances and Reporting – review was tabled until the March meeting when more time could be devoted to the topic.

8.0 Executive Session: On a motion by Mrs. Reed and seconded by Mr. Runk the Board voted to enter into executive session at 8:32am to consult with the Attorney. On a motion by Mr. Fragale and seconded by Mr. Runk the Board voted to come out of executive session at 8:55am.

9.0 ATTORNEY REPORT

9.1 Resolutions: WHEREAS, the Town of Lockport entered into a Sidetrack Agreement with ConRail (now CSX Corporation) for a siderail which services only PolyOne Corporation, on or about 1986, and WHEREAS, PolyOne has been notified that the IDA would not any longer maintain a sidetrack solely for the benefit of PolyOne Corporation, NOW THEREFORE, the Administrative Director is hereby authorized and directed to notify CSX and PolyOne that it terminates said Sidetrack Agreement pursuant to its right to terminate said Agreement on 30 days’ notice. On a motion by Mrs. Reed and seconded by Mr. Connor the Board voted to approve the resolution.

9.2 Resolution: WHEREAS, by License Agreement with General Motors Corporation, dated May 29, 1986, the Town of Lockport was authorized to erect a rail spur over and across General Motors’ property, and WHEREAS, said line was erected, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of said License, the rail spur could solely benefit PolyOne Corporation, and WHEREAS, the IDA cannot be responsible for maintenance of a rail spur which has existed for over 30 years and which benefits only one company, and the Agreement is terminable on 90 day notice by either party, and WHEREAS, General Motors and PolyOne Corporation have, on several occasions, been advised that the IDA intended to exercise its right to terminate said License Agreement, and that the two corporations should make separate arrangements if they desire to continue the line, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Administrative Director be authorized and directed to immediately notify General Motors and PolyOne Corporation and CSX of its termination of said License. On a motion by Mrs. Reed and seconded by Mr. Fragale the Board voted to approve the resolution

9.3 Resolution: Authorizing the Administrative Director to send a letter to Praxair, Inc. notifying them of their purchase agreement terms and requesting an update for the IDA on future development in the IDA Park. On a motion by Mr. Runk and seconded by Mr. Connor the Board voted to approve of the Administrative directly signing and sending the letter to Praxair.

10.0 OLD BUSINESS: 10.1 DuPont – No update on drainage and shoulder widening

11.0 Next Meeting: Our next scheduled meeting will be March 9th, 2017 at 8:00AM. 12.0 SPECIAL Meeting: March 30th, 2017 for the purpose of issuing the findings of the FSGEIS IDA Park South Environmental Impact Study. 3

13.0 Adjournment On a motion by Mr. Connor and seconded by Mrs. Reed the Board voted to adjourn at 9:07am.

Respectfully submitted, Eric Connor – Vice Chairman

APPENDIX D: REVISIONS TO THE DSGEIS

The following are the bulk requirements for this Zoning District (Industrial Zoning requirements are to be followed with the following amendments):

ZONING REQUIRMENT

Minimum Lot Area 2 Acres

Minimum Lot Area (Building Group) 5 Acres Minimum width of lot @ front 200 Feet building line Minimum width of lot (Building 300 Feet Group Lot)

Minimum Front Yard (Building) 50 Feet

Minimum landscape area in setback 20 Feet

Minimum Rear Yard (Building) – 10 feet / 100 feet from non-residential/ Residential

Minimum Side Yard (Building)- 25 Feet / 50 feet (and Berm) Industrial/ non-industrial Minimum Side Yard (Parking) 15 Feet (unless residential)

Maximum Height 80 Feet

Maximum Lot Coverage 75%

Other Design Requirements can be determined by the Planning Board

APPENDIX E: ADDITIONAL STUDIES

PHASE 1A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY

OF A 91-ACRE PROPERTY FOR LOCKPORT IDA

BUSINESS PARK EXPANSION, Northeast Branch 2390 Clinton Street Buffalo, NY 14227 SOUTH PARCEL SITE, Tel: (716) 821-1650 Fax: (716) 821-1607 TOWN OF LOCKPORT, NIAGARA COUNTY, Southeast Branch 2301 Paul Bryant Drive Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 Tel: (205) 556-3096 NEW YORK Fax: (205) 556-1144

Mid-South Branch 91 Tillman Street Memphis, TN 38111 Tel: (901) 454-4733 Fax: (901) 454-4736

Corporate Headquarters Prepared for: P.O. Box 20884 Tuscaloosa, AL 35402 Tel: (205) 248-8767 WENDEL Fax: (205) 248-8739 Centerpointe Corporate Park 375 Essjay Road, Suite 200, Williamsville, New York 14221

Prepared by:

PANAMERICAN CONSULTANTS, INC. 2390 Clinton Street Buffalo, New York 14227-1735 (716) 821-1650

December 2016 PHASE 1A CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY

OF A 91-ACRE PROPERTY FOR LOCKPORT IDA

BUSINESS PARK EXPANSION, SOUTH PARCEL SITE,

TOWN OF LOCKPORT, NIAGARA COUNTY, NEW YORK

Prepared for:

WENDEL Centerpointe Corporate Park 375 Essjay Road, Suite 200, Williamsville, New York 14221

Prepared by:

Robert J. Hanley, M.A., RPA, Principal Investigator Mark A. Steinback, M.A., Senior Historian Michael A. Cinquino, Ph.D., RPA, Project Director

PANAMERICAN CONSULTANTS, INC. Buffalo Branch Office 2390 Clinton Street Buffalo, New York 14227-1735 (716) 821-1650

December 2016

Management Summary

SHPO Project Review Number:

Involved State and Federal Agencies: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Phase of Survey: Phase 1A

Location Information: Location: Lockport Junction Road (New York State Route 93) Minor Civil Division: Town of Lockport County: Niagara

Survey Area (Metric & English): 91 acres (36.4 hectares)

USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map: Lockport 1980

Archaeological Survey Overview Number & Interval of Shovel Test Pits (STPs): NA

Results of Archaeological Survey Number & name of prehistoric sites identified: None Number & name of historic sites identified: None Number and name of sites recommended for Phase III/Avoidance: NA

Results of Architectural Survey Number of structures within project area: 0 Number of identified eligible buildings/structures/cemeteries/districts: 0

Report Authors: M. Steinback, R. Hanley, M.A. Cinquino

Date of Report: December 2016

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. ii Lockport IDA Ph 1A

Table of Contents

Management Summary ...... ii List of Figures and Tables ...... iv List of Photographs ...... v

1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1 1.2 Methodology ...... 1

2.0 Environmental Setting and Cultural Background ...... 4 2.1 Environmental Setting ...... 4 2.2 Cultural Background ...... 6 2.2.1 Prehistoric (Precontact) Period ...... 6 2.2.2 Historic Period ...... 11 2.3 Documentary Research ...... 15 2.3.1 Site File and Archival Review ...... 15 2.3.2 Historical Map Analysis ...... 16

3.0 Field Reconnaissance and Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment ...... 21

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 21

5.0 References ...... 23

Appendices Appendix A: Photographs

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. iii Lockport IDA Ph 1A

List of Figures and Tables

FIGURE PAGE

1 Approximate location of the project area in the Town of Lockport, Niagara County, New York ...... 2

2 Soils within and surrounding the project area (red polygon) ...... 5

3 Approximate location of the project area (red polygon) in 1852 ...... 17

4 Approximate location of the project area (red polygon) in 1860 ...... 17

5 Approximate location of the project area (red polygon) in 1875 ...... 18

6 Approximate location of the project area (red polygon) in 1908 ...... 18

7 Approximate location of the project area (red polygon) in 1948 ...... 19

8 Photograph locations within the project area ...... 22

TABLE

1 Soils within and adjacent to the project area ...... 4

2 Archaeological sites within approximately one mile of the project area ...... 16

3 Potential MDS identified in the Project Area ...... 20

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. iv Lockport IDA Ph 1A

List of Photographs

PHOTOGRAPH PAGE

1 The project area’s interior with an existing buried pipeline easement in the foreground, facing northeast ...... A-2

2 The open grassy setting of the project area as seen from Lockport Junction Road, facing northeast ...... A-2

3 The western side of the project area in the vicinity of locations with map-documented structures, facing south-southwest ...... A-3

4 A view of the project area from the GM Access Road 7, facing southeast ...... A-3

5 Scattered trees in the eastern portion of the APE, facing northeast ...... A-4

6 The field north of GM Road 7 with modern Niagara Residency garages and offices visible in the background, facing northwest ...... A-4

7 The project area’s grassy setting from its eastern boundary, facing west ...... A-5

8 A modern warehouse southwest of the project area, facing southwest ...... A-5

9 Southeast elevation of a house and garage on Lockport Junction Road west of the project area, facing northwest ...... A-6

10 The LEA Cogeneration Facility east of the project area, facing northeast ...... A-6

11 The railroad corridor and open fields south of the project area, facing south ...... A-7

12 Gas pipeline structures within the project area, facing southeast ...... A-7

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. v Lockport IDA Ph 1A 1.0 Introduction

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. (Panamerican) was contracted by Wendel, Williamsville, New York, to conduct a Phase 1A cultural resources investigation for a 91-acre (36.4-hectare) property for the proposed expansion (i.e., area of potential effect [APE]) of the Lockport Industrial Development Agency (IDA) business park east of Lockport Junction Road (New York State Route [NY] 93) in the Town of Lockport, Niagara County, New York (Figure 1).

The purpose of the Phase 1A investigation is to identify previously recorded cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed project and to assess the likelihood that unrecorded resources may be present within the APE of the proposed project (New York Archaeological Council [NYAC] 1994). The cultural resources investigation included archival, documentary, and historical map research, a site file and literature search, the examination of properties listed in the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places (S/NRHP), preparation of prehistoric and historic contexts of the project area, assessment of cultural resources sensitivity and past disturbances at the site, a walkover reconnaissance, and photographic documentation of field conditions. Photographs of the field investigation are presented in Appendix A.

The cultural resource investigation was conducted in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act as amended, the New York State Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the State Environmental Quality Review Act, and all relevant federal and state legislation. The investigation also was conducted according to the NYAC’s Standards for Archaeological Investigations and New York State Historic Preservation Office (NYSHPO) guidelines.

The investigation was conducted during December 2016. Senior Archaeologist Mr. Robert J. Hanley, M.A, RPA, served as principal Investigator; Senior Historian Mr. Mark A. Steinback, M.A., served as project historian; and Senior Archaeologist Dr. Michael A. Cinquino, RPA, served as project director.

1.2 METHODOLOGY

Cultural resources investigations are designed to provide a complete examination of a project area in order to identify and assess any known or unknown cultural resources prior to potential impacts. These resources include archaeological sites (prehistoric and historic) and standing structures or other aboveground features. A Phase 1A survey consists of a background and literature search, a site file check, and a field inspection of the project area. Archaeological and historic site files at the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) are reviewed through the OPRHP’s Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS) as an initial step to determine the presence of known archaeological sites within a one-mile radius of the APE. These files include data recorded at both the OPRHP and the New York State Museum (NYSM). Results of the site file check are summarized in Section 2.3.2. The prehistory and history of the region are reviewed for the preparation of an historic context of the APE (see Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2).

Information collected during the Phase 1A survey is used to assess the sensitivity of the project area / APE for the presence of cultural resources. The sensitivity of the project area is assessed through background research and field examination. Pedestrian or walkover reconnaissance surveys are conducted across the project area to identify testable locations, cultural features, surface visibility, soil disturbance, and wet or poorly drained areas, as well as well-drained sensitive areas that would require testing. Areas that are untestable or severely disturbed are identified according to the following criteria:

 graded and cut areas through surrounding terrain (e.g., hills or gorges), such as those resulting from road construction;

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 1 Lockport IDA Ph 1A

Figure 1. Approximate location of the project area in the Town of Lockport, Niagara County, New York (United States Geological Survey [USGS] 1980a, 1980b).

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 2 Lockport IDA Ph 1A

 areas that appear to have over 5 feet (1.5 meters) of fill;

 areas previously impacted by construction of utilities, drainage ditches, streets or other obvious areas of significant earth movement;

 areas including poorly drained soils and wetlands; and,

 areas having slopes greater than 15 percent.

Areas of archaeological potential and high sensitivity are identified based on the following criteria:

 undisturbed areas that are environmentally sensitive with relatively level well- drained soils or in the vicinity of potable water such as springs, streams or creeks (these characteristics typify known site locations in the region);

 known prehistoric or historic site locations within or adjacent to the project area; and,

 historic structures identified within or immediately adjacent to the project area.

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 3 Lockport IDA Ph 1A 2.0 Environmental Setting and Cultural Background

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Topography. The project area is located within the Huron Plain, part of the Erie-Ontario Lake Plain physiographic province. The fairly level and uniform Lake Plain surface slopes gently westward and is punctuated by irregular ridges (Ritchie 1980; Higgins et al. 1972:191). The majority of the project area is generally level to slightly sloping; elevations generally increase from south to north and range from approximately 622 ft (190m) AMSL at the southwestern end of the project area along Lockport Junction Road (New York State Route [NY] 93) and the southeastern end of the project area to approximately 636 ft (110m) at a knoll along the road at the northwestern end of the project area before decreasing north of the project area (see Figure 1).

Geology. Primary bedrock formations in the county include the Queenston shale, Lockport dolomitic limestone, and the Rochester shale. The soils of Niagara County were formed from glacial till and lacustrine deposits and are also strongly influenced by the bedrock formations upon which they rest. Large amounts of lake sediments, including reddish-colored glacial till (comparable to the Munsell® soil color chart description of “strong brown,” 7.5YR 5/8), were deposited when the area was covered by glacial Lake Lundy during the Pleistocene Epoch. The current project area was south of the Niagara escarpment and covered by glacial Lake Tonawanda during the recession of the last (Wisconsin) glacier (Higgins et al. 1972:190-191; Van Diver 1985:42).

Soils. Soils in the project area were formed in areas dominated by soils formed in lake-laid clays and silts, and are part of the Odessa-Lakemont-Ovid association. Soils of this association are deep, somewhat poorly drained to very poorly drained, and have fine-textured or moderately fine-textured subsoil that is dominantly reddish in color (Higgins et at. 1972:General Soil Map). Specific soils in the project areas are described in Table 1 and shown in Figure 2 (Higgins et al. 1972; Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2015). Approximately 20 acres (8 ha) of the APE is reported to be made land.

Table 1. Soils within and adjacent to the project area (Higgins et al. 1972). Soil Horizon Slope Name Depth Color Texture Drainage Land Form % inches (cm) 0-9 (0-23) V DK GR BR SI LO Churchville silt loam 9-23 (23-58) BR - YL BR SI CL LO 0-2, Somewhat glacial lake (CIA, ClB) 23-31 (58-79) GR BR SI CL LO 2-6 poorly bed 31-50 (79-127) RD BR HV LO Made Land (Me) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0-8 (0-20) DK GR BR SI CL LO 8-16 (20-41) BR/BR YL SI CL Odessa silty clay loam Somewhat glacial lake 16-19 (41-48) BR/RD YL SI CL 0-3 (OdA) poorly basins 19-33 (48-84) LT RD BR/LT BR SI CL 33-56 (84-142) RD BR SI CL 0-6 (0-15) DK GR BR SI LO -11 (-28) PA BR/ST BR SI LO Somewhat Ovid silt loam (OvA) -20 (-51) RD BR SI CL LO 0-2 Till plains poorly -24 (-61) RD BR SI CL LO -50 (-127) RD BR HV LO Color: BR = brown, DK = dark, GR = gray, PA = pale, RD = red, ST = strong, V = very, YL = yellow Texture: CL = clay, HV = heavy, LO = loam, SA = sandy, SI =silt

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 4 Lockport IDA Ph 1A

Figure 2. Soils within and surrounding the project area (red polygon) (NRCS 2015b; Higgins et al. 1972).

Drainage. Approximately 1,750 ft (534 m) northwest of the project area (see Figure 1), Bull Creek extends southwestwards towards Tonawanda Creek. Several unnamed intermittent streams are also in proximity to the project area, including tributaries to Eighteenmile Creek, which flows northerly into Lake Ontario. Project maps also indicate a wetland area or drainage extending through the southern portion of the project area as well as another wetland area in the northeast portion of the project area south of and along an access road to the Lockport Energy Associates gas-fired electric cogeneration facility and .

Forest Zone. All of Niagara County lies within the Elm-Red Maple-Northern Hardwood forest zone (de Laubenfels 1966:92). This zone reflects recent conditions where poorly drained areas are widespread, the natural forest has been removed, and better drained areas have been utilized for agriculture. Despite the similarity of the climatic conditions between this zone and the Oak-Northern Hardwood zone (i.e., cold snowy winters, warm dry summers), the prevalence of elm and red maple is the result of human impacts to the environment (de Laubenfels 1966:95). Vegetation in the APE typically includes cut lawns in a residential setting. Do to the location of the APE within road right-of-ways, trees are uncommon due to traffic safety.

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 5 Lockport IDA Ph 1A Man-Made Features and Alterations. Soils within the majority of the APE do not appear to have been previously disturbed. However, the NRCS has recorded approximately 20 acres (8 ha) within the APE as made land (see Table 1 and Figure 2). Also, there is a buried gas pipeline that crosses the southern side of the APE which is connected to a substation along Lockport Junction Road.

2.2 CULTURAL BACKGROUND

2.2.1 Prehistoric (Precontact) Period. The three major cultural traditions manifested in western New York State during the prehistoric era were the Paleo-Indian, Archaic, and Woodland. Cultural evolution of the area can be summarized as a gradual increase in social complexity, punctuated by several important cultural and/or technological innovations. The earliest people were nomadic big-game hunters (12,000 to 8000 BC); changing environmental conditions required an adaptation of the economy, resulting in a shift to the efficient exploitation of temperate forest resources by Archaic hunter-gatherers. In many areas of eastern North America, the Archaic (8000 to 1500 BC) is followed by a Transitional period (1500 to 1000 BC) that bridges the Archaic and the subsequent Woodland period. The Woodland tradition (1000 BC to AD 1600) is marked by the introduction of pottery, agriculture, and burial mounds, and resulted in a plethora of new and very different social and economic adaptations (Ritchie 1980; Engelbrecht 2003).

After about 1000 BC, external influences began to have an increasingly greater effect as the area was occupied by groups that later formed the Erie and Neutral confederacies. Culturally, they shared much with groups in southern Ontario, Canada. The introduction of corn horticulture ca. AD 1000 encouraged population growth, village life, and warfare in western New York. The tribes which eventually formed the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois Confederacy evolved from antecedents in the area between the Genesee River and the Tug Hill Plateau. Prior to the time of European contact, Seneca hunting territory comprised an area extending from Lake Ontario to the headwaters of the smaller Finger Lakes and from the Genesee River to Cayuga Lake. There was very little interaction between these groups and those of the western New York area until the seventeenth century (Tuck 1978; Tooker 1978; White 1961, 1978a). After AD 1600, the Seneca expanded the range of their trading activities into the traditional areas of other Iroquoian groups. Thus, by the mid-seventeenth century, the Haudenosaunee emerged as a politically, militarily, and economically united confederacy with sole access to both the land and resources surrounding the lower Great Lakes (Abler and Tooker 1978; White 1978b; Trigger 1978).

Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 12,000-8000 BC). Hunter-gatherer bands of the Paleo-Indian culture were the first humans in New York State after the last glacial retreat approximately 14,000 years ago. At this time, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River were locked in ice, and the current project area would have been underneath an ice sheet, not an ideal environment for occupation. It is possible, however, that the environmental fluctuations that occurred during this early period were conducive to periodic forays by Paleo-Indian groups into the region when conditions were suitable. As the climate gradually became more temperate, these forays may have become more extended. Prior to 10,000 years ago, the ice had not retreated very far north of the lake and the Lake Ontario basin was still somewhat inhospitable (Engelbrecht et al. 1993:10; Fitting 1975:27-28).

Technologically, the Paleo-Indian period has been associated with the fluted-point (i.e., Clovis) industry. These points are generally large (2.5 to 10 cm [1 to 4 in] in length), with a flute on each face that facilitated hafting (Funk and Schambach 1964; Snow 1980). Other items in the Paleo-Indian tool kit included leaf-shape and ovate bifacial knives, end scrapers, often equipped with graving spurs, and unifacial side scrapers, knives and retouched flakes. Drills, awls and gravers are also diagnostic Paleo- Indian tools. The artifacts are all fashioned from one type of high-grade chert, possibly from middle- formation Onondaga materials from western New York (Ritchie 1980:26). This supports the hypothesis that Paleo-Indians were mobile and possibly traveled along the margins of former glacial Lake Iroquois.

Adapted to the tundra, Paleo-Indians utilized a nomadic settlement system in which their movements followed that of game. The archaeological record suggests that Paleo-Indian subsistence strategies emphasized hunting big-game species. These species, many of which are extinct, included mastodon, mammoth, caribou, and moose-elk, along with a variety of smaller game (Funk 1972:11; Ritchie 1980; Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 6 Lockport IDA Ph 1A Salwen 1975). Few tool associations have been made with aquatic resources remains. However, it is difficult to imagine these people not utilizing such a diverse and abundantly available food source once water conditions allowed.

During the seasonal peaks of resources, larger populations occupied strategically located large camps. During periods of low resource potential, the population dispersed, occupying small camp sites and rockshelters on a temporary basis. A band-level social organization is attributed to Paleo-Indian groups, with each band consisting of 25 or 30 people. These bands were initially "free wandering communities that moved frequently and without restriction, their direction, persistence and territory covered being controlled mainly by game movements and the abundance of other wild food resources" (Snow 1980:150). As climatic conditions allowed more permanent occupation of an area, this wandering became more restrictive and bands settled into loose territories.

Ritchie and Funk (1973:333) have classified Paleo-Indian sites into two main categories: quarry workshops and camps. These categories are further subdivided into large, recurrently occupied camps, small special- purpose camps, and caves or rockshelter sites. Chert quarrying and the preliminary stages of tool production were carried out at the tool workshops (Gramly and Funk 1990:13). Located near the margin of extinct glacial lakes, many Paleo-Indian sites in the Northeast are located on elevated areas “where good drainage, meaning a dry living floor, was an important consideration” (Funk 1978:18). These hills or rises also served as loci for monitoring the migratory patterns of game species. Evidence of megafauna (e.g., mastodon, mammoth) habitation has been identified in areas around Lake Erie and the Niagara River (Ritchie 1980). This general Paleo-Indian adaptive pattern overlapped the beginning of the subsequent Archaic period, leading some to refer to the earlier periods of the Archaic as a transitional stage.

Oak Orchard Swamp, a remnant of glacial Lake Tonawanda in Genesee County, has attracted intermittent prehistoric occupations since ca. 9,500 BC. The Arc site, near the head of Oak Orchard Creek and near the Oakfield-Alabama town line, is the largest Paleo-Indian site in New York State, covering approximately 100 acres. More than 1,600 Paleo-Indians tools, primarily scrapers, projectile points (Clovis), and knives, were collected at the site. Radiocarbon dates derived from the Arc site range from 10,375+110 BP to 11,700+110 BP. Further, artifacts recovered from the site reveal addition occupations from the Late Archaic and Early/Middle Woodland periods (Vanderlaan 2008).

Archaic Period (ca. 8000-1500 BC). The Archaic period is differentiated from the Paleo-Indian period by a functional shift in lithic technology, an apparent increase in population, changes in the subsistence strategy, and a less nomadic settlement system (Funk 1978; Tuck 1978). These changes reflect an adaptation to an improved climate and a more diversified biome (Funk 1972:10). In addition, a few technological changes, such as the production of ground and polished stone tools, serve to identify the Archaic period (Funk 1972; Kraft 1986). The Early Archaic tool kit consisted of Hardaway, Dalton, Palmer corner-notched, Kirk corner-notched, and bifurcate base points which frequently had serrated edges (Funk 1993). People of the Early Archaic also used end scrapers, side scrapers, spokeshaves, drills, gravers, choppers, hammers, and anvil stones. In addition to an improved climate and more diversified biome, a few technological changes, such as the production of ground and polished stone tools, serve to identify the Middle Archaic period (6000-4000 BC) (Funk 1991; Kraft 1986). The bannerstone, probably used as an atlatl weight, and the bell pestle were Middle Archaic innovations (Griffin 1967).

People began to develop woodworking tools during the Middle Archaic period, using coarse-grained stones and river cobbles as their raw materials (Kraft 1986). The territorial "settling in" process begun during the Early Archaic continued into the Middle Archaic, stimulating a process of group isolation. Sites from these periods cluster along major rivers and marshy, swampy land as well as lowlands.

The Late Archaic is seen as the flowering of preceramic culture in the Northeast (Snow 1980; Mason 1981). The period begins about 6,000 years ago and continues to the advent of pottery around 1500 BC. During this period prehistoric cultures "fully adjusted to the humid Temperate Continental climate which, with its oak-chestnut-deer-turkey biome, persisted to the present day" (Ritchie and Funk 1973). The increased carrying capacity of this relatively richer and more diverse biome provided a subsistence base which was much broader than that of previous periods and is reflected by an increase in the number, Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 7 Lockport IDA Ph 1A size, and kinds of sites documented in the archaeological record. Food resources consisted of large game (deer and bears), small game, fish, shellfish, waterfowl, birds, insects, vegetables and fruits. This diversity not only allowed for greater procurement efficiency, it also provided a cushion against seasonal failures of any single resource. The general increase in numbers of milling and fishing tools suggests a shift away from red meat as a preferred resource (Ritchie 1980; Ritchie and Funk 1973).

In New York, two contemporaneous Late Archaic cultural traditions predominate: the Narrow Point tradition, generally restricted to western and central New York, and the Laurentian tradition, evident throughout all of New York. The Narrow Point tradition is recognized as the Lamoka phase. Most Lamoka sites are small, open camp sites, although large near-permanent base camps have also been identified (Ritchie 1980; Ritchie and Funk 1973). As with other Archaic peoples, Lamoka groups relied on hunting, fishing, and gathering. Deer and turkey were the preferred game, while in the floral group, acorns and hickory nuts were impressively evident. However, the primary orientation of the culture was toward aquatic resources caught mostly with nets.

In contrast to the Lamoka, the Laurentian tradition is characterized by a primary reliance on hunting. This tradition, which is associated with the Lake Forest Archaic of eastern New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire (Snow 1980), is represented in this area by the Brewerton phase (3000-1720 BC). While some base camps are known for the Brewerton phase, the majority of sites are small, temporary hinterland camps on streams, marshes, and springs. The emphasis on hunting is reflected by assemblages having large proportions of points and hunting gear. Fishing gear and nutting stones are also present, but not in the quantities known from Lamoka sites. Toward the end of the Archaic period, sunflowers, chenopodium, and pigweed became an increasingly important component of the subsistence strategy and steatite or soapstone vessels were introduced (Ritchie and Funk 1973:87).

Brewerton and Lamoka peoples occupied similar environments, and contact between the two groups is evident in central New York. Brewerton mortuary customs were somewhat more complex than Lamoka, although neither group featured regular cemetery areas. Grave goods were confined to utilitarian objects and there is no hint of the mortuary ceremonialism of the following Early Woodland period (Ritchie 1980). Few beveled adzes, characteristic of the Lamoka phase, have been recovered in Niagara County (Ritchie 1980:44).

Late in the Archaic period (ca. 1500-1000 BC), a burial/ceremonial complex developed and the ceramics were introduced. The shift to pottery appears to have been preceded by the adoption of steatite or soapstone pots which made cooking and food preparation easier (Ritchie and Funk 1973:87; Funk 1993:198). Few Archaic period sites have been excavated in Western New York (Englebrecht et al. 1993:15).

Woodland Period (1000 BC-AD 1600). The definitive characteristic of the Woodland period in New York State is the adoption of pottery technology, a development that occurred at different times from one location to another (Feder 1984:101-102; Sears 1948; Snow 1980:262; Hoffman 1998). While the previous hunting and gathering economy continued as a means of subsistence during Woodland times, Native groups became more dependent on domesticated plants for food. Agriculture brought with it a score of new problems that required new adaptations and every aspect of Native culture was transformed. With agriculture came settled village life, a general increase in population, technological changes, warfare, and a litany of social and political changes. Early and Middle Woodland sites often contain exotic and numerous trade goods within burials, which suggest the existence of widespread exchange or trade networks.

The Early Woodland period (1000-100 BC) is marked by several cultural phases in New York State, including the Orient, Meadowood, Middlesex, and Bushkill phases. Some of these phases, such as Meadowood, are better understood than others, while some may not be very important in some local sequences. Meadowood sites are found throughout the Northeast, and particularly New York. Settlements appear to be year-round, primarily located near large bodies of water, such as the Niagara River. The Riverhaven complex, located along the Niagara River on the eastern part of Grand Island, represents one of the most important and well-studied Meadowood phase assemblages (particularly Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 8 Lockport IDA Ph 1A Riverhaven 2) in the Northeast. Riverhaven 2 appears to have been intensively and repeatedly occupied from late autumn to early spring. Several of the Riverhaven sites are located on high knolls adjacent to former marshes (Engelbrecht et al. 1993:22-23; Granger 1978).

The Middle Woodland period (100 BC-AD 1000) shows continued long-distance exchange, although perhaps with varying strength at different times. In central and western New York, a sequence of occupation sites shows evidence of a long, Middle Woodland cultural tradition referred to as Point Peninsula (Ritchie 1980). In western New York, the Middle Woodland period is poorly understood in comparison to the Early Woodland. Point Peninsula ceramics were recovered at the Martin site on Grand Island and at the Lewiston Mound along the Niagara River (Engelbrecht et al. 1993:25-26).

In Ritchie’s chronological framework, the end of the Middle Woodland, which he argued came around AD 1000, occurred when people in New York adopted the suite of characteristics he associated with the Late Woodland: primarily agriculture based on maize, beans, and squash; Owasco-style pottery; and house structures resembling historical Haudenosaunee longhouses. Ritchie believed people adopted these innovations relatively rapidly between AD 1000 and AD 1100. Recent studies, however, have demonstrated that none of these developments occurred at AD 1000, nor did they happen together at any other single time (Hart 1999, 2000, 2011; Hart et al. 2003; Hart and Brumbach 2003; Prezzano 1988; Schulenberg 2002). Moreover, this research has altered how events during the Middle Woodland are interpreted. The direct dating of maize using accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), for example, has demonstrated that people in southern Ontario and central New York were growing the crop before AD 700 (Crawford et al. 1997:114-115; Hart et al. 2003: 634). Meanwhile, Hart et al. (2003:624-625) and Schulenberg (2002:160-164) have obtained AMS dates from charred residue on the interiors of Owasco vessels that indicate people were manufacturing those pots as early as the seventh century AD (see also Hart and Brumbach 2003:743-744). Beyond this, Hart has demonstrated that people did not construct longhouses in central New York before the beginning of the thirteenth century AD and that they did not likely grow beans until an even later date (Hart 1999, 2000, 2011).

The Late Woodland, in Ritchie’s scheme for the Northeast, was the period between AD 1000 and the time at which Native people traded for or otherwise obtained European goods, the precise timing of which varied throughout the region. In the 1930s, Ritchie (1937[1936]) proposed dividing the Late Woodland into two shorter periods: the Owasco and Iroquois (see also Ritchie 1944). At the time, he believed Iroquoian groups migrated to the New York State area and replaced the Algonquian Owasco people already living there (see Tuck 1971:11-14). Although, since the 1950s, researchers have generally accepted that Iroquoian speakers did not immigrate to the Northeast at the beginning of the Late Woodland, the distinction between Owasco and Iroquois periods has remained. Also, with the development of radiocarbon dating, the two have acquired distinct temporal boundaries, with the Owasco lasting from AD 1000 to 1300, and the Iroquois spanning the years thereafter (Hart and Brumbach 2003:747). In terms of material culture, the primary differences between the two entities are related to ceramic vessel form and decoration.

Although, as outlined above, some of the cultural developments Ritchie associated with the Late Woodland did not occur between AD 1000 and 1100, some—particularly those related to the development of an agricultural system based on maize, beans, and squash—did happen in the succeeding years. In fact, several developments appear to cluster around AD 1200 to 1300: the earliest evidence for longhouses and multiple household villages is from the thirteenth century AD and people added beans to their diets around AD 1300 (Hart and Brumbach 2003:744-746; Hart 2011). In addition, Snow (2000:30) notes that groups in central New York began surrounding their settlements with defensive palisades after AD 1200. During the later years of the Iroquois period, people in some areas began clustering their villages within the territories occupied by historically known Native nations (Snow 2000:46-51). Likely in part because of the large amounts of wood consumed during the construction and maintenance of these settlements, as well as that needed for firewood, inhabitants periodically relocated their villages roughly every 10 to 20 years (Engelbrecht 2003:101-103). In several cases, researchers have reconstructed parts of the resulting sequences of settlements and produced detailed data concerning local culture change and the effects thereon of contact with Europeans (e.g., White 1961). However, as suggested by the results of Engelbrecht’s (2004) recent work comparing late prehistoric Jefferson County ceramics with Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 9 Lockport IDA Ph 1A those of other Iroquoian groups indicates, there are many questions regarding New York State’s Woodland inhabitants that remain unanswered.

In western New York, the Owasco traditional does not occur in a pristine state. Instead, the prehistoric cultures of western New York developed under heavy influence from the southern Ontario Princess Point complex. Princess Point subsistence generally consisted of hunting, fishing, gathering, and, after about 500, maize horticulture. This represents the first occurrence of maize horticulture in northeastern North America. The corn was of the Northern Flint variety (Zea mays) with eight rows of kernels, probably related to a variety cultivated by the Hopewell cultures of Ohio and Illinois (Noble 1975). Sites are generally located on relatively flat, exposed areas near, and not much above, water. Low riverine areas were occupied during the late spring and summer, whereas winter and spring occupations were in hilly areas away from the flood plain and free of seasonal inundation (Stothers 1977). Corn horticulture was not solely equated with village life. Evidence has been found which also associates horticulture with Princess Point riverine camps (Noble 1975; Winter 1971).

The horticultural complex of corn, beans and squash, called the Three Sisters by the Haudenosaunee in later times, are found together in some of the earliest Late Woodland sites (Ritchie and Funk 1973; Hart et al. 2003), indicating the importance of these plants for at least some early garden systems and subsistence strategies. However, the frequency with which these crops were grown together is poorly understood (Fritz 1990; Smith 1992; Kuhn and Funk 2000). The common perception is that a heavy reliance on corn horticulture was supplemented by growing beans and squash, with declining roles for hunting, fishing and gathering. Primary animal prey most likely included one or more of deer, fish, and shellfish, based on faunal evidence, site locations, and the prevalence of netsinkers and other fishing technology at some sites (Cleland 1982; Ritchie 1980; Ritchie and Funk 1973).

The Princess Point complex shared many cultural traits with the Owasco to the east. Pottery was manufactured using the paddle and anvil technique as opposed to the coil or fillet method used prior to this time. Most tools were made from Onondaga chert; points were trianguloid, similar to Levanna points. Some antler points and bone awls have also been recovered. Because of its similarity to the Owasco, these cultures have been referred to as Ontario "Owasco" (Stothers 1977). The Martin site, an important site where fishing was an essential method of food procurement, is located along the Niagara River shore, at the southern end of Grand Island. Another important fishing site is the Portage site in Lewiston.

In western New York, White (1963) hypothesizes that the introduction of horticulture led to changes in the settlement system. According to White (1963:4), "When the production of the food resources was controlled by the group through planting, then the limits on the amount of food set by natural seasonal replenishment were overcome.” Near the beginning of the period (ca. 1100), groups lived in semi-sedentary villages, occupation was seasonal, and the villages were periodically moved. Around 1570, these same groups were living, year-round, in semi-permanent sedentary villages. Like the later Huron (Sykes 1980), these groups moved their villages every 15 to 20 years in response to changing environmental conditions. While the impetus for village movement most often cited is soil exhaustion (Sykes 1980; White 1960, 1961, 1963), other factors such as game depletion, fire wood depletion, refuse accumulation, and chronic warfare may also have been contributing factors. Game depletion, in particular, may have been a strong motivation for movement, since deer provided a resource for both food and clothing (Gramly 1977).

Contact Period. During the Late Prehistoric and Contact periods, tribal clusters of Iroquoian-speaking peoples were distributed throughout New York State and lower Ontario. Comprising several thousand people in at least one, and usually several, villages in proximity to one another, each tribal cluster was separated from the others by extensive and widespread hunting and fishing areas (Trigger 1978:344; Engelbrecht 2003). Native American groups in western and central New York were profoundly affected by the introduction of the fur trade, long before the arrival of a permanent European-American population in the area. This period dates the beginning of the end of traditional Native American cultural patterns due to ever-increasing political, military, religious and economic interactions with Europeans.

Three Iroquoian peoples occupied western New York prior to the arrival of the Europeans: the Neutral, the Wenro, and the Erie. A fourth Iroquoian group, the Seneca, inhabited areas well east of the project Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 10 Lockport IDA Ph 1A area, but would assert their power in the region’s affairs beginning in the seventeenth century. Located in the Niagara peninsula of Ontario, the western portion of what is now Niagara County and the northwestern section of Erie County, the Neutral earned their name from their location between the Huron to the north and the Haudenosaunee to the east, and their efforts to remain non-aligned during the incessant warfare between those two groups. The Wenro occupied areas in eastern Niagara and Orleans counties, east of the Neutral near Batavia. The Erie were located south of the present-day City of Buffalo along Lake Erie (or Lac du Chat, to the French) and utilized areas southeast of the lake that bears their name. The traditional homeland of the Seneca was the area between the Genesee River and Seneca Lake (Engelbrecht et al. 1993:32-33; White 1978a:407-409, 1978b:412-413).

After 1600, the sources of animal skins within Seneca territory diminished, forcing the Haudenosaunee to expand the range of their hunting and trading efforts into the traditional areas of other Iroquoian groups. Between 1638 and 1655, the Haudenosaunee warred against their rivals in western New York to secure the resources of the Niagara Frontier. By the mid-seventeenth century, the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois Confederacy of New York emerged as a politically, militarily, and economically united confederacy with sole access to both the land and resources surrounding the lower Great Lakes. As a result, the project area remained a sparsely settled hinterland of the Seneca, subject to hunting and resource procurement.

2.2.2 Historic Period. For almost all of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries European activities in the area that would become known as the Niagara Frontier involved limited religious, commercial, and military endeavors. The French were the first Europeans to penetrate the valley of the Niagara River and explore the shores of Lake Ontario. As early as the 1620s, Jesuit missionaries and French traders were establishing contacts with the local Native groups. However, these visits to the region were infrequent until the 1660s. For example, Joseph de la Roche Daillon, a Recollect missionary, lived among the Neutrals for three months in 1626, and Jesuit priests St. Jean de Brébeuf and Pierre Joseph Marie Chaumonot visited the Neutrals in 1640-1641. By the 1650s, concerted attacks by the Haudenosaunee against their rivals in Western New York had reduced the project area to an unsettled hinterland of the Seneca (Williams 1921:Chapter I; White 1978a:407-409; Trigger 1978:349-351, 354-355).

In 1678-1679, as part of general reconnoitering and trade expeditions by the French in the Niagara valley, men under the direction of René-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle constructed a ship called Griffon along the Niagara River in the vicinity of Cayuga Island, opposite Grand Island, east of the two Niagara Power Project water intakes. This vessel would be the first sail vessel to ply the waters of Lake Erie and prosecute the Great Lakes fur trade. During this period, Franciscan priest Louis Hennepin became the first European to describe Niagara Falls in writing (Trigger 1978:349-352; Abler and Tooker 1978:506- 507; Sanford & Co. 1878:56).

As the fur trade became an imperial concern for the European powers, competition among these nations resulted in the erection of fortified trading posts along the frontier. The Seneca allowed La Salle to build a fortified trading post on the site of the future Fort Niagara in 1679 (Fort Conti), which burned down (possibly intentionally) later that year (Abler and Tooker 1978:505-507; White 1978b:414-416; Trigger 1978:354-356). During a subsequent period of armed conflict, Jacques René de Brisay, Marquis de Denonville, governor of New France (Canada), led an attack against the Seneca south of Irondequoit Bay in July 1687, after which the French retreated to reconstruct the fort at Niagara (Fort Denonville). After a severe winter during which 88 of a 100-soldier detachment died, the French abandoned the isolated fort and the region reverted to Seneca control (Abler and Tooker 1978:506-507; Tooker 1978:432; Old Fort Niagara Association 2004).

Despite consistent failures in establishing a permanent trading post along the Niagara River, French strategists continued to accept the idea that asserting control over the Niagara River valley offered strategic advantages within their imperial goals. A trader, interpreter, and former soldier, Louis-Thomas de Joncaire, Sieur de Chabert parlayed his years as a captive and adoptee of the Seneca into permission to erect a series of trading posts along the Niagara River and Lake Ontario, to the north, including one at the Lower Landing in what is now the village of Lewiston, ca. 1720. Finally, in 1726, with the construction of a permanent fortification along the Niagara River—Fort Niagara (although it was referred to as the “House of Peace”)—the French began to exercise military control over the Niagara valley, much to the Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 11 Lockport IDA Ph 1A annoyance of the Seneca. His son, Daniel (or Chabert) de Joncaire, Sieur de Chabert et de Clausonne, would later erect Fort du Portage (identified as “Little Fort Niagara”) about one-and-one-half miles above the falls in 1750. By the middle of the eighteenth century, the French had created a string of military and trading installations. These forts extended from Fort Niagara along Lake Ontario, south to Daniel de Joncaire’s trading settlement at Buffalo Creek (la Riviere aux Chevaux), and along the southern shore of Lake Erie to Presque Isle (present-day Erie, Pennsylvania) into the Ohio valley (Sanford & Co. 1878:68, 287-288; Old Fort Niagara Association 2004; Abler and Tooker 1978:506; Tooker 1978:432-434).

The ancient rivalry between the British and the French intensified during the course of the eighteenth century, reaching a crescendo during the 1750s, when the two kingdoms engaged in another round of their incessant warfare. The frontier areas played a larger role during the French and Indian War (1754- 1763) than during the previous conflicts between the kingdoms. After a 19-day siege, the British captured Fort Niagara on July 25, 1759. The loss of the fort crippled the French presence in the region, although skirmishing between Native Americans and the English continued until the closing days of the war (Dunnigan 1996).

After the French defeat and their loss of North American colonies, some of the western Seneca, remaining loyal to the French, joined Pontiac's uprising, harrying English-American settlers along the frontier. On September 14, 1763, the disaster anticipated by the British occurred when a contingent of Seneca stormed a wagon train and its military escort near Devil’s Hole along the portage between Fort Niagara and Fort Schlosser (located along the Niagara River where the two water intake towers for the Niagara Power Project are now located). Gunshots were heard as far north as Lewiston; a detachment of troops was sent to investigate. The soldiers, upon nearing the site of the initial carnage, were attacked by the Seneca, meeting a similar fate. The marauders had killed more than 90 people and tossed their bodies and goods into the gorge. The site of the incident, northeast of Devil’s Hole, became known as Bloody Run Creek. (The Bloody Run Creek near Niagara Falls is not to be confused with the Bloody Run Creek within the Village of Youngstown, which reputedly was named after the battle of La Belle Famille that occurred several years earlier.) With the general cessation of hostilities in western New York in 1764, the Seneca were compelled to cede a four-mile swath of land along both sides of the Niagara River to the British (Abler and Tooker 1978:507; Tooker 1978:434; Sanford & Co. 1878: 77-80; Arcara 2002).

During the Revolutionary War, both the British and Americans enlisted the aid of individual Haudenosaunee nations in their battles in the frontier. Although the Confederacy itself maintained an official policy of neutrality, several of the nations allied with Great Britain and several with the Americans. As part of Britain's strategy to cripple the frontier economy by disrupting agricultural activities, the British enlisted their Haudenosaunee allies to participate in these successful raids on isolated farming communities. In 1779, Major General John Sullivan led a punitive assault into the heart of Haudenosaunee country in an effort to halt the attacks against American settlers. The Continentals, utilizing "scorched earth" tactics, destroyed more than 40 villages and hundreds of acres of crops in the western Finger Lakes from present-day Elmira all the way to Canandaigua and Honeoye Lake to the Genesee River. Still controlled by the British, Fort Niagara served as the center for Loyalist activities on the frontier in New York and as the headquarters of Colonel John Butler and his Rangers. Burned out of their central New York villages, Many Haudenosaunee sought refuge at Fort Niagara where they suffered through a difficult winter of hardship and hunger (Abler and Tooker 1978:507-508; Ellis et al. 1967:115-117; Calloway 1995).

Provisioned and armed by the British, groups of Haudenosaunee periodically attacked colonial settlements until the end of the war, although the Seneca were no longer a major military threat. The British and their Loyalist allies were expelled from the new United States after the Treaty of Paris (1783) ended the Revolutionary War, and settled on the west bank of the Niagara River in what was then called Upper Canada. The United States then sought to make peace with the Haudenosaunee as separate nations. As a result of the Second Fort Stanwix Treaty (1784), the Haudenosaunee relinquished all their land west of the Niagara River, except for small reservations. This treaty was disputed by several groups of Haudenosaunee until 1794, when a treaty was signed at Canandaigua between the United States government and the Six Nations which defined the boundaries of Seneca lands and the reservations to the other Haudenosaunee nations (e.g., the Pickering or Canandaigua Treaty) (Abler and Tooker 1978: 508; Goldman 1983:27-31; Arcara 2002). Native American title to the land in western New York was Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 12 Lockport IDA Ph 1A largely extinguished with the Treaty of Big Tree (the present-day village of Geneseo, New York) in 1797, although several areas were reserved for them to use and live on, including riverine reservations at Buffalo, Cattaraugus, and Tonawanda creeks, and Allegany and Genesee rivers (Abler and Tooker 1978:509, 512; Hutchins 2004).

The period following the end of the Revolution was marked by a series of convoluted transactions among New York, Massachusetts, the Haudenosaunee, and land speculators, which resulted in the division of ownership of the former Haudenosaunee lands in western New York. Except for a one-mile swath along the east side of the Niagara River, which New York State reserved for itself (the so-called “Mile Strip”), Western New York, including the present Erie County, was acquired by a consortium of Dutch investors referred to as the Holland Land Company in 1792-1793 (Ellis et al. 1967:152-156; Abler and Tooker 1978:507-512; Goldman 1983:27-31; Silsby 1961; Quinn 1991:14-15).

Augustus Porter, pioneer of Western New York and Robert Morris’s surveyor, reported that in the spring of 1795 “all that part of the state of New York, lying west of ‘Phelps and Gorham’s Indian Purchase,’ was still occupied by the Indians, their title to it not yet extinguished. There was of course no road leading from Buffalo eastward, except an Indian Trail, and no settlement whatever on that trail” (Turner 1974 [1850]:372). The Dutch speculators contracted Joseph Ellicott in July 1797 to survey their land in western New York and divide it into townships. The process began in the spring of the following year (Silsby 1961). In 1798, an area measuring one mile square was set aside within the Mile Strip reservation by the New York State Legislature around the Lower Landing for a village, which became the Lewiston Town Site (Quinn 1991:20).

In 1802, all non-Haudenosaunee land west of the Genesee River was incorporated into Genesee County, and all land west of Ellicott’s east transit, including the project area, was subsumed under the Town of Batavia. Two years later, the Town of Batavia was divided into the towns of Batavia, Willink, Erie, and Chautauqua. Separated by Ellicott’s west transit (present-day Transit Road), the towns of Erie and Willink stretched from Lake Ontario to the Pennsylvania border. The project area was within the Town of Erie (Beers 1880:7-8; Silsby 1961). Niagara County was formed from Genesee County in 1808 and comprised all of what are now Erie and Niagara counties. With New Amsterdam as the county seat, the new Niagara County contained three townships: Cambria, Clarence and Willink (Williams 1921:I:372-373; Genter 1999, 2001). The project area is within the Town of Cambria, which comprised all of what is now Niagara County.

Prior to 1801, only one European-American family appears to have settled in what is now Niagara County—the Stedmans near Fort Schlosser. A mail route connected Canandaigua to Fort Niagara via Batavia and what is now Ridge Road in the late 1790s. Between 1805 and 1810, Benjamin Kelso, Edward Smith, Solomon Wolcott, Marvin Judd, Thomas White, Daniel Judd, Ozias Judd, Benjamin Graham, John Harvey, James Field, George Burger, Jacob Stover, William Scott, and Joshua Pitt, all settled in the county; none of them, however, held property in what would become the Town of Lockport, which was not settled until 1824 (Sanford & Co. 1878:176; Wiley and Garner 1892:110).

Early settlements were established along Lake Ontario, the Niagara River, and Eighteenmile Creek (American soldiers also were stationed at Fort Niagara to defend the border with Upper Canada after 1796), with few pioneers inland until after the War of 1812. Aside from the Portage Road between Niagara Falls and the fort, another early road in the county was the Fort Niagara to Somerset Road along the shore through what is now Wilson (Williams 1921:I:391; Sanford & Co. 1878:266). The early settlers of the present-day Town of Lockport included Adam Strouse (who built a shanty along the mail route between Canandaigua and Fort Niagara at Cold Spring, east of the present-day City of Lockport, in 1802), Charles Wilber, Jedediah Darling, David and Joseph Carlton or Canton, David Pomroy, Thomas Mighells, Stephen Wakeman, Thaddeus Alvord, Alexander Freeman, Luther Crocker, and George Miller. The pioneers of what is now the city of Lockport were Zeno Comstock, Reuben Haines, Webster Thorn, and Daniel Smith, who all arrived ca. 1815 (Williams 1921:I:389; Sanford & Co. 1878:266-267). As the settlements began to take root, disagreements between the United States and Great Britain froze further growth, especially along the Niagara River, which served as a major theater during the War of 1812. While many settlers returned with the diminishment of hostilities later in 1814, true recovery would be years away.

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 13 Lockport IDA Ph 1A In 1821, as pioneers filled the Niagara Frontier, all of that part of Niagara County south of Tonawanda Creek was removed to form Erie County. Originally in the Town of Hartland and later part of the Town of Royalton, the project area was included in the Town of Lockport when it was created from the towns of Cambria and Royalton on February 2, 1824 (Pechuman 1958; Williams 1921:388). The region received a tremendous economic boost when the path of the Erie Canal was routed through the present-day City of Lockport, where it turned to the southwest before intersecting Tonawanda Creek. Heavily forested, the Lockport area at that time had only two or three log cabins. Begun in 1817, the Erie Canal linked Buffalo and Lake Erie with New York City when it opened October 26, 1825 (Shaw 1990:5-6, 181-187). As a result of its location on the canal, Lockport became the first village (March 1829), and later the first city (April 1865) incorporated in Niagara County. In the center of rich farming areas, Lockport became the county seat in 1822 (Pool 1897; Williams 1921:I:393-397; Szpakowski 1999; Sanford & Co. 1878:297, 383-385). The canal is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the project area. By 1830, Niagara County had a population of more than 18,000 (Beers et al. 1875:4).

The early Canal era marked a period of expansion for both Lockport and Niagara County. Taverns, distilleries, gristmills, sawmills, carding and fulling mills, and asheries appeared as frame houses began to replace log cabins. In 1821, Esek Brown and Jared Comstock sold lots in the village of Lockport as log and frame homes were erected, and the village prepared for the workers who would dig the canal. Early settlers of what is now the City of Lockport included Nathan Comstock, Daniel Smith, Webster Thorn, Almon Millar, Nathan Rogers, Joseph Otis, and Reuben Haines, among others. Esek Brown also opened the first tavern in the village in his unfinished log structure, located near the intersection of Main Street and Transit Road. Morris Tucker opened the first store; other stores soon followed and included House and Boughton and Lebbeus Fish (Pool 1897; Williams 1921:I:394-395). Other early trades included a baker, a blacksmith, a shoemaker, and a harness maker, as well as various unskilled occupations related to docks and warehouses in the vicinity of the canal. By 1840 the town had a population of more than 9,000 and the village contained 6,088 people (The Pioneer Association 1986 [1902]:162).

The study area was part of a small, rural farming community at the Cambria-Lockport town line during the nineteenth century as properties were parceled out to individual landowners who established farmsteads or such rural industries as milling or tanning. Agricultural activities consisted mainly of grain cultivation, dairying, cheese-making, and general farming. Many farmers cultivated fruit trees, such as apple, pear, and peach, to supplement their incomes. Ancillary agricultural activities included the canning, fruit-drying, and vinegar-making industries (Sanford & Co. 1878:127; Williams 1921:I:393).

The 1840s saw the creation of the first plank roads in Niagara County. The Lockport-Buffalo Plank Road was constructed by 1848 on Transit Road. Beginning just south of the Lockport city line, the road covered approximately ten miles until it intersected the macadamized Buffalo Road (present-day Main Street [Route 5]) in Amherst. Other early roads included the Lockport-Warren’s Corner Plank Road (present-day Stone Road), Lockport-Wright’s Corner Plank Road, Lockport-Mansfield Corner Plank Road, Lockport- Cambria Plank Road (Sanford & Co. 1878:269). By 1850, the population of the Town of Lockport was approximately 12,000, and the village was 8,861 (The Pioneer Association 1986 [1902]:163).

In addition to the canal and plank roads, railroad lines provided a means for the transportation of goods and people. A short-lived horse-drawn rail line ran well east of the project area through a portion of Niagara County and connected Medina (Orleans County) to Richville (Genesee County) via Akron in 1835. About the same time, another line ran to the west from Lockport to Niagara Falls. By 1850 this line became the Rochester, Lockport & Niagara Falls Railroad. It was later incorporated into the New York Central Railroad. The City of Lockport would be serviced by both the New York Central and the Erie railroads in the early decades of the twentieth century. Farmers used the line to ship lumber, fruit, potatoes, grain, milk and cheese to markets east and west (Sanford & Co. 1878:114; Ellis et al. 1967:250-252; Beers et al. 1875; Hover 1910). At Lockport Junction (just southwest of the current project area) the Niagara Branch and Lockport branches of the New York Central joined from the west before entering the City of Lockport (USGS 1900; Gifford and Geil 1852). In 1865 the population in the newly incorporated City of Lockport was approximately 12,000.

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 14 Lockport IDA Ph 1A Beginning during the last half of the nineteenth century, the City of Lockport grew increasingly industrialized with the establishment of businesses focused on newer technologies. The Holly Manufacturing Company, formed by Birdsall Holly, invented and developed various systems of water supply and fire protection, including pumps and pumping engines. Holly himself held over 40 separate patents, including his invention of the fire hydrant in 1863. (The Hydrant Hose Company #1 of Lockport was the first company to use the hydrant for water to fight a fire in 1865.) In addition, the Cowles Electric Smelting and Aluminum Company of Lockport, less than one mile south of the Purdy Road, was the first to commercially produce aluminum in 1887. However, the method was shortly thereafter purchased by the founder of the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), who relocated to Pittsburgh (The Pioneer Association 1986 [1902]:176-178). Other prominent industries included tanning, glass blowing, making woodworking tools, electrical work, and quarrying. The population of the city was 16,581 in 1900. Herbert Harrison opened an automobile radiator plant in 1910, which was acquired by General Motors in 1918. It later became known as the Delphi-Harrison plant and is located east of the current project area (The Pioneer Association 1986 [1902]:176-178; Hover 1910).

While the city attracted industry, the project area remained relatively unchanged as agriculture was the prominent economic activity well into the twentieth century. As the canal became increasing obsolete during the last third of the nineteenth century, a period of infrastructure improvements to alternate modes of transportation occurred, including the widening and paving of streets and roadways, and the erection of bridges, although these improvements were focused largely in the city. In addition, around the turn of the twentieth century, other public services began to improve living conditions in the area: telephone service had been available since 1879; electric street lamps were erected in 1885; a reliable water supply was secured by 1909 and cheap electricity was supplied to the city from Niagara Falls the following year; an interurban electric trolley connected Lockport to Olcott Beach as well as the Rome, Watertown & Ogdensburg Railroad at Burt by 1900; another trolley connected Lockport to the Buffalo and Niagara Falls trolley at Tonawanda by 1898 (Hover 1910:n.p.; Eastern Niagara Chamber of Commerce 1970:6). In 1940 the Town of Lockport had a population of 3,160, and the city had a population of 24,379 (Lockport Chamber of Commerce 1961:4). Although predominantly rural, the project area has become increasingly residential and commercial after World War II with the creation of nearby suburban residential developments, strip malls, and industrial parks. In 1960, 6,460 people inhabited the Town of Lockport, and 26,443 people lived in the city (Lockport Chamber of Commerce 1961:4).

Since the 1960s, development trends in the Lockport area have accelerated as commuters to Lockport and suburban employers have chosen non-urban areas in which to live. These trends have been facilitated by improved transportation routes and the establishment commercial operations and restaurants interspersed amid residences in the northern and western portions of the city, Major employers in proximity to the project area include Delphi-Harrison Thermal Systems (a division of General Motors and just east of the project area), Frontier Stone, Sherwood (Taylor-Wharton Gas Equipment Division of Harsco Corp.), Allegheny Ludlum, and Buffalo Paperboard Corp. The project area was still predominantly farmland or vacant in the 1970s. Recently, a number of residential subdivisions have been created in the western portions of the town. The population of Town of Lockport increased from 19,655 in 2000 to 20,529 in 2010, while the population of the City of Lockport declined from 22,279 to 21,165 during the same period.

2.3 DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH

2.3.1 Site File and Archival Review. A review of the OPRHP archaeological site and historic structures files through the online Cultural Resources Information System identified ten archaeological sites within approximately one mile (1.6 kilometers) of the Lockport Junction Road project area (Table 2). Seven of the sites (two of which have two locations) are precontact sites; the nearest of which was A06301.000026 (Townline Road #1), approximately 3,400 ft (1,037m) north of the project area. Early archaeological surveys by Beauchamp (1900), Houghton (1909), and Parker (1922) also were consulted. Later archaeological investigations by Ritchie (1980) and Ritchie and Funk (1973) do not report the presence of archaeological sites in the project area.

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 15 Lockport IDA Ph 1A Table 2. Archaeological sites within approximately one mile of the project area.* Distance OPRHP # Additional Site # to APE Time Period Site Type (ft/m) Townline Road Site #2; 5,625 Camp, 06301.000014 Unidentified precontact UB 2236 (1,716) workshop Townline Road #1; UB 3,400 06301.000026 Unidentified precontact Camp 2235 (1,037) NYSM 5837; Townline 5,950 Unidentified precontact Camp Road 2 (1,815) NYSM 5836 Townline 3,650 Unidentified precontact Camp Road 1 (1,113) NYSM 4088; ACP NGRA- 5,540 Unidentified precontact No information 19; UB 3144 (1,690) 4,920 06304.000068 MLV 230C Site 4 Historic No information (1,501) LaFarge Lockport 5,050 06342.000512 Precontact Site; HAA- Unidentified precontact Camp (1,540) B/BAC-1 Carpenter Historic Site 5,100 Early-mid-nineteenth 06342.000515 Residential (MDS 7) (1,556) century LaFarge Lockport 6,050 06342.000513 Precontact Site; HAA- Late Archaic (Lamoka) Camp (1,845) C/BAC-2 Hinman Historic Site 6,200 Early-mid-nineteenth 06342.000514 No information (MDS 1) (1,891) century * bolded sites are determined eligible for listing on the NRHP.

Previous surveys. A review of the OPRHP cultural resources files through the online CRIS identified several archaeological reports conducted for projects within approximately one mile of the project area (Hansen 1985a, 1985b; Carroll 2006; Hartner 2006; Hartgen 2008, 2016; Hanley 2016). These reports identified the sites along Townline Road to the north and Hinman Road (LaFarge Quarry) to the south noted in Table 2.

National Register Listings. No building or archaeological site within or immediately adjacent to the project area is listed on either the State or National Registers of Historic Places. One site (0632.000512 LaFarge Lockport Precontact Site) was determined eligible for listing to the National Register.

2.3.2 Historical Map Analysis. Five historical maps were consulted for the project area (Gifford and Geil 1852 [Figure 3]; Dawson 1996[1860; Figure 4]; Beers et al. 1875 [Figure 5]; Century Map Company 1908 [Figure 6]; and USGS 1948 [Figure 7]). Several structures (three farmsteads, including one with outbuildings) were illustrated along Lockport Junction Road within the northwestern portion of project area on all of the historical maps. These structures are tabulated in Table 3. No other structures were shown within the remainder of the project area on any of the historical maps. Recent aerial photographs (see Figure 2) and the most recent USGS topographical map (see Figure 1) do not depict any structures within this portion of the project area.

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 16 Lockport IDA Ph 1A

Figure 3. Approximate location of the project area (red polygon) in 1852 (Gifford and Geil 1852).

Figure 4. Approximate location of the project area (red polygon) in 1860 (Dawson 1996 [1860]). Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 17 Lockport IDA Ph 1A

Figure 5. Approximate location of the project area (red polygon) in 1875 (Beers et al. 1875).

Figure 6. Approximate location of the project area (red polygon) in 1908 (Century Map Company 1908). Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 18 Lockport IDA Ph 1A

Figure 7. Approximate location of the project area in 1948 (USGS 1948a, 1948b).

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 19 Lockport IDA Ph 1A Table 3. Potential MDS identified in the Project Area. Historical Relation to MDS Current Street Name Map Date Street 1852 O. Oliver 1 Lockport Junction Road East 1860 Joiners Shop 1852 L. Keim 1860 L. Kine 2 Lockport Junction Road East 1875 R. Buri 1908 R. Buri (and two outbuildings) 1852 A. Brower 3 Lockport Junction Road East 1860 W.H. Brewer A collection of three structures in the northwest corner of the project 4 Lockport Junction Road 1948 East area and two just north of the project area

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 20 Lockport IDA Ph 1A 3.0 Field Reconnaissance and Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment

The project area is primarily a large, open, grassy field bound to the west by Lockport Junction Road (CR 93), to the north by the Niagara Residency garages and offices, to the east by Lockport Energy Associates (LEA) Lockport Cogeneration Facility, and to the south by an active railroad corridor and undeveloped fields (Appendix A: Photographs 1 through 11). General Motors Road 7, which services the LEA cogeneration facility and the General Motors plant located farther east, crosses the northern portion of the APE (see Figures 1 and 2). There are four mid-twentieth century houses adjacent to the northwest corner of the APE along the east side of Lockport Junction Road and one house on the west of the APE on the west side of the road. There is a small gas utility complex of three small pipeline structures within the southwest corner of the APE and an associated buried gas pipeline parallel to the south side of the APE (Appendix A: Photograph 12).

As presented in Section 2.1, soils within the majority of the APE do not appear to have been previously disturbed with exceptions. The NRCS has recorded approximately 20 acres (8 ha) within the APE as made land (see Table 1 and Figure 2). Soils along the buried gas pipeline crossing the southern side of the APE also are considered disturbed and no longer archaeologically sensitive.

Although no archaeological sites or other cultural resources have been previously reported within or adjacent to the 91-acre (36.4-ha) APE, ten archaeological sites within approximately one mile (1.6 kilometers) have been recorded in the OPRHP archaeological site and historic structure files (see Section 2.3.1). Seven of the 10 sites are precontact sites with the remaining three historic sites. The APE is generally considered sensitive for precontact archaeological sites as a result of the reported former Native American presence in the area and the proximity of the Lockport escarpment to the north. Large geographical features such as the escarpment offered many attractive elements (e.g., viewing advantages, travel, and differing biomes to exploit) for precontact peoples.

Several structures (three farmsteads, including one with outbuildings) were illustrated along Lockport Junction Road within the northwestern portion of project area on all of the historical maps. These structures are tabulated in Table 3 (see Section 2.3.2). No foundations or other surface features were observed during Phase 1A field reconnaissance but the area around the MDS locations is considered sensitive for historic archaeological resources unless significant soil disturbances have occurred (possibly resulting from the demolition and removal of the structures).

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

A Phase 1B investigation of the APE is recommended to determine the presence or absence of buried cultural resources. The western side of the project area along Lockport Junction Road is sensitive for historic cultural resources where historical maps indicated the presence of structures and/or farmsteads, which are no longer extant. In addition, undisturbed areas within the project area are sensitive for precontact archaeological sites as a result of the proximity of the Lockport escarpment and previously reported sites in the vicinity. The purpose of the Phase 1B investigation would be to determine the presence or absence or archaeological cultural resources that are potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The approximately 20 acres (8 ha) of the APE that are classified as “made land” by the NRCS should have limited subsurface testing to verify soil disturbances and associated considerations for low archaeological sensitivity.

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 21 Lockport IDA Ph 1A

Figure 8. Photograph locations with the project area (New York Orthos Online 2014). Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 22 Lockport IDA Ph 1A 5.0 References

Abler, Thomas S., and Elisabeth Tooker 1978 Seneca. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 505-517. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Arcara, Richard J. 2002 Decision and Order 93-CV-688A: The Seneca Nation of Indians, the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, and the United States of America v. the State of New York; et al. United States District Court, Western District of New York, Buffalo.

Beauchamp, William M. 1900 Aboriginal Occupation of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin Vol. 7, No. 32. Albany.

Beers, D.G., W. Upton, J.H. Doty, and J. Lanagan 1875 Atlas of Niagara and Orleans Counties, New York. Beers, Upton & Company, Philadelphia.

Beers, Frederick W. 1880 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Erie County, New York. F.W. Beers Company, New York.

Carroll, Lynda 2006 Phase 1 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey Report [for] Lockport (NYSWN) Cell Tower Site #WST1021B, Town of Lockport, Niagara County, New York. Public Archaeology Facility, Binghamton University, NY

Calloway, Colin G. 1995 The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Identity in Native American Communities. Cambridge University Press, London and New York.

Century Map Co. 1908 The New Century Atlas of Niagara County, New York. Century Map Co., Philadelphia.

Cleland, Charles E. 1982 The Inland Shore Fishery of the Northern Great Lakes: Its Development and Importance in Prehistory. American Antiquity 47:761-784.

Crawford, G.W., D.G. Smith, and V.E. Bowyer 1997 Dating the Entry of Corn (Zea mays) into the Lower Great Lakes Region. American Antiquity 62:112-119.

Dawson, A.R.Z. 1996 [1860] Map of Niagara County, New York. A.R.Z. Dawson, Philadelphia. Rpt: Niagara County Genealogical Society, Lockport, NY. de Laubenfels, David J. 1966 Vegetation. In Geography of New York State, edited by John H. Thompson, pp. 90-103. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York.

Dunnigan, Brian Leigh 1996 Siege—1759; The Campaign Against Niagara. Revised Edition. Old Fort Niagara Association, Inc., Youngstown, NY.

Ellis, David M., James A. Frost, Harold C. Syrett, and Harry J. Carmen 1967 A History of New York State. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 23 Lockport IDA Ph 1A Engelbrecht, William E. 2003 Iroquoia: The Development of a Native World. The Iroquois and Their Neighbors series. Syracuse University Press, NY.

2004 “Northern New York Revisited.” In A Passion for the Past: Papers in Honour of James F. Pendergast, James V. Wright and Jean-Luc Pilon, eds., 125-144. Mercury Series, Archaeological Paper 164. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Gatineau, Quebec.

Engelbrecht, William, Eric Hansen, James Hartner, Elaine Herold, and John D. Holland 1993 Prehistory of Western New York. The Archaeological Survey, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Buffalo and The Frederick M. Houghton Chapter, New York State Archaeological Association, Buffalo.

Feder, Kenneth L. 1984 Pots, Plants, and People: The Late Woodland Period in Connecticut. Archaeological Society of Connecticut Bulletin 47:99-111.

Fitting, James E. 1975 Climatic Change and Cultural Frontiers in Eastern North America. Michigan Archaeologist 21:25-39.

Fritz, Gayle 1990 Multiple Pathways to Farming in Precontact Eastern North America. Journal of World Prehistory 4:387-435.

Funk, Robert E. 1972 Early Man in the Northeast and the Late Glacial Environment. Man in the Northeast 4:7-42.

1978 Post-Pleistocene Adaptations. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 16-27. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1991 The Middle Archaic in New York. Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 7:7-8.

1993 Archaeological Investigations in the Upper Susquehanna Valley, New York State, Volume 1. Persimmon Press, Buffalo.

Funk, Robert E., and Frank F. Schambach 1964 Probable Plano Points in New York State. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 34:90-93.

Genter, Vernette 1999 War of 1812 Devastated Earliest Settlements; Later Reorganizations Chipped Away at Cambria. The Buffalo News, Local Section, March 21:NC2.

2001 The Evolution of Niagara County. Town of Cambria website, Sanborn, NY. Electronic document, http://townofcambria.com/historian.htm, accessed December 8, 2016.

Goldman, Mark 1983 High Hopes; The Rise and Decline of Buffalo, New York. State University of New York Press, Albany.

Gramly, Richard M. 1977 Deerskins and Hunting Territories: Competition for a Scarce Resource in the Northeast. American Antiquity 42:601.

Gramly, Richard M., and Robert E. Funk 1990 What is Known and Not Known About the Human Occupation of the Northeastern United States Until 10,000 B.P. Archaeology of Eastern North America 18:5-32. Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 24 Lockport IDA Ph 1A

Granger, Joseph E., Jr. 1978 Meadowood Settlement Pattern in the Niagara Frontier Region of Western New York. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 65. Ann Arbor.

Griffin, James B. 1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156:175-191.

Hanley, Robert J., Mark A. Steinback, and Michael A. Cinquino 2016 Phase 1A Cultural Resource Survey for Lockport Water District #3 Capital Improvement Plan Areas, Town of Lockport, Niagara County, New York. OPRHP #16PR00096. Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Buffalo Branch, Buffalo. Prepared for Town of Lockport.

Hansen, Eric 1985a Cultural Resource Investigation for NY Route 93 from NY Route 104 to Upper Mountain Road (PIN 5011.11 and BIN 3-03472-0), Towns of Cambria and Lockport, Niagara County, New York. Reports of the Archaeological Survey 17(5), Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Buffalo.

1985b Addendum to Cultural Resource Investigation for NY Route 93 from NY Route 104 to Upper Mountain Road (PIN 5011.11 and BIN 3-03472-0), Towns of Cambria and Lockport, Niagara County, New York. Reports of the Archaeological Survey 17(5), Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Hart, John P. 1999 “Dating Roundtop’s Domesticates: Implications for Northeast Late Prehistory.” In Current Northeast Paleoethnobotany, John P. Hart, ed., 47-68. New York State Museum Bulletin 494. State Education Department, Albany.

2000 New Dates from Classic New York Sites: Just How Old are Those Longhouses? Northeast Anthropology 60:1-22.

2011 The Death of Owasco-Redux. In Current Research in New York Archaeology: A.D. 700-1300, edited by Christina B. Rieth and John P. Hart, pp. 95-107. New York State Museum Record 2. New York State Education Department, Albany.

Hart, John P., and Hetty Jo Brumbach 2003 The Death of Owasco. American Antiquity 68(4):737-752.

Hart, John P., Robert G. Thompson, and Hetty Jo Brumbach 2003 Phytolith Evidence for Early Maize (Zea Mays) in the Northern Finger Lakes Region of New York. American Antiquity 68(4):619-640.

Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc. 2008 Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the LaFarge North American Lockport Quarry Expansion, Town of Lockport, Niagara County, New York. Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc., Rensselaer, NY.

2016 Phase II Archeological Site Evaluation LaFarge Lockport Quarry Expansion, Hinman Road, Town of Lockport, Niagara County, New York. Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc., Rensselaer, NY.

Hartner, James 2006 PIN 5011.11.201 Addendum Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Drainage Improvements to Townline Road (NY Route 93), Town of Cambria, Niagara County, New York. Reports of the Archaeological Survey 38(14), Department of Anthropology, State University of New York at Buffalo.

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 25 Lockport IDA Ph 1A Higgins, Bradford A., P.S. Puglia, R.P. Leonard, T.D. Yoakum, and W.A. Wirtz 1972 Soil Survey of Niagara County, New York. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with Cornell University Agriculture Experiment Station. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Hoffman, Curtiss 1998 Pottery and Steatite in the Northeast: A Reconsideration of Origins. Northeast Anthropology 56:43-68.

Houghton, Frederick W. 1909 Indian Occupancy of the Niagara Frontier and Indian Village, Camp, and Burial Sites in the Niagara Frontier. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 9(3):261-375.

Hover, M.H. 1910 Lockport, N.Y. Electrical and Industrial. C.E. Burk, Lockport, NY.

Hutchins, Francis G. 2004 The Iroquois, New York and Federal Tribal Policy. Oneida Indian Land Claim Information Site, Madison County, New York, Wampsville, NY (no longer available online).

Kraft, Herbert 1986 The Lenape: Archaeology, History, and Ethnology. The New Jersey Historical Society, Newark.

Kuhn, Robert D., and Robert E. Funk 2000 Boning up on the Mohawk: An Overview of Mohawk Faunal Assemblages and Subsistence Patterns. Archaeology of Eastern North America 28:29-62.

Mason, Ronald J. 1981 Great Lakes Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2015 Custom Soil Resource Report for Niagara County, New York [Lockport IDA]. Web Soil Survey, National Cooperative Soil Survey. National Resources Conservation Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture Electronic database, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, accessed November 21, 2016.

New York Archaeological Council (NYAC) 1994 Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collections. New York Archaeological Council, Albany. On file, Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Buffalo, NY.

New York State Orthos Online 2014 Half-foot 4-Band Orthophotography of Niagara County. New York State Orthos Online. Digital data, http://www.orthos.dhses.ny.gov, accessed December 1, 2016.

Noble, William C. 1975 Corn and the Development of Village Life in Southern Ontario. Ontario Archaeology 5:37-46.

Old Fort Niagara Association 2004 History of the Fort. Old Fort Niagara website, Old Fort Niagara Association, Inc., Youngstown, NY. Electronic document, http://www.oldfortniagara.org/history, accessed November 23, 2016.

Parker, Arthur C. 1922 The Archaeological History of New York. New York State Museum Bulletin Nos. 235-238. Albany.

Pechuman, L.L. 1958 Niagara County and its Towns. Occasional Contributions of the Niagara County Historical Society, No. 13. Niagara County Historical Society, Lockport, NY.

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 26 Lockport IDA Ph 1A Pioneer Association, The 1902 Souvenir History of Niagara County, New York. The Pioneer Association of Niagara County, Lockport, NY.

Pool, William 1897 Chapter XI. City and Town of Lockport. Landmarks of Niagara County, New York. D. Mason & Co. Publishers, Syracuse, NY.

Prezzano, Susan C. 1988 Spatial Analysis of Post Mold Patterns at the Sackett Site, Ontario County, New York. Man in the Northeast 35:27-45.

Quinn, Thomas J. 1991 The Western New York State Mile Reservation; A Short History. Thomas J. Quinn, Niagara Falls, NY. Typed Ms, on file Historian’s Office, Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Buffalo.

Ritchie, William A. 1937 [1936] A Prehistoric Fortified Village Site at Canandaigua, Ontario County, New York. Researches and Transactions of the New York State Archaeological Association, Lewis H. Morgan Chapter, Vol. VIII, No. 2. Lewis H. Morgan Chapter, Rochester, NY. Reprinted from: Research Records of the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, No. 3. Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences.

1944 The Pre-Iroquoian Occupations of New York State. Rochester Museum Memoir No. 1. Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences, Rochester, NY.

1980 The Archaeology of New York State. Revised Ed. Harbor Hill Books, Harrison, NY.

1989 A Typology and Nomenclature for New York Projectile Points. New York State Museum Bulletin No. 348.

Ritchie, William A., and Robert E. Funk 1973 Aboriginal Settlement Patterns in the Northeast. New York State Museum and Science Service Memoir No. 20. Albany.

Salwen, Bert 1975 Post Glacial Environments and Cultural Change in the Hudson River Basin. Man in the Northeast 10:43-70.

Sanford & Co. 1878 History of Niagara County New York. Sanford & Co., New York.

Schulenberg, Janet K. 2002 New Dates for Owasco Pots. In Northeast Subsistence Settlement Change AD 700-1300, edited by John P. Hart and Christina Rieth, pp. 153-165. New York State Museum Bulletin 496. State Education Department, Albany.

Sears, William H. 1948 What is the Archaic? American Antiquity 14(2):122-124.

Shaw, Ronald E. 1990 Erie Water West; A History of the Erie Canal, 1792-1854. Paperback ed. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington.

Silsby, Robert W. 1961 The Holland Land Company in Western New York. Adventures in Western New York History, vol. VIII. Buffalo and Erie County Historical Society, Buffalo. Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 27 Lockport IDA Ph 1A

Smith, Bruce D. 1992 Prehistoric Plant Husbandry in Eastern North America. In The Origins of Agriculture, edited by C.W. Cowan and P.J. Watson, pp. 101-119. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Snow, Dean R. 1980 The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press, New York.

2000 The Iroquois. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. Original 1994.

Squier, Ephram G. 1851 Antiquities of the State of New York. Geo. H. Derby and Co., Buffalo.

Stothers, David M. 1977 The Princess Point Complex. National Museum of Canada, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 58.

Szpakowski, Jon 1999 General History of Lockport. Lockport History Page, np. Electronic database, http://www.angelfire.com/ny2/lockporthistory/over.html, accessed December 8, 2016.

Sykes, Clark M. 1980 Swidden Horticulture and Iroquois Settlement. Archaeology of Eastern North America 8:45-52.

Tooker, Elisabeth 1978 The League of the Iroquois: Its History, Politics, and Ritual. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 418-441. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Trigger, Bruce G. 1978 Early Iroquois Contacts with Europeans. In Northeast, pp. 344-356. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Tuck, James A. 1971 Onondaga Iroquois Prehistory: A Study in Settlement Archaeology. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.

1978 Regional Cultural Development, 3000 to 300 B.C. In Northeast, edited by B.G. Trigger, pp. 28- 43. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Turner, Orsamus 1974 [1850] Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase of Western New York. Geo. H. Derby and Co., Buffalo. Rpt edition: James Brunner, Geneseo, NY.

USGS (United States Geological Survey) 1948a Lockport Quadrangle New York 15 Minute Series (Topographic). U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. On file, Historic USGS Maps of New England & New York. University of New Hampshire, Dimond Library, Documents Department & Data Center, Durham. Electronic database, http://docs.unh.edu/nhtopos/Lockport.htm, accessed December 2, 2016.

1948b Tonawanda Quadrangle New York 15-Minute Series (Topographic). U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. On file, Historic USGS Maps of New England & New York. University of New Hampshire, Dimond Library, Documents Department & Data Center, Durham. Electronic document, http://docs.unh.edu/nhtopos/Tonawanda.htm, accessed December 2, 2016.

1980a Cambria Quadrangle New York. 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic). USGS, Washington, D.C. Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 28 Lockport IDA Ph 1A

1980b Lockport Quadrangle New York. 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic). USGS, Washington, D.C.

Van Diver, Bradford B. 1985 Roadside Geology of New York. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, MT.

Vanderlaan, Stanley 2008 The Arc Site—The Largest Paleo Indian Site in New York State. In River, Rocks, and Time blog, edited by, Deb Twigg, The Susquehanna River Archaeological Center of Native Indian Studies, Waverly, NY. Electronic document, http://sracenter.blogspot.com/2008/07/arc-site.html, accessed November 30, 2016.

Wendel 2016 Water District No. 3 Capital Improvements Project Phase 1A Waterline Replacement Plans. Made for the Town of Lockport, Town Hall, Lockport, NY. Wendel, Williamsville, NY.

White, Marian E. 1960 Niagara Frontier Iroquois village movements. Eastern States Archaeological Federation Bulletin 19:16.

1961 Iroquois Culture History in the Niagara Frontier Area of New York State. Anthropological Papers, No. 16. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.

1963 Settlement Pattern Change and the Development of Horticulture in the New York-Ontario Area. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 33:1-12.

1978a Neutral and Wenro. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 407-411. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1978b Erie. In Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 412-417. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 15, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Wiley, Samuel T., and W. Scott Garner, editors. 1892 Biographical and Portrait Cyclopedia of Niagara County, New York. Gresham Publishing Co., New York.

Williams, Edward T. 1921 Niagara County New York: A Concise Record of Her Progress and People, 1821-1921. 2 vols. J.H. Beers and Co.

Winter, Joseph 1971 A Summary of Owasco and Iroquois Maize Remains. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 41(3):1-11.

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. 29 Lockport IDA Ph 1A

Appendix A. Photographs

Photograph 1. The project area’s interior with an existing buried pipeline easement in the foreground, facing northeast (Panamerican 2016).

Photograph 2. The open grassy setting of the project area as seen from Lockport Junction Road, facing northeast (Panamerican 2016).

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. A-2 Lockport IDA Ph1A

Photograph 3. The western side of the project area in the vicinity of locations with map-documented structures, facing south-southwest (Panamerican 2016).

Photograph 4. A view of the project area from the GM Access Road 7, facing southeast (Panamerican 2016).

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. A-3 Lockport IDA Ph1A

Photograph 5. Scattered trees in the eastern portion of the APE, facing northeast (Panamerican 2016).

Photograph 6. The field north of GM Road 7 with modern Niagara Residency garages and offices visible in the background, facing northwest (Panamerican 2016).

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. A-4 Lockport IDA Ph1A

Photograph 7. The project area’s grassy setting from its eastern boundary, facing west (Panamerican 2016).

Photograph 8. A modern warehouse southwest of the project area, facing southwest (Panamerican 2016).

Panamerican Consultants, Inc. A-5 Lockport IDA Ph1A

Photograph 9. Southeast elevation of a house and garage on Lockport Junction Road west of the project area, facing northwest (Panamerican 2016).

Photograph 10. The LEA Cogeneration Facility east of the project area, facing northeast (Panamerican 2016). Panamerican Consultants, Inc. A-6 Lockport IDA Ph1A

Photograph 11. The railroad corridor and open fields south of the project area, facing south (Panamerican 2016).

Photograph 12. Gas pipeline structures within the project area, facing southeast (Panamerican 2016). Panamerican Consultants, Inc. A-7 Lockport IDA Ph1A