STUDY AREA Preferred Freeway Alternative

Genesee Rd. Concord 240 Sardinia 219

Springville 39 Erie County 39 Village of N.Y. 39 Springville Toronto Lake Ontario (New Ramps) Cattaraugus County Creek Rochester Yorkshire ORLEANS Cattaraugus NIAGARA Connoisarauley 77 Buttermilk QEW 405 32 WAYNE 12 Cr. 90 Peters Rd. 55 GENESEE 85 Creek Ashford 20 86-2 63 ONTARIO Buffalo 20A SENE 12 86-1 85 ERIE WYOMING Machias LIVINGSTON YATES Lake Erie 12 East Otto

20 Springville Hamlet of Snake Run Rd. 390 Ashford 53 16 Hollow CATTARAUGUS 86 SCHUYLE ALLEGANY 219 ALLEGANY S. Br. Catt. Cr. 90 62 CHAUTAUQUA STEUBEN CHE 242 86 86 240 75 Salamanca 14 75 15 6 B&PRR 17 B&PRR 13 Mansfield Cr. 219 62 6 Lindberg Ellicottville Rd. STUDY AREA

Great Valley Cr. Mansfield 13 N.Y. 242 Franklinville Ellicottville 242

15 Village of Ellicottville 242 98 Forks Cr. 71

Little Valley 38 Hamlet of Great Valley Humphrey Preferred Freeway Alternative - NY&LE RR 18 B&PRR 18 Wrights Cr. 67 Partial Build Assessment 219 C.R. 18 353 Great Valley Salamanca 94 Salamanca of Salamanca City Alleg Railyard Ext. heny Salamanca Seneca River UNITED STATES 417 Exit 86 Nation Allegany DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 20 Exit 21

B&PRR FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Allegany State Park N S

(1) NEW YORK STATE Red House Carrollton DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION George E. Pataki, Governor Joseph H. Boardman, Commissioner STUDY AREA PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.A. PURPOSE ...... 1-2 1.B. NYSDOT INTENTIONS ...... 1-3 CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONDITIONS, NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES ...... 2-1 2.C.1. CONDITIONS...... 2-1 2.C.2. NEEDS ...... 2-1 2.D. PROJECT OBJECTIVES ...... 2-2 CHAPTER 3 - PREFERRED FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE ...... 3-1 3.A. DESIGN CRITERIA ...... 3-1 3.B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...... 3-1 3.C. THE PREFERRED FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE ...... 3-1 3.C.1.c. Preferred Freeway Alternative - Partial Build ...... 3-1 Figure 3-1 - Preferred Freeway Alternative to Snake Run Road ...... 3-3 PB-2 - Snake Run Road Interchange (Patial Build) ...... 3-5 3.C.2. Engineering Considerations of Constructing Part of the Preferred Freeway Alternative ...... 3-7 3.C.2.a. Geometrics...... 3-7 3.C.2.b. Traffic Forecasts, Level of Service and Safety Considerations ...... 3-7 3.C.2.b.(1) Design Year Traffic Volume Projections and Level of Service .... 3-11 3.C.2.b (1.1) Projected 2025 Traffic Volumes ...... 3-11 Table 3-4 - Segment Traffic Volume Comparison ...... 3-12 Figure 3-2 - Projected 2025 Freeway Partial Build Alternative to Snake Run Road Traffic Volumes - AADT's...... 3-13 Figure 3-3 - Projected 2025 Preferred Freeway Partial Build Alternative to Snake Run Road - Turning Movements Volumes ...... 3-15 3.C.2.b (1.2) Projected 2025 Level of Service ...... 3-17 Table 3-5 - Segment Level of Service Comparison ...... 3-18 Table 3-6 - Intersection Level of Service Comparison ...... 3-19 3.C.2.b (2) Queiung Analysis...... 3-21 3.C.2.b (3) Safety and Traffic Control Considerations ...... 3-27 Table 3-7 Projected 2025 Accident Rates ...... 3-28 3.C.2.b. (4) Transportation User Benefits ...... 3-29 Table E.5-1 Components of 2025 AADT by Segment ...... 3-30

December, 2004 Page i PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Table E.5-2 - Travel Time Savings - Local Trip Diversions ...... 3-32 Table E.5-3 - Travel Time Savings - Long Distance Trip Diversions 3-34 3.C.2.c Pavement ...... 3-35 Table E.5-4 - Travel Time Savings - Local Trip Diversions ...... 3-35 Table E.5-5 - Annual 2025 Transportation User Benefits ...... 3-35 3.C.2.d. Structures ...... 3-36 3.C.2.e. Hydraulics ...... 3-36 3.C.2.f. Drainage ...... 3-37 3.C.2.g. Maintenance Responsibility ...... 3-37 3.C.2.h. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic ...... 3-38 3.C.2.i. Soils and Foundations ...... 3-38 3.C.2.j. Utilities ...... 3-38 Table 3-8 - Maintenance Cost Estimates ...... 3-38 3.C.2.k. Railroads ...... 3-39 3.C.2.l. Right-of-Way ...... 3-39 Table 3-9 - Right of Way to Be Aquired ...... 3-39 3.C.2.m. Landscape Development ...... 3-40 3.C.2.n. Provisions for Pedestrians, Including Persons with Disabilities ...... 3-40 3.C.2.o. Provisions for Bicycling ...... 3-40 3.C.2.p. Lighting ...... 3-40 3.C.2.q. Park-and-Ride Lots ...... 3-40 3.D. PROJECT COSTS AND SCHEDULE ...... 3-41 3.D.1. Costs ...... 3-41 3.D.2. Schedule ...... 3-41 3.D.3. Construction Phasing...... 3-41 CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 4-1 4.B. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...... 4-1 4.B.1. Social Consequences ...... 4-1 4.B.1.a. Community Cohesion ...... 4-1 4.B.1.b. Changes in Travel Patterns or Accessibility ...... 4-1 4.B.1.c. Impacts on School Districts, Recreation Areas, Churches or Businesses ...... 4-2 4.B.1.c (1) School Districts ...... 4-2 4.B.1.c (2) Recreation Areas ...... 4-2 4.B.1.c (3) Churches ...... 4-2 4.B.1.c (4) Businesses ...... 4-2 4.B.1.d. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection, and Ambulance Access ...... 4-2 4.B.1.e. Impacts on Highway Safety, Traffic Safety, and Overall Public Safety ...... 4-3 4.B.1.f. General Social Groups Benefited or Harmed ...... 4-3 4.B.1.g. Environmental Justice ...... 4-3 4.B.2. Economic Consequences ...... 4-4 4.B.2.a. Impacts on Regional and Local Economies ...... 4-4 Table 4-10 - Employment Impacts of Construction ...... 4-5 4.B.2.b. Impacts on Highway Related Businesses ...... 4-5

Page ii December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

4.B.2.c. Impacts on Established Business Districts ...... 4-6 4.B.2.d. Relocation Impacts...... 4-6 4.B.2.e. Impacts on Local Tax Base ...... 4-6 Table 4-11 - Project Area Business Data/Traffic Impacts...... 4-7 Table 4-12 - Tax Base Impacts ...... 4-8 4.B.3. Environmental Consequences ...... 4-8 4.B.3.a. Noise ...... 4-8 4.B.3.a (3) Noise Impacts ...... 4-8 4.B.3.a (5) Construction Noise ...... 4-10 4.B.3.b. Air Quality ...... 4-10 4.B.3.b (5) Construction Impacts ...... 4-10 4.B.3.c. General Ecology and Endangered Species ...... 4-11 4.B.3.c (2) Environmental Consequences ...... 4-11 4.B.3.c (2.1) Ecological Communities and General Wildlife ...... 4-11 4.B.3.c (2.2) Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 4-11 4.B.3.c (2.3) Regionally Important Habitats ...... 4-11 4.B.3.c (2.4) Aquatic Resources ...... 4-11 4.B.3.d. Wetlands ...... 4-11 4.B.3.d (2) Wetland Environmental Consequences ...... 4-11 4.B.3.e. Navigable Waters ...... 4-12 4.B.3.f. Coastal Zone Management...... 4-12 4.B.3.g. Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers ...... 4-12 4.B.3.h. Surface Water and Ground Water Quality ...... 4-12 4.B.3.h (2) Water Quality Impacts...... 4-12 4.B.3.h (2.1) Stream Impacts ...... 4-13 4.B.3.h (2.2) Surface Water Quality Impacts ...... 4-13 4.B.3.h (2.3) Seeps Impacts ...... 4-13 4.B.3.h (2.4) Groundwater Impacts ...... 4-13 4.B.3.h (2.4.1) Impacts on Groundwater Due to Bedrock Road Cuts and Fill ...... 4-13 4.B.3.h (2.4.2) Impacts on Groundwater from Deicing Salt - Toler Analysis ...... 4-14 4.B.3.h (2.4.3) Impacts on Municipal Groundwater Supply Wells ...... 4-14 4.B.3.h (2.4.4) Impacts on Private Water Supply Wells ...... 4-14 4.B.3.h (2.4.5) Impacts on Groundwater Quality from Vehicular Pollutants 4-14 4.B.3.h (2.4.6) Impacts on Groundwater from Construction Activities ...... 4-14 4.B.3.i. Floodplain Management ...... 4-15 4.B.3.j. Historic and Cultural Resources...... 4-15 4.B.3.j.(1) Programmatic Agreement ...... 4-15 4.B.3.j.(2) Historic Buildings/Structures ...... 4-16 4.B.3.j.(3) Historic Districts ...... 4-16 4.B.3.j.(4) Archaeological Sites ...... 4-16 4.B.3.k. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) ...... 4-16 Table 7-3 - Effects on Section 4(f) Properties ...... 4-17 Table 4-31 - Absbestos Abatement Cost Estimates ...... 4-31 4.B.3.l. Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials ...... 4-31 4.B.3.l (2) Environmental Consequences...... 4-31 4.B.3.m. Asbestos ...... 4-31 4.B.3.n. Farmlands ...... 4-31 4.B.3.n (2) Environmental Consequences ...... 4-31

December, 2004 Page iii PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

4.B.3.o. Energy ...... 4-31 4.B.3.p. Visual Impacts ...... 4-32 4.B.3.p(4) Visual Impact Results ...... 4-32 4.B.3.q. Regional and Local Land Use Plans ...... 4-32 4.B.3.r. Adirondack Park Agency Coordination ...... 4-32 4.B.3.s. Construction Impacts ...... 4-32 4.B.4. Relationship Between Short Term Uses of Man’s Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity ...... 4-33 4.B.5. Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action ...... 4-33 4.B.6. Adverse Environmental Impacts that Cannot be Avoided or Adequately Mitigated ...... 4-33 4.B.7. Growth Inducing Aspects of the Project ...... 4-33 4.B.8. List of Permits ...... 4-34 4.B.9. Indirect/Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ...... 4-34 4.B.9.a. Indirect/Secondary Impacts ...... 4-34 Table 4-35 - Indirect/Secondary Impacts - Landuse ...... 4-34 4.B.9.a(2) Indirect/Secondary Impact Assessment ...... 4-35 4.B.9.a(3) Indirect/Secondary Impacts ...... 4-35 4.B.9.b. Cumulative Impacts ...... 4-35 4.B.9.b(1) Cumulative Impact Assessment ...... 4-35 CHAPTER 5 - EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES...... 5-1 5.A. COST, BENEFIT AND IMPACT COMPARISON...... 5-1 Table 5-1 - Comparison of Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 Verses the Snake Run Road Interchange ...... 5-1 5.B. DISCUSSION...... 5-3 CHAPTER 6 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 6-1 6.A CONCLUSIONS ...... 6-1 6.B. RECOMMENDATIONS...... 6-2 APPENDIX A...... A-1

Page iv December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

106 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservaton Act 4(f) Section 4(f) of the Federal Transportation Act of 1966 6(f) Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACC Asphalt Cement Concrete ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ACM Asbestos Containing Materials ADA Americans with Disabilities Act AQMAAir Quality Management Area B&PRR Buffalo and Pittsburgh Railroad BIN Bridge Identification Number BOCES Board of Cooperative Educational Services CAAA90 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 CCBA Cattaraugus Creek Basin Aquifer C.R. County Road CFR Code of Federal Regulations CN Cyanide CO Carbon monoxide COE US Army Corps of Engineers CSX CSX Railroad dBA Decibels DDHV Directional Design Hour Volume DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DHV Design Hour Volume DOE United States Department of Energy DOS New York State Department of State ** DPM Design Procedure Manual * DR Design Report DWCA Deer Wintering Concentration Areas EAP Environmental Action Plan * EI Engineering Instruction * EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EPM Environmental Procedures Manual * ESAL Equivalent Standard Axle Loads ETC Estimated Time of Completion (of construction) FA Federal Aid FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFPPA Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement GBNRTC Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council GIS Geographic Information System ha hectares HAL High Accident Location HCM Highway Capacity Manual HDM Highway Design Manual* HEC2 Hydraulic Engineering Circular Number 2 HPPG High Priority Projects Group ** HUCA Highway User Cost Accounting (method)* IMM Intersection Midblock Model Inc. Incorporated km Kilometer km/h Kilometer per hour LOS Level of Service LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank LWRP Local Waterfront Revitalization Program m meter MEV Million Entering Vehicles mg/L milligrams per liter MIS Major Investment Study

December, 2004 Page v PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

mm millimeter MP Milepost MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area MVK Million Vehicle Kilometers NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAC Noise Abatement Criteria NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFTC Niagara Frontier Transportation Committee (Now GBNRTC) NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPS National Parks Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NRI National Rivers Inventory NWI National Wetland Inventory N.Y. New York NYLE New York and Lake Erie Railroad NYSAAQS New York State Ambient Air Quality Standards NYSAS New York State Agricultural Statistics NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ** NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation ** NYSERDA New York State Energy Research and Development Authority ** PA Programmatic Agreement PBS Petroleum Bulk Storage PCB Polychlorinated byphenyl PCC Portland Cement Concrete PCS Permit Compliance System PEG Project Environmental Guideline * PEM Palustrine Emergent PII Priority Investigation Intersection PIL Priority Investigation Location PIN Project Identification Number PM10 Inhalable Particulate ppm parts per million RIMS II Regional Input-Output Modeling System, Version 2 ROW Right-of-Way SASS State Accident Surveillance System SDL Safety Deficient Location S.H. State Highway SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer ** SIP State Implementation Plan SPDES State Pollution Discharge Elimination System SNI Seneca Nation SSA Sole Source Aquifer SSD Stopping Sight Distance STP Sanitary Treatment Plant TAL Target Analyte List TCE trichlorethylene TCL Target Compound List TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure TIP Transportation Improvement Plan TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TRPH Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbon TSI Thermal System Insulation TSP Total Suspended Particulates USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service UST Underground Storage Tank VMT Vehicle Miles of Travel VOC Volatile Organic Compound W/A With Access WO/A Without Access WVDP West Valley Demonstration Project

* NYSDOT Manual, guideline or publication. ** New York State Agency

Page vi December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Conversion From Inch-Pound to Metric Units

The federal government has designated the metric system as the preferred system of weights and measures in order to improve the competitiveness of American business and industry in the world marketplace. This project is being designed using metric units. The text of this report uses metric units.

The following table of approximate conversion factors provides the relationship between metric and inch-pound units for some of the more frequently used units in highway design:

Metric Unit = Inch-Pound Unit x Factor

Length kilometer (km) = miles (mi) x 1.610 meter (m) = feet (ft) x 0.305 Area hectares (ha) = acres (a) x 0.405 sq. meters (m2) = sq. yards (sy) x 0.836 sq. meters (m2) = sq. feet (sf) x 0.093 Volume cubic meter (m3) = cubic yards (cy) x 0.765 cubic meter (m3) = cubic feet (cf) x 0.028 Speed kilometers per hour (km/h) = miles per hour (mph) x 1.610 meters per second (m/s) = feet per second (ft/s)x 0.305

December, 2004 Page vii PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

Page viii December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1 INTRODUCTION

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the US Route 219 between Spring- Chapter 1 includes in- ville and Salamanca was published in January 2003. The FEIS recommended the Pre- troductory information, ferred Alternative, a 4-lane limited access freeway, be constructed between NY Route including the intended 39 in Springville and I-86 near Salamanca. However, as noted in the FEIS, nearly 36 km purpose of this report, of I-86 (formerly NY Route 17) between Steamburg and Vandalia is on Seneca Nation and locations where lands. Construction of the proposed Freeway Alternative to I-86 requires use of land additional information within the boundaries of the Seneca Nation of Indians. Use of this land requires an can be obtained. agreement between the Seneca Nation of Indians and the State of New York. An agreement has not yet been reached and the time required for completing this agreement between the State of New York and the Seneca Nation is unknown. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) subsequently issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on September 4, 2003. A copy of the ROD is included in Appendix A of this report. The ROD approved construction of the Preferred Alternative with stipulations regarding the approval/agreement with the Seneca Nation. This report is the Preferred Freeway Alternative - Partial Build Assessment for PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219, from Springville to Salamanca. Section numbers in this report have been numbered according to their corresponding section in the FEIS. Therefore, section numbers in this report may not be sequential. This report is intended to satisfy the stipulations made in the Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Federal Highway Administration in September 2003. The stipulations included in the ROD are noted below: "While this decision is made without the clear and unconditional approval of the Seneca Nation of Indians to construct this project across their lands, the New York State Depart- ment of Transportation (NYSDOT), as outlined in their attached March 18, 2003 letter to the Federal Highway Administration - New York Division, is committed to working cooperatively with the Nation to resolve all concerns. The FHWA will not authorize construction of any part of the Route 219 project until clear approval is received from the Seneca Nation of Indians or, in the absence of such agreement, NYSDOT completes and documents in accord with NEPA appropriate studies (that address all costs and benefits) to support a partial-build alternative. Pending resolution of the above issue, NYSDOT will limit land acquisitions to only those from landowners that voluntarily agree to transfer ownership to the state and/or those approved by FHWA as "protective buying", as defined in 23CFR 771.117(d). The above stipulations will be modified, as appropriate and reasonable, upon progress toward agreement with the Seneca Nation and/or issuance of permits." The portion of the Preferred Freeway Alternative the NYSDOT is considering building is from NY-39 in Springville to the Snake Run Road Interchange in Town of Ashford. This section was chosen to satisfy a portion of the Project Objectives as outlined in Chapter

December, 2004 Page 1-1 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

2, Section D in the FEIS. It provides 11 km of the proposed 44 km freeway alternative without requiring use of Seneca Nation Land and without causing significant impacts to the unimproved portions of the existing U.S. Route 219 corridor. More detail on how this location (Snake Run Road) was selected is included in Section 3.C.2.b of this report.

1.A. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to document, in accordance with the stipulation that FHWA imposed in the Record of Decision, support for building the Preferred Freeway Alterna- tive from Springville to the Snake Run Road Interchange while negotiations are conducted with the Seneca Nation toward an agreement to use a portion of their land to complete the connection of the freeway to I-86. This report was prepared in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 771.129.c and 771.130.c. CFR 771.129.c states the following: "After approval of the EIS..., the applicant shall consult with the Administration prior to requesting any major approvals or grants to establish whether or not the environmental document... remains valid for the requested Administration action." CFR 771.130.c states the following: "Where the Administration is uncertain of the significance of the new impacts, the applicant will develop appropriate environmental studies or, if the Administration deems appropriate, an EA to assess the impacts of the changes, new information, or new circum- stances..." This assessment is available for public review and copying at the Federal Highway Ad- ministration Office in Albany, and the New York State Department of Transportation Of- fice in Buffalo, and at the following other locations:

Limestone, NY Village Clerk, Village Municipal Building Salamanca, NY City Clerk's Office, City Hall, 225 Wildwood Avenue Salamanca, NY Salamanca Public Library, 155 Wildwood Avenue Seneca Nation Seneca Nation Clerk's Office, 3582 Center Rd., Salamanca Seneca Nation Seneca Nation Library, Broad St. Extension, Salamanca Seneca Nation Seneca Nation Library, 1490 Route 438, Irving Great Valley, NY Town Clerk's Office, Town Hall, 4808 U.S. Route 219 Little Valley, NY Cattaraugus County Clerk, 303 Court Street Ellicottville, NY Town Clerk's Office, Town Municipal Building, 1 W. Washington Ellicottville, NY Ellicottville Memorial Library, 1 Washington Street West Valley, NY Ashford Community Center, Route 240, West Valley, NY Springville, NY Springville Village Clerk, Village Hall, 5 W. Main St. Springville, NY Concord Town Clerk, Town Hall, 86 Franklin Street Springville, NY Hulbert Public Library of the Town of Concord, 18 Chapel St.

Page 1-2 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Olean, NY Olean Public Library, 134 North 2nd St. Buffalo, NY Community Relations, Buffalo & Erie County Public Library Lafayette Square Buffalo, NY NYSDOT, 125 Main Street

Copies of this report can be reviewed and additional information can be obtained from: Mr. Alan Taylor, P.E. Mr. Robert E. Arnold Acting Regional Director, Region 5 Division Administrator New York State Department of Federal Highway Administration Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation William J. Donovan State Office Building Leo W. O’Brien Federal Building, 125 Main Street Suite 719 Buffalo, New York 14203 Clinton Avenue and North Pearl Street Phone: (716)847-3238 Albany, New York 12207 Phone: (518)431-4127

This project should be identified in all correspondence requiring additional information as: PIN 5101.53 U.S. Route 219, Springville to Salamanca

1.B. NYSDOT INTENTIONS As noted above in the stipulations of the ROD, the New York State Department of Trans- portation (NYSDOT) is committed to working cooperatively with the Seneca Nation to resolve all concerns regarding this project. The NYSDOT is intent on completing the Preferred Freeway Alternative from NY 39 in Springville to I-86 in Salamanca. It is the intent of the NYSDOT to request approval from the FHWA to purchase right-of- way, prepare plans and construct the portion of the Preferred Freeway Alternative from NY 39 in Springville to the Snake Run Road Interchange in the Town of Ashford. The reasons for selecting this portion of the Preferred Freeway Alternative and the reasons why it should be constructed are included within this report.

December, 2004 Page 1-3 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

Page 1-4 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

PROJECT CONDITIONS, NEEDS AND 2 OBJECTIVES

Chapter 2 addresses existing conditions throughout the corri- 2.C.1. CONDITIONS dor and describes The existing conditions throughout the corridor are discussed in detail in Section transportation needs 2.C.1 of the FEIS and have not changed since publication. and objectives for the project. 2.C.2. NEEDS Section 2.B.1 of the FEIS stated that U.S. Route 219 was designated a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System by Congress in the 1991 ISTEA legislation. This allowed New York State to conduct design studies for upgrading the corridor to an appropriate standard. The following summarizes the project needs which were stated in Section 2.C.2 of the FEIS and remain valid today.

1. Capacity Needs Travel today along U.S. Route 219 is limited by the lack of passing opportunities, numerous reduced speed zones through developed areas, the winding highway and steep grades. Segment level of service today varies between “C” and “E”, and is projected to degrade further to “D” or “F” with increased traffic by the year 2025. This will reduce travel speed and subsequently increase travel time for commercial vehicles, commuters and tourists. 2. Safety Needs U.S. Route 219 is a primary north-south route in this portion of the state. Accident rates are high on several long stretches of highway and at many intersections, particularly in the rapidly developing communities of Springville and Ellicottville. This is due in part to high traffic volumes and conflicts between local traffic and heavy truck/ long distance traveler traffic. Truck traffic is high on this route and ranges from 6% to 17% and is expected to continue to grow due to projected increased truck traffic crossing the border at Canada with southern origins or destinations. 3. System Needs The two lane section of the existing U.S. Route 219 between Springville and Salamanca does not provide the efficient and safe facility preferred by commercial truckers or long distance travelers. An improved U.S. Route 219 would bridge the existing gap between the end of the existing expressway and Route I-86. 4. Social Demands and Economic Development Project input from Cattaraugus County and local communities along the corridor have continually focused on improvements to U.S. Route 219 and the effect those improvements could have on improved regional and local business opportunity. Nearby Toronto is the economic center of Canada and U.S. Route 219 is the nearest and most direct north-south route from Toronto to the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United States. The expansion of trade at the Buffalo/Fort Erie border is expected to increase the

December, 2004 Page 2-1 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

potential to expand the economies of Western New York and other communities along the various transportation routes radiating from that border crossing. Likewise, communities have expressed their concerns over increased nuisance impacts and decreased safety created by large commercial vehicles traveling through developed areas.

2.D. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

As stated in Section 2.C.2 of the FEIS, based on the needs described above and being consistent with ISTEA ‘91, the objectives of this project are: 1. Improve overall traffic conditions using cost effective methods to provide an acceptable level of service at the design year of 2025. 2. Correct safety deficiencies by providing highway improvements that allow cooperative and safe travel conditions between passenger vehicles and heavy trucks. 3. Eliminate the two lane corridor gap between Springville and Salamanca prior to the design year of 2025 using cost effective methods. 4. Provide cost effective improvements to U.S. Route 219 that meet the social demands of the communities within the corridor by providing the maximum potential for future economic enhancement of the region and New York State. 5. Provide highway improvements, using cost effective measures, that avoid or reduce highway related nuisance and environmental impacts to the greatest extent practicable and can be completed prior to the design year.

Page 2-2 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

3 PREFERRED FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE

3.A. DESIGN CRITERIA The negotiations with the Seneca Nation of Indians will not affect the selection of design Chapter 3 identifies criteria for construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative (Partial or Complete Build additional impacts options). The design criteria is based on the 2001 AASHTO Policy on Geometric De- caused by partial construction of the sign of Highways and Streets; the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual; and the 1999 Preferred Freeway NYSDOT Geometric Design Policy for Bridges and remains unchanged from the de- Alternative to the sign criteria stated in Chapter 3, Section 3.A of the FEIS. Snake Run Road In- terchange. 3.B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This report does not consider alternatives to construction of the Preferred Freeway Alter- native from the end of the existing U.S. Route 219 Expressway in Springville to I-86 as described in the FEIS. The intent of this report is to identify additional impacts caused by halting construction of the Preferred Freeway at the Snake Run Road Interchange and to determine the extent of these impacts.

3.C. THE PREFERRED FREEWAY ALTERNATIVE

3.C.1.c. Preferred Freeway Alternative - Partial Build The Preferred Freeway Alternative as stated in the FEIS, includes construction of a 44 km long 4-lane controlled access freeway on new alignment, beginning at the end of the U.S. Route 219 Expressway in Springville and connecting with the Southern Tier Expressway (I-86) in Salamanca. Partial construction of the Preferred Freeway Alter- native would include construction of 11 km of the above 4-lane controlled access freeway on the same alignment extending to the proposed interchange located at the Snake Run Road where construction would be halted until an agreement with the Seneca Nation of Indians for freeway construction on Seneca land could be reached. A diagram showing the proposed freeway route and a typical freeway section is included in Figure 3-1. Pausing construction of the Preferred Freeway at Snake Run Road would route freeway traffic along existing U.S. Route 219 through the Towns of Ashford, Ellicottville and Great Valley and continuing to the City of Salamanca to I-86. At the Snake Run Road Inter- change, the terminus would be a partially constructed diamond interchange completing only the northern portion to create access to the proposed freeway. Drawing PB-SRR details the partially constructed interchange at Snake Run Road. The alignment of the Preferred Freeway has not changed from the alignment described in the FEIS. See Chapter 3, Section 3.C.1.c in the FEIS for a more detailed description of the Preferred Freeway alignment.

December, 2004 Page 3-1 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

Page 3-2 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Genesee Rd. Concord 240 Sardinia 219

Springville 39 Erie County 39 Village of N.Y. 39 Springville (New Ramps) Cattaraugus County Creek

Cattaraugus Yorkshire Buttermilk Cr. Connoisarauley 77 32 12 Peters Rd. Ext. 55 85

Creek Ashford 86-2

12 86-1 85 Machias Snake Run 12 East Otto Rd. Ext. Hamlet of Ashford 53 16 Hollow S. Br. Catt. Cr.

Right-of-Way 242 180 m (varies) 240 3.0 m 1.8 m 3.0 m 75 Shoulder 2 Lanes Shoulders 2 Lanes Existing 14 75 Shoulder Fill 7.2 m Median 7.2 m Drainage Ground B&PRR Existing 17 Slope 11 - 80 m Ditch Cut B&PRR Ground Slope 13 Mansfield Cr. 219 Lindberg Ellicottville Freeway Section Rd. (N.T.S.)

Great Valley Cr. Mansfield 13 Franklinville 242 Ellicottville

15 Village of Ellicottville 242 98 Forks Cr. 71

Little Valley 38 Hamlet of Great Valley NY&LE Humphrey RR

18 B&PRR 18 Wrights Cr. 67 219 353 Great Valley Salamanca 94 of Salamanca City Alleg heny Seneca River Salamanca 86 417 Exit Nation Allegany 20 Exit 21

B&PRR Allegany State Park NS kilometers

(1) Red House Carrollton 02468 NORTH miles 0 .5 1 2 3 5

New York State Department of Transportation Figure 3-1 Preferred Freeway Alternative to Snake Run Road Page 3-3 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

Page 3-4 December, 2004 FUTUREFUTURE CCONSTRUCTIONONSTRUCTION AFTERAFTER AGREEMENTAGREEMENT ISIS REACHEDREACHED w/w/ SNISNI

DECEMBER, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

Page 3-6 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

3.C.2. Engineering Considerations of Constructing Part of the Preferred Freeway Alternative

3.C.2.a. Geometrics "Nonstandard" features are features that do not meet minimum design criteria for the project, including lane, shoulder, and bridge widths, grades, horizontal curvatures and stopping sight distances. A "nonconforming" feature, while not violating any design criteria, does not conform to normally accepted design practices and should be avoided. These include lack of regular passing zones on two-lane highways, inadequate climb- ing lane lengths, short or no tangent distances between curves in the same direction, etc.. All geometric features and cross sectional elements for the newly constructed freeway whether complete construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative or construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would comply with the design criteria in Section 3.A of the FEIS.

3.C.2.b. Traffic Forecasts, Level of Service and Safety Considerations Traffic Impacts

Traffic forecasts were prepared for future conditions under various partial build scenarios of the Preferred Freeway Alternative. As noted in Section E.3 of Appendix E – Traffic Report of the FEIS, three components were considered in these forecasts:

• A 1.5% annual growth in traffic due to increases in population, households and employment. This 1.5% annual growth is the same growth rate used for the 2025 No-Build traffic forecasts. • Diversion of intra-regional trips to the proposed alternatives from other local parallel routes, predicted using a computer traffic model (TMODEL 2), which weighed several factors including travel time savings, delays, speeds and congestion. • Diversion of long distance trips to the proposed alternatives from other routes. The analysis of long distance trip diversions was based on prorated travel time savings using a modified Comprehensive Assignment Routing System (CARS) formula from the FEIS.

Local (Intra-Regional) Trip Diversions

The number of local trips diverted to various partial build scenarios was calculated using the same TMODEL2 traffic forecasting computer program that was used to calculate the traffic forecasts in the FEIS as described in Section E.3.b.1 of Appendix E. The results of the Local Trip Diversions using TMODEL2 are included in the Table below for the various stopping points for the partial build scenarios.

December, 2004 Page 3-7 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

CALCULATION OF LOCAL TRIP DIVERSIONS UNDER VARIOUS PARTIAL BUILD SCENARIOS Length of Freeway Construction Under Partial Build Partial Build Scenario Scenario Local Diversions Stopping Point Location (km) using TMODEL2 Null 0 0 Peters Rd. Interchange 5.20 56 Snake Run Rd. Interchange 11.20 336 Irish Hill Rd. (Temp Location) 18.20 Route 242 Interchange 23.80 2210 Brewer Rd. (Temp Location) 30.22 CR-18 Interchange 34.13 3500 East Salamanca Railyard 40.95 3710 I-86 Interchange 43.60 4070

Long Distance Trip Diversions

The Long Distance Trip Diversion Analysis, as described in Section E.3.d of Appendix E of the FEIS, calculated a total of 3,048 trips for the fully constructed Preferred Freeway Alternative. The Long Distance Trip Diversions for various partial build scenarios were calculated with the modified CARS formula by prorating the total 3,048 long distance trip diversions using the percent change in travel time savings for the partial build scenario divided by the total travel time saved with the 2025 Full Build Freeway Alternative over the 2025 No-Build Alternative. The total travel time savings for the 2025 Full Build Free- way over the 2025 No-Build was 0:23:42 (23.70 minutes), as calculated in Table E.3-3 in Appendix E of the FEIS.

The travel time savings for potential partial build scenarios were calculated using the Travel Time Data included in the Attachments to Appendix E (found in the back of the appendix). The results of the travel time savings calculations are included in the following table for the various stopping points for the partial build scenarios.

This modified CARS method of proportioning the total 3,048 long distance trip diversions, based on percent of travel time saved compared to the fully constructed Freeway Alter- native, was required since the original equations included variables that applied to the fully constructed improvement but would not directly apply to the various partial build scenarios.

Page 3-8 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

TRAVEL TIME SAVINGS CALCULATION OF LONG DISTRANCE TRIP DIVERSIONS UNDER VARIOUS PARTIAL BUILD SCENARIOS

Length of Freeway Travel Time % of Travel Long Distance Construction Savings over Time Savings Diversions based on Under Partial Build the No-Build compared to percent of travel time Partial Build Scenario Scenario Travel Times 2025 Alt 2025 Full savings compared to Stopping Point Location (km) 2025 (hh:mm:ss) Build the 2025 Full Build Null 0 0:54:57 0:00:00 0.00% 0 Peters Rd. Interchange 5.20 0:50:38 0:04:19 18.22% 555 Snake Run Rd. Interchange 11.20 0:49:47 0:05:10 21.78% 664 Irish Hill Rd. (Temp Location) 18.20 0:46:50 0:08:07 34.24% 1044 Route 242 Interchange 23.80 0:46:24 0:08:33 36.09% 1100 Brewer Rd. (Temp Location) 30.22 0:43:02 0:11:56 50.32% 1534 CR-18 Interchange 34.13 0:39:32 0:15:25 65.02% 1982 East Salamanca Railyard 40.95 0:38:19 0:16:38 70.20% 2140 I-86 Interchange 43.60 0:31:15 0:23:42 100.00% 3048

The totals of Local and Long Distance Trip Diversions for the various partial build scenarios are included in the Table below and the following graph.

TOTAL DIVERSIONS UNDER VARIOUS PARTIAL BUILD SCENARIOS Long Distance Length of Freeway Diversions based on Construction percent of travel time Local Under Partial Build savings compared to Diversions Total Partial Build Scenario Scenario the 2025 Full Build using Diverted Stopping Point Location (km) Freeway TMODEL2 Traffic Null 0 0 0 0 Peters Rd. Interchange 5.20 555 56 611 Snake Run Rd. Interchange 11.20 664 336 1000 Irish Hill Rd. (Temp Location) 18.20 1044 Route 242 Interchange 23.80 1100 2210 3310 Brewer Rd. (Temp Location) 30.22 1534 CR-18 Interchange 34.13 1982 3500 5482 East Salamanca Railyard 40.95 2140 3710 5850 I-86 Interchange 43.60 3048 4070 7118

December, 2004 Page 3-9 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

7118 4070 3048 I-86

3710

2140 Railyard

5850 Salamanca

5482

3500 1982 CR-18. CR-18.

1534 Brewer Rd. Brewer

3310

2210 Route 242 Route Length US of 219

Freeway Construction (km)

1044 1100 Irish Hill Rd. Hill Irish 336

664 Snake Run Rd. Run Snake 1000 Long Distance Diversions based on percent time travel of savings compared to the 2025 Full Build Freeway Local Diversions using TMODEL2 Traffic Total Diverted US 219 US

555 Peters Rd. Peters 611 TRAFFIC DIVERSIONS TRAFFIC 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0

750 500 250

7250 7000 6750 6500 6250 6000 5750 5500 5250 5000 4750 4500 4250 4000 3750 3500 3250 3000 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 Trip Diversions AADT Diversions Trip

Page 3-10 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Determination of Partial Build Termination Point In an effort to determine at which location to temporarily halt construction of the proposed freeway alternative, consideration was given to the total number of trips diverted to the US 219 Corridor from other local and long distance routes. Diverting a large number of trips to the corridor, without completing the freeway to I-86, could result in a significant impact on the unimproved portion of US 219 compared to the No-Build Alternative. For the purpose of this assessment, diverting more than 10% additional traffic from other local and long distance routes to the US 219 Corridor could be considered significant. Therefore, this assessment evaluated traffic diversions of less than 10% of the Full Build Project. Under the No-Build Alternative the future AADT volumes along the existing corridor range from 9,150 (Snake Run Road) to 11,800 (Route 417. Using the above information and analysis, it was determined that the Preferred Freeway Alternative should not be constructed beyond the Snake Run Road Interchange until the Agreement between the State of New York and the Seneca Nation was executed and the Seneca Nation's approval to complete the freeway to I-86 was given. Construction of the Pre- ferred Freeway Alternative between the existing terminus at NY 39 to Snake Run Road could result in the diversion of approximately 1,000 vehicles (less than 10%) from other routes to the US 219 Corridor, which would not be considered a significant increase in traffic over the No-Build Alternative. Completing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to Route 242 (Ellicottville) or CR18 (Great Valley), for example, would add approximately 30% and 50% respectively to the traffic volumes and cause significant impacts to the remaining unimproved portion of US 219.

3.C.2.b.(1) Design Year Traffic Volume Projections and Level of Service 3.C.2.b (1.1) Projected 2025 Traffic Volumes The combination of the base 1.5%/yr growth in trips combined with traffic diversions from local parallel routes and other long distance routes would produce increases in traffic in the corridor. Table 3-4 shows a traffic volume comparison between the No-Build complete construction of the Preferred Freeway and construction to the Snake Run Road Interchange. Note that Segment Numbers 12 and 13 correspond to the portion of the freeway constructed to Snake Run Road. The last column in the table compares the total traffic volumes between the No-Build and the Partial Build Freeway to Snake Run Road. All the segments south of Snake Run Road (Segments 1 thru 11) have project traffic volumes less than 10 % above the No-Build. Projected 2025 traffic volumes and turning movement volumes for construction of the freeway to the Snake Run Road Interchange are also shown in Figures 3-2 and 3-3.

December, 2004 Page 3-11 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Table 3-4 U.S. Route 219 - Segment Traffic Volume Comparison AADT - Annual Average Daily Traffic

2025 Freeway to 2025 Completed Freeway Snake Run Road

Old Old Partial Seg. 2025 U.S. Freeway Total U.S. Freeway Total Build/No- No. No-Build 219 219 Build Existing Highway Segment AADT AADT AADT AADT AADT AADT AADT 1 Bus Rt. 219. Exit 23 to Rt. 417 5,000 3,430 3,430 5,340 5,340 106.8% 2 Bus Rt. 219/Rt. 417 to end Rt. 219 overlap 6,800 5,890 5,890 7,140 7,140 105.0% 3a Rt. 17 Exit 23 to Exit 22 15,400 21,700 21,700 15,850 15,850 102.9% 3b Rt 17 Exit 22 to Exit 21 15,400 16,140 16,140 ------4 Rt. 219. Exit 21 to Rt. 417 6,950 5,000 11,120 16,120 7,430 7,430 106.9% 5 Rt. 219/Rt. 417 to end Rt. 219 overlap 11,800 8,830 11,120 19,950 12,270 12,270 104.0% 6 Rt. 219. Rt. 417 to Salamanca N. City Line 9,500 5,500 11,120 16,620 10,310 10,310 108.5% 7 Rt. 219. Salamanca N. City Line to Rt. 98 9,200 3,730 11,930 15,660 10,010 10,010 108.8% 8 Rt. 219. Rt. 98 to Rt. 242 overlap 10,300 4,910 11,950 16,860 11,110 11,110 107.9% 9 Rt. 219. Rt. 242 overlap to County Rt. 71 9,700 5,500 11,950 17,450 10,510 10,510 108.4% 10 Rt. 219. County Rt. 71 to end Rt. 242 overlap 10,150 5,590 11,950 17,540 10,960 10,960 108.0% 11 Rt. 219. end Rt. 242 overlap to County Rt. 12 9,150 3,630 14,460 18,090 9,960 9,960 108.9% 12 Rt. 219. County Rt. 12 to Erie County Line 9,500 5,100 13,390 18,490 4,980 5,520 10,500 110.5% Rt. 219. Erie County Line to east end Rt. 39 13 17,250 9,380 15,560 24,940 9,110 8,860 17,970 overlap 104.2% Rt. 219. east end Rt. 39 overlap to west start of 14 18,250 11,980 11,980 10,080 10,080 Rt. 39 overlap 55.2% 15 Rt. 219 north of Rt. 39 12,610 17,540 17,540 13,200 13,200 104.7% DHV - Design Hour Volume

2025 Freeway to 2025 Completed Freeway Snake Run Road

Old Old Partial Seg. 2025 U.S. Freeway Total U.S. Freeway Total Build/No- No. No-Build 219 219 Build Existing Highway Segment DHV DHV DHV DHV DHV DHV DHV 1 Bus Rt. 219. Exit 23 to Rt. 417 510 350 350 545 545 106.9% 2 Bus Rt. 219/Rt. 417 to end Rt. 219 overlap 695 600 600 730 730 105.0% 3a Rt. 17 Exit 23 to Exit 22 1,570 2,210 2,210 1,615 1,615 102.9% 3b Rt 17 Exit 22 to Exit 21 1,570 1,645 1,645 ------4 Rt. 219. Exit 21 to Rt. 417 710 510 1,135 1,645 755 755 106.3% 5 Rt. 219/Rt. 417 to end Rt. 219 overlap 1,205 900 1,135 2,035 1,250 1,250 103.7% 6 Rt. 219. Rt. 417 to Salamanca N. City Line 970 560 1,135 1,695 1,050 1,050 108.2% 7 Rt. 219. Salamanca N. City Line to Rt. 98 935 380 1,215 1,595 1,020 1,020 109.1% 8 Rt. 219. Rt. 98 to Rt. 242 overlap 1,050 500 1,220 1,720 1,130 1,130 107.6% 9 Rt. 219. Rt. 242 overlap to County Rt. 71 990 560 1,220 1,780 1,070 1,070 108.1% 10 Rt. 219. County Rt. 71 to end Rt. 242 overlap 1,035 570 1,220 1,790 1,115 1,115 107.7% 11 Rt. 219. end Rt. 242 overlap to County Rt. 12 930 370 1,475 1,845 1,015 1,015 109.1% 12 Rt. 219. County Rt. 12 to Erie County Line 970 520 1,365 1,885 505 560 1,065 109.8% Rt. 219. Erie County Line to east end Rt. 39 13 1,760 955 1,585 2,540 930 905 overlap 1,835 104.3% Rt. 219. east end Rt. 39 overlap to west start of 14 1,860 1,220 1,220 1,025 Rt. 39 overlap 1,025 55.1% 15 Rt. 219 north of Rt. 39 1,285 1,785 1,785 1,345 1,345 104.7%

Page 3-12 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

12610 Segment 15 17540 SPRINGVILLE

13200 ROUTE 219 EXP. ROUTE 39 17250 Segment 13 18250 9380 Segment 14 11980 9110 WAVERLY ST. 10080 ZOAR ZOAR VALLEY RD. -- VALLEY RD. Freeway ERIE COUNTY 15560 CATTARAUGUS COUNTY 8860 SCHWARTZ RD. HENRIETTA RD. Segment 12 9500

5100 219 Segment 11 9150 ROUTE CR 12 -- 4980 CONNOISARAULEY RD. Freeway 3630 13390 9960 5520 CR 12 Snake Run Rd Segment 9 9700 Segment 10 ASHFORD HOLLOW RD. - CR 53 5500 10150 10510 PLATO HEBDON RD. 5590 RD. CR75 10960 STREET 240 JEFFERSON ROUTE ROUTE ROUTE 219 242 CR ELLICOTTVILLE 71

HOLIDAY VALERIAN VALLEY ROAD WAY 10300

Segment 8 4910 11110 ROUTE 98 CR18 9200

Segment 7 3730 PETH 10010 CR67 219

DRAKE ROUTE 11800

Segment 5 8830 KILLBUCK SALAMANCA NORTH CITY LINE 12270 HICKORY AVE. CR 49 RD. 9500 WILDWOOD Segment 6 AVE 5500 10310 6800 219/417 5890 DRIVE DRIVEWAY SALAMANCA 7140 LEGEND 6960 Segment 2 ALLEGHENY 2025 5000 EXIT 21 No-Build AADT ROUTE 17 / ROUTE 219

136407430 BUSINESS 5000 2025 ROUTE 219 ROUTE 417 Freeway AADT Segment 4 PRIVATE 3430 2025 To Snake DRIVE Run Road ROUTE 417 5340 AADT

RIVER Segment 1 EXIT 23

15400 10240 NORTH 21700 13070 219 15850 ROUTE 10660 NOT TO SCALE Segment 3

New York State Department of Transportation Figure 3-2 Projected 2025 Freeway Partial Build Alternative to Snake Run Road Interchange Traffic Volumes - AADT’s Page 3-13 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

Page 3-14 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

SPRINGVILLE 239 24 338 ROUTE 219 34 5 273 97 69 30 296 242 155 279 35 44 5 30 5 308 ROUTE 39 108 22 53 40 18 177

19 119 29 496 5

ZOAR 96 WAVERLY ST. 335 195 197 5 ZOAR VALLEY 103 181 RD. 57 5 265 5 79 24 VALLEY RD. 5 48 152 76 216 51 190 81 11 6

52 10 9 163 ERIE COUNTY 5 HENRIETTA RD. SCHWARTZ CATTARAUGUS COUNTY 47 RD. 5 53

219 PETERS RD. EXT. 3 7 3

24 143

190

5 ROUTE CONNOISARAULEY RD. 12

5 0 5 182 87 41 92 182 57 5

5 6

0 5 5 5 5 82 0 143 5 47 75 286 0 301

1 SNAKE RUN RD. 120 32 401 88 5 6 0 5 291 111 5 296

ASHFORD 301

0 HOLLOW RD. 40 495 378 17 24 7 69 4 6 79

43 98 409 0 ASHFORD TOWN LINE 7 6 7 ELLICOTTVILLE TOWN LINE 8 17 119 395 HEBDON RD. 37 69 89 PLATO RD. CR75 334 449 7 6 120 9 39 357 0

219 66 440 13 7 188 56 49 ROUTE 0 47 17 499 46 69 103 STREET 240 JEFFERSON

ROUTE 219 ROUTE ROUTE 20 CR 66 20 242 242 242 11 54

465 2 ELLICOTTVILLE 71 76 20 22 10526 19 446 317 106 219 11 HOLIDAY 115 ELLICOTTVILLE TOWN LINE VALLEY RD. 0 26382 93 0 384 3 GREAT VALLEY TOWN LINE 29

2 9 0 3

0 495 ROUTE 98 CR18 50 73 318 123 29 29 PETH HUMPHREY CR67 RD. 106 118 DRAKE 219 3 314 112 232 66

3 80 CR 49 17 34 412 83 414 GREAT VALLEY TOWN LINE

3 205 29 KILLBUCK 109 2 3 281 6 WILDWOODHICKORY SALAMANCA NORTH CITY LINE 1 3 AV. RD. AVE. 30 53 162 100 219 7 3 475 CLINTON ST 219 ROUTE 417 245 3 9 ROUTE 417 BUSINESS 60 50 ROUTE 219 SALAMANCA 95 499 ST. 215 ALLEGHENY RIVER 66 26 86 359 SCHOOL 146 196 169 ROUTE 17 / ROUTE 219 199 105 327 FRENTIER VILLAGE ROUTE 142 DRIVE 167 417 218 224 222 272 5 73 338 255 3 9 52 209 16 5 0 5 0 ROUTE 17 22 0 72 154 NORTH 2 0 0 0 0 219 23 13 242 0 363 174 3 ROUTE NOT TO SCALE

Projected 2025 Preferred Freeway Partial Build Alternative to Snake Run Road Interchange Turning Movement Volumes Page 3-15 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

Page 3-16 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

3.C.2.b (1.2) Projected 2025 Level of Service Similar to the No-Build Alternative, the Level of Service, for traffic along U.S. Route 219 near Salamanca is projected to approach capacity resulting in Level of Service (LOS) E and F through much of the city. Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to Snake Run Road would slightly increase traffic volumes in this area, resulting in LOS F or exceeding capacity. Intersection improvements would be included in Salamanca under the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86. However, pausing freeway construction at the Snake Run Road Interchange, while awaiting an agreement between the Seneca Nation and the State of New York, would also postpone the required improvements along U.S. Route 219 near Salamanca. Without the installation of traffic signals at key intersections to improve the LOS in the City of Salamanca, they would remain at a LOS D or F. Segment and Intersection Level of Service for 2025 traffic volumes under the No-Build Alternative, full construction of the Preferred Freeway and construction of the Preferred Freeway to the Snake Run Road are shown in Table 3-5 and Table 3-6.

December, 2004 Page 3-17 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Table 3-5 Segment Level of Service Comparison 2025 Full Freew ay 2025 Freew ay to to I-86 Highway Segment 2025 No-Build Snak e Run Road (Preferred No Improvements Alternative)

De lay De lay De lay (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS 1. Bus. Rt. 219, Exit 23 to Route 417 510 D 350 C 545 C 2. Route 417, US 219 S to Central Ave. 695 C 600 C 730 C 3a. Route 17 Exit 23 to Exit 22 1,570 A 2,210 B 1,615 B 3b. Route 17 Exit 22 to Exit 21 1,570 A 1,645 B 1,615 B 4. Parkway Drive, Exit 21 to Route 417 710 C 510 D 760 D 5. Route 417, Parkway Drive to Central Ave. 1,205 E 900 D 1,250 E 6. US 219, Wildwood Ave. to Salamanca N. City Line 970 A 560 A 1,050 A 7. Salmanca N. City Line to Route 98 935 E 380 C 1,020 E 8. Route 98 to Ellicottville Town Line 1,050 E 500 C 1,130 E 8a. Ellicottville Town Line to Route 242 Overlap 1,050 E 500 C 1,130 E 9. Route 242 Overlap to County Route 71 990 E 560 E 1,070 E 10. County Route 71 to End Route 242 Overlap 1,035 E 570 C 1,120 E 11. End Route 242 Overlap to Connoisarauley Rd 930 E 370 C 1,015 E 12. Connoisarauley Rd to Erie County Line 970 E 520 D 510 C 13. Erie County Line to Route 39 1,760 F 955 E 930 E 14. Route 39 Overlap: Route 219 to Route 219 Expressway 1,860 F 1,220 C 1,030 A 15. Rt 219 Expressway north of Rt 39 1,285 A 1,785 B 1,345 A

219 Freeway: Ashford Hollow Interchange to Peters Road Interchan - - 1,365 A 560 A 219 Freeway: Peters Road Overpass - - 1,100 A 540 A 219 Freeway: Peters Road Interchange to Route 39 Interchange - - 1,585 A 900 A 219 Freeway: Route 39 Overpass - - 1,230 A 760 A Note: No-Build Alternative utilizes a two-lane cross-section for U.S. Route 219. Upgrade Alternative utilizes a four-lane, undivided cross-section for U.S. Route 219 except for section in Ellicottville which remains t wo lane cross-sect ion. Freeway Alternative utilizes a four-lane, divided cross-section for the U.S. Route 219 expressway; old Route 219 remains t wo lane highway cross-sect ion under t his alternat ive. = FEIS Revision

Page 3-18 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Table 3-6 Intersection Level of Service Comparison

2025 Full 2025 Freeway to Freeway to I-86 Snake Run Road Intersection Control 2025 No-Build (Preferred No Alternative) Improvements

De lay De lay De lay (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS Rt 219/Exit 23 Rt 17 EB Ramps U 1.1 A 2.0 A 1.2 A Rt 219/Exit 23 Rt 17 WB Ramps U 10.0 B - - 13.9 C Rt 219/Exit 23 Rt 17 WB Ramps S - - 7.7 B -- Bus. Rt 219 & Rt 954T/Rt 417 U 4.5 A 3.4 A 4.8 A Bus. Rt 219/Killbuck Road U 2.2 A 1.4 A 2.2 A Rt 219/Exit 22 Rt 17 EB Ramps U - - 6.0 B -- Rt 219/Exit 22 Rt 17 WB Ramps U - - 1.6 A -- Rt 219/Exit 21 Rt 17 EB Ramps U 1.2 A 1.5 A 1.2 A Rt 219/Exit 21 Rt 17 WB Ramps U 1.9 A 4.3 A 2.0 A Rt 219 (Parkway Drive)/Route 417 U 45.8 F - - 64.5 F Rt 219 (Parkway Drive)/Route 417 S - - 6.5 B -- Rt 219/Wildwood Avenue U 37.1 E - - 52.9 F Rt 219/Wildwood Avenue S - - 7.0 (1) B -- Rt 219/Rt 417 & Bus. Rt 219 U 8.3 B 2.7 (1) A 21.4 D Rt 219/Rt 417 & Bus. Rt 219 S ------Rt 219/East State Street U 65.8 F 6.4 B 121.7 F Rt 219/County Road 49 & Drake Road U 1.0 A 1.5 A 1.1 A Rt 219/Peth Road U 1.1 A 0.6 A 1.2 A Rt 219/County Road 98 & County Road 18 U 17.3 C 4.2 A 26.9 D Rt 219/Holiday Valley Road S 5.0 A 5.0 A 5.1 B Rt 219/Rt 242/Jefferson St S 11.3 B 9.9 B 17.4 C Rt 219/Rt 242 U 3.3 A 1.0 A 3.7 A Rt 242/Rt 240 U 1.0 A 0.7 A 1.0 A Rt 219/Plato Road & Hebdon Road U 0.6 A 1.1 A 0.6 A Rt 219/Ashford Hollow Road U 0.8 A 1.3 A 0.8 A Rt 219/Connoisarauley Road U 1.2 A 1.0 A 1.0 A Rt 219/Henrietta & Schwartz Road U 8.3 B 2.7 A 2.7 A

= FEIS Revision

December, 2004 Page 3-19 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Table 3-6 (Cont'd) Intersection Level of Service Comparison

2025 Full 2025 Freew ay to Freeway to I-86 Snake Run Road Intersection Control 2025 No-Build (Preferred No Alternative) Improvem ents

De lay De lay De lay (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS (sec.) LOS Rt 219/Zoar Valley Road S 11.1 B 6.8 B 6.8 B Rt 219/Rt 39 S * F 8.3 B 7.7 B Rt 219 NB On-Ramp/Rt 39 U 0.1 A - - 1.5 A RT219 NB On-Ramp/Rt 39 S - - 7.2 B -- Rt 219 SB O ff-Ramp/Rt 39 U * F - - 8.5 B Rt 219 SB O ff-Ramp/Rt 39 S - - 7.2 B -- Rt 39/Relocated Zoar Valley Road U - - 0.9 A 0.9 A Hickory Av. Interchange/Northbound Ramps U - - 2.5 A -- Hickory Av. Interchange/Southbound Ramps U - - 0.4 A -- Route 219/Hickory Av. U - - 0.5 A -- Humphrey Road Interchange/Northbound Ram U - - 1.2 A -- Humphrey Road Interchange/Southbound Ram U- -0.8A-- Route 219/Humphrey Road U - - 2.8 A -- Ellicottville Interchange/Route 242 U - - 2.3 A -- Snake Run Interchange/Northbound Ramps U - - 3.5 A 2.7 A Snake Run Interchange/Southbound Ramps U - - 0.3 A 1.7 A Route 219/Snake Run Road U - - 1.5 A 5.0 A Peters Road Interchange/Northbound Ramps U - - 2.0 A 0.5 A Peters Road Interchange/Southbound Ramps U - - 2.1 A 2.4 A Route 219/Peters Road U - - 2.5 A 1.5 A * = v/ c > 1/Peak Ho ur F act o r , t heref o r e d elay is ind et erminat e. ** = Fo r Upg rade Opt io n B Only. - = Int ersect o n Level o f Service no t ap p licab le und er t his alt ernat ive. U = Unsig nalized Int ersect io n S = Sig nalized Int ersect io n = FEIS Revision

Page 3-20 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

3.C.2.b (2) Queuing Analysis An analysis was prepared to calculate the vehicular queue lengths at critical intersections along US 219. This was done to determine if there is sufficient storage capacity or if the additional traffic resulting from partially building the freeway to Snake Run Road would cause adjacent intersections and driveways to be blocked by the queued vehicles above and beyond those blocked under the No-Build Alternative. The analysis was prepared for the design year 2025.

Based on the analysis, increased queue lengths resulting in additional sidestreets and driveways being blocked would occur at 5 intersections with US 219.

Location Intersection Direction Result one additional side street and one SB Great Valley US 219/CR18/NY98 additional driveway off US 219 NB one additional driveway off US 219

one additional side street and eight EB additional driveways off East State Street Salamanca US 219/East State Street one additional driveway off East State WB Street Salamanca US 219/NY 417 SB three additional driveways off US 219 Salamanca US 219/Wildwood Ave. EB one additional side street off Wildwood Salamanca US 219/Parkway Drive NB one additional driveway off US 219

These intersections are shown in the following figures. The locations of increased queue are highlighted in yellow.

December, 2004 Page 3-21 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca

Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

US 219 219 US US

DepotDepot StreetStreet

MuttonMutton HollowHollow RoadRoad

NYNY 9898

CR 18 CR

CR 18 18 CR CR

USUS 219219

Feet 0250 500

Page 3-22 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

AveryAvery AvenueAvenue

US 219 US 219

Sullivan Street Sullivan Street

E.E. StateState StreetStreet

HenryHenry StreetStreet

Merden Street Merden Merden Street Merden

Lincoln Avenue

Conrath Avenue Conrath Avenue

USUS 219219 // NYNY 417417

Feet 0250 500

December, 2004 Page 3-23 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

WildwoodWildwood AvenueAvenue

ALLEGHENYALLEGHENY RIVERRIVER

US219US219 // NYNY 417417

NYNY 417417

E.E. RaceRace StreetStreet

LexingtonLexington AvenueAvenue

ExitExit 2121

II -- 8686

Parkway Drive Parkway Drive Feet 0250 500

Page 3-24 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

More detailed results of the analysis are summarized in the following table.

Summary of Intersection Queues No-Build Partial Build w/o Imp. Partial Build w/ Improvement No. of Side- No. of No. of Side- No. of No. of Side- No. of Queuestreets Driveways Queue streets Driveways Queue streets Driveways

Intersection Control (feet) blocked blocked (feet) blocked blocked (feet) blocked blocked Rt 219/Rt 242 & Rt 219 U Rt 219/Rt 242 EB L 40 0 0 35 0 0 -- -- Rt 219 SB L 80 0 *0 / 1 70 0 0 ------Rt 219/Rt 242/Jefferson St S Rt 242 EB L 1000500------TR 105 0 *0 / 1 120 0 *0 / 1 ------Rt 219/Rt 242 WB L 255 0 *1 / 1 250 0 *1 / 1 ------TR 115 0 *1,1 125 0 *1 / 1 ------Rt 219 NB L 40 0 0 75 0 0 ------TR 210 0 *1 / 0 155 0 0 ------Jefferson St SB LTR 70 0 parking 60 0 parking ------Rt 219/CR 18/NY 98 U/S Rt 219 SB LTR 875 *1 / 0 *4 / 3 1000+ *2 / 0 *4 / 4 240 0 0 CR 18 WB LTR 50 0 *1 / 0 50 0 *1 / 0 75 0 *1 / 0 Rt 219 NB LTR 125 0 0 150 0 *1 / 0 200 0 *1 / 0 NY 98 SB LTR 50 0 *0 / 1 50 0 *0 / 1 55 0 *0 / 1 Rt 219/East State Street U/S East State St EB LTR 700 *2 / 1 *5 / 4 990 *3 / 1 *9 / 8 85 0 *0 / 1 East State St. WB LTR 100 0 *2 / 0 135 0 *2 / 1 60 0 0 Rt 219 NB LTR 100010009500 Rt 219 SB LTR 000000900*1 / 0 Bus. Rt 219/Rt 417/Rt 219 U/S Bus Rt 219/ Rt 417 EB LTR 60 0 *0 / 1 70 0 *0 / 1 -- 0 0 (L) ------105’ 0 *0 / 1 (TR) ------75’ 0 *0 / 1 Bus Rt 219/ Rt 417 WB LTR 000000135’0*2 / 0 Rt 219 NB LTR 1000150010’00 Rt 219 SB LT 150 0 *1 / 1 325 0 *3 / 2 80’ 0 *1 / 1 R 50 0 *1 / 0 55 0 *1 / 0 170’ 0 *1 / 0 Bus. Rt 219/Rt 417/Wildwood Ave U/S Bus Rt 219/Rt 417 NB (L)T 5005002000 (T) ------195 0 0 Bus Rt 219/Rt 417 SB T ------185 0 *4 / 2 R ------40 0 *1 / 0 Wildwood Ave EB LR 465 *0 / 1 *4 / 7 595 *0 / 1 *4 / 9 115 0 *0 / 2 Bus. Rt 219 (Parkway Dr)/Rt 417 U/S Rt 417 EB T ------130 0 *1 / 1 R ------60 0 *1 Rt 417 WB L 200025007000 T 00000014500 Bus Rt 219 (Parkway Dr) NB L 620 *2 / 2 *4 / 5 765 *2 / 2 *4 / 6 120 0 0 R 3000400012000 Route 219/Rt 954T/Route 417 U Rt 417 WB LT 500500------Rt 219 NB LR 75 0 0 80 0 0 ------Route 219/WB Exit 23 – Rt 17 U/S Exit 23 – Rt 17 WB LR 190 0 0 260 0 0 150 0 0 Rt 219 NB L 150020006500 T 0000008500 Rt 219 SB TR0000009500

L = Left *1 = (critical) side street/driveway blocked on the queued side of the road T = Thru 1= side street/driveway blocked on opposite side of road R = Right L= existing geometry, (L) proposed geometry with improvements NB, SB, EB, WB= northbound, southbound, eastbound, westbound U= unsignalized, S= signalized Queue values represent 95 percentile queues

December, 2004 Page 3-25 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Consideration was given to the possibility of drivers using side streets as a bypass due to the length of queued vehicles. The only locations where there appears to be a potential for the usage of a side street as a bypass alternative to a busy intersection is at East State Street and at Parkway Dr. Eastbound traffic on East State Street, waiting to travel northbound or southbound on US 219, may use Lincoln Ave. Similarly, northbound traffic on Parkway Drive may use Lexington Ave. At the remaining intersections (with no side street bypass option) vehicles would wait in queue.

To reduce these queuing conditions, and the potential for using side streets such as Lincoln Avenue and Lexington Ave. as a bypass, intersection improvements would be made at the time they become necessary. Improvements would consist of installation of a traffic signal at the five noted intersections. Additional improvements include providing a dedicated left turn lane for eastbound traffic at the US 219 intersection with NY 417. However, the existing right-of-way along NY 417 is 49.5 feet wide. A strip parcel taking along NY 417 (5' wide x 300' long along each side) would be required to construct a dedicated left turn lane for the eastbound to northbound movement. All other improvements along the existing US 219 corridor could be made without requiring additional right-of-way.

Page 3-26 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

3.C.2.b (3) Safety and Traffic Control Considerations In terms of statewide average accident rates, a rural 4-lane divided freeway experiences one of the lowest rates at 0.68 accidents per mvk, as compared to a two-lane undivided rural highway which averages 1.71 accidents per mvk, or a four-lane rural undivided highway at 2.08 accidents per mvk. Included in Table 3-7 are projected accidents for the No-Build or Null Alternative and for the Preferred Freeway constructed to both I-86 and the Snake Run Road Interchange. The accident projections include accidents on both existing U.S. Route 219 and the freeway for both freeway conditions, construction to I-86 and the Snake Run Road Inter- change. Analysis of constructing the Preferred Freeway to I-86, projected 177 annual accidents on existing U.S. Route 219, and 63 annual accidents on the new freeway, for a total of 240 accidents per year, and an overall accident rate of 1.26 accidents per mvk. Accidents on existing U.S. Route 219 were projected to decrease by about 50% compared with the Null Alternative, because most traffic would shift to the new freeway. Using an average cost of $58,600 per accident (NYSDOT), the total annual accident costs would equal $14.1 million, 33% less than the Null Alternative's projections. Analysis of constructing the Preferred Freeway to the Snake Run Road Interchange, projected 341 accidents on existing U.S. Route 219, and 18 annual accidents on the new freeway, for a total of 359 accidents per year, and an overall accident rate of 1.71 accidents per mvk. Accidents on existing U.S. Route 219 were projected to remain about the same compared with the Null Alternative. The total annual accident costs with this alternative would equal $21.0 million, nearly equal to the Null Alternative's projections and 50% greater than freeway construction to I-86.

December, 2004 Page 3-27 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Table 3-7 Projected 2025 Accident Rates Statewide Average Accident 2025 US 219 Corridor 2025 Accidents Rat e Traffic Assignment (AADT) (a x b x c x 365/106) (Accidents/MVK) (Note 1) (Accidents/Year) (b) (c) (d)

Length Se g- (km) ment Route # From To (a) Null Upgrade I-86 to Freeway to Snake Freeway Run Rd Null Upgrade I-86 to Freeway to Snake Freeway Run Rd Null Upgrade I-86 to Freeway to Snake Freeway Run Rd Existing U.S. Route 219 3b I-86 Exit 22 Exit 21 3.22 0.68 0.680.68 15400 14570 15400 15850 12 12 12 13 4 Parkside Dr. Exit 21 Wildwood Ave. 0.48 2.30 2.302.30 6950 4910 5000 7430 3 2 2 3 5 Wildwood Ave. Parkside Dr. Central Ave. 0.64 3.47 3.473.47 11800 9810 8830 12270 10 8 7 10 Salamanca 6 Central Ave. Wildwood Ave. north City Line 1.45 3.47 3.473.47 9500 5990 5500 10310 17 11 10 19 Salamanca N. 7 US 219 City Line NY 98 6.91 1.71 2.081.71 9200 9200 3730 10010 40 48 16 43 0.8 km north of 8a1 US 219 NY 98 NY 98 0.80 3.06 3.783.06 10300 10300 4910 11110 9 11 4 10 0.8 km north of Ellicottville 8a2 US 219 NY 98 Bypass 5.31 1.71 2.081.71 10300 5500 4910 11110 34 22 16 37 Ellicottville 8b US 219 Bypass NY 242 Overlap 1.61 3.06 3.063.06 9700 4320 5500 11110 17 8 10 20 9 US 219 NY 242 Overlap CR 71 0.64 3.06 3.063.06 9700 4320 5500 10510 7 3 4 8 End NY 242 10 US 219 CR 71 Overlap 0.96 3.06 3.063.06 10150 4120 5590 10960 11 4 6 12 End NY 242 Connoisarau- 11 US 219 Overlap ley Rd 19.94 1.71 2.081.71 9150 9150 3630 9960 114 139 45 124 Connoisarau- Erie County 12 US 219 ley Rd Line 3.36 1.71 2.081.71 9500 9500 5100 4980 20 24 11 10

13 US 219 Erie County Line Zoar Valley Rd. 3.15 1.71 2.081.71 17250 17250 9380 9110 34 41 18 18 13 US 219 Zoar Valley Rd. NY 39 Overlap 1.04 3.61 3.783.61 17250 17250 9380 9110 24 25 13 12 End NY 39 14 US 219 NY 39 Overlap Overlap 0.16 4.09 4.094.09 18250 18250 11980 10080 4 4 3 2 SubTotals 49.67 356 362 177 341 Freeway Segments Freeway I-86 Hickory St. 2.60 - -0.68 - - 4000 - - 3 0 Freeway Hickory St. Humphrey Rd. 6.80 - -0.68 - - 5470 - - 9 0 Freeway Humphrey Rd. Ellicottville Int. 12.21 - -0.68 - - 5390 - - 16 0

Freeway Ellicottville Int. Snake Run Rd. 12.60 - -0.68 - - 5520 - - 17 0 Freeway Snake Run Rd. Peters Rd. Int. 6.02 - -0.68 - - 4400 4520 - - 7 7 Freeway Peters Rd. Int. Rt 39 5.51 - -0.68 - - 7870 8140 - - 11 11 SubTotals 45.74 0 0 63 18 Projected 2025 Accidents (Accidents/Year) 356 395 240 359 Total Annual Million Vehicle Kilometers of Travel 190 181 191 211 Combined Accident Rate (Accidents / MVK) 1.87 2.19 1.26 1.71 Annual Accident Costs ($ million) Note 2 $20.9 $23.1 $14.1 $21.0 Notes 1. Corridor Traffic does not include local or long distance diversions. See Section E.5 in Appendix E - Traffic Report. 2. Annual Accident Costs based on an average cost of $58,600/accident Source: NYSDOT-Accident Severity Distribution Data for 1996 Average Accident Costs - Rural Area Type = Change due to error in FEIS

Page 3-28 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

3.C.2.b. (4) Transportation User Benefits This section of the report correlates to Section E.5 in Appendix E of the FEIS. Transportation User Benefits provided by the Preferred Freeway Alternative include both travel timesavings and accident cost savings. As noted in Section E.3.c of Appendix E of the FEIS, the full Freeway Alternative to I-86 would save 24 minutes over the Null Alternative. The Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would save 5 minutes over the Null Alternative. Travel time benefits are analyzed below using cost factors from the current New York State Department of Transportation Highway User Cost Accounting (HUCA) Tables (Jan. 1997). For autos and light trucks a time value of $7.20/hour was used, and for trucks a time value of $21.14 was used. A traffic model was used for this project to estimate the number of trips that would divert to an improved U.S. Route 219, based on the level of improvements. However, the model did not contain the detail necessary to estimate the amount of time saved by local or long distance trips diverted. To provide a common basis for comparison between alternatives, the traffic projections were divided into three components described below, which are also shown in Table E.5- 1:

• Trips that would use U.S. Route 219 if no improvements were made (2025 Corridor Traffic = 2025 Null Alternative traffic, divided between existing U.S. Route 219 and either the proposed Upgrade bypasses or the proposed Freeway); • long-distance trips that would use another corridor, but would divert to an improved U.S. Route 219 because it would provide a time savings; and, • local trips that would use another local route, but would divert to an improved U.S. Route 219 because it would provide some travel time savings.

December, 2004 Page 3-29 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca

Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Traffic (AADT) Traffic

Total Projected Projected Total

Assignment (AADT) Assignment

Long Dist Diversions Dist Long

Assignment (AADT) Assignment Local Diversions Local

to Snake Run Road Run Snake to

(AADT) Traffic Assignment Assignment Traffic

Preferred Freeway Alternative Freeway Preferred 2025 US 219 Corridor Corridor 219 US 2025

Traffic (AADT) Traffic

Total Projected Projected Total

Assignment (AADT) Assignment

Long Dist Diversions Dist Long

Assignment (AADT) Assignment Alternative to I-86 Diversions Local

Preferred Freeway Preferred

Correction= from the FEIS (AADT)

4,4007,870 5,940 4,640 3,050 3,050 13,390 15,560 4,520 8,140 336 56 664 664 5,520 8,860

Traffic Assignment Assignment Traffic

2025 US 219 Corridor Corridor 219 US 2025 Traffic Projections Traffic

Null No-Build 2025 No-Build Alternative Segment New FreewayNew Segments Table E.5-1 Table by Segment 2025 AADT of Components 3b Rt 17. Exit 22 to Exit 214 Rt Route219. 17 Exit 21 to Rt 4175 Rt Rt417219. end to Rt 417 overlap City N Line Salamanca to Rt 417 Rt 219. 6 7 Rt 219. Salamanca N. City to Line Rt 988a Rt 219. BypassRt 98 Ellicottville begin to Bypass8b Ell. Rt 219 Begin to Route 2429 Rt 219. 9,500 Rt 242 overlap CR71to 11,800 6,95010 Rt 219. CR71 to end Rt 242 overlap 10,300 9,20011 Rt 219. 242 overlapEnd to Conn. Road 15,400 5,50012 Rt 219. Connoisaurley Rd Erie Countyto 8,830 5,000Lin 10,300Rd Zoar to County Valley Erie 219. Line 13a Rt 4,910 3,730 15,40013b Rt 219. Zoar Rd Valley to Rt39 overlap 9,50014 Rt 219. Rt 39 end to Rt 39 overlap 4,910 10,150 17,250 9,150 0 9,700 0 0HickorytoRt 17 Av Interchange 740 5,100 0 17,250 0Hickory 5,590 9,380 Av Int. 3,630to Humphrey Rd IntInt Humphrey Ellicottville to Int Rd 5,500 0 Int to SnakeEllicottville Run Road Int 0 9,380 0 0 18,250Snake Run Road Int to Peters IntRoad 0 0 0 0 0 5,500 0 0 8,830 5,000 16,140 11,980 0 0 4,910 10,310 3,730 12,270 15,850 7,430 0 11,110 10,010 4,910 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,110 0 0 0 0 5,100 0 5,590 9,380 3,630 0 0 4,000 0 5,470 5,500 0 0 0 4,980 10,960 9,110 0 9,960 5,390 5,520 10,310 0 9,380 12,270 10,510 15,850 0 7,430 11,110 4,070 3,410 10,010 0 0 0 9,110 11,980 0 0 3,510 5,890 0 11,110 10,080 3,050 3,050 0 0 0 0 0 3,050 3,050 11,120 0 11,930 10,960 4,980 0 9,110 11,950 9,960 14,460 10,510 0 ------0 9,110 -- -- 10,080 ------Peters Road Int to Springville Int

Page 3-30 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Travel Time Cost Savings - 2025 Corridor Traffic The travel cost savings provided by the Full Build and Partial Build Freeway are shown in Table E.5-2. The table includes a list of segments along U.S. Route 219, and new highway segments included with either the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 or to the Snake Run Road. Corridor traffic volumes on each segment are from Table E.5-1 above. Travel costs are computed for each segment and summarized based on the daily vehicle hours of travel by segment and operating costs from HUCA’97. While not shown, total vehicle kilometers traveled are similar for the three alternatives. However, there are substantial differences in total vehicle hours of travel. The Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 would reduce daily vehicle hours of travel on this segment of U.S. Route 219 by 31% (6,311 hours vs. 9,100 hours), while the Freeway Alternative to Snake Run Road would reduce it by 8% (8,454 hours vs. 9,100 hours). These timesavings translate into an annual cost savings for the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 of $9.203 million, and $2.104 million for the Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road.

December, 2004 Page 3-31 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca

Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Daily Vehicle Operating Costs Operating Vehicle Daily

(hours)

Daily Vehicle Hours of Travel of Hours Vehicle Daily Travel Time (mm:ss) Time Travel 4:55 910.4 $8,205 6:50 1140.0 $10,274 2:20 400.9 $3,446 2:30 511.3 $4,394

to Snake Run Roadto Run Snake Freeway Alternative Freeway

Running Speed (km/h) Speed Running Corridor Traffic (AADT) Traffic Corridor 4,520 1058,140 104 3:27 3:10 259.9 $2,342 429.6 $3,872 10,510 36 1:04 186.8 $1,788 364 11,110 52 1:51 342.6 $3,087 674 4,980522 9,110 82644 9,110 76 2:27 53 2:30 1:10 203.4 $1,634 379.6 $3,421 177.1 $1,596 919 15,850 72 2:41 708.8 $6,092

$762 10,960 58 1:00 182.7 $1,493 $430 7,430 26 1:07 138.3 $1,188 Daily Vehicle Operating Costs Operating Vehicle Daily $8,122 9,960 83 14:27 2398.7 $22,286

99.8 $900 10,080 19 0:30 84.0 $757

(hours) Daily Vehicle Hours of Travel of Hours Vehicle Daily

to I-86 Travel Time (mm:ss) Time Travel 4:55 402.3 $3,626 11,110 75 5:56 368.9 $3,324 10,010 61 1:48 165.0 $1,418 10,310 37 0:49 120.2 $1,033 12,270 15

Freeway Alternative Freeway Running Speed (km/h) Speed Running Corridor Traffic (AADT) Traffic Corridor

$0 $25,215 $5,764 Daily Vehicle Operating Costs Operating Vehicle Daily

220.9 $2,114 5,500 36 1:04 97.8 $936 438.1 $3,520 5,100 82 2:27 208.3 $1, 742.7 $6,693 9,380 76 2:30 390.8 $3, 688.7 $5,919 15,400 72 2:41 688.7 $5,

(hours) 9100.4 6311.2 8454.1 Daily Vehicle Hours of Travel of Hours Vehicle Daily

12 377.7 $3,404 4,910 52 1:51 151.4 $1, 03 177.6 $1,452 5,590 58 1:00 93.2 45 2401.9 $22,316 3,630 83 14:27 874.2 10 1197.9 $10,796 9,380 53 1:10 182.4 $1, Travel Time (mm:ss) Time Travel 5:32 949.9 $8,561 4,910 75 6:41 1024.8 $9,236 3,730 70 1:48 285.0 $2,449 5,500 48 0:361:54 69.5 373.7 $3,211 $597 8,830 5,000 47 48 0:36 50.0

Null Alternative

Running Speed (km/h) Speed Running 19 0:30 152.1 $1,371 11,980 19 0:30

Corridor Traffic (AADT) Traffic Corridor

Percent Trucks Percent Segment Length (km) Length Segment 5.51 13% 7,870 104 3:10 415.4 $3,743 2.60 10%6.02 13% 4,000 104 1:30 4,400 100.0 105 $859 3:27 0 253.0 $2,280 0 0 0.0 $0 s oad Int 12.60 13% 5,520 105 7:14 665.5 $5,997 0 0 0 0.0 $0 FORM ULA ----> A B C BxC [1] B C BxC [1] B C BxC [1] Segment New FreewayNew Segment Table E.5-2 Table Traffic Corridor 2025 - Savings Time Travel 8b Rt 219 Begin Ell. Bypass Ell. to Rt 2428b Rt 219 Begin 9 Rt 219. 242 overlap to CR71 1.61 13% 10,300 0.64 44 17% 2: 9,700 28 1:22 8a Rt 219. Rt 98 to begin E'ville Bypass E'ville 8a Rt 219. 98 to begin 6.11 13% 10,30010 Rt 219. CR71 to end 242 overlap 66 0.96 7% 10,150 55 1: 11 Rt 219. End 242 overlap to Conn. Rd.11 Rt 219. End 19.94 15%12 Rt 219. Connoisaurley Rd to ECL 9,150 3.36 76 6% 15: 9,500 73 2:46 7 Rt 219. Sal. N. City Line to Rt 98 N. City Line 7 Rt 219. Sal. 6.91 13% 9,200 62 to Zoar Rd13a Rt 219. ECL Valley 13b Rt 219. Zoar Rd to Rt39 Valley Rt39 overlap14 Rt 219. 39 to end 3.15 13% 1.04 0.16 17,250 13% 13% 17,250 73 18,250 15 2:35 4: 6 Rt 219. Rt 417 to Sal. NCity Line6 Rt 219. 417 to Sal. 1.45 10% 9,500 48 3b Rt 17. Exit 22 to Exit 213b Rt 17. Exit 22 3.22 10% 15,400 72 2:41 5 Rt 219. Rt417 to end Rt417 overlap5 Rt 219. Rt417 to end 0.64 10% 11,800 20 4 Rt 219. Route 17 Exit 21 to Rt 4174 Rt 219. Route 17 Exit 0.48 10% 6,950 48 Peters Road Int to Springville Int Peters Road Int to Springville of Travel Hours Vehicle Daily Total Total Operating Daily Cost CostDaily Benefit trucks. of percent on based Annual varies Cost Benefit segment ($ million) each for costs Operating [1] Hour / Cost Operating - Trucks other Vehicles - Operating Cost All / Hour $7.20 $21.14 $81,639 $0 Correction = from FEIS $56,424 $9.203 $75,875 $2.104 Hickory Av Int. to Humphrey RdInt IntHumphrey RdInt to Ellicottville Ellicottville Int to Snake 6.80 Run R 13% 12.21 13% 5,470 105 5,390 105 3:54 7:00 355.6 628.8 $3,204 $5,667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 $0 Rt 17 to Hickory Av Interchange Snake Run Road Int to Peters Road Int

Page 3-32 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Travel Time Cost Savings - Long Distance Trip Diversions Section 3.C.2.b. of this report includes an analysis of the long distance trips that would divert to an improved U.S. Route 219. The number of trips were based on the percent of travel time saved by constructing the incremental portions of the Preferred Freeway Alternative. The cost savings realized by these diverted trips were also computed based on the proportion of trips diverted by the Full Build Freeway to the Partial Build Freeway. These cost saving are summarized in Table E.5-3 below. This table compares the total hours of travel for daily trips between the Buffalo Metropolitan Statistical Area or Central Ontario and other metropolitan areas (external macro zones) in the United States. HUCA’97 cost factors were used to estimate benefits. An average percentage of trucks was used, based on the data in Table E.3-4 in Section E.3.d. of Appendix E of the FEIS.

December, 2004 Page 3-33 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 37 26 273 556 481 1,299 1,084 VHT (hours) Time (hh:mm) Trips on Trips 0 17:28 09:22 09:12 06:03 0 17:38 04:01 03:51 02:44 02:34 05:05 04:55 75:21 55:11 05:53 17 2:36 91 5:17 112178 2:26 152 7:18 7:08 102 5:27 Route 219 Freeway Trips 0 0 4,302 VHT (hours) 7:177:07 3,139 2,050 3:17 17,392 2:03 2,308 8:01 4,377 1:471:37 4,808 3:40 2,907 3:30 3,527 4:49 2,247 4:39 395 256 7:51 6,822 3:07 11,008 1:53 3,463 5:18 2,836 15:05 20,996 15:15 31,827 Time (hh:mm) Trips on Trips 03:07 02:57 s 82 55 p Alternate Route Alternate 431 288 Freeway Alternative to Snake Run Road 546 962 642 869 838535 5:08 1,392 5,297 1,126 2,696 1,798 2,087 3,532 1,839 Tri 25,015 124,660 664 3,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 171 174 1,090 4,758 5,698 2,066 2,413 VHT (hours) Time (hh:mm) Trips on Trips 09:03 08:53 0 17:09 05:44 02:25 02:15 04:46 04:36 05:34 0 17:19 03:42 03:32 23 4:52 34 5:02 76 2:17 515 2:07 698 6:49 816 6:59 416 4:58 470 5:08 Route 219 Freeway Trips 0 0 VHT (hours) 3:17 17,392 3:07 11,008 Time (hh:mm) Trips on Trips 03:07 02:57 s p Alternate Route 5,297 3,532 Tri 0 0 VHT (hours) 3:17 17,392 3:07 11,008 Time (hh:mm) Route 219) s Null Alternativep Freeway Alternativeto I-86 03:07 02:57 (Trips Not Using (Trips Daily 5,297 3,532 Tri 25,679 128,600 22,631 110,511 3,048 16,482 in g Trip Buffalo Exit 50 431Exit 50 7:17 3,139 431 7:17 3,139 Exit 55 288 7:07 2,050 288 7:07 2,050 Exit 55 1,392 15:05 20,996Exit 55 1,392 15:05 20,996 Exit 55 1,238 2:03 2,538 723 2:03 1,482 Exit 55 60 4:39 279 37 4:39 172 Exit 50 Exit 50 2,696Exit 50 1:47 4,808 962Exit 50 2,696 3:40 89 1:47 3,527 4,808 4:49 962 429 3:40 3,527 55 4:49 265 Exit 55 698 8:01 5,596 0Exit 55 8:01Exit 55 0 1,798Exit 55 1:37 2,907 642 1,798 3:30 1:37 2,247 2,907 642 3:30 2,247 Exit 50 1,047Exit 50 7:51 2,087 8,219 15:15 31,827 231 2,087 7:51 15:15 31,827 1,813 Exit 50 1,856 1:53 3,495 1,780 1:53 3,352 Exit 55 626 5:18 3,318 210 5:18 1,113 Exit 50 940 5:08 4,825 470 5:08 2,413 ort, … ort, p Table E.5-3 Time Savings LongTravel - Diversions Trip Distance South (Charleston) South West External Macro Zone Macro External Ori Dubois, PA Dubois, Erie, PA PA Pittsburgh, Somerset, PA Zones Macro All Total Daily Trips Alt. RoutesDaily Trips Route 219Total Daily TripsDaily VHT Alt. RoutesDaily VHT Route 219Total Daily VHTDaily Time SavingsHourly Cost [1]Daily Cost SavingsAnnual Cost Savings ($ million)[1] Hourly cost computed based on 40% distance of long trips are made by trucks (See Table E.3-4), and the hourly cost factors from HUCA'97. Trucks 25,679 - Operating Cost / Hour other Vehicles - All Operating Cost / Hour 128,600 $7.20 0 25,679 $21.14 $0.000 0 128,600 0 $12.78 $0 22,631 110,511 3,048 25,679 $7.494 16,482 126,993 1,607 $12.78 $20,531 25,015 124,660 25,679 664 $0.653 128,460 3,800 $12.78 $1,789 140 Washington, DC, ... Southeast Williams Harrisburg,…

Page 3-34 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Travel Time Cost Savings - Local Trips Diverted to U.S. Route 219 Local trips diverted to U.S. Route 219 would realize travel time savings under both scenarios of the Preferred Freeway Alternative. The cost benefits accruing from these trips are summarized in Table E.5-4. It was assumed that one-half the time savings provided by the alternative would be realized by each diverted trip. The full time savings was not used because it is likely that the alternate local route would provide a time savings over the unimproved U.S. Route 219. The numbers of trips are from Table E.5- 1. The number of local trips diversions varies depending on the segment. The trips included in Table E.5-4 are the average for the project area. The percentages of trucks and autos in Table E.5-4 likewise are the averages for the project area based on the data in Table E.5-2. HUCA’97 cost factors were then used to estimate benefits.

Table E.5-4 Travel Time Savings - Local Trip Diversions Freeway Fre e w ay Alternative Up gr ad e Alternative to Snake Run Alternative to I-86 Road Local Trips Diverted (Daily Trips) 1,200 5,000 330 Travel Time Savings Springv ille to Salamanca (minutes) 13 24 5 Percent assumed for local diversions 50% 50% 50% Time savings per diverted trip (minutes) 6.5 12.0 2.5 Travel Time Savings per Day (hours) 130 1000 14 Cost per Hour (13% trucks @ $21.14/ hour 87% autos @ $7.20/ hour) $9.01 $9.01 $9.01 Daily Cost Savings $1,171 $9,010 $124 Annual Cost Savings $427,525 $3,288,650 $45,219

User Benefit Summary The four categories of transportation user benefits discussed above are summarized in Table E.5-5 below:

Table E.5-5 Annual 2025 Transportation User Benefits

Freeway Alternative Free w ay Alternative Benefit Category to I-86 to Snak e Run Road Travel Tim e Cost Savings $ m illions $ m illions Corridor Traffic $9.203 $2.104 Long Distance Diversions $7.494 $0.653 Local Trip Diversions $3.289 $0.045 Accident Cost Savings $6.798 -$0.176

Total Annual User Benefit $26.784 $2.626

3.C.2.c Pavement Pavement section for the Preferred Freeway Alternative was designed based on the New York State Pavement Design Requirements, which requires that designs consider an-

December, 2004 Page 3-35 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

ticipated traffic volumes and analyze pavement options with a minimum service life of 50 years. The recommended pavement section for the Preferred Freeway Alternative is a PCC pavement with a total section thickness of 650 mm as stated in Section 3.C.2.c. of the FEIS. This includes 250 mm of PCC over 100 mm of permeable base over 300 mm of subbase course. Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not change the pavement section.

3.C.2.d. Structures Structures for the Preferred Freeway Alternative have been developed in the FEIS to the point necessary to estimate costs and impacts. With regard to bridges and structures, preliminary design efforts have been limited to identifying bridge locations, approximate spans, clearances and costs. Specific details regarding bridge types, final span arrange- ments, etc. are normally studied during final design (Structure Design Justification Re- port, Structure Study Plans, Preliminary Structure Plans). Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would require construction of all bridges noted for the Preferred Freeway Alternative in Section 3.C.2.d. of the FEIS, excluding the two (2) long multispan structures crossing N.Y. Route 417, Great Valley Creek, B&PRR, Conrail and the Allegheny River and the two (2) structures crossing over I-86 at the U.S. Route 219/I-86 Interchange.

3.C.2.e. Hydraulics As stated in the FEIS, the design of waterway openings for all structures will include a “Risk Analysis,” as described in 23CFR650A . The overtopping flood will be identified if the recurrence interval is less than 100 years. Design guidelines suggest that all structures provide a minimum freeboard of 0.6 m for the 50-year storm, with some freeboard for the 100-year storm. With construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative, 800 m of Great Valley Creek opposite Hungry Hollow Road along Killbuck Hill will be relocated as shown in Figure 4- 14 in Section 4.B.3.h (2.2) of the FEIS. The creek relocation is necessary to allow construction of the freeway around the side of the hill, and to mitigate impacts to the creek’s floodway. This option was considered in lieu of a long curving structure, which had significantly higher construction costs and long-term maintenance costs. After re- viewing the options with the NYSDEC, it was agreed that the creek relocation would be most cost effective. Special construction details will be incorporated to maintain existing floodway capacity and avoid other environmental effects. Subsequent to the DR/DEIS/4(f), additional hydraulic studies have been completed for the Great Valley Creek and Allegheny River drainage basins, and are included in Appen- dix S of the FEIS. The studies concluded that a variety of techniques would effectively mitigate floodplain impacts, including stormwater detention within the Freeway right-of- way and floodplain replacement, as proposed above with the Great Valley Creek realignment.

Page 3-36 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would adhere to the same hydraulic design criteria as construction of the full freeway. It would also include the relocation of Great Valley Creek. However, pausing freeway construction at the Snake Run Road Interchange would temporarily postpone construction of the bridge over the Allegheny River.

3.C.2.f. Drainage The Preferred Freeway Alternative would include a typical open drainage system of ditches and culverts as described in Section 2.C.2.f. of the FEIS. The open drainage system would discharge into existing watercourses, and would be designed to both maintain existing drainage patterns and to minimize changes to water levels in those watercourses. Partial construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative would not change the drainage concepts from those described in the FEIS. The drainage system would be designed as noted in the FEIS and carried to accommodate construction.

3.C.2.g. Maintenance Responsibility The new freeway facility, including all freeway bridges and the primary structural elements of all local road bridges over the freeway and ramps would be owned and maintained by the NYSDOT. Local governments would be responsible for maintenance of several local road bridge elements, including wearing surfaces, railings, sidewalks and approach pavements. Any reconstructed or realigned local road would be owned and maintained by its current owner. Park-and-Ride lots would be owned by the NYSDOT, but would be maintained and cleared of snow under an agreement with the municipality in which it is located. As each section of the freeway is built, the corresponding section of the existing Route 219 will be maintained by the county in which it is located. For example, upon construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange, ownership and maintenance responsibility for existing U.S. Route 219 between Springville and the access road to the Snake Run Road Interchange, including all bridges, culverts, storm sewers and other appurtenances would be transferred to Erie and Cattaraugus County. The section of existing U.S. Route 219 from the access road at the Snake Run Road Interchange to I-86 will be maintained by the NYSDOT until completion of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the I-86 connection. Upon completion of the Full Freeway the remaining section of existing U.S. Route 219 will be transferred to Cattaraugus County. Table 3-8 shows a comparison of estimated annual highway maintenance costs for the 44-km segment of the Preferred Freeway Alternative and the 41-km segment of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange based on statewide average costs per lane-kilometer for state maintained highways. Costs to other agencies to maintain sections that may be transferred as described above may be different, as maintenance standards may be different.

December, 2004 Page 3-37 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Table 3-8 Maintenance Cost Estimates

Lane- Lane- M aint. Cos t Kilom e te rs Kilom e te rs Total Lane per Lane- Total Annual Alternative Unimproved Improved Kilom ete rs Kilom e te r M aint. Cost Peferred Freeway (Construction to I-86) 94.4 203.4 297.8 $6,658 $1,982,752 Preferred Freew ay (Construction to Snake Run Road) 94.4 58.5 152.9 $6,658 $1,018,008

3.C.2.h. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Maintaining traffic through construction work zones often involves high costs for signs, flaggers, temporary signals, pavements, striping and sometimes temporary bridges. It also involves added risks for both motorists and workers, and can cause considerable congestion and delays. The increased time and resources necessary to maintain traffic through a construction work zone must be included in the project's schedule and cost estimate. Maintaining local road access across the freeway would be a primary concern. In many cases the freeway will cross over the local road avoiding traffic interruptions during construction. In locations where the local road crosses over the freeway, temporary road- ways or local detour routes may be necessary during construction of the local road bridge. Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative would also be accomplished with a series of construction contracts over a number of years. Completed sections of the freeway would be opened to traffic with construction continuing down the line. Con- struction of the Preferred Freeway to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not alter the concepts used for maintenance and protection of traffic from those stated under the Freeway Alternative in the FEIS.

3.C.2.i. Soils and Foundations Subsurface investigations will be required in many locations during final design to verify preliminary design assumptions and to determine foundation requirements for bridges as noted in Section 3.C.2.i. of the FEIS. Poor soil conditions are not expected and impacts associated with foundations are expected to be negligible.

3.C.2.j. Utilities As stated in Section 3.C.2.j. of the FEIS, the Preferred Freeway Alternative may affect minor road side utilities, especially near interchanges and avoidance of major utilities was a preliminary design objective. Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not change the impacts to minor utilities between Springville and the Snake Run Road and would also require relocation of the minor utilities listed in Section 3.C.2.j. of the FEIS. However, impacts to minor utilities along the alignment from the Snake Run Road to I-86 will remain undisturbed until construction resumes to complete the freeway connection to I-86.

Page 3-38 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

3.C.2.k. Railroads Railroad impacts caused by construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to either location, I-86 or the Snake Run Road will remain the same. Temporally pausing construction at the Snake Run Road would delay construction of the two bridges over the railroad lines located on Seneca Nation land. However, pending an agreement with the Seneca Nation of Indians to cross Seneca land, the two (2) structures noted above would be constructed when freeway construction is completed to I-86. Additionally, relocation of 2,800 m of B&PRR track near the proposed N.Y. Route 242 Interchange would not be required until such time that the project is progressed to that interchange.

3.C.2.l. Right-of-Way The Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 or to the Snake Run Road Interchange follow the same footprint. Therefore, the required right-of-way between Springville and Snake Run Road would remain the same as published in Section 3.C.2.k. of the FEIS. Paused construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative at the Snake Run Road Interchange would temporarily reduce the right-of-way required between Snake Run Road and I-86. This area would include the would temporarily delay acquisition of thirty three (33) residences and twenty seven (27) mobile homes along the remaining corridor for the Pre- ferred Freeway Alternative. Table 3-9 shows the right-of-way acquisition for both of the above situations.

Table 3-9 Right of Way to Be Acquired Preferred Freeway Alternatives to I-86 and Snake Run Road

Segment (from - to) Length (km) No. of Parcels Area (ha) Houses Homes Mobile Garages Barns Sheds Misc. Bldgs. Commercial Business Names Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 N.Y. Route 39 to Peters Road 5.2 331092010000 Peters Road to Snake Run Road 6.0 251370101000 Snake Run Road to Irish Hill Road 7.0 471344121610 Irish Hill Road to N.Y. Route 242 5.6 261191000010 N.Y. Route 242 to Brewer Cross Rd. 6.4 351428125150 Brewer Cross Road to C.R. 18 3.9 43104112425320 C.R. 18 to Salamanca Railyard 6.8 241015144539 Donver Sawmill Salamanca Railyard to I-86 2.7 894020300 Total 43.6 241 855 35 28 13 16 18 12 9 Preferred Freeway Alternative to Snake Run Road N.Y. Route 39 to Peters Road 5.2 331092010000 Peters Road to Snake Run Road 6.0 251370101000 Total 11.2582462111000

December, 2004 Page 3-39 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

3.C.2.m. Landscape Development Landscape development is included to complement and enhance the existing surrounding rural countryside, and to mitigate roadway improvements in a natural manner. Highly ornamental species of vegetation are not appropriate for this setting and will not be introduced nor promoted. The use of native plant species will be a primary objective for all landscape development in order to fully blend into the existing environment. From creek edges to roadside slopes, wetland areas to wooded areas, the proposed landscape development will help the project fit “naturally” into the surrounding setting. Landscape development and mitigation techniques for the Preferred Freeway Alternative will be carried for the length of roadway improvements. Pausing construction of the freeway at the Snake Run Road Interchange would pause the landscape development at that point also. Upon agreement with the Seneca Nation to construct the remainder of the freeway to I-86, development and mitigation would continue to complement and enhance surroundings.

3.C.2.n. Provisions for Pedestrians, Including Persons with Disabilities Pedestrians and non-vehicular traffic would be prohibited from using the freeway or its ramps. Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 or pausing construction at the Snake Run Road Interchange would not change provisions for pedestrians on the freeway. Pedestrians travelling along the unimproved portion of existing US 219 would continue to use the existing shoulder.

3.C.2.o. Provisions for Bicycling Bicycles and pedestrians would be prohibited from using the freeway. Pausing construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative at the Snake Run Road Interchange would not change provisions for bicycling from what is stated in the FEIS. Bicyclists travelling along the unimproved portion of existing US 219 would also continue to use the existing shoulder.

3.C.2.p. Lighting Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not change lighting requirements between Springville and the Snake Run Road but would temporarily postpone the need for lighting at the interchange located at I-86. Light- ing requirements for completion of the freeway to I-86 would remain consistent with the FEIS.

3.C.2.q. Park-and-Ride Lots Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 or pausing construction at the Snake Run Road Interchange would not change the three (3) proposed Park-and-Ride locations described in Section 3.C.2.q. of the FEIS.

Page 3-40 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

3.D. PROJECT COSTS AND SCHEDULE

3.D.1. Costs A construction cost estimate for the Preferred Freeway Alternative is included in Appen- dix C, and summarized in Table 3-10 of the FEIS. Construction costs are given in 2002 dollars. Inflation between 2002 and the time of construction is not included. Engineering and construction inspection costs are factored into these estimates. The estimated cost for the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 is $612.6 million as noted in the FEIS. The estimated cost for the Preferred Freeway Alternative from Springville to the Snake Run Road Interchange would reduce this cost by $488.6 million to $124.0 million and would not include the 32.4 km. south of the Snake Run Road.

3.D.2. Schedule The following tentative schedule depends on timely allocation of funds for Final Design, Right-of-Way Acquisition and Construction. Any delays or lack of funding would extend the schedule.

• Design Approval 2005 • Final Design 2005- 2013 • Right-of-Way Acquisition 2005 - 2013 • Construction 2006 - 2014

3.D.3. Construction Phasing In Section 3.D.3. of the FEIS, for estimating purposes, the 44 km long full freeway was divided into 8 segments. Each of the eight segments could be constructed separately, as they all end at interchanges or where a temporary connection with existing U.S. Route 219 could be made. Construction phasing decisions would be based on a number of factors, including available funding and priorities. In the FEIS, the phasing sequence included two segments per phase. Below the phasing sequence is displayed numbering from north to south with each segment considered as a separate phase. Phase 8 would not be constructed until an agreement with the Seneca Nation of Indians is reached. The phasing sequence may change as negotiations with the Seneca Nation of Indians progress toward an agreement to construct the remainder of the freeway on Seneca land and complete the connection to I-86. • Phase 1 Rte 39/existing Rte. 219 to Peters Rd. Interchange Length: 5.2 km Cost: $71.3 million • Phase 2 Peters Rd. Interchange to Snake Run Rd. Interchange Length: 6.0 km Cost: $52.7 million

December, 2004 Page 3-41 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

• Phase 3 Snake Run Rd. Interchange to Temp Terminus at Rte. 219 NE of Irish Hill Rd. Length: 7.0 km Cost: $70.6 million • Phase 4 Temp Terminus at Rte. 219 NE of Irish Hill Rd. to NY 242 Interchange Length: 5.6 km Cost: $66.1 million • Phase 5 NY 242 Interchange to Temp. Terminus at Brewer Cross Rd. Length: 6.4 km Cost: $138.9 million • Phase 6 Temp. Terminus at Brewer Cross Rd. to C.R. 18 Inter change Length: 3.9 km Cost: $64.0 million • Phase 7 C.R. 18 to Salamanca R.R. Yard Interchange Length: 6.8 km Cost: $72.8 million • Phase 8 Salamanca R.R. Yard Interchange to I-86, Southern Tier Expressway Length: 2.7 km Cost: $76.2 million

Page 3-42 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

December, 2004 Page 3-43 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Chapter 4 is an assessment of con- 4.B. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL structing the Pre- CONSEQUENCES ferred Freeway Alter- native to the Snake Run Road Inter- 4.B.1. Social Consequences change pending an agreement with the 4.B.1.a. Community Cohesion Seneca Nation of In- Community cohesion relates to how the project will affect interaction among persons dians for use of In- and groups. Will it change social relationships and patterns? This becomes an issue dian land. Much of when an action divides a community or neighborhood, changing access patterns, isolat- the technical analy- ing or otherwise affecting social relationships between the divided sections of the com- ses are contained in munity. Input on the development of project alternatives for the FEIS had been received the FEIS along with from each of the project area communities. Their suggestions and concerns were incor- the separately bound porated to mitigate and minimize negative impacts. appendices. The summary discus- The Preferred Freeway Alternative avoids wherever possible residential, agricultural or sions included here otherwise developed land. Community input was carefully considered in choosing the briefly explain the an- freeway location, and in doing so a larger number of potential impacts were avoided. ticipated differences The Preferred Freeway Alternative also would utilize abandoned areas of the East Sala- in effects and impacts manca Railyard north of N.Y. Route 417. It also would not divide or isolate neighbor- associated with the hoods or otherwise affect community cohesion. As noted in the FEIS, the Preferred social, economic, Freeway Alternative would require the relocation of 63 residences and 1 business. The and natural environ- cumulative effect of these relocations is small when compared with the size of the project ment. area communities, which include over 10,000 housing units. Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange, pending negotiations with the Seneca Nation of Indians, would temporarily delay acquisition of thirty three (33) residences and twenty seven (27) mobile homes along the remaining corridor for the Preferred Freeway Alternative. When an agreement is reached with the Seneca Nation of Indians and a decision made to progress construction to the I-86 connection the above noted residences and mobile homes would be acquired.

4.B.1.b. Changes in Travel Patterns or Accessibility This section describes how constructing the Preferred Freeway to the Snake Run Road Interchange affects short-term and long term vehicular access to businesses, public services and other facilities. Other concerns include affects on available parking, and access to public transportation. Local Traffic Patterns - Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not significantly increase traffic on old U.S. Route 219 between Snake Run Road and I-86 when compared to the No-Build Alternative.

December, 2004 Page 4-1 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Constructing the freeway to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not change the following impacts noted in the FEIS. Two minor roads would be dead-ended in Ashford, Neff Road (a seasonal use road) and Rock Springs Road, and Zoar Valley Road in Concord would be realigned to connect with N.Y. Route 39. However, a new connection between existing U.S. Route 219 and Humphrey Road/C.R. 18 in the Town of Great Valley will be postponed until an Agreement is reached with the Seneca Nation. Regional Travel Patterns - By constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange many of the benefits for the freeway noted in the FEIS would be realized, however to a much lesser extent. The freeway would still reduce travel time, provide better access, and enhance safety from Buffalo to many of the communities in the Southern Tier. The Economic Impact Analysis in Appendix F of the FEIS estimated that improved access to these communities would have positive effects on businesses.

4.B.1.c. Impacts on School Districts, Recreation Areas, Churches or Businesses

4.B.1.c (1) School Districts Under future conditions, constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would increase traffic along the existing U.S. Route 219 between Snake Run Road and I-86, similar to the No-Build Alternative. Increased traffic volumes along this section would likely affect local school bus traffic and increase the number of conflicts between vehicular traffic and stopped school busses. Impacts to school districts north of the Snake Run Road would not change from the FEIS. As stated in the FEIS, the freeway would be within view of the Prospect Elementary School in Salamanca. However, pausing construction at the Snake Run Road Inter- change would postpone its view from the school grounds until an Agreement is reached with the Seneca Nation and construction is completed to I-86.

4.B.1.c (2) Recreation Areas Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not impact any property used as a public recreation area.

4.B.1.c (3) Churches There would be no impacts to churches caused by either complete construction of the Preferred Freeway to I-86 or construction to the Snake Run Road Interchange.

4.B.1.c (4) Businesses Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would would not require the acquisition of any businesses.

4.B.1.d. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection, and Ambulance Access Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not change impacts to Police, Fire Protection, and Ambulance Access between Route 39 in Springville and the Snake Run Road from the impacts noted in Section 4.B.1.d of the FEIS. Emergency access routes between the Snake Run Road and I-86

Page 4-2 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

would continue using existing routes until freeway construction to I-86 could be completed.

4.B.1.e. Impacts on Highway Safety, Traffic Safety, and Overall Public Safety Freeway facilities with controlled access have much lower accident rates than either two-lane or four-lane highways with free access. Traffic safety will be improved by constructing either the complete Preferred Freeway Alternative or the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange. Users of the freeway benefit from a safer highway and local traffic on existing U.S. Route 219 benefit due to lower traffic volumes. Freeways also receive priority for snow and ice control, with snowdrift fences installed in areas of high potential for drifting snow, and receiving first priority for plowing and ice control during the snow season. Having a reliable all-weather north-south freeway through the project area will improve highway and traffic safety for all area residents. Overall public safety will be improved by providing facilities best suited for all traffic types, local roads for local traffic, and high-speed freeways for heavy trucks and long-distance travelers, avoiding the natural conflicts when these traffic types mix. Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would exit traffic onto existing U.S. Route 219 opposite Snake Run Road. and require traffic to use the existing U.S. Route 219 between Snake Run Road and I-86. This would increase traffic and accidents slightly along U.S. Route 219 between Snake Run Road and I-86. This increase in traffic and accidents will exist until the freeway is connected to I-86, at which time, the total number of accidents is projected to decrease by 119 accidents per year.

4.B.1.f. General Social Groups Benefited or Harmed The Preferred Freeway Alternative was developed without discriminating between social groups. Pausing construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative at the Snake Run Road Interchange would temporarily delay acquisition of thirty three (33) residences and twenty seven (27) mobile homes along the remaining corridor for the Preferred Freeway Alternative. Upon agreement with the Seneca Nation for use of their land and completion of the connection to I-86, the above residences would require acquisition. Pausing freeway construction at Snake Run Road would also not provide access to areas near I-86, which the Seneca Nation have expressed interest in for future development.

4.B.1.g. Environmental Justice Interaction with the Seneca Nation resulted in the identification of the Seneca Nation of Indians as a unique, sovereign nation, with socio-culturally related environmental concerns, and with a generally low income population. The Seneca Nation has indicated that they are not a minority, as the term is usually applied, since they are indigenous to North America. The NYSDOT honors and recognizes this important indication. The Preferred Freeway Alternative constructed to the Snake Run Road Interchange would temporarily pause construction north of Salamanca, not crossing Seneca Nation land, until an agreement with the Seneca Nation could be reached regarding access.

December, 2004 Page 4-3 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

4.B.2. Economic Consequences

4.B.2.a. Impacts on Regional and Local Economies Analysis indicates that transportation improvements may provide a catalyst having positive impact to employment and other economic activities. However, predicting the magnitude of those impacts with known precision is not possible. A certain impact is that the travel time and/or cost reductions allowed by the highway improvements will offer a more competitive environment to all entities that choose to capitalize on those advan- tages. Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange will decrease the travel time through the corridor resulting in a decrease in transportation costs. As stated in Section 4.B.2.a of the FEIS, Highway Infrastructure Investment and Job Generation: A Look at the Positive Employment Impacts of Highway Invest- ment, USDOT, FHWA (1997) summarizes recent studies completed for FHWA on the economic impacts of highway investment. The results indicated that every $1 billion in Federal-aid highway investment generates an overall total of 42,100 full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs in the economy. Highway construction jobs include both "direct" on-site workers, and "indirect jobs" at firms supplying equipment, material and administrative support. “Induced” jobs are jobs created when construction-based employees spend their earnings in the surrounding economy. These direct employment projections were based on FHWA’s HIGHWAY1 Regional Employment Estimation Model, while the indirect and induced employment estimates were generated through dynamic input-output models. Using this procedure, total employment impacts of construction spending between construction of the Preferred Free- way to I-86 and pausing the Preferred Freeway at the Snake Run Road Interchange are shown on Table 4-10. The jobs include a considerable amount of direct employment impacts for construction workers (on-site) as well as employees of firms providing materials and supplies (indirect). The money spent on construction gradually works its way through the economy, supporting employment in other sectors not directly or indirectly related to the construction (induced jobs). All of these figures are in person-years of labor, representing a short-term employment benefit to the region.

Page 4-4 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Table 4-10 Employment Impacts of Construction Preferred Jobs per $1 Preferred Fre ew ay bill.[1] Fr e e w ay Alternative Job Category Construction Alternativ To Snake Run (person-years) Costs e To I-86 Road Construction Costs (Billions) $0.5985 $0.1198 On-Site Jobs 7,900 4,700 900 Indirect Jobs [2] 19,700 11,800 2,400 Induced Jobs [2] 14,500 8,700 1,700

Total Jobs 42,100 25,200 5,000 [1] Exclusive of Right-of-Way Costs [2] "Indirect" and "Induced" job effects as defined in 1997 FHWA Report referenced in the FEIS.

4.B.2.b. Impacts on Highway Related Businesses Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange is a temporary stopping point until an agreement can be reached with the Seneca Na- tion of Indians to construct the freeway across Seneca land. Assuming an agreement can be reached with the Seneca Nation in a reasonable time period the impacts to highway related businesses would not significantly change from those listed in the FEIS. As shown in Table 4-11, future traffic volumes on existing Route 219 are projected to be considerably lower with the fully constructed Freeway Alternative than with the Null Al- ternative. The total traffic using both the fully constructed Freeway and existing Route 219, or corridor traffic, would be 45% to 100% higher than the Null Alternative, and 100% to 180% higher than existing traffic. The increased corridor traffic would result from both regional and long distance trips diverted to the fully constructed Freeway from other routes (Routes 90, 63, 16, 62, and 60). With the diversion of a portion of the through-traffic away from the shopping areas along the existing Route 219, there is the potential for a loss of purchases by "impulse" shoppers who under the Null Alternative would be driving through these areas. As noted in the FEIS, some of the negative impacts of not controlling traffic volumes through the villages and hamlets are described below:

• Many of the areas within the identified commercial areas have traffic problems under existing volumes, with delays resulting in inconveniences to residents and visitors alike. With 44%-45% growth by 2025, conditions would reach breakdown levels in these areas during many peri- ods. • The Freeway Alternative would divert large trucks away from local shopping areas. These trucks represent a nuisance (noise, dust) and a safety hazard in local and tourist shopping areas.

December, 2004 Page 4-5 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

• Reducing congestion levels and removing heavy trucks would make these business areas more attractive as a place to shop, eat, and walk around. In summary, there are 98 retail and service businesses along the existing Route 219 in the project area, employing 1,250 people. Some of these businesses depend on drive- by or impulse shoppers for a portion of their business. When the Freeway Alternative is fully constructed, future traffic volumes on existing Route 219 will be 50% - 60% less than future traffic on existing Route 219 if the Freeway is not constructed. This diversion of traffic could result in the loss of some sales and jobs to the stores and restaurants along existing Route 219. However, the improvement in traffic flows and the diversion of heavy trucks away from these local shopping and residential areas would create more attractive environments for shopping and eating. Further mitigation in the form of signing on the Freeway advising travelers of the businesses and services available near each exit, combined with local business incentives, could help to attract some shoppers from the 45% to 100% increase in drivers using the corridor. With the Freeway Alternative constructed to Snake Run Road, future traffic volumes on existing Route 219 will decrease north of Snake Run Road and increase south of Snake Run Road. Traffic north of Snake Run would be 47% - 48% less than future traffic on existing Route 219 under the Null Alternative and 3% - 9% more than the Null Alterna- tive south of Snake Run Road.

4.B.2.c. Impacts on Established Business Districts The historic district in the Village of Ellicottville includes a large number of shops and retail businesses. There are no other established business districts in the project area. Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not impact this established business district. However, there is strip development along US 219 in the Springville area. As noted in Table 4-11, twenty-five (25) of the ninety-eight (98) total business establishments along US 219 are located in Springville. The freeway constructed to Snake Run Road would bypass these 25 businesses.

4.B.2.d. Relocation Impacts Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would initially reduce the number of residential relocations from 63 to 3 as noted in Section 3.C.2.l. When an agreement has been reached with the Seneca Nation of Indians to construct the freeway across Seneca land, the 60 houses and mobile homes along the corridor will need to be acquired to complete the freeway connection to I-86.

4.B.2.e. Impacts on Local Tax Base Property tax data was obtained from the Erie and Cattaraugus County Tax Assessors' Offices to estimate the potential loss in tax base due to the removal of property from the tax rolls for right-of-way. Table 4-12 shows the total taxes paid in 1996 by the affected land owners, total area to be acquired and the prorated amount of taxes estimated to be reduced from the tax roll summarized by town. The total estimated loss of local property taxes would be $82,798 per year with the Preferred Freeway Alternative constructed to I-86 and $18,026 for the Preferred Freeway Alternative constructed to the Snake Run Road.

Page 4-6 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment 2025 Traffic (AADT) Corridor Freeway Alt. Freeway 2025 Traffic (AADT) Old 219 to Snake Run Road Run Snake to 2025 Traffic (AADT) Corridor to I-86 Freeway Alt. Freeway 2025 Traffic (AADT) Old 219 Alt. 2025 Traffic 219 Rt. (AADT) Upgrade 2025 Traffic Rt. 219 (AADT) Nu ll Alt. 1996 Traffic (AADT) Exis tin g [2] 1998 Re tail Bus ine s s on 219 s 1998 Re tail Data [2] Bus ine s s 1998 Data [2] Bus ine s s 1990 1990 Data [1] Bus ine s EmployeesSales 3581EmployeesSales 3786 1223EmployeesSales 1053 1284 $237.386 1580 $57.151Sales 722 $25.981 1806 $159.703 75 12,000Employees $2.985 17,250 467Sales $124.675 21,690 15 $0.598 $17.118 2783 9,380 6,400 386 $12.747 24,940 2808 18.407 9,150 6,750 12,760 9,110 10.752Dun[2]Bradstreet, & Inc. 9,700 653FEIS errorto in due Change = $194.448 17,970 3,630 4,320 9.65 $29.796 18,090 5,500 63 $4.386 9,960 17,450 8,250 10,960 9,960 11,800 10,960 9,810 8,830 19,950 12,270 12,270 Table Table 4-11 Impacts Business Data/Traffic Area Project Springville Businesses 308 124 25 Ashford BusinessesEllicottville BusinessesGreatValley Businesses Employees 50Salamanca Businesses 141 424 18TotalProject 63Area 272 Businesses EmployeesSales are in $millions 54 4 Sources: 48 205 Sales Transportation of Bureau USDOT, [1] Statistics 94 9591 N/A 26 75 9956 758 69 14 N/A 2342 6,400 $734.619 306 $117.802 7 9,200 $53.362 1255 12,860 98 3,730 15,660 10,010 10,010

December, 2004 Page 4-7 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Table 4-12 Tax Base Impacts Properties Total w/ Prorated Properties Property Total Area ROW Area Buildings Tax Township Impacted Taxes (hectares) (hectares) Impacted Impact** Preferred Freeway Alternative Springville (V) 4 $11,212 20 2 - $199 Concord 16 $24,629 299 47 2 $3,872 Ashford 59 $86,853 1,067 230 7 $13,955 Ellicottville (T) 67 $99,690 1,255 288 8 $23,612 Great Valley 69 $137,771 967 209 19 $38,093 Salamanca (C) 10 $5,281 3 2 5 $3,067 Total 225 $365,436 3,611 778 41 $82,798 Preferred Freeway Alternative to Snake Run Road Springville (V) 4 $11,212 20 2 - $199 Concord 16 $24,629 299 47 2 $3,872 Ashford 59 $86,853 1,067 230 7 $13,955 Ellicottville (T) 0$0- - - $0 Great Valley 0$0- - - $0 Salamanca (C) 0$0- - - $0 Total 79 $122,694 1,386 279 9 $18,026 Source: Erie County Tax Records, Cattaraugus County Tax Records ** Prorated Tax Impact based on Land Value,Total Value, percentage loss of land and loss of improvements (houses, outbuildings, other improvements).

4.B.3. Environmental Consequences

4.B.3.a. Noise

4.B.3.a (3) Noise Impacts Projected traffic volumes for the Freeway Alternative partially constructed to Snake Run Road are expected to be less than the fully constructed Freeway. However, it would still attract a number of trips that would otherwise use other routes. Design year traffic noise levels for the Partial Build Freeway along existing U.S. Route 219 between I-86 and Snake Run Road are predicted to be the same as those predicted for the Null Alternative. North of Snake Run Road to Springville, predicted noise levels for the Partial Build Freeway are generally predicted to be 1 to 3 dBA below those predicted for the Full Build Freeway Alternative. These changes in noise levels between the Partial Build and the Full Build Freeway Alternative are depicted below. There are no changes in noise levels as compared to the Null Alternative south of Snake Run Road to I-86.

Page 4-8 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Predicted Traffic Noise Levels Using the inputs for the traffic volumes, speeds, roadway alignments, and natural noise barriers, the Stamina 2.0 program was run to predict the worst-case traffic noise levels throughout the project corridor for existing conditions of the Null, Upgrade and Preferred Freeway Alternatives, including the Partial Build Freeway to Snake Run Road. The Table presented below was developed using modeled noise levels to show where changes in noise levels were predicted between the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 and Snake Run Road. See Appendix G of the FEIS, Noise Analysis Attachment, G-4 for specific receptor locations where changes are predicted to occur.

Noise Noise Levels (dBA) Me as . 1 Loc. NAC Exist Null Freeway to Freeway Snake Run Road

27 67 58 59 58 59 28 67 65 66 63 62 29 67 52 53 52 54 31 72 66 66 65 66 32 -- 49 55 52 53 33 -- 63 63 66 67 34 67 65 68 68 70 35 -- 66 67 68 70 37 67 57 59 63 66 38 67 52 52 65 68 39 67 56 57 56 58

Notes: 1. NAC represents the Noise Abatement Criteria for that receptor location.

Noise Impacts The table below provides the total number of impacts on various land uses for the Null, Preferred Freeway Partial Build Alternative to the Snake Run Road and the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86.

December, 2004 Page 4-9 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Summary of Noise Impacted Properties Alternative Residential Commercial, Schools, Churches, Totals Industrial, Hotels, Motels, and Office, etc. Recreation Areas Null 476 7 8 491 Freeway Construction 469 5 8 482 Partial Build to Snake Run Road Freeway Construction to 560 5 8 573 I-86

4.B.3.a (5) Construction Noise Short term noise increases are expected due to construction. However, with construction activities likely taking place only during the day, the increased noise will likely not be perceived as severe. Mitigation measures such as source control, site control, time and activity constraints, and community awareness as appropriate can be incorporated into the contract documents to reduce construction noise impacts. Constructing the Pre- ferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would eliminate construction noise concerns south of the Snake Run Road interchange.

4.B.3.b. Air Quality Intersection screening criteria in Chapter 1.A. of the NYS Environmental Procedures Manual, dated April 1998, do not require additional air quality analyses at signalized intersections that operate at LOS C or better. LOS criteria are met at all signalized intersections with the Partial-Build scenario. Therefore additional air quality analysis is not required for this option.

Further screening of capture criteria was conducted for the unsignalized intersections anticipated to operate below a LOS of C. Capture criteria consists of screening the following items: percent of reduction in source receptor distance, percent increase in traffic volume, percent increase in vehicle emissions, any increase in number of queued lanes and percent reduction in speed when build estimated average speed is less than or equal to 30 mph. The Partial Build Freeway will not exceed any of the capture criteria screenings listed above and additional air quality analysis is not required for the unsignalized intersections.

4.B.3.b (5) Construction Impacts Air quality in the project area may experience short-term impacts due to the construction. Airborne particulates will increase as dust is raised by construction vehicles in motion. This is expected to be sporadic and short-term in nature and will be most notice- able in the areas immediately adjacent to the construction. The use of dust inhibitors such as calcium chloride and other dust-control provisions found in the NYSDOT Stan- dard Specifications for construction should minimize impacts. The above construction impact would remain consistent for the length of construction.

Page 4-10 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

4.B.3.c. General Ecology and Endangered Species

4.B.3.c (2) Environmental Consequences 4.B.3.c (2.1) Ecological Communities and General Wildlife Based on the desire to avoid urban centers and significant agricultural parcels, upland communities comprise a much larger percentage of the land use within the work limits of the Preferred Freeway Alternative than any other land use. Details showing the expected loss of each community type resulting from construction of the Preferred Free- way Alternative to I-86 are listed in Section 4.B.3.c (2.1), Table 4-20 of the FEIS. Impor- tant ecological resources were identified and avoided during the initial alternatives analysis that was completed to determine the Preferred Freeway alignment to be considered in the EIS. Although some relatively mature forest stands will be impacted by the project, for the most part, the forest stands traversed are disturbed and fragmented. The creation of a new transportation corridor through existing ecological communities will result in increased road kills; however, on a regional level this impact will be minimal. Impacts associated with the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 are fully addressed in the FEIS Section 5-1 of Appendix I - General Ecology and Endangered Species Report. Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would shorten the freeway by 32.4 km. Impacts to ecological communities and general wildlife are expected to be significantly less than shown in the FEIS until such time as final construction is completed to I-86.

4.B.3.c (2.2) Threatened and Endangered Species Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 or the Snake Run Road Inter- change will have negligible impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species. Meth- ods used to minimize impacts are detailed in the Appendix I of the FEIS.

4.B.3.c (2.3) Regionally Important Habitats Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not change impacts to regionally important habitats from those listed under the Preferred Freeway Alternative in the FEIS.

4.B.3.c (2.4) Aquatic Resources The Preferred Freeway Alternative constructed to either the Snake Run Road Inter- change or the Interchange at I-86 will be constructed on the same alignment and have the same impacts to aquatic resources as listed in the FEIS between Route 39 in Spring- ville and Snake Run Road. South of Snake Run Road the Preferred Freeway Alternative would traverse Great Valley Creek and the Allegheny River. As Stated in Section 4.B.3.c (2.4) of the FEIS no significant impacts are expected. However, constructing the Pre- ferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange, pending an agreement with the Seneca Nation of Indians to construct on Seneca land, would not impact the area near Great Valley Creek and the Allegheny River.

4.B.3.d. Wetlands

4.B.3.d (2) Wetland Environmental Consequences As noted in Section 4.B.3.d of the FEIS, constructing the Preferred Freeway Alterna- tive to I-86 would impact 77 wetlands with a total area of 13.00 ha. Construction of the

December, 2004 Page 4-11 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not impact the wetlands south of Snake Run Road. North of Snake Run Road, a total of 19 wetlands would be impacted with a total area of 3.80 ha. The remaining 58 wetlands with a total area of 9.20 ha would not be impacted until an agreement is reached with the Seneca Nation and construction of the freeway is resumed and completed to I-86.

4.B.3.e. Navigable Waters Within the project corridor the Allegheny River from its mouth near Pittsburgh northwest up to Olean is the only waterway considered navigable and could be used for interstate commerce, provided reasonable improvements were made. However, no river improvements have been made within the project limits, and it is not used for commerce. Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not impact the Allegheny River. However, full construction of the Preferred Free- way Alternative to I-86 would bridge the Allegheny River on Seneca Nation land as stated in the FEIS.

4.B.3.f. Coastal Zone Management The Coastal Areas of New York State do not include any portion of the project area. Therefore, compliance with 19 NYCRR Parts 600-601, administered by the NYS De- partment of State, is not required as stated in the FEIS.

4.B.3.g. Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Cattaraugus Creek is listed on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) for its recreational, geological and botanical values. Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alterna- tive to I-86 or the Snake Run Road Interchange would have the same impact on the Cattaraugus Creek area. The National Park Service agrees that the proposed mitigation measures will insure that no adverse impacts occur to the creek. The 16-km segment of the Allegheny River, from Great Valley Creek to Townsend Hol- low, is also listed on the NRI. Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not impact this area. Full construction of the Pre- ferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 would impact this section of the Allegheny River, however the National Parks Service agrees there will be no adverse impact to the values contained on this NRI section of the River.

4.B.3.h. Surface Water and Ground Water Quality

4.B.3.h (2) Water Quality Impacts Impacts on surface and groundwater quality are caused primarily by pollutants from highway maintenance, vehicular traffic and erosion and sedimentation caused by the freeway construction which can enter and degrade adjacent waters. However, construction of the Freeway Alternative to either I-86 or Snake Run Road will require an approved SPDES Phase 2 Permit. Satisfying the requirements of the SPDES Phase 2 Permit will minimize these water quality impacts

Page 4-12 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

4.B.3.h (2.1) Stream Impacts Construction and operation of the Preferred Freeway Alternative will result in unavoidable direct and indirect impacts on surface waters in the project area as stated in the FEIS. The Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 will traverse 45 perennial and 83 intermittent streams and would require realignment of Great Valley Creek. Pausing construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative at the Snake Run Road Interchange would reduce the number perennial streams traversed to 10 and intermittent streams traverse to 27. However, it would not require the realignment of Great Valley Creek.

4.B.3.h (2.2) Surface Water Quality Impacts Pollutants from highway use and maintenance, as well as air pollutants from other sources, can accumulate on highway surfaces. These pollutants are carried primarily from the highway surface to adjacent waters by runoff from rainfall and melting snow and ice. Chloride from highway deicing is readily dissolved in runoff. While its concentration is seasonal, based on deicing needs, the shock loading to the receiving waters can be drastic in the short term. Heavy metals such as copper, lead, and zinc (the result of tire and brake wear, motor oil additives, and vehicular rust), particulates from vehicular ex- haust, and mud and dirt dropping from vehicles also are pollutants that find their way into and degrade adjacent water resources. As published in Section 4.B.3.h (2.2) of the FEIS, construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 would likely increase concentrations of heavy metals in surface waters of 14 of the 68 identified subdrainage basins along the freeway. However, all of the 14 subdrainage basins are located south of Snake Run Road. Therefore, constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not impact any of of the 68 subdrainage basins identified in the FEIS.

4.B.3.h (2.3) Seeps Impacts Thirty-nine seeps were identified in the FEIS as being located within the fully constructed Preferred Freeway Alternative work space. Eight of those seeps identified in the FEIS are located north of the Snake Run Road Interchange and would be affected under the partial build scenario.

4.B.3.h (2.4) Groundwater Impacts Impacts to groundwater quality and quantity for the construction of the Preferred Free- way to I-86 are stated in Section 4.B.3.h (2.4) of the FEIS. The impacts for the Preferred Freeway Alternative constructed to the Snake Run Road Interchange are as follows.

4.B.3.h (2.4.1) Impacts on Groundwater Due to Bedrock Road Cuts and Fill The Freeway Alternative is designed to traverse hillsides and hilltops, areas where the overburden is relatively thin and sparse. Numerous excavations will be needed to meet the engineering requirements for minimal vertical slope and a horizontally level roadway. Minor changes in the water table may occur immediately downgradient and adjacent to cuts and fills. The largest excavation will be on Bartlett Hill in the town of Ellicottville, which would not be affected if the freeway were constructed to Snake Run Road.

December, 2004 Page 4-13 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

4.B.3.h (2.4.2) Impacts on Groundwater from Deicing Salt - Toler Analysis As noted in the FEIS, the Toler Analysis (IPDG No. 15, NYSDOT 1995) was used to estimate potential chloride concentrations from highway deicing salts captured by drinking water supply wells in proximity to a salted highway. The Toler Analysis begins with an idealized capture radius, a fixed volume of water pumped from the well, a length of roadway traversing the capture radius, and a salt loading rate per length of roadway. It then calculates a concentration at the well in question. The existing background chloride concentration and the additional chloride added to the environment by maintenance of new or modified highways should not exceed 250 mg/L, the maximum allowable chloride concentration in drinking water set by the New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation (NYSDEC). Appendix J - Water Quality presents the calculations for the capture radii and deter- mines the length of roadway crossing the capture zones for the known groundwater supply wells in the project area. Table C-1 of Attachement C to Appendix J lists estimated chlorine concentrations for the fully onstructed freeway. Those drainage areas affected by constructing the freeway to Snake Run Road are Drainage Areas No. 1 through No. 23. Under the Preferred Freeway Alternative, 4 of the 13 drainage areas that have higher concentrations than 250 mg/L are located between Springville and Snake Run Road

4.B.3.h (2.4.3) Impacts on Municipal Groundwater Supply Wells Springville's municipal supply wells are the only wells near the Preferred Freeway Alter- native under the partial build scenario. However, it does not traverse the capture zone and thus will not be impacted.

4.B.3.h (2.4.4) Impacts on Private Water Supply Wells As noted in the FEIS, outside the municipal water supply districts of Springville, Ellicot- tville, and Salamanca, water supply needs are generally provided by groundwater wells completed in glacial outwash or fractured bedrock. The capture radius for a well is dependent on the groundwater flow rate and water usage. The typical capture radius for a well associated with a private residence is estimated to be 20 meters. The wells of larger water consumers such as a large mobile home park and large dairy farms have capture zones of approximately 90 to 130 meters. Unless these wells are immediately adjacent to the existing highway or alternative, calculations indicate that the potential for impact is negligible. If it is determined that a recommended alternative would impact a private well, the owner would be compensated for the cost of drilling a new well outside the area of impact.

4.B.3.h (2.4.5) Impacts on Groundwater Quality from Vehicular Pollutants As noted in the FEIS, calculations indicate that no impacts on groundwater from vehicular pollutants, including copper, lead, and zinc, should be expected for any of the alternatives.

4.B.3.h (2.4.6) Impacts on Groundwater from Construction Activities Construction activities may impact recharge areas. Because construction will occur in a relatively short time frame, any impacts on groundwater flow will be temporary, highly localized, and minimal in nature.

Page 4-14 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

4.B.3.i. Floodplain Management Floodplain management practices for construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 or the Snake Run Road Interchange would follow the criteria listed in Section 4.B.3.i of the FEIS. Also, as discussed in Appendix K of the FEIS, any existing floodplain areas lost due to widening or filling operations for the roadway would be replaced by creation of new habitat areas, including replacement wetlands, aquifer recharge and flood storage areas.

Environmental Consequences To maintain existing drainage patterns, all bridges and culverts would be designed to span floodways and minimize impacts to floodplains. They would be designed to ensure that neither structures or embankments detain flood waters, Therefore, no significant floodplain impacts are expected and the project will comply with all laws and regulations. Construction of the Preferred Freeway to the Snake Run Road Interchange would temporarily stop construction north of Great Valley Creek and the Allegheny River, keeping the freeway from bridging the Allegheny floodplain. Upon completion of the freeway to I- 86, the freeway and all ramps will be carried on elevated structures across the entire floodplain to minimize impacts. The Hydraulic Analysis, included in Appendix S of the FEIS, concluded that there would be no change to backwater elevation due to the structure.

Floodplain Values Throughout the project area, floodplains provide numerous ecological functions and values. Being subject to flooding, these areas are typically not developed and as a result, provide valuable wildlife habitat. Construction of the Preferred Freeway to either I-86 or the Snake Run Road Interchange would not change floodplain values listed in the FEIS.

4.B.3.j. Historic and Cultural Resources Historic and cultural resources within the project area consist of buildings, archaeological sites, objects, structures, and districts that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion on the NRHP as prescribed by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Such properties are identified and impacts are analyzed through the Section 106 review process established by the Act.

4.B.3.j.(1) Programmatic Agreement Due to the length of this project and the varying potential impacts possible by the Pre- ferred Freeway Alternative, as well as the likelihood that the freeway would be constructed in phases over a period of years, the Section 106 review process will be satis- fied by the development of a Programmatic Agreement (PA) as stated in Section 4.B.3.j.(1) of the FEIS. The PA is the basis by which impacts to cultural resources caused by the freeway will be assessed, avoided, minimized, and mitigated during detailed design of various projects prior to construction.

December, 2004 Page 4-15 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

4.B.3.j.(2) Historic Buildings/Structures For the FEIS, an inventory of Pre-1945 buildings and structures was developed for all areas potentially affected by the proposed FEIS alternatives, or within the viewshed of the alternatives. A total of 628 properties were inventoried. The State Historic Preserva- tion Officer (SHPO) reviewed the Standing Structures Inventory and determined the properties discussed below meet criteria for inclusion in the National Register of His- toric Places. All of the historic properties are described in detail in the full Standing Structures Inventory (19 volumes) which is available for review in the NYSDOT project files. Originally 15 NRE properties received an "adverse effect" determination for the Freeway Alternative. After additional consultation with the SHPO a total of 12 properties would be adversely affected by the fully constructed Preferred Freeway Alternative. Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would impact 3 of the 12 properties identified in the FEIS. Those NRE properties are numbers 325, 1008 and 1014.

4.B.3.j.(3) Historic Districts One National Register listed Historic District in the Village of Ellicottville exists within the project area. This district will not be directly affected by the fully constructed Preferred Freeway Alternative and is located south of the Snake Run Road Interchange.

4.B.3.j.(4) Archaeological Sites The Preferred Freeway Alternative constructed to I-86 would traverse the Zawatski Ter- race located on Seneca Nation land as noted in the FEIS. Pausing construction of the Preferred Freeway at the Snake Run Road Interchange would not cross Seneca land and therefore would not impact the Zawatski Terrace. Also, as projects are progressed in detail design, cultural resource surveys will be conducted to locate any archaelogical sites in the project area in compliance with the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement.

4.B.3.k. Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act does not apply to this project since there are no public recreational facilities in the project area that have used Land and Water Conservation funds. Properties protected by Section 4(f) of the Federal Transportation Act are discussed in Chapter 7 of the FEIS. Constructing the Preferred Freeway to the Snake Run Road Interchange would impact 3 of the 12 listed Section 4(f) Properties as noted in the FEIS. Those NRE properties are numbers 325, 1008 and 1014. Impacts on Section 4(f) Properties The thee structures affected by the partial build scenario are discussed on the pages that follow, including a complete description of the property, impacts anticipated under the build alternatives, avoidance measures and any measures to minimize harm that were considered. Mitigation for properties that cannot be totally avoided has been determined through consultation with SHPO, FHWA and the ACHP, and is described in the Programmatic Agreement (see Section 4.B.3.j of the FEIS). Tables 7-3 and 7-3a summarize the adverse effects to register eligible properties by the Upgrade and Freeway Alternatives. The level of impact varies.

Page 4-16 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Table 7-3 Effects on Section 4(f) Properties

Freeway Alternative Impacts (1) Reference No. Size Property (hectares) to Aquired be Area (hectares) Land Contributing Acquired Total of Percent Buildings Impacted No Impact Setting Impacts Land Impacts to Structures (2) (2) (1) (1) 325 81.895 20.963 12.650 25.6% XX XX (3) (2) (3) (3)(3) (3) 1007 23.108 (2) (2) 1008 66.516 7.511 7.511 11.3% XX XX (2) (2) 1014 24.871 9.149 2.457 36.8% XX Note: "XX" indicates Adverse Effect, "X" indicates No Effect or No Adverse Effect (1) DEIS Revisions (2) Re-calculation of Property Size Post DEIS (3) Property No. 1007 is no longer National Register Eligible due to a house fire in 2000.

Table 7-3a Effects on Section 4(f) Properties Freew ay Alternative Impacts (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) Reference No. Size Property Total (hectares) Property NRE Total Size (hectares) be to Area Total Aquired (hectares) tobe Area NRE Aquired (hectares) ofNRE Percent (hectares)Property Impacted Buildings Impact Razing Impact Taking (1) (1) 325 81.895 37.124 20.963 12.650 34.1% X 1007 23.108 3.513 (1) 1008 66.516 40.790 7.511 7.511 18.4% X 1014 24.871 9.925 9.149 2.457 24.8% X (1) DEIS Revisions * Highlighted entries represent properties being re-evaluated.

The justification for these 4(f) impacts is unchanged since publication of the FEIS. A proportional amount of the basic needs and objectives of the project are being met with the construction of the partial build scenario. Three of the twelve properties (25%) are affected under the partial build, corresponding to the 25% reduction in the 2-Lane Corridor Gap between US 219 and I-86 accomplished using 20% of the total estimated construction cost. However, the intention to construct the entire project to I-86 remains intact.

December, 2004 Page 4-17 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Reference Description Nos. Property #325 meets the National Register Criteria for evaluation as an intact and representative example of an historic 19th century farmstead.

Property #1014 meets the National Register Criteria for evaluation as an intact 325 & 1014 and representative example of a 19th century farmstead that is historically significant because it recalls the historical agricultural development of the region. This property contains intact complexes of farm buildings. Additionally, the bound- Figures aries of the farmstead includes historically associated farmland, that has not been 7-15 to 7-17 subdivided for nonfarm use. Structure #325 - Upgrade Alternative Structure #325 - Freeway Alternative Adverse Effect: taking/setting Adverse Effect: taking/setting The buildings would not be physically affected, how- In the DEIS, most of the proposed Peters Road In- ever, a 0.274 ha strip of ROW would be required terchange would be constructed on this property, in- south of the buildings along the east side of the high- cluding the diamond interchange and the Peters Road way for roadside grading and drainage. Also, the Extension access road. (See Figures 7-15 to 7-17.) setting will be affected by introduction of the 4-lane The interchange would be 350 meters east of the upgrade. barns. The Peters Road Extension proposed in the DEIS would begin 55 meters south of the most south- Avoidance Options erly barn. The only building directly impacted on the To shift further west to avoid this property would re- property would be the small mobile home that is south quire the relocation of three residences, two of which of the two barns, which would have to be removed are on active farms. It would also encroach on a 1.2 from the proposed right-of-way. hectare wetland located adjacent to the west side of the alignment. The estimated cost for those relo- With the Peters Road Interchange, a total of 21.3 cations is $175,000. Based on costs, relocation, hectares of right-of-way would be acquired from this and environmental impacts, data supports the con- 81.9 hectare farm. Of that, approximately 12 hect- clusion that it is not feasible and prudent to avoid ares are now used for pasture or crops, and the rest this property. is wooded. In addition, a 0.8 hectare permanent drainage easement would be acquired for the construc- Minimization Measures tion of a drainage ditch near the proposed inter- Impacts to this property have been minimized by change. Without any mitigation measures, the free- shifting the 4-lane widening to the west as much as way would divide the farm into three pieces, 35 hect- possible. Right-of-way requirements have been mini- ares east of the freeway, 11 hectares north of the mized by incorporating a closed drainage system in Peters Road Extension (where the barns are located), front of the buildings. Setting impacts will be mini- and 15 hectares south of the Peters Road Exten- mized by planting roadside trees in front of the build- sion. Access to the three pieces would be from the ings. The SHPO concurs with these minimization Peters Road Extension. Mitigation measures are measures. (See letters dated 12/31/98 and 4/7/99 described at the end of this evaluation. in Attachment 7-1.) Structure # 1014 - Freeway Alternative Structure #1014 - Upgrade Alternative Adverse Effect: taking on 2 sides of parcel No Effect A strip of ROW 165 m in width would be required No ROW would be required from this property. along the west side of this property, as would a narrow strip along Schwartz Road, totaling 9.15 ha, or 36.8% of the property. The area to be acquired is mostly unused, as it includes a deep ravine, and is covered mostly by brush. Being 300 m west, the freeway would not affect any of the farm buildings, and would leave most of the actively used farmland intact. A strip of woods would remain between the farm buildings and the freeway.

Structure Nos. 325 & 1014 - Freeway Alternative Avoidance Options An option that avoids impacts to these properties by shifting the alignment to the east would increase construction costs by $7 million due to its increased length. See Figure 7-15. Increased construction costs of this magnitude supports the conclusion that it is not feasible and prudent to avoid these properties.

Page 4-18 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Structure Nos. 325 & 1014 - Freeway Alternative Minimization Measures Impacts to these properties could be reduced by along existing Route 219. Additional noise impacts one of the following interchange location and con- would result for at least one residence on Edies figuration options (See Figure 7-17.): Road and one residence on US 219. The proposed connection of Edies Road and US 219 would also Option 1 - Schwartz Road Interchange Option require relocation of a 30,000 gallon propane tank Assessment Memo No. 2 in the project files com- and the reconfiguration of the shipping operations pares the impacts of two interchange options that for the Norco/North Collins Cylinder Company. This were developed for this location, Options SW-I1 and option would also be less desirable from an engi- PE-I1. Option SW-I1 was a much larger interchange, neering, safety, and operational perspective due to with two access points. Northbound traffic would the use of minimum design (125m) curves and steep enter and exit off Schwartz Road, and southbound grades (6% max) needed for some of the ramps. traffic would enter and exit off U.S. Route 219. Op- tion PE-I1 was recommended because it had bet- The SHPO reviewed the first three minimization ter geometry, occupied less land, and had lower im- options and supported Option 2 as acceptable miti- pacts to active agriculture land, prime farm soils and gation. (See letter to SHPO dated 12/31/98 in At- wetlands. tachment 7-1.) The CR12-Edies Road Interchange Option (Option 4) was developed later. It reduces Option 2 - Modified Peters Road Extension Align- impacts to contributing farmland even further, but ment impacts more wetlands and costs $570,000 more, The Peters Road Extension access road would be has additional impacts to residences and commer- shifted to the south to avoid taking the mobile home, cial businesses and has less than desirable safety creating an offset intersection with Peters Road. features than Option 2. This data supports the conclusion that Option 4 is not feasible and prudent. Option 3 - Peters Road North Interchange Option The proposed interchange configuration could be The proposed median width in this area is 27.5 m. shifted to the north, with the access road along the Medians as narrow as 11 m are allowable without north edge of this property to avoid impacts to the requiring safety barriers. The 27.5 m median width structures. This option would also avoid some of is proposed in this area because of the side hill lo- the wetland impacts associated with the proposed cation to the north along Scoby Hill, and to the south interchange location. However, similar to Option 2, past CR 12 - Edies Rd. In side-hill situations, a wider it would also create an offset intersection situation median is typically preferred to allow for a "bifur- with Peters Road which is not preferred. The earth- cated section," with independent profiles for each work required to construct the interchange in this roadway to reduce the heights of fills or cuts. If a location would be greater due to the steeper ter- narrower median were used, the two roadway pro- rain, which would increase total costs. This option files could not be independent, the downslope fills would also have higher impacts to prime farm soils. and upslope cuts would be higher and the footprint would be nearly as wide or wider than the bifur- Option 4 - C.R. 12 - Edies Road Interchange Op- cated section. tion An interchange option to the south of this property, Mitigation Measures mid-way between Peters Road and Edies Road, was Livestock access to the severed 35 hectares east developed to minimize impacts to contributing land of the proposed freeway could be provided by con- associated with this NRE Section 4(f) property. This structing a cattle pass at an estimated construction option would reduce impacts to farmland by 5.1 ha cost of $300,000.00. Consultation with the prop- ( 41.9 ha vs. 36.8 ha impacted by Option 2). How- erty owners will be conducted to determine access ever, it would cost $570,000 more to construct than requirements. If requested by the owners, access Option 2, primarily due to the longer length of re- to the easterly portion of property would be included alignment for C.R. 12 - Edies Road. It would also as part of the project. impact 0.30 ha more wetland area (2.51 ha total vs. 2.21 ha for Option 2), and would require one additional building acquisition, a garage on a property

Notes:

December, 2004 Page 4-19 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

Page 4-20 December, 2004

PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

Page 4-22 December, 2004

PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

Page 4-24 December, 2004

PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

Page 4-26 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Description Reference No. Prior to a house fire in the fall of 2000, this property met the National Register Criteria for evaluation as an intact and representative example of Greek Revival 1007 architectural style (see notes below). This 23.1 ha property includes two parts; a 4.209 ha parcel in the Village of Springville on the north side of Zoar Valley Figure 7-23 Road which includes all of the farm buildings, and an adjacent 18.899 ha parcel in the Town of Concord which is mostly wooded.

Description Reference No. Property meets the National Register Criteria for evaluation as an intact and representative example of a 19th century farmstead that is historically signifi- 1008 cant because it recalls the historical agricultural development of the region. This Figure 7-23 property retains intact complexes of farm buildings. Additionally, the boundaries of the farmstead includes historically associated farmland, that has not been subdivided for nonfarm use.

Upgrade Alternative Structure #1008 - Freeway Alternative No Effect Adverse Effect: taking/setting No ROW would be required from these properties. In the DEIS, strip ROW parcels were shown along both sides of Zoar Valley Road for the roadway em- bankment approaching the proposed Zoar Valley Road Bridge over the freeway. Another strip of ROW would be required along the east side line. Total Notes: ROW required from this farm would be 9.6 hectares, 14.4% of the property. None of the buildings would The house at Structure #1007 was destroyed by be directly affected. Avoidance options were inves- fire in the fall of 2000. Subsequent correspondence tigated, which showed that this property cannot be with the SHPO dated 4/27/01 indicates that the totally avoided. Shifting the freeway to the east would property no longer meets National Register Crite- affect the Walmart Property, and shifting Zoar Val- ria (see the attached correspondence at the end ley Road to the south would affect a large commer- of this Chapter). cial building housing Horschel Brothers Machine Shop. Land impacts can be reduced by reducing the proposed right of way to the minimum necessary for freeway construction. Also, the front yard can be avoided by shifting the west end of the proposed Zoar Valley Rd. bridge slightly to the south. This would also preserve the mature trees in the front lawn areas.

Structure #1008 - Freeway Alternative Avoidance Options Impacts to this property could be avoided by one of two options, to the east or the west. Both options would increase construction costs by more than $10 million. See Figure 7-23. Consideration of the additional 10 million construction cost leads to the conclusion that it is not feasible and prudent to avoid this property. However, the Upgrade Alternative would avoid these 4(f) properties.

Structure #1008 - Freeway Alternative Minimization Measures Comments received at the Public Hearings and during the comment period requested that the Depart- ment analyze the possibility of realigning Zoar Val- ley Road along the west side of the freeway, connecting with Route 39 to the north. The short section of Zoar Valley Road between existing Route 219 and the Freeway would be dead ended. This would eliminate the need for a new bridge and its associated impacts to this property. The total right-

December, 2004 Page 4-27 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Notes: of-way to be acquired from the Structure #1008 property would be 7.51 ha. These areas are less than the DEIS proposal because the Freeway pro- file could be raised, avoiding deep cuts and occu- pying a smaller footprint. Not as much additional right-of-way would be needed along existing Zoar Valley Road, although right-of-way would be needed to the north along the realigned Zoar Valley Road. The SHPO concurs with these minimization measures. (See letters dated 12/31/98 and 4/7/99 in Attachment 7-1.)

The proposed median width in this area is 30 m. Medians as narrow as 11 m are allowable without requiring safety barriers. The 30 m median width is proposed in this area because the Freeway needs to tie into the existing Route 219 Expressway to the north, which has a 90 m wide median. South of these properties near Scoby Hill Road the Freeway would be along the side of a hill. In side-hill situations, a wider median is typically preferred to allow for a "bifurcated section," with independent profiles for each roadway to reduce the heights of fills or cuts. If a narrower median were used, the two roadway profiles could not be independent, the downslope fills and upslope cuts would be higher and the footprint would be nearly as wide or wider than the bifurcated section.

Page 4-28 December, 2004

PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

Page 4-30 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

4.B.3.l. Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials

4.B.3.l (2) Environmental Consequences Two of the six sites identified in the FEIS as potential areas of concern would require mitigation for construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange.

4.B.3.m. Asbestos Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 would require the removal of 35 houses, 28 mobile homes, 13 garages, 16 barns, 9 commercial buildings, and 30 miscellaneous outbuildings, all of which could have asbestos containing materials. Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would reduce the number of structures that require removal to 2 houses, 1 mobile home, 1 garage, 1 barn, no commercial buildings, and no miscellaneous outbuildings. Preferred Freeway construction the Snake Run Road Interchange would not require Asbestos abatement on any bridges or culverts. Asbestos abatement costs for construction of the Preferred Freeway to either I-86 or the Snake Run Road Interchange are displayed below in Table 4-31.

Table 4-31 Asbestos Abatement Cost Estimates Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 Buildings$ 708,200 Bridges and Culverts$ 2,500 TOTAL$ 710,700 Preferred Freew ay Alternative to Snake Run Road Buildings$ 48,200 Bridges and Culverts$ - TOTAL$ 48,200

4.B.3.n. Farmlands

4.B.3.n (2) Environmental Consequences During alternative development and preliminary design, impacts to farmland resources in the project area were avoided and/or minimized to the greatest extent practicable. As noted in Table 5-5 of Appendix O - Farmland Protection Report of the FEIS, the Preferred Freeway Alternative constructed to I-86 would impact 182.0 hectares from 19 active farms. Construction the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would impact 74.8 hectares from 5 active farms. The 5 farms are are those owned by G. Schichtel, F Hofmann, D. Cobb, H. Blesy and W. Miller.

4.B.3.o. Energy An energy analysis addressing the Preferred Freeway Alternative is included in Appen- dix P of the FEIS. It estimates the total annual energy consumed by the proposed

December, 2004 Page 4-31 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

project and conforms to the policies stated in the Federal Register Final Rules for “Energy Conservation by Recipients of Federal Financial Assistance." The specific methodology followed was in accordance with the Federal Highway Administra- tion (FHWA) Office of Environmental Policy, Energy Requirements for Transpor- tation Systems (June, 1980), and with the New York State Department of Transpor- tation (NYSDOT) Environmental Procedures Manual (August, 1996). Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would shorten the constructed freeway from 45 km to 11 km., the total energy consumed is expected to be about 25% of the energy consumption shown in the FEIS until such time as final construction is completed to I-86.

4.B.3.p. Visual Impacts

4.B.3.p(4) Visual Impact Results Visual impacts for both construction of the Preferred Freeway to I-86 and the Snake Run Road Interchange are identical from Springville to the Snake Run Road. Construction of the Preferred Freeway to the Snake Run Road would eliminate the visual impacts in areas south of the interchange. When an agreement is reached with the Seneca Nation to construct the remainder of the freeway to I-86, the remaining areas would be impacted as listed in the FEIS. A detailed analysis of visual impacts for full Freeway construction to I-86 can be found in Appendix Q of the FEIS. Those sections that apply to construction to Snake Run Road are descriped under Segments One through Four (Springville to Ashford Hollow).

4.B.3.q. Regional and Local Land Use Plans The Preferred Freeway Alternative is consistent with regional and local land use plans. Officials and planning board members of all project area communities were consulted early in the project and throughout the development of alternatives. Their concerns and suggestions were considered and incorporated where possible. Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not change effects to regional or local land use plans for the areas described for Concord and Ash- ford as noted in the FEIS. The remining areas south of Ashford would not be affected.

4.B.3.r. Adirondack Park Agency Coordination This item does not apply.

4.B.3.s. Construction Impacts Construction activities could cause a number of short-term environmental impacts, which will be controlled to the greatest extent possible. There are no long-term construction impacts associated with the Preferred Freeway Alternative. Construction of the Pre- ferred Freeway to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not change the construction impacts noted for the freeway in the FEIS with the exception that construction would be reduced from 44 km to 11 km.

Page 4-32 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

4.B.4. Relationship Between Short Term Uses of Man’s Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long Term Productivity Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 or the construction of any part there of will remain consistent with the national, state and local comprehensive plans noted in the Section 4.B.4. of the FEIS.

Short-term effects associated with construction of the Preferred Freeway are listed in the Section 4.B.4. of the FEIS. Construction of the Preferred Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would be affected as noted in the FEIS and would have additional effects, which will also be controlled or mitigated, including:

• a minor increase in traffic over the Null Alternative on existing Route 219 between the Snake Run Road Interchange and I-86. • a minor increase in traffic congestion over the Null Alternative on city streets adjacent to existing Route 219 in the city of Salamanca.

4.B.5. Any Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Which Would be Involved in the Proposed Action Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative would require commitment of a number of natural, physical, human and fiscal resources. The intent is to construct the Pre- ferred Freeway Alternative to an interchange connection at I-86. Construction to the Snake Run Road Interchange, until an agreement is reached with the Seneca Nation of Indians, would delay commitment of proportionally fewer (approx. 25%) resources until the freeway is completed to I-86. See Section 4.B.5. in the FEIS for a list of irreversible and/or irretrievable commitment of resources.

4.B.6. Adverse Environmental Impacts that Cannot be Avoided or Adequately Mitigated Section 4.B.6. of the FEIS provides a list of environmental impacts that will occur regardless of the mitigation employed. The impacts listed would occur for construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to either location, the Snake Run Road Interchange or the connection to I-86.

4.B.7. Growth Inducing Aspects of the Project Construction of the Preferred Freeway to either I-86 or the Snake Run Road Interchange would provide needed transportation improvements and improve the area's economic potential. Section 4.B.7. of the FEIS provides a list of growth inducing aspects that would be expected from providing needed transportation improvements. Constructing the Preferred Freeway to the Snake Run Road Interchange would complete 11 km of the proposed 44 km freeway realizing growth while negotiations for an agreement with the Seneca Nation of Indians continues.

December, 2004 Page 4-33 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

4.B.8. List of Permits Permitting requirements for construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative are listed in Section 4.B.8. of the FEIS. Preferred Freeway construction to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not cross Seneca Nation land and therefore would not require compliance with the Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance (TERO). Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would require all other permits listed in the FEIS.

4.B.9. Indirect/Secondary and Cumulative Impacts

4.B.9.a. Indirect/Secondary Impacts The purpose of the indirect/secondary impact evaluation is to identify potential development areas that may develop as a result of new highway or improved highway construction. The areas identified in Section 4.B.9. of the FEIS may or may not be developed since many factors could influence the development potential of any site including land availability, land use controls, natural land characteristics, available utilities, regulatory constraints and economics.

Table 4-35 Indirect/Secondary Impacts - Landuse

INT ERCHANGE L OCATION AGRICULTURE FIELD OLD FOREST OR URBAN -UPBUILT WETLANDS TOTAL Preferred Freeway to I-86 AREA IN HECTARES NY Ro ut e 39 24.93 0.00 2.02 1.60 0.00 28.55 Pete rs Road 53.95 2.78 1.17 0.44 0.17 58.51 Snak e Ru n Ro ad 5.94 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 6.19 NY Ro ut e 242 3.90 9.21 0.00 0.07 0.00 13.18 Great Valley 37.02 3.23 3.83 13.05 0.00 57.13 Salam anca 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.97 0.00 8.97 Interstate 86 0.00 2.94 16.40 0.00 0.00 19.34 Totals 125.74 18.16 23.42 24.38 0.17 191.87 Preferred Freeway to Snake Run Road AREA IN HECTARES NY Ro ut e 39 24.93 0.00 2.02 1.60 0.00 28.55 Pete rs Road 53.95 2.78 1.17 0.44 0.17 58.51 Snak e Ru n Ro ad 5.94 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 6.19 NY Ro ut e 242 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Great Valley 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Salam anca 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Interstate 86 ------Totals 84.82 2.78 3.19 2.29 0.17 93.25

Page 4-34 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

4.B.9.a(2) Indirect/Secondary Impact Assessment Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would include construction of 3 of the 7 interchanges opening approximately 93 hectares of land to possible future development. This is 48% of the total land estimated if the entire freeway is constructed to I-86 and is consistent with the analysis presented in the FEIS. Should future approval to build the rest of the freeway never be received, additional indirect development near the Snake Run Rd. interchange, above that shown in Table 4- 35, is not expected to occur. This is based on insignificant increases in traffic that would otherwise support more development, as well as the physical conditions of the valley in and around Ashford Hollow such as severe topography, wetlands, streams, flood plains and other environmental constraints that regulate development.

4.B.9.a(3) Indirect/Secondary Impacts The indirect/secondary impacts induced by Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alter- native would vary depending on the land uses adjacent to the affected properties at the time of development. Without specific project proposals it is not possible to quantify the levels or severity of each impact. Indirect and secondary impacts that have been identified are those impacts associated with mine sites and borrow areas that frequently are opened within the general area of major highway projects. Economics of construction dictates that mine sites be located as close to the actual construction as possible. Therefore, exact locations would be determined prior to construction for a given area. When construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative is progressed between the Snake Run Road Interchange and the Interchange at I-86, construction would likely require that additional borrow sites be opened to accommodate construction.

4.B.9.b. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts differ from indirect/secondary impacts in that they consist of the social, economic and environmental impacts which result from the incremental impact of the project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or private entity undertakes such other actions. The cumulative impact analysis identifies additional major infrastructure improvement projects that are planned in the U.S. Route 219 Project Area. It is not possible to quantify actual impacts due to the lack of detail and general nature of these conceptual plans.

4.B.9.b(1) Cumulative Impact Assessment There are no major private commercial or industrial projects proposed along the corridor that would require additional interchanges. Since the Preferred Freeway ROW will not provide roadside access, future development would likely occur as close to the planned interchanges as possible and as allowed by local zoning. As noted in the FEIS, there are three areas currently under study in the form of updated land use plans. The three areas noted in the FEIS are the proposed Commerce Park in Springville, the areas along N.Y. Route 242 in Ellicottville, and the East Salamanca Railyard. Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road

December, 2004 Page 4-35 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Interchange likely would affect the area for Springville as noted in the FEIS, however it would not change impacts to the remaining areas. One additional area identified for future development is the Christian Hollow area on the Seneca Nation, located adjacent to and south of the proposed I- 86/Rt. 219 interchange. The Seneca Nation has not developed any land use plans for the area. However, they have identified the site as having potential for future development. Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would not provide access to this area for development. Since there are no major public or private developments proposed within the corridor, it is not expected that cumulative impacts will occur other than as described in the FEIS.

Page 4-36 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

CHAPTER 5 - EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF 5 ALTERNATIVES

Chapter 5 summa- 5.A. COST, BENEFIT AND IMPACT COMPARISON rizes impacts of constructing the Pre- The previous chapters have presented information about impacts of constructing a por- ferred Freeway Alter- tion of the Preferred Freeway Alternative from the end of the existing U.S. Route 219 in native to I-86 and the Springville to the Snake Run Road Interchange. Table 5-1 includes a summary of costs, Sanke Run Road benefits and impacts of constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 and to the based on engineering, Snake Run Road Interchange. Comparisons are made and impacts are measured from a social and environ- consistent point of reference, the year 2025. mental analysis.

Table 5-1 Comparison of Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 Verses Snake Run Road 2025 2025 FDR/FEIS/4(f) Preferred Freeway Preferred Freeway Percent Re f e r e nce Alternative to Snake Alternative to I-86 (b/a) Section Run Road (a) (b) Project Objectives 1. Improve Traffic Conditions and LOS 3.C.2.b (1.2) Yes Yes 2. Improve Safety 3.C.2.b (3) Yes Yes

3. Eliminate the 2-Lane Corridor Gap between 3.C. 100% 25.00% 25.0% US 219 Expressway and the I-86 Expressway. Minor 4. Meet Social Demands and 4.B.2 Regional Effect Promote Economic Development Regional Effect

5. Cost Effectively Provide Improvements, while 4.B. Yes Yes Minimizing Social and Environmental Impacts Costs & Be ne fi ts ** Costs & Be ne fi ts (1997 $US millions) Construction Cost - Highway FEIS, Appendix C ($366.6) ($84.2) 23.0% Construction Cost - Bridges FEIS, Appendix C ($231.9) ($35.6) 15.4% Right-of-Way Cost FEIS, Appendix C ($14.1) ($4.2) 29.8% Total Construction Cost ($612.6) ($124.0) 20.2% Annual Maintenance Costs Table 3-8 ($1.983) ($1.018) 51.3% Annual Transportation User Benefits (2025) Table E.5-5 $26.8 $2.6 9.8% Quantitative Benefits Short Term Economic Benefits Construction Jobs (person-years) Table 4-10 25,200 5,200 20.6% Non-Standard Geometric Features Retained 3.C.2.a. 0 0 Non-Conforming Geometric Features Retained 3.C.2.a. 0 0 Projected Accident Rate & 1.26 acc/mvk 1.71 acc/mvk 107.9% Projected Number of Annual Accidents 3.C.2.b (3) 240 acc/year 359 acc/year 111.3% ('91-'93 1.19 acc/mvk, 136 acc/year) Travel Time Springville to Salamanca 3.C.2.b. 31 minutes 50 minutes 161.3% (1996 = 45 minutes) Level of Service A on Freeway A on Freeway (1996 LOS = D/E) 3.C.2.b (1.2) A & B On Old U.S. D / F In Salamanca Route 219

December, 2004 Page 5-1 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

Comparison of Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to I-86 Verses the Snake Run Road 2025 FDR/FEIS/4(f) 2025 Preferred Freeway % Re f e r e nce Preferred Freeway Alternative to Snake Difference Section Alternative to I-86 Run Road Qualitative Benefits Improved Accessibility 4.B.1.b. Regional Benefit Regional Benefit Emergency Service Improvement 4.B.1.d. Regional Benefit Regional Benefit Positive impacts on Residences/Businesses 4.B.2.a. Expanded Market Expanded Market Elimination/mitigation of hazardous waste and sites 4.B.3.l. Partial Partial - Salamanca Rail Yard Remediation Social, Economic & Environmental Impacts Highway Related Businesses Impacted (bypassed) 4.B.2.b. 98 29 29.6% Right-of-Way Impacts Number of Parcels Required 241 58 24.1% Land Area Required (hectares) 855 246 28.8% Houses 3.C.2.l. 35 2 5.7% Mobi l e Homes 28 1 3.6% Other Buildings 59 1 1.7% Commercial Buildings Acquired 9 Buildings 0 Buildings 0.0% Businesses Relocated 1 Business 0 Business 0.0% Annual Loss of Property Tax Revenue Table 4-12 ($82,798) ($18,026) 21.8% Noise Impacts (Existing Impacts = 367) 4.B.3.a. 573 482 84.1% Wetland Impacts # of wetlands impacted 77 Wetlands 19 Wetlands 24.7% 4.B.3.d. Area of wetlands impacted (ha) 13.00 hectares 3.80 hectares 29.2% Surface Water Quality Impacts Localized minor to Localized minor to 4.B.3.h. moderate increases in moderate increases in pollutant loads pollutant loads

Groundwater Impacts Localized degradation Localized degradation 4.B.3.h. in quality and quantity. in quality and quantity.

Floodplain Impacts 4.B.3.i. Will be mitigated Will be mitigated Section 4(f) Impacts 4.B.3.j. 12 3 25.0% Farmland Impacts Number of Major Farms Impacted 4.B.3.n. 19 5 26.3% Farm Operations Impacted (ha) 180.7 74.8 41.4% Visual Impacts Average rating of visual simulations 4.B.3.p. Moderate - Strong Strong Scenic Opportunities Increased Increased

Page 5-2 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

5.B. DISCUSSION

Preferred Freeway Construction to I-86 The Preferred Freeway Alternative constructed to I-86 would satisfy all of the project objectives as stated in Section 5.B of the FEIS, which is the full intent of the NYSDOT.

Preferred Construction Freeway to the Snake Run Road Interchange Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange, while negotiations continue with the Seneca Nation of Indians, would be a step toward satisfying the project objectives. Upon completion, it would provide a new freeway over as much of the project corridor as possible, 11 km of the 44 km proposed, without requiring use of Seneca Nation land and without causing signifcant impacts to the unimproved portion of the corridor. As noted in Section 3.D.3 of this report, construction of the freeway would take place over a number of years providing time to complete the negotiations with the Seneca Nation.

December, 2004 Page 5-3 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

Page 5-4 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Chapter 6 summa- 6.A CONCLUSIONS rizes the conclusions and recom- The intent of this project is to construct the entire Preferred Freeway Alternative between mendations made NY 39 in Springville and I-86 near Salamanca. However, in an effort to avoid inducing concerning partial significant impacts to the residents and environment along the unimproved section of construction of the existing US 219, the Preferred Freeway Alternative could be constructed to the Snake Preferred Freeway. Run Road Interchange without additional impacts. As determined in the FEIS, the Preferred Freeway Alternative along the preferred alignment would best meet the project needs and objectives. The Freeway Alternative constructed to the Snake Run Road Interchange would follow this same alignment. Traffic conditions and safety deficiencies would be improved for 25% of the study area and the existing two-lane corridor gap would be shortened from 44 km to 33 km. It would also provide some potential for future economic enhancement of the region and state by improving access from western New York to major markets along the East Coast. Better transportation user benefits in an area equates to better economic impact potential. Constructing the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange would provide a new freeway facility over a portion of the corridor without introducing significant impacts to the unimproved portion of the corridor. As indicated in Section 3.D.3 of this report, construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative would take place in 8 Phases. Section 3.D.2 of this report noted that if construction began by 2005, the estimated completion date for the freeway could be in the year 2014. In order to realize the benefits from the improved transportation facility as soon as possible, construction of the facility should begin as soon as possible. The Seneca Nation has given conditional support for construction of the project and negotiations are expected to continue toward full approval while a portion of the project is under construction. However, waiting for a fully executed agreement between the State of New York and the Seneca Nation before any construction is allowed to begin could result in a delay in attaining all benefits. Based on the comparisons of the benefits, costs and impacts noted in Chapter 5 of this report, it appears feasible and reasonable to construct the Preferred Freeway Alternative from the end of the existing U.S. Route 219 Expressway in Springville to the Snake Run Road Interchange until an agreement is reached with the Seneca Nation of Indians to complete construction of the freeway to the Southern Tier Expressway (I-86). The impacts associated with the constructing the Freeway to Snake Run Road are considered minimal and the FEIS remains valid.

December, 2004 Page 6-1 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

6.B. RECOMMENDATIONS For the reasons noted above, it is recommended the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provide approval for funding for ROW acquisition, Final Design and Construction of the Preferred Freeway Alternative to the Snake Run Road Interchange until an agreement is reached with the Seneca Nation of Indians to complete the project.

Page 6-2 December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

RECORD OF DECISION

SEPTEMBER 4, 2003

December, 2004 PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

December, 2004 RECORD OF DECISION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION U.S. ROUTE 219: SPRINGVILLE TO SALAMANCA ERIE & CATTARAUGUS COUNTIES, NEW YORK FHWA-NY-EIS-98-02F

This Record of Decision (ROD) considers the proposal to improve safety and traffic operations along the US Route 219 transportation corridor between Route 39 in the

Village of Springville, Erie County and Route 17 / I-86 in the City of Salamanca,

Cattaraugus County, New York. US Route 219 is a two-lane fully accessible rural highway having sub-standard geometric design features (shoulder width, grades, horizontal curvature and stopping sight distance) that contribute to accidents along the

45-kilometer (28 mile) study length. Due to expected increases in traffic volumes, minor congestion currently experienced on the majority of segments will deteriorate to a low level-of-service.

Decision

The freeway alternative is selected by the NYSDOT and adopted with stipulations by

FHWA.

This alternative, along with others considered in the Final EIS / Final Section 4(f)

Evaluation, is fully described in Chapter Three of the document. The Federal Highway

Administration approved the Final EIS/4(f) Evaluation on March 25, 2003 and published it’s availability for review in the April 25, 2003 Federal Register.

The freeway alternative is designed to provide a safe and operationally efficient facility on new alignment while minimizing adverse social, economic and environmental impacts to the extent practicable. As summarized below and described in more detail in the Final

EIS, the proposed project incorporates numerous measures to mitigate unavoidable

adverse effects. A four-lane freeway would be constructed for the entire 45-kilometer

length. Safety would be optimized and travel time substantially reduced. The level-of- service and safety will also improve on the existing route since traffic will divert to the new highway alignment.

Stipulations

While this decision is made without the clear and unconditional approval of the Seneca

Nation of Indians to construct this project across their lands, the New York State

Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), as outlined in their attached March 18, 2003

letter to the Federal Highway Administration – New York Division, is committed to

working cooperatively with the Nation to resolve all concerns.

The FHWA will not authorize construction of any part of the Route 219 project until

clear approval is received from the Seneca Nation of Indians or, in the absence of such

agreement, NYSDOT completes and documents in accord with NEPA appropriate studies

(that address all costs and benefits) to support a partial-build alternative.

Pending resolution of the above issue, NYSDOT will limit land acquisitions to only those

from landowners that voluntarily agree to transfer ownership to the state and/or those

approved by FHWA as “protective buying”, as defined in 23CFR 771.117(d).

Furthermore, comments by the U.S. EPA identify concerns that must be resolved in the

Section 404 permit process. Therefore, pending approval of construction permits by the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and in keeping with standard federal-aid program

procedures, NYSDOT will limit project activities to preliminary engineering, (and land

acquisitions consistent with the stipulation above). EPA’s other comments have been

carefully considered. They are reflected in this document and in addressed in more detail

in a separate letter, attached.

The above stipulations will be modified, as appropriate and reasonable, upon progress toward agreement with the Seneca Nation and/or issuance of permits.

Alternatives Considered

Alternatives considered in the project environmental process for this project include: the null / no-build, upgrade, and freeway alternatives. A full description of each alternative is contained in Chapter Three – Sections B & C of the Final EIS / Final Section 4(f)

Evaluation.

Null Alternative

The null alternative is the retention of the existing two-lane highway and continuation of

normal maintenance activities. These activities include pavement patching, pavement

overlays, bridge repairs, guide rail repair, cleaning of culverts and ditches and like minor

work. This alternative does not address the congestion and safety problems associated

with the corridor.

Upgrade Alternative

This alternative would widen the two-lane highway to four-lanes plus a narrow flush

median and full-width shoulders. Turn lanes would be provided at selected intersections.

Since widening the existing alignment would severely impact the Village of Ellicottville

and City of Salamanca, the alternative bypasses most of these developed areas. A bypass

option is also available for the Hamlet of Ashford Hollow. The upgrade alternative will

improve traffic operations throughout the highway corridor to a lesser degree than a new

freeway, but without control of access may actually result in a greater number of

accidents. Based upon statewide experience, and consistent with national experience, a

four lane rural highway without access control would have an accident rate about two to

four times that of a fully access-control highway such as the proposed freeway. Traffic

3 operations on a freeway are superior to those on a highway with intersections at-grade and numerous driveways because stops and starts are virtually eliminated and the delays for traffic entering and leaving the primary lanes are greatly reduced.

Freeway Alternative

The freeway alternative will provide a four-lane, divided highway on new alignment that will maximize safety and traffic operations. A great deal of traffic will divert off existing

219 onto the freeway thereby greatly mitigating hazards on existing 219. Traffic remaining on existing 219 will be faced with fewer potential conflicts, thereby improving safety for local traffic as well. The proposed alignment was selected following extensive coordination with many interested agencies, the public and local elected officials. The minimization of harm to key environmental features was a primary consideration, systematically pursued. In consideration of the qualitative nature of weighing and balancing the multiple environmental impacts of the alternatives, particularly views expressed by the impacted communities through state and local governmental agency input, and in recognition of the numerous incorporated plans to mitigate adverse environmental impact, I consider the freeway to be the environmentally preferred alternative.

Important Factors in the Decision

Please refer to Final EIS / Final Section 4(f) Evaluation Chapter Five for the evaluation and comparison of alternatives. Both the upgrade and freeway alternatives address project objectives to varying degrees. However, the freeway alternative was selected for the following reasons:

Transportation: The freeway alternative is best at relieving future congestion and

assuring safe travel. Estimated travel time between Springville and Salamanca is

4 eleven minutes less with a freeway than with an upgrade to the existing highway.

A freeway connecting to existing freeways provides continuity to the state and regional transportation system that cannot be achieved with the upgrade, which would leave a gap. As mentioned above and more specifically estimated in the

FEIS, the probability of accidents and their associated costs on a freeway would be about one-half or less than with the upgrade. More important, a freeway is the only alternative that can be relied upon to preserve the safety and capacity improvements sought for regional traffic. That is because only the freeway can control access and access control is necessary to preserve the safety and capacity benefits achieved by highway improvement at the scale of this proposal. The safety and capacity goals this project seeks to achieve flow directly from state and national transportation policy established in Title 23 and related federal legislation.

Public Support: Section 145 of Title 23 US Code establishes a national policy whereby federal officials are to defer to the state on the selection of projects. I am required to assure that the state develops federal-aid projects using standards that will assure safety and that are best suited to meet the needs of the locality, as stated in section 109 of Title 23. The process used to prepare the FEIS for this proposal included extensive, far-ranging opportunity for public review, comment, and analysis of the alternatives. There is unanimous support from local governments to improve Route 219. As the record shows, every local government in the project area endorsed the freeway alternative and opposed the upgrade alternative. I have considered the support of the freeway alternative by local government, as well as the state, consistent with the above provisions of Title 23.

Endorsing the freeway alternative is consistent with state and national transportation objectives and the proposed improvements were examined in light of their potential impacts upon the human environment.

Economics: The freeway alternative requires far more building materials, labor and equipment for construction, compared to the upgrade alternative. Despite the increased construction cost, when highway user costs and benefits are considered the freeway offers much greater benefit. The increased construction requirements for a freeway will translate into more economic activity, as documented in the

FEIS. On a broad economic scale, the FEIS plainly indicates how the specific economic effects of roadway improvement are more difficult to forecast.

However that is true of most long-range economic projections. I believe that most attempts to forecast long-term economic conditions, let alone the influence of any single activity on overall economic activity are fraught with uncertainty. State and local officials anticipate that a new freeway will maximize the potential for economic growth both locally and regionally. I recognize this viewpoint as one of paramount concern to state and local officials and one widely accepted.

Environment: In comparison of the two build alternatives, the upgrade alternative impacts a more developed, man-made environment proximate to the existing roadway alignment. The freeway alternative impacts more forest, wetland and other undeveloped or open land, i.e., natural environment. A key issue is to consider the weights assigned to the various factors involved, including public comment and related input to the process. Whereas the effects to the natural environment are heavily weighed, I have also considered the social and physical aspects of the human environment such as air quality, noise pollution, farmlands,

6 cultural resources, public recreation areas, hazardous wastes, community disruption, as described in the FEIS. Either alternative must comply with every regulatory requirement established to protect public health and/or natural resources.

Secondary and cumulative effects have been considered. Pages 4-195 to 4-215 in

Volume One of the FEIS evaluate the potential for such effects and forecast possible development scenarios. The FEIS reflects the fact that it is impossible to specify the future development or the related environmental consequences with precision. However, as indicated in the FEIS all such development would be subject to local governmental control, and to the control of other state and federal authorities to the extent that environmental resources are subject to their authority and may be impacted. The anticipated pressure for development would not be unusual or on a large scale. It would be consistent with the overall aims of the state and involved localities. The environmental effects of anticipated benefits to the regional economy are entirely speculative.

I see a notable superiority in the quality of transportation a freeway will contribute to the human environment, compared to the upgrade alternative. I also find a difference between the alternatives based upon the Section 4(f) Evaluation in Chapter 7. I note that section 4(f) is a key public policy that requires special efforts be made to protect historic sites, public parkland, recreation areas and wildlife refuges.

Publicly owned parks, recreation areas and wildlife refuges have been successfully avoided by the systematic process used to define and develop the two build alternatives. Through extensive coordination between FHWA, NYSDOT,

the State Historic Preservation Officer, The Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, The Seneca Nation of Indians, and by seeking the views of others

through the Section 106/NEPA/Section 4(f) process, the use of land from sites

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places has been thoroughly

evaluated. The freeway alternative uses land from fewer historic sites than would

the upgrade alternative. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of

contributing lands from 12 Register-eligible properties with a freeway or 15 with

the upgrade alternative. The freeway alternative incorporates all possible planning

to minimize harm resulting from the use of historic sites in accordance with the

terms of a fully approved Section 106 Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement,

included in the document.

Measures to Minimize Harm

Measures necessary to mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts have been

incorporated into the project to minimize environmental harm. Such measures are

more fully described in Chapter Four of the Final EIS / Final Section 4(f)

Evaluation. Also, there are many “best practice” requirements included in the

State’s standard construction contract specifications, standard plans / notes, and

contract provisions that are for the purpose of avoiding, minimizing and

mitigating adverse environmental impacts. These are incorporated in normal

construction contracts per New York State highway department procedures.

Relocations: Owners of the sixty-three homes and one business to be relocated

would be compensated fair market value. Decent, safe and sanitary replacement

housing would be assured to displaced households. Moving costs would also be

reimbursable to owners and tenants in accordance with applicable Federal and

State statutes and regulations.

Noise: Noise impacts have been evaluated in accordance with FHWA noise

standards and NYSDOT Statewide Noise Policy. Mitigation has been determined

to be reasonable and feasible at two locations. Subject to community acceptance,

noise barriers are proposed to mitigate impacts at six residences near Ellicott

Street in the City of Salamanca and at twenty-four residences at / near the mobile home park in the Hamlet of Great Valley.

Aquatic Resources: The alternative will bridge (cross) four State designated trout streams and require the re-alignment of a portion of a fifth. Erosion control measures (re-seeding, silt-fencing and straw bales) are proposed to reduce sedimentation during construction and riprap and re-vegetation to minimize future sedimentation at the four streams to be crossed. For the re-aligned stream, gravel / cobble substrate, flow deflectors, in-stream snags and boulders and bio- engineered stream banks are proposed to re-establish riparian vegetation. The final and specific means to address these impacts will be resolved in the process of obtaining the various construction permits and in consultation with the resource agencies that participate in that process.

Wetlands: 13.00 hectares may be impacted by the Freeway Alternative and will

be mitigated by the creation and / or restoration of wetlands of various types

(primarily palustrine forested, scrub-shrub and emergent) at three separate

locations, subject to Army Corps of Engineers and NYS Department of

Environmental Conservation wetland permits requirements. There would be 9.4

hectares created at the existing Plum Brook North wetland. 3.6 hectares would be

restored and 10.8 hectares created at the existing Hinman Valley wetland. And

4.1 hectares would be created along Great Valley Creek as part of the stream re-

alignment discussed above under Aquatic Resources.

Surface Water: There will be an increase of copper concentrations in drainage areas, which could cause levels exceeding the USEPA acute criteria for sustaining aquatic wildlife. Grassed swales and ditches will be incorporated into the design to filter / settle out the copper particles and thereby mitigate this impact.

Floodplains: The freeway will impact the floodplain for Great Valley Creek by infringing on both the floodway and floodplain boundary. Mitigation has been

incorporated into the design to address impacts associated with creek relocation /

re-establishment and fish and wildlife habitat, flood storage and wetlands.

Cultural Resources: A Programmatic Agreement has been executed that provides the basis by which cultural resource impacts will be evaluated, avoided, minimized and mitigated. The numerous details are included on pages 4-127 to 4-

140 of the FEIS / Final Section 4(f) Evaluation.

Hazardous Waste / Asbestos: Six sites have the potential for containing hazardous and / or contaminated waste within the existing Route 219 corridor.

Also, bridges and buildings, which will be demolished, may have asbestos containing materials. During project design, further evaluation will be conducted at the affected locations. All materials will be classified and disposed of in accordance with established requirements. In this regard, the project will have a positive effect on the human environment.

Aesthetics (Visual): Sensitive viewpoints are located in areas where bridges, interchanges and major cut & fill slopes are proposed. These impacts will

primarily be mitigated by the landscaping plan, which will include indigenous

plant types. Other potential mitigation to reduce the contrast will be the use of

earth tones to the extent possible in the structural elements (e.g. colored / textured

concrete wingwalls, retaining walls & abutments and weathering steel girders).

Monitoring / Enforcement Program

This project will be subject to further review and approvals by Federal and State

agencies. Coordination will be required with the US Army Corps of Engineers for a

Section 404 permit for dredging / depositing materials into waters / wetlands of the

United States. Also, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation must be

consulted further on issuance of a Section 401 water quality certificate, a State Pollution

Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit and a Freshwater Wetlands permit. For

work in streams and archeological studies on Seneca Nation of Indian (SNI) lands,

coordination must be undertaken and environmental permits obtained from the SNI. Also,

further coordination will be necessary between the Federal Highway Administration,

State Historic Preservation Officer and Seneca Nation of Indians on the satisfaction of

the Section 106 “Programmatic Agreement”

Comments on the FEIS / Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

The following agencies and individuals commented on the documents: U.S. Department

of the Interior (DOI), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Erie County Department of

Environment & Planning, Mr. William Norton, and Ms. Nancy Norton.

Comments from the EPA, DOI and DEC identify concerns about impacts to the ecology,

including uplands, wetlands and other waters and offer suggestions and recommendations

11 to refine, update and mitigate anticipated impacts. Impacts to waters of the United States will be addressed and resolved in the section 404 permit application and review process.

EPA also comments about the analysis of indirect/cumulative benefits and impacts, as does Erie County. These comments have been carefully reviewed and I believe the FEIS adequately evaluates the issues pertinent to this decision. These concerns will be further considered by the NYSDOT to the extent required and as otherwise determined to be appropriate as detail design proceeds.

Erie County seeks signs related to bypassed businesses. These comments have also been considered and I believe the FEIS adequately evaluates the pertinent issues. NYSDOT personnel will give this further consideration in detail design.

DEC comments on forestry planning and industry and state requirements for water supplies, that the NYSDOT will further consider as they determine to be appropriate.

William Norton and Nancy Norton have commented extensively on the process and procedures used at numerous steps in preparing the proposed action, with a preponderance of comments criticizing the FHWA and NYSDOT application of laws and regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, the requirements known as Section 4(f), and the Section 106 guidelines for the National Historic

Preservation Act. The Norton’s each offer numerous comments about the anticipated impacts of the proposed action, including critiques of the methods and adequacy of the studies undertaken to identify impacts. These comments on the FEIS follow their very extensive and generally similar comments on the Draft EIS (DEIS) and on the

Environmental Assessment/Reevaluation (EA/R) (see pages T-40, T-321, T-697, T-724,

T-726, and T-730 of FEIS Volume 6, Appendix T for comments on the DEIS and pages

169, 202 and 373 of FEIS Volume 7, Attachment VIII-1 for comments on the EA/R), including oral comments at three public hearings on the project, and in other comments in the administrative record considered to be offered as consulting parties in the Section 106 process. All their comments have been considered before entering this decision.

Date Robert Arnold, Division Administrator

Federal Highway Administration

New York Division Office

PIN 5101.53, U.S. Route 219 Springville to Salamanca Preferred Freeway Alt. - Partial Build Assessment

(Vacant)

December, 2004