Draft Design Report

DRAFT DESIGN REPORT

JANUARY 2016

Sidewalk Project PIN 9009.35 Neahwa Park Entrance Improvement Project City of Oneonta Otsego County

PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET (Pursuant to SAFETEA-LU Matrix)

A. Public Hearing A public hearing was held on ______in accordance with 23 USC 128. OR A Certification (23 USC public hearing was not required. 128):

City of Oneonta Mayor

B. Recommendation for All requirements requisite to these actions and approvals have been met, the Design and Nonstandard required independent quality control reviews separate from the functional group Feature Approval: reviews have been accomplished, and the work is consistent with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise noted and explained.

Consultant Design Engineer

C. Nonstandard Feature No nonstandard features have been identified, created, or retained. Approval:

City of Oneonta Mayor

G. Design Approval: The required environmental determinations have been made and the preferred alternative for this project is ready for final design.

City of Oneonta Mayor

iii

January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

LIST OF PREPARERS

Group Director Responsible for Production of the Design Approval Document:

Joseph J. Mieczkowski, PE, Director of Transportation Services, Delta Engineers, Architects, and Land Surveyors, P.C.

Description of Work Performed: Directed the preparation of the Design Approval Document in accordance with established standards, policies, regulations and procedures, except as otherwise explained in this document.

Note: It is a violation of law for any person, unless they are acting under the direction of a licensed professional engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor, to alter an item in any way. If an item bearing the stamp of a licensed professional is altered, the altering engineer, architect, landscape architect, or land surveyor shall stamp the document and include the notation "altered by" followed by their signature, the date of such alteration, and a specific description of the alteration.

January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER ...... i PROJECT APPROVAL SHEET ...... iii LIST OF PREPARERS ...... v TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vii

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1-1 1.1. Introduction ...... 1-1 1.2. Purpose and Need ...... 1-1 1.2.1. Where is the Project Located? ...... 1-1 1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed? ...... 1-2 1.2.3. What are the Objectives/Purposes of the Project?...... 1-2 1.3. What Alternative(s) Are Being Considered? ...... 1-3 1.4 How will the Alternative(s) Affect the Environment? ...... 1-3 1.5. What Are The Costs & Schedules? ...... 1-4 1.6. Which Alternative is Preferred? ...... 1-4 1.7. What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement? ...... 1-4

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS ...... 2-1 2.1. Project History ...... 2-1 2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use ...... 2-1 2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area ...... 2-1 2.2.2. Transportation Corridor ...... 2-1 2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations ...... 2-2 2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance ...... 2-2 2.3.2. Multimodal ...... 2-4 2.3.3. Infrastructure ...... 2-4 2.3.4. Potential Enhancement Opportunities ...... 2-6 2.3.5. Miscellaneous ...... 2-8

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ...... 3-1 3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study ...... 3-1 3.2. Reasonable Build Alternatives ...... 3-1 3.2.1. Description of Reasonable Alternatives ...... 3-1 3.2.2 Preferred Alternative ...... 3-2 3.2.3. Design Criteria for Reasonable Alternative(s) ...... 3-3 3.3. Engineering Considerations ...... 3-4 3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance ...... 3-4 3.3.2. Multimodal ...... 3-5 3.3.3. Infrastructure ...... 3-6 3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements ...... 3-8 3.3.5. Miscellaneous ...... 3-8

CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND CONSEQUENCES ...... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Environmental Classification ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Coordination with Agencies ...... 4-1 4.2 Social...... 4-1 4.2.1 Land Use ...... 4-2 4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion ...... 4-2 4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed ...... 4-2 4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship ...... 4-3 vii

January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

4.3 Economic ...... 4-3 4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies ...... 4-3 4.3.2 Business Districts ...... 4-3 4.3.3 Specific Business Impacts ...... 4-3 4.4 Environmental ...... 4-3 4.4.1 Wetlands ...... 4-3 4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses ...... 4-4 4.4.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers ...... 4-5 4.4.4 Navigable Waters ...... 4-5 4.4.5 Floodplains ...... 4-6 4.4.6 Coastal Resources ...... 4-6 4.4.7 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs ...... 4-6 4.4.8 Stormwater Management ...... 4-7 4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources ...... 4-7 4.4.10 Critical Environmental Areas ...... 4-8 4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources ...... 4-8 4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources ...... 4-9 4.4.13 Visual Resources ...... 4-10 4.4.14 Farmlands ...... 4-10 4.4.15 Air Quality ...... 4-10 4.4.16 Energy ...... 4-11 4.4.17 Noise ...... 4-11 4.4.18 Asbestos ...... 4-11 4.4.19 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials ...... 4-12 4.5 Construction Effects ...... 4-14 4.5.1 Construction Impacts ...... 4-14 4.5.2 Mitigation Measures ...... 4-14 4.6 Indirect and Secondary Effects ...... 4-14 4.6.1 Indirect Socioeconomic Effects ...... 4-14 4.6.2 Social Consequences ...... 4-14 4.6.3 Economic Consequences ...... 4-14 4.7 Cumulative Effects ...... 4-14 4.8 Short-term uses of Man’s Environment ...... 4-15 4.9 Irreverseable and Irretreivable Commitmens of Resources ...... 4-15 4.10 Adverse Environmental Impacts that cannot be Avoided or Adequately Mitigated ...... 4-15

viii

January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

Appendices A. Plans & Estimate B. Environmental Information C. Public Involvement (PI) Plan and Input from Stakeholders including Public D. Miscellaneous

ix x

January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. Introduction

This report was prepared in accordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual, 6 NYCRR (New York Codes, Rules and Regulations) Part 617, and 23 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 771. Transportation needs have been identified (Section 1.2.2), objectives established (1.2.3) to address the needs, and cost-effective alternatives developed (1.3). This project is federally funded.

1.2. Purpose and Need

1.2.1. Where is the Project Located?

(1) Route number: N/A (local street) (2) Route name: James Georgeson Avenue (3) SH (state highway) number and official highway description: N/A (4) BIN (bridge identification number) and feature crossed: N/A (5) City/Village/Township: City of Oneonta (6) County : Otsego (7) Length: 260’+/- (8) Limits: The project extends from a point 65’+/- south of the Norfolk Southern Railroad approximately 260’ north to the intersection of James Georgeson Avenue and Market Street (9) Any other description information which is pertinent: The project crosses the Norfolk Southern Railroad

Damaschke Field

Project limits S. Main (shown in yellow) Street

James Georgeson Avenue

Market Street Norfolk Mill Race Southern Railroad

Project Area Map (1:200 scale)

1-1 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

1.2.2. Why is the Project Needed?

The project proposes to install sidewalk along the west side of James Georgeson Avenue from Market Street to an existing pedestrian bridge crossing Mill Race. The sidewalk will complete the pedestrian connection from the downtown Oneonta area and nearby parking to Neahwa Park.

Neahwa Park is a public facility and home to a semi-pro baseball team consisting of college age players. It also has several other baseball fields, multi-use athletic fields, a multi-use path, and hosts a rodeo each summer. By constructing the new sidewalk, alternative modes of transportation will be promoted and further enhance the area as a destination from nearby businesses and homes.

Multiple pedestrian generators exist in very close proximity to this project. These include but are not limited to Neahwa Park and numerous businesses within a 5 minute walk of the site. Additionally, a public parking garage is located less than a quarter mile to the west, which serves as parking for large events occurring within Neahwa Park. Currently, pedestrians accessing the park from the east must walk in the travel lane of James Georgeson Avenue until they reach the aforementioned pedestrian bridge.

Market Street (in background)

Proposed sidewalk location

Pedestrian bridge to remain

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

The purpose of the project is to improve pedestrian mobility along James Georgeson Avenue in the City of Oneonta using a cost effective approach. To help minimize costs, bricks that are being removed from another City project will be utilized on this project. The bricks will be placed in the utility strip between the new curb and sidewalk. This will not only reduce costs but also provide an additional area to walk during events in the park which draw high pedestrian traffic volumes from the east

1-2 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

1.3. What Alternative(s) Are Being Considered?

A. No Build - this alternative would maintain the current lack of sidewalks and remain “as is”. No improvements would be made. As a result, this alternative would not achieve the project objective.

B. Alternative 1 (Preferred) - this alternative will construct ADA-compliant sidewalks along the west side of James Georgeson Avenue from Market Street to the pedestrian bridge crossing Mill Race. The new sidewalk will connect the bridge with the existing sidewalk (to remain) located on Market St, providing continuous pedestrian facilities from the downtown Main Street Oneonta area into Neahwa Park.

1.4 How will the Alternative(s) Affect the Environment?

Exhibit 1.4-A Environmental Summary

Federal Highway NEPA Classification Class II CE BY Administration (FHWA) SEQR Type: Unlisted BY City of Oneonta

Exhibit 1.4-B Comparison of Alternatives Alternatives Category No Build Preferred 2 commercial parcels require fee acquisition for sidewalk construction

Property impacts None 1 potential PE acquisition from railroad parcel for sidewalk construction (see discussion in Section 3.3.3.1) Construction Cost None $224,810

This is a sidewalk replacement/construction project. No mitigation measures are proposed for this project.

Anticipated Permits/Certifications/Coordination:

Permits – Floodplain Development Permit (City)

Coordination  New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)  Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)  United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

1-3 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

1.5. What Are The Costs & Schedule?

Design Approval is scheduled for March of 2016 with construction scheduled to laStreet 3 months beginning in August of 2016.

Exhibit 1.5 Project Schedule Activity Date Occurred/Tentative Scoping Approval Design Approval March 2016 (tentative) ROW Acquisition May 2016 (tentative) Construction Start August 2016 (tentative) Construction Complete October 2016 (tentative)

For more detail on costs for each alternative refer to Exhibit 1.4-B and Section 3.2.1.

1.6. Which Alternative is Preferred?

Only one feasible build alternative has been identified that meets the project objectives. A decision to enter final design will not be made until after the environmental determination and evaluation of the comments on the draft design approval document and comments received from the public informational meeting.

1.7. What are the Opportunities for Public Involvement?

Exhibit 1.7 Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates Activity Date Occurred/Tentative Meeting with City Reps. January, 2016 Public Informational Meeting February 2, 2016 Current Project Letting date July 2016 (tentative)

Refer to Appendix D for Public Involvement (PI) Plan and Input from Stakeholders including Public.

You may offer your comments in a variety of ways.

 A public meeting will be held on February 2, 2015.

 You can contact:

Greg Mattice, City Engineer Please include the six digit Project Identification Number (PIN) 9009.35 Questions or comments email: [email protected] Telephone: (607) 432-6465

Mailing Address 258 Main Street Oneonta, NY 13820

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

1-4 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

CHAPTER 2 - PROJECT CONTEXT: HISTORY, TRANSPORTATION PLANS, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS

This chapter addresses the history and existing context of the project site, including the existing conditions, deficiencies, and needs for this part of the James Georgeson Avenue pedestrian corridor.

2.1. Project History

This project originated in August of 2013 when the City of Oneonta submitted its Project Application for consideration to the NYSDOT Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP). As discussed previously, James Georgeson Avenue is a primary pedestrian corridor, providing access to Neahwa Park, with many pedestrian generators located nearby, including but not limited to shops, parking facilities, restaurants,, etc. Neahwa Park is bounded by the Norfolk Southern Railroad on the north and Interstate 88 on the south. James Georgeson Avenue is one of only two entrances into Neahwa Park and crosses the Norfolk Southern Railroad and Mill Race to provide access.

2.2. Transportation Plans and Land Use

2.2.1. Local Plans for the Project Area

2.2.1.1. Local Comprehensive Plans (“Master Plan”) -

The City of Oneonta last updated their Master Plan in May of 2007. This project is consistent with the local comprehensive plan. The Master Plan makes specific reference to projects such as this under the Section entitled Policy Area – Quality of Life….”Objectives….2) Encourage alternative modes of transportation, including walking, biking, and public transit. 3) Improve/expand social and recreational opportunities for various age groups” and under Action Items…”Identify potential locations for small‐scale pedestrian walkways that increase connectivity between different neighborhoods and/or different land uses. Examples may include improved connections between future development in the railroad yards and its surrounding neighborhoods, identifying physical and perceptual barriers between downtown, the riverfront and adjacent residential areas, etc. G) Adjustt the intersections of pedestrian, bicycle and motorized traffic – especially in heavily‐ traveled areas – to ensure the safety of each of these modes of transportation”.

2.2.1.2. Local Private Development Plans –

There are no known and/or approved developments planned within the project area that will have an effect on pedestrian traffic in the project area. It is noted that Canadian Pacific recently sold the railroad to Norfolk Southern. Canadian Pacific had planned a crossing upgrade at James Georgeson Avenue; it is unknown at the time of this writing if Norfolk Southern intends to continue this project. Ongoing outreach to Norfolk Southern is occurring. Documentation of this discussion will be included in the Final Design Report if concluded by the time of its writing.

2.2.2. Transportation Corridor

2.2.2.1. Importance of the Project Route Segment -

As mentioned previously, this sidewalk project will provide a continuous link from Market Street and the downtown area to Neahwa Park, providing uninterrupted access for numerous nearby pedestrian generators.

2-1 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

2.2.2.2. Alternate Routes –

There are no alternative routes that would be suitable as a permanent detour while still providing direct/continuous access from the pedestrian generators to Neahwa Park.

2.2.2.3. Corridor Deficiencies and Needs -

Pedestrian mobility along James Georgeson Avenue is limited due to the lack of pedestrian facilities.

2.2.2.4. Transportation Plans -

This project is on the approved Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as project No. 9009.35.

2.2.2.5. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments -

The City of Oneonta has confirmed the project is consistent with their Master Plan and that there are no plans to reconstruct or widen this highway segment, or the adjoining segments, within the next 20 years.

2.3. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations

2.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance

2.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS) –

Exhibit - 2.3.1.1 Classification Data

Route(s) James Georgeson Ave.

Functional Classification Urban Local

National Highway System (NHS) No

Designated Truck Access Route No

Qualifying Highway No

Within 1 mile (1.6 km) of a Qualifying Highway Yes

Within the 16 ft (4.9 m) vertical clearance network No

2.3.1.2. Control of Access -

There is no existing control of access.

2.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices –

There are no electronic traffic control devices within the project area, excepting pedestrian and vehicular gates at the Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing. The pedestrian gate is situated on the southern side of tracks at the northern end of the pedestrian bridge crossing Mill Race. There was a planned crossing improvement by the railroad’s prior owner (Canadian Pacific); there is ongoing coordination with the NS railroad on this topic to determine what if any improvements will be made by them at this location. The conversations will be documented in the Final Design Report. A stop sign and stop bar controls James

2-2 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

Georgeson Avenue at the Market Street intersection. These will be investigated during final design for compliance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), with repair/replacement incorporated into the project if not compliant.

2.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) –

There are no ITS systems in operation or planned for the project area. The Regional ITS Coordinator was not involved in this project due to its scope and off-system location.

2.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay -

The area is signed as a 15mph speed zone. A vehicular speed study and delay investigation was not conducted during development of this report, due to the pedestrian accommodation scope of this project. However, a study was conducted by the City on March 5, 2010. The study found the average speed was 21mph. A copy of this study can be found in Appendix D.

2.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes –

Traffic volumes were not investigated during development of this report, due to the pedestrian accommodation scope of this project. The City informed the consultant that traffic along James Georgeson Avenue varies from a low count to into the thousands of vehicles per day, dependent upon the activities that are going on in Neahwa Park and the immediate surrounding area.

2.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility -

2.3.1.7. (1) Existing level of service and capacity analysis –

Due to the limited scope of this sidewalk project, existing level-of-service and capacity analyses were not completed. No changes to the capacity of James Georgeson Avenue are included in this project. No vehicular platoons were observed during field visits to the site which occurred at various times between September of 2015 and January of 2016.

2.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis –

In June of 2015, the Oneonta Police Department informed the consultant developing this report that no traffic accidents were recorded along James Georgeson Avenue in the previous three years. Due to the nature and scope of this project, further review was not considered.

2.3.1.9. Existing Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access -

The City of Oneonta Police and Fire Departments are located less than a half-mile west of this project on Main Street. Access to Neahwa Park via James Georgeson Avenue will be maintained during construction of this project.

2.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions –

There are no areas regulated by parking restrictions within the project limits.

2.3.1.11. Lighting –

Public street lighting on utility poles and neighboring private lighting exist along the project corridor. Replacement of the cobra head style public lighting with decorative period style lighting consistent with that currently being used elsewhere in the City will be investigated during final design.

2-3 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

2.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction –

Per Section Chapter 254, Article II of the City of Oneonta code, the sidewalk will be owned and maintained by the property owner where the sidewalk resides. Failure to maintain it may result in City involvement, the costs of which may be passed on to the property owner.

2.3.2. Multimodal

2.3.2.1. Pedestrians –

There are no continuous separate provisions for pedestrians. State law allows pedestrians to legally use the paved shoulder where available. However, the paved shoulder on James Georgeson Avenue varies in width from less than one foot to a few feet. This project will construct new ADA compliant sidewalk along the west side of James Georgeson Avenue in areas where there is no existing sidewalk and/or improve curb ramp access along Market Street at the intersection with James Georgeson Avenue. A pedestrian generator checklist is included in Appendix D.

2.3.2.2. Bicyclists –

There are no separate provisions for bicyclists. There are no plans for a bicycle route within the project limits. Due to the limited width of the shoulder, bicyclists share the James Georgeson Avenue roadway with vehicular traffic.

2.3.2.3. Transit –

There are no transit providers operating within the project limits.

2.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports –

There are no airports, railroad stations or port entrances within or in the vicinity of the project limits.

2.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, State Lands) –

James Georgeson Avenue provides access to Neahwa Park. Neahwa Park is situated immediately adjacent to the project on the southern side of Mill Race and the Norfolk Southern Railroad.

2.3.3. Infrastructure

2.3.3.1. Existing Highway Section –

As noted previously, this project consists of sidewalk construction. James Georgeson Avenue consists of varying 10.7’ to 13.1’ wide travel lanes and narrow (0.7’+/- to 3’+/-) asphalt shoulders. There are two driveways providing access to a commercial property on the eastern side of James Georgeson Avenue. Driveways were not evaluated for compliance with the NYSDOT Policy and Standards for the Design of Entrances to State Highways as this project is off the state highway system. A detailed investigation will occur during final design to determine if a driveway can be eliminated and/or reduced in width. See the Typical Sections and Plans in Appendix A for more information.

2.3.3.2. Geometric Design Elements Not Meeting Minimum Standards –

There are no existing non-standard features that will be retained as part of this project.

2-4 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

2.3.3.2.(1) Other Design Parameters -

There are no existing non-conforming features that will be retained as part of this project.

2.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder -

Due to the scope of this project, a Pavement Evaluation & Treatment Selection Report was not prepared. The vehicular roadway (travel lanes and shoulders) will not be impacted by this project; however widths were considered and discussed with the City during preliminary sidewalk layout in the context of potential future roadway projects installing a consistent standard width travel lane and shoulder.

2.3.3.4. Drainage Systems -

The existing drainage along James Georgeson Avenue consists of some curbing and drainage inlets but is primarily sheet flow from the roadway into adjoining property. This project will reduce runoff onto adjoin properties by the construction of new curbing and additional drainage inlets (if needed). The City produces all of their drainage structures and utilizes a sole supplier for grates. It is anticipated that all new drainage structures and grates required on this project will be provided by the City.

2.3.3.5. Geotechnical –

A geotechnical investigation was not performed due to the limited scope of this project. .

2.3.3.6. Structure –

There are no bridges within the project limits. However, Silver Creek runs adjacent to James Georgeson Avenue within the project footprint. Silver Creek is conveyed throughout the area in a closed box which begins several hundred feet north of the project and terminates just south of the project where Silver Creek discharges into Mill Race.

A section of the cap (see photo to the left) of Silver Creek was removed by the City for unknown reasons several years ago. This project will replace the temporary cap with a permanent repair, allowing the new curbing and sidewalk to be constructed.

The following summarizes the field investigation of the existing box which was conducted January 22, 2016 by Delta Engineers, Architects, & Land Surveyors.

Delta Engineers performed an inspection of the existing culvert in the area of the removed top slab. The purpose of this inspection was to identify structural defects to the side walls and base slab and to document the make-up and configuration of the existing culvert walls and base slab. There are no known record plans available to confirm the wall or base slab thicknesses and/or reinforcement.

Plans for an adjacent 2002 railroad project that replaced a portion of the culvert top slab under the railroad tracks indicated that this section of open culvert was at that time covered by a wooden decking and a wooden driveway. The wood driveway portion corresponds to the area that now has steel plates spanning over the culvert Looking south toward Neahwa Park 2-5 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

walls. The original wood decking portion of the cover is assumed to be the one currently in place.

The existing culvert walls and base slab are constructed of cast in place concrete. The walls were constructed on top of the base slab. The east wall has a 10” +/- thick concrete facing covering a majority of the original wall face. The west wall has a mortar facing covering moStreet of the wall face starting 2.5’ above the base slab. The bottom of the westerly wall exhibits deep scaling and the exposed aggregate appears large. Some vertical and /or horizontal cracks were documented in both walls. None of these cracks had any apparent displacement that would indicate wall movement has occurred. The walls were hammer sounded and found to be in fair to good condition.

The culvert base slab is visually in very good condition with no significant defects observed. Water depth in Silver Creek at the time of inspection was approximately two (2) inches.

Upstream of the inspected portion of culvert there is a cast in place concrete box culvert. Downstream there is a twenty one (21) foot long portion of culvert consisting of large laid-up stone side walls, a top of tightly spaced railroad deck rails and a base of adjacent railroad ties.

2.3.3.6.(7) Waterway – Silver Creek extends through the project area. As mentioned above, it is within a closed box and is not navigable. A Coast Guard Checklist is not required.

2.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts –

Elements to be constructed as part of this project will not affect the hydraulics of the box which conveys Silver Creek through the project area.

2.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators –

There is no guiderail, median barriers, or impact attenuators within the project footprint. None are planned to be included in the project.

2.3.3.9. Utilities –

A Dig Safely Design Ticket will be placed by the consultant prior to issuance of the Final Design Report to confirm utilities shown in the base mapping provided by the City that is serving as the basis for the design discussed in this report. No utilities are expected to be impacted by this project excepting a utility pole which must be relocated to accommodate the new curb on the east side James Georgeson Avenue. The following is a summary of utilities shown in the base mapping or field observed, in the project area:

 Overhead electric  Overhead cable  Overhead phone  Underground electric  Underground gas  Water

2.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities –

The Norfolk Southern Railroad operates a single mainline track which crosses James Georgeson Avenue within the project footprint. The crossing surface is asphalt for the roadway and pedestrian crossing. The pedestrian crossing exhibits some deterioration, which is shown in the photo.

2-6 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

Looking north toward Market Street

Access at the railroad crossing is and will continue to be controlled by electric gates for vehicular. Currently, there is one gate for pedestrians, located just north of the bridge and just south of the railroad. Discussions with Norfolk Southern on adding another gate north of the railroad are anticipated to occur and will be documented in the Final Design Report.

2.3.4. Potential Enhancement Opportunities

This section focuses on the existing areas to identify potential enhancement opportunities related to the project and to help avoid and minimize impacts. Chapter 4 focuses on the impacts, enhancements, and mitigation.

2.3.4.1. Landscape -

There are no significant landscape characteristics within the project limits. The existing roadside comprised mainly of a grassed lawn with occasional shrubbery west of James Georgeson and a paved parking lot to the east

2.3.4.1. (1) Terrain -

The general terrain in the project area consists of rolling hills and valleys. Terrain along James Georgeson Avenue is flat.

2.3.4.1. (2) Unusual Weather Conditions-

There are unusual weather conditions within the project area.

2.3.4.1. (3) Visual Resources -

The project will not have a significant effect on any important visual resources.

2-7 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

2.3.4.2. Opportunities for Environmental Enhancements –

There are no practical opportunities for environmental enhancements in the project limits.

2.3.5. Miscellaneous

The City has another project under design, located nearby on Main Street. The project will be removing and replacing a number of brick pavers that are of suitable condition for re-use. The current plan is for some of the bricks to be repurposed and used on this project. They will be used as infill along the utility strip between the proposed curb and sidewalk.

2-8 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES

This chapter discusses the alternatives considered and examines the engineering aspects for the reasonable alternative to address project objectives in Chapter 1 of this report.

3.1. Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Further Study

The no-build alternative will result in the ongoing discontinuation of pedestrian facilities in the Neahwa Park entrance corridor, resulting in ongoing pedestrian/vehicle conflicts due to pedestrians walking in the travel way of James Georgeson Avenue. Since this alternative will not satisfy the project objectives, it is not considered a reasonable alternative, but will be used for comparison with the reasonable alternatives for the purpose of evaluating impacts. Construction of a sidewalk was also evaluated along the east side of James Georgeson Avenue but dismissed due to the introduction of two new pedestrian vehicle conflict points (James Georgeson Avenue/Market Street intersection and a crossing south of Mill Race) and the need for a new pedestrian bridge and its associated cost.

3.2. Reasonable Build Alternatives

3.2.1. Description of Reasonable Alternative

Alternative 1 - This alternative improves pedestrian mobility and constructs new curb and sidewalk on the west side of James Georgeson Avenue from Market Street to the pedestrian bridge over Mill Race, crossing the Norfolk Southern Railroad along the way. A bid alternative will also be included in the project, consisting of new curbing and minor drainage improvements on the east side of James Georgeson Avenue in the same area. Key elements of this alternative include:

Geometry  This alternative constructs new concrete sidewalks a minimum of 5’ in width. Repurposed brick pavers will be utilized in the utility strip between the curb and concrete sidewalk, providing an additional 3’+/- of walking area during high pedestrian movement events.  This alternative also includes minor drainage improvements by replacing drainage inlets and improving the cross slope along a small section of the southbound lane of James Georgeson Avenue.  No non-standard features will be retained or created.

Operational  This alternative does not affect operations.

Control of Access  Control of access is currently uncontrolled and will remain as such for this alternative.

Right of Way  This alternative will require ROW acquisition from two commercial properties. 0.04 acres of FEE acquisition are needed from Oneonta Student Housing, LLC and 0.06 acres of FEE acquisition are needed from James Mirabito & Sons, Inc. Additionally, a 0.11 acre Permanent Easement may be needed from the Norfolk Southern Railroad. This will be resolved prior to issuance of the FDR.

Environmental  There are no significant environmental concerns associated with this alternative.

Cost  Total estimated construction cost of this alternative is $224,810.

3-1 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

Project Goals  These improvements meet the overall objective.

Exhibit 3.2.1 Summary of Alternative Costs - (Calculated Year)

Activities Alt 1

Construction Sidewalk $178,400

Wetland Mitigation $0 Storm Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) $0 Subtotal (2015) $178,400

Incidentals/Contingencies1,2(15% @ Design Approval) $26,760

Subtotal (2015) $205,160

Potential Field Change Payment $11,000

Subtotal (2015) $216,160 Mobilization (4%) $8,650 Subtotal (2015) $224,810 Expected Award Amount – Inflated @ 2%/yr to midpoint of $224,810 Construction (2016; no increase)

Construction Inspection (10%) $22,481

ROW Costs (preliminary award amount to owner in 2016 dollars) $25,781 (see note 3)

Total Cost $273,072

Notes: 1. The potential cost increase due to unknown or un-tabulated items. 2. NYSDOT recommends standard contingencies: 25% Scoping stage, 15% Design Approval stage, 5% Advanced Detail Plans stage. 3. This cost includes $13,453 for the PE across the Norfolk Southern property. See Section 3.3.3.1 for additional information on this topic.

3.2.2 Preferred Alternative

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

3-2 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

3.2.3. Design Criteria for Reasonable Alternative(s)

3.2.3.1. Design Standards -

3.2.3.2. Critical Design Elements -

The following table is generated primarily to establish the criteria that would be used for a future project on James Georgeson Avenue that would include reconstruction of the roadway features (e.g., curbing, shoulder). Where appropriate, the future widths were considered such that this project could be laid out in a way to minimize rework of elements constructed as part of this project.

Critical Design Elements for James Georgeson Avenue PIN: 9009.35 NHS (Y/N): No Route No. & Name: James Georgeson Ave. Functional Classification: Urban Local Project Type: Highway Work Design Classification: Local % Trucks: Unknown Terrain: Level ADT: Unknown Truck Access/Qualifying Hwy. Access – No; Qualifying - No Existing Proposed Element Standard Condition Condition 20 mph min. to 30 mph max. 15 mph (posted 1 Design Speed 20 mph HDM Section 2.7.2.4.A speed limit) 12 ft min.; 14 ft desirable Varies 2 Lane Width 14 ft HDM Section 2.7.4.2.B and Exhibit 2-8 12 ft to 14 ft Shoulder Width 5 ft Varies 3 2 ft2 (parking lane) HDM Section 2.7.4.2.C and Exhibit 2-8 0 to 2 ft 4 Bridge Roadway Width Not applicable – no vehicle bridge work on project N/A N/A 15% 5 Maximum Grade HDM Section 2.7.4.2 E, Exhibit 2-8 3.8%+/- 3.8%+/- 72 ft minimum 6 Horizontal Curvature HDM Section 2.7.4.2 F, Exhibit 2-8 72 ft 72 ft 115 ft Minimum 7 Stopping Sight Distance HDM Section 2.7.4.2 H, Exhibit 2-4 135 ft min. 135 ft min. 0 ft with barrier; 1.5 ft with barrier 1 ft+/- min. 2 ft min. 8 Horizontal Clearance HDM Section 2.7.4.2 l (util. pole) (util. pole) Vertical Clearance 14 ft min. 1 9 Unknown 14 ft min. (above traveled way) BM Section 2.4 10 Travel Lane Cross Slope HDM Section 2.7.4.2 K 3.5% 2% (1) No overhead structures along James Georgeson Ave; only overhead utility wires. (2) Non-standard feature (driven by width on existing bridge to remain)

3.2.3.3. Other Design Parameters -

Exhibit 3.2.3.3 Design Criteria for Sidewalk Element Standard Reference Proposed 5 ft min., 8 ft where 1 Minimum Accessible Width 5 ft HDM 18.6.5.1 possible 2 Maximum Cross Slope 2% HDM 18.6.5.2 2% 3 Maximum Grade 5% ADAAG 4.8.1, HDM 18.8.2 5% ≥ 5% and ≥ 5% and 4 Curb Ramp Running Slope HDM 18.7.3 ≤ 8.33% ≤ 8.33% 5 Vertical Changes 0.25 in. max. HDM 18.6.5.3.B 0.25 in. max 6 Maximum Openings 0.5 in. max. HDM 18.6.5.3.C 0.5 in. max.

3-3 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

3.3. Engineering Considerations

3.3.1. Operations (Traffic and Safety) & Maintenance

3.3.1.1. Functional Classification and National Highway System –

This project will not change the functional classification of the highway.

3.3.1.2. Control of Access –

Access to the James Georgeson Avenue will be uncontrolled.

3.3.1.3. Traffic Control Devices -

3.3.1.3. (1) Traffic Signals - No new traffic signals are proposed.

3.3.1.3. (2) Signs - Existing signs related to pedestrian facilities will be evaluated and replaced as necessary. Advance warning signs and pavement markings will be added to crosswalks located at the school and also at the healthcare facility at the north end of the project.

3.3.1.4. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) –

No ITS measures are proposed.

3.3.1.5. Speeds and Delay -

3.3.1.5. (1) Proposed Speed Limit –

The existing posted speed limit of 15 mph will be retained upon completion of the project..

3.3.1.5. (2) Travel Time Estimates –

Travel time estimates are not included as the feasible alternative will not change the capacity.

3.3.1.6. Traffic Volumes –

There are no anticipated changes in traffic volumes. Please see Section 2.3.1.6 for a discussion of traffic volumes.

3.3.1.7. Level of Service and Mobility –

3.3.1.7 (1) At Project Completion & Design Year –

Due to the limited scope of this sidewalk project, a proposed level-of-service and capacity analysis was not completed. No changes to the capacity of James Georgeson Avenue are included in this project.

3.3.1.7 (2) – Work Zone Safety & Mobility –

A. Work Zone Traffic Control Plan –

Work Zone Traffic Control will consist primarily of alternating one-way traffic with flaggers. Pedestrians will be detoured around the work areas following the guidelines shown in the standard sheets. A detailed pedestrian detour will be developed in final design and included in the construction documents.

3-4 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

B. Special Provisions –

Due to the ability to maintain traffic with acceptable delays during the daylight hours, night time construction will not be utilized. The use of time related provisions will be evaluated during final design. The work zone traffic control will need to be coordinated with City officials and residents.

C. Significant Projects (per 23 CFR 630.1010) -

This project is on an off system local street. The Region has determined that the subject project is not significant per 23 CFR 630.1010.

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

3.3.1.8. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis –

3.3.1.9. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access -

James Georgeson Avenue will remain accessible for emergency vehicle s during construction.

3.3.1.10. Parking Regulations and Parking Related Issues –

No changes are proposed.

3.3.1.11. Lighting –

3.3.1.12. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction –

No changes are proposed from the existing condition. Please see Chapter 2 Section 2.3.1.12.

3.3.1.13. Constructability Review -

It is assumed this project will be reviewed by the Regional Construction Group as part of the Draft Design Report submittal. Any comments generated will be considered and addressed appropriately. This project was reviewed internally by the design team’s construction supervisor during development of this report

3.3.2. Multimodal

3.3.2.1. Pedestrians –

This project has been designed following the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. The criteria and design are discussed throughout this report. A Pedestrian Generator Checklist is included in Appendix C.

3.3.2.2. Bicyclists –

No special provisions are proposed to accommodate bicyclists. Bicyclists will continue to share the travel lanes on James Georgeson Avenue.

3-5 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

3.3.2.3. Transit –

No public transit systems exist along James Georgeson Avenue and no changes are proposed.

3.3.2.4. Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports –

There are no airports or ports along James Georgeson Avenue. No conflicts are anticipated with the Norfolk Southern Railroad crossing James Georgeson Avenue. Ongoing coordination with the railroad will occur during final design, with appropriate design and documentation of any railroad requirements incorporated into the plans and specifications where appropriate.

3.3.2.5. Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) –

James Georgeson Avenue is the only access to Neahwa Park from the north. Neahwa Park is situated immediately adjacent to the project on the southern side of Mill Race and the Norfolk Southern Railroad.

3.3.3. Infrastructure

3.3.3.1. Proposed Highway Section –

Refer to Appendix A for a typical section.

3.3.3.1. (1) Right of Way -

At the time of this writing there are two known and one potential acquisition on this project. The two known acquisitions are FEE from commercial properties; the potential third is a Permanent Easement (PE) from the railroad. All are needed for construction of and future maintenance of elements built within this project. Final ROW needs will be resolved prior to issuance of the FDR. It is currently anticipated that the ROW impacts on this project are De Minimis in nature. The De Minimis Determination form will be added to Appendix B prior to issuance of the Final Design Report after a determination has been made by the City. The following table summarizes the ROW acquisitions that are needed for this project.

Exhibit 3.3.3.1 Right-of-Way Acquisitions Type of Estimated Acquisition Area (sq. Parcel Owner Tax Map No. Acquisition ft.)/Total Parcel Size (sq. ft.) Oneonta Student Housing, LLC 300.06-2-30.1 FEE 1,927 / 29,621 James Mirabito & Sons, Inc. 300.06-2-33 FEE 2,572 / 20,909 Norfolk Southern Railroad n/a PE 4,910 / unknown

3.3.3.1. (2) Curb –

Small sections of granite curb currently exist at the Market Street intersection, extending onto James Georgeson Avenue from Market Street. Granite curbing is proposed to be used throughout the project. ADA compliant curb cuts and ramps will be installed where appropriate within the project footprint as part of this project.

3.3.3.1. (3) Grades –

Grades of James Georgeson Avenue Street will not change. See Exhibits 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.3 for further information

3-6 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

3.3.3.1. (4) Intersection Geometry and Conditions –

This is a sidewalk project and will not make any changes to the intersections excepting crosswalk striping. The existing intersection geometry will be retained.

3.3.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements -

3.3.3.2. (1) Nonstandard Features –

The feasible alternative complies with the geometric features and cross section elements in the design criteria. There are no proposed non-standard features and no non-standard features associated with the sidewalk will be retained.

3.3.3.2. (2) Non-Conforming Features –

There will be no non-conforming features within the project limits.

3.3.3.3. Pavement and Shoulder –

The existing pavement and shoulder will not be impacted by this project, excepting a small section of the southbound travel lane of James Georgeson Avenue that will be reconstructed to correct a non-standard cross slope.

3.3.3.4. Drainage Systems –

Two existing inlets on James Georgeson Avenue will be replaced as part of this project. The City of Oneonta manufactures their own inlets and will provide the replacement structures. The City also has a standard grate inlet they use. The inlets are secured using the City’s standard procurement process; they too will be provided at no cost to the project. No other drainage inlets will be impacted by this project, and no new inlets are anticipated to be added.

3.3.3.5. Geotechnical –

Due to the limited scope of this project, no special techniques or considerations were considered.

3.3.3.6. Structures –

There are no proposed bridges within the project limits. An existing culvert conveying Silver Creek has a short 43’+/- section which is currently covered by steel plates and/or a wooden frame platform. The plates and wood platform will be removed and replaced with a precast concrete cap. See Section 2.3.3.6 for more information.

3.3.3.7. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts –

The hydraulics of the aforementioned culvert will not be affected by this project.

There are no dams in the vicinity of the project that would be adversely affected.

3.3.3.8. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators –

There is no guiderail, median barriers, or impact attenuators within the project footprint. None are planned for inclusion in the project

3-7 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

3.3.3.9. Utilities –

No utilities are expected to be impacted by this project excepting a utility pole which must be relocated to accommodate the new curb. See Section 2.3.3.9 for the list of utilities in the project vicinity.

3.3.3.10. Railroad Facilities –

Improvements at the railroad crossing include improving the pedestrian crossing. Discussions with Norfolk Southern to obtain an agreement regarding work within their property is ongoing.

3.3.4. Landscape and Environmental Enhancements –

Refer to Chapter 4 for complete discussion.

3.3.4.1. Landscape Development and Other Aesthetics Improvements –

The City intends to incorporate landscaping into the project as a part of the overall enhancement and aesthetic improvement efforts for this project. Current plans include tree plantings as well as topsoil/seeding and possibly other greenscape, dependent upon the available construction funds.

3.3.4.2. Environmental Enhancements –

Due to the limited project scope, there are no proposed environmental enhancements. It should be noted that the project itself is an enhancement by promoting alternative modes of transportation, thereby reducing emissions while promoting a healthy lifestyle choice.

3.3.5. Miscellaneous

NYS Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA)

Pursuant to ECL Article 6, this project is compliant with the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act (SGPIPA).

To the extent practicable this project has met the relevant criteria as described in ECL § 6-0107 The Smart Growth Screening Tool was used to assess the project’s consistency and alignment with relevant Smart Growth criteria; the tool was completed by Delta Engineers, Architects, & Land Surveyors.

Other Miscellaneous Information

See Section 2.3.5 for a discussion of the City’s plans regarding repurposing brick pavers being removed as part of another project and using them as infill on this project to reduce construction wastes and costs.

3-8 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

CHAPTER 4 - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC and ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS and CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the environmental issues associated with the rehabilitation and construction of the sidewalk along James Georgeson Avenue in the City of Oneonta, Otsego County, New York. The project will improve the entrance of Neahwa Park from Market Street to Mill Race by improving pedestrian mobility and park access. The sidewalk widths will be maximized to provide adequate room for high volume pedestrian events that occur at the park. Refer to the Environmental Checklist included in Appendix B for information on the environmental issues for which this project was screened.

4.1.1 Environmental Classification

4.1.1.1 NEPA Classification -

The proposed project is anticipated to meet the criteria established for a NEPA Class II Categorical Exclusion (CE) action in accordance with 23 CFR 771.117c and the Federal Environmental Approval Worksheet (FEAW) checklist Class II CE actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect are excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) concurrence is required in regards to endangered species. See draft FEAW in Appendix B. The FEAW will be completed prior to issuing Design Approval.

4.1.1.2 SEQR Classification -

The project has been identified as an Unlisted Action, per 6 NYCRR Section 617.2, Subdivision (ak), “Unlisted action meaning all actions not identified as a Type I or Type II action in this Part, or, in the case of a particular agency action, not identified as a Type I or Type II action in the agency's own SEQR procedures.“ In accordance with 6 NYCRR Section 616.6 Subdivision (a) part 3 “For Unlisted actions, the Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) must be used to determine the significance of such actions. However, an agency may instead use the full EAF for Unlisted actions if the short EAF would not provide the lead agency with sufficient information on which to base its determination of significance. The lead agency may require other information necessary to determine significance”. See short EAF in Appendix B.

4.1.2 Coordination with Agencies

4.1.2.1 NEPA Cooperating and Participating Agencies -

The following agencies are Cooperating Agencies in accordance with 23 CFR 771.111(d):

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)

4.2 Social

The purpose of this section is to discuss the social environment in the vicinity of the project. This project involves the rehabilitation and construction of the sidewalk along James Georgeson Avenue from Market Street to Mill Race in the City of Oneonta, New York.

4-1 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

4.2.1 Land Use

4.2.1.1 Demographics and Affected Population -

The project area is urban and developed with commercial and residential buildings predominate to the north, east and west, and a publicly used park to the south.

The 2010 U.S. Census reports that the City has a population of 13,838 persons. The median reported age was 22.0 with 10.4% of the population being reported at age 65 or older, 89.6% of the population was identified as white, 1.3% of the population was identified as Limited English Proficient (LEP), i.e., speaking English “less than very well.”

Based on data collected from the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) from 2013, approximately 7.6% of the City’s population was identified as disabled, (although specific disabilities were not listed). This percentage is lower than the percentage for New York State, 10.9 %.

The City had 28.9% of its population reported to be below the poverty level, which is above the New York State’s average of 15.3%. This project is located in a potential NYSDEC Environmental Justice Area.

The ACS reported that in 2013, 53.7% of the City’s working population commuted individually by car or truck to work with an average travel time of 14.6 minutes. This is approximately 15 minutes shorter than the New York State’s average.

4.2.1.2 Comprehensive Plans and Zoning -

The rehabilitation and construction of sidewalks is consistent with the community’s comprehensive plan and will not affect local zoning.

4.2.2 Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion

4.2.2.1 Community Cohesion -

The project will not divide neighborhoods, isolate part of a neighborhood, generate new development or otherwise affect community cohesion. The age and ethnic background of the affected population is of a similar composition as the reStreet of the City of Oneonta. No occupied dwellings are to be acquired.

4.2.2.2 Home and Business Relocations -

Since this project involves the rehabilitation and construction of sidewalks, it will not cause adverse impacts upon neighborhood character and stability. The proposed project would require no displacement of residences or businesses, and there would be no relocation impacts.

4.2.3 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed

4.2.3.1 Elderly and/or Disabled Persons or Groups -

A review of US Census data indicates that there are no significant concentration of elderly or disabled persons in the project area, and the project proposes new sidewalks to improve the accessibility accommodations for these user groups.

4.2.3.2 Transit Dependent

This analysis was not completed or is not applicable, as the project consists of sidewalk rehabilitation and construction, and there are no other planned changes to any other infrastructure as part of this project. 4-2 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

4.2.3.3 Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups (Environmental Justice) -

According to the NYSDEC, the project is located in a potential Environmental Justice Area. Consistent with Executive Order 12898 and FHWA Guidance on Environmental Justice, the project has not directly or indirectly used criteria, methods or practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or income level. Whenever feasible, mitigation measures outlined or analyzed in this document will address significant adverse environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

4.2.4 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship

4.2.4.1 School Districts -

The proposed project is within the Oneonta School District. There are no schools or school properties within or near the project corridor.

4.2.4.2 Recreational Areas -

The proposed project is adjacent to Neahwa Park, owned by the City of Oneonta. The project is not expected to negatively affect the park, and will enhance park access.

4.2.4.3 Places of Worship -

There are no places of worship within or adjacent to the proposed project.

4.3 Economic

4.3.1 Regional and Local Economies

The project is not expected to include temporary road closures of James Georgeson Avenue; therefore, there will be no negative impacts to the local economy. During construction, a temporary increase in traffic and congestion within the corridor could result due to the presence of heavy construction equipment and other construction related vehicles. Any increased congestion may result in potential business patrons avoiding the area during the construction period; however, the effect will be temporary.

4.3.2 Business District Impacts

The project is located in the Downtown Mixed-Use, Commercial/Industrial, and Public Open Space Zones within the City of Oneonta. The sidewalk rehabilitation and construction will result in improved pedestrian traffic flow and improve access to these zones.

4.3.3 Specific Business Impacts

No specific business impacts are anticipated.

4.4 Environmental

4.4.1 Wetlands

4.4.1.1 State Freshwater Wetlands -

There are no NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetlands or regulated adjacent areas within the project area, as per the NYSDEC online Environmental Resource Mapper. A site visit on December 8, 2015 verified this. The Environmental Conservation Law, Article 24 is satisfied, and no further review is required. 4-3 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

4.4.1.2 State Tidal Wetlands -

A review of the NYSDEC online Environmental Resource Mapper indicates that there are no NYSDEC jurisdictional tidal wetlands or regulated adjacent areas within or near the project limits; therefore, ECL Article 25 does not apply. No further review is required.

4.4.1.3 Federal Jurisdiction Wetlands -

The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) online mapper accessed from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) indicates that the project is not located within federally regulated wetlands. A site inspection conducted on December 8, 2015 confirmed that there are no wetlands present at or adjacent to the project location. No further review is required.

4.4.1.4 Executive Order 11990 -

Based on a site inspection on December 8, 2015, there are no wetlands located within the project’s area of potential effect. Executive Order 11990 does not apply to this project. No further review is required.

4.4.1.5 Mitigation Summary -

No wetland mitigation/monitoring plan is required for this project, since no wetlands are present.

4.4.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses

4.4.2.1 Surface Waters -

The project activities do not involve excavation in or the discharge of dredged or fill material into, Waters of the U.S. No permits under this Section are anticipated. No further review is required.

4.4.2.2 Surface Water Classification and Standards -

Based upon a review of the NYSDEC online Environmental Resource Mapper for regulated streams, there are two surface waterways within the proposed project limits; Mill Race (Class B stream) and Silver Creek (Class C steam). The best usage for a Class B stream is swimming and other contact recreation but not for drinking water, and a Class C stream supports fisheries and is suitable for non-contact activities.

4.4.2.3 Stream Bed and Bank Protection -

A NYSDEC Article 15 Protection of Waters Permit is required for disturbing the bed or banks of a stream with a classification of C(t) or higher. The bed and/or banks of Mill Race will not be disturbed during construction. Therefore, with regard to stream classification and standards, a NYSDEC Article 15 Protection of Waters permit will not be required.

4.4.2.4 Airport and Airway Improvement -

This analysis was not completed and is not applicable, as there are no airport or airways within or adjacent to the project area. No further review is required.

4-4 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

4.4.2.5 Mitigation Summary - No mitigation plan is required. During construction, precautions should be taken to prevent contamination of Mill Race and Silver Creek by silt, sediment, fuels, solvents, lubricants, or any other pollutants. Promptly after construction, care will be taken to stabilize all disturbed areas.

4.4.3 Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

4.4.3.1 State Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers -

There are no NYSDEC Designated Wild, Scenic or Recreational Rivers within or adjacent to the proposed project site. No further review is required.

4.4.3.2 National Wild and Scenic Rivers -

The project does not involve a National Wild and Scenic River as shown by the Nationwide Rivers Inventory List of National Wild and Scenic Rivers. No further review is required.

4.4.3.3 Section 4(f) Involvement -

The proposed project does not involve work in or adjacent to a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. No further review is required.

4.4.3.4 Mitigation Summary -

No mitigation plan is required since the project does not involve any wild scenic or recreational rivers nor does it involve wildlife or waterfowl refuges. No further review is required.

4.4.4 Navigable Waters

4.4.4.1 State Regulated Waters -

There are no state regulated navigable waters located within the project’s area of potential effect that will be impacted by the work. No further review is required.

4.4.4.2 Office of General Services Lands and Navigable Waters -

There are no OGS underwater holdings located within the project’s area of potential effect that will be impacted by the work. No further review is required.

4.4.4.3 Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 9 -

Since the project does not involve the construction or modification of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over any navigable water of the United States, Section 9 is not applicable. No further review is required.

4.4.4.4 Rivers and Harbors Act – Section 10 -

Since the project does not involve the creation of any obstruction to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States, or in any manner alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of any navigable water of the United States, Section 10 is not applicable. No further review is required.

4-5 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

4.4.5 Floodplains

4.4.5.1 State Flood Insurance Compliance Program -

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) dated September 29, 1978 indicates that the project is located within FEMA zones designation A0 and A1. Zone A is an area subject to inundation between the base flood and the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event (or 100-year flood). If the project includes work within Zone A, the City of Oneonta will require a Floodplain Development Permit.

4.4.5.2 Executive Order 11988 -

In order to comply with EO 11988, there will be an evaluation of potential effects of any actions taken within the floodplain, and alternatives to avoid any adverse effects shall be considered. If the project alternatives require the use of a floodplain, there will be an attempt to minimize potential impacts, and consistent with the regulations issued in accord with section 2(d) of this Order, the City will prepare and circulate a notice containing an explanation of why the action is proposed to be located within the floodplain.

4.4.6 Coastal Resources

4.4.6.1 State Coastal Zone Management Program -

The proposed project is not located in a State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) area, according to the Coastal Zone Area Map from the NYS Department of State’s Coastal Zone Management Unit. No further review is required.

4.4.6.2 State Coastal Erosion Hazard Area -

The proposed project is not located in or near a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. No further review is required.

4.4.6.3 Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Program -

According to NYS DOS “List of Approved Coastal Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRPs),” dated June 2015, the proposed project is not located in a Local Waterfront Revitalization Area. No further review is required.

4.4.6.4 Federal Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) -

The proposed project is not located in, or near a coastal area under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) or the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA). No further review is required.

4.4.7 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs

4.4.7.1 Aquifers -

NYSDEC aquifer GIS data files have been reviewed and it has been determined that the proposed project is located in a Principle Aquifer Area. This project will take measures in design and construction to avoid, minimize or mitigate any possible adverse impacts to the aquifer. These measures are intended to minimize contamination from highway runoff and construction activities. Project activities will comply with the applicable standards in 6 NYCRR Part 703.

4-6 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

4.4.7.2 Drinking Water Supply Wells (Public and Private Wells) and Reservoirs -

There are no municipal drinking water wells, wellhead influence zones, or reservoirs within or near the project area according to the NYSDEC online Environmental Resource Mapper. No further review is required.

4.4.8 Stormwater Management

This project will disturb less than one acre and will not require a SPDES permit. While this project is not obligated to assess the requirements for stormwater management practices, they will be considered where reasonable and feasible. No further review is required.

4.4.9 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources

Fish, Wildlife, and Waterfowl -

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) division of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the USFWS share the responsibility for managing federally listed threatened and endangered species. NOAA division of NMFS manages marine and anadromous species while the USFWS typically manages land and freshwater species. The NOAA NMFS list of endangered, threatened and candidate species was reviewed. There are no marine or anadromous species listed as being present within the project area. No further coordination with the NOAA, NMFS is necessary.

4.4.9.2 Habitat Areas, Wildlife Refuges, and Wildfowl Refuges -

The proposed project does not involve work in, or adjacent to, a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. No further review is required.

4.4.9.3 Endangered and Threatened Species -

The USFWS Official “Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species” list for this project was reviewed. The following species were identified by this review process as possibly being present within the vicinity of this project (subsequent information regarding preferred habitat was gathered from the USFWS website):

 Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis): The Northern long-eared Bat predominantly occupies mature foreStreet stands and woodlots. This bat commonly selects tree species based on the tree’s location, position within the landscape, bark characteristics, and ability to provide cavities or crevices. Suitable habitat, including trees greater than three inches diameter at breast height (DBH), and areas of forests were not present at and/or adjacent to the project location. Tree removal is not proposed as part of this project. The project is not included on the “List of Eligible Highway/Bridge Work Types” in the Programmatic No Effect Project Eligibility Checklist Therefore, it is assumed that the proposed construction “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Northern long-eared Bats. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) concurrence is required (Appendix B).

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) was contacted for information regarding the presence of state listed threatened, endangered or special concern species that may be impacted by the proposed project. A response from the NYSDEC, New York National Heritage Program (NYNHP) was received on December 28, 2015 and indicated that there are no threatened, endangered or special concern species within the project limits or the immediate vicinity. A copy of the applicable correspondence is included in Appendix B. No further action is required.

4-7 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

4.4.9.4 Invasive Species -

A site walkover of the project corridor did not indicate any significant presence of known invasive species within the proposed project corridor. Precautions will be taken to prevent the introduction of invasive species during project design and construction.

4.4.9.5 Roadside Vegetation Management -

Existing roadside vegetation consists primarily of manicured lawns and wooded areas. Efforts will be made to replace wildlife-supporting vegetation that is removed in the course of construction.

4.4.10 Critical Environmental Areas

4.4.10.1 State Critical Environmental Areas -

According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the proposed project does not involve work in or near a Critical Environmental Area. No further review is required.

4.4.10.2 State ForeStreet Preserve Lands -

According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the proposed project does not involve work in or near state foreStreet preserve lands. No further review is required.

4.4.11 Historic and Cultural Resources

4.4.11.1 National Heritage Areas Program -

The proposed project will not impact areas identified as National Heritage Areas. No further review is required.

4.4.11.2 National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 / State Historic Preservation Act – Section 14.09 -

Records from the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and National Register of Historic Places were reviewed for listed historic properties that may be impacted by the proposed project. There are no listed historic sites within the project limits. No further review is required.

4.4.11.3 Architectural Resources -

The proposed project does not involve federally owned, jurisdictional or controlled property that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, Section 110 does not apply. No further review is required.

4.4.11.4 Archaeological Resources -

The online map prepared by the New York State Park, Office of Parks, Recreations and Historic Preservation indicates the proposed project is located within an archeologically sensitive area. A project review request was prepared and submitted to the NYSDOT Region 9 SHPO Cultural Resources Coordinator for determination as to potential cultural resource impacts. A response is pending.

4-8 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

4.4.11.5 Historic Bridges -

There are no bridges over 50 years old or listed on NYSDOT’s Historic Bridge Inventory that are located within the project’s area of potential effect. No further review is required.

4.4.11.6 Historic Parkways -

This project does not have the potential to impact any Historic Parkways. No further review is required.

4.4.11.7 Native American Involvement -

The proposed project does not lie within Federal or Native-American-owned property. The American Antiquities Act does not apply. No further review is required.

4.4.11.8 Section 4(f) Involvement -

It has been determined that there are no properties on, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places, or properties over 50 years old that may be eligible within the project’s area of potential effect. Therefore, a Section 4(f) evaluation for historical resources is not required.

4.4.12 Parks and Recreational Resources

4.4.12.1 State Heritage Area Program -

The proposed project will not impact areas identified as State Heritage Areas. No further review is required.

4.4.12.2 National Heritage Areas Program -

The proposed project will not impact areas identified as National Heritage Areas. No further review is required.

4.4.12.3 National Registry of Natural Landmarks -

There are no listed nationally significant natural areas within, or adjacent to, the project area. No further review is required.

4.4.12.4 Section 4(f) Involvement -

The proposed project is located adjacent to Neahwa Park, a City owned park. However, there will be no park takings. There are no recreational facilities, wildlife or waterfowl refugees, nor public or private historical sites, protected under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act, in or adjacent to the project area. No further review is required.

4.4.12.5 Section 6(f) Involvement -

The project does not impact parklands or facilities that have been partially or fully federally funded through the Land and Water Conservation Act. No further consideration under Section 6(f) is required.

4.4.12.6 Section 1010 Involvement -

4-9 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

This project does not involve the use of land from a park to which Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program funds have been applied. No further review is required.

4.4.13 Visual Resources

4.4.13.1 Introduction – The existing landscape surrounding the project corridor includes parkland, residential buildings, and commercial buildings. Mill Race and Silver Creek are visible all year round. The visual volume of the area is a moderate traffic volume with low speed zones. The viewer group includes pedestrians, residential viewers, and commercial shoppers. Although sensitivity will be high, the visual changes as a result of this project will be positive in nature.

4.4.13.2 Effects Assessment -

The implementation of this project will result in a minor positive visual impact to the immediate environment. The project proposes a new park entry sign, flower beds, ornamental lighting, and other positive visual components. No further review is required.

4.4.14 Farmlands

4.4.14.1 State Farmland and Agricultural Districts -

Based on a review of the NYS Agricultural District Maps for Otsego County, the proposed project is not located in or adjacent to an Agricultural District. No further review is required.

4.4.14.2 Federal Prime and Unique Farmland -

The proposed project activities will not convert any prime or unique farmland, or farmland of state or local importance, as defined by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, to a nonagricultural use. No further review is required.

4.4.15 Air Quality

4.4.15.1 Regulatory Framework

This analysis was not completed and is not applicable, as the project will not increase traffic volumes, reduce-receptor distances, or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to jeopardize attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. No further review is required.

4.4.15.2 Transportation Conformity –

This project is located in Otsego County which is considered an ozone attainment area; therefore, analysis is not applicable for this project. No further review is required.

4.4.15.3 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Microscale Analysis -

An air quality analysis for CO is not required since this project will not increase traffic volumes, reduce source-receptor distances by 10% or more, or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to jeopardize attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The project does not require a project-level conformity determination. No further review is required.

4.4.15.4 Mesoscale Analysis -

4-10 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

A Mesoscale Analysis is not required for this project since it does not significantly affect air quality conditions over a large area and is not a regionally significant project. No further review is required.

4.4.15.5 Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) Analysis -

This analysis was not completed and is not applicable, as the project will not increase traffic volumes, reduce source receptor distances, or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to jeopardize attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. No further review is required.

4.4.15.6 Particulate Matter (PM) Analysis –

4.4.15.7 Greenhouse Gas Analysis -

4.4.16 Energy

An energy assessment is not required for the proposed project since it is not expected to: a. Increase or decrease Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT); b. Generate additional vehicle trips; c. Significantly affect land use development patterns; d. Result in a shift in travel patterns; or e. Significantly increase or decrease vehicle operating speeds.

Therefore, the project will not significantly affect energy consumption. No further review is required.

4.4.17 Noise

The project will not significantly change either the horizontal or vertical alignment, or increase the number of through-traffic lanes. Therefore, this project is not a Type I project and does not require a traffic noise analysis as per 23 CFR 772. No further review is required.

4.4.18 Asbestos

4.4.18.1 Screening -

A site investigation within the project limits was conducted on December 8, 2015. The purpose of the investigation is to identify possible asbestos containing materials (ACM), and homogeneous areas of those materials that exist throughout the impacted area. The Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) regulations define a homogeneous area (HA) as, “…an area of surfacing material, thermal system insulation material, or miscellaneous material that is uniform in color and texture.” Further, HA’s should consist of the same age (construction vintage) and application.

4.4.18.2 Assessment and Quantification -

The inspectors identified two (2) HA’s, of which six (6) samples were collected and sent to Paradigm Environmental Service, Inc. for asbestos content determination.

4-11 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

TABLE 1: HOMOGENEOUS AREAS

Homogeneous Material Description Area No. (HA) 1 Black, hard tar filler between sidewalk slabs 2 Gray grout between sidewalk slabs and granite curbing

SAMPLING RESULTS Six (6) bulk samples were collected from two (2) distinct homogenous areas and were sent for laboratory analysis. Sample results, including applicable correspondence, are located in Attachment B. The sample results indicate no asbestos containing materials were identified and are summarized in the following table:

TABLE 2: SAMPLE RESULTS Homogeneous Sample Area No. (HA) Description Number Asbestos Content and Type of Analysis Black, hard tar filler 1A None Detected- TEM 1 between sidewalk 1B None Detected- TEM slabs 1C None Detected- TEM Gray grout between 2A None Detected- PLM 2 sidewalk slabs and 2B None Detected- PLM granite curbing 2C None Detected- PLM

4.4.18.3 Mitigation Summary –

No asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were identified in the assessment. No remediation activities are warranted for this project.

If additional suspect ACMs that were not accessible or visible during the site inspection are discovered during the construction phase (Examples are: items below grade, expansion joints, caulks, bituminous materials etc.) these materials shall be treated as ACM until laboratory results prove otherwise.

If it is later determined that project components will include elements beyond the present scope of work for which this assessment was conducted, it is recommended that an additional Asbestos Assessment be completed by NYSDOL Certified inspectors.

4.4.19 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials

4.4.19.1Screening -

A Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials (HW/CM) Screening was conducted within the project vicinity. This screening included a review of available records and a project corridor site walkover conducted on December 8, 2015. The purpose of this assessment is to identify potential areas of environmental concern that may be disturbed during construction of the proposed project.

4.4.19.2 Assessment and Quantification -

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) was contracted to provide a comprehensive review of Federal, State and local listed data on potential hazardous waste sites within the project vicinity. This data

4-12 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

search was performed in accordance with ASTM E-1527-13 standards. The use of the EDR resource allows for a comprehensive listing of sites of potential concern.

4.4.19.3 Screening and Site Assessment -

The EDR report indicates 43 properties or areas of concern. These properties/areas do not pose a concern to the proposed project, primarily due to the non-intrusive nature of the proposed work, as well as one or more of the following:

 Proximity to the proposed project;  The assumed groundwater flow direction within the project area is to the south-southeast; therefore, if the property/area of concern is located west or north of the proposed project, it is unlikely to pose a threat to the project based on groundwater flow direction;  The contaminant of concern is a non-persistent or a gas. An example is a release of chlorine gas that was inadvertently released several years ago and now is unlikely to pose a concern;  The issue was minor in nature and cleaned up and closed by the NYSDEC with “no further action required.” An example is equipment failure releasing minimal amounts of contaminant with a corrective action taken.

However, the Certified Sanborn® Maps provided by EDR indicate gasoline and fuel oil tanks located at the southeast end of the project corridor from 1886 to 1949. The Sanborn maps did not indicate if these tanks were above ground or underground tanks storage. No above ground or suspect locations of underground storage tanks were identified at this location. In addition, there was no Information indicating that storage tanks were removed from this site. Therefore, underground storage tanks and potential soil contamination associated with the potential tank may be present.

According to the EDR report and a review of the Sanborn maps indicated that a manufactured gas plant (MGP) was present southwest and adjacent to the bridge. According to information provided through EDR, New York State Electric and Gas (NYSEG) remediated that site. Although remediation of the former MGP site was conducted, residual contamination may be present.

In addition, a petroleum bulk storage facility is located northeast of the bridge and adjacent to the project corridor. Based on a review of the Sanborn maps a petroleum facility has operated at this site since at 1949. Petroleum spills have been reported at this site. According to the information provided, one spill is considered open. Petroleum contamination may be present at the site.

The historic use of the railroad system through the project corridor indicates the possible contamination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, metals, petroleum products, pesticides/herbicides, and potential spillage from the rail cars.

4.4.19.4 Mitigation Summary -

Contaminated soil associated with the existing and former land use at and adjacent to the proposed project may be present. Soil screening during construction or soil sampling/analysis is recommended at the following locations:  At the railroad tracks, and  Adjacent to the Petroleum Bulk Storage (PBS) facility (east of the road and north of the railroad tracks).

As with any environmental assessment in areas where subsurface testing was not completed, the possibility of unknown subsurface contamination exists. The contractor will be advised that underground storage tanks (USTs) may be present in the ROW along the northwestern portion of the project. If USTs are encountered, removal shall be in accordance with standard specifications. Also, contaminated soil may be present at the railroad crossing. If contaminated soils are encountered during

4-13 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

construction, the soils shall be handled in accordance with standard NYSDOT specification and disposed of properly.

4.5 Construction Effects

No construction effects are anticipated as a result of this project. No further review is required.

4.5.1 Construction Impacts

Potential short-term construction effects from the proposed project include dust, noise, air, and minor traffic disruptions during construction operations.

4.5.2 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures will include proper equipment maintenance, the use of erosion and sediment control measures to mitigate potential erosion impacts, and construction management. The project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse effects, both temporary and permanent.

4.6 Indirect and Secondary Effects

This project is not expected to produce negative effects on growth inducement; change the pattern of land use, population density, and growth rate; nor adversely affect air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.

4.6.1 Indirect Socioeconomic Effects

The project is not expected to have effects on population or development patterns in the area.

4.6.2 Social Consequences

No adverse social impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.

4.6.3 Economic Consequences

The project is expected to include a temporary increase in traffic and congestion within the project corridor which would result from the presence of heavy construction equipment and other construction related vehicles. This increased congestion may result in potential business patrons temporarily avoiding the area during the construction period; however, the project is not expected to result in individual, minor, or collectively significant adverse actions on the area’s economics.

4.7 Cumulative Effects

The project is not expected lead to additional development, subsequent projects, or increased traffic within the vicinity of the project area. Based on the environmental analysis performed for this project, it is anticipated that there will be no significant direct, indirect, secondary or cumulative impacts resulting from this project.

4.8 Short-Term Uses of Man’s Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity

4-14 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

This analysis was not completed and it is not applicable, as the project does not include an EIS nor is it a NEPA Class III EA project.

4.9 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

This analysis was not completed and it is not applicable, as the project does not include an EIS nor is it a NEPA Class III EA project.

4.10 Adverse Environmental Impacts that cannot be Avoided or Adequately Mitigated

This analysis was not completed and it is not applicable, as the project does not include an EIS nor is it a NEPA Class III EA project.

4-15 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

Appendix A

Estimate 9009.35

Estimated Cost:$178,358.28 Contingency: 0.00% Estimated Total: $178,358.28

NEW SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE OF ROAD Base Date: 01/26/16 Spec Year: 08 Unit System: E Work Type: ASPHALT Highway Type: ASPHALT Urban/Rural Type: Urban Season: FALL (9/21 to 12/20) County: OTSEGO Midpoint of Latitude: Midpoint of Longitude: District: 09 Federal/State Project Number:

Prepared by Delta Engineers, Architects, and Land Surveyors, P.C. Estimate: 9009.35 Line # Item Number Quantity Units Unit Price Extension Description Supplemental Description

Group 0003: 0019 203.02 150.000 CY $45.41 $6,811.50 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL

0020 203.07 38.000 CY $54.43 $2,068.34 SELECT GRANULAR FILL

0021 206.0201 43.000 CY $44.56 $1,916.08 TRENCH AND CULVERT EXCAVATION

0022 304.15 91.000 CY $77.83 $7,082.53 SUBBASE COURSE, OPTIONAL TYPE

0027 603.9824 23.000 LF $88.79 $2,042.17 SMOOTH INTERIOR CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE CULVERT AND STORM DRAIN 24 INCH DIAMETER

0030 608.0101 16.000 CY $698.79 $11,180.64 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAYS

0031 608.01020005 8.000 CY $1,001.78 $8,014.24 COLORED AND IMPRINTED PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK

0032 608.020102 76.000 TON $210.44 $15,993.44 HOT MIX ASPHALT (HMA) SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS AND BICYCLE PATHS ,AND VEGETATION CONTROL STRIPS

0033 608.21 6.000 SY $325.94 $1,955.64 EMBEDDED DETECTABLE WARNING UNITS

0034 608.94010007 245.000 SF $6.94 $1,700.30 IMPRINTING AND COLORING OF ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT

0035 609.0201 425.000 LF $58.97 $25,062.25 STONE CURB, GRANITE, (TYPE A)

0036 611.0151 2.000 EACH $425.00 $850.00 PLANTING - MAJOR DECIDUOUS TREES - 2 INCH CALIPER BALL & BURLAP, FIELD POTTED OR FIELD BOXED

0039 670.0106 3.000 EACH $1,227.05 $3,681.15 FOUNDATION FOR LIGHT STANDARDS, 6 FEET LONG

0040 670.10010004 3.000 EACH $5,000.00 $15,000.00 DECORATIVE LIGHT POLES WITH ONE LUMINAIRE

0041 Creek Cap 1.000 $75,000.00 $75,000.00

Total for Group 0003:$178,358.28

3:26:11PM Thursday, January 28, 2016 Page 2 of 2 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

Appendix B

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT SUBMITTAL PACKAGE Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act For Locally-Administered Federal-Aid Projects

DATE: 1-25-16 PIN: 9009.35 BIN: N/A

IDENTIFICATION

Project Name (if any): Neahwa Park Entrance Improvement Project

Project Area Boundaries: James Georgeson Avenue from Market Street to Mill Race (Indicate State or County Route # and/or local street name, and clearly defined endpoints)

County: Otsego Town/City Oneonta Village/Hamlet:

Have you consulted the NYSHPO web site at *http://nysparks.state.ny.us to determine the preliminary presence or absence of previously identified cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area? Yes No If yes: • Was the project site wholly or partially included within an identified archaeologically sensitive area? Yes No • Does the project site involve or is it substantially contiguous to a previously evaluated National Yes No Register of Historic Places listed property?

*http://nysparks.state.ny.us then select HISTORIC PRESERVATION then Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau then On Line Tools

ALL PROJECTS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION

Project Description – Attach a full description of the nature and extent of the work to be undertaken as part of this project. This should include, but not limited to, potential activities that might involve drainage, cutting, excavation, grading, filling, on-site detours, new sidewalks, right-of-way acquisition. Relevant portions of the project applications or environmental statements may be submitted. This could be from sections of the Draft Design Report/ Draft Scoping Document. Location Maps - Provide USGS Quad or DOT Planimetric map showing project area location. The map must clearly show street and road names surrounding the project area as well as all portions of the project. Photos - Provide clear, original color photographs of the entire project area keyed to a site plan. These photos should indicate: • Buildings/structures more than 50 years old that are located along the property or on adjoining property • Areas of prior ground disturbance (removal of original topsoil; filling and plowing are not considered disturbance)

LOCAL SPONSOR CONTACT

Name: Greg Mattice Title: City of Oneonta Engineer Firm/Agency: City of Oneonta Address 258 Main Street City: Oneonta State: NY Zip: 13820 Phone (607) 432-6465 E-Mail [email protected] Consultant Name & Phone: Delta Engineers 607-231-6660

Neahwa Park Entrance Improvement Project City of Oneonta, Otsego County, New York PIN 9009.35

Project Need / Description:

This project involves the rehabilitation and construction of the sidewalk along James Georgeson Avenue in the City of Oneonta, Otsego County, New York. The project will improve the entrance of Neahwa Park from Market Street to Mill Race by improving pedestrian mobility and park access. The sidewalk widths will be maximized to provide adequate room for high volume pedestrian events that occur at the park. It is anticipated that right-of-way takings will be required and will be permanent for this project. Approximately 11,000 +/- square feet of easements on 3 separate parcels will be required. The easement takings will be parallel to the existing roadway and sidewalk.

The final scope of the project has not yet been determined; however, it is understood that sidewalk will be constructed and/or rehabilitated.

Attached for your reference are the following materials:

1. Project Location Map (Figure 1) 2. Historical Topographic Map (Figure 2) 3. Aerial Photo Map (Figure 3) 4. Ground Photographs of the Project Corridor 5. Map with Photo Locations (Figure 4) 7. Archaeologically Sensitive Area Map (Figure 5)

Attachment 1

Project Location Map (Figure 1)

Project Location

Map Source: USGS Oneonta Quadrangle 7.5 Minute Series 1982

PROJECT NO. DATE: NEAWHA PARK ENTRANCE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF ONEONTA, OTSEGO COUNTY, NEW YORK PIN 9009.35 January 20-15-248 2016

SCALE: DRAWING NO: 2110 SOUTH CLINTON AVENUE, SUITE 1 ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14618 PROJECT LOCATION MAP N.T.S. TL: (585) 223-3660 FX (585) 223-4250 1

Attachment 2

Historical Topographic Map (Figure 2)

Project Location

Map Source: USGS Oneonta Quadrangle 15 Minute Series 1918

PROJECT NO. DATE: NEAWHA PARK ENTRANCE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF ONEONTA, OTSEGO COUNTY, NEW YORK PIN 9009.35 January 20-15-248 2016

SCALE: DRAWING NO: 2110 SOUTH CLINTON AVENUE, SUITE 1 ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14618 HISTORICAL TOPOHRAPHIC MAP N.T.S. TL: (585) 223-3660 FX (585) 223-4250 2

Attachment 3

Aerial Photo Map (Figure 3)

Project Location

Map Source: Google Maps

PROJECT NO. DATE: NEAWHA PARK ENTRANCE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF ONEONTA, OTSEGO COUNTY, NEW YORK PIN 9009.35 January 20-15-248 2016

SCALE: DRAWING NO: 2110 SOUTH CLINTON AVENUE, SUITE 1 ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14618 AERIAL PHOTO MAP N.T.S. TL: (585) 223-3660 FX (585) 223-4250 3

Attachment 4

Ground Photographs of the Project Corridor

PHOTO 1

NOTES:

View looking northwest at the project corridor and existing pedestrian crosswalk

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 2

NOTES:

View looking southeast at the adjacent parkland

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 3

NOTES:

View looking southwest at the adjacent sport field

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 4

NOTES:

View looking northwest at the adjacent parking lot

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 5

NOTES:

View looking north at the project corridor along James Georgeson Avenue

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 6

NOTES:

View looking east at Mill Race crossing adjacent to the project corridor

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 7

NOTES:

View looking west at Mill Race crossing adjacent to the project corridor

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 8

NOTES:

View looking northeast at the west side of the project corridor

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 9

NOTES:

View looking northwest at the east side of the project corridor

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 10

NOTES:

View looking east at the railroad crossing the project corridor

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 11

NOTES:

View looking west at the railroad crossing the project corridor

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 12

NOTES:

View looking north at the project corridor along James Georgeson Avenue

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 13

NOTES:

View looking west at the three-story brick apartment building adjacent to the project corridor

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 14

NOTES:

View looking east at the one-story concrete fuel station adjacent to the project corridor

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 15

NOTES:

View looking north at the one-story concrete automotive shop

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 16

NOTES:

View looking west at the intersection of Market Street and James Georgeson Avenue

Date: 12/8/2015

PHOTO 17

NOTES:

View looking south at the existing construction along the west side of James Georgeson Avenue

Date: 12/8/2015

Attachment 5

Map with Photo Locations (Figure 4)

14 17

12 13

10 11

6 7 9

8 1 4

3 2 Map Source: Google Maps

PROJECT NO. DATE: NEAWHA PARK ENTRANCE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF ONEONTA, OTSEGO COUNTY, NEW YORK PIN 9009.35 January 20-15-248 2016

SCALE: DRAWING NO: 2110 SOUTH CLINTON AVENUE, SUITE 1 ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14618 PHOTO LOCATION MAP N.T.S. TL: (585) 223-3660 FX (585) 223-4250 4

Attachment 6

Archaeologically Sensitive Area Map (Figure 5)

Bull Octagon House

Project Location Old D&H Railroad Station

Phase 1A/B Cultural Resources Study: Neahwa Park Memorial Walkway Project

Map Source: NYS Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS)

PROJECT NO. DATE: NEAWHA PARK ENTRANCE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF ONEONTA, OTSEGO COUNTY, NEW YORK PIN 9009.35 January 20-15-248 2016

SCALE: DRAWING NO: 2110 SOUTH CLINTON AVENUE, SUITE 1 ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14618 ARCHAEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS N.T.S. TL: (585) 223-3660 FX (585) 223-4250 5

Federal Environmental Approval Worksheet

PIN: 9009.35 Comp. by: Ravi Engineering Date Comp.: 12/23/15 FUNDING TYPE: Federal & Land Surveying DESCRIPTION: Neahwa Park Entrance Improvement Project NEPA CLASS: II (CE)

SEQR TYPE: Unlisted

LOCALITY (Village, Town, City): City of Oneonta COUNTY: Otsego

Purpose of this Worksheet:

 Communicate project National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) classification to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).  Identify additional required FHWA environmental determinations, approvals and/or concurrences required before the Categorical Exclusion (CE) determination can be made.  Reflect the documentation in the Design Approval Document (DAD) and enable the approving authority (per PDM Exhibit 4-2) to make the CE determination.

Categorical Exclusion (CE) - a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency (40 CFR 1508.4). Actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect are excluded from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (23 CFR 71.115(b)).

Instructions (see also “FEAW_Instructions.doc”):

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

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

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

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

1. Significant environmental impacts; YES NO 2. Substantial controversy on environmental grounds; YES NO 3. Significant impact on properties protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; or YES NO 4. Inconsistencies with any Federal, State, or local law, requirement or administrative determination relating to the environmental aspects of the action. YES NO

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

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

10/24/2014 Page 1 of 5 FEAW - Neahwa Park Entrance.docx Federal Environmental Approval Worksheet

Project ID Number: 9009.35

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

FHWA FHWA Independent Independent Date Determination Determination determination/ Other required FHWA environmental and/or 2.1 and/or concurrence independent determinations Concurrence not Concurrence issued required or Required & resource not Received present A B C EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands Individual Finding Date Issued Click here to enter

ESA Section 7 Threatened and Endangered Species a date. Section 106 (National Historic Preservation Act) Date Issued 4(f) (Park, Wildlife Refuge, Historic Sites, and National Date Issued Wild and Scenic Rivers) Resource not present, or Other FHWA environmental compliance Resource present 2.2 present but and/or approvals/concurrence required and threshold exceeded threshold not exceeded EO 11988 Floodplains EO 13112 Invasive Species EO 12898 Environmental Justice Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1424(e) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404/10 NW 23 Section 6(f) (Land and Water Conservation Funds) Migratory Bird Treaty Act

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

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

Priority list) Project on or affecting Native American Lands

For all categories above, refer to the Table Thresholds document.

After completion of Tables 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3, proceed to step 3.

10/24/2014 Page 2 of 5 FEAW - Neahwa Park Entrance.docx Federal Environmental Approval Worksheet

Project ID Number: 9009.35

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

CONDITION ACTION

3 Determine whether FHWA or NYSDOT makes the CE determination.

If yes, NYSDOT can make the CE determination once all the approvals and coordinations If the project is an required are complete. action that would normally be a CE in 23 1. Is the project an action that would normally be a CE in 23 CFR 771.117(c)? CFR 771.117(c) (see YES NO Choose an item.

3.1 the drop down list), check the “Yes” box. If If no, proceed to step 3.2. not, check the “No” box. If yes, and the action falls under (c)(26), (c)(27), or (c)(28), proceed to step 3.1.1. Otherwise, proceed to step 3.1.2.

Do ANY of the conditions described in the Table Thresholds 3.1.1 (land acquisition, major traffic disruptions, changes in access control, floodplain encroachment, National Wild & Scenic Rivers) apply to the action? YES NO

If yes, the (c)(26), (c)(27) and (c)(28) constraints have not been met – proceed to step 3.2.

If no, do ANY of the following apply:  A check in Column A in Table 2.1 for Section 106, and a finding of Adverse Determine if any Effect? additional constraints  A check in Column A in Table 2.1 for 4(f), and impacts are not de minimis? 3.1.1 apply to the CE.  A check in Column A in Table 2.3 for Section 404/10?  A check in Column A in Table 2.3 for USCG Bridge Permit?

Do ANY of the above apply to the action? YES NO

If yes, the (c)(26), (c)(27) and (c)(28) constraints have not been met – proceed to step 3.2.

If no, the (c)(26), (c)(27) and (c)(28) constraints have been met – proceed to step 3.1.2.

10/24/2014 Page 3 of 5 FEAW - Neahwa Park Entrance.docx Federal Environmental Approval Worksheet

Project ID Number: 9009.35

If there are: Determine if any of the  outstanding environmental determinations (Table 2.1:checks in column A without required environmental

dates in column B)

2 determinations,  circumstances requiring demonstration of applicable EO compliance or compliance and/or and/or

3.1. issues requiring FHWA environmental review (checks in column A in Table 2.2) approvals/ (FHWA needs to review this project). concurrences are The project will use Memo Shell 2 outstanding. Proceed to step 4. If the project does not meet the conditions above proceed to step 3.1.3. If there are:  any issues requiring FHWA environmental notification (checks in column A in

3 Determine if any issues Table 2.3); then are present that require

3.1. The project will use Memo Shell 3 (FHWA must be notified of this project). FHWA notification. Proceed to step 4. If the project does not meet the conditions above proceed to step 3.1.4.

No Determinations, 4 Approvals, The project will use Memo Shell 1 (memo to file).

3.1. Concurrences or Proceed to step 4. Notifications required. Certain actions eligible for categorical exclusion require NYSDOT to transmit documentation and a determination that a CE applies. Examples of activities that may proceed as a CE are listed in 23 CFR 771.117(d) (D list). Activities not directly listed on The project is a D list the D List also have the potential to proceed as a CE with submitted documentation CE as per 23 CFR (Other). Activities that may normally be classified as a C-list CE under 23 CFR

771.117(d). Choose 771.117(c)(26), (c)(27), or (c)(28) must meet the constraints at 23 CFR 771.117(e), or appropriate entry from 3.2 they revert to the D-list as (d)(13). drop down list. If “other” or (d)(13) The project is an action that would normally be a CE in 23 CFR 771.117(d). provide an explanation. Choose an item.. Other or (d)(13): provide explanation here

Proceed to step 3.2.1. If there are: Determine if any of the  any outstanding environmental determinations (any checks in column A without required environmental dates in column B in Table 2.1);

determinations,  and/or any circumstances requiring demonstration of applicable EO compliance compliance and/or (any checks in column A in Table 2.2);

3.2.1 approvals/  concurrences are and/or issues requiring FHWA environmental notification (any checks in column A in Table 2.3); then outstanding and/or notification is required. The project will use Memo Shell 4 (MOPL and FHWA need to review this project). Proceed to Step 4. If the project: Design Approval  does not meet the conditions above (3.2.1), then the project has met the criteria Document sent to established as per the programmatic agreement dated July 15, 1996. 3.2.2 FHWA The project will use Memo Shell 5 (memo to file). Proceed to Step 4.

10/24/2014 Page 4 of 5 FEAW - Neahwa Park Entrance.docx Federal Environmental Approval Worksheet

Project ID Number: 9009.35

Step 4: Summary and Recommendation  This project Select qualify to be progressed as a Categorical Exclusion.  The NEPA Determination is being made by Select.  All outstanding FHWA environmental approvals will be obtained and are listed here: USWFS Threatened & Endangered Species SHPO 106

All other environmental, social and economic factors that affect the project’s NEPA classification, as per 23 CFR 771.117 and the July 1996 FHWA NY Division NEPA Programmatic Categorical Exclusion memo must still be addressed, for example the project: does not change the functional class; does not add mainline capacity; is not on new location; will not change travel patterns; acquires only minor amounts of ROW (temporary or permanent); does not cause displacements; does not change access control; is air quality exempt; is consistent with the NYS Coastal Management Program; and the analysis and requirements of the Farmland Protection Policy Act have been satisfied.

I certify that the information provided above is true and accurate and recommend the project be processed as described above.

Project Manager/Designer ______Date ______(or Responsible Local Official)

Print Name and Title: ______

Regional Environmental Unit Supervisor ______Date ______

Print Name and Title: ______

Regional Local Project Liaison ______Date ______(Locally Administered Projects Only)

Print Name and Title: ______

Changes that may have occurred since the preparation of the worksheet which would create the need to go through the Worksheet again include but are not limited to: a change in the scope of the proposed project; a change in the social, economic or environmental circumstances or the setting of the project study area (i.e. the affected environment); a change in the federal statutory environmental standards: discovering new information not considered in the original process; and a significant amount of time has passed (equal or greater than three years).

10/24/2014 Page 5 of 5 FEAW - Neahwa Park Entrance.docx January 2016 PIN 9009.35

Social, Economic and Environmental Resources Checklist PIN: 9009.35 TYPE FUNDING: FEDERAL DESCRIPTION: Neawha Park Entrance DATE: January 2016 Improvement Project REVISION DATE: TOWN: Oneonta FEAW CLASS: II (WITH FHWA CONCURRENCE) COUNTY: Otsego SEQRA TYPE: Unlisted PRESENCE OR IMPACT OR ISSUE? SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS NEEDED? CONSIDERATIONS YES NO YES NO Social Land Use Neighborhoods and Community Cohesion General Social Groups School Districts, Recreation Areas and Places of Worship Economic Regional and Local Economies Business Districts Specific Business Impacts Environmental Wetlands Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Navigable Waters Floodplains Coastal Resources Aquifers, Wells, and Reservoirs Stormwater Management General Ecology and Wildlife Resources* Critical Environmental Areas Historic and Cultural Resources** Parks and Recreational Resources Visual Resources Farmlands Air Quality Analysis Energy Analysis Noise Analysis Asbestos Contaminated and Hazardous Materials Construction Effects Indirect (Secondary) Effects Cumulative Effects

January 2016 PIN 9009.35

ANTICIPATED PERMITS

City of Oneonta Floodplain Develeopment Permit

*Pending FHWA Concurrence ** Pending SHPO Concurrence

January 25, 2016

NYSDOT Region 9 Planning & Management Group 44 Hawley Street Binghamton, NY 13901

Attn: Zack McKenna Regional Local Projects Liaison

Re: Neawha Park Entrance Improvement Project PIN 9009.35 City of Oneonta, Otsego County, New York Consistency Determination for Threatened and Endangered Species

Dear Mr. McKenna:

The City of Oneonta, in conjunction with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Region 9, is in the design approval phase for the above referenced project. As part of the environmental process for this federally funded project, a determination of effect is required for potential impacts to federal threatened or endangered species, or to critical habitat for such species. At this time, we are seeking concurrence with the following effect determination for the federal listed species recorded within the project area.

The proposed project will involve the rehabilitation and construction of the sidewalk along James Georgeson Avenue in the City of Oneonta, Otsego County, New York. The project will improve the entrance of Neahwa Park from Market Street to Mill Race by improving pedestrian mobility and park access. The sidewalk widths will be maximized to provide adequate room for high volume pedestrian events that occur at the park. Approximately 11,000 +/- square feet of easements on 3 separate parcels will be required. The easement takings will be parallel to the existing roadway and sidewalk.

The proposed project area is located within the City of Oneonta approximately 0.3 miles north of The Susquehanna main channel. The surrounding property is primarily residential neighborhoods, commercial business, and parkland. Trees within the project area are Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum), Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Arborvitae (Thuja Sp.) and Black Willow (Salix nigra).

The USFWS “Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species” list for the proposed project was reviewed to determine whether any federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate species are known to inhabit the project area. The USFWS’ list reported the following federally protected species that may occur in the propose project area: Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis – threatened), and the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus – Delisted, protected under the Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle Protection Act). A copy of the official USFWS species list is included as Attachment A. In accordance with the USFWS Section 7 ESA Information, Planning and Consultation (iPaC) project review process, a Species Conclusions Table (Attachment B) was completed. In addition, a Programmatic No Effect Project Eligibility Checklist (Attachment D), a Suitable Habitat Assessment Protocol and Form (Attachment E), and a Rangewide Bat Consultation (Appendix F) were completed for the Northern long- eared Bat.

Consistency Determination: Threatened and Endangered Species Neawha Park Entrance Improvement Project Page 2

A review New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) endangered and threatened species list revealed the following regarding the USFWS listed species;  The Northern long-eared Bat is a New York State listed threatened species.  The Bald Eagle is a New York State listed threatened species.

In according with the USFWS iPaC process, the NYSDEC, New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) was contacted for information regarding the reported presence of any state-listed endangered species, threatened species, species of special concern, or significant natural communities within or adjacent to the project area. A response was received on December 28, 2015 and indicated that there are no threatened, endangered or special concern species within the project limits or the immediate vicinity.

A habitat assessment of the project area was completed by Ravi Engineering & Land Surveying (RE&LS) Environmental Staff on December 8, 2015. The main objective of this habitat assessment was to identify the presence of any federal protected species within or adjacent to the project limits, or the presence of suitable habitat. A synopsis of the site observations related to each state and federal listed species and their habitat requirements are provided below:

 Northern Long-Eared Bat: The Northern long-eared Bat predominantly occupies mature forest stands and woodlots. This bat commonly selects tree species based on the tree’s location, position within the landscape, bark characteristics, and ability to provide cavities or crevices. Suitable habitat, including trees greater than three inches diameter at breast height (DBH), and areas of forests were not present at and/or adjacent to the project location. Tree removal is also not proposed as part of this project. The project is not included on the “List of Eligible Highway/Bridge Work Types” in the Programmatic No Effect Project Eligibility Checklist. Therefore, it is assumed that the proposed construction “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” Northern long-eared Bats.

 Bald Eagle: Prior to August 2007, the USFWS had listed the bald eagle as a threatened species with known or likely occurrences within Otsego County; however, this species was delisted on August 8, 2007. As such, there are no Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements for the bald eagle; however, it is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and by New York State as a state listed threatened species. Historically, bald eagle nesting sites have been found in forests along the shorelines of oceans, lakes and rivers. The habitat assessment revealed that the typical nesting habitat for the bald eagle is not present at this site. The habitat assessment also included a visual inspection of the adjacent trees for raptor nest as the bald eagle will frequently utilize other raptor’s nest as their own chasing away the other raptors. The habitat assessment revealed no raptor nest within the project area. The proposed project is unlikely to disturb nesting bald eagles. No BGEPA permit is required. The proposed project will have “No Effect” on bald eagles.

At this time, we are seeking concurrence from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) that the Neawha Park Entrance Improvement Project “May Affect, Note Likely to Adversely Affect” northern long-eared bat populations, and will have “No Effect” on bald eagle populations. These determinations were based on the knowledge of the habitat characteristics for each species and on the observations and findings of the habitat site assessment that was completed at and adjacent to the project area. If Consistency Determination: Threatened and Endangered Species Neawha Park Entrance Improvement Project Page 3 you have any questions on this determination, or require additional documentation, please contact James D. MacKecknie at (585) 697-2821 or Nancy S. Gillette, P.E. at (585) 697-2075.

Attachments: Attachment A: USFWS Letter with the Official Species List for the Project Attachment B: USFWS Species Conclusion Table Attachment C: NYSDEC, NYNHP Response Letter Attachment D: USFWS Programmatic No Effect Project Eligibility Checklist Attachment E: USFWS Suitable Habitat Assessment Protocol and Form Attachment F: USFWS Rangewide Bat Consultation Consistency Determination: Threatened and Endangered Species Whig Street Sidewalk Improvements Project Attachments

ATTACHMENT A

United Sates Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Letter (USFWS) with the Official Species List for the Project

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE New York Ecological Services Field Office 3817 LUKER ROAD CORTLAND, NY 13045 PHONE: (607)753-9334 FAX: (607)753-9699 URL: www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/section7.htm

Consultation Code: 05E1NY00-2016-SLI-0384 December 03, 2015 Event Code: 05E1NY00-2016-E-00937 Project Name: Neawha Park Entrance Improvement Project

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). This list can also be used to determine whether listed species may be present for projects without federal agency involvement. New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list.

Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the ESA, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC site at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. If listed, proposed, or candidate species were identified as potentially occurring in the project area, coordination with our office is encouraged. Information on the steps involved with assessing potential impacts from projects can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/section7.htm

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq .), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan ( http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the Services wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the ESA. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment

2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Neawha Park Entrance Improvement Project

Official Species List

Provided by: New York Ecological Services Field Office 3817 LUKER ROAD CORTLAND, NY 13045 (607) 753-9334 http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/section7.htm

Consultation Code: 05E1NY00-2016-SLI-0384 Event Code: 05E1NY00-2016-E-00937

Project Type: ** OTHER **

Project Name: Neawha Park Entrance Improvement Project Project Description: The project proposes to improve the entrance to Neawha Park from Market Street along James Georgeson Avenue by rehabilitating and widening the sidewalks for pedestrian mobility and park access. The proposed construction date is Fall 2016.

Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by' section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 12/03/2015 06:14 AM 1 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Neawha Park Entrance Improvement Project

Project Location Map:

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-75.057710945577 42.45262040921928, - 75.05774054082433 42.4524657205766, -75.05787084921262 42.45237726618846, - 75.05798982376159 42.45238810632885, -75.05810200042889 42.452498654282934, - 75.05828990100625 42.453408472298236, -75.05825605837306 42.45352304597812, - 75.05816426552592 42.45359950855171, -75.0580067754358 42.453600660225874, - 75.0578945987685 42.45349011227179, -75.057710945577 42.45262040921928)))

Project Counties: Otsego, NY

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 12/03/2015 06:14 AM 2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Neawha Park Entrance Improvement Project

Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 1 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

Mammals Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)

Northern long-eared Bat (Myotis Threatened septentrionalis)

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 12/03/2015 06:14 AM 3 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Neawha Park Entrance Improvement Project

Critical habitats that lie within your project area There are no critical habitats within your project area.

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 12/03/2015 06:14 AM 4 Consistency Determination: Threatened and Endangered Species Whig Street Sidewalk Improvements Project Attachments

ATTACHMENT B

United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Species Conclusion Table

Species Conclusions Table

Project Name: Neawha Park Entrance Improvement Project

Date: January 25, 2016

Species Name/Critical Potential Species Critical ESA / Eagle Act Determination Notes / Documentation Summary (include full Habitat Habitat Present? Habitat rationale in your report) Present? Present? Northern long-eared Yes No No May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect During the site investigation no suitable habitat, Bat including trees > 3 in. DBH, was present at the site. No tree removal is proposed. According to NYNHP, there is no documentation of this species being present at this location. Bald Eagle No No No No Effect The bald eagle was not included on the list obtained from the NYNHP. No eagle nests were observed at or near the project location.

Consistency Determination: Threatened and Endangered Species Whig Street Sidewalk Improvements Project Attachments

ATTACHMENT C

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resource, New York Natural Heritage Program Response Letter

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources New York Natural Heritage Program 625 Broadway, 5th Floor, Albany, New York 12233-4757 Phone: (518) 402-8935 • Fax: (518) 402-8925 Website: www.dec.ny.gov

December 28, 2015

Jessica Pike Ravi Engineering & Land Surveying, P.C. 2110 South Clinton Avenue, Suite 1 Rochester, NY 14618

Re: Neahwa park Entrance Improvement Project Town/City: City Of Oneonta. County: Otsego.

Dear Jessica Pike:

In response to your recent request, we have reviewed the New York Natural Heritage Program database with respect to the above project.

We have no records of rare or state-listed animals or plants, or significant natural communities, at your site or in its immediate vicinity.

The absence of data does not necessarily mean that rare or state-listed species, significant natural communities or other significant habitats do not exist on or adjacent to the proposed site. Rather, our files currently do not contain information that indicates their presence. For most sites, comprehensive field surveys have not been conducted. We cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural communities. Depending on the nature of the project and the conditions at the project site, further information from on-site surveys or other resources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological resources.

This response applies only to known occurrences of rare or state-listed animals and plants, significant natural communities, and other significant habitats maintained in the Natural Heritage database. Your project may require additional review or permits; for information regarding other permits that may be required under state law for regulated areas or activities (e.g., regulated wetlands), please contact the appropriate NYS DEC Regional Office, Division of Environmental Permits, as listed at www.dec.ny.gov/about/39381.html.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Conrad Information Resources Coordinator 1419 New York Natural Heritage Program Consistency Determination: Threatened and Endangered Species Whig Street Sidewalk Improvements Project Attachments

ATTACHMENT D

United Sates Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Programmatic No Effect Project Eligibility Checklist

FHWA New York Division Section 7 ESA Process Version 1, 2015

ESA Programmatic “No Effect” Determination Project Eligibility Checklist

PIN: 9009.35 Date Completed: 12/23/15 Completed by: Jessica Pike

If all of the criteria listed below are met (marked YES), the project is eligible for coverage under the Programmatic “No Effect” Determination. If any criterion is not met (marked NO), the project is not eligible and the standard review procedures for endangered and threatened species apply (see TEM 4.4.9.3). The word “bat” below refers to both Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat.

1. The proposed activity is a NYSDOT or locally administered project using Federal-aid funding and FHWA is the NEPA Lead Agency. YES NO

2. The proposed activity is located within the operational right-of-way and existing facilities. YES NO

3. The proposed activity is included on the list of eligible highway/bridge work types (see next page). YES NO

4. The proposed activity does not include the repair, rehabilitation, replacement, or construction of culverts and open drainage systems, or bridge work within rivers, streams, or wetlands. YES NO

5. The proposed activity does not involve removal of suitable summer bat habitat (see Attachment 2: Suitable Bat Habitat Determination Protocol). NOTE: Checking “YES” requires the submittal of the Suitable Habitat Assessment Form to the FHWA Area Engineer and FHWA’s Environmental Specialist. YES NO

6. The proposed activity does not occur within 0.5 miles of a known bat hibernaculum or 1.5 miles of a known summer roost location or forage habitat (Use IPaC- Information for Planning and Conservation- and NYNHP- New York Natural Heritage Database Program- for locations). YES NO

7. If the proposed project involves bridge work: The bridge work (maintenance, alteration, construction, demolition) will occur from October 1 to March 31, and the project does not involve any other type of work not included in the eligible highway/bridge types (see next page). YES N/A

8. If the proposed project involves bridge work: The bridge work (maintenance, alteration, construction, demolition) will occur from April 1 to September 30 and the project does not involve any other type of work not included in the eligible highway/bridge types (see next page). NOTE: This is a conditional “No Effect”. The project is required to have a Bridge/Bat Survey (See Bridge/Bat Survey Protocol) completed within 7 days of anticipated work that concludes that there are no signs of bats for this “No Effect” to be valid. The Bridge/Bat Survey Form must be submitted to the FHWA Environmental Specialist upon completion. If there is a failure to conduct the Bridge/Bat Survey, this “No Effect” is invalidated. If the Bridge/Bat Survey shows signs of bats, this “No Effect” is invalidated and clearance is required from the USFWS before work can begin. YES N/A

FHWA New York Division Section 7 ESA Process Version 1, 2015

Highway/Bridge Work Types

1. Joint and Crack Sealing 2. Pavement Marking 3. Impact Attenuator Repair or Replacement 4. Repair and Replace Loop Detectors 5. On-call Guide Rail Repair 6. Rigid Pavement Repairs (spall repair, grinding, etc.) 7. Pavement Grooving 8. Microsurfacing and Chip Sealing 9. Shoulder Rumble Strip Installation 10. Delineator and/or Reference Marker Placement or Replacement 11. Graffiti Removal and/or Prevention 12. Shoulder Rehabilitation and/or Repair 13. Traffic Management Systems Maintenance (communications cable, hardware for ITS, RWIS, etc.) 14. Highway Lighting Upgrading (excluding luminaire replacement and installation of high mast lighting) 15. Bicycle Path and Walkway Rehabilitation (e.g. ADA curb ramps) 16. Install, Replace and/or Repair Permanent Traffic Count Detectors 17. Install, Replace and/or Repair Weigh-in-Motion Detectors 18. Recharge Basin Reconditioning 19. Underdrain Installation 20. Guide Rail and/or Median Barrier Upgrading (including placement of new guide railing or median barrier) 21. Upgrading Sign(s) and/or Traffic Signal(s) 22. Install, Replace and/or Repair Right-Of-Way, Pedestrian and Permanent Snow Fencing 23. Park and Ride Lot Rehabilitation 24. 1R Projects that do not involve drainage work or work off of the paved surface/shoulder 25. 2R Projects that do not involve drainage work or work off of the paved surface/shoulder 26. 3R Projects (freeway and non-freeway) that do not involve drainage work, bridge work, or work off of the paved surface/shoulder 27. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing: installation of new and/or replacement of existing automatic warning devices 28. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing: installation of new and/or replacement of existing signage 29. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing: interconnection of grade crossing warning systems with vehicular traffic signal system 30. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing: surface replacement or upgrade 31. Bridge Work: Maintenance, alteration, and demolition of bridges/structures from October 1 to March 31 that does not include alteration of permanent street lighting and does not alter bat roost potential, or involve any work within rivers, streams, or wetlands, OR the same type of work between April 1 and September 30 that has negative Bridge/Bat Survey results. 32. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (M&PT) activities within the operational right-of-way. Consistency Determination: Threatened and Endangered Species Whig Street Sidewalk Improvements Project Attachments

ATTACHMENT E

United Sates Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Suitable Habitat Assessment Protocol and Form

FHWA New York Division Section 7 ESA Process Version 1, 2015

Suitable Habitat Assessment Form (Trees)

Project Name: Neahwa Park Entrance Improvement Project PIN: 9009.35

Acres Proposed to be Cut: 0 Lat/Long: 42°27'10.71"N 75° 3'28.86"W

Project Description: The project involves the rehabilitation and construction of the sidewalk along James Georgeson Avenue in the City of Oneonta, Otsego County, New York.

Results of Phase 1: Mapped Occurrences: IPaC Species List NYNHP Species List Northern long-eared Bat Bald Eagle

Results of Phase 2: Field-based Suitable Bat Habitat Assessment: • Does the Cutting Area contain forested/wooded habitat that is made up of trees greater than 3” dbh, that also exhibit signs of exfoliating bark, cracks crevices, and/or cavities, OR that also is mixed with larger trees? No • Does the Cutting Area have individual trees that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or cavities, and are closer than 1000’ from other forested/wooded habitat? No • Does the Cutting Area contain adjacent and interspersed emergent wetlands and adjacent areas of agricultural fields, old fields, and pastures, and forests and woodlots (range from dense to loose aggregates of trees) that contain live trees and/or snags greater or equal to 3” dbh that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or cavities? No

If the answer is yes to any of the above questions, the determination is that “Suitable Bat Habitat” exists within the Cutting Area.

Determination: Suitable Bat Habitat No Suitable Bat Habitat

Characterization/Description of the Habitat: Primarily developed land with residential neighborhoods, commercial buildings, and parkland.

Comments (include specific bat species, if applicable, such as no Indiana bats if project elevation is over 900 ft NGVD, or roost trees for northern long-eared bat specifically were noted by NYNHP): N/A

Name (individual completing the field assessment):

Signature: Date: Consistency Determination: Threatened and Endangered Species Whig Street Sidewalk Improvements Project Attachments

ATTACHMENT E

United Sates Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Rangewide Bat Consultation

FHWA New York Division Section 7 ESA Process Version 1, 2015

Rangewide Bat Consultation Form

In submitting this form, FHWA ensures that the proposed project(s) adhere to the criteria of the rangewide programmatic informal BA. NYSDOT submits this form to the USFWS requesting their concurrence with NYSDOT’s determination, with a cc: to the FHWA Area Engineer. The USFWS has 14 calendar days to comment or request additional information, and will “reply to all”. If FHWA/NYSDOT is not notified within 14 days, Section 7 consultation for bat species is complete under the rangewide programmatic informal consultation. The Area Engineer will then issue an ESA Concurrence Letter to NYSDOT.

Project Name: Neahwa Park Entrance Improvement Project PIN: 9009.35

Lat/Long: 42°27'10.71"N 75° 3'28.86"W Region: 4

Project Description: The project involves the rehabilitation and construction of the sidewalk along James Georgeson Avenue in the City of Oneonta, Otsego County, New York.

FWS Consultation Code (Taken from IPaC project search): 05E1NY00-2016-E-00937

Does the project contain documented forage or roost sites? If it does, NYSDOT must instead use the 7- step traditional process found at: at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/es/step1.htm. YES NO

Acres of trees to be cut, or number of trees to be cut: 0

1. If the project is a bridge project, will current permanent lighting and roosting potential remain the same? Also- The Bridge/Bat Survey Form is required to be completed and submit it to FHWA. See Attachment 3. YES NO N/A 2. Are trees to be cut between October 1 and March 31, and will they be marked to distinguish them from trees that are not to be cut? YES NO N/A 3. Are trees to be cut located within 100-feet of the existing road surface? YES NO N/A 4. Are all other appropriate AMMs included in the project? YES NO N/A

If the answers to the above four questions are YES (or N/A for some bridge projects), then the determination is “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” either Indiana bat or the northern long- eared bat. Is this the determination that NYSDOT is concluding? YES NO

If there are other species (from IPaC) that have a “May Affect” determination, please attach the determination/ paperwork. Are there other species? YES NO

Name (individual completing the form)/ Agency:

Phone Number: Email Address:

Signature: Date:

FHWA Area Engineer: Smart Growth Screening Tool PIN 9009.35 Prepared By: Smart Growth Screening Tool (STEP 1) NYSDOT & Local Sponsors – Fill out the Smart Growth Screening Tool until the directions indicate to STOP for the project type under consideration. For all other projects, complete answering the questions. For any questions, refer to Smart Growth Guidance document.

Title of Proposed Project: Neahwa Park Entrance Improvement Project Location of Project: City of Oneonta, Otsego County, New York Brief Description: Rehabilitation and construction of sidewalk along James Georgeson Avenue. A. Infrastructure:

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

The project the rehabilitation and construction of the sidewalk along the west side of James Georgeson Avenue in the City of Oneonta, Otsego County, New York. The project will provide pedestrian access continuity by linking Market Street with the pedestrian bridge over Mill Race. The sidewalk widths will be maximized to provide adequate room for high volume pedestrian events that occur at the park.

Maintenance Projects Only a. Continue with screening tool for the four (4) types of maintenance projects listed below, as defined in NYSDOT PDM Exhibit 7-1 and described in 7-4: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/pdm  Shoulder rehabilitation and/or repair;  Upgrade sign(s) and/or traffic signals;  Park & ride lot rehabilitation;

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 1 PIN 9009.35

Smart Growth Screening Tool

 1R projects that include single course surfacing (inlay or overlay), per Chapter 7 of the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual.

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

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

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

The project involves the construction of new sidewalk and the rehabilitation of existing sidewalk throughout the project corridor. The project will provide an enhanced route for pedestrian traffic for accessing events in the adjacent park.

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 2 PIN 9009.35

Smart Growth Screening Tool C. Smart Growth Location:

Plans and investments should preserve our communities by promoting its distinct identity through a local vision created by its citizens. (Addresses SG Law criteria b and c: to advance projects located in municipal centers; to advance projects in developed areas or areas designated for concentrated infill development in a municipally approved comprehensive land use plan, local waterfront revitalization plan and/or brownfield opportunity area plan.) 1. Is this project located in a developed area? Yes No N/A 2. Is the project located in a municipal center? Yes No N/A 3. Will this project foster downtown revitalization? Yes No N/A 4. Is this project located in an area designated for concentrated infill development in a municipally approved comprehensive land use plan, waterfront revitalization plan, or Brownfield Opportunity Area plan? Yes No N/A Explain: (use this space to expand on your answers above) The project is located within the City of Oneonta's main streets, surrounded by commercial buildings, residential neighborhoods, and parkland. The land is zoned by the City as mixed-use use, industrial/commerical use, and public open space use.

D. Mixed Use Compact Development:

Future planning and development should assure the availability of a range of choices in housing and affordability, employment, education transportation and other essential services to encourage a jobs/housing balance and vibrant community-based workforce. (Addresses SG Law criteria e and i: to foster mixed land uses and compact development, downtown revitalization, brownfield redevelopment, the enhancement of beauty in public spaces, the diversity and affordability of housing in proximity to places of employment, recreation and commercial

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 3 PIN 9009.35

Smart Growth Screening Tool development and the integration of all income groups; to ensure predictability in building and land use codes.) 1. Will this project foster mixed land uses? Yes No N/A 2. Will the project foster brownfield redevelopment? Yes No N/A 3. Will this project foster enhancement of beauty in public spaces? Yes No N/A 4. Will the project foster a diversity of housing in proximity to places of employment and/or recreation? Yes No N/A 5. Will the project foster a diversity of housing in proximity to places of commercial development and/or compact development? Yes No N/A 6. Will this project foster integration of all income groups and/or age groups? Yes No N/A 7. Will the project ensure predictability in land use codes? Yes No N/A 8. Will the project ensure predictability in building codes? Yes No N/A Explain: (use this space to expand on your answers above) The sidewalk rehabilitation and construction will enhance the beauty of the park entrance within the project corridor.

E. Transportation and Access: NYSDOT recognizes that Smart Growth encourages communities to offer a wide range of transportation options, from walking and biking to transit and automobiles, which increase people’s access to jobs, goods, services, and recreation. (Addresses SG Law criterion f: to provide mobility through transportation choices including improved public transportation and reduced automobile dependency.)

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 4 PIN 9009.35

Smart Growth Screening Tool 1. Will this project provide public transit? Yes No N/A 2. Will this project enable reduced automobile dependency? Yes No N/A 3. Will this project improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities (such as shoulder widening to provide for on-road bike lanes, lane striping, crosswalks, new or expanded sidewalks or new/improved pedestrian signals)? Yes No N/A (Note: Question 3 is an expansion on question 2. The recently passed Complete Streets legislation requires that consideration be given to complete street design features in the planning, design, construction, reconstruction and rehabilitation, but not including resurfacing, maintenance, or pavement recycling of such projects.) Explain: (use this space to expand on your answers above) The construction and rehabilitation of the sidewalk will promote the use of pedestrian walkways within the project corridor.

F. Coordinated, Community-Based Planning: Past experience has shown that early and continuing input in the transportation planning process leads to better decisions and more effective use of limited resources. For information on community based planning efforts, the MPO may be a good resource if the project is located within the MPO planning area. (Addresses SG Law criteria g and h: to coordinate between state and local government and inter- municipal and regional planning; to participate in community based planning and collaboration.) 1. Has there been participation in community-based planning and collaboration on the project? Yes No N/A 2. Is the project consistent with local plans? Yes No N/A 3. Is the project consistent with county, regional, and state plans? Yes No N/A

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 5 PIN 9009.35

Smart Growth Screening Tool 4. Has there been coordination between inter-municipal/regional planning and state planning on the project? Yes No N/A Explain: (use this space to expand on your answers above)

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

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 6 PIN 9009.35

Smart Growth Screening Tool

The project will protect water runoff and airborne dust from construction activities. The project was designed in compliance with applicable Federal, State and Local guidelines.

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 7 PIN 9009.35

Smart Growth Screening Tool

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

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

     

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

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 8 PIN 9009.35

Smart Growth Screening Tool

Review & Attestation Instructions (STEP 3)

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

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

A. CERTIFICATION (LOCAL PROJECT)

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

Preparer of this document:

Signature Date

Title Printed Name

Responsible Local Official (for local projects):

Signature Date

Title Printed Name

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 9 PIN 9009.35

Smart Growth Screening Tool

B. ATTESTATION (NYSDOT) 1. I HEREBY: Concur with the above certification, thereby attesting that this project is in compliance with the State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act

Concur with the above certification, with the following conditions (information requests, confirming studies, project modifications, etc.):

(Attach additional sheets as needed)

do not concur with the above certification, thereby deeming this project ineligible to be a recipient of State funding or a subrecipient of Federal funding in accordance with the State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act.

2. NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to ECL Article 6, this project is compliant with the New York State Smart Growth Public Infrastructure Policy Act, to the extent practicable, as described in the attached Smart Growth Impact Statement.

NYSDOT Commissioner, Regional Director, MO Program Director, Regional Planning & Programming Manager (or official designee):

Signature Date

Title Printed Name

SG-13 (revised May, 2013) 10 PIN 9009.35

Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project Information

Instructions for Completing

Part 1 - Project Information. The applicant or project sponsor is responsible for the completion of Part 1. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification. Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information.

Complete all items in Part 1. You may also provide any additional information which you believe will be needed by or useful to the lead agency; attach additional pages as necessary to supplement any item.

Part 1 - Project and Sponsor Information

Name of Action or Project:

Project Location (describe, and attach a location map):

Brief Description of Proposed Action:

Name of Applicant or Sponsor: Telephone: E-Mail: Address:

City/PO: State: Zip Code:

1. Does the proposed action only involve the legislative adoption of a plan, local law, ordinance, NO YES administrative rule, or regulation? If Yes, attach a narrative description of the intent of the proposed action and the environmental resources that may be affected in the municipality and proceed to Part 2. If no, continue to question 2. 2. Does the proposed action require a permit, approval or funding from any other governmental Agency? NO YES If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit or approval:

3.a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? ______acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? ______acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? ______acres

4. Check all land uses that occur on, adjoining and near the proposed action. 9 Urban 9 Rural (non-agriculture) 9 Industrial 9 Commercial 9 Residential (suburban) 9 Forest 9 Agriculture 9 Aquatic 9 Other (specify): ______9 Parkland

Page 1 of 3 5. Is the proposed action, NO YES N/A a. A permitted use under the zoning regulations?

b. Consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built or natural NO YES landscape? 7. Is the site of the proposed action located in, or does it adjoin, a state listed Critical Environmental Area? NO YES If Yes, identify: ______8. a. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels? NO YES

b. Are public transportation service(s) available at or near the site of the proposed action?

c. Are any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near site of the proposed action? 9. Does the proposed action meet or exceed the state energy code requirements? NO YES If the proposed action will exceed requirements, describe design features and technologies: ______10. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public/private water supply? NO YES

If No, describe method for providing potable water: ______

11. Will the proposed action connect to existing wastewater utilities? NO YES

If No, describe method for providing wastewater treatment: ______12. a. Does the site contain a structure that is listed on either the State or National Register of Historic NO YES Places? b. Is the proposed action located in an archeological sensitive area?

13. a. Does any portion of the site of the proposed action, or lands adjoining the proposed action, contain NO YES wetlands or other waterbodies regulated by a federal, state or local agency? b. Would the proposed action physically alter, or encroach into, any existing wetland or waterbody? If Yes, identify the wetland or waterbody and extent of alterations in square feet or acres: ______

14. Identify the typical habitat types that occur on, or are likely to be found on the project site. Check all that apply: Shoreline Forest Agricultural/grasslands Early mid-successional Wetland Urban Suburban 15. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal, or associated habitats, listed NO YES by the State or Federal government as threatened or endangered?

16. Is the project site located in the 100 year flood plain? NO YES

17. Will the proposed action create storm water discharge, either from point or non-point sources? NO YES If Yes, a. Will storm water discharges flow to adjacent properties? NO YES

b. Will storm water discharges be directed to established conveyance systems (runoff and storm drains)? If Yes, briefly describe: NO YES ______

Page 2 of 3 18. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that result in the impoundment of NO YES water or other liquids (e.g. retention pond, waste lagoon, dam)? If Yes, explain purpose and size: ______19. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the location of an active or closed NO YES solid waste management facility? If Yes, describe: ______20. Has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation (ongoing or NO YES completed) for hazardous waste? If Yes, describe: ______I AFFIRM THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant/sponsor name: ______Date: ______Signature: ______

Page 3 of 3 EAF Mapper Summary Report Friday, December 04, 2015 9:46 AM

Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a substitute for agency determinations.

Part 1 / Question 7 [Critical Environmental No Area] Part 1 / Question 12a [National Register of No Historic Places] Part 1 / Question 12b [Archeological Sites] Yes Part 1 / Question 13a [Wetlands or Other Yes - Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and Regulated Waterbodies] waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. Part 1 / Question 15 [Threatened or No Endangered Animal] Part 1 / Question 16 [100 Year Flood Plain] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook. Part 1 / Question 20 [Remediation Site] Yes

Short Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report 1

January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

Appendix C

860 Hooper Road Endwell, NY 13760 Tel: 607.231.6600 Fax: 607.231.6650 www.delta-eas.com

AN ISO 9001:2008 CERTIFIED COMPANY

November 30, 2015

City of Oneonta 258 Main St. Oneonta, NY 13820

Re: PIN 9009.35/Delta Project # 2014.428.001 Neahwa Park Entrance

Dear Mr. Mattice:

Thank you for meeting us on site the morning of November 24, 2015. This letter summarizes our discussions in the field.

Attendees:  Greg Mattice, City of Oneonta  Chris Maby, Delta  Thad Donoghue, Delta  Brian Tyler, Delta

Discussions/observations:  The City prefers to maximize the width of the sidewalk (> 5’) to accommodate heavy pedestrian traffic during events during the summer months. Sidewalk snow removal occurs with small tractor with blade (42”). Pedestrian bridges wider than 8’ need to be sized with a pickup truck loading. To avoid the cost implications associated with a pickup truck load, the maximum bridge width will be 7’-9”.  Putting a wider sidewalk on west side of bridge in the current location may be difficult due to limited bridge support opportunities on north side due to the proximity of Mill Race and Silver Creek in relation to the configuration of the bridge.  A pedestrian bridge on east side of bridge can be considered and may be the most cost efficient method to provide pedestrian accommodation across Mill Race. If accommodations are moved to the east side of the street, the City would still like to do something with wood deck and steel plates over Silver Creek north of the bridge.  Existing guide railing on the vehicular bridge is not crash proof; the existing headwalls appear to have less than 12” embedment into fill and likely would not be suitable for mounting a crash tested railing. This is only relevant if existing bridge railing become an issue. Note: an email was sent on 11/30/15to Zack McKenna (NYSDOT R9) requesting their input on whether this needs to be considered by this project.  The City does not have preference for the bridge sidewalk surface as long as it is ADA compliant. Open grating may be considered.  The former railroad owners (Canadian Pacific) had a project planned for 2016 or 2017 to rehabilitate RR crossing. Disposition of the project is unknown now due to Norfolk Southern taking ownership of the railroad lines.

“We are a seamless extension of our clients’ organizations” DELTA ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, & LAND SURVEYORS, P.C. Page 2 of 2

AN ISO 9001:2008 CERTIFIED COMPANY

 The sidewalk should extend from Market Street across the bridge and terminate at the walking path which parallels Mill Race. Any work that extends the sidewalk to the Outlaws parking lot entrance is expected to be minor and anticipated to consist of striping, if anything.  Decorative period style lighting should be included.  The City is open to reducing the Mirabito driveway openings as long as it does not impede on turning movements associated with accessing their facility.  A portion of the cross slope of the southbound travel lane on James Georgeson Ave is non- standard. This area should be evaluated for making improvements a part of this project which will conform to standard criteria.  The City has used inlets without a curb opening on recent projects. The same approach can be utilized on this project.  Concrete curb should be used as a costs savings (compared to granite).

If this is not consistent with your recollection of the items discussed, please contact me so that can issue a revised summary.

Respectfully, DELTA ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, & LAND SURVEYORS, P.C.

Christopher J. Maby, CPESC Project Manager

cc: J. Zachary McKenna (NYSDOT R9), file

“We are a seamless extension of our clients’ organizations” 860 Hooper Road Endwell, NY 13760 Tel: 607.231.6600 Fax: 607.231.6650 www.delta-eas.com

AN ISO 9001:2008 CERTIFIED COMPANY

January 11, 2016

City of Oneonta 258 Main St. Oneonta, NY 13820

Re: PIN 9009.35/Delta Project # 2014.428.001 Neahwa Park Entrance

Dear Mr. Mattice:

Thank you for meeting with us the morning of January 6, 2016. This letter summarizes our discussions. Copies of the sign-in sheet, alternatives, and estimated construction costs that were discussed are attached.

x Meeting started @ 8:55. x Chris briefly went over the alternatives to bring Zach up to speed. Alternative 1 is located on the west side of James Georgeson Ave. The estimated construction cost including a new pedestrian bridge is $494,000. Alternative 2 is located on the east side of the street, with an estimated construction cost of $335,000 including the bridge. Both of these costs well exceed the programmed amount of $186,000. Greg stated the City had reviewed the plans and costs in advance of the meeting. Their consensus is for the project to be built on the west side, and terminate at the existing pedestrian bridge. No work should extend across Mill Race into the park. The majority of the pedestrian traffic which goes to Neahwa Park comes from the west. Having them cross James Georgeson at Market and then again once across Mill Race will introduce two new pedestrian / vehicular conflict points. Keeping the project on the west side eliminates this. x Chris noted that Delta had looked at eliminating the bridge and the work south of Mill Race prior to the meeting. This reduced the estimated construction cost to $228,000. Greg and Bill indicated the City was comfortable in advancing the scaled down project with that as the estimated cost. A letter will be provided by the City prior to requesting Design Approval indicating the same, as DOT needs confirmation of the City being responsible for any costs which extend beyond the programmed amount. x The City indicated that Delta should do an analysis of the existing pedestrian bridge to identify any issues it may have. Brian indicated that additional field work will be needed as part of the evaluation. This work will occur at the same time as the inspection of the area of Silver Creek where the new caps will be constructed. The field work will occur in the next week or two assuming fair weather and water levels in Silver Creek low enough to allow access. x Chris stated that the railroad will be contacted immediately now that a determination has been made on the location of the project. Greg will provide Delta contact info. Discussion points with the railroad include: o Identification of any known existing easements for the city infrastructure across their property. o What requirements the RR has regarding work on or near their property o If the crossing upgrade project previously planned for by the former RR owners is still a go, what coordination and collaboration is needed to make both projects successful.

“We are a seamless extension of our clients’ organizations” DELTA ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, & LAND SURVEYORS, P.C. Page 2 of 2

AN ISO 9001:2008 CERTIFIED COMPANY

o Request that the RR remove any old telegraph poles and wires within the vicinity of the park entrance, to help improve aesthetics in a low cost manner. x A public meeting is needed as part of the Design Approval process. Greg indicated there were several options available. Greg informed Delta the meeting will be held at the council meeting on 2/2/16, in the council chambers room upstairs. Delta will make a 10 to 15 minute presentation, followed by a short Q&A period. Delta’s presentation will be at the 2/2/16 council meeting. x Greg indicated that the City prefers granite curb. They build their own inlets and will provide them for this project. Both inlets on James Georgeson within the project footprint should be replaced as part of this project. Chris confirmed the City is open to reuse of the bricks from their Main St project to use as infill behind the curb on this project. Using brick will provide a walkable space of 8’ behind the curb during high flow events. Greg noted that new granite curb on the east side of the street, to improve aesthetics, should be considered for the project. Delta suggested this be included as a bid alternate; the City approved this approach. x Delta explained there is a DEC grant for tree plantings that may be able to provide additional funds for landscaping/tree planting, further expanding the footprint of this project. Chris will gather data about the program and forward to Greg for consideration. x Greg stated that Market Street will be milled and paved in 2016 under a separate contract. x With no further discussion on the project, Chris explained a school partnership Delta is involved in. Delta has partnered with P-TECH, an alternative type of schooling. A small group of students will be using a project Delta is currently working on to develop their own project from. Chris suggested that this project has great potential for their use and is starting up at the right time. If the project were to be used, Delta would provide base mapping, a rough construction budget, idea of what improvements would ideally be incorporated, and the footprint within which they have to work. The students would develop a plan, estimated cost, and if possible, potential funding mechanisms or sources. There would be no cost to the City (or whichever project is selected). The students would then make a presentation to Delta, and perhaps a DOT and/or city representative, in a shark tank type of format. P-TECH fully acknowledges this is a curriculum effort only and will not be built. However, there may be an element identified as something which could be incorporated into the real project. Greg and Bill indicated this was acceptable to the City and look forward to hearing of any ideas the students may have. x With no further questions, the meeting was adjourned at 9:38. If this is not consistent with your recollection of the items discussed, please contact me so that can issue a revised summary.

Respectfully, DELTA ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, & LAND SURVEYORS, P.C.

Christopher J. Maby, CPESC Project Manager

cc: J. Zachary McKenna (NYSDOT R9), file

“We are a seamless extension of our clients’ organizations”

PRELIMINARY LAYOUT - ALTERNATIVE 1 January 6, 2016 PRELIMINARY LAYOUT ALTERNATIVE 2 January 6, 2016 Estimate 9009.35

Estimated Cost:$392,042.12 Contingency: 26.00% Estimated Total: $493,973.07

OPTION 1 - NEW SIDEWALK ON WEST SIDE OF ROAD. Base Date: 12/22/15 Spec Year: 08 Unit System: E Work Type: ASPHALT Highway Type: ASPHALT Urban/Rural Type: Urban Season: FALL (9/21 to 12/20) County: OTSEGO Midpoint of Latitude: Midpoint of Longitude: District: 09 Federal/State Project Number:

Prepared by Delta Engineers, Architects, and Land Surveyors, P.C. Estimate: 9009.35 Line # Item Number Quantity Units Unit Price Extension Description Supplemental Description

Group 0003: 0019 203.02 115.000 CY $48.71 $5,601.65 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL

0020 203.07 18.000 CY $60.38 $1,086.84 SELECT GRANULAR FILL

0021 206.0201 31.000 CY $46.73 $1,448.63 TRENCH AND CULVERT EXCAVATION

0022 304.15 68.000 CY $81.88 $5,567.84 SUBBASE COURSE, OPTIONAL TYPE

0027 603.9824 10.000 LF $104.06 $1,040.60 SMOOTH INTERIOR CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE CULVERT AND STORM DRAIN 24 INCH DIAMETER

0028 604.300103 8.000 LF $351.53 $2,812.24 RECTANGULAR DRAINAGE STRUCTURE (TYPE A) FOR #3 WELDED FRAME

0030 608.0101 20.000 CY $675.40 $13,508.00 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAYS

0031 608.01020005 6.000 CY $1,001.78 $6,010.68 COLORED AND IMPRINTED PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK

0032 608.020102 49.000 TON $223.03 $10,928.47 HOT MIX ASPHALT (HMA) SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS AND BICYCLE PATHS ,AND VEGETATION CONTROL STRIPS

0033 608.21 6.000 SY $325.94 $1,955.64 EMBEDDED DETECTABLE WARNING UNITS

0034 608.94010007 245.000 SF $6.94 $1,700.30 IMPRINTING AND COLORING OF ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT

0035 609.0201 240.000 LF $62.48 $14,995.20 STONE CURB, GRANITE, (TYPE A)

0036 611.0151 7.000 EACH $380.03 $2,660.21 PLANTING - MAJOR DECIDUOUS TREES - 2 INCH CALIPER BALL & BURLAP, FIELD POTTED OR FIELD BOXED

0039 670.0106 6.000 EACH $1,260.99 $7,565.94 FOUNDATION FOR LIGHT STANDARDS, 6 FEET LONG

0040 670.10010004 6.000 EACH $4,859.98 $29,159.88 DECORATIVE LIGHT POLES WITH ONE LUMINAIRE

0041 Creek Cap 1.000 $75,000.00 $75,000.00

0042 Ped Bridge 1.000 LS $211,000.00 $211,000.00

Total for Group 0003:$392,042.12

3:19:57PM Tuesday, December 22, 2015 Page 2 of 2 Estimate 9009.35

Estimated Cost:$265,427.50 Contingency: 26.00% Estimated Total: $334,438.65

OPTION 1 - NEW SIDEWALK ON EAST SIDE OF ROAD Base Date: 12/22/15 Spec Year: 08 Unit System: E Work Type: ASPHALT Highway Type: ASPHALT Urban/Rural Type: Urban Season: FALL (9/21 to 12/20) County: OTSEGO Midpoint of Latitude: Midpoint of Longitude: District: 09 Federal/State Project Number:

Prepared by Delta Engineers, Architects, and Land Surveyors, P.C. Estimate: 9009.35 Line # Item Number Quantity Units Unit Price Extension Description Supplemental Description

Group 0003: 0019 203.02 150.000 CY $45.41 $6,811.50 UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION AND DISPOSAL

0020 203.07 37.000 CY $54.63 $2,021.31 SELECT GRANULAR FILL

0021 206.0201 55.000 CY $42.99 $2,364.45 TRENCH AND CULVERT EXCAVATION

0022 304.15 88.000 CY $78.29 $6,889.52 SUBBASE COURSE, OPTIONAL TYPE

0027 603.9824 20.000 LF $91.19 $1,823.80 SMOOTH INTERIOR CORRUGATED POLYETHYLENE CULVERT AND STORM DRAIN 24 INCH DIAMETER

0028 604.300103 14.000 LF $351.53 $4,921.42 RECTANGULAR DRAINAGE STRUCTURE (TYPE A) FOR #3 WELDED FRAME

0030 608.0101 26.000 CY $648.90 $16,871.40 CONCRETE SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAYS

0031 608.01020005 6.000 CY $1,001.78 $6,010.68 COLORED AND IMPRINTED PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK

0032 608.020102 67.000 TON $213.98 $14,336.66 HOT MIX ASPHALT (HMA) SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS AND BICYCLE PATHS ,AND VEGETATION CONTROL STRIPS

0033 608.21 7.000 SY $323.60 $2,265.20 EMBEDDED DETECTABLE WARNING UNITS

0034 608.94010007 475.000 SF $6.94 $3,296.50 IMPRINTING AND COLORING OF ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT

0035 609.0201 350.000 LF $60.14 $21,049.00 STONE CURB, GRANITE, (TYPE A)

0036 611.0151 8.000 EACH $380.03 $3,040.24 PLANTING - MAJOR DECIDUOUS TREES - 2 INCH CALIPER BALL & BURLAP, FIELD POTTED OR FIELD BOXED

0039 670.0106 6.000 EACH $1,260.99 $7,565.94 FOUNDATION FOR LIGHT STANDARDS, 6 FEET LONG

0040 670.10010004 6.000 EACH $4,859.98 $29,159.88 DECORATIVE LIGHT POLES WITH ONE LUMINAIRE

0042 Ped Bridge 1.000 LS $137,000.00 $137,000.00

Total for Group 0003:$265,427.50

3:41:15PM Tuesday, December 22, 2015 Page 2 of 2 January 2016 Draft Design Report PIN 9009.35

Appendix D

Date: 3/14/2012 02:11:01 pm Start Date: 3/5/2012 09:00 End Date: 3/5/2012 21:00 Time Interval: 60 minutes Comments: Speed Interval: 5 mph PostedSpeed Limit: 15 mph Average Speed: 21 mph Highest Speed: 43 mph 50th Percentile: 22 mph 85th Percentile: 26 mph Number Above Speed Limit: 186 Total Number of Vehicles: 233

NYSDOT Pedestrian Generator Checklist

PEDESTRIAN GENERATOR CHECKLIST PIN: 9009.35 Project Name: Neahwa Park Entrance Improvement Project Location: James Georgeson Avenue, Oneonta, Otsego County 1. Is there an existing or planned sidewalk, trail, or pedestrian-crossing facility? YES x NO□ 2. Are there bus stops, transit stations or depots/terminals located in or within 800 YES x NO□ m of the project area? 3. Is there more than occasional pedestrian activity? Evidence of pedestrian YES x NO□ activity may include a worn path. 4. Are there existing or approved plans for generators of pedestrian activity in or YES x NO□ within 800m of the project that promote or have the potential to promote pedestrian traffic in the project area, such as schools, parks, playgrounds, places of employment, places of worship, post offices, municipal buildings, restaurants, shopping centers, or other commercial areas, or shared-use paths? 5. Are there existing or approved plans for seasonal generators of pedestrian YES x NO□ activity in or within 800 m of the project that promote or have the potential to promote pedestrian traffic in the project area, such as ski resorts, state parks, camps, amusement parks? 6. Is the project located in a residential area within 800 m of existing or planned YES x NO□ pedestrian generators such as those listed in 4 above? 7. From record plans, were pedestrian facilities removed during a previous highway YES □ NO x reconstruction project? 8. Did a study of secondary impacts indicate that the project promotes or is likely to YES x NO□ promote commercial and/or residential development within the intended life cycle of the project? 9. Does the community’s comprehensive plan call for development of pedestrian YES x NO□ facilities in the area? 10. Based on the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school, would the project YES □ NO x* benefit from engineering measures under the Safe-Routes-To-School program? Eligible infrastructure-related improvements must be within a 3.2 km radius of the project. Note: This checklist should be revisited due to a project delay or if site conditions or local planning changes during the project development process.

Comments:

Question #10 toggled no due to the project already being pedestrian only in nature.

Project Designer:

Christopher Maby

Subject: FW: Neahwa Entrance - accidents

From: Greg Mattice [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 8:46 AM To: Christopher Maby; Steven A. Sanyshyn Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Neahwa Entrance

OPD reports no traffic accidents in the requested area in the past three years.

Feel free to call or e-mail with any questions or if you need additional information. I look forward to working with you on this project.

Thanks, Greg

Gregory M. Mattice, P.E. Senior Engineering Technician City of Oneonta 258 Main St. Oneonta, NY 13820 o. (607) 432-6465 f. (607) 432-3055