PROJECT SCOPING REPORT/ FINAL DESIGN REPORT May 2014

Superstructure Replacement PIN: 2650.40.101 BIN: 2206680 Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek City of Utica Town of New Hartford Oneida County

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ...... 1-1 1.2.1. Where is the Project Located? ...... 1-1 1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed? ...... 1-2 1.2.3. What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project? ...... 1-2 1.3 What Alternative is Being Considered? ...... 1-3 1.3.1 Null Alternative ...... 1-3 1.3.2 Alternative 1 – Bridge Superstructure Replacement ...... 1-3 1.3.3 Alternative 2 – Bridge Replacement ...... 1-3 1.4 Environmental Review ...... 1-3 1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ...... 1-3 1.4.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) ...... 1-4 1.5 How will the Alternatives Affect the Environment? ...... 1-4 1.6 What are the Costs & Schedules? ...... 1-5 1.7 Which Alternative is Preferred? ...... 1-6 1.8 What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement? ...... 1-7 CHAPTER 2 – PROJECT INFORMATION ...... 2-1 2.1 Local Plans for the Project Area ...... 2-1 2.2. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments ...... 2-1 2.3 Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations ...... 2-1 2.3.1 Traffic and Safety and Maintenance Operations ...... 2-1 2.3.1.1 Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS) ...... 2-1 2.3.1.2 Control of Access ...... 2-1 2.3.1.3 Traffic Control Devices ...... 2-1 2.3.1.4 Traffic Volumes ...... 2-2 2.3.1.5 Speeds ...... 2-2 2.3.1.6 Level of Service ...... 2-2 2.3.1.7 Work Zone Safety & Mobility ...... 2-2 2.3.1.8 Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis ...... 2-3 2.3.1.9 Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ...... 2-3 2.3.2 Multimodal ...... 2-3 2.3.2.1 Pedestrians ...... 2-3 2.3.2.2 Bicyclists ...... 2-4 2.3.3 Infrastructure ...... 2-4 2.3.3.1 Design Standard ...... 2-4 2.3.3.2 Critical Design Elements ...... 2-5 2.3.3.3 Other Design Parameters ...... 2-6 2.3.3.4 Existing and Proposed Highway/Bridge Plan and Section ...... 2-6 2.3.3.5 Non Standard/Non-Conforming Features ...... 2-6 2.3.3.6 Pavement and Shoulder ...... 2-6 2.3.3.7 Drainage Systems ...... 2-6 2.3.3.8 Geotechnical ...... 2-7 2.3.3.9 Structures ...... 2-7 2.3.3.10 Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts ...... 2-9 2.3.3.11 Utilities ...... 2-9 2.3.3.12 Right of Way ...... 2-10 2.3.3.13 Landscaping/Environmental Enhancement ...... 2-10 2.4 Miscellaneous ...... 2-10 2.4.1 NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA) ...... 2-10

iii

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

CHAPTER 3 – SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 3-1 3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ...... 3-1 3.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) ...... 3-1 3.3 Additional Environmental Information ...... 3-2 3.3.1 General Ecology & Endangered Species ...... 3-2 3.3.2 Wetlands ...... 3-4 3.3.2.1 State Freshwater Wetlands ...... 3-4 3.3.2.2 Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands ...... 3-4 3.3.2.3 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses ...... 3-4 3.3.2.4 Executive Order 11990 ...... 3-5 3.3.2.5 Mitigation Summary ...... 3-5 3.3.3 Floodplains ...... 3-5 3.3.3.1 State Flood Insurance Compliance Program ...... 3-5 3.3.3.2 Executive Order 11988 ...... 3-5 3.3.3.3 Stormwater Management ...... 3-5 3.4 Historic and Cultural Resources ...... 3-5 3.5 Hazardous Materials...... 3-6 3.5.1 Asbestos ...... 3-6 3.5.2 Lead-Based Paint ...... 3-6

EXHIBITS Exhibit 1.2-A – Project Location ...... 1-1 Exhibit 1.2-B - Aerial Image ...... 1-2 Exhibit 1.5-A - Comparison of Alternatives ...... 1-4 Exhibit 1.6-A - Project Schedule ...... 1-5 Exhibit 1.6-B - Construction Costs ...... 1-5 Exhibit 1.8-A - Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates ...... 1-6 Exhibit 2.3-A - Classification Data ...... 2-1 Exhibit 2.3-B - Existing and Future Traffic Volumes – Chenango Road ...... 2-2 Exhibit 2.3-C - Collision Summary for Chenango Road from French Road to Clinton Street ...... 2-3 Exhibit 2.3-D - Critical Design Elements for Chenango Road Over Sauquoit Creek ...... 2-5 Exhibit 2.3-E - Other Design Parameters ...... 2-66 Exhibit 2.3-F - Other Design Parameters: Highway Design Vehicle ...... 2-6 Exhibit 2.3-G - Structure Data ...... 2-7 Exhibit 2.3-H – Hydraulic Data ...... 2-8

APPENDICES Appendix A - Plans, Profiles & Typical Sections ...... A-1 Appendix B - Environmental Information ...... B-1 Appendix C - Traffic Information and Pedestrian Generator Checklist ...... C-1 Appendix D - Project Correspondence ...... D-1 Appendix E - Hydraulic Analysis ...... E-1 Appendix F - Non-Standard Features Justification ...... F-1

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

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

This report was prepared in a ccordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual, 17 NY CRR (New York Codes, Rules and Regulations) Part 15, and 23 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 771. Transportation needs have been i dentified (section 1.2), objectives established (1.2.3) to address th e needs, and cost-effective alternative developed (1.3). This project is 99.6% State funded a nd 0.4% Federally funded.

1.2 Purpose and Need

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

Exhibit 1.2-A - Project Location

1. Route Number – Not applicable 2. Route Name – Chenango Road 3. SH number and official description – Not Applicable

1-1 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

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

Exhibit 1.2-B – Aerial Image

Bing Maps

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

1.2.3. What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project?

The objectives of this project are to:

1. Rehabilitate the Chenango Road Bridge over Sauquoit Creek. The new superst ructure will be designed for a service life of at least 75 years using cost effective techniques to minimize the life cycle cost of maintenance and repair.

1-2 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

1.3 What Alternative is Being Considered?

1.3.1 Null Alternative

This alternative will m aintain the exist ing Chenango Road Bridge structure, roadway section, and geometry. There would be no improvements made to the structure other than routine maintenance and none of the physical defici encies would be corrected. This alternative would not accomplish any of the project objectives, but it will remain feasible in the event that funding is not available or the environmental impacts of the other alternatives are deemed too great to continue.

1.3.2 Alternative 1 – Bridge Superstructure Replacement

This alternative would involve complete replacement of the superstructure on the existing alignment with minor highway approach reconstruction. In addition, the substandard bearings and utility supports and pedestals at the begin abutment will be replaced. T he low rated abutment backwalls and tops of the wingwalls will also be repaired. The new structure will have a span of approximately 100’-0” to accommodate the expected flows of Sauquoit Creek.

The proposed profile will closely match the existing grade. The reconstructed roadway width and bridge roadway width will cl osely match the existing roadway t hough the proj ect limits, however minor ROW acquisitions are anticipated. The total projec t length will be approximat ely 205’-0” including bot h approach roadways and the bridge.

Construction will be progressed with an off-site detour.

1.3.3 Alternative 2 – Bridge Replacement

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

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

All utilities would be located and identified and the utility owners notified of the project. It is anticipated that there would be significant utility relocations under this alternative, which include overhead electric, cable, telephone and bridge supported water and gas lines.

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

1.4 Environmental Review

1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

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

1-3 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

Administration’s regulations 23CFR 771.117(d) this project meets the project description of the ‘D’ list as primarily a repair/reconstruction of an existing bridge in the same location with no additional capacity (no added thru lanes) and does not significantly impact the environment.

1.4.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)

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

1.5 How will the Alternatives Affect the Environment? Exhibit 1.5 - Comparison of Alternatives

Alternatives Category 1 (Superstructure Null Alternative Replacement) Wetland Temp. None None impacts Perm. None None 100 year floodplain

impact None None Archeological Sites

Impacted None None Section 106/Section 4(f) impacts None None Impact to forested

areas None None Property Temp. None None Impacts Perm. None 0.27 AC Operation at ETC + 30 LOS C or Better LOS C or Better 30 year Crash Costs None None Construction Cost None $2.0 M Meets Project

Objectives No Yes

Proposed Mitigation:

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

Anticipated Permits/Certifications/Coordination:

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC):

 Protection of Waters Permit . Disturbance of The Bed or Banks of a Protected Stream or Other Watercourse  Section 401 Water Quality Certification

1-4 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE):

 Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3 – Maintenance

Coordination  Coordination with NYSDEC pursuant to the “NYSDEC/NYSDOT Memorandum of Understanding Regarding ECL Articles 15 & 24”  Coordination with Federal Highway Administration  Coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service  Coordination with the New York Natural Heritage Program  Coordination with the City of Utica  Coordination with the Town of New Hartford  Coordination with Oneida County

1.6 What are the Costs & Schedules?

Design Approval is scheduled for April of 2014.

Refer to Exhibit 1.6-A for the Project Schedule and Exhibit 1.6-B for the estimated project costs.

Exhibit 1.6-A - Project Schedule

Activity Date Occurred/Tentative

Scope Approval April 2014

Design Approval April 2014

ROW Acquisition N/A

Construction Start Spring 2015

Construction Complete Fall 2015

1-5 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

Exhibit 1.6-B - Comparison of Alternatives’ Project Costs

Activities Alternative 1

Construction Costs Bridge $1,315,000

Highway $45,000

Wetland Mitigation -

SPDES Permit Compliance -

Incidentals (10%) $140,000

Subtotal 1 $1,500,000

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

Subtotal 2 $1,725,000

Field Change Order $55,000

Subtotal 3 $1,780,000

Mobilization (4%) $75,000

Subtotal 4 $1,855,000 Expected Award Amount (Inflate current costs/prices at 3%/yr. to midpoint of construction $1,870,000 to arrive at $ amount to be entered here) See HDM 21.6.3.2 B Construction Inspection (9%) $170,000

ROW Costs $30,000

Total Alternative Costs $2,070,000

1.7 Which Alternative is Preferred?

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

1-6 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

1.8 What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement?

Exhibit 1.8-A - Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates

Activity Date Occurred/Tentative

Initial Environmental Findings November 2013

Field Pre-scoping Meeting( all groups) December 2013

Stakeholder Meeting Spring 2014

Meeting with Town Reps. Spring 2014

Public Informational Meeting Spring 2014

Current Project Letting Date October 23, 2014 The Region has sent letters to all muni cipalities, schools and County emergency coordinators informing them of the bridge project and proposed work zone traffic control (off site detour). The County emergency coordinators were asked to forward the inform ation to a ll local emergency responders. A request for responses by March 7, 20 14 was stated in the lette r. No responses were received as of March 19, 2014. This will complete the publi c outreach prior to des ign approval. The Region will hold public information meetings at specific sites and times and locations to be determined after design approval.

You can contact:

New York State Department of Transportation (Please include “2650.40.101”) Steve Emrich, P.E., Project Manager New York State Department of Transportation Region 2 Utica State Office Building 207 Genesee Street Utica, New York 13501 email: [email protected] Telephone: (315) 793-2736

The remainder of this report is a detailed technical evaluation of the existing conditions, the proposed alternatives, the impacts of the alternatives, copies of technical reports and plans and other supporting information.

1-7 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

CHAPTER 2 – PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Local Plans for the Project Area

There are no approved developments planned within the project area that will impact traffic operations.

2.2. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments

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

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

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

2.3 Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations

2.3.1 Traffic and Safety and Maintenance Operations

2.3.1.1 Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS)

Exhibit 2.3-A - Classification Data

Route(s) Chenango Road

Functional Classification 17 - Urban Collector/Major Collector

National Highway System (NHS) No

Designated Truck Access Route No

Qualifying Highway No

Within 1 mile of a Qualifying Highway Yes

Within the 16 ft vertical clearance network No

2.3.1.2 Control of Access

This roadway is currently without control of access and will continue to be without control of access after the project is complete.

2.3.1.3 Traffic Control Devices

Traffic control devices in the vicinity of Chenango Road consist of speed limit, curve warning, and general

2-1 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

information signage. If additional signage is requi red, as identified during final design, they will be provided in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the NYSDOT Supplement.

2.3.1.4 Traffic Volumes

The projected ETC and ETC+30 traffic volumes were developed using a growth rate of 0.4% for Oneida County, as p rovided by the de partment. The volu mes shown in Exhibit 2.3 -B were provided by the Department.

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

Year ADT DHV Existing (2013) 4075 425 ETC 4160 434 ETC+30 4580 477 Note: ETC is the Estimated Time of Completion

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

2.3.1.5 Speeds

The posted speed limit through the p roject site is 40 mph. The NYSDO T has determined that the 85 th percentile operating speed is 45 mph. (Refer to Appendix C for NYSDOT Region 2 Memo.)

2.3.1.6 Level of Service

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

2.3.1.7 Work Zone Safety & Mobility

A. Work Zone Traffic Control (WZTC) Plan

During construction the bridge structure will be closed to the public and an off-site detour will be utilized. A bridge closure will allow the work to be completed in the fall, minimize the length of impact to seasonal residents and decrease the length of time under construction.

A detour was evaluated along Chenango Road, French Road, Burrstone Road, Clinton Street, and New Hartford Street, which would divert traffic 3.5 mile s and add a pproximately 5 minutes to the trip duration for traffic traveling to New Hartford. (Refer to Appendix A for the Detour Map.)

B. Special Provisions

Due to the close proximity to resi dential homes and the ability to maintain traffic with acceptable delays during the daylight hour s, night time construction will not be utiliz ed. The use of time related provisi ons will be evaluated during final design. The work zone traffic control will need to be coordinated with local officials and residents.

2-2 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

C. Significant Projects (per 23 CFR 630.1010)

The Region has determined that the subject project is not significant per 23 CFR 630.1010.

A Transportation Managem ent Plan (TMP) will be prepared for the project consistent with 23 CFR 630.1012. The TMP will consist of a Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) plan. Transportation Operations (TO) and Public Information (PI) components of a TMP will be considered during final design.

2.3.1.8 Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis

An accident analysis was performed in accordance with NYS Highway Design Manual Chapter 5 in 2013. This section of Chenango Road had an accident rate of 0.99 ACC/MVM based on the 7 accidents that occurred during the study period. Thi s is l ess than the expe cted rate of 3.26 ACC/MVM for two l ane undivided Urban Colle ctor highways with free a ccess statewide. There we re no a ccidents involving pedestrians or bicycles. There were no accidents attributable to the bridge.

There are no high accident locations (HALs) within the study area.

The predominate accident types are:

Exhibit 2.3-C - Collision Summary for Chenango Road from French Road to Clinton Street (1/1/2011 – 12/16/2013) Type of Collision Number Percentage Right Angle 0 0% Rear End 0 0% Right Turn 0 0% Left Turn 0 0% Sideswipe 0 0% Other 7 100% Accident Data provided didn’t specific type of collision.

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

2.3.1.9 Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction

The Chenango Road Bridge over Sauquoit Creek (BIN 2206680) is jointly owned and maintained by the City of Utica and Town of New Hartford.

Ownership and maintenance jurisdiction will not change as a result of this project.

2.3.2 Multimodal

2.3.2.1 Pedestrians

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

2-3 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

2.3.2.2 Bicyclists

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

2.3.3 Infrastructure

2.3.3.1 Design Standard

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

2-4 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

2.3.3.2 Critical Design Elements

Exhibit 2.3-D - Critical Design Elements for Chenango Road Over Sauquoit Creek BIN: 2206680 NHS (Y/N): No Route No. & Functional Name: Chenango Road Classification: 17 - Urban Collector/Major Collector Project Type: Bridge Superstructure Design Classification: Urban Collector Replacement % Trucks: 5 Terrain: Level ADT: Truck Access/Qualifying (ETC)+30 4580 Hwy. Access-No; Qualifying-No Existing Proposed Element Standard Condition Condition 30 mph Min. / 60 mph Max. 40 mph 1 Design Speed 45 mph1 HDM Section 2.7.3.2.A (posted) 11 ft Min. Bridge Manual (BM) Sections 2.3.1 2 Lane Width 13’-2½” 11’-0” Table 2-1 and Appendix 2A - Tables R & N, HDM Exhibit 2-6 Approach Lane Width 13’-2½” 11’-0” 8 ft Min. 3 Shoulder Width BM Sections 2.3.1 Table 2-1, and App. Included Above 4’-0”** 2A Tables R & N, HDM Exhibit 2-6/2-5 Approach Shoulder Width Included Above 4’-0” 26’-5” Min./32’-0” Max Approach Roadway Width 4 Bridge Roadway Width BM Sections 2.3.1 Table 2-1, and App. 26’-5” 30’-0” 2A Table R & Table N HDM 2.7.3.2.D

Approach Roadway Width 26’-5” 30’-0” 8% Max. 5 Maximum Grade 0.06% 0.06% HDM Exhibit 2-6 711 ft (@ e = 4.0%) 6 Horizontal Curvature Tangent Tangent HDM Exhibit 2-6 4% Maximum 7 Superelevation Rate Normal Crown Normal Crown HDM Section 2.7.3.2.G 360 ft Min. 8 Stopping Sight Distance >1,000’ >1,000’ HDM Exhibit 2-6 0 ft with barrier, 1.5 ft without barrier 9 Horizontal Clearance (measured from face of curb) 1’-6” 4’-10” HDM Section 2.7.3.2.I Vertical Clearance 14’-0” Min., 14’-6” Desirable 10 Unknown >14’-0” (above traveled way) BM Section 2.4.1, Table 2-2 1.5% Min. to 2% Max. 11 Travel Lane Cross Slope 2% 2% HDM Section 2.7.3.1 K 4% between travel lanes; 8% at edge of 12 Rollover traveled way; 4% 4% HDM Section 2.7.3.2.L HL-93 and NYSDOT Design Permit HL93 and NYSDOT 13 Structural Capacity Vehicle H20 Design Permit BM Section 2.6.1 Vehicle Pedestrian 14 Accommodation Complies with HDM Chapter 18 None None 1 The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred that the use of a Design Speed of 45 mph is consistent with the anticipated off-peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. **Indicates non-standard feature.

2-5 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

2.3.3.3 Other Design Parameters

Exhibit 2.3-E - Other Design Parameters Element Standard Existing Conditions Proposed Condition

Existing water surface Freeboard Q + 2 ft (BM 2.4.3) 2’-0” 50 elevation not provided

* Indicates non-conforming element

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

BIN 2206680 WB-40 WB-40

2.3.3.4 Existing and Proposed Highway/Bridge Plan and Section

The existing structure has an out-to-out width of 28’-0” with a rai l-to-rail width of 26’-5”. T he highway approaches consist of two 13’-2½” wide lanes with no defined shoulders. The horizontal alignment of the roadway over the bridge consists of an approximate tangent segment.

The proposed bridge roadway will be 30’-0” wide consisting of two 11’-0” travel lanes with 4’-0” shoulders. The approaches will be reconstructed to provide a minimum roadway width of 30’-0”, which will transition to match existing at the reconstruction limits.

(Refer to Appendix A for Plan, Profile and Typical Sections for both existing and proposed conditions.)

2.3.3.5 Non Standard/Non-Conforming Features

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

2.3.3.6 Pavement and Shoulder

The 2012 Biennial Inspection rated the approach asphalt pavement a “3” for pavement cracking in the wheel path of the beginning right lane. The beginning left lane has transverse cracks. The end approach right lane is uneven and the left lane is heavily cracked and depressed. The project will include full-depth pavement reconstruction within the project limits.

2.3.3.7 Drainage Systems

Storm water runoff from Chenango Road is adequate with no evidence of ponding and there are no plans to reconstruct or upgrade the existing drainage system. Both bridge ap proaches drain away from the bridge and adequately move water away from the bridge. There are no scuppers on the existing bridge. The need for scuppers on the proposed bridge will be evaluated during final design.

2-6 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

2.3.3.8 Geotechnical

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

2.3.3.9 Structures

The existing structure is a 100’-0” long, single-span, steel multi-girder superstructure, supported by full- height concrete pedestals and founded on piles. The existing structure has an out-to-out width of 28’-0” with a rail-to-rail width of 26’-5”. The existing structure provides a clear opening (perpendicular to the flow) of ap proximately 98’-0” with a m idspan low chord elevation of 502.5±, resulting in a hydraulic opening of approximately 1080 SF.

The proposed structure will have a span of approximately 100’-0”. The new superstructure will have a 33’- 4” out-to-out width with a 30’-0” clear roadway consisting of two 11’-0” wide travel lanes and 4’-0” wide shoulders. The proposed structur e will provides a clear opening (p erpendicular to the flow) of approximately 98’-0” with a midspan lo w chord elevation of 502.3±, resulting in a hydraulic opening of approximately 1075 SF.

Exhibit 2.3-G - Structure Data Data Existing Structure Proposed Structure BIN 2206680 2206680 Feature Carried/Crossed Chenango Road / Sauquoit Creek Chenango Road / Sauquoit Creek To Be Determined During Final Type of Bridge Steel Multi-Girder Design Number and Length of Spans One 100’-0” Span One 100’-0” Span Lane Width(s) 13’-2 ½” 11’-0” Shoulder Width(s) No Shoulders 4’-0” Sidewalk(s) No Sidewalks No Sidewalks Utilities Carried Water Line and Gas Line Water Line and Gas Line Vertical Clearance(s) Unknown Unknown Federal Sufficiency Rating 72.8 - State Condition Rating 4.431 6.833

2.3.3.9.(1) History & Deficiencies

The existing bridge was originally constructed in 1970. The b ridge is lo cated on an a pproximate tangent horizontal alignment with good sight distances. The ap proach pavement is in ge nerally fair condition with areas of transverse cracking with mapcracking asphalt. Approach drainage is fair to poor with a large area of ponding on the westerly approach.

The existing bridge currently has non-standard shoulders.

The existing bridge rail is not continuous.

2.3.3.9.(2) Inspection

Federal Sufficiency Rating – 72.8

State Condition Rating – 4.431

2-7 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

The 2012 Biennial Inspection assigned the bridge a General Recommendation of “5”, indicating minor deterioration and/or not functioning as originally designed, and a computed Condition Rating of 4.431.

The general superstructure recommendation was “5”. The structural deck has moderate to heavy deterioration of the stay-in -place forms and leakage throughout. The structu ral deck has leakage in all four bays with dampness, light efflorescence staining and mapcracked concrete with minor areas of rust stai ning. The cu rbs and sidewalks along both sides of the bridg e are heavily spalled with exposed rebar. Severe spalling of th e fascias has undermined the b ridge rail p osts at isolated locations and there a re several broken box beam attachment clips. The p rimary members have significant section loss and crippling to the we bs of all gird ers in the criti cal bearing areas at both abutments.

The general recommendation for both abutments was “5”. Low ratings were due to heavy corrosion of the be arings, severe spalling of the concrete pedestal under Girder G1 at the be gin abutment, minor to moderate deterioration of the remaining begin abutment pedestals and moderate to heavy erosion of the slopes in front of both abutments.

The stream channel erosion and bank protection were both rated “3”. The poor rating is based on undercutting of the stream banks, up to 20 feet of ve rtical erosion in the left qu adrant and displaced and sloughing bank protection stones in the vicinity of the bridge.

2.3.3.9.(3) Restrictions

The bridge is not currently posted for loads. The bridge width is consistent with the approach roadway width with no restrictions to horizontal clearance.

2.3.3.9.(4) Waterway

Sauquoit Creek is not a USACE or US Coast Guard navigable waterway.

2-8 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

2.3.3.10 Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts

The following table summarizes the existing and proposed hydraulic conditions at the bridge site

Exhibit 2.3-H - Hydraulic Data Data Existing Proposed

Q50 (cfs) - -

Q100 (cfs) - -

Low Chord Elevation (ft) 502.5± 502.3±

Q50 Design High Water (ft) - -

Q100 Design High Water (ft) - -

Q50 Freeboard (ft) - -

Q100 Freeboard (ft) - -

Velocity (ft/s) - - The hydraulic data table above is incomplete due to this being a superstructure replacement project and a hydraulic analysis is not required at this time. This bridge has been classified as “scour critical” and under a separate project the scour mitigation measures have been completed. Determination if a hydraulic analysis is required will be made during final design.

2.3.3.11 Utilities

Electric: National Grid Telephone: Unidentified Cable TV: Time Warner Gas: National Grid Water: Unidentified Sewer: Unidentified

Overhead electric crosses over the bridge from the north-west quadrant to the south-east quadrant. No relocation of this utility is anticipated.

Overhead telephone and cable television lines run alo ng the north edge of Ch enango Road, approximately 6’-0” from edge of ro adway. Shielding or temporary relocation of thi s utility duri ng construction will be evaluated during final design. No permanent relocation of this utility is anticipated.

A gas line runs along the south edge of Chenango Road and is supported by the existing bridge structure in bay four. Shielding or temporary relocation of this utility during construction will be evaluated during final design. No permanent relocation of this utility i s anticipated; however provisions for attachment to the proposed structure will be required.

A water line runs along the north edge of Chenango Road and is supp orted by the e xisting bridge structure in bay two. Shielding or temporary relocation of this utility during construction will be evaluated during final design. No pe rmanent relocation of this utility is anticipated; however provisions for attachment to the proposed structure will be required.

2-9 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

2.3.3.12 Right of Way

It is anticipated that there will be minor ROW acquisitions as part of this project. NYSDOT Region 2 has initiated the ROW acquisition process. (Refer to Appen dix A fo r the location of the ROW on the plan sheet.)

2.3.3.13 Landscaping/Environmental Enhancement

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

2.4 Miscellaneous

2.4.1 NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA)

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

2-10 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

CHAPTER 3 – SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

The Department has determined that this project is a Class II action (Categorical Exclusion) because it does not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental impact and is excluded from th e requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA), as documented in the following discussion under Chapter 3. Specifically, in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s regulations 23CFR 771.117(d) this project meets the project description of the ‘D’ list as p rimarily a repair/reconstruction of an exis ting bridge in the same lo cation with no additional capacity (no added thru lanes) and does not significantly impact the environment.

3.2 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)

The NYSDOT is the SE QRA lead agency for this Project as per 17 NYCRR Part 15 “Procedures for Implementation of State Environmen tal Quality Review Act”, Section 15. 5. This Project is bei ng advanced as a SEQRA T ype II Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR, Part 15. As a result, no furthe r SEQRA processing would be required. The Project meets the requirements of a Type II action, pe r 17 NYCRR Section 15.14, Subdivision (e), Item 37, Parag raph (iv) – “ replacement, reconstruction or rehabilitation, at present site or immediately adjacent thereto, of existing bridges, culverts or other transportation structures, including railroad crossing structures, not involving substantial expansion of the structure”. The Project does not violate any of the criteria contained in subdivision (d) of Section 15.14 shown below:  The acquisition of an occupied dwelling or business structure;  Significant changes in passenger or vehicle traffic volumes, vehicle mix, local travel patterns or access;  More than minor social, economic or environmental effects upon occupied dwelling units, businesses, abutting properties or other established human activities;  Significant inconsistency with current plans or goals that have been adopted by local government bodies;  Physical alteration of mo re than 1 ha (2.5 ac) of publicly o wned or operated park land, recreational area or designated open space;  An effect on a distri ct, building, structure or site eligible for, or listed on, the National Regist er of Historic Places; or any historic building, structure, site or prehistoric site that has been proposed by the Com mittee on the Registers for consideration by the Ne w York State Board of Hi storic Preservation for a recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer for nomination for inclusion in said National Register;  More than minor alteration of, or adverse effect upon, any property, protected area, or natural or man-made resource of national, State or local significance, including but not limited to: . Freshwater or tidal wetlands and associated areas; . Floodplains; . Prime or unique agricultural land; . Agricultural districts, when more than one acre may be affected; . Water resources, including lakes, reservoirs, rivers and streams; . Water supply sources; . Designated wild, scenic and recreational rivers; . Unique ecological, natural wooded or scenic areas; . Rare, Threatened or Endangered species; . Any area designated as a critical environmental area pursuant to 6 NYCRR, Part 6 17; and  Requirement for an indirect air source quality permit pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 203.

3-1 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

3.3 Additional Environmental Information

3.3.1 General Ecology & Endangered Species

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

Indiana Bat: - No-Effect – below 900’ NGVD & less than 10 trees to be removed:  Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is listed by the USFWS as an endangered species. Therefore, this species is afforded protection under Section 9 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. This species is to be con sidered for a ny project in Ne w York St ate that involves clearing trees greater than 4” dbh, is located at or below an elevation of 900 feet NGVD, and is within 40 miles of a known hibernaculum. Of p articular importance are projects that involve clearing of trees greater tha n four inches in diameter at breast height. This project is located at approximately 505 feet NGVD, involves clearing of four trees (4” dbh and greater), and is withi n 40 miles of a known hib ernaculum. Clearing of up to and in cluding 10 trees (4” dbh and greater) is generally considered to have n o effect on the Indiana bat if the trees are cut within the winter cutting period of October 1 to March 3 1. NYSDOT made a preliminary effect determination of “no effect” for this species and the Federal Highway Administration has concurred with this determination. Additionally, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182, NYSDOT determined that the proposed activity is not likely to result in the take or taking of Indiana bat and was therefore not subject to regulation under this Part. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has agreed with this d etermination. Based on concurrence from both agencies, no further coo rdination with these a gencies is n eeded in refe rence to threatened and endangered species.

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

Bog Turtle: - No-Effect  Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) is listed by the USFWS as a threatened species and by New York State as an endangered species. This species prefers humid environments including open swamps with hummock‐forming tussocks and shallow, slow flowing, clean clear water. The habitat and soils within and a djacent to the proje ct site consists of Wakeville silt loam. Based on th e lack of essential habitat and soils preferred by the bog turtle within the project footprint, NYSDOT made a preliminary effect determination of “no 3-2 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

effect” for this species and the Federal Highway Administration has concurred with this determination. Additionally, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182, NYSDOT determined that the proposed activity is not likely to result in the take or takin g of the bog turtle and wa s therefore not subject to regulation under this Part. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has agreed with this d etermination. Based on concurrence from both agencies, no further coo rdination with these a gencies is n eeded in refe rence to threatened and endangered species.

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

Allegheny Stonecrop:  Allegheny Stonecrop (Hylotelephium telephioides) is a New York state listed endangered plant species. This species naturally occurs only in high bare rock outcrops and on steep cliff-side ridges. It has been documented to be found growing in cracks of limestone rock or along the sides of rocky hills ides. Favorable locations are referred to as “moderate cliffs”, which are characterized by cracks from the surface of the rock into underground caves, deep fissures, or large cracks. Allegheny Stonecrop is d ependent on the cool ai r which circulates to the cave openings, fissures, or cracks and bathes the plant i n condensed moisture and acts as a main sou rce of water consumption for the spe cies. Allegheny Stonecrop is typically fou nd in calcareous soils. The habitat and soils within and adjacent to the project site consists of Wakeville silt loam. Based on the presence of slightly acidic soil on-site instead of the calcareous soils preferred by this species and the lack of the deep fissures and association with u nderground caves required by thi s species, the occurrence of the spe cies within or adj acent to the project area is highly unlikely, therefore NYSDOT made a “no habitat” determination for this species. The NYS Department of Environm ental Conservation has agreed with this determination. Therefore, no further coordination with this agency is needed in reference to threatened and endangered species. Marsh Valerian:  Marsh Valerian (Valeriana uliginosa) is a New Y ork state listed endangered plant species. This species has been found in a variety of wetland types in New York State. Most sites containing Marsh Valerian sha re certain chara cteristics: damp/moist conditions, alkaline or calcareous groundwater, an open aspect (or small openings within forests), and peaty, saturated soils. The habitat and soils within and adjacent to the project site consists of Wakeville silt loam. Based on the pres ence of slightly acidi c soil on-site instead of the calcareo us soils preferred by this sp ecies, the occurre nce of the species within or adjacent to the project area is highly unlikely, therefore NYSDOT made a “no habitat” determination for this speci es. The NYS Department of Envi ronmental Conservation has agreed with this determination. Therefore, no further coordination with this agency is needed in reference to threatened and endangered species.

Bald Eagle: - No-Effect:  Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is protected under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and is a New York State listed th reatened species. Coordination with both the NYNHP and NYSDEC indicates bald eagle nests are not present in the project area. During the site visit, no bald eagle nests were observed within

3-3 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

or adjacent to the proj ect area. NY SDOT made a BGEPA effect determination of “unlikely to disturb nesting bald eagles” for this species and the Federal High way Administration has concurred with this determination. Additionally, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 182, NYSDOT determined that the proposed activity is not likely to result in the take or taking of bald eagle and was therefore not subject to regulation under this Part. The NYS Department of Environm ental Conservation has agreed with this determination. Based on concurrence from both agencies, no further coordination with these agencies is needed in reference to threatened and endangered species.

3.3.2 Wetlands

3.3.2.1 State Freshwater Wetlands

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

A Blanket Section 401 Water Quality Certification applies to this project, since the work required will meet the requirements of a Section 404 or Section 10 Nationwide Permit #3.

3.3.2.2 Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands

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

It is antici pated that the work will comply with Section 404 Nationwide Permit #3 (Maintenance), authorizing the repair, rehabilitation or replacem ent of any prev iously authorized, currently serviceable structure, or fill, or of any currently service able structure or fill authorized by 33 CF R 330.3. It is anticipated no PCN will be required.

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

3.3.2.3 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses

Sauquoit Creek is classified as an NYSDEC Class C(T) protected stream. Guidelines and best management practices provided by NYSDEC to assi st in desi gning, installing, and re placing stream crossing structures in small streams will be adhered to during t he construction phase of this Project. In addition, coordination with the NY SDEC pursuant to the ‘NYSDEC/NYSDOT Memorandum of Understanding Regarding ECL Articles 15 & 24” will take place.

The New York State De partment of Conservation (NYSDEC) has been consulted to det ermine any restrictions to construction activities due to fish spawning seasons or other water quality concern s. The restrictions identified are as follows: in-stream work is allowed May 15 – October 1.

3-4 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

3.3.2.4 Executive Order 11990

It has been determined that the proposed project activities will comply with the term s and conditions of Programmatic Executive Order 11990 Find (EO). Thi s Programmatic EO has been prepared for Transportation Improvement Project which are F ederally Aided High way Projects classifies as a Categorical Exclusion under 23 CF R 771.117 and project which require only a USACE Section 404 Nationwide Permit for work which will affect waters of the United States.

3.3.2.5 Mitigation Summary

Best management practices, including implementation of appropriate siltation control and sediment and erosion control meas ures, will be taken during construction to contain di sturbed areas and sediments within the Project site, so as to not adversely affect the stream or previously undisturbed areas outside of the Project site.

3.3.3 Floodplains

3.3.3.1 State Flood Insurance Compliance Program Based on the FIRM for Town of New Hartford, Oneida County, the project is within floodplain limits. In addition to the new structure proposed along the existing alignment, co nstruction practices will be implemented to minimize impacts to floodplain functions and values. Compared to existing conditions, the project will improve the hydraulic capacity at the crossing (see Hydraulics Analysis in Appendix E). Based on the evalu ation of the proje ct design in conju nction with hydraulic studies, surveyed el evations, and existing culvert capacities, the project will satisfy the requirements of 6 NYCRR 502 and EO 11988.

3.3.3.2 Executive Order 11988 In order to comply with Executive Order 11988, potential effects of any actions taken within the floodplain have been evaluated, and the proposed Project will not impac t the floodplain fo r Oneida Creek. Therefore no floodplain permitting is anticipated to be necessary.

3.3.3.3 Stormwater Management A General Permit for Sto rmwater Discharges from Construction Activity (SPDES) for Erosion and Sediment Controls (ESC) is not anticipated for this project. Erosion and sediment control measures will be evaluated during final design and ESC plan s and n otes may be in corporated into the proje ct documents if the disturbed area is greater than 1 acre.

3.4 Historic and Cultural Resources

The bridge is less than 50 years old (approximately 40 years old) and has been determined Not Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The project will not disturb any previously undisturbed soils and therefore has no potential to affect archeological resources. There are no known listed or eligible historic buildings, structures, or districts in or adjacent to the project area that require consideration in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800).

The project area was previously surveyed for cultural resources as part of the Judd Road/Route 840 Capital Program Project (PIN 2801.27). Due to the proximity of a nearby aqueduct that was identified in the report, construction monitoring was informally recommended by the NYSM in initial coordination before the bridge was added to the CBOW list.

3-5 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

3.5 Hazardous Materials

3.5.1 Asbestos

Sampling and testing of Potentially Asbestos Containing Materials (PACM) was performed and the following materials were identified as Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM):  Tar/Felt Pipe Wrap (brown/black) – On 12” diameter pipe  Tar/Felt Pipe Wrap (gray/black) – On 16” diameter pipe

The following materials were sampled and testing and determined to be Non-ACM:  Dark Brown Fiberboard – Between wingwalls and abutments  Black Bearing Pad (Lower) – At abutment bearings  Orange Bearing Pad (Upper) – At abutment bearings  Gray Caulk – Between bridge deck and steel beams  Glossy Tar (black/solid) – Between 16” diameter pipe and penetration through backwall

All ACM impacted as part of this project will be removed and disposed of in accordance with NYSDOT Standard Specification Section 210 and all applicable State and Federal regulations.

Refer to Appendix B for additional information.

3.5.2 Lead-Based Paint Materials coated with lead-based paint could potentially exist at the bridge. A lead-based paint screening and sampling of potential materials should be conducted during final design. Applicable notes shall be placed into the contract documents indicating the presence, or absence, of lead-based paint.

All lead-based paint impacted as part of this project will be removed and disposed of in accordance with NYSDOT Standard Specification Section 571 and all applicable State and Federal regulations.

3-6 May 2014 Project Scoping Report/Final Design Report PIN 2650.40.101/BIN 2206680

APPENDICES

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

Appendix A – Plans, Profiles, Typical Sections, and Detour Map

BIN 2206680 – Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek

101.094 – Assignment #8

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

Detour = 3.46 Miles

Google Map

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

Appendix B – Environmental Information

Smart Growth Screening Tool PIN 2650.40 Prepared By: Region 2 Smart Growth Screening Tool (STEP 1) NYSDOT & Local Sponsors – Fill out the Smart Growth Screening Tool until the directions indicate to STOP for the project type under consideration. For all other projects, complete answering the questions. For any questions, refer to Smart Growth Guidance document.

Title of Proposed Project: Superstructure Replacement: Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek (BIN2206680) Location of Project: Town of New Hartford and City of Utica

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

A. Infrastructure:

Addresses SG Law criterion a. – (To advance projects for the use, maintenance or improvement of existing infrastructure) 1. Does this project use, maintain, or improve existing infrastructure? Yes No N/A Explain: (use this space to expand on your answers above – the form has no limitations on the length of your narrative)

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

In addition, the bridge width will be increased to add wider shoulders which will improve accomodations for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Maintenance Projects Only a. Continue with screening tool for the four (4) types of maintenance projects listed below, as defined in NYSDOT PDM Exhibit 7-1 and described in 7-4: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/pdm

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

Smart Growth Screening Tool

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

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

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

B. Sustainability: NYSDOT defines Sustainability as follows: A sustainable society manages resources in a way that fulfills the community/social, economic and environmental needs of the present without compromising the needs and opportunities of future generations. A transportation system that supports a sustainable society is one that:  Allows individual and societal transportation needs to be met in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health and with equity within and between generations.  Is safe, affordable, and accessible, operates efficiently, offers choice of transport mode, and supports a vibrant economy.  Protects and preserves the environment by limiting transportation emissions and wastes, minimizes the consumption of resources and enhances the existing environment as practicable. For more information on the Department’s Sustainability strategy, refer to Appendix 1 of the Smart Growth Guidance and the NYSDOT web site, www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites/sustainability (Addresses SG Law criterion j : to promote sustainability by strengthening existing and creating new communities which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and do not compromise the needs of future generations, by among other means encouraging broad based public involvement in developing and implementing a community plan and ensuring the governance structure is adequate to sustain and implement.) 1. Will this project promote sustainability by strengthening existing communities? Yes No N/A 2. Will the project reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Yes No N/A Explain: (use this space to expand on your answers above)

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 2 PIN 2650.40

Smart Growth Screening Tool

Replacing the structure will promote sustainability and strengthen communities because it will maintain community connectivity and prevent traffic issues at nearby intersections, thus reducing idling fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. It will also maintain an important travel route between the City of Utica and the town of New Hartford and surrounding communities.

C. Smart Growth Location:

Plans and investments should preserve our communities by promoting its distinct identity through a local vision created by its citizens. (Addresses SG Law criteria b and c: to advance projects located in municipal centers; to advance projects in developed areas or areas designated for concentrated infill development in a municipally approved comprehensive land use plan, local waterfront revitalization plan and/or brownfield opportunity area plan.) 1. Is this project located in a developed area? Yes No N/A 2. Is the project located in a municipal center? Yes No N/A 3. Will this project foster downtown revitalization? Yes No N/A 4. Is this project located in an area designated for concentrated infill development in a municipally approved comprehensive land use plan, waterfront revitalization plan, or Brownfield Opportunity Area plan? Yes No N/A Explain: (use this space to expand on your answers above) This project is located at the City of Utica/Town of New Hartford border and is within the Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study (HOCTS) metropolitan area. The bridge provides important connectivity to and from the greater Utica area to New Hartford and surrounding suburbs.

D. Mixed Use Compact Development:

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 3 PIN 2650.40

Smart Growth Screening Tool

Future planning and development should assure the availability of a range of choices in housing and affordability, employment, education transportation and other essential services to encourage a jobs/housing balance and vibrant community-based workforce. (Addresses SG Law criteria e and i: to foster mixed land uses and compact development, downtown revitalization, brownfield redevelopment, the enhancement of beauty in public spaces, the diversity and affordability of housing in proximity to places of employment, recreation and commercial development and the integration of all income groups; to ensure predictability in building and land use codes.) 1. Will this project foster mixed land uses? Yes No N/A 2. Will the project foster brownfield redevelopment? Yes No N/A 3. Will this project foster enhancement of beauty in public spaces? Yes No N/A 4. Will the project foster a diversity of housing in proximity to places of employment and/or recreation? Yes No N/A 5. Will the project foster a diversity of housing in proximity to places of commercial development and/or compact development? Yes No N/A 6. Will this project foster integration of all income groups and/or age groups? Yes No N/A 7. Will the project ensure predictability in land use codes? Yes No N/A 8. Will the project ensure predictability in building codes? Yes No N/A Explain: (use this space to expand on your answers above) This project will improve the aethetics of the existing bridge location. However, it will have no impact on housing, diversity, land use or building codes.

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 4 PIN 2650.40

Smart Growth Screening Tool E. Transportation and Access: NYSDOT recognizes that Smart Growth encourages communities to offer a wide range of transportation options, from walking and biking to transit and automobiles, which increase people’s access to jobs, goods, services, and recreation. (Addresses SG Law criterion f: to provide mobility through transportation choices including improved public transportation and reduced automobile dependency.) 1. Will this project provide public transit? Yes No N/A 2. Will this project enable reduced automobile dependency? Yes No N/A 3. Will this project improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities (such as shoulder widening to provide for on-road bike lanes, lane striping, crosswalks, new or expanded sidewalks or new/improved pedestrian signals)? Yes No N/A (Note: Question 3 is an expansion on question 2. The recently passed Complete Streets legislation requires that consideration be given to complete street design features in the planning, design, construction, reconstruction and rehabilitation, but not including resurfacing, maintenance, or pavement recycling of such projects.) Explain: (use this space to expand on your answers above) This project will maintain the existing bus route and provide pedestrian and bicycle accomodations by increasing the shoulder width.

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

F. Coordinated, Community-Based Planning: Past experience has shown that early and continuing input in the transportation planning process leads to better decisions and more effective use of limited resources. For information on community based planning efforts, the MPO may be a good resource if the project is located within the MPO planning area. (Addresses SG Law criteria g and h: to coordinate between state and local government and inter- municipal and regional planning; to participate in community based planning and collaboration.) 1. Has there been participation in community-based planning and collaboration on the project?

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 5 PIN 2650.40

Smart Growth Screening Tool

Yes No N/A 2. Is the project consistent with local plans? Yes No N/A 3. Is the project consistent with county, regional, and state plans? Yes No N/A 4. Has there been coordination between inter-municipal/regional planning and state planning on the project? Yes No N/A Explain: (use this space to expand on your answers above) This project has been on the list of hopeful projects for a long time. It meets the goals of the City, the Town, the County and the State. There have been discussions over the last 10 years between these municipalities to try to find a way to fund the project.

G. Stewardship of Natural and Cultural Resources: Clean water, clean air and natural open land are essential elements of public health and quality of life for New York State residents, visitors, and future generations. Restoring and protecting natural assets, and open space, promoting energy efficiency, and green building, should be incorporated into all land use and infrastructure planning decisions. (Addresses SG Law criterion d :To protect, preserve and enhance the State’s resources, including agricultural land, forests surface and ground water, air quality, recreation and open space, scenic areas and significant historic and archeological resources.) 1. Will the project protect, preserve, and/or enhance agricultural land and/or forests? Yes No N/A 2. Will the project protect, preserve, and/or enhance surface water and/or groundwater? Yes No N/A 3. Will the project protect, preserve, and/or enhance air quality? Yes No N/A 4. Will the project protect, preserve, and/or enhance recreation and/or open space? Yes No N/A 5. Will the project protect, preserve, and/or enhance scenic areas? SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 6 PIN 2650.40

Smart Growth Screening Tool

Yes No N/A 6. Will the project protect, preserve, and/or enhance historic and/or archeological resources? Yes No N/A Explain: (use this space to expand on your answers above) At this time there are no known historic or cultural items to preserve.

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 7 PIN 2650.40

Smart Growth Screening Tool Smart Growth Impact Statement (STEP 2) NYSDOT: Complete a Smart Growth Impact Statement (SGIS) below using the information from the Screening Tool. Local Sponsors: The local sponsors are not responsible for completing a Smart Growth Impact Statement. Proceed to Step 3.

Smart Growth Impact Statement PIN: 2650.40 Project Name: Superstructure Replacement: Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek (BIN 2206680) Pursuant to ECL Article 6, this project is compliant with the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act. This project has been determined to meet the relevant criteria, to the extent practicable, described in ECL Sec. 6-0107. Specifically, the project:

 Will improve existing infrastructure;  Will provide mobility through transportation choices including improved public transportation and reduced automobile dependency;  Will protect, preserve and enhance the state's resources, specifically air quality.   

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

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 8 PIN 2650.40

Smart Growth Screening Tool Review & Attestation Instructions (STEP 3)

Local Sponsors: Once the Smart Growth Screening Tool is completed, the next step is to submit the project certification statement (Section A) to Responsible Local Official for signature. After signing the document, the completed Screening Tool and Certification statement should be sent to NYSDOT for review as noted below.

NYSDOT: For state-let projects, the Screening Tool and SGIS is forwarded to Regional Director/ RPPM/Main Office Program Director or designee for review, and upon approval, the attestation is signed (Section B.2). For locally administered projects, the sponsor’s submission and certification statement is reviewed by NYSDOT staff, the appropriate box (Section B.1) is checked, and the attestation is signed (Section B.2).

A. CERTIFICATION (LOCAL PROJECT)

I HEREBY CERTIFY, to the best of my knowledge, all of the above to be true and correct.

Preparer of this document:

Signature Date

Title Printed Name

Responsible Local Official (for local projects):

Signature Date

Title Printed Name

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 9 PIN 2650.40

Federal Environmental Approval Worksheet

PIN: 2650.40 Comp. by: K. Patterson Date Comp. : 3/19/14 FUNDING TYPE: Federal BIN: 2206680 DESCRIPTION: Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek NEPA CLASS: II SEQR TYPE: II

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

Purpose of this Worksheet:  Communicate project National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) classification to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).  Identify additional required FHWA environmental determinations, approvals and/or concurrences required before the Categorical Exclusion (CE) determination can be made  Reflect the documentation in the Design Approval Document (DAD) and enable the approving authority (per PDM Exhibit 4-2) to make the CE determination Instructions: (also see “WorkshheetInstructions.doc”) Complete the worksheet prior to the end of Design Phase I. If project parameters or site condition changes result in potential resource impacts, re-do worksheet prior to Design Approval to confirm NEPA determination and recertify (on page 4)

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

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

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

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

1. Significant environmental impacts; YES NO 2. Substantial controversy on environmental grounds; YES NO 3. Significant impact on properties protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; or YES NO

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

 If yes to any of the above, contact the Main Offi ce Project Liaison (MOPL) (see PDM Exhibit 4-1). If after consultation with FHWA it is determi ned that the project cannot be progressed as a CE, skip to step 4 and see PDM Chapter 4 for NEPA Class I (EIS) or Class III (EA) processing. -or-  If no to all, then this project qualifies as a Categorical Exclusion (CE); proceed to step 2.

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

PIN: 2650.40 / BIN 2206680

Step 2: Other FHWA environmental actions required prior to CE Determination Classification as a CE does not exempt the project from further environmental review. Compliance with Federal Statutes, Regulations and Executive Orders (EO’s) must be documented. Refer to the Department’s Project Development Manual (PDM) and Environmental Manual (TEM) to determine the requirements. FHWA FHWA Independent Independent Determination Determination Date FHWA and/or and/or determination Other required FHWA environmental Concurrence 2.1 Concurrence issued independent determinations not required Required & or resource Received1 not present1 A B C EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands Individual Finding Date Received ESA Section 7 Threatened and Endangered Species 4/11/2014 Section 106 (National Historic Preservation Act) Date Received 4(f) (Park, Wildlife Refuge Historic Sites and National Wild Date Received and Scenic Rivers) Resource not Resource present, or Other FHWA environmental compliance present and present but 2.2 and/or approvals/concurrence required 1 threshold threshold1 not exceeded exceeded EO 11988 Floodplains EO 13112 Invasive Species EO 12898 Environmental Justice Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1424(e) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404/10 NW 23 Section 6(f) (Land and Water Conservation Funds) Migratory Bird Treaty Act

23CFR772 Type I Noise abatement Resource Resource not Other Environmental Issues requiring FHWA present and present, or 2.3 1 present but notification threshold 1 exceeded threshold not exceeded U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404/10 Individual

Permit National Wild and Scenic Rivers U.S. Coast Guard Bridge Permit Known hazardous waste site (only EPA National Priority

list) Project on or affecting Native American Lands

Proceed to step 3.

1 See thresholds.doc 5/15/2014 Page 2 of 4 FEAW_Final.doc/Version1.0 BIN 2206680_FEA_Worksheet Federal Environmental Approval Worksheet

PIN: 2650.40 / BIN 2206680 Step 3: Who makes the NEPA Categorical Exclusion Determination? FHWA Regulations describe two types of CEs; CEs listed in 23 CFR 771.117(c) [aka the C list], and CEs such as those listed in 23 CFR 771.117 (d) [aka the D list]. NYSDOT can make the CE determination for C list projects once all required approvals and concurrences have been secured. NEPA determination for d list projects has been retained by FHWA. NYSDOT can also make the CE determination where a project meets the July 15, 1996 FHWA NY Division NEPA Programmatic Categorical Exclusion memo criteria.

To determine by whom, FHWA or NYSDOT, and how the CE determination is made, follow the instructions beginning in section 3.1 of the table below:

Condition Action

3 Determine whether FHWA or NYSDOT makes the CE determination. If the project is an If yes, NYSDOT can make the CE determination once all the approvals and action that would coordinations required are complete. normally be a CE in 23 CFR 771.117 Is the project an action that would normally be a CE in 23 CFR771.117(c)? YES NO Choose an item. 3.1 (c) (drop down list), check the “Yes” If yes, choose an item and proceed to step 3.1.1. box. If not, check If no, proceed to step 3.2. the “No” box. If there are: Determine if any of  outstanding environmental determinations (Table 2.1:checks in column A the required without dates in column B) environmental  and/or circumstances requiring demonstration of applicable EO compliance determinations, or issues requiring FHWA environmental review (checks in column A in compliance and/or 3.1.1 Table 2.2) approvals/ The project will use Memo Shell 2 (FHWA needs to review this project). concurrences are Proceed to step 4. outstanding. If the project does not meet the conditions above proceed to step 3.1.2. If there are: Determine if any  any issues requiring FHWA environmental notification (checks in column A in issues are present Table 2.3); then that require FHWA The project will use Memo Shell 3 (FHWA must be notified of this project). 3.1.2 notification. Proceed to step 4. If the project does not meet the conditions above proceed to step 3.1.3. No Determinations, Approvals, The project will use Memo Shell 1 (memo to file). Concurrences or Proceed to step 4. 3.1.3 Notifications required. Certain actions eligible for categorical exclusion require NYSDOT to transmit documentation and a determination that a CE applies. Examples of activities that The project is a D may proceed as a CE are listed in 23 CFR 771.117(d) (D list). Activities not directly list CE as per 23 listed on the D List also have the potential to proceed as a CE with submitted CFR 771.117(d). documentation (other). Choose appropriate entry All other environmental, social and economic factors that affect the project’s NEPA classification, 3.2 from drop down as per 23 CFR 771.117 and the July 1996 FHWA NY Division NEPA Programmatic Categorical list. If “other” Exclusion memo must still be addressed, for example the project: does not change the functional class; does not add mainline capacity; is not on new location; will not change travel patterns; provide an acquires only minor amounts of ROW (temporary or permanent); does not cause displacements; explanation. does not change access control; is air quality exempt; is consistent with NYS Coastal Zone Management Plan; and the analysis and requirements of the Farmland Protection Policy Act have been satisfied.

The project is an action that would normally be a CE in 23 CFR 771.117(d).

"Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction or replacement or the construction of grade

separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.". Other: provide explanation here Proceed to step 3.2.1. 5/15/2014 Page 3 of 4 FEAW_Final.doc/Version1.0 BIN 2206680_FEA_Worksheet

0 U. epar rve,,. New York Division ^..^ gin/.., / R p ie ,, Cep era l Bu;.1..1;u;.^,^y of Transportation 11A Clinton Avenue, Suite 719 Federal Highway Albany, NY 12207 Administration April 11, 2014 518-431-4127 Fax: 518-431-4121 New [email protected]

In Reply Refer To: liP ,-NY Mr. David Stilv,cll, Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and `Vi4111it 5cr', ice 3 817 Luker Road Cortland, NY 13045

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

Dear Mr. Stilwell:

This letter is in regards to the Conference Process for projects under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), specifically regarding Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis). This letter applies to the 80 projects within the Critical Bridges Over Water (CROW) Program that are listed in the attached spreadsheet: "NLEB Batch Summary Table, Projects with Tree Cutting".

- : . -... r", !. r C FT 17 t• 1' _ 1 1'- - _ . F _ 7 r 2. 2H2. ' -(, L_e Lo eared . <:, .'111..1'i ,z :...,..` ...... ,,...... l: .,, \n\ . ., t :- :`...., .'.i) i'.!,..ri .' :. ..il i Ufl i:.:... : I \L ;\ ,.. .. • it 7 • r i 1. l Ei (il . l- :fl .. the Northern :.' i :. }..'^' -ear cu it.., t. .. ':: 1Vt111 ... listed ,rider the ' A \? ifil... 1 11 1 1 f ,r .. r at'j710.11! ate!' ! 1 0 Li1.`i O ii;: ( C" ' ! :.c:lC. !) a:li II •• C:CE c?; :::lip i lien l S'.i ei.nes 1`, , Imo l i ,,, ^hh . ft fli ( ) tit(I t ( (., i^.^.?i'0 !.!1•:( } \. l l \\ :\ , r`d if ('r)tnfi'i•t, fl(.t,s i.;i^ (

SHWA has reviewed the attached spreadsheet of 80 projects within the CBO`N' Program, and

\ YSOOT's 'ctcrniinnrion tl?."t d 1e F ?-(s iocts \.1.,nv Affect hi;t an_: \nt _ ;i• ,; to _ T t i

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

i )^. . ., .- . 1: L,Ia.--1 L` ' -- -. L_ll 001'. ttil l . i i. \V iilli(i i i_ii: I and .v _rch the i O\ti ,iti1onnt (,i trees _-; I e cut within iii! s program .,., C1:1. -. C. l.. l.' t:t .., „ .il::...... ,, .. ^l t;li .. ..: ..... -. ,, li.. . . I f ,. a, ...,a! .^i.l: . . .

p I . l l 1. 3 ii i ll ll .`!l\.. ill t, . ' L^ ll.l ^l l^ill li . tel:.l ' 1. ,. 11:1L.'1 ., \^'lIII ^i \ ^ ^ 11 111 l^^ l . .^ll .11 l:l 11. ^. ;l LULL III C11: %,1 lt •( % I .l iv.. s IiliAl, ,. .,,,, li d : l.11 4,1 i- .i \. ,14. le, ili 1-enter Li nn i.,. -i lc' l. A ..i -. Il i\ ., ilill l d i 111l 1 )\ 7l till.. .I... c: :i ^t, e i •i„„ J ^.o^ m t'er ;:^ .^ .. in the1:1C ::ii a ^ g ^(',/(;1?.:i .,!l ei I' I n t'a:^C: }sl... Interim (`•i'. 1; c :1Ci and i'iaiiilii;` ance ni distances to Use for buffers around known locations of Northern Long- eared Bat. 2

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

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

Sincerely,

Is! MELISSA TONI

Melissa Toni Environmental Program Coordinator

Attachment: Spreadsheet, NLEB Batch Summary Table, Projects with Tree Cutting cc: Daniel Hitt, NYSDOT Robert Davies, FHWA Proximity of Cutting to Nearest Known NLEB Tree Removals (see notes 5-8) (see note 9) Project NEPA Status PIN Local # Trees Acreage Acoustic Detection / Maternity Federal Federal Lead Date Package Date NEPA Doc. (see notes 2-3) Project Description (see notes 2-3) Project PS&EDate LetDate (if < 1 ac) (if ≥ 1 ac) Cutting Schedule Hibernaculum Mist Net Capture Roost Funding Permit Agency Submitted to FHWA Completed Comments

PIN 1BOW.00

US Route 9 over Moordenerkill, Town of Schodack, Rensselaer County. The project 1005500 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of the bridge BIN 1005500. US Route 9 over North Branch Moordenerkill, Town of Schodack, Rensselaer 1005490 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 1005490. US Route 9 over Kayaderosseras Creek, Town of Malta, Saratoga County. The 1005641 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1005641. US Route 9N over Kayaderosseras Creek, Town of Greenfield, Saratoga County. 1006690 3 batch3:allcutting10/1/14to3/31/15 0.5to5.0mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi The project consists of replacement of BIN 1006690. NYS Route 73 over Beede Brook, Town of Keene, Essex County. The project 1029710 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1029710. NYS Route 73 over Beede Brook, Town of Keene, Essex County. The project 1029720 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1029720. NYS Route 73 over East Branch Ausable River, Town of Keene, Essex County. The 1029730 25 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1029730. NYS Route 73 over Johns Brook, Town of Keene, Essex County. The project 1029740 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1029740. NYS Route 73 over Johns Brook Overflow, Town of Keene, Essex County. The 1029750 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of reconstructing the bridge BIN 1029750. NYS Route 73 over East Branch of the Ausable River, Town of Keene, Essex 1029760 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi County. The project consists of replacing BIN 1029760. NYS Route 73 over Cascade Lake Outlet, Town of Keene, Essex County. The 1029780 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1029780. Rt. 73 over W. branch of Ausable River, Town of Keene, Essex County.The project 1029790 & 1053630 90 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BINs 1029790 & 1053630. NYS Route 9N over West Branch Ausable River, Town of Jay, Essex County. The 1007020 5 batch3:allcutting10/1/14to3/31/15 0.5to5.0mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1007020. NYS Route 23 over Huntersfield Creek, Town of Prattsville, Greene County. The 1017680 5 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1017680. NYS Route 28 over Hudson River, Town of Thruman, Warren County. The project 1020370 25 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1020370. NYS Route 42 over Westkill, Town of Lexington, Greene County. The project 1025210 8 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1025210. NYS Route 43 over Black River, Town of Stephentown, Rensselaer County. The 1025390 6 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1025390. NYS Route 150 over Wynantskill Creek, Town of North Greenbush, Rensselaer 1038570 7 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 1038570. NYS Route 296 over East Kill, , Town of Jewett, Greene County. The project consists 1045150 25 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi of replacement of BIN 1045150. US Route 4 over Glens Falls Feeder Canal, Village of Hudson Falls, Washington 4001080 5 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 4001080. NYS Route 196 over Glens Falls Feeder Canal, Village of Hudson Falls, Washington 4039800 4 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 4039800. NYS Rt. 20 over Kinderhook Creek, Town of Nassau, Rensselaer County. The 1016000 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1016000. NYS Rt. 20 over Kinderhook Creek, Town of Nassau, Rensselaer County. The 1016010 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1016010. NYS Rt. 20 over Kinderhook Creek, Town of Nassau, Rensselaer County. The 1016020 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1016020.

PIN 2BOW.00

NYS Route 315 over Oriskany Creek, Town of Marshall, Oneida County. The project 1045640 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1045640. Dustin Road over Kayuta Lake, Town of Remsen, Oneida County. The project 4426240 3 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1045640. NYS Route 46/North Main Street over Oneida Creek, Town of Oneida, Madison 1025680 6 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 1025680. NYS Route 365A/Prospect Street Bridge over Oneida Creek, Town of Oneida, 1046750 8 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi Madison County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 1046750. Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek, Town of New Hartford, Oneida County. The 2206680 4 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 2206680. Johnnycake Hill Road over Madison Reservoir Feeder Canal, Town of Hamilton, 4424090 5 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi Madison County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 4424090.

PIN 3BOW.00

NYS Route 38A over Sucker Brook, Town of Owasco, Cayuga County. The project 1024380 4 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1024380. NYS Route 96B over Tributary of Buttermilk Creek, Town of Danby, Tompkins 1035310 2 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 1035310. NYS Route 327 over Enfield Creek, Town of Enfield, Tompkins County. The project 1045920 6 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1045920. Proximity of Cutting to Nearest Known NLEB Tree Removals (see notes 5-8) (see note 9) Project NEPA Status PIN Local # Trees Acreage Acoustic Detection / Maternity Federal Federal Lead Date Package Date NEPA Doc. (see notes 2-3) Project Description (see notes 2-3) Project PS&EDate LetDate (if < 1 ac) (if ≥ 1 ac) Cutting Schedule Hibernaculum Mist Net Capture Roost Funding Permit Agency Submitted to FHWA Completed Comments I-81 over Spring Brook, Town of Pulaski, Oswego County. The project consists of 1068051 and 1068052 12 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi replacement of BINs 1068051 and 1068052.

PIN 4BOW.00

NYS Route 30 over Tonawanda Creek, Town of Alexander, Genesee County. The 1015630 12 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1015630. NYS Route 19 over East Koy Creek, Village of Gainesville, Wyoming County. The 1015090 3 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1015090.

PIN 5BOW.00

NYS Route 78 over Gill Creek, Towns of Amherst and Clarence, Erie County. The 1030320 5 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1030320. NYS Route 78 over Black Creek, Towns of Amherst and Clarence, Erie County. 1030330 3 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi The project consists of replacement of BIN 1030330.

PIN 8BOW.00

Route 9H over Taghkanic Creek, Towns of Claverack and Greenport, Columbia 1006480 30 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 1006480. Route 22 over Roeliff Jansen Kill, Town of Hillsdale, Columbia County. The project 1091510 3 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1091510. Route 28 bridge over Esopus Creek, Town of Shandaken, Ulster County. The project 1019680 30 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1019680. Route 28 over Esopus and Birch Creeks in Big Indian, Town of Shandaken, Ulster 1019700 100 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 1019700. Route 44 over Mara Kill, Town of Gardiner, Ulster County. The project consists of 1025480 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi replacement of BIN 1025480. Route 52 over Verkeerder Kill, Town of Shawangunk, Ulster County. The project 1026650 20 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1026650. Route 55 over Rondout Creek, Town of Warwarsing, Ulster County. The project 1027090 50 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1027090. Route 209 over Rochester Creek, Town of Rochester, Ulster County. The project 1040750 20 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1040750. Route 212 over Beaver Kill, Town of Woodstock, Ulster County. The project consists 1040990 30 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi of replacement of BIN 1040990. Route 213 over the Rondout Creek, Town of Marbletown, Ulster County. The project 1041150 15 batch3:allcutting10/1/14to3/31/15 0.5to5.0mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1041150. Route 42 over Bushnellsville Creek,Town of Shandanken, Ulster County. The project 1025150 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1025150. Route 9W over Rockland Lake Outlet, Town of Clarkstown, Rockland County. The 1007110 15 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1007110. Route 17K bridge over Shawangunk Kill, Town of Wallkill, Orange County. The 1014470 25 batch3:allcutting10/1/14to3/31/15 0.5to5.0mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1014470. Route 42 over Shingle Kill, Town of Deerpark, Orange County. The project consists 1024960 20 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi of replacement of BIN 1024960. Route 52 over Dwaar Kill, Town of Crawford, Orange County. The project consists of 1026670 20 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi replacement of BIN 1026670. Route 52 over Tin Brook, Town of Montgomery, Orange County. The project consists 1026750 25 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi of replacement of BIN 1026750. Route 52 bridge over Quassaic Creek, Town of Newburgh, Orange County. The 1026770 20 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1026770. Route 97 over Shingle Kill, Town of Deerpark, Orange County. The project consists 1035330 60 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi of replacement of BIN 1035330. Route 211 over Harvey Roe Brook, Town of Wallkill, Orange County. This project 1040970 proposes to replace the double box culvert that carries the Harvey Roe Brook 25 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi beneath Route 211 in the Town of Wallkill, Orange County. Route 211 over Wallkill River, Town of Montgomery, Orange County. The project 1040980 25 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1040980. Route 9 over Dickey Brook, Town of Cortlandt, Westchester County. Replace the 1005080 twin culverts that carry the Dickey Brook beneath Route 9, with a single span 20 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi structure. Third Street over Hutchinson River Parkway and Hutchinson River, Village of 5500050 Pelham, Towns of Pelham and Mount Vernon, Westchester County. The project 50 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 5500050. The Saw Mill River Parkway over Saw Mill River, Town of Greenburg, Westchester 5500739 15 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 5500739. Bedford Road over Saw Mill River Parkway and Saw Mill River, Village of 5500870 Pleasantville and Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County. The project consists 110 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi of replacement of BIN 5500870. Pleasantville Road and Route 117 over Saw Mill River Parkway and Saw Mill River, 5500890 Village of Pleasantville and Town of Mount Pleasant, Westchester County. The 140 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 5500890. Proximity of Cutting to Nearest Known NLEB Tree Removals (see notes 5-8) (see note 9) Project NEPA Status PIN Local # Trees Acreage Acoustic Detection / Maternity Federal Federal Lead Date Package Date NEPA Doc. (see notes 2-3) Project Description (see notes 2-3) Project PS&EDate LetDate (if < 1 ac) (if ≥ 1 ac) Cutting Schedule Hibernaculum Mist Net Capture Roost Funding Permit Agency Submitted to FHWA Completed Comments

Saw Mill River Parkway over Kisco River, Town of New Castle, Westchester 5500939 20 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 5500939. Hutchinson River beneath the EHPA DPW road, Town of Eastchester, Westchester 5521680 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 5521680. Route 82 over Sprout Creek, Towns of Wappinger and East Fishkill, Dutchess 1032290 80 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi County. The project consists of replacement of BIN 1032290. Route 82 over Sprout Creek, Town of Union Vale, Dutchess County. The project 1032330 15 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1032330. Route 199 over Sawkill Creek, Towns of Milan and Red Hook, Dutchess County. The 1040040 16 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1040040. Route 55 over Jackson Creek, Town of Union Vale, Dutchess County. The project 1027160 4 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1027160.

PIN 9BOW.00

NYS Route 10 over Platner Brook, Town of Delhi, Delaware County. The project 1007750 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1007750. NYS Route 80 over Butternut Creek, Town of Burlington, Otsego County. The project 1030860 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1030860. NYS Route 97 over Pea Brook, Town of Hancock, Delaware County. The project 1035450 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1035450. NYS Route 97 over Pea Brook, Town of Hancock, Delaware County. The project 1035460 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1035460. NYS Route 97 over tributary to Pea Brook, Town of Hancock, Delaware County. The 1035470 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1035470. NYS Route 17C over Campville Creek, Town of Owego, Tioga County. The project 1014250 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1014250. NYS Route 28 over Herkimer Creek, Town of Exeter, Otsego County. The project 1019990 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1019990. NYS Route 52 over Laundry Brook, Village of Jeffersonville, Sullivan County. The 1026530 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1026530. NYS Route 52 over Panther Rock Creek, Town of Callicoon, Sullivan County. The 1026540 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi project consists of replacement of BIN 1026540. NYS Route 97 over Beaver Brook, Town of Highland, Sullivan County. The project 1035370 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1035370. NYS Route 7 over Kelsey Brook, Town of Afton, Chenango County. The project 1003810 9 batch 3: all cutting 10/1/14 to 3/31/15 > 5.0 mi > 3 mi > 1.5 mi consists of replacement of BIN 1003810.

1527 ASBESTOS INVESTIGATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT SURVEY

Prepared for

New York State Department of Transportation PIN 2650.40.101 Region 2 – Superstructure Replacement Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek BIN 2206680 Bridge Rehabilitation Town of New Hartford and City of Utica Oneida County

SCE Project No. R10282.D7

430 Court Street Utica, NY 13502 Telephone No.: (315) 724-0100 Fax No.: (315) 724-3715

January 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BACKGROUND ...... 1-1

2.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY ...... 2-1

3.0 ANALYTICAL PROTOCOL ...... 3-1

4.0 RESULTS ...... 4-1

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

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

5.1 CHENANGO ROAD OVER SAUQUOIT CREEK, BIN 2206680, TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD AND CITY OF UTICA, ONEIDA COUNTY, NY ...... 5-1

6.0 LIMITATIONS ...... 6-1

FIGURES

Figure No.

3.1 ASBESTOS BULK SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL FLOWCHART

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT SPREADSHEET

APPENDIX B: ANALYTICAL LABORATORY RESULTS

APPENDIX C: BLANKET VARIANCE 14 (BV 14)

APPENDIX D: CERTIFICATIONS

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14 1.0 BACKGROUND

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), Region 2 is in the design phase of the Region 2 – Superstructure Replacement project, PIN 2650.40.101. The project includes bridge rehabilitation of the Chenago Road over Sauquoit Creek Bridge (BIN 2206680) in the Town of New Hartford and City of Utica, Oneida County, New York.

Shumaker Consulting Engineering & Land Surveying, D.P.C. (SCE) was contracted by the NYSDOT to complete an Asbestos Assessment Survey for the identification of ACM at the bridge and to recommend asbestos removal measures, if needed, prior to demolition, reconstruction, and replacement activities.

This “Asbestos Assessment Investigation Technical Memorandum” identifies materials that were determined to be ACM from sampling and testing performed. This report describes the work performed and the analytical results obtained. The survey was limited to materials that were exposed or accessible. SCE was granted access to the structures for the purpose of bulk sample collection by NYSDOT. SCE maintained safety standard policies as set forth by NYSDOT.

1-1

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14 2.0 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY

ASBESTOS SURVEY REQUIREMENT: New York State Department of Labor Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR 56) requires an asbestos survey to be completed by a licensed asbestos contractor using inspectors certified in compliance with Section 56-3.2(d), to determine whether or not the building or structure, or portion(s) thereof to be demolished, renovated, remodeled, or have repair work, contains asbestos-containing material (ACM), presumed ACM (PACM), or suspect ACM (SACM).

The asbestos survey includes a thorough inspection for and identification of all PACM, SACM, or known asbestos material throughout the building/structure or portion thereof to be demolished, renovated, remodeled, or to have repair work. The required inspection must be performed by a certified asbestos inspector and include identification of materials by the following methods:

(1) Review of building/structure plans and records, if available, for references to asbestos, ACM, PACM, or miscellaneous SACM used in construction, renovation, or repair; and

(2) Visual inspection for PACM and miscellaneous SACM throughout the building/structure or portion thereof to be demolished, renovated, remodeled, or repaired. All PACM and miscellaneous SACM observed is assumed to be ACM and must be treated and handled as ACM, unless bulk sampling is conducted as per standard USEPA and OSHA accepted methods (including multi-layered systems sampling protocols); the subsequent analyses are performed by a laboratory that meets the requirements of ICR 56; and the analyses satisfies both New York State and federal requirements to document the material as non-ACM.

2-1

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14 Prior Department bulk sample analysis records generated by either in-house or consultant inspection staff are considered in the inspector’s review, but not exclusively accepted as evidence of negative results. Materials shall be additionally sampled when plans, records, contributing uses/locations or visual observations identify a material as SACM. Similarly, if the prior documentation is not sufficient to definitively indicate the material is asbestos, or the prior sampling and/or analysis does not meet currently accepted protocols (such as NYSDOH requirements), then additional sampling is warranted.

If additional sampling is not deemed necessary, an inspector’s narrative will discuss reasoning behind decision. All narrative discussions are broken down by bridge.

SCE conducted this asbestos assessment in accordance with the above described methodology. Sample locations were randomly chosen from each homogeneous sample area so as not to bias sample results. However, samples were preferentially collected from damaged areas and/or easily/safely accessible locations. The sample was then placed in a referenced numbered vial or sample bag. The chain-of-custody information was completed, including the location, material type, and analyses to be performed. Samples obtained by SCE were sent to Fibers I.D., Inc. of Albany, New York and Eastern Analytical Services, Elmsford, New York for analyses.

2-2

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14 3.0 ANALYTICAL PROTOCOL

A material is considered to be asbestos-containing under OSHA regulation 29 CFR 1926.1101, if it is demonstrated by approved laboratory techniques that bulk samples from a homogeneous sampling area contain greater than one percent (>1%) asbestos by weight or if it is a presumed asbestos-containing material (PACM). A PACM is defined as thermal system insulations and surfacing material in a structure constructed no later than 1981. The designation of PACM may be refuted by the collection and analysis of bulk samples in accordance with the triple-sampling and the 3-5-7 Rule protocol established in the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA).

In New York State, bulk samples are divided into three categories: 1) friable materials, 2) nonfriable materials, and 3) non-friable organically bound materials (NOBs). Asbestos bulk samples can be analyzed by Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM). PLM utilizes a light microscope to identify asbestos fibers based on visual properties of the sample. Each is divided into sub- samples and mounted on four slides in the same refractive index oil. A stratified point count method is then performed to determine asbestos content. This enables the analyst to determine accurately the percentage of asbestos and non-asbestos components. This method is effective in determining asbestos content for friable and many non-friable materials.

Non-friable organically bound (NOB) materials encompass a wide range of building materials that have an embedded flexible to rigid asphalt or vinyl matrix such as floor tiles, mastics, and roofing. The matrix composition of these materials limits the effectiveness of PLM analysis. In order to more accurately determine asbestos content, NOB samples are first Gravimetrically Reduced (GR) in accordance with NYS ELAP 198.4 protocol. After an initial sample weight is determined, the sample is reduced organically in a muffle furnace and then digested in acid. The sample is weighed again and compared to its initial weight. If the post-reduction (residue)

3-1

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14 weight is less than or equal to one percent (≤1%) of the initial weight, it cannot be defined as an ACM.

If the post-reduction (residue) weight is greater than one percent (>1%) of the original sample weight, the sample is analyzed by PLM analysis. If the PLM analysis results in asbestos concentrations greater than one percent (>1%), the sample is identified as an ACM. If the analysis indicates asbestos concentrations less than or equal to one percent (≤1%), the sample then must be analyzed by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) in order to finally determine if the NOB sample is an ACM.

Any one positive sample from a homogeneous sampling area determines the material to be classified as asbestos-containing. In accordance with NYSDOT protocol, a “positive stop approach” is utilized. The laboratory is instructed to not analyze remaining samples from a given homogeneous sampling area following the first positive result. Any NOB homogeneous sampling area that yields all negative results by PLM after GR must have all samples undergo TEM analyses on a first positive basis. The material is determined not to be asbestos-containing if all samples are analyzed by TEM and found to be less than or equal to one percent (≤1%) asbestos. The sampling and analytical protocols are depicted in Figure 3.1.

3-2

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14

3-3

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 CHENANGO ROAD OVER SAUQUOIT CREEK, BIN 2206680, TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD AND CITY OF UTICA, ONEIDA COUNTY, NY

ACM was identified at this bridge structure (BIN 2206680) located on Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek in the Town of New Hartford and City of Utica, Oneida County, New York. The bridge is a steel girder structure, with two (2) concrete abutments spanning Sauquoit Creek.

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

RECORD PLAN DATE SUSPECT ACM LOCATION/COMMENTS 1969 Premoulded Bituminous At wingwalls and abutment backwall Joint Filler joints. 1969 Bituminous Material (Item Applied to the backs of all abutments 61) and wingwalls from the tops of footing to the bottom of pavement.

Premoulded Bituminous Joint Filler was indicated to be present between the bridge deck and wingwall joints. This material was identified as suspect Cheekwall Packing and sampled during the field assessment. Bituminous Material (Item 61) applied to the backs of all abutments and wingwalls from the tops of footing to the bottom of pavement was indicated to be present at the bridge structure. This material was not visually evident; therefore, not sampled during the field assessment.

SCE performed asbestos assessment and sample collection on December 12, 2013. A total of nine (9) samples were collected of three (3) homogeneous materials for the bridge structure. An additional assessment and sample collection was performed on January 10, 2014 and six (6)

4-1

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14 samples were collected of two (2) homogeneous materials beneath two (2) ACM pipe wraps previously identified for the bridge structure. Copies of the chain-of-custody and analytical results are included in Appendix B.

Analytical results determined that the following items are ACM: • Bituminous Pipe Wrap – 1 (Top Layer, 16” Pipe) • Bituminous Pipe Wrap – 2 (Middle Layer, 12” Pipe)

Analytical results determined that the following materials are not ACM: • Bearing Pad • Girder/Bearing Pad • Cheekwall Packing • Bituminous Coating (24” Pipe Sleeve) • Tan Pipe Wrap (Top Layer, 12” Pipe) • Bituminous Tar Coating – 2 (Bottom Layer, 12” Pipe)

Detailed information including location, suspect materials, approximate quantities, determination of condition, removal options, and NYSDOT specification numbers can be found in Appendix A. The laboratory reports for the bridge are attached in Appendix B. Refer to these appendices for more detailed information.

4-2

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CHENANGO ROAD OVER SAUQUOIT CREEK, BIN 2206680, TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD AND CITY OF UTICA, ONEIDA COUNTY, NY

ACM was identified at this bridge structure as Bituminous Pipe Wrap –1 (Top Layer, 16” Pipe) and Bituminous Pipe Wrap – 2 (Middle Layer, 12” Pipe). The proposed work consisting of a superstructure replacement as reported by Region 2, is anticipated to impact the Bituminous Pipe Wrap – 1 (Top Layer, 16” Pipe) and Pipe Wrap – 2 (Middle Layer, 12” Pipe). Remove all Bituminous Pipe Wrap – 1 (Top Layer, 16” Pipe) and Bituminous Pipe Wrap – 2 (Middle Layer, 12” Pipe), prior to rehabilitation activities.

Removal, transport, and disposal of ACM shall be performed in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations, including, but not limited to, those of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL). Applicable regulations include National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) promulgated by USEPA and NYSDOL Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR 56).

5-1

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14

6.0 LIMITATIONS

The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted professional principles and practices and with our agreement with our client. This report is for the use and information of our client, unless otherwise noted. Reliance on this report by another must be at their risk, unless, of course, we are consulted on the use or limitations.

Opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions existing when services were performed and are intended for our client, within the purposes, locations, time frames, and project parameters indicated. We cannot be responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental standards, practices, or regulations subsequent to performance of services without our further consultation. We can neither vouch for the accuracy of information supplied by others, nor accept consequences for unconsulted use of segregated portions of this report.

The Asbestos Assessment Survey assessed the presence of accessible and/or exposed suspect ACMs. Although due diligence was given during the assessment, suspect ACMs may exist behind or beneath inaccessible spaces.

6-1

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14

APPENDIX A

ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT SPREADSHEET

A-1

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14 ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATION Shumaker Consulting Engineering & Land Surveying, D.P.C. 430 Court Street Project: Region 2 - Superstructure Replacement Utica, New York 13502 Bridge Address: Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek County: Oneida Town of New Hartford and City of Utica Inspected By: A. Marsden PIN: 2650.40.101 BIN: 2206680 T. Zotta SCE No: R10282.D7 Inspection Date: 12-Dec-13 10-Jan-14 AREA LOCATION TYPE OF MATERIAL APPROXIMATE CONDITION ACM Y/N FRIABLE REMOVAL SPECIFICATION QUANTITY ASSUMED F/NF OPTIONS ITEM NUMBER Underside Under Bridge Bearings at Abutments Bearing Pad - Fair N NF - - Underside Between Bottom Bridge Bearing Plate Girder/Bearing Pad - Fair N NF - - and Bridge Bearing at Abutments Topside At Abutment Cheekwalls Cheekwall Packing - Fair N NF - - Underside Between Girder 2 and Girder 3 on 16" Bituminous Pipe Wrap - 1 (16" 104 Ln.Ft. Fair Y NF BV 14 210.3211 Pipe (top layer) Pipe) Underside Between Girder 2 and Girder 3 on 16" Bituminous Tar Coating - 1 - Fair N NF - - Pipe (bottom layer) (16" Pipe) Underside West and East Abutment Between Bituminous Coating (24" Pipe - Fair N NF - - Girder 2 and Girder 3 / 24" Corrugated Sleeve) Pipe Sleeve Underside Between Girder 4 and Girder 5 on 12" Tan Pipe Wrap (12" Pipe) * Fair N NF BV 14 210.3211 pipe (top layer) Underside Between Girder 4 and Girder 5 on 12" Bituminous Pipe Wrap - 2 (12" 104 Ln.Ft. Fair Y NF BV 14 210.3211 pipe (middle layer) Pipe) Underside Between Girder 4 and Girder 5 on 12" Bituminous Tar Coating - 2 - Fair N NF - - pipe (bottom layer) (12" Pipe)

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

APPENDIX B

ANALYTICAL LABORATORY RESULTS

A-2

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14 !l

= d,> *t 6 oo o { I d. au e o o s cL *q 4l \n ll lv- ELI O |E g .l ,\t -> e b9 gl No J o, 9o) .=l - Cfl 5 o.=o gl>l ofea tro >q. o ?0) =l ZN o) =o) ?Al >', I 69 g\ Y? traE -il O=j3O fl Sa' f3=f F'! F clrl d .n tr g.$H s. El o O.n O q) 4 >v-> .=l 5"rV x r^ * o Y d $ FI Fd: F \o o \ 'g (n o L \ EgSE {= $s + o {, EFFE '51:aX cjES"5 1 o ;r\ t! E N 'tr h Ess s .El U) crt co U) Ed 3e * H@ n\ J tr. o =l Es j{S S tu s "J El-,^.qg E-E[Rr I .El3= .EA = * 1 el \n q1 q nZ q\ -l Fv \o \ d El Hi* rn -< Y l-X Q $ =l EnEa) \) =i Ee= = ca\ $ e utl {. o o F NlI q NI

BI \ J NI $ J \ Y J l71 q J J-l { =*l .t N l'l g ,vl H tr t$ ffi o o €-t-) $ a { t :a o N { F $ c o 6 p EsI'\l -c o q $ O o J I € B \5 $ s q) s *S \9 \ -.^ '-)l $vl N ael l-' {-,r = l-- '1h\ (D tl b- t Lt u, til J ,l * I o 't (E J R o ,Fb3l 1 3 R5 N Nl -(a DA g $s( H ! l ..1 ll { H g v $$ ah o \ l- l- = h t ct Ei L$ o s b 13-l c) E r& h ,b E H'i 3 3 f, 3 \ c) o k bs o o E 6t o o tr rFo E +* *g t-. :ct N > l.o (>- C oJ cl t, c) O L q) .\J o s o g =c o .Y o ? O a ? I o CL I I I I (o '6 o t r-l rr4 .0) >o o o o N Fl N rr\ E = -a 5 .co & o t O .o O o a a \J F C) PLM.NOBANALYTICAL REPORT PageI of I

ShumakerEngineering & Land Surveying,P.C. DATECOLLECTED: 12il2^3 I 5 l0 Central Avenue DATERECEIVED: t2/t3/13 Albany, NY 12205 DATEANALYZED: t2/17/13 DATE REPORTED: t2/24/13

CLIENT PROJECTT Region2-Superstr5ucture Replacement-Chenango Road Over SauquoitCreek

SCE #: R10282.D2 PIN #: 2650.40.101BIN #: 2206680

ANALYTICAL METHOD NYS DOH 03101191(Item 1986)

NOTEBOOK:M.HAY NYSDOHELAP#III29 GRAVIMETRIC TEST PLM TEST RESULTS RESULTS EST. CALC. TOTAL LAB # CLIENT # DESCRIPTION A%ID.SOL. ASB ASB ASB ORGANIC INORGANIC

68006o 0t-01 BEARING PAD 77.88o/o 12.61% 09.51o/o INC INC INC

68007o 0l-02 BEARING PAD 75.05o/o 12.490 13.45o/o INC INC INC

68008r 0r-03 BEARING PAD 7Q.40o/o 05.690/o 23.92% INC INC INC

68009o 02-Q4 GIRDER/BEARINGPAD 07.860/o 00.260/o 91.88% INC INC INC

68010. 02-05 GIRDER/BEARINGPAD 07.95% 00.960/o 9l.09Yo INC INC TNC

6801I o 02-06 GIRDER/BEARINGPAD 05.99% 00.76yo 93.25vo INC INC INC

680I 2r 03-07 CHEEKWALL PACKING 91.75o/o 02.54% 05.71% INC INC INC

68013o 03-08 CHEEKWALL PACKING 84.80% 07.520/o 07.670/o INC INC INC

68014o 03-09 CHEEKWALL PACKING 76.35% 12.93% 10.72o/o TNC INC INC

C:CHRYSOTILE A:AMOSITE CR=CROCIDOLITE AN=ANTHOPHYLITE TR=TREMOLITE AC=ACTINOLITE N/A=NOTAIALYZED NAD = NO ASBESTOSDECTECTED PLM = POLARIZEDLIGHT MICROSCOPY NOB = NONFRIABLE ORGANICALLY BOUND MATERIALS INC_INCONCLUSIVET=TRACE' CLIENTREQUESTEDTEM. ..POLARIZED LIGHTMICROSCOPY IS NOTCONSISTANTLY RELIABLEiN DECTECTING ASBESTOS TN FLOOR COVERINGS AND SIMILARNONFRIABLE LY BOUNDMATERIALS. QUANTITATIVE TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY IS CURRNETLYTHE ONLY METHOD THAT CAN BE USEDTO DETERMINE IF THISMATERIAT CAN BE CONSIDERED OR TREATED AS NONASBESTOS CONTAINING" (ELAP 198.66.3.2.I)

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

Analyst:

T. Morrison Michael H. Hay ru 167O Westem Aue. BIdg. B, Albang, Nettt York 12203 Laboratory / Office Phone (5 18) 4 5 6-459 1' [email protected] ft.-l'I -^ --t- PagcI of3 Eastern Analytical Services,Inc. Bulk SamPleResults RE: CPN R10282.D7- Region2 SuperstructureReplacement

Client Fibers1.D., Inc. DateCollected : Not Given 1670Western Avenue - Building"8" CollectedBy : Not Given Albany,NY 12203 DateReceived : t2/19/2013 DateAnalyzed : t2/20t20t3 AnalyzedBy: GhayathElias Signature: "#- Analytical Method: NYS-DOHI98.4 NVLAP Lab No. 101646-0 NYS Lab No. 1085I

SampleID Number 68006 68007 68008 68009

Layer Number

Lab ID Number 22623t8 22623t9 2262320 2262321 SampleLocation NotGiven NotGiven NotGiven NotGiven

SampleDescription Not Given Not Given Not Given Not Given

AnalyticalMethod Tem Tem Tem Tem Appearance Layered No No No No Homogenous No No No No Fibrous No No No No Color Reducedby Client Reduced by Client Reducedby Client Reducedby Client

Asbestos % Amosite 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Content % Chrysotile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

o/oTotalAsbestos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other %oOrganic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Materials Present % Carbonates 90.5 86.6 76.1 8.1

% OtherInorganic 9.5 t3.4 23.9 9l .9

RcslltsApplicsblcToThoscltemsT4tcd.RcpodCaMotbcRcproduced,ExccPtEntirelt,WilhoutWriltcnAPProvsloflhcLaboralory. Li"uiiiiylii"i"afoc"stofAnrlysis. ThisReiorrMusrNolbrUscdbythcclienttocl.imProduclEndorsemenlbyNVLAPorAnyAtencyoftlEUScovcmmcnl. PH-0622 Msinc DEP No LA-024 Vcmnt DOH No AAS-2095 AIHA AccreditationNo. t0026l Rbde Island DOH No. AAL-0?2T3 M.lrschuictts DOL No. A A O0O0?2 Comecticut DOH No.

4 Westfl hrlritr,rrPlar7..fl Hinrskrrci,Nr:w York 10523 i6 10 (914)592 8llfj0 nlll):/r'elv1w. EAS!t.](:.conl ln t- rr Iv- n l-'! .--^ -E- Page2 of 3 EasternAnalytical Services,Inc. Bulk SamPleResults RE: CPN R10282.D7- Region2 SuperstructureReplacement

Client FibersI.D,, Inc. DateCollected : Not Given 1670Western Avenue - Building"B" CollectedBy : Not Given Albany,NY 12203 DateReceived : t2/19/2013 Date Analyzed: t2t2012013 AnalyzedBy: GhayathElias Signature: -/ i77? AnalyticalMethod: NYS-DOHI98.4 NVLAP Lab No. 101646-0 NYS Lab No. r085I

SampleID Number 68010 6801I 68012 68013

LayerNumber

Lab ID Number 2262322 2262323 2262324 226232s SampleLocation Not Given NotGiven NotGiven NotGiven

SampleDescription Not Given Not Given Not Given Not Given

Tem Analytical Method Tem Tem Tem

Appearance Layered No No No No Homogenous No No No No Fibrous No No No No Color Reduced by Client Reducedby Client Reduced by Client Reducedby Client

Asbestos % Amosite 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Content % Chrysotile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 % Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0

ohTotalAsbestos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0

Other Yo Organic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Materials Present 7oCarbonates 8.9 6.8 94.3 92.3

q?? % Otherlnorganic 9l.l )./ 7.7

RcsulrsApplicoblcToThoscllmTeslcd. RcponCamolbcRcprodlced,Exc.ptEntirely,WithoslWrilt.nApprovalofth.Ltbo.atory. Ll"uiiiydiinir"afoc"stofAnstyrir. ThisReportMusrNotbeiJsedbytheclient.toCtaimProductEndorse@nlbyNVLAPorAnyAgencyoftheUsGovttlljll' Doit No. PH-0622 M6irc DEP No LA-024 Vemnl DOH No' AAS'2095 AIHA Accredil8tionNo. lo026t Rhodc lsland DoH No. AAL-072T3 Mssrchus[s DOL No. A A 0000?2 comccticut

(3141592-Bll{r0 irtto:lrwurw.EAS:'lc.cor]l 4. West#heste! Plili,n Elrnsfc)r'rl,New Ycrrh 10523 1S10 EasternAnalytical Services,Inc. Page3 of 3 Bulk SamPleResults RE: CPN R10282.D7- Region2 SuperstructureReplacement

Client FibersI.D., Inc. DateCollected : Not Given 1670Western Avenue - Building"8" CollectedBy : Not Given Albany,NY 12203 DateReceived : t2n9/20t3 DateAnalyzed : 12t20/20t3 AnalyzedBy : GhayathElias Signature: ./'GZ?' Analytical Method: NYS.DOHI98.4 NVLAP LabNo. 101646-0 NYS LabNo. 1085I

SampleID Number 68014

LayerNumber

Lab lD Number 2262326 SampleLocation Not Given

SampleDescription Not Given

Analyical Method Tem Appearance Layered No Homogenous No Fibrous No Color Reducedby Client

Asbestos % Amosite 0.0 Content % Chrysotile 0.0 % Other 0.0

oh Total Asbestos 0.0

Other %oOrganic 0.0 Materials Present % Carbonates 89.3

% Otherlnorganic 10.7

ResutsApplic.bleToTho$ltctrTestcd, Rcpof,CrMolbeRcproduced,ExccplErtit.ly,WithoutW.ittenAPProvllofthcL.boralory. or Any Agcncy ofthe Us cov€mm:li' Li"uiiiiy iiluit"a ro c"sr ofAnaltsis. This Report Musr Not be Used by the clicnt to chim Prodrct EndoBemil by NVLAP No. PH"0622 Mline DtsF No LA'024 vemnl DoH No' A s-2095 AIHA Accrcdilrrion No, t00261 Rhodc tsb;d DOH No. AA!-072T1 MarsachusettsDOL No. A A 00oo?2 comcclicut DOH

4 $lr*ilfl hoster Plirzir Lj'rsbrci, NerwYcrrh 1fi523 i0i0 {$ 14} 5'J2 8380 irlto:1,/rvww.EASi'li:.(;onl +t rr) ? sF o s 01 o 'ae 9 r € s E q s 4l (n lt o 3 ES E.I O o V -) e b9 d No J q o) 9o, .=l # cn at,=(' 5ea gl o tro >s r-l o to gl Z e.r \\ll o) ;cD $ I 69 H tr6E j= a 2l es a{ o< o Sa' I f5=f El-"! ts cEl {n c -L9 { 8.$H 8. \n o t (l)rn q) O -$ <- N N >v-> FIHX t(n o N 9ll 6 rr. rj (, T \ + o, N EggE o I Elis o tiil = r- r{ [- o ESBE sl X tt? *'RIt I,'l,oI e 'cG -\ 9-b b e' EI EN o U) cr, o U) i t\ dl(Js i!! |E 6 a $ /l BIr[8U I El ofi' h.; = s EJI F- Ern I k' I 3 l { :e a RZl f'r. qi:$ -lEl

N,\ tr4 t? l{l * ) s V .$ '\9 s J. \5 0 ry .q \b -\2. u tv u $? *J u( Al I \ €. N N '.{ I \5 I u \b T T ,\9 $ s a, A -l \ d a v 5 $ ? -.("| (..{7 = N n (*j R \, h dl I t N H c E. N ffi A ) o o H J o 'q f -/ U H ,ts t) :g G s -rt +, c (, q. tA {* t'r H o o N' a- '{ n- s s o C) J \ Jr ,N a- i CL o \9 N 4- t I 5* \s ) o i Rrpr t N 'l J N L- -l l-- l-- \h a r.l I .J 3+ l:- L t' \ib+ d J J o ll \\r l\ (. a (tr o N \- o rF R qd,\s {s q \N- R r{l FI cA E :( -{. $s $n$ v { : t 1..$ I o L I 'hI l,- +, it R b h \\E$ q o c) 'S g$ r$ 5 :th o 3 s $NRUI3 f, $ o -a) q- o o {* o o o qC o O N M = u: \ - c) o I ,I (1) '6" o o- It I J ; .G o I I T lJ) (u c) * \) $ SJ s o- o tr + a g a () o \ N e a PLM-NOBANALYTICAL REPORT PageI of I

CLIENT: ShumakerEngineering & Land Surveying,P.C' DATE COLLECTED: tzlt2lt3 ADDRESS: l5l0 CentralAvenue DATERECEIVED: t2/t3lt3 Albany,NY 12205 DATEANALYZED: t2il'tlt3 DATEREPORTED: 12t24/13

CLIENT PROJECT: Region 2-superstr5uctureReplacement-Chenango Road Over SauquoitCreek

SCE#: R10282.D2 PIN#: 2650.40.101BIN #: 2206680

ANALYTICAL METHOD NYS DOH 03101/97(ltem 198.6)

NOTEBOOK:M.HAY NYSDOHELAP#III29 GRAVTMETRIC TEST PLM TEST RESULTS RESULTS EST. CALC. TOTAL LAB # CLIENT# DESCRIPTTON A%ID-SOL. ASB ASB ASB ORGANIC INORGANIC RESIDUE

680r5 04-10 BITUMINOUSPIPE WRAP-I 4l.59Vo 06.55Yo 51.860/o 66.66o/o-C 34.57%-C 34.57o/o-C

68016 04-lI BITUMINOUSPIPE WRAP-I 96.84o/o 02.17% 00.99o/o <01.00% RESIDUE NON-ACM

680r7 04-12 BITUMINOUSPIPE WRAP.I 74.92% 07.16% t7.92% N/A IST POSITryE

68018r 05-13 BITUMINOUSCOATING 96.12% 02.23o/o 0t.6s% INc TNC INC

680I 9o 05-14 BITUMINOUSCOATING 94j0% 04.11% 01.18% INC INC INC

68020o 05-r5 BITUMINOUSCOATING 63,90o/o 08.34o/o 2716% INC INC INC

6802l 06-r6 TAN PIPEWRAP 97.92% 0l.85% 00.23% <01.00% RESIDUE NON.ACM

68022o 06-17 TAN PIPEWRAP 97.10% 01.340/o 01.560/o INC INC INC

68023 06-18 TAN PIPEWRAP 48.630/o Ql.21Vo 00.160/o <01.00% RESIDUE NON-ACM

C=CHRYSOTILE A-AMOSITE CR=CROCIDOLIE AN=ANTHOPHYLITE TR=TREMOLITE AC=ACTINOLITE N/A=NOTANALYZED NAD = NO ASBESTOSDECTECTED PLM = POLARIZEDLIGHT MICROSCOPY NOB = NONFRIABLE ORGANICALLY BOUND MATERIALS rNC-INCONCLUSIVET=TRACE' CLIENTREQUESTEDTEM.

.POLARIZEDLIGHT MICROSCOPYIS NOT CONSISTANTLYRELIABLE IN DECTECTINGASBESTOS IN FLOORCOVERINGS AND SIMILAR NONFRIABLELY BOUNDMATERIALS, QUANTITATIVE TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY IS CURRNETLYTHE ONLY METHOD THATCAN BE USEDTO DETERMINE IF THIS MATERIALCAN BE CONSIDEREDOR TREATEDAS NONASBESTOSCONTAINING' (ELAP 198.66.3.2.I)

Analytica! resultsreported on sanples not collected by Fibers I.D. Inc., Report data dependenton information supplied by client and chain of custody. Liability limited to cost of analysis. Any and all reports, chain ofcustodies and/or professional opinions generated by Fibers LD., Inc. and transmittedvia electonic median orl to b, cons:ideredpreliminary in nature and are not intended or utilizedforfinal reports. They are strictlyfor the convenienceofthe client.

Analyst: Laboratorv

T. Morrison 4IEEBS/. D. INC. 167O Western Aue. Bldg. B, Albang, Neut York 12203 Laboratory/ OJfice Plwne (5 1 8) 456-4 59 1' fbersid@teri'z'on'net ....'".'.'...,...4 z g

lr t- -r I ?. rn l'r! IlJ* jh:*a I of I EasternAnalytical Services,Inc. Pagc Bulk SampleResults RE: CPN Rl0282.D7- Region2 SuperstructureReplacement

Client FibersI.D., Inc. Date Collected : Not Given 1670Westem Avenue - Building"8" Collected By : Not Given Albany,NY 12203 Date Received : t2/19/2013 Date Analyzed : 12t20/2013 Analyzed By : GhavathElias Signature : :# Analytical Method: NYS-DOHI98.4 NVLAP Lab No. 101646-0 NYS Lab No. 1085I

Sample ID Number 68018 68019 68020 68022

LayerNumber

Lab ID Number 2262327 2262328 2262329 2262330

Sample Location Not Given NotGiven Not Given NotGiven

SampleDescription Not Given Not Given Not Given Not Given

Tem Analytical Method Tem Tem Tem

Appearance Layered No No No No Homogenous No No No No Fibrous No No No No Color Reducedby Client Reducedby Client Reduced by Client Reducedby Client

Asbestos % Amosite 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Content % Chrysotile 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 % Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ohTotalAsbestos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

Other o/oOrganic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Materials Present % Carbonates 98.4 98.8 72.2 98.4

% Otherlnorganic 1.6 1.2 27.8 1.0

oflhc Ltbontory. ResuhsAppliclble To Thosc ltem Testcd. R.pon Cailot bc Rlprcduccd, Exlrpt Entirely. Withoul Wrillcn Approvsl lhe Us cove|ment' This Reporr Musr Not bc iJrcd by the Cliint to Claim Product Endorscrenl by NVLAP or Atrv Agscy of Li"-u,iiiv ili.i,"o f" crsr of Anol'fis. No AAs-2095 000072 comeclicut Doit l'to Pil'0622 Msinc DEP No LA'024 Vemtrl DoH AIHA Acc.cdirltion No. 10026l Rhod? Ishnd DoH No. AAL-0?2TI Msss.chu$(s DoL No. A A

t/r:rk nl t!l:././rveliv.FAS;t'li:. ct)rll ,l We{iti}heslfi r P}aui.} Hi,r$torc,,N*.rw 10523 i6 :o (914) 502 B3fJ0 eq 4l (n *o-aE ELI A I b9 d No ctocD .=l - CO .h .Eo gl o5eA tro >$ o Eo =l Z c.l o) =o) E :E =lEl cdabs ov# > EIHX I s Sl 6 rr'. c \ot rr) 'e bb 9l EggE is -= c\ a EBBE r+r-l = f- ri oN a sl ir tt? 6 g R d+. g EI EN >= X (/)cf)(f,(h alu$ -l F-3 =l JI\ -l 9? I ?AI =A \

h (.+ \9 \ Y \9 l $ \9 2- o= R R o N f, H *, r{ o N +r o \; q o. I-N o \ = o t"-..I rl l- -l o K ( |{- f, !t v + o {.,o b = 3 s (! o o ta-o ? .Y '6 o o PLM-NOBANALYTICAL REPORT PageI of I

CLIENT: ShumakerEngineering & LandSurveying, P.C. DATECOLLDCTED: t2/t2lt3 ADDRESS: I 5l0 CentralAvenue DATERECEIVED: 12/t3lt3 Albany,NY 12205 DATEANALYZED: t2/17n3 DATEREPORTED: t2/24113

CLIENT PROJECT: Region2-Superstr5ucture Replacement-Chenango Road Over SauquoitCreek

SCE#r R10282.D2 PIN#: 2650.40.101BIN #: 2206680

ANALYTICAL METHOD NYS DOH 03/0t/97 (Item1986)

NOTEBOOK:M.HAY NYS DOH ELAP #11129 GRAVIMETRIC TEST PLM TEST RESULTS RESULTS EST. CALC. TOTAL ASB LAB # CLIENT # DESCRIPTION A%ID-SOL. ASB ASB ORGANIC INORGANIC RESIDUE

68024 07-19 BITUMINOUSPIPE WRAP-2 62.79% 03.65% 33.560/o 26.66Vo-C 08.94%-C 08.94%,C

68025 07-20 BITUMINOUSPIPE WRAP.2 55.53o/o 01.95% 42.510 N/A IST POSITryE

68026 0'7-21 BITUMINOUSPIPE WRAP-2 59.44% 00.04% 40.52Vo N/A IST POSITryE

N/A=NOTANALYZED C=CHRYSOTILE A=AMOSITE CR=CROCIDOLITE AN=ANTHOPHYLITE TR=TREMOLITE AC=ACTINOLITE = BOUND MATERIALS NAD = NO ASBESTOSDECTECTED PLM= POLARIZEDLIGHTMICROSCOPY NOB NONFRIABLE ORGANICALLY INC - INCONCLUSIVET=TRACE ' CLIENT REQIJESTEDTEM, LY -POLARIZEDLIGHT MICROSCOPY ISNOT CONSISTANTLY RELIABLE IN DECTECTINGASBESTOS IN FLOORCOVERINGS AND SIMILARNONFRIABLE THATCAN BE USEDTO DETERMINE BOUNDMATERIALS. QUANTITATIVE TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPYIS CURRNETLY THE ONLY METHOD IFTHIS MATERIAL CAN BE CONSIDERED ORTREATED AS NONASBESTOS CONTAINING' (ELAP I98,66.3.2.I) by client and Analytical resultsreported on samples not collected by FibersLD. Inc.. Report data dependent on idormation supplied chain of custody. Liability limited to cost of analysis. via electronic median Any an-dall reports, chain ofcustodies ani/or professional opinions generated by Fibers 1.D., Inc. and tansmitted strictlyfor the convenienceofthe ori to b, coniidered preliminary in nature ancl are not intended or uiitizedforfinal reports. They are client.

Analyst: LaboratoryDirector,

T. Morrison Michael H. Hay

F/BERS_/.D.llrc B, Albang, Neu't Yotk 12203 I 7670 Western Aue, Bld.g. I Olfice Plwne (5 1 8) 4 5 6-4 5Q I' I Laboratory / fibersid@terizon'net I Trl lt = Efi cl o s aa ol (n tt o- =o- Jl (E -v- c.l J I b9 dl c.t o o) () ct) I '-i CO a.co ot . C.l fea cl FO\ o tro 17 l o Ea) Ll Fi C.l o)^o) ol >- lt? I 69 ol a-v EaE cl F^, o: cl < .., s.*Hs. rrl nrVV) O.nOO 'F>vs> I 5 4 r^ il A AE ot E.:" l,n $ crE{ cl E- t.A o otrtroI 33I PI o {g\CQ -d,s$ o 5l E= I VF$E Ull o trl Eq sqs; '.(E d..l r<9tx U)etfs o

\. \ \.t -1. \ \ I \

= c m o o :q c -c {r,o o o -=to CL o \ 5 o l- il N o rtso q o E q) E o o= o I o +, ir (D o (D t +, Entrf,qEN 5 +h () o) o id o E rts o j:t tt tr ci o E o o c +, o E f c .Y o tr g o- !t e(U .q o o c (E o o L f -c o o t, F o PLM-NOB ANALYTICAL REPORT PageI of I

CLIENT: Shumaker Engineering & Land Surveying, P.C. DATE COLLECTED: 01/tolt4 ADDRESS: 1510Central Avenue DATE RECEIVED: 0v13/L4 Albanv. NY 12205 DATE ANALYZED: 0Ut5t14 DATE REPORTED: 0t/t6/14

CLIENT PROJECT: Region 2 SuperstructureReplacement-Chenango Road Over Sauquoit Creek

SCE#: R10282.D7 PIN #:2650.40.101 BIN #: 2206680

ANALYTICAL METHOO trtvSoOH O:lOtlgZ (tt.. tg8.0)

NOTEBOOK:M. HAY NYS DOH ELAP #lll29 GRAVIMETRIC TEST PLM TEST RESULTS RESULTS EST. CALC. TOTAL LAB # CLIENT # DESCRIPTION ACID-SOL. ASB ASB ASB RESIDUE

68333o 08-22 BITUMINOUS TAR COATING-I 72.04o/o 01.35o/o 26.61%0 INC INC INC

68334r 08-23 BITUMINOUS TAR COATING-I 71.92% 00.68% 27.4l%o INC INC INC

68335o 08-24 BITUMINOUS TAR COATING.I 71.92o/o 0l.l3%o 25.95o/o INC INC INC

68336o 09-25 BITUMINOUS TAR COATING-2 70.l6Yo 02.54o/o 27.30o/o INC INC INC

68337o 09-26 BITUMINOUS TAR COATING-2 66.360/o 00.38% 33.260/o T/C/ INC T/C INC T/C N{C

68338r 09-27 BITUMINOUS TAR COATING-2 28.84% 58.91o/o l2.25%o INC INC INC

C=CHRYSOTILE A=AMOSITE CR=CROCIDOLITE AN=ANTHOPHYLITE TR=TREMOLITE AC=ACTINOLITE N/A=NOTANALYZED NAD = NO ASBESTOSDECTECTED PLM = POLARIZEDLIGHT MICROSCOPY NOB = NONFRIABLE ORGANICALLYBOUND MATERIALS INC_INCONCLUSIVET=TRACE' CLIENTREQUESTEDTEM,

."OLARIZED LIGHT MICROSCOPYIS NOT CONSISTANTLYRELIABLE IN DECTECTINGASBESTOS IN FLOORCOVERINGS AND SIMILAR NONFRIABLELY BOUND MATERIAIS. QUANTITATIVE TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPYIS CI,R.RNETLYTHE ONLY METHOD THAT CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE IF THIS MATERIAL CAN BE CONSIDEREDOR TREATEDAS NONASBESTOSCONTAINING" (ELAP 198.66,3.2,I)

Analyst: LaboratoryDirector,

T. Morrison

FIBERS I.D. INC. 1670 WesternAue. Bldg- B, Albang, Neut York 12203 Inboratory/ OJfice Phone (5 1 8) 456-45Q I' fibersid@terizon'net *-3ffi** nt:r ffi *r nt*m*"qn .--*, GE .". EasteruAnalvtical Services.Inc. PageI of2 Bulk Saryle Resufts RE: CPN R10283.D7- Regbn2 Srperstnrtue Rephcerrnt

Clbru FibersI.D.. Irr^ Date Colbcted : Not Given 1670\tr:estem Arera-re - Bufldi€ '8" ColbctedBy: Not Gi'.en Albarr. NY 12?03 Date Receired : aLlrc/20t4 Date Arrallzed : 0I/t6/2013 Anal5aedBy : Kevin Stascavaee Sipgunrre: *5!'.'{.#^ AnatttfualMetlrod NYS-DOH 198.4 NVLAP Lab No. 101646-0 NYS Lab No. 1085I

SarrrcleID Nurrber 68333 68334 68335 68336

LasvNumber

Lab ID Nuniber 2766269 2266270 2266271 2266272 SarrpleLocation Not Gil,en Not Given Not Giren Not Given

SarrpleDescriptbn NotGi"en Not Gir,en NotGiren NotGhen

ArulytlalMetbd Tm Tm Tern Im Appeararce LaSued No No No No Hornogenor:s No No No No Fibror.rs No No No No Color ReducedbyClbrrt Redr:ced byCliers Redrred byCliert Redr.aed by Clbrt

Asbestos 9loArrpsie 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 Corrtent % Chr:sotib 0.J 0.3 < 0.3 < 0.3 % Otltr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7oTotalAsbestos 0.3 0.3 .<0.3 < 0.3

Other %Orynb 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Materials Presett 0,6Cacbonates 72.6 ?4.I 12_',7

7o Otlrr hmrcarrb 26.3 z7.l 2,5.9

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

'$'!41 ('tfr ,1tJfi $1{,}is$q4rPl{tts [i*x$f*f{t. f*i+w Ytrrk 1*5?3. 14 1|] 5?l Ai'iclli h:llr .iwwvr.lirA$ir:. *.** ** ffi * I t,: :l ||llrrffi*"qm *#*#ffi,- Eastem Analytical Services,Inr. Pagc2 of2 Bulk Sanple Resuhc RE: CPN R1028f .D7 - Regbn2 Srgerskr.rctureRepheerx=nt

Clbrrt FSers I.D.. Irc^ Date Colhcted : Not Giver 1670lltestem Arerar - BuilCirg '8" CollectedBy: Not Gir,en Albmy. bIY 1f,203 Date Recei\€d : 0I/16/2014 Date Anallzed : AUrcDO13 Aml1ad By : Kevin Stascavase Sigunrre: -_-,*r."'.* tj#" AnalyticalMettnd NYS-DOH 198.4 NVLAP LabNo. 101646-0 NYS Lab No. 1085I

Sanrrle ID Nr:rr$er 68337 68338

LalxNumbcr

Lab ID Nurrber 2266273 2266274 SarrpleLocatiron NotGir,en NotGirnn

Sarrple Descriptbn NotGi'*en NotGiren

AnalltbalMetlpd Tam Tcrn

Appeararce Layered No No Hormgersus No No Fibrors No No Color Redr:ced by Clbnt Redrred byClbnt

Asbestos 9/oAnnsie 0.0 0.0 Content % Clrrrotib U,J < 0.1 % Other 0.0 0.0

7o ToialAsbestos 0.3 < 0,1

Otlxr %Ogantu 0.0 0.0 Materials Presenf o/oCabormtes 66.7 8?.8

7o Other Irorcafib 33.0 1).2

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

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

APPENDIX C

BLANKET VARIANCE 14 (BV 14)

A-3

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14

APPENDIX D

CERTIFICATIONS

A-4

V:\2010\R10282.D7REG2SuperChenagoRdoverSquoitCreek\Report\R10282.D7_Report-F.doc 01/17/14

':' 'r''r,'i,:= unryvon*.,$f*r,g:';ogP*,nr'mrntr,(}F tlEArTx .,'i, " "::":::"1::;i:',::, :iii ii:i:l:' W4O$IIUQRT.H..CEH.T,ER i::riira. i:t:t::':: ::t:::: !: :!:.!!:. !i ! !!! :!: !!::!!!::!!::::: :,,,:,...,.:.,.''.:,',::'::.,:'..,,:..,',.:,,..,,',' ,'..,:..::' . . : ::.i:::..:: i....::: . :: ::. .: .::..,:: -_,,..,...',,.'.,.'..,,. ,. ,,,,,,,,:,,.,, ,,:',.,,,,:,.,.. :;, ,:,,,, ';:,,Expirs$ilZ:gt,,AM*tri{:,,CIf , 20t.4 ,,,,,,,,, .',,ts5ued:Apfi1.01 ,2O13,..- ',,',',

,' e*nrmrcn#'orippnouAii'ox..#[ ,ii.,,.:.,;r,:: ..be**cey.s#;$effi..'.'''..'''' lsgtedirt:acrcrdus,,udfi,affi,Furffif,fo'ga@-n s2 Publi,c,Wh tawof fSew ., '.,MR,,;W1CUAIE+,,,I{, : ttiif:,:',:',; ;, ,:,,;',',',,':,,,,,,'.i ,,,,,...,,i,,,,,,i,,.,.,,,,.,..,,.,:NYLa6 :ttd.'Ii#l:,,l tr1|;29, ''FIBERE'IdrwG,.' ,, ,,:i ',' ' ,' ,;,,,i,', i,ii ,, .,;'..'..l;,',,,,.,,,,.,,.,,'.,''',,,,,''.,.,,,,,,r',,,.,.'',,,,i' ':':':''::''' ::' ::''::''::l'':::: ,:,.:_ 767? lggSIFRAt*VF iBf.DG,;B .::.'::'::' '':: :':::.. ,,., ,,. :: ALEAIIV,,',,NY.,.,,"12203427 8,:"',"'

tlpcBnaneous,::,.,:,,,1:,, 1 ,: , . , l:rt,::,:,,,, ,:,,,; Asb :io,Friailo,MatErtat.'. ' .. '[email protected]#*ry'rarariarrum .:.:14...Ill\,,i;:ii;i:ii;i:rl:ii;::ii;::i; ::: :::!t::I:::It:::::: :: :ii::::::::ry:::!: i:

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

': ' ii : :: ::]:

.!;r**: :l

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

;t;:;r:;;rrrr;;*iiiill .,rrrr: ..t.ti -:,.... -- ; i'.,,.i',,,.,'1,, ,....:.i: .....,. r...... ''l ...... ,, ',rrlr,iiltili'iirr l i;:ir:-.,; .l r:'r::::' :'::.::,*:J.':lii;:iiilil:::::":.:li:l:iii:illi:i;:.lt:i;:

:ii:ili:j:l:

ar*,na|id-qltfi f, fs,.WFi ;iiliic.rcpi#il:itr{:t{i*tei.}* opnFd8 m €fe,@.6 cdl:(51flIneF''7oto:

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

Appendix C – Traffic Information and Pedestrian Generator Checklist

Mark Fabend

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

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

FYI

From: Papaleo, Jim (DOT) Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:23 AM To: Emrich, Steve (DOT) Cc: Hoffmann, Brian (DOT); Lubey, Linda A (DOT) Subject: CBOW, Design Speed Concurrence

The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred the use of a design speed for the following CBOW locations are consistent with the anticipated off‐peak 85th percentile speed within the range of functional class speeds for the terrain and volume. (Refer to Section 2.3.1.5 Speeds and Delays and Appendix C of this report for additional information on speed data):

BIN 1046750 Rte. 365A, Oneida Design Speed 45 MPH BIN 4426240 Dustin Rd., Remsen Design Speed 40 MPH BIN 1025680 Rte. 46, Oneida Design Speed 60 MPH BIN 4424090 Johnny Cake Rd., Madison Design Speed 45 MPH BIN 1045740 Rte 315, Marshall Design Speed 60 MPH BIN 1002720 W. Main St., German Flats Design Speed 35 MPH BIN 2206680 Chenango Rd., Utica Design Speed 45 MPH

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

1 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC SAFETY DIVISION ACCIDENT DETAILS, HISTORY LOCATION Sheet 1 of 1 DIAGRAM No.:

ROUTE NO. OR STREET NAME: COUNTY: Oneida P.I.N.: 2BOW.00 CASE No.: Chenango Road TOWN FILE: 101.094 CITY AT INTERSECTION WITH/OR BETWEEN: BY: Prudent Engineering, LLP VILLAGE OF Utica DATE: 02/24/14 French Road to Clinton Street/Burrstone Road

TIME PERIOD FROM: TO: ENVIRONMENTAL: Light Conditions: Roadway Character: Roadway Surface Condition: Weather: 2010 2012 Use Codes from MV 104 (shown at right) for these 1. Daylight 1. Straight & Level 1. Dry 1. Clear categories 2. Dawn 2. Straight & Grade 2. Wet 2. Cloudy 3. Dusk 3. Straight & Hillcrest 3. Muddy 3. Rain 4. Dark Road Lighted 4. Curve & Level 4. Snow/Ice 4. Snow 5. Dark Road Unlighted 5. Curve & Grade 5. Slush 5. Sleet/Hail/Freezing Rain 4 5 6 7 8 9 6. Curve & Hillcrest 10. Other 6. Fog/Smog/Smoke 10. Other No. OF MONTHS: 36 10 ¹Use Codes from MV 104 Police Report DIRECTION TYPE DESCRIPTION REFERENCE 2 ¹ 11 1 3 MARKER DATE TIME APPARENT CONTRIBUTING ACCIDENT No. FACTORS No. of VEHICLES SEVERITY LIGHT CONDITIONS ROADWAY CHARACTER ROADWAY SURFACE CONDITION WEATHER

1 02/23/12 Unk Unk PDO Unk Unk Unk UnkUnk Unk Unk At 2448 Chenango Road N/A

2 05/05/12 Unk Unk PDO Unk Unk Unk UnkUnk Unk Unk At 2427 Chenango Road N/A

3 11/08/12 Unk Unk PDO Unk Unk Unk UnkUnk Unk Unk At 2431 Chenenago Road N/A

4 02/07/13 Unk Unk PDO Unk Unk Unk UnkUnk Unk Unk At 2427 Chenango Road N/A

5 06/03/13 Unk Unk I Unk Unk Unk UnkUnk Unk Unk At Chenango Road/Lemond Place Intersection N/A

6 06/13/13 Unk Unk PDO Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk At 2434 Chenango Road N/A

7 08/02/13 Unk Unk PDO Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk Unk At 2448 Chenango Road N/A

TE 213 (9/79)

PEDESTRIAN FACILITY DESIGN

Exhibit 18-1 Pedestrian Generator Checklist

P.I.N.: 2650.40.101 Project Location: BIN 2206680 Chenango Road PEDESTRIAN GENERATOR CHECKLIST Note: The term “generator” in this document refers to both p3destrian generators (where pedestrians originate) and destinations (where pedestrians travel to). A check of “yes” indicates a potential need to accommodate pedestrians and coordination with the Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator is necessary during project scoping. Answers to the following questions should be checked with the local municipality to ensure accuracy. 1. Is there an existing or planned sidewalk, trail, or pedestrian-crossing facility? YES NO 2. Are there bus stops, transit stations or depots/terminals located in or within 800 m of the YES NO project area? 3. Is there more than occasional pedestrian activity? Evidence of pedestrian activity may YES NO include a worn path. Are there existing or approved plans for generators of pedestrian activity in or within 800 m of the project that promote or have the potential to promote pedestrian traffic in the 4. project area, such as schools, parks, playgrounds, places of employment, places of YES NO worship, post offices, municipal buildings, restaurants, shopping centers, or other commercial areas, or shared-use paths? Are there existing or approved plans for seasonal generators of pedestrian activity in or 5. within 800 m of the project that promote or have the potential to promote pedestrian YES NO traffic in the project area, such as ski resorts, state parks, camps, amusement parks?

6. Is the project located in a residential area within 800 m of existing or planned pedestrian YES NO generators such as those listed in 4 above? 7. From record plans, were pedestrian facilities removed during a previous highway YES NO reconstruction project? Did a study of secondary impacts indicate that the project promotes or is likely to 8. promote commercial and/or residential development within the intended life cycle of the YES NO project?

9. Does the community’s comprehensive plan call for development of pedestrian facilities in YES NO the area?

Based on the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school, would the project benefit 10. from engineering measures under the Safe-Routes-To-School program? YES NO Eligible infrastructure-related improvements must be within a 3.2 km radius of the project.

Note: This checklist should be revisited due to a project delay or if site conditions or local planning changes during the project development process.

Comments:

Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator:

Project Designer: Prudent Engineering, LLP

§18.5.1 03/30/06

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

Appendix D – Public Information

I N

Regional Design Group (315) 793-2429

February 24, 2014

Kevin W, Revere Director of Emergency Services Oneida County Emergency Services 120 Base Road Oriskany, New York 13424

RE: FUTURE BRIDGE PROJECTS ONEIDA COUNTY

Dear Mr. Revere:

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

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

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

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

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

h ft! ;; i k' :I\,1ii;( Hi l' illit^ l'c l 1 c k- 1 \ c! I c I c. It is expected that traffic will be maintained either utilizing stage construction or utilizing an off-site detour, as shown in the below table. A map of each project area is included for your convenience with the proposed detour routes shown. I am rcqucstinn that you plcLi c contact the emergency .scr y ice e I pre)\ ti. 1crs (i.e. Fir D np irtniei 1s . Police DC p,!C1!ilc!l s. F.!no'!'g e !?c\ \ l d! !! Departments. etc.) for each bridge location. i'ii a i' note that these ini dec ti arc Cii r i^llii sti k iii Ci`o ,

Town/City BIN Carried Crossed ; DetourlStaged i € Town of Marshall j 1445630 ! Route 315 Big Creek j Detour Town of Marshall 1045640 ! Route 315 Oriskany Creek Detour Town of Remsen 4426240 i Dustin Road Kayuta Lake Detour City of Utica, 2206680 Chenango Road Sauquoit Creek Detour Town of New Hartford

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

Sincerely,

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

Attachment bce: J. Williams, Region ? Interim Regional Director D. Windecker, Assistant to the Regional Director.`Re^zioiiul Real Estate Officer (via email)

A. Rommmnvch, Rc `nomni Pfanninig & Pro rim Gi ul, \ fai m ^cr (\ is email) M. Pu\\losLi. I lcrLimet ( cniiil\ l sici.'nt I ri in ec r ( _!11 sill t „ ,(I^,..i 1 " t ,• , a l.•., i. NI.z, .. . I 'i i, c...... aulutl^i ^.ii iii:; i' t . i.. !) J. Bronk, Oneida Wiest. Madison Resident Liigineer (via email) J. Piccola, Regional PIO (via email) W. Albert, Director of Structures Design, MO (via email) E OF NEV DEPAN1 MENT OF TRANS '`, '? '.TiON REGION TWC' 207 GENESEE STREET UTIC,. ," ','ORK 13501 www.dot.ny.pov

JOHN R. V _ ;45, P.E. JOAN McDONALD I NTERIrvt REG't i_! DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER Regional Design Group (315) 793-2429 February 19, 2014

Patrick Tyksinski, Supervisor Town of New Hartford Butler flall, 48 Genesee Street New Hartford, New York 13413

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

Dear Mr. Tyksinski:

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

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

This project includes work on the bridge carrying Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek in the City of Utica. It is expected that traffic will be maintained utilizing an off-site detour. A snap of the project area is included for your convenience with the proposed detour route shown. Please note that this bridge is currently safe to cross.

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

Sinccrely. Orin inal Signed b y .%E to%cn G. Emrich. P. E. \cting Regional Structures Engineer

Attachment L ENT OF' IRA TON REGION T. 07 GENESE UTICA, NEW Y 1 3501 www, dot. n y . q oy

R. WILLIAMS, P.E. J McDONALD € NT : REGIONAL DIRECTOR C MMISSRDNER Regional Design Group (315) 793-2429 February 19, 2014

Honorable Robert M. Palmieri, Mayor City of Utica City Hall, I Kennedy Plaza Utica, New York 13502

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

Dear Mayor Palmieri:

This project includes work on the bridge carrying Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek in the City of Utica. It is expected that traffic will be maintained utilizing an off-site detour. A map of the project area is included for your convenience with the proposed detour route shown. Please note that this bridge is currently safe to cross.

Please reply with any questions or comments regarding this project by March 7, 2014. If you would like to further discu1s the project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (315) 793-2594 or by email at Steve.Emrich ci dot.ny.gov .

Sincerely. Or ii, in a! Signed by SGE Ste N en G. Emrich, P. E. Acting Regional Structures Engineer

Attachment )F NEW Y OF TRANS std _ _',ION TWC ':.; 7 GENESEE STRE UTICA, NEW YORK 13501 www. dot. ny.aov

JOHN I LAMS, P.E. I NTERIM i .3 AL. DIRECTOR CO ;T ONER Regional Design Group (315) 793-2429 February 19, 2014

Bruce Karam, Superintendent Utica City School District 106 Memorial Parkway Utica, New York 13501

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

Dear Mr. Karam:

This project includes work on the bridge carrying Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek in the City of Utica. It is expected that traffic will be maintained utilizing an off-site detour. A map of the project area is included for your convenience with the proposed detour route shown. Please note that this bridge is currently safe to cross.

Sincerely, Original Signed hr SGE Ste\ cn Ci. Emrich, P. E. \ctin; Regional Structures Engineer

Attachment i;' I RANsPof .: TION ON TWO 1: 07 GENESEE STREET UTICA, NEW YORK 501 www.dot.nY.goy

N R. WILLIAMS, P.E. C: NALD ,. M REGIONAL. DIRECTOR C " ON ER Regional Design Group (315) 793-2429 February 19, 2014

David Langone, Superintendent New York Mills School District 1 Marauder Boulevard New York Mills, New York 13417

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

Dear Mr. Langone:

This project includes work on the bridge carrying Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek in the City of Utica. It is expected that traffic will be maintained utilizing an off-site detour. A map of the project area is included for your convenience with the proposed detour route shown. Please note that this bridge is currently safe to cross.

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

Sinecrely,

Ori,, linil Signed b}- SGL' l C\ cn ( i. I .nirich. 1'. E. .\ctinu RcL)ic,i1al Structures 1.ntinccr

\ttachmcrit Public Involvement Plan

Bridge Superstructure Replacement Project PIN: 2BOW.00 BIN: 2206680 Chenango Road over Sauquoit Creek Oneida County City of Utica and Town of New Hartford

Name of Preparer: Jonathan Tibbitts, Project Team Leader Date Prepared: 03/25/2014 Preparer’s Functional Area: Regional Design Group

Current Phase (check one): Scoping Phase I-IV Phase V-VI Construction Other

Project Schedule as of Date Prepared

IPP Approved ------Unknown Scoping & Design Approval ------Spring 2014 PS&E ------Winter 2014 Construction Begins ------Spring 2015 Construction Completion ------Fall 2015

1. IPP update

List changes that have occurred since IPP: Unknown

2. Project Data

Funding...... ____Fed-Aid NHS __X__Fed-Aid Non-NHS ____100% State

Check Project Type (s). ____NEPA Class I __X__NEPA Class II ____NEPA Class III ____ SEQR Non-Type II __X__ SEQR Type II

Brief Description of Project Work: Replace the existing bridge with a new superstructure on the existing alignment. The new structure will have a span of approximately 100’-0” and will not need to be skewed to accommodate the expected flows of the Sauquoit Creek. The existing structure is founded on piles and will have an increased hydraulic opening.

NYSDOT person designated as community contact Steve Emrich

Public Involvement prior to IPP (y/n) No If yes, describe Attach relevant correspondence and/or meeting minutes. 3. Project Scoping

PI Objectives in Scoping: 1. Identify Stakeholders 2. Inform stakeholders of project and proposed project scope/needs. 3. Gather information on the project context.

3.1 Identify Stakeholders

Internal Stakeholders: Regional Planning; Regional Design Group; Regional Structures Group; Regional Landscape/Environmental Group; Regional Traffic and Safety Group; Regional Construction Group; Regional Maintenance Group.

External Stakeholders: City of Utica, Town of New Hartford, County of Oneida, Utica City School District, New Hartford Central School District, USACOE, FHWA, NYSDEC, Local Businesses, Emergency Services, local/seasonal residents, traveling public

3.2 Potential community concerns: Increased hydraulic opening, impacts to local businesses, work zone traffic control by off-site detour, emergency services during construction.

3.3 Communication Methods to be used to inform Stakeholders:

Meetings with public officials: Direct mailings to local governments, County emergency managers and school district.

Public information meetings: None planned

Is a citizen’s advisory committee necessary? No If yes, attach description of how it will be organized, list committee make-up and affiliation, and committee objectives.

Other public involvement techniques: News releases

3.4 Schedule for Public Involvement Activities: Meetings with stakeholders will be as needed. 4. Design

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

4.1 Information Internal Stakeholders: Regional Planning; Regional Design Group; Regional Structures Group; Regional Landscape/Environmental Group; Regional Traffic and Safety Group; Regional Construction Group; Regional Maintenance Group.

4.2 Communication Methods to be Used:

Meetings with public officials: Meetings may be held to introduce the project to the municipalities involved and receive feedback from them.

Public information meetings: Meeting formats: Open house meetings with presentations followed by Q & A session Brochure: yes Comment Form: yes Visualizations: yes

Other public involvement techniques: Direct mailings News releases Website E-mail

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

5. Construction Phase

PI Objective During Construction: Inform and maintain contact with affected residents/businesses/other stakeholders concerning construction activity schedule and impacts.

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

5.2 Communication Methods to be Used: Variable message signs Website

5.3 Schedule for Public Involvement Activities: Keep the public informed through the media, use of highway message signs, and project website.

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

Appendix E – Hydraulic Analysis

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

Appendix F – Non-Standard Feature

Justification

Nonstandard Feature Justification Form

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

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

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

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

1. Description of Nonstandard Feature

Type of Feature: Shoulder Width

Location: Throughout the project

Standard Value: 8 feet Design Speed: 40 mph

Existing Value: N/A

Proposed Value: 4 feet

2. Accident Analysis

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

Is the NSF a contributing factor to identified Yes No accidents? Choose Yes or No If Yes, describe how the feature

contributes to accidents 3. Cost Estimates

Cost to Fully Meet Standards: $248,000

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

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

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

5. Compatibility With Future Plans for Adjacent Segments:

These improvements will be compatible with adjacent segments.

6. Social, Economic & Environmental factors that weigh in the decision to retain or propose the NSF: Bringing the Non-Standard shoulder width up to the 8-foot standard would require R.O.W. takings due to widening of the road and bridge. 7. Recommendation: In order to widen the bridge to account for the increased, standard shoulder width, the abutments would need to be replaced. This would effectively result in a bridge replacement, which is not included in the scope of this project. For the reasons listed above, the Non-Standard 4-foot shoulder width identified in this report should be progressed for final design.