Draft Design Report/ Environmental Assessment Volume I

DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT VOLUME I

PIN 0112.52 Route 110 Drainage and Roadway Improvements Prime Avenue to Young’s Hill Road

Town of Huntington Suffolk County

October 2007

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ELIOT SPITZER, Governor ASTRID C. GLYNN, Commissioner

It is the policy of the NYSDOT to use metric units for all projects to be let for construction after September 30, 1996. This project is being designed using metric units and the text of this report uses metric units.

The following table of approximate conversion factors provides the relationship between metric and inch-pound units for some of the more frequently used units in highway design. The table allows one to calculate the Inch-Pound Unit by multiplying the corresponding Metric Unit by the given factor.

Metric Unit x Factor = Inch-Pound Unit Length kilometer (km) x 0.621 = mile (mi) meter (m) x 3.281 = foot (ft), (’) millimeter (mm) x 0.0394 = inch (in), (”) Area hectare (ha) x 2.471 = acre (a) square meter (m 2) x 1.196 = square yard (sy) square meter (m 2) x 10.764 = square foot (sf) square kilometer (km2) x 0.386 = square mile (sq mi) Volume cubic meter (m 3) x 1.308 = cubic yard (cy) cubic meter (m 3) x 35.315 = cubic foot (cf) Speed kilometers per hour (km/h) x 0.621 = miles per hour (mph) meters per second (m/s) x 3.281 = feet per second (fps) Flow cubic meters per sec (m3/s) x 35.31 = cubic feet per sec (cfs)

DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT VOLUME I

PIN 0112.52 Route 110 Drainage and Roadway Improvements Prime Avenue to Young’s Hill Road

Town of Huntington Suffolk County

October 2007

October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Table of Contents

VOLUME I :

I. INTRODUCTION...... I-1

II. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, EVOLUTION, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS, AND OBJECTIVES ...... II-1 A. Project Identification ...... II-1 1. Project Type ...... II-1 2. Project Description/Location ...... II-1 a. Description...... II-1 b. Regional Map...... II-1 c. Project Map...... II-1 B. Project Evolution ...... II-1 C. Conditions and Needs ...... II-4 1. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations...... II-4 a. Functional Classification and National Highway System ...... II-4 b. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction...... II-4 c. Culture, Terrain, and Climatic Conditions...... II-4 d. Control of Access...... II-4 e. Existing Highway Section...... II-5 f. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments ...... II-5 g. Speeds and Delay...... II-6 h. Traffic Volumes...... II-6 i. Level of Service ...... II-7 j. Non-Standard Features and Other Non-Conforming Features ...... II-10 k. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis ...... II-11 l. Pavement and Shoulder Conditions...... II-11 m. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators...... II-12 n. Traffic Control Devices...... II-12 o. Structures ...... II-13 p. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts ...... II-13 q. Drainage Systems...... II-13 r. Soils and Foundations ...... II-15 s. Utilities ...... II-15 t. Railroads ...... II-15 u. Visual Resources...... II-15 v. Provisions for Pedestrians and Bicyclists ...... II-16 w. Planned Development for Area ...... II-16 x. System Elements and Conditions ...... II-16 y. Environmental Integration ...... II-16 2. Needs...... II-17 a. Project Level Needs...... II-17 b. Area or Corridor Level Needs ...... II-18 c. Transportation Plans...... II-18 D. Project Objectives ...... II-18

i October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

III. ALTERNATIVES...... III-1 A. Design Criteria...... III-1 1. Design Standards ...... III-1 2. Critical Design Elements...... III-1 3. Other Controlling Parameters ...... III-1 B. Alternatives Considered ...... III-5 1. Drainage Alternatives Considered ...... III-5 2. Highway Alternatives Considered ...... III-6 C. Feasible Alternatives ...... III-7 1. Description of Feasible Alternative...... III-7 a. Drainage Alternatives...... III-8 b. Highway Alternatives ...... III-24 2. Engineering Considerations for Feasible Alternatives ...... III-26 a. Special Geometric Features...... III-26 b. Traffic Forecasts, Level of Service, and Safety Considerations...... III-27 c. Pavement ...... III-34 d. Structures ...... III-35 e. Hydraulics...... III-35 f. Drainage ...... III-35 g. Maintenance Responsibility ...... III-35 h. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic...... III-35 i. Soils and Foundations ...... III-37 j. Utilities ...... III-37 k. Railroads ...... III-39 l. Right of Way ...... III-39 m. Landscape Development ...... III-40 n. Provisions for Pedestrians, Including Persons with Disabilities ...... III-40 o. Provisions for Bicycling ...... III-40 p. Lighting ...... III-40 D. Project Costs and Schedule ...... III-40 1. Costs ...... III-40 2. Schedule ...... III-40

IV. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... IV-1 A. Introduction ...... IV-1 1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Class and Lead Agency...... IV-1 2. State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) Type and Lead Agency ...... IV-1 B. Social, Economic and Environmental Consequences ...... IV-1 1. Social Consequences...... IV-1 a. Affected Population...... IV-1 b. Local Planning ...... IV-1 c. Community Cohesion...... IV-1 d. Changes in Travel Patterns or Accessibility ...... IV-2 e. Impacts on School Districts, Recreational Areas, Churches or Businesses..... IV-2 f. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access...... IV-3 g. Impacts on Highway Safety, Traffic Safety and Overall Public Safety ...... IV-3 h. General Social Groups Benefited or Harmed ...... IV-3

ii October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

2. Economic Consequences ...... IV-4 a. Impacts on Regional and Local Economies...... IV-4 b. Impacts on Existing Highway / Related Businesses ...... IV-4 c. Impacts on Established Business Districts ...... IV-4 d. Relocation Impacts ...... IV-4 3. Environmental Consequences ...... IV-5 a. Surface Waters / Wetlands ...... IV-5 b. Water Source Quality...... IV-10 c. General Ecology and Wildlife ...... IV-13 d. Historical and Cultural Resources ...... IV-15 e. Visual Resources...... IV-15 f. Parks and Recreational Facilities ...... IV-15 g. Farmland Assessment ...... IV-16 h. Air, Noise and Energy ...... IV-16 i. Contaminated Materials Assessment...... IV-17 j. Construction Impacts ...... IV-19 k. Anticipated Permits, Approvals and Coordination...... IV-19 4. Indirect/Secondary and Cumulative Impacts...... IV-20 a. Indirect/Secondary Impacts...... IV-20 b. Cumulative Impacts ...... IV-20

V. EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...... V-1

VI . PROJECT COORDINATION ...... VI-1

VOLUME II:

1. TYPICAL SECTIONS...... TS-1 – TS-2 2. GENERAL PLANS ...... GP-1 – GP-13 3. PROFILES ...... PR-1 – PR-8

APPENDICES :

APPENDIX A. Volumes and LOS Analysis APPENDIX B. Accident Analysis APPENDIX C. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Sections APPENDIX D. Updated Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Report APPENDIX E. Tables of Affected Properties APPENDIX F. Draft Drainage Report APPENDIX G. Draft Wetlands Report APPENDIX H. Draft Hazardous Materials Screening Report APPENDIX I. Soil Boring Logs APPENDIX J. Correspondence APPENDIX K. Coastal Assessment Form

iii October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

ABBREVIATIONS

AADT - Average Annual Daily Traffic AASHTO - American Assoc. of State Highway Transportation Officials ACC/MVKM - Accidents per Million Vehicle Kilometers ADAAG - Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guideline for Buildings & Facilities BIN - Bridge Identification Number BM - NYSDOT Bridge Manual COE - Corps of Engineers DHV - Design Hourly Volume (Two-Way) DDHV - Directional Design Hourly Volume (One-Way) DR - Design Report EAP - Environmental Action Plan EPA - Environmental Protection Agency EPP - Expanded Project Proposal ETC - Estimated Time of Completion FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Administration (U.S.) FHWA - Federal Highway Administration FIPS - Federal Information Processing Standard HDM - New York State Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual HSD - Headlight Sight Distance LOS - Level of Service NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act NHS - National Highway System NWI - National Wetlands Inventory NYSDEC - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDOT - New York State Department of Transportation PE - Permanent Easement PIN - Project Identification Number PS&E - Plans, Specifications and Estimate RM - Reference Marker ROW - Right of Way SEQR - State Environmental Quality Review SH - State Highway SPDES - Stormwater Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SR - State Route SSD - Stopping Sight Distance USCG - United States Coast Guard

iv October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION

Purpose – This report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Design Procedure Manual (DPM) and the Project Development Manual (PDM). This report has also been prepared in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). This report is a continuation of studies and analysis presented in an Expanded Project Proposal (EPP), dated November, 2004. The purpose of this report is to present objectives, design alternatives, and potential environmental impacts associated with this project.

Location – NYS Route 110 is a major north-south arterial in Suffolk County, New York, extending from NYS Route 27A (Montauk Highway) on the South Shore to Huntington Harbor on the North Shore of Long Island. Within the project, Route 110 is an urban arterial with commercial development, and is known as New York Avenue. The project limits are from the Prime Avenue/Madison Street intersection to the Young’s Hill Road intersection in the Town of Huntington, in the hamlet of Halesite. The Young’s Hill Road intersection is the northerly terminus of Route 110. The length of the project is approximately 1.45 km (0.9 mile) on Route 110 and is referred to as Route 110 Reconstruction from Prime Avenue to Young’s Hill Road, PIN 0112.52 . The drainage study covers a 1,410 ha (3,490 acres) or 14.1 km 2 (5.5 sq mi) watershed which is approximately divided by Route 110 into two sections. The two sections are known as the Halesite watershed located east of Route 110, and the Wall Street watershed located west of Route 110. A number of detention/recharge basins are located throughout these watersheds.

Conditions & Needs – Route 110 within the project limits is an Urban Minor Arterial south of Mill Dam Road, and an Urban Collector north of Mill Dam Road. The roadway generally consists of one travel lane in each direction, with parking along much of its length. Concrete curb and sidewalk exists in various states of disrepair. The pavement exhibits some distress, and requires rehabilitative measures.

A serious issue impacting the Route 110 corridor within the project limits is the persistent recurrence of flooding conditions related to periods of heavy rain coinciding with high tide levels. Flooding of the roadway low point along this portion of Route 110 has reached depths of several feet on numerous occasions. The need to address this flooding situation is a major factor in advancing this project.

For additional detailed information regarding conditions and needs, see Section II.C of this report.

Objectives – The objectives of this project are to provide drainage and highway improvements including the following: ● Implement measures which will reduce the frequency of flooding at the low point on NY 110 between Hill Place and Creek Road. ● Consider a context sensitive approach based on the proximity to the harbor, parks and local nature of this project area and consistent with the Town of Huntington’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). ● Provide safety improvements involving pavement repair, on-street parking improvements, signing and operational improvements to improve safety. ● Enhance pedestrian movement. ● Provide a distress free pavement. I-1 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Alternatives – The proposed project includes several drainage alternatives between Prime Avenue and Young’s Hill Road to address stormwater management and flooding issues. In addition, various alternatives for highway improvements are also included. The drainage alternatives are independent of the highway alternatives; that is, any of the drainage alternatives could be combined with any highway alternative. This report documents the evaluation of each drainage and each highway alternative.

Alternatives have been grouped into two categories, Drainage Alternatives and Highway Alternatives. For additional information regarding these alternatives, see Chapter III of this report.

Cost & Schedule – Construction cost estimates range from $12.4 million to $18.7 million, while Right of Way cost estimates range from $7.4 million to $7.6 million, depending on the alternative selected. This project will be funded with State Dedicated Funds (SDF) for construction, with a proposed letting of September, 2009. For additional information regarding cost and schedule, see Section III.D of this report.

Environmental Classification – The project is classified as a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) Non-Type II in accordance with 17 NYCRR Part 15. NYSDOT is the lead agency for SEQR. Since this project will be fully funded with State Dedicated Funds, and federal funding will not be sought nor utilized, environmental issues that would be addressed under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) provisions will be addressed in accordance with SEQR. Therefore a NEPA Classification is not required.

Contact – Further information regarding this project or the contents of this report may be obtained by contacting:

New York State Department of Transportation Region 10 Design Group Attn: Elizabeth Chamakkala, P.E., Project Manager NYS Office Building 250 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788

Correspondence regarding this project should refer to PIN 0112.52.

I-2 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

CHAPTER II – PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, EVOLUTION, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS, AND OBJECTIVES

II.A. Project Identification

II.A.1. Project Type – Reconstruction

This project involves evaluating feasible alternatives for roadway and drainage improvements on New York State Route 110, and includes pavement repairs, resurfacing, repair and completion of curb and sidewalk, and safety improvements. A major element of this project is reconstruction of the drainage system, due to a chronic flooding situation.

II.A.2. Project Description/Location

II.A.2.a. Description –

II.A.2.a.(1) Route Number – NYS Route 110

II.A.2.a.(2) Route Name – New York Avenue

II.A.2.a.(3) SH number and official highway description – SH 794

II.A.2.a.(4) BIN Number and Feature Crossed – None

II.A.2.a.(5) Municipality – Town of Huntington, in the hamlet of Halesite

II.A.2.a.(6) County – Suffolk

II.A.2.a.(7) Length – The project length is 1.45 km (0.9 mile).

II.A.2.a.(8) Termini – The southerly project terminus is Prime Avenue, and the northerly terminus is Young’s Hill Road, which is also the northerly end of Route 110.

II.A.2.a.(9) Other Pertinent Description Information – The project extends from Reference Marker (RM) 110-0701-1149 to RM 110-0701-1158.

II.A.2.b. Regional Map – Refer to the Regional Map on page II-2 of this report (Figure II-1).

II.A.2.c. Project Map – Refer to the Project Map on page II-3 of this report (Figure II-2).

II.B. Project Evolution

Route 110 within the project limits was originally constructed in 1929. Minor drainage improvements were made in the mid-1980s. The need for this project was identified by NYSDOT to address a periodic flooding problem on Route 110 between the Prime Avenue and Mill Dam Road intersections.

II-1 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Figure II -1 Regional Map

II-2 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Figure II -2 Project Map

II-3 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

This project was programmed by NYSDOT Region 10 and was included in the Transportation Improvement Plan. The Initial Project Proposal (IPP) was approved by the Regional Director in November 1992. An Expanded Project Proposal (EPP), dated November 2004, presented preliminary studies and recommendations. A Public Information/Scoping Center Open House was held in May 2003 at Huntington Public Library to present alternatives to the public.

This project is being administered by NYSDOT Region 10. NYSDOT has made this project a priority and proposes to complete construction by 2011.

II.C. Conditions and Needs

II.C.1. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations

II.C.1.a. Functional Classification and National Highway System –

II.C.1.a.(1) Functional Class – Route 110 is functionally classified as an Urban Minor Arterial south of Mill Dam Road, and as an Urban Collector north of Mill Dam Road.

II.C.1.a.(2) NHS – Route 110 is not on the National Highway System (NHS).

II.C.1.a.(3) Qualifying or Access Highway – Route 110 within the project limits is not designated as a Qualifying or Access Highway for larger dimension vehicles on the National Network of Designated Truck Access Highways. Route 110 does carry this designation in the Town of Huntington as far north as Semon Road, approximately 2.2 km south of the southerly terminus of the project.

II.C.1.a.(4) Interstate System – Route 110 is not on the Interstate System. The highway is not part of the 4.9 m vertical clearance network.

II.C.1.b. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction – NYSDOT has maintenance jurisdiction over the Route 110 Right of Way. Cross roads within the project limits are owned and maintained by the Town of Huntington, with the exception of Mill Dam Road and Park Avenue (collectively County Route 35), which are owned and maintained by Suffolk County. The Mill Dam Creek runs through private property and has received little, if any, maintenance by the individual property owners. Should property owners not properly maintain the creek, then NYSDOT may provide maintenance under Highway Law (Section 45).

II.C.1.c. Culture, Terrain, and Climatic Conditions –

II.C.1.c.(1) Area Type – Urban. The primary land use is commercial/retail.

II.C.1.c.(2) Terrain – The terrain in the project area is level.

II.C.1.c.(3) Unusual Weather Conditions – There are no unusual climatic conditions that would affect the design of the roadway.

II.C.1.d. Control of Access – There is no control of access.

II-4 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

II.C.1.e. Existing Highway Section –

II.C.1.e.(1) Right of Way width – The existing Right of Way along Route 110 within the project limits varies, and is approximately 20.1 m at the southern project limit and narrows at the northern project limit.

II.C.1.e.(2) Lanes and Shoulders – Route 110 consists of one travel lane in each direction, with shoulders and/or parking lanes of varying widths the entire project length, for a total pavement width of 14.6 m to the south of Mill Dam Road, and narrowing to the north, varying from 10.4 m and 11.6 m.

II.C.1.e.(3) Curb – Route 110 has 100-150 mm non-mountable curb on both sides within the project limits. About one-third of the project length is uncurbed.

II.C.1.e.(4) Median – Route 110 has no raised median within the project limits.

II.C.1.e.(5) Grades and curves – The maximum grade is 5%. The minimum horizontal curve radius is 349 m.

II.C.1.e.(6) Intersection Geometry and Conditions – Refer to the General Plans (included in Volume II of this report) for the geometry of the existing intersections.

II.C.1.e.(7) Parking Regulations and Parking Related Conditions – There are some parking restrictions posted within the project limits. Parking is restricted at intersections and some driveways, and there are some bus stop restrictions. In places there are also time restrictions.

II.C.1.e.(8) Roadside Elements:

(a) Snow Storage, Sidewalks, Utility Strips, Bikeways, Bus Stops. Sidewalks areas exist throughout much of the project length, and it is used for both above-ground and underground utility as well as snow storage purposes. Utilities also exist beneath the roadway pavement. There are no designated bicycle lanes, but bicyclists are accommodated with wide lanes and shoulders throughout much of the project length. Route 110 is served by Suffolk Transit System’s S1 bus route, and stops are located periodically through the project limits.

(b) Driveways. The existing driveways are not in conformance with the NYSDOT “Policy and Standards for Entrances to State Highways”, 2003. Because of the overall age of this community, the driveways were established prior to current policies and standards for entrances to state highways, and therefore the majority do not adhere to current standards.

II.C.1.f. Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments

The existing highway south of this segment is a two-lane section to Woodhull Road, a four-lane section with alternative turn lanes and shoulders to Depot Road at which point it becomes a three-lane roadway with parking lanes. The land uses are

II-5 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

generally the same. The project extends to the north end of Route 110. North of Young’s Hill Road is a residential community. There are no plans to widen Route 110 within the project area. The segment of Route 110 from Prime Avenue to Tuthill Street was rehabilitated under PIN 0112.51.

II.C.1.g. Speeds and Delay –

II.C.1.g.(1) Existing Speed Limit – The Current posted speed limit within the project limits is 48 km/h (30 mph).

II.C.1.g.(2) Actual Operating Speed – A speed study conducted by the Regional Traffic Operations Group showed that the off-peak 85 th percentile operating speed was 55-56 km/h (34-35 mph).

II.C.1.g.(3) Travel Speed and Delay Runs for Existing Conditions – Through field observations, it was determined that there are no substantial delays to traffic traveling through the project limits. Therefore, a delay study was not performed.

II.C.1.g.(4) Travel Time and Delay Estimates – Through field observations, it was determined that there are no substantial delays to traffic traveling through the project limits. Therefore, a delay study was not performed.

II.C.1.h. Traffic Volumes – The 2002 traffic volumes (determined during the scoping stage) were projected to 2006 (new existing baseline conditions), 2011 (ETC), 2021 (ETC+10), and design year 2031 (ETC+20) 1 by applying a linear 1.0% growth rate per year, provided by the Regional Planning Group. The existing (2006) and projected turning movement volumes for the five study intersections are shown in Appendix A.

Table II-1 below summarizes general existing and forecast traffic volumes.

Table II-1 Existing and Forecast Traffic Volumes NYS ROUTE 110 Year AADT DHV DDHV Old Existing 14,450 1,445 939 Baseline (2002) New Existing 15,037 1,504 977 Baseline (2006) ETC (2011) 15,804 1,580 1,027

ETC+10 (2021) 17,457 1,746 1,134

ETC+20 (2031) 19,284 1,928 1,253 Other data: Directional Distribution = 65% Daily Trucks (estimated) = 4% Peak Hour Percent Trucks = 5% AM, 5% PM (ETC = Estimated Time of Completion)

1 Since this is a highway reconstruction project, the design year is estimated at ETC+20, based on the NYSDOT PDM, Appendix 5. II-6 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

II.C.1.i. Level of Service

II.C.1.i.(1) Existing level of service and capacity analysis. In order to develop the 2006 existing baseline conditions, field visits were performed to obtain current operating conditions; such as lane configurations, traffic flow patterns, traffic regulations and restrictions, intersection control type, and signal timings. The EPP Highway Capacity Software (HCS) files were then updated to reflect current traffic operational conditions. The revised capacity analyses were performed with the latest HCS+ version 5.2. The minimum LOS requirements are shown in Table II-2.

Table II-2 Minimum Highway Level of Service Requirements NYS ROUTE 110 YEAR LOS ETC (2011) D ETC+10 (2021) D ETC+20 (2031) D

The results of the LOS analyses are summarized in Tables II-3 to II-6. Detailed information is included in Appendix A. Intersections are summarized below 2.

(a) Route 110 at Prime Avenue/Madison Street . The intersection of Route 110 and Prime Avenue/Madison Street functions as a five-legged intersection with a three-phase signal and no auxiliary lanes on the approaches. As shown in Tables II-3 to II-4, this intersection operates with an acceptable LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours.

(b) Route 110 at Creek Road/Cliftwood Drive . The intersection of Route 110 at Creek Road/Cliftwood Drive acts as a four-legged intersection operating with a two-phase signal, and operates with an acceptable LOS B during all peak hours.

(c) Park Avenue at Cliftwood Drive . The intersection of Park Avenue at Creek Road/ Cliftwood Road operates as a four-way stop controlled intersection. As shown in Tables II-3 to II-6, this intersection operates with an acceptable LOS C or better during the AM, PM, Friday, and Sunday peak hours.

(d) Route 110 at Park Avenue/Mill Dam Road/Abbott Drive . In 2003, the intersection of Route 110 at Park Avenue/Mill Dam Road/Abbott Drive operated as a two- phase signalized intersection with Abbott Drive functioning as a two-way stop controlled intersection. Based on a 2006 field visit, this intersection now functions as a three-phase semi-actuated signalized intersection, with detection loops located on the Abbott Drive approach. This intersection was modeled as such to reflect current operating conditions. This intersection fails (LOS F) during the Friday and Sunday peak hours. These failures may be attributed to the high number of eastbound left-turn and south through movements.

2 It is noteworthy that in addition to the weekday peak periods, Friday and Sunday counts and capacity analyses were performed at all intersections (with the exception of Route 110 at Prime Avenue/Madison Street), during the Scoping Phase, based on concerns expressed about roundabouts at the Public Information Meeting held on May 2003. II-7 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

(e) Route 110 at Grist Mill Lane . Route 110 at Grist Mill Lane operates as a two-way stop controlled intersection. As shown in Tables II-3 to II-6, this intersection operates unacceptably during all time periods, except for the Sunday peak hour. The failing conditions may be attributed to the increase in traffic on Route 110. This increase of traffic provides fewer gaps for vehicles on Grist Mill Lane attempting to turn onto Route 110.

II.C.1.i.(2) Future no-action level of service – Future no-build 2011 (ETC), 2021 (ETC+10) and 2031 (ETC+20) capacity analyses were performed for all the intersections analyzed during the existing conditions. The results of the LOS analyses are summarized in Tables II-3 to II-6. Detailed information is included in Appendix A.

Table II-3 Intersection Level of Service – AM Peak Hour NYS Route 110 OVERALL INTERSECTION INTERSECTION YEAR EB WB NB SB LOS DELAY (sec) Existing (2006) C C B B B 20 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C D B B C 21 Prime Ave./ Madison St. ETC+10 (2021) C D B C C 25 ETC+20 (2031) C E B D D 37 Existing (2006) C C A B B 14 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C C A B B 14 Creek Rd./ ETC+10 (2021) C C A B B 15 Cliftwood Dr. ETC+20 (2031) C C A B B 17 Route 110 @ Existing (2006) C C B B B 19 Park Ave./ ETC (2011) C C B C C 20 Mill Dam Rd./ ETC+10 (2021) C C B C C 26 Abbott Dr. ETC+20 (2031) C C B F E 80 Existing (2006) A A B A A 10 Park Ave. @ ETC (2011) A A B A B 10 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+10 (2021) A A B A B 11 ETC+20 (2031) A A B A B 12 Existing (2006) N/A E A A E 41 *Route 110 @ ETC (2011) N/A E A A E 47 Grist Mill La. ETC+10 (2021) N/A F B A F 78 ETC+20 (2031) N/A F B A F 170 *At Grist Mill Lane, delay is reported for the approach with the worst operating conditions.

II-8 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Table II-4 Intersection Level of Service – PM Peak Hour NYS Route 110 OVERALL INTERSECTION INTERSECTION YEAR EB WB NB SB LOS DELAY (sec) Existing (2006) D D B B C 24 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) D D B B C 26 Prime Ave./ Madison St. ETC+10 (2021) D E C C C 34 ETC+20 (2031) E F C E E 65 Existing (2006) C C B A B 17 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C C B A B 18 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+10 (2021) C C D A C 21 ETC+20 (2031) C C D B C 32 Route 110 @ Existing (2006) D C B B C 25 Park Ave./ ETC (2011) F C C B C 34 Mill Dam Rd./ ETC+10 (2021) F C C B E 57 Abbott Dr. ETC+20 (2031) F C D B F 119 Existing (2006) B A C A B 13 Park Ave. @ ETC (2011) B A C A B 14 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+10 (2021) B A C A C 18 ETC+20 (2031) B B D B C 24 Existing (2006) N/A F A A F 51 *Route 110 @ ETC (2011) N/A F A A F 63 Grist Mill La. ETC+10 (2021) N/A F A A F 103 ETC+20 (2031) N/A F A B F 215 *At Grist Mill Lane, delay is reported for the approach with the worst operating conditions.

Table II-5 Intersection Level of Service – Friday Peak Hour NYS Route 110 OVERALL INTERSECTION INTERSECTION YEAR EB WB NB SB LOS DELAY (sec) Existing (2006) C C B B B 20 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C C B B C 22 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+10 (2021) E C C B D 35 ETC+20 (2031) F C F B F 88 Route 110 @ Existing (2006) F C C F F 324 Park Ave./ ETC (2011) F C D F F 411 Mill Dam Rd./ ETC+10 (2021) F C F F F 717 Abbott Dr. ETC+20 (2031) F C F F F 1120 Existing (2006) B A C B B 13 Park Ave. @ ETC (2011) B A C B B 15 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+10 (2021) B A C B C 18 ETC+20 (2031) C B E B C 25 Existing (2006) N/A F A B F 229 *Route 110 @ ETC (2011) N/A F B B F 414 Grist Mill La. ETC+10 (2021) N/A F B B F 5329 ETC+20 (2031) N/A F B B F ** *At Grist Mill Lane, delay is reported for the approach with the worst operating conditions. ** Operates at LOS F with greater delays than HCS can calculate.

II-9 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Table II-6 Intersection Level of Service – Sunday Peak Hour NYS Route 110 OVERALL INTERSECTION INTERSECTION YEAR EB WB NB SB LOS DELAY (sec) Existing (2006) C C B A B 13 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C C B A B 13 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+10 (2021) C C B B B 14 ETC+20 (2031) C C B B B 15 Route 110 @ Existing (2006) C F B B C 24 Park Ave./ ETC (2011) C F B B C 29 Mill Dam Rd./ ETC+10 (2021) C F B C D 40 Abbott Dr. ETC+20 (2031) C F B F F 88 Existing (2006) A A A A A 9 Park Ave. @ ETC (2011) A A A A A 9 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+10 (2021) A A A A A 9 ETC+20 (2031) A A B A A 9 Existing (2006) N/A D A A D 28 *Route 110 @ ETC (2011) N/A D A A D 31 Grist Mill La. ETC+10 (2021) N/A E A A E 39 ETC+20 (2031) N/A F A A F 52 *At Grist Mill Lane, delay is reported for the approach with the worst operating conditions

II.C.1.j. Non-Standard Features and Other Non-Conforming Features

II.C.1.j.(1) Non Standard Features – There are several existing non-standard features throughout the limits of this project, summarized as follows: ● Non-standard (uncurbed) right shoulder width ● Non-standard horizontal/lateral clearance ● Non-standard cross slopes (less than minimum required) ● Non-standard horizontal curvature (along a local road) ● Non-standard rollover between lanes (along a local road) ● Pedestrian accommodations are not ADA-compliant in all cases

See Tables III-2 to III-4, Design Criteria for more specific information on existing non-standard features. In most cases, the non-standard features exist over a relatively minor length of the overall project.

II.C.1.j.(2) Other Non-Conforming Features – There are travel lane widths along Route 110 and local roads which are less than the desirable widths, although they are above the minimum requirements and therefore are not non-standard. There are also several longitudinal grades that are less than 0.5%, normally considered a desirable minimum. Although these grades are not non-standard, they are not desirable from a standpoint of providing adequate drainage. This is especially true for this project in view of the existing drainage problems. While this cannot be avoided without a total redesign of the Route 110 profile, it can be mitigated by adhering to a 2% normal crown cross slope.

II-10 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

II.C.1.k. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis – Accident records for the most recent three-year period available, January 2000 to December 2002 3, from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Safety Information Management System (SIMS) were used to conduct the accident analysis for NY 110 (New York Avenue), from Prime Avenue/Madison Street (0.5 km south of the intersection) to Young’s Hill Road 4 from Reference Marker (RM) 110-0701-1147 to 110-0701-1158, a distance of 1.1 miles (1.8 km) in the Town of Huntington. The NYSDOT SIMS reported a total of 44 accidents within the 1.1-mile study corridor during the three-year analysis period.

The accident rates for various components of this analysis are as follows:

Overall ...... 2.82 acc/mvkm (4.54 acc/mvm) Wet Weather...... 0.29 acc/mvkm (0.47 acc/mvm) Fixed Object...... 0.15 acc/mvkm (0.24 acc/mvm)

Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed analysis.

The results of this study indicate a decrease in the number and severity of accidents during the last three-year period, as compared to the three-year period studied in the EPP. In addition, the overall average for this segment is approximately 15% higher than the statewide average accident rate of 2.45 acc/mvkm. Both wet weather and fixed object accident rates are below the statewide average of 0.31 acc/mvkm and 0.17 acc/mvkm, respectively.

The predominant accident types were rear ends (17.2%), right angle (17.2%), overtaking (15.5%), accidents involving vehicles backing (8.6%) and parked vehicles (8.6%). In addition, the majority of the accidents, 32 accidents (55.2%), occurred between the hours of 10 AM and 7 PM. Of the total accidents 46.3% and 25.9% of the vehicles were traveling north and southbound, respectively. A total of 2 (3.4%) pedestrian accidents were reported. There were no bicycle related accidents. The percentage breakdown of fatal, injury and PDO accidents is 0 fatal (0%), 9 non-fatal injuries (16%), 43 property damage only (74%). There were 6 non-reportable accidents (10%).

A Priority Investigation Location (PIL) was identified for this project limit, between Reference Markers (RM) 110-0701-1153 and 110-0710-1157. Within these reference markers, there are four intersections, with a total of 24 accidents (42%). The overall accident rates were similar to the overall rates within the project limits.

II.C.1.l. Pavement and Shoulder Conditions – The existing concrete pavement was constructed in the 1930s and is generally in poor to fair condition. Pavement deterioration includes cracked and settled slabs, many deteriorated or misaligned transverse joints, and some spalling and faulting, particularly near distressed transverse and longitudinal joints. Appendix D contains an updated Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Report (PETSR).

3 The analysis was done based upon the accident data available at the time. Subsequently, more recent data (NYSDOT SIMS Accident Severity Summary from April 1, 2004 thru March 31, 2007) has been received and reviewed. A comparison with the previous accident summary (NYSDOT SIMS Accident Severity Summary from January, 2000 thru December 2002) indicated that the accident data is similar; therefore no additional analyses are required. 4 NYS Route 110 ends at Young’s Hill Road; therefore, the data cannot extend beyond that limit. II-11 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

II.C.1.m. Guide Railing, Median Barriers and Impact Attenuators – The only guide rail within the project limits is a short section adjacent to the southbound lane just south of the Halesite Fire Department, protecting a small building. The guide rail appears to be in good condition; however, the ends are not properly turned down. Although these rail sections are within the highway boundary, they appear to be privately owned.

II.C.1.n. Traffic Control Devices – There are 3 signalized intersections within the project limits, as discussed below. All other intersections are controlled by stop signs.

II.C.1.n.(1) Signals – There are three signalized intersections within the project limits. Table II-7 lists each signal, its type, number of phases and pedestrian control, based on field observations.

Table II-7 Physical Operating Conditions of Signalized Intersections NYS Route 110 Type of Direction of Lane Number Pedestrian Intersection Signal Travel Configuration of Phases Control NB LTR Route 110 @ SB LTR Semi- Prime Ave./ EB LTR 3 None Actuated Madison St. WB LTR SW (Madison) LTR NB LTR Route 110 @ SB LTR Creek Rd./ Prime 2 None EB L, TR Cliftwood Dr. WB L, TR NB LTR Route 110 @ SB LTR Park Ave./ Semi- EB L, TR None Mill Dam Rd./ Actuated WB LTR Abbott Dr. NW (Park) LTR

In addition, there is pre-emption control in front of the Halesite Fire Department as well as a flashing light at the intersection of Park Avenue and Cliftwood Drive.

II.C.1.n.(2) Signs – The existing signs within the project area are generally regulatory and warning in nature and consist of: ● Stop signs at unsignalized streets ● Speed limit signs ● Parking regulation signs ● Alignment Signs ● Pedestrian crossing signs

While existing signs conform to the Federal MUTCD, some of them are faded.

II.C.1.n.(3) Pavement Markings – The existing pavement markings conform to the Federal MUTCD.

II-12 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

II.C.1.n.(4) Pedestrian Controls – Provisions for pedestrians and bicycles are limited to a crosswalk at the westbound approach of Cliftwood Drive at its intersection with Route 110, and a crosswalk with pedestrian crossing signs located mid-block, north of Crest Mill Lane.

II.C.1.o. Structures – There are no bridge structures within the project limits.

II.C.1.p. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts – There are no bridge structures or culverts carrying Route 110 over water courses within the project limits.

II.C.1.q. Drainage Systems –

II.C.1.q.(1) Type – The existing drainage system is a combination (open and closed) system. The existing drainage system is shown on Figure II-3.

II.C.1.q.(2) Condition/Deterioration – The existing drainage system, for the most part, was installed in 1929 when New York Avenue underwent major improvements. The upper reaches of the drainage network consist of reinforced concrete pipes ranging in size from 610 mm to 915 mm (24” to 36”) in diameter. These pipes discharge to concrete box culverts.

North of Mill Dam Road, debris fills some of the drainage structures. No major drainage problems exist in that area although there is minor ponding, probably due to debris blockage in the drainage system. A low point exists at approximately Station 8+345 where there are a few drainage basins which are connected to an outfall pipe through a drainage easement to the harbor.

II.C.1.q.(3) Deficiencies/Needs – Drainage deficiencies and needs are the principal factor behind this project, and are addressed in numerous places elsewhere in this report as well as in the Drainage Report, included in Appendix F.

II-13 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Figure II-3 Existing Drainage System

II-14 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

II.C.1.r. Soils and Foundations – The existing high water table within the project area may require dewatering during any below-grade construction. The high water table also restricts the use of recharge/detention basins due to limitation of potential storage volume, requiring a greater land area to accommodate needed storage volumes.

Samples taken in various locations throughout the two watersheds indicated unacceptable or marginal soils for recharge. Soil borings and logs were conducted in areas where detention/infiltration basins were proposed. Several sites were eliminated as potential sites due to poor soil conditions and location. Ultimately one site was selected for detention/retention purposes. However, this area was lost to development. See Appendix I for more information on soil logs and data collected.

II.C.1.s. Utilities – There are numerous utilities located in and adjacent to Route 110. The existing utilities within and alongside the roadway include: gas and electric – Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) and Keyspan, telephone – Verizon, water – Suffolk County Water Authority, cable – Cablevision, sewer – Town of Huntington. There are two aerial lines along the entire project length, one serves as a trunk line for electric, cable, etc., and the other for service lines. Numerous utilities are located underground within the project limits and include gas, telephone, water, electric and sanitary sewer. In many instances there are two or more water and sewer lines adjacent to one another in the same area of roadway.

Sewer mains which run under Mill Lane and Hill Place cross the Mill Creek at an elevation above the creek bottom. These culverts partially block the flow of water in the creek and collect debris.

II.C.1.t. Railroads – There are no railroads within 1 kilometer of the project limits.

II.C.1.u. Visual Resources – There are business and office buildings with landscaping and street trees, a few heavily wooded lots, and a park area along the project length. Public opinion expressed at the public information center indicated that some of the businesses are considered to be a detriment to the visual character of the area.

Based on an Initial Visual Assessment dated April 2007, the project area has three main landscape components: a village commercial district, a maritime waterfront community and a historical monument. Access to these features from residents and visitors would be improved under any of the feasible alternatives. In addition, many adjacent properties are owned by the Town of Huntington. Therefore, the project has the potential to be a vital asset in revitalizing the Huntington Harbor waterfront.

The project will improve access to the commercial district, and travel through the corridor and the harbor waterfront. Highway Alternatives 2 and 3 would require the relocation of the Hale Monument. Relocation of the monument will be coordinated with the Town of Huntington to ensure it is placed in a suitable location, possibly a “pocket park”, easily accessible to the public. Landscaping trees and shrubs should be placed along the road, pending maintenance agreements with the Town or others to enhance the visual and aesthetic views of the public, whether motoring, cycling or walking through the corridor. Mill Dam Creek will be dredged of accumulated sediment and debris will be cleared. A wetland forebay and stilling basin are also proposed under all drainage alternatives, to be located on the former naval property.

II-15 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Installation of native wetland plantings, benches and interpretative signs are recommended to provide a recreational and educational experience for the public, as part of the improvement of the harbor waterfront.

The Initial Visual Assessment recommended that visual impacts created by the proposed roundabouts in Highway Alternative 3 should be minimized with the use of context sensitive solutions. Materials that unify the corridor should be used, such as planting of native trees and shrubs, and by development of pedestrian facilities and recreational opportunities that allow for access to and use of the harbor waterfront area. Improvement of drainage and roadway conditions will act as a catalyst for the revitalization of the area. The new roadway corridor should serve as a link between the harbor and the downtown business district, two important generators of economic and community activities within the Town of Huntington.

II.C.1.v. Provisions for Pedestrians and Bicyclists – Existing sidewalk is discontinuous, with one large section having no sidewalk, southbound from Mill Dam Road to Creek Road. There are also several shorter sections with no sidewalk. In addition there is evidence of pedestrian use in areas where there is no sidewalk. Bicyclists are accommodated within wide lanes along most of the project length.

II.C.1.w. Planned Development for Area – A drugstore and senior townhouse development are proposed on the west side of Route 110 south of Hill Place at the former Pennysaver Building property. The Town of Huntington LWRP suggests conversion of some land uses toward a more recreational use within the project limits.

II.C.1.x. System Elements and Conditions –

II.C.1.x.(1) This project is located at the end of Route 110 on the north shore and will not affect existing regional transportation.

II.C.1.x.(2) PIN 0112.51: Route 110 – 3R type pavement and safety improvements has been completed, and provided roadway improvements from Tuthill Road north to Prime Avenue.

II.C.1.x.(3) The Town of Huntington has plans to upgrade an existing sewer system along Route 110. The project should be coordinated to avoid multiple road openings.

II.C.1.x.(4) Suffolk County Transit operates Route S1 on Route 110 north of Route 25A.

II.C.1.y. Environmental Integration – Mill Dam Creek is a natural feature that has been modified (via channelization and culverts) to a large degree within the project area. The creek bed also contains a large amount of sediments and debris from continued stormwater inputs and overland floodwaters. While permit conditions may require wetland mitigation, based upon the wetland and open water areas that may be disturbed, there are additional opportunities within the area for restoration and enhancement, as discussed below.

The project calls for sediment removal along a majority of the creek bed. Depending on property ownership and stream channel flow requirements, portions of the stream banks could be re-graded to create vegetated wetland “benches” to remove invasive species and enhance native plant diversity. The proposed removal of silt/sediments

II-16 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

and re-grading of the streambed also may allow for the installation of “riffle and pool” complexes to enhance the aquatic habitat.

A majority of the creek is located on private property. However, public access to the creek may be possible on the present Naval Reserve property, if acquired, for construction of the proposed forebay and filtration pond. This property could be utilized for public access to the creek and for educational and aesthetic purposes. Park benches and interpretative signs could be placed to provide an educational and recreational experience for the public. These potential environmental enhancements would be discussed and coordinated with the Town of Huntington to ensure that local concerns are addressed in regard to the Harbor Walkway Project. In addition, the permit requirements and potential restoration/enhancement opportunities will be discussed with the regulatory agencies during pre-application meetings.

II.C.2. Needs

II.C.2.a. Project Level Needs –

II.C.2.a.(1) Drainage Needs – The project is needed to address severe flooding which occurs along Route 110. The most serious flooding occurs in the southern half of the project between Prime Avenue and Mill Dam Road. For additional information regarding flooding, see Appendix F, Attachment F.

II.C.2.a.(2) Pavement Needs – The existing concrete pavement was constructed in the 1930s. An updated Pavement Evaluation and Treatment Selection Report (PETSR) was prepared in March 2007. The updated PETSR identifies treatment strategies required to provide a smooth, distress-free riding surface. Treatment strategies include removing all existing full depth asphalt repairs and severely distressed concrete slabs, and replacing with new concrete pavement, using calcium chloride-treated concrete or an approved high early-strength concrete to ease traffic handling requirements. All spalled areas should be cleaned and backfilled with truing and leveling asphalt material. Finally, a 90-millimeter two- course asphalt overlay should be applied.

No corrective measures have been undertaken since the last PETSR update. The updated PETSR is included in Appendix D.

II.C.2.a.(3) Safety Needs – The needs of this project include reduction of the overall accident rate. A review and analysis of the traffic accident data reveals that the overall accident rate is approximately 15% higher than the statewide average. In addition, approximately 90% of all the accidents occurred at the intersections.

In order to reduce accidents within the project limits, intersection improvements such as signal timing modifications, installation of turning lanes, new signage and pavement markings will be required.

II.C.2.a.(4) Bridge Structural Needs – There are no bridges within the limits of the project.

II.C.2.a.(5) Capacity Needs – Intersection capacity analyses were conducted within the study area. Based on the resulting LOS, only minor improvements are required to upgrade capacity of the signalized intersections through the design year.

II-17 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

II.C.2.a.(6) Environmental Needs – See Section II.C.1.y for a discussion of potential wetland restoration/enhancement opportunities along Mill Dam Creek. In addition to the potential restoration and enhancement opportunities discussed in that Section, there are other potential improvements that the Town of Huntington should consider in conjunction with this proposed project. As discussed in detail in the April 2000 Local Waterfront Revitalization Program for Huntington Harbor, opportunities exist in and adjacent to the project area to improve the natural and cultural resources of the area. The development of the former Naval Reserve property for public access is discussed, including the use of this site as a “Gateway to the Harbor”. The April 2000 report also discusses the restoration of the harbor waterfront, as well as Mill Dam Pond, including removal of the invasive phragmites reed and construction of walking trails for public access. These types of actions should be considered by local government for the overall enhancement and enjoyment of the natural resources of the harbor area.

II.C.2.b. Area or Corridor Level Needs –

II.C.2.b.(1) Modal Interrelationship – Missing sections of sidewalk should be complete where possible. No changes of access to bus stops are recommended.

II.C.2.b.(2) System Needs – This section of Route 110 is not a primary connecting link in the regional highway system.

II.C.2.b.(3) Mobility Needs – This project extends over the northernmost section of Route 110 and does not serve as a significant part of Regional Mobility.

II.C.2.b.(4) Social Demands and Economic Development – Several requests have been received from the public over the years to alleviate the flooding that periodically occurs within the project limits. The flooding disrupts traffic and causes physical and economic damage. Common to the theme of many comments from the information center was the maritime nature of the community. Concern was raised that maritime services should not be impeded by proposed roadway design and that, where possible, maritime features be incorporated into designs.

II.C.2.c. Transportation Plans – This project is presented as part of the Nassau/Suffolk element of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

II.D. Project Objectives

Project Objectives are as follow: 1. Implement measures which will reduce the frequency of flooding at the low point on NY 110 between Hill Place and Creek Road. 2. Using cost-effective treatments, correct existing pavement deficiencies and restore the structural integrity of the pavement to provide a useful service life of 20 years. 3. Correct existing and emerging operational problems and safety related deficiencies. 4. Correct existing sidewalk deficiencies, provide pedestrian access where currently missing, and make pedestrian facilities ADA compliant.

II-18 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

CHAPTER III – ALTERNATIVES

III.A. Design Criteria

III.A.1. Design Standards

NYSDOT Design Standards for Route 110 are included in this section for reference on the following pages.

The engineering design criteria are based on: ● NYSDOT, Highway Design Manual (HDM) Chapter 2, 2005

Additional guidance for this project is also derived from: ● AASHTO, “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets”, 2004 ● FHWA, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices ("Federal MUTCD"), 2003 ● NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual, 2003

III.A.2. Critical Design Elements

Route 110 is functionally classified as an Urban Minor Arterial south of Mill Dam Road, and as an Urban Collector north of Mill Dam Road. Most of the design criteria are identical for these two classifications; however, the design speed differs thus criteria are presented separately in Tables III-2 and III-3 for clarity.

Design criteria for cross streets are presented in Table III-4. Cross streets are functionally classified as Local Urban Streets.

Horizontal curvature criteria are shown separately for both superelevated and non- superelevated (normal crown) conditions in Tables III-2 through III-4.

Roundabouts have been developed in accordance with the NYSDOT document “Roundabouts: Interim Requirements and Guidance” dated June 30, 2000.

III.A.3. Other Controlling Parameters

Table III-1 summarizes other controlling design parameters applicable for this project.

Table III-1 Other Controlling Parameters NYS Route 110 Reference to Element Criteria Proposed Condition Standard a. Design Vehicle HDM Section 5.7.1.1 SU SU b. Level of Service (non-Interstate) HDM Section 5.2 LOS D (Min.) LOS D (Min.) Design Storm: Culverts = HDM Chapter 8 50 years 50 years c. Storm Drainage Systems = HDM Chapter 8 5 years 5 years Ditches = HDM Chapter 8 10 years 10 years

III-1 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Table III-2 Design Criteria vs. Existing and Proposed Conditions NYS Route 110 (South of Mill Dam Road) PIN: 0112.52 NHS (Yes/No): No Route No. & Name: Route 110 / New York Avenue Functional Class: Urban Minor Arterial Design Classification Project Type: Reconstruction Arterial (Urban) (AASHTO Class) % Trucks: 4% Terrain: Level ADT: 14,450 Truck Access Route: No Standard Criteria HDM § Existing Proposed Element Minimum Desirable Reference Conditions Conditions 50 km/h a. Design Speed (1) 65 km/h 2.7.2.2 A 65 km/h (30 MPH posted) Lane Width: • Travel Lane (2) = 3.6 m 4.2 m 2.7.2.2 B 4.1 m 3.9 m b. • Turning Lane = 3.3 m 3.6 m 2.7.2.2 B N/A 3.3 m Min. • 2-Way Left Turn Lane = 3.3 m 4.8 m 2.7.2.2 B N/A 3.3 m Min. • Parking Lane = 2.4 m (3) 3.6 m 2.7.2.2 B 2.4 m 2.5 m Min. Shoulder Width: • Left (uncurbed) = 1.2 m 1.2 m 2.7.2.2 C N/A N/A c. • Left (curbed) = 0.0 m 0.3 m - 0.6 m 2.7.2.2 C N/A 0.3 m • Right (uncurbed) = 2.4 m 2.4 m 2.7.2.2 C 2.4 m Min. N/A • Right (curbed) = 0.0 m (4) 0.3 m - 0.6 m 2.7.2.2 C N/A 0.6 m Min. d. Bridge Roadway Width N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A e. Grade 6% Max. 6% Max. 2.7.2.2 E 0.62% Max. 0.62% Max. Horizontal Curvature f. • Superelevated = 169 m (e max =4%) 169 m (e max =4%) 2.7.2.2 F N/A 195.5 m • Normal Crown = 243 m (NC) 243 m (NC) 2.7.2.2 F 600 m 593.3 m g. Superelevation Rate 4.0% Max. 4.0% Max. 2.7.2.2 G None RC Stopping Sight Distance h. 95 m 95 m 2.7.2.2 H 208 m Min. >>95 m (Horizontal & Vertical) Horizontal Clearance: • With barrier = 0.0 m 0.0 m 2.7.2.2 I N/A N/A i. • Without barrier = 0.5 m 0.5 m 2.7.2.2 I 0.2 m* >0.5 m • At intersections = 1.0 m 1.0 m 2.7.2.2 I 0 m* >1.0 m j. Vertical Clearance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pavement Cross Slope k. • Travel Lane = 1.5 % Min - 2% Max 2% 2.7.2.2 K 1% Min.* 2% • Parking Lane = 1.5% Min - 5% Max 2% - 5% 2.7.2.2 K 1% Min.* 2% Rollover: l. • Between Lanes = 4.0 % Max. 4.0 % Max. 2.7.2.2 L 2% 4% Max. • Edge of Traveled Way = 8.0 % Max. 8.0 % Max. 2.7.2.2 L 2% 1% Max. m. Structural Capacity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A n. Level of Service N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A o. Control of Access N/A N/A N/A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Comply w/ ADA Comply w/ ADA Comply w/ ADA p. Pedestrian Accommodations 2.7.2.2 N Varies* and HDM Ch. 18 and HDM Ch. 18 and HDM Ch. 18 q. Median Width N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A * Non-standard Feature Notes: 1. The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred with the selected design speed. 2. Wide travel lane adjacent to curbing or parking lane to accommodate bicyclists (otherwise, Min. = 3.3 m) 3. No future provisions for turn lanes (otherwise see HDM Table 2-4). 4. No accommodation for bicyclists, breakdowns, turning movements, etc.

III-2 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Table III-3 Design Criteria vs. Existing and Proposed Conditions NYS Route 110 (North of Mill Dam Road) PIN: 0112.52 NHS (Yes/No): No Route No. & Name: Route 110 / New York Avenue Functional Class: Urban Collector Design Classification Project Type: Reconstruction Collector (Urban) (AASHTO Class) % Trucks: 4% Terrain: Level ADT: 14,450 Truck Access Route: No Standard Criteria HDM § Existing Proposed Element Minimum Desirable Reference Conditions Conditions 50 km/h a. Design Speed (1) 60 km/h 2.7.3.2 A 60 km/h (30 MPH posted) Lane Width: • Travel Lane (2) = 3.6 m 4.2 m 2.7.3.2 B 3.3 m* 3.6 m b. • Turning Lane = 3.3 m 3.6 m 2.7.3.2 B N/A 3.3 m Min. • 2-Way Left Turn Lane = 3.3 m 4.8 m 2.7.3.2 B N/A 3.3 m • Parking Lane = 2.4 m 3.3 m 2.7.3.2 B 2.4 m 2.4 m Shoulder Width: • Left (uncurbed) = 2.4 m 2.4 m 2.7.3.2 C N/A N/A c. • Left (curbed) = 0.0 m 0.3 m - 0.6 m 2.7.3.2 C N/A 0.3 m • Right (uncurbed) = 2.4 m 2.4 m 2.7.3.2 C 0.5 m* N/A • Right (curbed) = 0.0 m (3) 0.3 m - 0.6 m 2.7.3.2 C 0.4 m 0.6 m d. Bridge Roadway Width N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A e. Grade (4) 9% Max. 9% Max. 2.7.3.2 E 5.00% Max. 5.00% Max. Horizontal Curvature f. • Superelevated = 135 m (e max =4%) 135 m (e max =4%) 2.7.3.2 F N/A N/A • Normal Crown = 189 m (NC) 189 m (NC) 2.7.3.2 F 250 m 250 m g. Superelevation Rate 4.0% Max. 4.0% Max. 2.7.3.2 G None None Stopping Sight Distance h. 85 m 85 m 2.7.3.2 H 208 m Min. 129 m Min. (Horizontal & Vertical) Horizontal Clearance: • With barrier = 0.0 m 0.0 m 2.7.3.2 I N/A N/A i. • Without barrier = 0.5 m 0.5 m 2.7.3.2 I 0.18 m* >0.5 m • At intersections = 1.0 m 1.0 m 2.7.3.2 I >1.0 m >1.0 m j. Vertical Clearance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pavement Cross Slope k. • Travel Lane = 1.5 % Min - 2% Max 2% 2.7.3.2 K 1% Min.* 2% • Parking Lane = 1.5 % Min - 5% Max 2% - 5% 2.7.3.2 K 1% Min.* 2% Rollover: l. • Between Lanes = 4.0 % Max. 4.0 % Max. 2.7.3.2 L 2% 4% Max. • Edge of Traveled Way = 8.0 % Max. 8.0 % Max. 2.7.3.2 L 2% 0% m. Structural Capacity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A n. Level of Service N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A o. Control of Access N/A N/A N/A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Comply w/ ADA Comply w/ ADA Comply w/ ADA p. Pedestrian Accommodations 2.7.3.2 N Varies* and HDM Ch. 18 and HDM Ch. 18 and HDM Ch. 18 q. Median Width N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A * Non-standard Feature Notes: 1. The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred with the selected design speed. 2. Wide travel lane adjacent to curbing or parking lane to accommodate bicyclists (otherwise, Min. = 3.0 m) 3. No accommodation for bicyclists, breakdowns, turning movements, etc. 4. Maximum grades of short length (less than 150 m) and on one-way down grades may be 2% steeper.

III-3 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Table III-4 Design Criteria vs. Existing and Proposed Conditions Cross Streets and Local Streets PIN: 0112.52 NHS (Yes/No): No Route No. & Name: (Various local streets) Functional Class: Local Urban Streets Design Classification Project Type: Reconstruction Local Streets (Urban) (AASHTO Class) % Trucks: ≤ 2% Terrain: Level ADT: Truck Access Route: No Standard Criteria HDM § Existing Proposed Element Minimum Desirable Reference Conditions Conditions 50 km/h a. Design Speed (1) 50 km/h 2.7.4.2 A 50 km/h (30 MPH posted) Lane Width: • Travel Lane= 3.0 m (2) 3.3 m 2.7.4.2 B 2.9 m Min.* 3.0 m Min. b. • Turning Lane = 2.7 m 3.0 m 2.7.4.2 B 3.3 m Min. 3.2 m Min. • Parking Lane = 2.4 m (3) 3.3 m 2.7.4.2 B N/A N/A Shoulder Width: c. • Right (uncurbed) = 1.5 m 1.5 m 2.7.4.2 C 0 m* N/A • Right (curbed) = 0.0 m (4) 0.3 m - 0.6 m 2.7.4.2 C 0 m 0 m d. Bridge Roadway Width N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A e. Grade (5) 15% Max. 15% Max. 2.7.4.2 E 5.76% Max. 5.15% Max. Horizontal Curvature f. • Superelevated = 86 m (e max =4%) 86 m (e max =4%) 2.7.4.2 F N/A N/A • Normal Crown = 116 m (NC) 116 m (NC) 2.7.4.2 F 90 m Min.* 116.6 m Min. g. Superelevation Rate 4.0% Max. 4.0% Max. 2.7.4.2 G None None Stopping Sight Distance h. 65 m 65 m 2.7.4.2 H 89 m Min. 89 m Min. (Horizontal & Vertical) Horizontal Clearance: • With barrier = 0.0 m 0.0 m 2.7.4.2 I N/A N/A i. • Without barrier = 0.5 m 0.5 m 2.7.4.2 I 0.30 m* >0.5 m • At intersections = 1.0 m 1.0 m 2.7.4.2 I 0.49 m* >1.0 m j. Vertical Clearance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pavement Cross Slope k. • Travel Lane = 1.5 % Min - 2% Max 2% 2.7.4.2 K 0.4% Min. 2% • Parking Lane = 1.5 % Min - 5% Max 2% - 5% 2.7.4.2 K N/A N/A Rollover: l. • Between Lanes = 4.0 % Max. 4.0 % Max. 2.7.4.2 L 7.3%* 4% Max. • Edge of Traveled Way = 8.0 % Max. 8.0 % Max. 2.7.4.2 L 2.7% 0% Max. m. Structural Capacity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A n. Level of Service N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A o. Control of Access N/A N/A N/A Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Comply w/ ADA Comply w/ ADA Comply w/ ADA p. Pedestrian Accommodations 2.7.4.2 N Varies* and HDM Ch. 18 and HDM Ch. 18 and HDM Ch. 18 q. Median Width N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A * Non-standard Feature Notes: 1. The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred with the selected design speed. 2. With severe Right of Way limitations, Min. = 2.7 m. 3. For residential streets, Min. = 2.1 m (desirable 2.4 m). 4. No accommodation for bicyclists, breakdowns, turning movements, etc. (otherwise, Min. = 1.8 m) 5. For commercial or industrial, Max. = 8%.

III-4 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

III.B. Alternatives Considered

The proposed project includes several drainage alternatives between Prime Avenue and Young’s Hill Road to address stormwater management and flooding issues. In addition, various alternatives for roadway improvements are also included. The drainage alternatives are independent of the highway alternatives; that is, any of the drainage alternatives could be combined with any highway alternative. Project alternatives were developed to meet the project objectives. The alternatives were developed using the engineering design criteria in Section III.A of this report. All reasonable alternatives were considered.

Alternatives have been grouped into two categories, Drainage Alternatives and Highway Alternatives. The range of alternative solutions considered are discussed below.

III.B.1. Drainage Alternatives Considered

Several drainage alternatives were considered during preliminary design:

Drainage Alternative I (No-Build) The No-Build drainage alternative would not provide any relief from the flooding periodically experienced within the project area. This alternative does not meet any of the drainage objectives and is not considered feasible.

Drainage Alternative II (Culvert on Creek Road) This alternative was not included in the EPP. This alternative proposes to divert most of the runoff from the south on Route 110, to the stream just north of Mill Lane. The stream between Mill Lane and Hill Place must be widened to accept the additional flow. A large box culvert at Hill Place will intercept most of the flow from the stream. The culvert will run west on Hill Place and north on Creek Road and back into the stream where it crosses at Creek Road. This alternative is considered feasible and is discussed in more detail in Section III.C.1.a.

Drainage Alternative III (Culvert on Route 110 between Hill Place and Creek Road) This alternative was advanced from the EPP (Drainage Alternative 3). A large box culvert on the east side of Route 110 is proposed to carry the runoff from Hill Place to the proposed filtration basin and stream north of Creek Road. This alternative is considered feasible and is discussed in more detail later in Section III.C.1.a.

Drainage Alternative IV (Culvert on Route 110 between Prime Avenue and Creek Road) This alternative was advanced from the EPP (Drainage Alternative 4). A large box culvert on the east side of Route 110 is proposed from Prime Avenue to the proposed filtration basin and stream north of Creek Road. This alternative is considered feasible and is discussed in more detail in Section III.C.1.a.

Drainage Alternative V (Natural channel to Mill Dam Pond) This alternative proposed the construction of an open channel between Creek Road and Mill Dam Pond. This alternative is not considered feasible due to impacts with mapped wetlands and parkland.

III-5 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Other alternatives which were considered in the EPP are:

EPP Drainage Alternative 2 This alternative proposed maintenance repairs and upgrades to the existing system including maintenance cleaning, grading and repair of existing culverts and Mill Creek. This alternative was not considered feasible because it did not meet the drainage needs of the project.

EPP Drainage Alternative 5 This alternative proposed to install a large 1829 mm x 3658 mm (6’x12’) box culvert between the Madison/Prime Avenue intersection north and west to the Mill Dam Pond. It was also studied as a dual culvert configuration. This alternative was not considered feasible because it had similar benefits to Drainage Alternative IV, but higher costs.

EPP Drainage Alternative 6 This alternative proposed the construction of detention basins in the lower third of the Halesite Watershed to attenuate peak flow. It was not considered feasible due to the extremely high cost of acquiring the properties, demolition and construction of the detention basins and impacts to existing commercial, residential and park property.

EPP Drainage Alternative 7 This alternative proposed the construction of a large channel adjacent to Route 110 between Prime Avenue and Huntington harbor just north of Mill Dam Road. This alternative had significant socioeconomic impacts and costs due to property acquisitions on the west side of Route 110 and it was not considered to be feasible.

III.B.2. Highway Alternatives Considered

Highway Alternative 1 (No-Build) Under the No-Build highway alternative, no highway improvements would be made to Route 110, only continued maintenance with an increasing amount of time and expense required to keep the facility open to traffic. This alternative does not meet the project objectives and is not considered feasible.

Highway Alternative 2 (Signalized) This alternative was advanced from the EPP (“Traffic Scenario 2”). Under this alternative, several intersections in the vicinity of Mill Dam Road would be modified to improve traffic movements, as well as providing northbound and southbound left turn lanes from Creek Road to Grist Mill Lane. Also included is the signalization of a 5-leg intersection at Abbott Drive, Park Avenue and Mill Dam Road, with elimination of the northerly leg of Mill Dam Road. This alternative is considered feasible and is discussed in more detail later in Section III.C.1.b.

Highway Alternative 3 (Roundabouts) This alternative was advanced from the EPP (“Traffic Scenario 5”). Under this alternative, roundabouts with a raised median are proposed at Creek Road and Grist Mill Lane. Beyond the roundabouts, this alternative is identical to Highway Alternative 2. This alternative is considered feasible and is discussed in more detail later in Section III.C.1.b.

Highway Alternative 4 (Two-Way Left Turn Lane) This alternative was not included in the EPP. Under this alternative, the use of a continuous two-way left turn lane was considered along Route 110 from Prime Avenue to Hill Place, with either one-sided or symmetrical two-sided widening of the Route 110 roadway. Beyond this area, this alternative is identical to Highway Alternative 2. This alternative is not considered

III-6 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

feasible due to excessive right of way impacts. A variation of this alternative is feasible, however, and is discussed in Section III.C.1.b.

Other alternatives which were considered in the EPP are:

EPP Traffic Scenarios 3 and 4 These alternatives proposed signalized intersections as in Highway Alternative 2, but differed in the flow of traffic on Park Avenue between Route 110 and Creek Road. These alternatives were not considered feasible because of capacity deficiencies.

EPP Traffic Scenarios 6 and 7 These alternatives proposed roundabouts at the same intersections as in Highway Alternative 3, but also differed in the flow of traffic on Park Avenue between Route 110 and Creek Road. These alternatives were not considered feasible because of operational deficiencies.

EPP Traffic Scenario 8 This alternative proposed the use of signals combined with the geometrics of the roundabouts at the same intersections as in Highway Alternative 3. This alternative was not considered feasible because of operational deficiencies.

III.C. Feasible Alternatives

While Drainage Alternative II is identified as the preferred alternative, all feasible alternatives are under consideration. The final selection of the preferred alternative will not be made until the alternatives’ impacts and comments on the draft design approval document and comments form public hearing have been fully evaluated.

III.C.1. Description of Feasible Alternative – Refer to the general typical section for Route 110 within the project limits below (Figure III-1). Refer to Volume II of this report for the preliminary highway plans and profiles for the feasible highway alternatives.

Figure III-1

III-7 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

III.C.1.a. Drainage Alternatives

III.C.1.a.(1) Work Common to All Drainage Alternatives:

See Figures III-2A&B, III-3A&B, III-4A&B for the conceptual presentations of the drainage alternatives.

● Improve culvert capacity at Mill Dam Road outfall by constructing a 2743 mm x 2743 mm (9’x9’) box culvert to the east of the existing 2210 mm x 3453 mm (7.25’x11.33’) elliptical concrete culvert. The drainage model for Drainage Alternative II indicates that without the proposed box culvert an additional 0.6 m (2’) of flooding would occur at the low point of Route 110. Inclusion of the culvert for Drainage Alternatives III and IV reduces the depth of low point flooding approximately 0.18 m (0.6’). ● Improve the capacity at the tide gates by constructing a 2133 mm x 4267 mm (7’x14’) box culvert with tide gate east of the existing (3)1524 mm (60”) concrete pipes. Replace existing broken tide gates with modern low head loss tide gates. Under Drainage Alternative II, installation of the proposed 2133 mm x 4267 mm (7’x14’) box culvert with tide gate results in 0.6 m (2’) less flooding at the low point than if no additional culvert capacity was added. Under Drainage Alternatives III & IV, the alternatives with the additional box culvert result in approximately 0.23 m (9”) less flooding at the low point than without. ● Remove the existing (3) 1143 mm x 1829 mm (45”x72” arch) culverts over the stream located approximately 38 m (125’) south of the tide gates. These culverts are a significant restriction in the stream. Leaving the culverts in-place is not an option because it would negate the beneficial effects of the proposed upstream increases in drainage system capacity. Additionally, there appears to be no current or future reason to have a culvert crossing at this location. ● Clean the existing stream back to the proposed grades shown on the record plans for the Drainage Improvement on Route 110 State Highway 794 in the Town of Huntington, Suffolk County, Contract D251115, (1988 Letting) . ● Relocation of the sanitary sewer lines constricting the stream at Mill Lane and Hill Place (see discussion in Section III.C.2.j (Utilities) of this report). ● Replace the existing Hill Place culvert. This culvert may be replaced under a pending CVS site improvement at the Pennysaver property. The latest site plan shows a small bridge proposed to carry Hill Place over the stream. However, if Drainage Alternative II is selected, the CVS site plan must be modified to accommodate the large box culvert which picks up most of the storm flow in the stream at Hill Place. Also, for Drainage Alternative II, rather than a bridge, a smaller culvert should be constructed across Hill Place to limit the flow in the stream between Hill Place and Creek Road. Coordination with the Town of Huntington and the developer will be required to ensure that the replacement will conform with the proposed improvement under this project. ● Construct environmental treatment/filtration basin to meet the NYSDEC stormwater quality standards on the Town of Huntington property north of the Creek Road intersection on the west side of Route 110. ● Raise the low point pavement elevation on Route 110 a vertical distance of 0.3 m (1’). Alter the profile to transition back to the existing grade in the vicinity of Mill Lane to the south and Mill Dam Road to the north.

III-8 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

● Clean the existing drainage system north of Mill Dam Road. Repave the roadway and add drainage basin pick up in that area, as appropriate, to eliminate minor ponding problems.

III.C.1.a.(2) Drainage Alternative II – Construct concrete box culvert on Creek Road from the Stream at Hill Place to Stream Crossing at Creek Road (note: this alternative has no relation to EPP Drainage Alternative II)

See Figures III-2A and III-2B for a conceptual presentation of Drainage Alternative II.

This alternative eliminates flooding for the ten year storm between Mill Lane and Mill Dam Road (see Tables III-5 to III-8 and Figures III-5 to III-8 for flooding results). The main component of this alternative is a proposed 1829 mm x 3657 mm (6’x12’) concrete box culvert on Creek Road that extends from the stream at Hill Place to the Stream Crossing at Creek Road. This culvert will handle approximately 20 m3/s (700 cfs) of the total 29.5 m3/s (1035 cfs) of stream flow generated by a 10-year 24-hour storm. The existing stream will handle the stream base flow and the remaining 9.5 m3/s (335 cfs) of flow. A key aspect of this alternative is that all the overland flow on Route 110 will be intercepted and diverted to the stream via three proposed 1.1 m deep x 2.4 m wide x 20 m long (3.5’x8’x65’) culverts running transversely across Route 110 located just north of Mill Lane. These culverts will span the width of the roadway and extend to a headwall at the stream on the west side of the road. Runoff will be intercepted in the shoulder areas by 2.4m x 2.4m (8’x8’) open grates directly over each of the culverts. The stream will need to be widened between Mill Lane and Hill Place to accommodate the flow. Diversion of the large volume of overland flow away from the low point enables the roadway segment between Hill Place and Mill Dam Road to be drained with a typical positive drainage system. This system would only be required to drain the Route 110 corridor north of the proposed transverse grate drainage structures.

It is notable that this alternative does not address the flooding or excess overland flow on Route 110 that occurs from Madison Street to Mill Lane and the spread of flow will exceed the half lane criteria as stated in Chapter 8 of the Highway Design Manual.

III-9 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Figure III-2A Drainage Alternative II – Creek Road Culvert

III-10 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Figure III-2B Alternative II, Cross Sections of Culverts & Channels

III-11 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

III.C.1.a.(3) Drainage Alternative III – Construct concrete box culvert on Route 110 from Hill Place to Stream North of Creek Road

See Figures III-3A and III-3B for a conceptual presentation of Drainage Alternative III.

This alternative does not eliminate flooding at the low point of Route 110, but it would significantly reduce the occurrence of flooding, and duration of flooding . This alternative provides a level of protection between Mill Lane and Mill Dam Road for up to a 2-year 24-hour rainfall (see Tables III-5 to III-8 and Figures III-5 to III-8 for flooding results).

The main component of this alternative is a 1219 mm x 3658 mm (4’x12’) concrete box culvert on the east side of Route 110 from Hill Place to the stream north of Creek Road. Inlet locations directly on top of the proposed culvert or on proposed catch basin structures located on the west side of the road are proposed along the corridor to intercept the overland flow. Additionally, a 914 mm x 1524 mm (3’x5’) concrete box culvert is proposed for the west side of Route 110 from the low point area to Mill Dam Road. These culverts will connect to a 1524 mm x 3658 mm (5’x12’) concrete box culvert north of Creek Road. The proposed 1524 mm x 3658 mm (5’x12’) culvert outfalls to the stream section north of Creek Road.

III-12 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Figure III-3A Drainage Alternative III – 4’x12’ culvert from Hill Place to stream at Naval Property

III-13 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Figure III-3B Alternative III, Cross Sections of Culverts & Channels

III-14 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

III.C.1.a.(4) Drainage Alternative IV – Construct concrete box culvert on Route 110 from Madison Street to the Stream North of Creek Road

See Figures III-4A and III-4B for a conceptual presentation of Drainage Alternative IV.

This Alternative is identical to Drainage Alternative III except that it extends the construction of the proposed 1219 mm x 3658 mm (4’x12’) concrete box to Madison Street. Additional work involved in this alternative includes relocation of the existing sewer main on Route 110 from Madison Street to Hill Place (see Section III.C.2.j (Utilities) of this report).

Drainage model results indicate that this alternative will provide approximately the same level of flood protection as Drainage Alternative III for the roadway section between Hill Place and Mill Dam Road (see the Flooding Results in Tables III-5 to III-8 and Figures III-5 to III-8). However, between Madison Street and Hill Place this alternative reduces the amount of flooding as a result of the extended 1219 mm x 3658 mm (4’x12’) culvert. Under this alternative, half lane flood protection from one-year 24-hour storm event is provided

III-15 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Figure III-4A Drainage Alternative IV – 4’x12’ culvert from Madison Street to Stream adjacent to Stream North of Creek Road

III-16 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Figure III-4B Alternative IV, Cross Sections of Culverts & Channels III-17 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

For more detailed information on the proposed drainage see the Drainage Report in Appendix F.

Note: Values for the proposed Drainage Alternatives in the tables below represent depths of flooding along Route 110 with the proposed 0.3 m (1') road raising. Negative values indicate that the hydraulic grade line is below the road surface and therefore no flooding will occur.

Table III-5 Flooding Results Of Drainage Models – 10-Year Storm NYS Route 110 Mill Dam Creek Route 110 King Meadow- Prime Drainage Road Road Low Point Kullen Hill Place Mill Lane lawn St. Avenue Alternative (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Existing (No-Build) 2.63 3.70 4.27 2.78 2.20 1.76 2.45 1.83 Alt. II -0.91 -0.99 -0.03 -0.68 0.68 1.61 2.45 1.83 Alt. III 0.66 0.91 2.04 1.49 1.67 1.74 2.45 1.83 Alt. IV 0.62 0.85 2.00 1.48 1.68 1.45 1.92 1.31

Table III-6 Flooding Results Of Drainage Models – 5-Year Storm NYS Route 110 Mill Dam Creek Route 110 King Meadow- Prime Drainage Road Road Low Point Kullen Hill Place Mill Lane lawn St. Avenue Alternative (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Existing (No-Build) 2.10 3.12 3.69 2.21 2.07 1.68 2.31 1.69 Alt. II -1.70 -1.48 -0.86 -1.99 -2.30 1.60 2.30 1.69 Alt. III 0.01 0.03 1.20 1.07 1.36 1.68 2.30 1.69 Alt. IV -0.21 -0.07 1.13 1.06 1.36 1.21 1.84 1.08

Table III-7 Flooding Results Of Drainage Models – 2-Year Storm NYS Route 110 Mill Dam Creek Route 110 King Meadow- Prime Drainage Road Road Low Point Kullen Hill Place Mill Lane lawn St. Avenue Alternative (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Existing (No-Build) 0.65 1.72 2.60 1.55 1.74 1.49 1.96 1.38 Alt. II -2.97 -2.33 -1.76 -2.91 -3.63 0.75 1.92 1.37 Alt. III -1.93 -1.49 -0.54 -0.87 -0.53 1.49 1.94 1.37 Alt. IV -1.66 -1.34 -0.26 -0.39 0.19 -0.11 0.54 -0.31

III-18 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Table III-8 Flooding Results Of Drainage Models – 1-Year Storm NYS Route 110 Mill Dam Creek Route 110 King Meadow- Prime Drainage Road Road Low Point Kullen Hill Place Mill Lane lawn St. Avenue Alternative (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Existing (No-Build) 0.40 1.19 1.85 1.15 1.31 1.19 1.61 1.06 Alt. II -3.60 -2.95 -2.39 -3.53 -4.22 -0.64 1.55 1.05 Alt. III -3.02 -2.45 -1.76 -2.55 -2.50 1.17 1.57 1.05 Alt. IV -2.37 -1.99 -1.02 -1.31 -0.93 -1.55 -1.15 -1.92

See the Drainage Report in Appendix F for more detailed information regarding the drainage modeling and the proposed alternatives.

III-19 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Flooding Results of Drainage Models- 10-Year Storm NYS Route 110

5.00

4.00

3.00 Existing Alt. 2 2.00 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

1.00 Flood Flood Level (ft)

0.00

-1.00 Note: Flood Level 0.00 represents the Route 110 -2.00 Gutter e Elevation. c pt ane a L l Pl me Ave owlawn ill Low ri d Mil H Creek Rd ll Dam Rd P King Kullen Mea Mi Location Along Route 110 FIGURE III-5

III-20 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Flooding Results of Drainage Models- 5-Year Storm NYS Route 110

4.00

3.00

2.00 Existing Alt. 2 1.00 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

0.00 Flood Flood Level (ft)

-1.00

-2.00 Note: Flood Level 0.00 represents the Route 110 -3.00 Gutter d Elevation. pt ace R ow m l Lane Pl L me Ave owlawn ill Da ri d Mil H Creek Rd l P King Kullen Mea Mil Location Along Route 110 FIGURE III-6

III-21 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Flooding Results of Drainage Models- 2-Year Storm NYS Route 110

3.00

2.00

1.00 Existing Alt. 2 0.00 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

-1.00 Flood Flood Level (ft)

-2.00

-3.00 Note: Flood Level 0.00 represents the Route 110 -4.00 Gutter t Elevation. ve n wn ne lle Rd Rd A la u ow p k e w K am o ill La L ree M Hill Place ing C Prim K Mead Mill D Location Along Route 110 FIGURE III-7

III-22 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Flooding Results of Drainage Models- 1-Year Storm NYS Route 110

3.00

2.00

1.00

Existing 0.00 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 -1.00

Flood Flood Level (ft) -2.00

-3.00 Note: Flood Level 0.00 represents the Route 110 Gutter -4.00 Elevation.

-5.00

pt Ave ane ace llen Rd Rd L l Pl m me owlawn ill Low ri d Mil H ing Ku Creek l Da P K Mea Mil Location Along Route 110 FIGURE III-8

III-23 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

III.C.1.b. Highway Alternatives

III.C.1.b.(1) Work Common to All Highway Alternatives:

● Provide pavement repairs based on the updated PETSR. The 2006 pavement sufficiency rating for this section of Route 110 ranges from 5 to 6, indicating fair to poor pavement condition, with cracked and settled slabs, deteriorated or misaligned joints, and spalling and faulting, due primarily to numerous utility excavations and water infiltration from frequent flooding conditions. Distressed slabs will be removed and replaced, spalled areas will be cleaned and repaired, and joints will be cleaned and sealed. Finally a 90 mm asphalt overlay will be constructed, using a High Friction Superpave top course over a binder course. ● Complete missing sections of curb and sidewalk where appropriate. Curb currently exists along approximately two-thirds of the project length. Sidewalk exists in similar proportion. There is evidence of pedestrian traffic in areas with no sidewalk. These disconnected sections of curb and sidewalk will be addressed by construction of new curb and sidewalk, with only minor exceptions where doing so would cause an excessive property impact. ● Repair or replace deteriorated curb and sidewalk. Existing sidewalk and curb is in a poor state of repair. Curb and sidewalk that is sound will be retained where feasible, but much of the existing curb and sidewalk will require replacement. ● Improve striping, channelization, and pedestrian crosswalks where feasible. Existing pavement markings generally conform to the MUTCD, but new striping will be necessary following the asphalt overlay. New pedestrian crosswalks, in addition to existing crosswalks, will enhance pedestrian mobility. ● Eliminate or replace deteriorated or outdated roadside signage. Signs generally conform to the MUTCD, but many have become faded, and should be replaced. ● Improve sight restrictions at crossroads and driveways where feasible. There are crossroad locations with restricted sight distance which will be improved by clearing brush or moving obstructions where feasible. ● Provide sidewalk, utility, and snow storage strip. Under both highway alternatives, a 2.6-meter (8.5’) wide strip will be provided along Route 110 for construction of curb and sidewalk, and to allow sufficient room for underground and above-ground utilities. This strip will also provide an area for snow storage. The width of this strip will need to be reduced in some places with restricted right of way, to reduce property impacts.

III.C.1.b.(2) Highway Alternative 2 – Signalized Intersections (EPP Traffic Scenario 2)

This alternative modifies several intersections in the vicinity of Mill Dam Road to improve traffic movements, and provides northbound and southbound left turn lanes from Creek Road to Grist Mill Lane. Also included is the signalization of a 5-leg intersection at Abbott Drive, Park Avenue and Mill Dam Road, with the elimination of the northerly leg of Mill Dam Road.

At the intersection of Route 110 and Mill Dam Road, the “Nathan Hale Stone” Monument currently sits between the northerly and southerly legs of Mill Dam Road (see Figure III-2). This 145-ton boulder was originally placed at the end of Vineyard Road in 1897, and was moved to its present location in front of the American Legion hall in 1976. The work proposed under Highway Alternative 2 will remove the northerly leg of Mill Dam Road, and bring the roadway and curb

III-24 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

line of the remaining leg of Mill Dam Road closer to this monument. Although the monument would be behind the curb and sidewalk, it is recommended that the monument be moved northeasterly 3 m to 5 m (10’-15’) to ensure it will be a safe distance from the traveled way. It is also recommended that the park benches, walkway, and plantings which currently provide an opportunity for foot traffic to stop and view the monument be relocated or replaced accordingly.

Figure III-9

For more detailed information on Highway Alternative 2, see the Typical Sections, General Plans, and Profiles included in Volume II of this report.

III.C.1.b.(3) Highway Alternative 3 – Roundabouts (EPP Traffic Scenario 5)

This alternative proposes roundabouts with a raised median at Creek Road and Grist Mill Lane. Beyond the roundabouts, this alternative is identical to Highway Alternative 2.

As with Highway Alternative 2, the Nathan Hale monument is affected. The new roundabout at Mill Dam Road will be in direct conflict with the monument. It is recommended that the monument be moved westerly 9 m to 12 m (30’-40’), and the park benches, walkway, and plantings be relocated or replaced accordingly.

For more detailed information on Highway Alternative 2, see the Typical Sections, General Plans, and Profiles included in Volume II of this report.

Under both highway alternatives, there are some areas which will require the acquisition of property. These acquisitions can generally be categorized as narrow strip acquisitions. In addition, there will be temporary easements required III-25 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

along both sides of Route 110 throughout the entire project, to allow for access and grading requirements. The right of way acquisitions and temporary easement requirements for each alternative are summarized in the Abstract Request Map “Tables of Affected Properties”, included in Appendix E.

III.C.1.b.(4) Continuous Two-Way Left Turn lane Option

As discussed under Section III.B.2 above, an alternative to implement a continuous two-way left turn lane from Prime Avenue to Hill Place, with either one-side or symmetrical (two-sided) widening of Route 110, was evaluated and eliminated as unfeasible due to excessive right of way impacts. However, it is possible to implement a continuous two-way left turn lane without widening Route 110, by narrowing the travel lanes and utilizing some of the area currently used for on-street parking. This has been developed as an option under both highway alternatives, and is compatible with both alternatives. The proposed curb locations are not altered under the two-way left turn lane option; only the striping is altered, in addition to elimination of some parking. All costs and impacts are the same as under Highway Alternative 2 (Signals) and 3 (Roundabouts).

For a graphical representation of the Continuous Two-Way Left Turn Lane option, as it would be implemented under either Highway Alternative 2 or 3, see the Plans and Profiles included in Volume II of this report.

III.C.2. Engineering Considerations for Feasible Alternatives –

III.C.2.a. Special Geometric Features –

III.C.2.a.(1) Non-Standard Features – There are no Non-Standard Features proposed under any of the feasible alternatives.

III.C.2.a.(2) Non-Conforming Features – Several longitudinal grades less than 0.5%, normally considered a desirable minimum, will be retained. Although not non-standard, less than 0.5% grade is not desirable from a standpoint of providing adequate drainage. While this cannot be avoided without a total redesign of the Route 110 profile, it can be mitigated by adhering to a 2% normal crown cross slope.

Some intersections would not operate at the minimum Level of Service (LOS) D in the future years. Although LOS D is the minimum called for under the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual, level of service is a critical design element only for interstate highways. For noninterstate highways in urban areas, lower levels of service may be proposed and treated as non-conforming features, due to social, economic and environmental factors, per Chapter 5 of the HDM. The level of service could not be improved to LOS D without significantly altering the configuration of Route 110, including substantial acquisition of Right of Way and relocation of many residential and commercial properties, and at a very high cost.

It was determined in the Scoping (EPP) stage that a 25 or 50 year magnitude storm could not be accommodated within the Department’s budget and without significant impacts. Therefore, it was decided, at the start of the Design Phase, to design for a ten year storm. Likewise, it was realized that the local storm drainage system could not be designed for a five year storm with regards to half

III-26 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

lane flooding due to the large volume of water transmitted to the project area from the entire watershed.

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

III.C.2.b.(1) Design Year Traffic Forecasts and Level of Service Analysis – The traffic forecasts for Route 110 are shown in Table III-9 below. The traffic volumes were generated using a 1% linear growth factor. The projected turning movement volumes are included in Appendix A. Refer to Section II.C.1.h for additional information.

Table III-9 Projected Traffic Forecasts NYS Route 110 YEAR AADT DHV DDHV ETC (2011) 15,804 1,580 1,027 ETC+20 (2021) 17,457 1,746 1,134 Design Year 19,284 1,928 1,253 ETC+30 (2031) Daily truck traffic on Route 110 is estimated at 4% of the AADT.

(a) Highway Alternative 2 . The projected volumes for 2011 (ETC), 2021 (ETC+10), and 2031 (ETC+20) along with the geometric improvements as detailed under Highway Alternative 2 (Signalized) were utilized to develop the revised future build conditions. The minimum LOS requirements are shown In Table III-10.

Table III-10 Minimum Highway Design Year Level of Service NYS Route 110 YEAR LOS ETC (2011) D ETC+20 (2021) D ETC+30 (2031) D

Consistent with Highway Alternative 2 design, the following improvements were incorporated at each of the study intersections and the LOS analysis performed, as follows:

Route 110 at Prime Avenue/Madison Street

No improvements were proposed at this intersection. Therefore, the analysis only includes the updated projected volumes.

In the future years 2011, 2021, and 2031, this intersection would operate acceptably with an overall Intersection LOS D or better during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, this intersection would operate acceptably at LOS C during the 2011 and 2021 build years, and at LOS E under the 2031 build scenario.

III-27 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Route 110 at Creek Road/Cliftwood Drive

In the vicinity of this intersection, a two-way left turn lane is being proposed along Route 110 north of Creek Road. To incorporate this geometric improvement, the southbound Route 110 approach was modified from one left, thru, and right shared lane to one shared thru-right lane and one exclusive left-turn lane.

This intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS B under all future build years during the AM and Sunday peak hours. In the future years 2011 and 2021, this intersection would operate acceptably with an overall LOS D or better during the PM and Friday peak hours. However, during the 2031 future build year, this intersection would operate poorly with an overall LOS F 5 during the PM and Friday peak hours.

Park Avenue at Cliftwood Drive

No improvements were proposed at this intersection. Therefore, the analysis only includes the updated volumes.

This intersection would operate poorly with an overall LOS F under all future build years during the Friday peak hour. Under the 2031 future build year, the intersection would also operate poorly at LOS F during all peak hours except during the PM peak hour, which would operate at LOS D.

Route 110 at Park Avenue/Mill Dam Road/Abbott Drive

The northerly leg (receiving approach) at Mill Dam Road would be eliminated to align the Mill Dam Road approach with Abbott Drive. In addition, the new aligned Mill Dam Road approach would consist of three lanes: a right-thru lane, a left-thru lane, and one receiving lane for westbound Mill Dam Road traffic. The existing northbound and southbound shared lane would be changed to accommodate two lanes: an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared thru-right lane.

During the AM peak hour, under all future build years, this intersection would operate acceptably at LOS C or better and Abbott Drive would operate at LOS D. During the PM peak hour, for all build years, Abbott Drive would continue to operate acceptably at LOS D. During the PM peak hour, the overall intersection would operate at LOS D for all build years except for the future 2031 build year, which would operate at LOS F. During the Friday peak hour, Abbott Drive and the overall intersection would operate poorly with LOS F. In addition, Abbott Drive would operate poorly with LOS F for all future build years during the Sunday peak hour. However, the overall intersection would operate at LOS D or better.

Route 110 at Grist Mill Lane

The “Median Type” was changed in the analyses at this location to account for the two-way left turn lane that traverses this intersection.

5 Although LOS “D” is the minimum called for under the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual, level of service is a critical design element only for interstate highways. For noninterstate highways in urban areas, lower levels of service may be proposed and treated as nonconforming features, due to social, economic and environmental factors, per Chapter 5 of the HDM. III-28 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

This intersection would operate poorly with overall LOS F under the 2021 and 2031 build years during all peak hours. Under the 2011 future build year, the intersection would operate poorly at LOS F during the PM and Friday peak hours. Under the same build year, this intersection would operate at LOS E and LOS D during the AM and Sunday peak hours, respectively.

The Build conditions analysis results are shown in Tables III-11 to III-14 for the AM, PM, Friday, and Sunday peak hours, respectively, with complete detailed information presented in Appendix A.

Table III-11 Intersection Level of Service – AM Peak Hour HIGHWAY ALT. 2 – SIGNALS OVERALL INTERSECTION INTERSECTION YEAR EB WB NB SB LOS DELAY (sec) Existing (2006) C C B B B 20 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C D B B C 21 Prime Ave./ Madison St. ETC+10 (2021) C D B C C 25 ETC+20 (2031) C E B D D 37 Existing (2006) C C A B B 14 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C C A B B 15 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+10 (2021) C C A B B 16 ETC+20 (2031) C C A B B 18 Route 110 @ Existing (2006) C C B B B 19 Park Ave./ ETC (2011) C D B B B 17 Mill Dam Rd./ ETC+10 (2021) C D B B B 19 Abbott Dr. ETC+20 (2031) C D B C C 23 Existing (2006) A A B A A 10 Park Ave. @ ETC (2011) A A B A B 10 Creek Rd./ ETC+10 (2021) A A B A B 11 Cliftwood Dr. ETC+20 (2031) A A B A B 12 Existing (2006) N/A F A A F 51 *Route 110 @ ETC (2011) N/A E A A E 47 Grist Mill La. ETC+10 (2021) N/A F B A F 78 ETC+20 (2031) N/A F B A F 170 *At Grist Mill Lane, delay is reported for the approach with the worst operating conditions

III-29 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Table III-12 Intersection Level of Service – PM Peak Hour HIGHWAY ALT. 2 – SIGNALS OVERALL INTERSECTION INTERSECTION YEAR EB WB NB SB LOS DELAY (sec) Existing (2006) D D B B C 24 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) D D B B C 26 Prime Ave./ Madison St. ETC+10 (2021) D E C C C 34 ETC+20 (2031) E F C E E 65 Existing (2006) C C B A B 17 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C C B A B 19 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+10 (2021) C C D A C 28 ETC+20 (2031) C C F B F 99 Route 110 @ Existing (2006) D C B B C 25 Park Ave./ ETC (2011) E C C B C 25 Mill Dam Rd./ ETC+10 (2021) F C C B D 46 Abbott Dr. ETC+20 (2031) F C D B F 97 Existing (2006) B A C A B 13 Park Ave. @ ETC (2011) B A C A B 14 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+10 (2021) B A C A C 18 ETC+20 (2031) B B D B C 24 Existing (2006) N/A F A A F 51 *Route 110 @ ETC (2011) N/A F A A F 63 Grist Mill La. ETC+10 (2021) N/A F A A F 103 ETC+20 (2031) N/A F A B F 215 *At Grist Mill Lane, delay is reported for the approach with the worst operating conditions

Table III-13 Intersection Level of Service – Friday Peak Hour HIGHWAY ALT. 2 – SIGNALS OVERALL INTERSECTION INTERSECTION YEAR EB WB NB SB LOS DELAY (sec) Existing (2006) C C B B B 20 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C C B B C 22 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+10 (2021) E C D B D 38 ETC+20 (2031) F C F B F 137 Route 110 @ Existing (2006) F C C F F 324 Park Ave./ ETC (2011) F C C C F 82 Mill Dam Rd./ ETC+10 (2021) F C F F F 183 Abbott Dr. ETC+20 (2031) F C F F F 343 Existing (2006) B A C B B 13 Park Ave. @ ETC (2011) B A C B B 15 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+10 (2021) B A C B C 18 ETC+20 (2031) C B E B C 25 Existing (2006) N/A F A B F 229 *Route 110 @ ETC (2011) N/A F B B F 414 Grist Mill La. ETC+10 (2021) N/A F B B F ** ETC+20 (2031) N/A F B B F ** *At Grist Mill Lane, delay is reported for the approach with the worst operating conditions **Operates at LOS F with greater delays than HCS can calculate.

III-30 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Table III-14 Intersection Level of Service – Sunday Peak Hour HIGHWAY ALT. 2 – SIGNALS OVERALL INTERSECTION INTERSECTION YEAR EB WB NB SB LOS DELAY (sec) Existing (2006) C C B A B 13 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C C B A B 13 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+10 (2021) C C B B B 14 ETC+20 (2031) C C B B B 14 Route 110 @ Existing (2006) C F B B C 24 Park Ave./ ETC (2011) C F B B C 26 Mill Dam Rd./ ETC+10 (2021) C F B B C 33 Abbott Dr. ETC+20 (2031) C F B B D 45 Existing (2006) A A A A A 9 Park Ave. @ ETC (2011) A A A A A 9 Creek Rd./ ETC+10 (2021) A A A A A 9 Cliftwood Dr. ETC+20 (2031) A A B A A 9 Existing (2006) N/A D A A D 28 *Route 110 @ ETC (2011) N/A D A A D 31 Grist Mill La. ETC+10 (2021) N/A F A A E 39 ETC+20 (2031) N/A F A A F 52 *At Grist Mill Lane, delay is reported for the approach with the worst operating conditions

(b) Highway Alternative 3. Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2, except that roundabouts will be provided at the intersections of Route 110 at Creek Road/ Cliftwood Drive and Route 110 at Park Avenue/Mill Dam Road/Abbott Drive. Park Avenue from Cliftwood Drive to Route 110 will be eliminated. Mill Dam Road will be realigned with Grist Mill Lane. Refer to GP-6B and GP-7B in Volume II, General Plans.

Tables III-15 through Table III-18 summarize the average delay and LOS results for Highway Alternative 3.

Table III-15 Intersection Level of Service – AM Peak Hour HIGHWAY ALT. 3 – ROUNDABOUTS INTERSECTION YEAR LOS DELAY (sec) Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C 17 Creek Rd./Cliftwood Dr. ETC+20 (2031) F 82 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) A 3 Park Ave./Mill Dam Rd./ Abbott Dr. ETC+20 (2031) C 16

Table III-16 Intersection Level of Service – PM Peak Hour HIGHWAY ALT. 3 – ROUNDABOUTS INTERSECTION YEAR LOS DELAY (sec) Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C 19 Creek Rd./Cliftwood Dr. ETC+20 (2031) F 81 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) D 31 Park Ave./Mill Dam Rd./ Abbott Dr. ETC+20 (2031) F 135

III-31 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Table III-17 Intersection Level of Service – Friday Peak Hour HIGHWAY ALT. 3 – ROUNDABOUTS INTERSECTION YEAR LOS DELAY (sec)

Route 110 @ ETC (2011) F 66 Creek Rd./Cliftwood Dr. ETC+20 (2031) F 191 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) F 150 Park Ave./Mill Dam Rd./ Abbott Dr. ETC+20 (2031) F 345

Table III-18 Intersection Level of Service – Sunday Peak Hour HIGHWAY ALT. 3 – ROUNDABOUTS INTERSECTION YEAR LOS) DELAY (sec)

Route 110 @ ETC (2011) A 7 Creek Rd./Cliftwood Dr. ETC+20 (2031) B 10 Route 110 @ ETC (2011) A 7 Park Ave./Mill Dam Rd./ Abbott Dr. ETC+20 (2031) B 11

Under the roundabout option the intersections would operate as follows:

Route 110 at Creek Road/Cliftwood Drive

This intersection would operate at acceptable LOS C or better under the future year 2011 (ETC) during all peak hours except during the Friday peak hour. In the future year 2031 (ETC+20), this intersection would operate unacceptably during all time periods except for the Sunday peak hour.

Route 110 at Park Avenue/Mill Dam Road/Abbott Drive

This intersection would operate unacceptably under the future year 2011 (ETC) during the Friday peak hour. The intersection would operate acceptably with LOS D or better during all other peak hours during the future year 2011. In the Future year 2031 (ETC+20), this intersection would operate unacceptably at LOS F during the PM and Friday peak hours.

(c) Comparison of Highway Alternatives . Tables III-19 through Table III-22 provide a comparison of LOS between Highway Alternative 2 (Signalized) and Highway Alternative 3 (Roundabouts) for the intersections of Route 110 at Creek Road/ Cliftwood Drive and Route 110 at Park Avenue/Mill Dam Road/Abbott Drive.

III-32 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Table III-19 Intersection LOS Comparison – AM Peak Hour HIGHWAY ALT. 2 (SIGNALS) VS. HIGHWAY ALT. 3 (ROUNDABOUTS) SIGNALS ROUNDABOUTS INTERSECTION YEAR LOS DELAY (sec) LOS DELAY (sec) Route 110 @ ETC (2011) B 15 C 17 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+20 (2031) B 18 F 82

Route 110 @ ETC (2011) B 17 A 3 Park Ave./ Mill Dam Rd./ ETC+20 (2031) C 23 C 16 Abbott Dr.

Table III-20 Intersection LOS Comparison – PM Peak Hour HIGHWAY ALT. 2 (SIGNALS) VS. HIGHWAY ALT. 3 (ROUNDABOUTS) SIGNALS ROUNDABOUTS INTERSECTION YEAR LOS DELAY (sec) LOS DELAY (sec) Route 110 @ ETC (2011) B 19 C 19 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+20 (2031) F 99 F 81

Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C 25 D 31 Park Ave./ Mill Dam Rd./ ETC+20 (2031) F 97 F 135 Abbott Dr.

Table III-21 Intersection LOS Comparison – Friday Peak Hour HIGHWAY ALT. 2 (SIGNALS) VS. HIGHWAY ALT. 3 (ROUNDABOUTS) SIGNALS ROUNDABOUTS INTERSECTION YEAR LOS DELAY (sec) LOS DELAY (sec) Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C 22 F 66 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+20 (2031) F 137 F 191

Route 110 @ ETC (2011) F 82 F 150 Park Ave./ Mill Dam Rd./ ETC+20 (2031) F 343 F 345 Abbott Dr.

Table III-22 Intersection LOS Comparison – Sunday Peak Hour HIGHWAY ALT. 2 (SIGNALS) VS. HIGHWAY ALT. 3 (ROUNDABOUTS) SIGNALS ROUNDABOUTS INTERSECTION YEAR LOS DELAY (sec) LOS DELAY (sec) Route 110 @ ETC (2011) B 13 A 7 Creek Rd./ Cliftwood Dr. ETC+20 (2031) B 14 B 10

Route 110 @ ETC (2011) C 26 A 7 Park Ave./ Mill Dam Rd./ ETC+20 (2031) D 45 B 11 Abbott Dr.

III-33 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

The comparisons of LOS analysis between Highway Alternative 2 (Signalized) and Highway Alternative 3 (Roundabouts) for the relevant intersections are summarized as follows:

AM Peak Hour

During the AM peak hour, both intersections would function acceptably, either as roundabouts or signalized intersections, except under the design year 2031 (ETC+20) when the intersection of Route 110 at Creek Road/Cliftwood Drive with the roundabout option would operate unacceptably with LOS F as compared to LOS B with the signalized option.

PM Peak Hour

Both intersections would operate unacceptably with LOS F under both the roundabout and signalized options during the design year 2031 (ETC+20).

Friday Peak Hour

Both intersections would operate unacceptably with LOS F under both the roundabout and signalized options during the design year 2031 (ETC+20). In addition, the intersection of Route 110 at Park Avenue/Mill Dam Road/Abbott Drive would also operate unacceptably with LOS F under both the roundabout and signalized options during future year 2011.

Sunday Peak Hour

Both intersections would operate acceptably with LOS D or better with the roundabout and signalized options under both future years.

III.C.2.b.(2) Safety and Traffic Control Considerations – The following improvements are proposed:

(a) Traffic Signals. Existing traffic signals will be upgraded and/or replaced with new signals to meet current standards. Improvements include the following: ● Signal heads will be upgraded from 205 mm (8”) to 305 mm (12”). ● New left turn signal phases will be provided, in order to minimize the potential for left turn accidents. ● Signal timings will be modified. ● Pedestrian signals (with crosswalk) will be added, as required.

(b) Signs. Existing signs will be replaced, and additional signs added as required.

(c) Miscellaneous. To mitigate wet pavement accidents, the existing pavement will be overlaid with high-friction type asphalt and an upgrade to the existing drainage system will be provided.

III.C.2.c. Pavement – In general, the following new and replacement pavement sections will be required under various build conditions. The installation of roundabouts (Highway Alternative 3) would require a limited amount of new pavement near the

III-34 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

roundabouts. The new alignment for Mill Dam Road under this alternative would require new pavement of approximately 560 m2 (6,000 ft 2), while other portions of this proposal would require removal of a significant area of pavement.

III.C.2.d. Structures – There are no bridges within the project limits.

III.C.2.e. Hydraulics – There are no bridge structures or culverts carrying Route 110 over water courses within the project limits.

III.C.2.f. Drainage – Drainage alternatives are discussed in Sections III.B.1 and III.C.1.a of this report, as well as in the Drainage Report, included in Appendix F. Existing drainage ditches and structures within the project limits not otherwise impacted by the project will be cleaned as part of all feasible alternatives.

III.C.2.g. Maintenance Responsibility – NYSDOT has maintenance jurisdiction over the Route 110 Right of Way. Cross roads within the project limits are owned and maintained by the Town of Huntington, with the exception of Mill Dam Road and Park Avenue (collectively County Route 35), which are owned and maintained by Suffolk County. The Mill Dam Creek runs through private property and has received little, if any, maintenance by the individual property owners. Should property owners not properly maintain the creek, then NYSDOT may provide maintenance under Highway Law (Section 45).

III.C.2.h. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic – Construction will be sequenced and Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) stipulations will be utilized so that the project construction duration is reduced, impacts to the traveling public are minimized, and access to abutting residences, commercial establishments and retail businesses is maintained. In order to minimize traffic disruption and interference with non-residential adjacent land-use activities, night construction will be investigated during the design phase for some areas. Measures such as Incentive/ Disincentive Clauses and A+B Contracting, which could help reduce construction duration and inconvenience to the public, will be considered during the final design. The contractor will be required to inform the administrative staff at the Halesite Fire Department of construction scheduling so that they are aware of construction activities. All MPT schemes will be designed in conformance with the MUTCD.

All build alternatives will require general on-site maintenance and protection of traffic (MPT) for pavement repairs and resurfacing work within the paved area of Route 110. Two-way traffic will be maintained during a majority of the construction of the proposed highway improvements. Due to the extensive scope of the drainage alternatives, the MPT need of each is discussed separately below.

III.C.2.h.(1) Drainage Alternative II – The installation of the 1200 mm x 3600 mm (4'x12') culvert along the east side of Creek Road from Hill Place northward requires 5.5 m of the existing unpaved and paved area. The construction vehicles may be located within the culvert construction area in order to leave the remaining pavement width for two lanes of traffic. Temporary pavement will be required on the west side of the existing roadway. In the event that the remaining pavement is too narrow, the existing utility poles on the west side would be relocated and additional temporary pavement constructed.

III-35 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Another possibility is to close southbound Creek Road traffic and re-route that traffic to the intersection of Route 110 and Mill Lane to Wall Street. The impact of that traffic on the detour roads will need to be investigated during the final design. Northbound traffic will be shifted to the west side of Creek Road from Hill Place to Route 110.

Construction of the culvert crossing Creek Road may require closing half the roadway at a time or full temporary closure while the improvements are being performed. Should the northern segment need to be closed, traffic would be detoured to Mill Lane.

Creek Road construction will need to be completed in four stages: the installation of the relocated utilities on the east side and construction of temporary pavement, as required; the installation of the drainage culvert; the reconstruction of the sanitary sewer on the west side; and ending with final pavement reconstruction. Nighttime work may be preferred for this section, although the area south of Hill Place is residential, therefore noise can be a factor.

Installation of the 1200 mm x 3600 mm (4'x12') culvert along the north side of Hill Place will require complete closure of the dead-ended Hill Place. The work along Hill Place shall not be performed at the same time as the work on Creek Road.

III.C.2.h.(2) Drainage Alternative III – The existing wide pavement will allow for the maintenance of two-way traffic during construction of the drainage system along the west side of Route 110 from Hill Place to Creek Road, and on the east side of Route 110, north of Creek Road. The installation of the smaller box culverts and drainage pipe could be completed in the shoulder and sidewalk area. With construction vehicles using the adjacent concrete panel during work hours, approximately 8.5 m would be available for the two-way traffic. The installation of 259 m of the 1200 mm x 3600 mm (4'x12') culvert along the east side from Hill Place to Creek Road requires, however, 5.5 m of the existing roadway leaving only 9.1 m for MPT and construction vehicles. Hours of operation for this area will be limited by the need to maintain alternating traffic flow. It is expected that the construction will need to be completed in three stages: first the installation of the relocated utilities; then the installation of the drainage culvert and ending with the installation of final curb, sidewalk and pavement. Nighttime closures and detour may be preferred for this section. Construction of the culvert crossing at Creek Road in 2.4 m - 3.0 m (8'-10') sections may require closing half the roadway at a time while the improvements are being installed, but should allow for on site MPT. Diagrams of the anticipated construction zone, longitudinal utility conflicts and MPT are shown in Appendix C.

III.C.2.h.(3) Drainage Alternative IV – This alternative would cause significant impacts to Route 110 traffic. The MPT from Hill Place northward would be similar to that of Drainage Alternative III. The preliminary MPT for the 1200 mm x 3600 mm (4'x12') culvert between Prime Avenue and Hill Place is also similar to that of the 1200 mm x 3600 mm (4'x12') culvert under Drainage Alternative III. The difference of this alternate comes from the need to maintain/reconstruct the 600 mm sewer main. Since both the sewer and drainage systems work under gravity and the proposed drainage pipe would interfere with the crossing at Hill Place, it becomes necessary to find a new location to cross the sewer. Based on

III-36 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

the reviewed existing elevations, this would best be accomplished at Creek Road, adding another stage to the construction from Mill Lane to Creek Road. From Prime Avenue to Mill Lane, the pavement structure includes four 3.0-meter concrete panels and two 1.2-meter asphalt shoulders. This cross section combined with the need to reconstruct both the sewer and water mains, maintain the gas main, as well as move the utility poles will result in the same 8.5 m being available for maintaining traffic during the installation of the drainage. However due to the need to reconstruct two of the four concrete panels, only 7.2 m will be available for alternating single direction MPT and construction vehicles. Hours of operation for this area will be limited by the need to maintain alternating traffic flow. (See MPT cross sections in Appendix C.)

At the Prime Avenue/Madison Street intersection where the chambers connecting Prime Avenue and Madison Avenue drainage need to be constructed, Route 110 may be closed down to a one-way or completely closed if conditions warrant. Much of this work would include special pre-cast structures or/and cast in place work. Either way, access from these two cross streets to Route 110 will severely be impacted. Should the road need to be closed, traffic would be detoured to Park Avenue and Route 25A to the east of the project site or West Shore Drive/Wall Street to the west of the project site. The work required under this alternate will include construction along 488 m more of the roadway than Drainage Alternative III and will take considerably longer.

Additional work associated with drainage improvements includes raising the roadway by 0.3 m (1'). This work will include new curb and sidewalk and grading on private properties. The effects of raising the roadway will vary depending on changes to the drainage system. Raising the roadway in short lifts can be accomplished with temporary on-site MPT where no new drainage is being installed. If a new pavement is used in conjunction with drainage improvements, longer term on-site MPT would be necessary to allow for curing of the new concrete panels. The use of more expensive pre-stressed pavement sections may be warranted to limit construction duration and MPT costs. In either case, maintenance of traffic and driveway access will require significant attention during staging of these improvements.

III.C.2.i. Soils and Foundations – Soil borings were conducted during the EPP phase in the areas where basins were then proposed. Results of these borings can be found in Appendix I, although most boring locations are beyond the current project limits. As noted in the EPP, dewatering will be required due to the high groundwater in the area and additional bracing of the excavated areas may be required if soil conditions are poor. Additional borings should be conducted in the roadway to determine ground water along the project length, and to better determine dewatering needs.

III.C.2.j. Utilities – Numerous utilities are located within the Route 110 right-of-way in the project area. The utilities identified include sanitary sewer, gas, electric, water, telephone, and cable TV. Since all of the alternatives involve general improvements to drainage on Route 110, utility conflicts will occur with sanitary sewers, gas mains, water mains, and telephone conduits in order to install the basic catch basins and pipes within the project area.

III-37 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Additionally, the sanitary sewers which cross Mill Creek stream at Mill Lane (200 mm, 8”) and Hill Place (600 mm, 24”) above grade will need to be relocated to a lower elevation under all alternatives in order to clear the stream of these obstructions. At Mill Lane the solution will depend on the overall drainage alternative chosen. Under both Drainage Alternative II (Creek Road Culvert) and Drainage Alternative III, the sewer could be lowered across the stream (about 12 m, 39’) with an inverted siphon design. Under Drainage Alternative IV, since the entire sewer along Route 110 will need to be lowered, the sewer on Mill Lane can be lowered and connected (33 m, 108’) to the Route 110 trunk line at the lower elevation. At Hill Place, since the sewer crossing at Mill Creek is within 260 m (853’) of the Sanitary Sewage Treatment Plant, it is recommended to reconstruct the sewer to the sewage treatment plant and provide a pump at the plant under all of the alternatives. Coordination with the Town of Huntington will be required.

There may be conflicts with overhead utility lines during the installation of drainage culverts under the various alternatives.

Depending on the major drainage culvert transmission alternative chosen, some of the utility conflicts will vary. The most significant conflicts for the specific alternatives are described below:

1. Drainage Alternative II (Creek Road Culvert) – This alternative does not involve as extensive work on Route 110 compared to the other alternatives, and shifts the large box culvert construction to Creek Road where there are fewer utilities. As previously stated, it is recommended that the sanitary sewer main be reconstructed from the creek crossing at Hill Place to the sewage treatment plant on Creek Road. Additionally, there are sewer pipes (one is an outfall) which run along Creek Road between Route 110 and the treatment plant and cross the proposed box culvert just west of the Mill Creek on Creek Road. According to sewer as-builts, these sewer mains are located below the bottom of the proposed 1828 mm x 3658 mm (6’x 2’) box culvert. In Final Design it will be necessary to determine whether bridging details are required. Coordination with the Town of Huntington will be needed to better determine conflicts and their resolution. Test pits may be needed. A gas main on the east side of Creek Road will require relocation to install the box culvert. A water main on the west side may be impacted.

2. Drainage Alternative III – The construction of the 1219 mm x 3658 mm (4’x12’) box culvert between Hill Place and the forebay/settlement area north of Creek Road will impact the 250 mm (10”) water main on the east side, and approximately 140 m (460’) of water main will need to be relocated. Approximately 30 m (98’) of sanitary sewer connecting from the north on the east side across from Hill Place will need to be relocated to the sidewalk area to accommodate the Alternative III box culvert. Utility poles will need to be relocated on the east side between Hill Place and Creek Road to accommodate the box culvert.

The box culvert crosses from the east side of Route 110 to the west side in the vicinity of Creek Road and will cross some utility lines prior to entering the forebay/settlement area north of Creek Road. Gas, water and telephone lines will need to be offset where the box culvert crosses them. The two sewer mains

III-38 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

that are crossed appear to be deep enough to avoid a direct conflict. However, in Final Design it will be necessary to determine whether special bridging details are required to avoid additional loadings on the sewers.

3. Drainage Alternative IV – This alternative will have all of the same utility conflicts as described for Alternative III for the box culvert construction north of Hill Place. In addition, between Prime Avenue and Hill Place, the construction of the 1219 mm x 3658 mm (4’x12’) box culvert will require some significant utility work. The drainage box culvert will be in direct conflict with the 600 mm (24”) sanitary sewer on the east side of Route 110. The sanitary sewer will need to be lowered where it crosses the box culvert at two locations, the first at the intersection of Prime Avenue and Madison Street and the second on Route 110 just north of Prime Avenue. North of the crossing, the sewer can then be moved to the sidewalk area to facilitate reconnection of sewer services from east side properties and lowered to provide the necessary hydraulic grade line to carry the flow. It will be necessary to reconstruct the sewer to the sewage treatment plant on Creek Road by turning west onto Hill Place and then connecting to the section of the sewer to be lowered under Mill Creek as described previously. The additional length of sewer relocation required under Drainage Alternative IV between Prime Avenue/Madison Street and Mill Creek is 562 m (1843’).

Construction of the box culvert between Prime Avenue and Hill Place will require that a 250 mm (10”) water main be relocated. Since there will be limited space in the sidewalk area due to the sanitary sewer relocation, that can be moved street side of the box culvert. Telephone ducts in the sidewalk area may also need to be relocated. Similar to the area north of Hill Place, the utility poles will need to be relocated to install the box culvert. It is believed that the gas main in the sidewalk area can be maintained in place but extreme care will be required in constructing and relocating the box culvert, sanitary sewer and utility poles in the vicinity. The box culvert crosses gas mains coming from Meadow Lawn Street and Mill Lane and gas main offsets will be required.

Under the maintenance component, it is anticipated that approximately 9.1 m (30’) of 254 mm (10”) water main and 610 mm (24”) sanitary sewer main will require relocation. A 76 mm (3”) gas line was recently abandoned and partially removed.

III.C.2.k. Railroads – There are no railroads within the project area.

III.C.2.l. Right of Way – There are both Fee Acquisitions and Temporary Easements required for each of the feasible alternatives. Permanent easements for creek access for maintenance are included. Highway Alternatives 2 and 3 will each affect 49 roadway abutting properties with either a Temporary Easement (TE) for grading purposes or a minor strip acquisition for roadway widening or corner improvements. Of the affected properties, Highway Alternative 2 will require 8 minor property acquisitions while Highway Alternative 3 will require 10 minor property acquisitions. None of the proposed strip acquisitions are from residential parcels.

Refer to Appendix E for tables showing proposed Right of Way acquisitions and easements for each highway alternative.

III-39 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

III.C.2.m. Landscape Development – Appropriate screening will be provided at the proposed basin site. Additional plantings (street trees, shrubs) and amenities (benches and brick pavers) should be incorporated as possible to enhance community aesthetics. For this project, improvements to aesthetics would be in keeping with community plans to upgrade the Waterfront area in the vicinity of Mill Dam Road. Additional coordination with the Town of Huntington should be conducted in the design stage to further evaluate enhancements and progress of the town. Any proposed landscaping would require a local maintenance agreement.

III.C.2.n. Provisions for Pedestrians, Including Persons with Disabilities – Missing sections of sidewalk will be provided by this project. In addition, sidewalk in poor condition will be repaired. With the presence of the park at Prime Avenue and the marina at Mill Dam Road, high visibility crosswalks should be used in conjunction with crossing lights as appropriate. In addition, pedestrian crosswalks, push buttons and signal heads will be provided at all signalized intersections, and ADA-compliant curb ramps will be provided at all intersection corners.

III.C.2.o. Provisions for Bicycling – Bicycles do not make up a significant percentage of the traffic stream. Bicycles are accommodated in most areas of this project on the shoulder area or in wide lanes adjacent to parking. Bicycle lanes will not be provided as part of this project. Bicycle traffic will continue to be accommodated as it is presently. During the design phase, the installation of reticuline drainage grates along the curb will be assessed, per NYSDOT requirements.

III.C.2.p. Lighting – Based on the accident analysis, which indicates that 28% of the accident occurs at night, the existing lighting system will be assessed. Lighting will be enhanced, as warranted, throughout the project limits, including at crosswalk locations, as noted in Section III.C.2.n, above.

III.D. Project Costs and Schedule

III.D.1. Costs – Estimated project costs are presented in Table III-23.

Table III-23 Estimated Project Costs –Drainage and Highway Alternatives NYS Route 110 Drainage Alternative: Drainage Alternative II Drainage Alternative III Drainage Alternative IV Highway Alternative: Hwy. Alt. 2 Hwy. Alt. 3 Hwy. Alt. 2 Hwy. Alt. 3 Hwy. Alt. 2 Hwy. Alt. 3 Subtotal Construction $12,440,000 $12,810,000 $13,750,000 $14,120,000 $18,280,000 $18,680,000 ROW Costs $7,428,000 $7,565,000 $7,428,000 $7,565,000 $7,428,000 $7,565,000 Total Project Costs $19,868,000 $20,375,000 $21,178,000 $21,685,000 $25,708,000 $26,245,000

This project will be funded with 100% State Dedicated Funds (SDF).

III.D.2. Schedule

Design Approval: February, 2008 PS&E: June, 2009 Letting: September, 2009 Construction Complete: Spring, 2011 III-40 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

CHAPTER IV – SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

IV.A. Introduction

IV.A.1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Class and Lead Agency

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this project would be categorized as a Class III action in accordance with Section 771.115 of 23 CFR 771. However, since this project will be fully funded with State Dedicated Funds (SDF), and federal funding will not be sought nor utilized, most environmental issues that would be addressed under NEPA provisions should be addressed in accordance with SEQR. Therefore a NEPA Classification is not required.

IV.A.2. State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) Type and Lead Agency

This project is classified as a SEQR Non-Type II Action in accordance with 17 NYCRR Part 15. NYSDOT is the SEQR lead agency.

IV.B. Social, Economic and Environmental Consequences

IV.B.1. Social Consequences

IV.B.1.a. Affected Population – The project area is virtually fully developed with a mix of retail, commercial, and residential interests. A total of approximately 60 properties abut the project limits. Retail stores (e.g., food stores, delis, restaurants, gas stations, auto body and repairs, laundry services, florist, veterinarian, video rental, etc.) along with office buildings, marinas/boatyards/yacht sales are distributed throughout the project area. A total of 9 residential properties, in basically groups of three, are present at the south, middle and north end of the project limits. Also, the project area contains a few health/medical related facilities (sleep center/pulmonary rehabilitation, medical & diagnostic center, Helen Keller services for the blind). There are no religious institutions or schools within the project limits.

IV.B.1.b. Local Planning – The need for the project has been identified by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). The project was initiated based on safety needs and frequent flooding occurrences along the project length of Route 110. Meetings regarding the need for the improvements on this roadway have been held with the Town of Huntington and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).

IV.B.1.c. Community Cohesion – Cohesion of a community can be affected by such factors as: (1) isolation of a portion of a neighborhood or ethnic group, (2) changes in a neighborhoods character and stability, (3) effect on tax base and property value, and (4) displacement of families and businesses.

The proposed project is situated in an area that is zoned for, and virtually fully developed with predominately retail and commercial enterprises. The proposed project drainage and highway alternatives would not add any additional roadways or IV-1 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

intersections and as such, would not cause a change in the neighborhood that would isolate one area or ethnic group from another, nor eliminate the shopping or general business stability of the area.

The proposed alternatives would affect fairly similar amounts of adjoining properties. Drainage Alternatives II, III, and IV each require a partial property acquisition from a vacant parcel for the installation of a Stormwater filtration pond. Highway Alternatives 2 and 3 will each affect 49 roadway abutting properties with either a Temporary Easement (TE) for grading purposes or a minor strip acquisition for roadway widening or corner improvements. Of the affected properties, Highway Alternative 2 will require 8 minor property acquisitions while Highway Alternative 3 will require 10 minor property acquisitions. None of the proposed strip acquisitions are from residential parcels (see Section III.C.2.l – Right of Way). In addition, none of the project alternatives will require the displacement or relocation of residents or businesses which would affect the tax base. Therefore, the completed project would not change the existing cohesion of the community.

IV.B.1.d. Changes in Travel Patterns or Accessibility – The proposed project will not entail a rerouting or permanent detour of traffic in the area, nor will it eliminate access from existing side roads. However, for Highway Alternative 3 (roundabout option) it is expected that an adjustment period will be necessary for area traffic to become familiar with this altered intersection travel pattern.

Ultimately, the completed project constructed under any of the proposed Drainage or Highway Alternatives would have no negative long-term impacts on traffic patterns. Therefore, local traffic would benefit through elimination of flooding occurrences and the improved pavement surface. The project also affords pedestrians improved access to neighborhoods and shopping areas through inclusion of continuous sidewalks on both sides of the roadway as well as designated crosswalks. During construction, maintenance and protection of traffic would require the continued use of travel lanes and access to adjoining businesses without detouring traffic away from the project area.

IV.B.1.e. Impacts on School Districts, Recreational Areas, Churches or Businesses – There are no churches or schools within the project area.

None of the proposed project alternatives will require the demolition or relocation of residences, nor will they result in a change to the existing two-way direction of traffic. Therefore, school districts will not suffer any project related loss of tax revenue or will require bus route modifications.

There are three park/recreational areas near or adjacent to the proposed project. These include Heckscher Park (on the extreme south end of the project adjacent to Prime Avenue), Mill Dam Pond Park (approximately 500 m west of the project area off of Mill Dam Road), and the Halesite Marina and Park (located at the extreme north end of the project area). At the Halesite Marina property a temporary easement for grading purposes will be required.

The project area offers access to numerous and varied commercial and retail businesses. None of the proposed drainage or highway build alternatives will require the elimination of structures associated with these enterprises. However, the

IV-2 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

proposed alternatives would affect differing amounts of these properties due to highway widening or corner acquisitions needed for each design (see Section III.C.2.l – Right of Way). Under Highway Alternative 2 a total of 8 properties will be affected. Under Highway Alternative 3 a total of 10 properties will be affected. None of the acquisition areas would impact parking spaces at the associated parcels. Therefore, the required acquisitions under Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 would not be considered to have a significant impact on the affected properties.

IV.B.1.f. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access – Local police and ambulance services do not have building facilities located on Route 110 within the project area.

The Halesite Fire Department is located on the west side of Route 110 at the extreme north end of the project limit, adjacent to the Halesite Marina. However, there are no anticipated requirements for right of way easements or property acquisitions from this facility. In addition, Highway Alternative 3 will be designed to allow fire trucks to negotiate the roundabouts without difficulty. During construction, staging of pavement resurfacing activities in front of the fire house will be conducted so as to allow full time access to the facility.

Therefore, the completed project would not adversely affect Police, Fire Fighting, or Ambulance services. However, these agencies would be notified of construction activities which could cause response delays. The completed project would help these agencies in that redesigned controlled intersections, an improved road surface, and a reduction in the frequency of flooding incidents would improve response times for emergency vehicles.

IV.B.1.g. Impacts on Highway Safety, Traffic Safety and Overall Public Safety – All of the proposed alternatives would improve overall highway and traffic safety in the project area through reduction of roadway flooding, pavement resurfacing, and improved controlled intersections.

Public safety would also be enhanced through inclusion of sidewalks and a greater separation distance between pedestrians and moving traffic (due to inclusion of a designated buffer strip).

IV.B.1.h. General Social Groups Benefited or Harmed –

IV.B.1.h.(1) Effects on Elderly & Disabled Persons – Refer to Section II.C.2.n of this report.

Proposed build alternatives provide for a continuous 1.5 m (5’) wide sidewalk on both sides of Route 110 for the entire length of the project area. ADA-compliant pedestrian access ramps at intersection corners will be provided accordingly. In addition, crosswalks will be provided to add visibility to areas with high pedestrian activity. The crosswalk treatments will help emphasize pedestrian space. Therefore, the project will benefit the elderly and disabled through inclusion of missing sections of sidewalk and repair/replacement of sidewalk that is in poor condition.

IV.B.1.h.(2) Effects on Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups – This project involves the reconstruction of an existing roadway and was initiated based on the need for

IV-3 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

stormwater drainage improvements in a flood prone area. As such, this project will not have a disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effect on minority or low-income populations and, therefore, the intent and principles of Executive Order 12898 concerning Environmental Justice are satisfied. Furthermore, the project is within an area that is not known to have a high percentage of low-income or minority population.

IV.B.2. Economic Consequences

IV.B.2.a. Impacts on Regional and Local Economies – Regional and local economies are affected by such factors as property development, public expenditures, tax revenues, employment opportunities and retail sales. Project impacts on property development are not expected since the project area is virtually fully developed with residential, retail and commercial enterprises. In addition, the proposed project would not preclude development on any remaining vacant lots present in the area. Public expenditure impacts are not anticipated because the project is already funded (100% State funded) and, therefore, would not require additional funding from County, municipal or private sources. Also, the project would not cause a major shift in traffic to a location away from the current shopping areas. Therefore, area businesses would continue to benefit from the sustained presence of patrons needing ready access to goods and services. This, in turn, would help to generate retail sales and tax revenues, and provide employment opportunities. Therefore, the proposed project will not have a negative impact on regional and local economies.

IV.B.2.b. Impacts on Existing Highway / Related Businesses – The proposed project will not require the closing or displacement of businesses and will have a minimal impact on available off-street parking spaces at any given location. Therefore, the completed project is not expected to negatively affect highway related businesses.

With each of the alternatives, adjacent businesses could experience the unavoidable short-term impact of intermittent disruption of access due to such actions as the movement of construction equipment, relocation of traffic barriers, grading and repaving activities. However, long-term construction impacts would be mitigated by implementing a specific Maintenance and Protection of Traffic plan to provide continued access to businesses during the construction period.

IV.B.2.c. Impacts on Established Business Districts – None of the proposed project alternatives will eliminate businesses or change the boundaries of business areas within the project limits. Therefore, neither temporary nor long-term impacts on established business districts are expected to occur.

IV.B.2.d. Relocation Impacts – The project would not require the relocation of businesses or residential dwellings.

IV-4 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

IV.B.3. Environmental Consequences

IV.B.3.a. Surface Waters / Wetlands –

IV.B.3.a.(1) Surface Waters –

(a) Corps of Engineers Permit (Section 404) – This permit is required if there will be impacts to Waters of the United States, including wetlands. The surface waters in or adjacent to the project area include Mill Dam Creek, Mill Dam Pond, Huntington Harbor and the pond in Heckscher Park. There will be no impacts from this project to Mill Dam Pond or the pond in Heckscher Park. Huntington Harbor will not be impacted, except by the installation of a box culvert under Mill Dam Road, adjacent to the existing elliptical drain pipe. It must be recognized, however, that Mill Dam Pond and its outflow channel from the pond to Mill Dam Road at Huntington Harbor (including a small portion of Mill Dam Creek) are mapped as NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands, as well as Tidal Wetlands. Impacts to tidal wetlands will typically require approval from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The waters of Huntington Harbor are classified as Class SA Saline Surface Waters, whose best usages are shellfishing for market purposes, primary and secondary contact recreation and fishing. The waters shall be suitable for fish propagation and survival. The remaining waters in the project area, including the waters of Mill Dam Creek, are classified as Class C Fresh Surface Waters, whose best usage is fishing. The waters shall be suitable for fish propagation and survival. The water quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for these purposes . The general quality and characteristics of the water bodies within the project area were evaluated during the previously completed ecological assessment activities and are discussed above in Section II.C.1.y. (Environmental Integration) and below in Section IV.B.3.c. (General Ecology and Wildlife).

Reconstruction of the Route 110 roadway itself will not result in impacts to wetlands or Waters of the United States. However, installation of any of the proposed drainage alternatives will require USACE permits for maintenance (sediment/debris removal) of the stream channel (NW#3 permit), repair/ replacement of outfall structures and discharge of stormwater (NW#7), and relocation of utilities (NW#12 permit). If Drainage Alternative II is selected, the portion of Mill Dam Creek between Mill Lane and Hill Place would be re-graded and widened to accommodate the stormwater flow. This action will likely require a USACE Section 404 Individual permit for the impacts to the wetlands and Waters of the United States. In fact, a Section 404 Individual permit may be necessary for any of the proposed drainage alternatives, depending on the length of the stream channel to be cleaned of sediment and debris. The NW#3 permit typically limits the length of channel that can be maintained/cleaned under that approval. The required permits and approvals will be reviewed with the Agency during pre-application meetings.

The implementation of Drainage Alternative II would result in removal of tree canopy along portions of the creek between Mill Lane and Hill Place, due to the proposed widening to accommodate the increased stormwater flow. This could

IV-5 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

result in an increase in the water temperature of the creek, which is not beneficial for aquatic life. Therefore, an assessment of the existing tree canopy should be conducted to identify trees that could be left in place given the proposed widening of the creek. In addition, restoration of the banks of the widened creek should be undertaken with the planting of native tree species to allow for an increase in shading of the water in the future.

All of the proposed drainage alternatives include one or more new stormwater discharge outlets to Mill Dam Creek. The proposed filtration pond and forebay on the former Naval Reserve property are common to all drainage alternatives and will discharge the treated water to the creek. This drainage feature will improve the water quality of the creek by removing sediments and pollutants prior to discharge to the creek. Drainage Alternative II also will require the installation of a new culvert along Creek Road for high flow conditions, which would discharge to the creek adjacent to the existing culvert beneath Creek Road. Alternatives III and IV would require the installation of a new culvert through the former Naval Reserve property which would discharge to the creek under high flow conditions that could not entirely be accommodated by the proposed forebay and filtration pond. All of the proposed stormwater outlets will be designed to minimize erosion and sedimentation within the creek channel at the discharge points.

(b) Water Quality Certificate – A Water Quality Certificate approval is required for any federal permit activity that may result in a discharge into Waters of the United States. The Water Quality Certificate approval must be issued by the NYSDEC, whereupon the Department will place conditions and specific requirements for the proposed activities. The Water Quality Certificate must be obtained before the federal permits are issued.

(c) Protection of Bed and Banks of Streams – Article 15 – Title 5 of the Environmental Conservation Law typically requires permitting for the proposed disturbance of streams with certain surface water classifications. However, NYSDOT actions are exempt (pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding) and do not require permitting from the NYSDEC in regard to this issue. In lieu of permitting, coordination with NYSDEC is typically required to ensure that the proposed project complies with water quality standards and does not adversely impact the aquatic habitat. The classification of Mill Dam Creek as a Class C Stream will be confirmed to determine if this requirement will apply to the proposed project.

IV.B.3.a.(2) Wetlands –

(a) Tidal Wetlands. The portion of Mill Dam Creek from Creek Road to just south of the existing tide gate presently functions as a tidal wetland even though it is considered a freshwater wetland by the NYSDEC. This situation is attributed to the non-functional state of the existing tide gates. The non-functional tide gates allow tidal water to enter the creek and restrict the outward flow. A significant amount of silt and trash has built up in the creek bed from storm runoffs, reducing the capacity of the stream and limiting its value as a wetland.

IV-6 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Under all three Drainage alternatives, the existing non-functional tide gates will be replaced with modern low head-loss tide gates. Furthermore, culvert capacity through this section will be increased and the stream cleaned and restored back to the grades shown on record in plans for the Drainage Improvement on Route 110 State Highway 794 in the Town of Huntington, Suffolk County, Contract D251115 (1988 Letting).

Under all three Drainage alternatives, this section of Mill Dam Creek will return to its Freshwater wetlands status with improved flow capacity during storm events.

The tidal wetlands, as well as the non-tidal wetlands, were delineated within the project area in October 2006. A Draft Wetlands Report was prepared, as required, and submitted to NYSDOT for review in December 2006. The delineation activities identified tidal wetlands along the northern portion of Mill Dam Creek, and non-tidal wetlands along and adjacent to the southern portion of the creek. Based on the NYSDEC Tidal Wetland Maps, Mill Dam Pond and its outflow channel from the Pond to Mill Dam Road at Huntington Harbor, including a small portion of Mill Dam Creek, are mapped as NYSDEC FC (formerly connected) Tidal Wetlands. They are also mapped as Freshwater Wetlands. Although there is little vegetation found within the tidal zone of the creek, the tidal condition of this portion of the creek channel was confirmed during the wetland delineation field activities. In fact, the creek appears to be tidally influenced upstream to at least the Creek Road culvert.

Impacts to tidal wetlands will require approval from the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, for discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. NYSDEC also regulates tidal wetlands under Article 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law (Tidal Wetlands Act). A permit is required from NYSDEC for most activities that alter tidal wetlands or the adjacent areas. The regulated activities will likely include the proposed maintenance/cleaning of the sediments from the channel of the creek, the installation of the new tide gate, the installation of the proposed box culverts, and the placement of erosion control rip-rap at the discharge point of the proposed culverts. Impacts to the tidal wetlands will be minimized to the greatest extent possible and will involve only those areas that are necessary to complete the proposed drainage improvements for this project.

(b) Freshwater Wetlands. A significant amount of silt and trash has built up in the creek bed from storm runoffs, reducing the capacity of the stream and limiting its value as a wetland. Common to all Drainage Alternatives, the stream will be cleaned and restored back to the grades shown on record in plans for the Drainage Improvement on Route 110 State Highway 794 in the Town of Huntington, Suffolk County, Contract D251115 (1988 Letting).

Drainage Alternative II differs from the other Drainage Alternatives in that the stream will be widened from Mill Lane to Hill Place. Widening of the stream will result in impacts to the delineated wetlands located adjacent to the existing stream channel. However, the effects of the impacts can be mitigated and the impacted wetlands can be enhanced through removal of the existing invasive species, primarily phragmites reed, and replanting of the floodplain with native wetland species. In addition, an off-line trash rack may be considered to redirect

IV-7 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

and collect floatables/debris in an area that is easily accessible by maintenance crews.

(c) Executive Order 11990. Executive Order 11990 mandates that projects funded with federal monies avoid impacting wetlands during construction unless there is no practical alternative to that construction. This project is being funded solely with state funds; therefore compliance with Executive Order 11990 is not required. However, it is the practice of the NYSDOT to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands to the greatest extent practical, as required by the USACE Section 404 and NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands permits.

IV.B.3.a.(3) Coastal Zone – Each alternative is consistent with actions to “further the revitalization of urban waterfront areas.” The primary goal of the project is to reduce flooding and alleviate other safety concerns along the primary roadway. The frequent existing floods have created a safety situation for the community near the harbor area. The project addresses the flooding and drainage problems while adhering to NYSDEC’s New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual to ensure good engineering practices. A completed New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) Coastal Assessment Form (CAF) is provided in Appendix K.

(a) Coastal Zone Management. A review of the 44 New York State Department of State Coastal Zone Consistency policies has identified that Policies 1, 8, 33, 37, 38, and 44 are applicable to the proposed project.

Policy 1 - Restore, revitalize, and redevelop deteriorated and underutilized waterfront areas for commercial, industrial, cultural, recreational, and other compatible uses.

During and shortly after storm events, public and commercial access to some waterfront resources is severely restricted. The project addresses the chronic stormwater flooding attributed to the existing inadequate drainage system by increasing drainage capacity.

In addition, the proposed forebay and filtration pond to be located on a portion of the former United States Navy and Marine Corps Reserves site, which is currently vacant, provides an opportunity to establish a passive recreation area east of Mill Pond, which would nicely compliment the active recreation of Mill Dam Town Park to the west of Mill Pond. Amenities at this area could include walking paths, park bench rest stops and a foot bridge associated with a landscaped pond-like basin. The area needed for the forebay and filtration pond is expected to be about 0.75 ha (1.88 ac) of the overall approximate 1.62 ha (4 acre) parcel located on Route 110, between Creek Road and Mill Dam Road.

The proposed project, therefore, is consistent with the policy by improving access to waterfront areas and providing an additional recreational area.

Policy 8 - Protect fish and wildlife resources in the coastal area from the introduction of hazardous wastes and other pollutants which bio-accumulate in the food chain or which cause significant sublethal or lethal effect on those resources.

IV-8 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

The proposed Drainage Alternatives use the latest accepted drainage practices (i.e. Best Management Practices (BMPs) with a forebay and filtration pond) to repair, rehabilitate, and improve the existing substandard drainage system. The project will address the stormwater runoff that represents the most important contributing factor to the overall water quality degradation according to the Town of Huntington’s Local Waterfront Revitalization program for Huntington Bay, 2000 and is, therefore, consistent with the policy.

Policy 33 - Best management practices will be used to ensure the control of stormwater runoff and combined sewer overflows draining into coastal waters.

Use of a forebay and filtration pond is a best management practice for treating stormwater runoff according to the NYSDEC Stormwater Management Manual, and is in compliance with the intent of the policy.

Policy 37 - Best management practices will be utilized to minimize the non-point discharge of excess nutrients, organics and eroded soils into coastal waters.

Policy 38 - The quality and quantity of surface water and groundwater supplies, will be conserved and protected, particularly where such waters constitute the primary or sole source of water supply.

The proposed forebay and filtration pond will provide an opportunity for improving the quality and quantity of recharge to the groundwater supply and is consistent with the policy. The use of a forebay and filtration pond will allow for capture of the “first flush” of stormwater particulates and pollutants, the majority of which can be removed from the forebay during routine maintenance activities to improve water quality.

Policy 44 - Preserve and protect tidal and freshwater wetlands and preserve the benefits derived from these areas.

Silt buildup, debris, and the failure of various existing drainage facilities over time has resulted in adverse impacts to the functions and values of the wetlands within the project area. The project will result in an improvement to the quality of the wetlands within the project area by enhancing the functions and values of the wetlands. Therefore, the project is consistent with the policy.

(b) Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act. The Project, in addition to being consistent with the New York State’s Coastal Zone Consistency Policies, is also consistent with and advances local waterfront revitalization programs such as the Town of Huntington Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) for Huntington Harbor, April 2000.

In accordance with NYSDOT’s policy of using Best Management Practices, the proposed Drainage Alternatives incorporates the latest accepted drainage

IV-9 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

practices (i.e. Best Management Practices (BMPs) with a forebay and filtration pond) to repair, rehabilitate, and improve the existing substandard drainage system. Stormwater runoff was identified as the most important contributing factor to the overall water quality degradation according to the Town of Huntington’s Local Waterfront Revitalization program for Huntington Bay, 2000.

Silt buildup, debris, and the failure of various existing drainage facilities over time have resulted in adverse impacts to the functions and values of the wetlands within the project area. Further improving to the water quality, the project will restore and enhance the functions and values of the wetlands within the project area.

The project makes efficient use of the existing infrastructure, enhances community character and preserves open space by providing an opportunity for a public park-like amenity, and provides greater access to coastal locations. Access to the harbor will be enhanced through proposed mitigations to the existing traffic congestion and address safety concerns by improving intersections and pedestrian facilities. The project improves, adds to, and completes the network of sidewalks along Route 110 which lead to and allows access to the harbor area.

IV.B.3.a.(4) Navigable Waters – There are no Navigable Waters affected by this project.

IV.B.3.a.(5) Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers – There are no Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers located within the project limits.

IV.B.3.a.(6) Flood Plains – A review of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program indicates that Route 110 within the project area lies within Flood Zone X. This area is designated as areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood. The portion of Mill Dam Creek between Mill Dam Road and Creek Road is designated as Zone AE, an area within the 100-year flood zone with a base flood elevation of 12 feet.

Due to practical considerations, the Route 110 roadway itself and Mill Dam Creek cannot avoid being located within the specified flood zones. However, due to the drainage improvements being at or below grade and a minimal amount of pavement raising being conducted none of the proposed improvements will cause impediments to area tidal flooding or change existing harbor flow characteristics. Therefore, the proposed project should not have a negative impact to existing floodplain characteristics.

IV.B.3.b. Water Source Quality –

IV.B.3.b.(1) Groundwater – The project is located in the Nassau/Suffolk Sole Source Aquifer System. Two aquifers provide drinking water to the project area, the Magothy and Lloyd Aquifers. A third aquifer, the Glacial Aquifer, is the topmost aquifer, but is contaminated and not suitable for drinking water. Two public wells have been identified by the project through the Suffolk County Water Authority. Both wells, identified as Mill Lane #14 (USGS 405247073252301 S-8.1) and Mill Lane

IV-10 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

#15 (USGS 45246073252301 S-26681.1), are located in a Suffolk County Water Authority building on the northwest corner of Mill Lane and New York Avenue (Route 110). The depths of the well are 468 feet and 600 feet below sea level, respectively, completely in the Lloyd Aquifer. Chloride concentration from both wells ranged between 6.8 and 8.3 mg/l, well below the EPA drinking water standard of 250 mg/l.

The NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM) Chapter 4.4, Water and Ecology – Aquifers, contains screening procedures to determine whether a project groundwater quality assessment is warranted. The project is located within a sole source aquifer region. The following categories of work require Federal Sole Source Aquifer Section 1424(e) review by FHWA and USEPA pursuant to Executive Order 12372: ● add through-traffic lanes, interchanges or rotaries on existing roadways; ● construct two or more lanes on new alignment interchanges; ● construction of rest areas with on-site sewage disposal facilities; ● or otherwise significantly worsen ground water quality.

Highway Alternative 3 proposes the replacement of two existing signalized intersections at Creek Road and Mill Dam Road/Abbott Drive with roundabouts.

A Toler analysis was conducted to ensure compliance with the NYSDEC Identified Primary Water Supply Aquifer and Principal Aquifer Area program. However, the actual differences in roadway surfaces between all alternatives are insignificant. Based on the 2006-2007 annual pump rate of 154.0 million gallons per year for the two wells, 1.80 lane-miles within the project area, and a NYSDOT Region 10 annual salt application rate of 10 tons per lane-mile, a conservative estimate of the chloride concentration using the Toler analysis is 15 parts per million (ppm) for all future alternatives including the No-Build Alternative. This chloride concentration level of 15 ppm would be well below the EPA drinking water limit of 250 ppm.

The Drainage Alternatives contain plans to rehabilitate and improve the flow in Mill Creek, which runs just west of the SCWA Mill Lane pump station. Therefore, impacts to the groundwater quality, if any, are expected to be beneficial.

IV.B.3.b.(2) Surface Water – Storm runoff from the Route 110 reconstruction is collected and drains into the Mill Dam Creek. The total roadway surface area is approximately 0.0085 square miles. Under all Highway Alternatives, the proposed change in roadway surface area is insignificant. Consequently, there are no discernable differences between the No-Build and the Highway Build Alternatives with respect to roadway surface area. A Toler analysis was conducted to estimate the relative chloride levels as a result of the project. The estimated storm water runoff chloride level under the Existing, No-Build Alternative, and Build Highway Alternatives scenarios are 397 mg/l, based on a NYSDOT Region 10 annual salt application rate of 10 tons per lane-mile and a total of approximately 1.8 lane- miles. Because no additional travel lanes are planned for the proposed actions, additional salt is not needed under the Build Highway Alternatives.

Furthermore, an environmental treatment/filtration basin is proposed at the northwest corner of Route 110 and Creek Road as common element to all Build

IV-11 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Alternatives. The environmental treatment/filtration basin, adhering to the criteria listed in NYSDEC’s New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, serves to detain storm water during storm events, facilitating flood, erosion, and sedimentation control. It will reduce debris entering the waterway and provide a measure of defense against accidental hazardous material spills, improving water quality.

Similarly, all Drainage Alternatives propose cleaning and restoring Mill Dam Creek back to the proposed grades shown on the record plans for the Drainage Improvement on Route 110 State Highway 794 in the Town of Huntington, Suffolk County, Contract D251115, (1988 Letting). The improved flow and capacity will better enhance the function of the stream and improve surface water quality.

The FHWA Highway Runoff Pollutants Loading program, PLOAD, was employed to assess the watershed pollutant loading within the project area. The project does not propose any significant changes to the watershed, but rather how to manage the actual runoff. Consequently, the project will not alter the existing pollutant loading. For informational purposes the results of the PLOAD are presented in Table IV-1.

Table IV-1 Highway Runoff Pollutants Loading Program Results NYS Route 110 Project Watershed Effluent Effluent Standards Class Field Sample Concentrations – D* (nonpotable) Concentrations (1) PLOAD Surface Waters (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) BOD 8.8 NA NS Suspended Solids, Total 86.0 NA NS Nitrogen, Total 1.5 10.0 4.2 Phosphorus, Total 0.283 20.0 0.039 Copper 0.03 NA 0.0 Lead 0.091 NA M Zinc 0.142 NA 30 Notes: (1) Mill Creek USGS01303600 (aka Mill Dam Creek) April 19, 1972. “M” – Presence of Material verified, but not quantified. NA = Not Applicable NS = Not Sampled * = The best usage of Class D waters is fishing. Due to such natural conditions as intermittency of flow, water conditions not conducive to propagation of game fishery, or stream bed conditions, the waters will not support fish propagation. These waters shall be suitable for fish survival. The water quality shall be suitable for primary and secondary contact recreation, although other factors may limit the use for these purposes

The project drainage system design already incorporated the Best Management Practice to minimize any impact the project runoff may have on surface water quality. During construction, available mitigation measures will be implemented to protect surface waters.

NYSDOT projects are governed by the “MOU between NYSDOT and NYSDEC

IV-12 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Regarding the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity, GP-02-01”, June 10, 2003. Since the disturbed area is expected to exceed 1 acre, a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan must be developed, outlining how the surrounding environment is to be protected from storm water discharges from construction activities as per GP-02-01. The Stormwater Management Guidelines for New Development and the Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines, as outlined in the NYSDOT EPM Appendix 4D and 4E, will be followed. Impacts during construction to surface waters are expected to be temporary and insignificant assuming NYSDEC guidance and good engineering practices and procedures are followed.

IV.B.3.c. General Ecology and Wildlife –

IV.B.3.c.(1) Critical Environmental Areas Critical Environmental Areas – Based on a review of the NYSDEC website and conversations with local authorities in the Town of Huntington, there are no Critical Environmental Areas (CEA) within the proposed project area.

IV.B.3.c.(2) Fish and Wildlife – The ecological assessment conducted for the project area revealed that Mill Dam Creek is utilized by typical urban species of birds, mammals and fish. The aquatic habitat observed appeared to be of limited quality, with small schools of minnows being the only aquatic life observed in the tidal creek channel. Birds utilize the adjacent wetlands and narrow riparian corridor along the creek, and waterfowl were present in the tidal section of the creek. Waterfowl, as well as wading birds and shorebirds, were more numerous in the nearby water bodies of Mill Dam Pond and the main body of Huntington Harbor, which are beyond the limits of the proposed project. Common urban mammals, such as raccoons and squirrels, were also found to be present in the riparian corridor of Mill Dam Creek. These species may be temporarily affected during construction activities, but they are expected to return when construction is complete. Construction activities would include accepted soil erosion/sediment control measures to limit entrainment of silt in the water column and off-site transport. The project will result in improved water quality in Mill Dam Creek by removal of the existing accumulated sediments and reducing the stormwater sediment loading via the proposed water quality improvement features (forebay and filtration pond) to be installed as part of the drainage improvements.

IV.B.3.c.(3) Forest Preserve Lands – There are no Forest Preserve Lands on the project site.

There is little vegetation within the project limits along the Route 110 roadway area and the limited extent of the proposed road reconstruction activities will result in the removal of very little vegetation. The proposed drainage improvements will result in the removal of trees in the area of the town-owned property (former Naval Reserve site) where the proposed water quality improvement features (forebay and filtration pond) are to be installed as part of the drainage improvements. However, many of the trees present are typical of urban or disturbed environments, including Norway maple, box elder, tree-of- heaven and white mulberry. There also are a limited number of native tree species, including white ash, black cherry and northern red oak. Removal of a limited number of trees in this area will not result in a significant adverse impact. Depending on the final number of trees removed and the species involved,

IV-13 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

restoration/re-planting of trees along the border of the areas to be disturbed will be evaluated.

If Drainage Alternative II is selected, the portion of Mill Dam Creek between Mill Lane and Hill Place would be re-graded and widened to accommodate the stormwater flow. This would require the removal of the existing trees along this portion of the creek. The species in this sparsely wooded area include Norway maple, red maple, box elder, American elm, silver maple, white ash, catalpa, tree-of-heaven and other ornamentals. Dense stands of common reed (Phragmites sp.) are also present in this delineated wetland area, which have crowded out the few remaining native herbaceous species, including jewelweed. Removal of these invasive stands of common reed would offer the potential for restoration of native wetland vegetation along the re-graded creek channel.

There is an NYSDEC forested wetland area located to the west of Creek Road. NYSDEC wetlands have a 100-foot buffer zone associated with them for protection of the wetland resources. If Drainage Alternative II is selected, the portion of Mill Dam Creek between Mill Lane and Hill Place would be re-graded and widened to accommodate the stormwater flow and a box culvert would be installed along a portion of Hill Place and Creek Road for high flow conditions. It is anticipated that the proposed activities will be outside of the 100-foot wetland buffer zone. However, based on the final design and location of the disturbed areas, the potential impacts to the wetland buffer zone and need for permitting and mitigation will be evaluated.

IV.B.3.c.(4) Endangered Species (Federal) – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was contacted to obtain information on Endangered and Threatened species in the project area pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In correspondence dated November 1, 2006, the USFWS office in Islip, New York indicated that “except for occasional transient individuals, no Federally-listed or proposed endangered or threatened species under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are known to exist within the project impact area. In addition, no habitat in the above described project impact area is currently designated or proposed “critical habitat” in accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act .” Consequently, no further coordination or consultation with the USFWS is required. In addition, no indication of endangered or threatened species or their habitat was observed during the field wetland delineation or ecological assessment activities.

A copy of the USFWS correspondence is included in Appendix J.

IV.B.3.c.(5) Endangered Species (State) – The NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program in Albany, New York was contacted to obtain information on Endangered and Threatened species in the project area pursuant to Article 11 of the Environmental Conservation Law. In correspondence dated October 30, 2006, the Natural Heritage Program provided information from its database. The historical records from the database indicate that Seabeach knotweed (Polygonum glaucum) , considered rare in New York, was identified in the vicinity of the project area in 1979, but has not been documented since that time. However, if there is suitable habitat for this plant within the project area, the potential exists that it may still occur there. The suitable habitat for Seabeach

IV-14 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

knotweed is a sandy beach area. While there may be suitable habitat for this species on portions of the beachfront of Huntington Harbor, on the north side of Mill Dam Road, no suitable habitat exists within the project area. The proposed discharge location for the stormwater aspects of this project is adjacent to the existing culvert location beneath Mill Dam Road. This portion of Huntington Harbor is bulkheaded and there are no beaches located in the discharge area. Consequently, no impacts to any rare (or T&E) species are anticipated from the proposed project.

A copy of the NYSDEC correspondence is included in Appendix J.

IV.B.3.c.(6) Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges – There are no Wildlife or Waterfowl Refuges within the proposed project area.

IV.B.3.d. Historical and Cultural Resources – Conversations were held with the State Museum about the original Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report and what the Area of Potential Effect (APE) was for the original survey. In addition, the historic maps for potential Mapped Documented Structures (MDS) in the areas of concerns were reviewed. The impacts are in already disturbed areas of that have been impacted over time and have lost integrity. The existing stream has previously been reshaped by NYSDOT, the proposed culvert is to be placed in previously disturbed roadway sections, and the filtration pond is located in the area previously disturbed by the U.S. Navy's site development. When the buildings and pavements were removed all above ground integrity was lost, and conversion to a parking lot destroyed all below ground archeological integrity.

Therefore the additional work is consistent with the State Historic Preservation Office’s (SHPO's) May 30, 2000 finding letter of No Adverse Impact on Historic Resources (see Appendix J). Based on project modifications proposed since the original Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report, an addendum to the report is being prepared, the findings of which will be included in the Final DR/EA.

IV.B.3.e. Visual Resources – The project area is fully developed with a mixture of retail, commercial, and residential interests and does not have view sheds of particular concern. Project alternatives will not greatly change the general characteristics of the area and, therefore, are not considered to result in significant adverse changes to the existing visual environment of the area.

If Highway Alternative 3 (Roundabouts) is selected, the pavement edge would be roughly 20 meters closer to the front of the American Legion Post 360 building. The existing flagpole, various landscape shrubs and a portion of the existing (out-of- service) asphalt drive would be removed. To lessen the impact of the proposed roadway, Post 360 should be contacted during final design to identify a suitable location on the site to relocate the flagpole. The Hale Monument would be relocated under either Highway Alternative. The Town of Huntington should be consulted to identify a suitable location for the monument under either of the Highway Alternatives.

IV.B.3.f. Parks and Recreational Facilities – Heckscher Park is located at the southern terminus of the project area. This town park contains Heckscher Pond and surrounding park facilities. Heckscher Pond is the primary source of the water that

IV-15 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

drains to Mill Dam Creek. The proposed roadway improvements include only temporary easements within the border of Halesite Town Marina and Park, along portions of the existing road. In fact, the existing roadway currently occupies a small portion of the Park’s edge, but no additional widening of the road is proposed in this area. No impacts are proposed within Halesite Town Park. Mill Dam Town Park is located to the west of the project area, adjacent to Mill Dam Road. There are no proposed project activities within or adjacent to Mill Dam Park. Halesite Town Marina and Park and Halesite Town Park are both located to the north of the project area, on the eastern shoreline of Huntington Harbor. The proposed roadway and drainage improvements do not include any activities within or impacts to these parks. There may be temporary delays in access to the parks and recreational areas during construction, but the maintenance and protection of traffic will be a priority issue during the construction activities to ensure that access is available.

IV.B.3.g. Farmland Assessment – The project is not within a New York State Agricultural District. The project will have no effect on any active farmlands.

IV.B.3.h. Air, Noise and Energy –

IV.B.3.h.(1) Air Quality – A CO or PM2.5 analysis was not required for this project per analysis using the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM) Chapter 1.2 (Air Quality). No hotspot analysis for CO and PM2.5 will be required to meet transportation conformity.

The subject project has not been classified as a Type II Action as defined and listed in the NYSDOT SEQR regulations provided as 17 NYCRR §15.14(d) & (e), but has been determined to result in no increased traffic volumes. The subject project actions do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on particulate matter (PM) emissions. It can therefore be concluded that the project will have no significant adverse impact on ambient PM levels.

A carbon monoxide (CO) air quality analysis is not necessary since this 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.

The project has been included in the current 2006-2010 TIP, but the project is exempt from regional emission analysis because it is safety-related (Category A2). The Project will be fully funded by New York State. The project also does not meet the thresholds that would require an Energy Analysis of a Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) analysis.

IV.B.3.h.(2) Noise – This project is not a proposed federally funded highway project for construction of a highway on a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through-traffic lanes. As such, according to the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Regulation (23 CFR 772) this project does not meet the criteria of a Type I noise project and, therefore, does not require a noise analysis to be conducted.

IV-16 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

IV.B.3.h.(3) Energy – Energy use is considered in terms of fuel consumed by vehicles using the subject facility (direct energy impacts) and fuel required by equipment to construct and maintain the facility (indirect energy impacts).

This project will not result in an increase in the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), generate additional vehicle trips, significantly affect land use development patterns, or result in a significant shift in travel patterns. The project would generally reduce congestion related delays on Route 110 at the Mill Dam Road intersection that would result in incrementally improved operating efficiencies as measured by average miles traveled per gallon of gasoline consumed. Therefore, the project would have a beneficial impact on direct regional energy resources.

Construction of the project would require the utilization of energy; however, there is negligible difference in the energy requirements of the various options (i.e., the energy requirements of various construction alternatives are similar). Therefore, the alternatives presently under consideration would have a negligible impact on the indirect energy usage of the region.

IV.B.3.i. Contaminated Materials Assessment –

IV.B.3.i.(1) Asbestos – The removal and disposal of asbestos containing materials (ACM) is not anticipated for this project, as there will be no demolition of any buildings required. However, a screening for ACM should be done during final design. The screening will include an assessment for ACM in the utilities that are impacted/replaced during construction.

IV.B.3.i.(2) Hazardous Waste – A hazardous material screening investigation was performed to determine the potential for properties/locations in the project area, which are intended to undergo acquisition and/or excavation, to be impacted with toxic or hazardous materials. The results of this study were used to recommend locations where hazardous materials investigations are deemed to be necessary. Such investigations are typically referred to as Phase II investigations, and include the collection and laboratory analysis of soil and/or groundwater samples to determine if specialized handling and/or disposal of soils and groundwater from project activities are necessary. Sampling results are also used to determine what degree of worker and public health and safety precautions should be employed during construction activities. Sites were evaluated for environmental concern based on the primary criteria of:

1. Known or suspected presence of hazardous materials identified by historical or present land use or documented environmental concerns, and the nature of those concerns; 2. Location of anticipated work areas, and their proximity to areas where hazardous or toxic materials (e.g., physical proximity) were identified or suspected; 3. Quantity of contaminants released, media impacted, and anticipated direction of groundwater flow.

The hazardous material screening was conducted in accordance with Chapter 5.1 of the Department’s Environmental Procedures Manual through on-site

IV-17 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

inspections in October 2006, review of historical land use records (Sanborn Insurance Maps and Aerial Photographs); Federal, State, and local agency environmental records, including underground storage tank records and hazardous waste incident reports, and other available environmental database records. The hazardous material screening report identified 10 potential Areas of Concern (AOCs) within the project area, which are further discussed below in regard to the potential impacts to the proposed project.

The potential environmental threats to the project area have been identified in this report by address (when available) and/or distance from the project activities. This evaluation has identified 10 AOCs, four of which would involve acquisition and excavation during project activities. To further evaluate the degree of potential risk of these AOCs to project activities relative to soil and/or groundwater quality, each AOC was assigned an impact potential level of either “Low”, “Moderate”, or “High”. This ranking qualifies the level of potential risk to encounter adversely impacted soil and/or groundwater quality within a given area.

Of the 10 AOCs identified, four AOCs with a High potential to adversely impact project activities because of subsurface conditions were identified. The High classification signifies that the proposed construction related activities (for either a highway and/or drainage alternative) have the potential to encounter contaminated (hazardous or toxic) soil or groundwater in the vicinity of these AOCs. Based on this classification, Phase II soil and/or groundwater sampling to the anticipated depth of the proposed work is recommended to characterize the subsurface conditions in the vicinity of these areas. The four AOCs with a High potential to adversely impact project activities are: ● AOC No. 4: Suffolk County Water Authority, Mill Lane, Huntington, NY ● AOC No. 5: Self Storage, 63 New York Avenue, Huntington, NY ● AOC No. 9: Town of Huntington (Former Naval/Maritime Military Facility), 1 New York Avenue, Huntington, NY ● AOC No. 10: Port Dock and Stone, 117 North New York Avenue, Halesite, NY

If the presence of soil and/or groundwater contamination is confirmed during Phase II Investigations, appropriate handling (Health and Safety) of soil and dewatering activities, material disposal, and worker/public safety specifications would be included in the contract documents for the work in these areas. If modifications to the current project design necessitate additional excavation activities in other areas that are adjacent to the identified potential problem areas, the Phase II Investigation should assess the proposed work activities to determine if additional soil or groundwater sampling and analysis are necessary.

The six remaining AOCs are located adjacent to the project work areas, but no acquisition or excavation is currently planned on these properties. Consequently, these six AOCs are considered to have a Moderate potential to adversely impact project activities because of possible migration of contaminants over time and the potential for impacts to subsurface conditions within the project area. The Moderate classification signifies that the proposed construction related activities (for either a highway and/or drainage alternative) may have the potential to encounter contaminated (hazardous or toxic) soil or groundwater from these

IV-18 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

AOCs that may have migrated into the work areas over time. Based on this classification, the AOCs of Moderate risk are: ● AOC No. 1: Manor Parkmore Cleaners, 176 New York Avenue, Huntington, NY ● AOC No. 2: Sunoco Service Station, 160 New York Avenue, Huntington, NY ● AOC No. 3: Former Landfill (CLEARS Designation L-3), currently occupied by Valley Industrial Products, Inc. and Huntington Professional Condominiums, 152 and 120 New York Avenue, Huntington, NY ● AOC No. 6: Former Landfill (CLEARS Designation L-5), currently occupied by King Kullen grocery store, Helen Keller School, M&RC Realty and Coney’s Realty (both boat storage yards), 50, 40, 36, and 32 New York Avenue, Huntington, NY ● AOC No. 7: Former Dump (CLEARS Designation D-9) currently occupied by Habberstad Collision Center (an automobile body repair shop), 50 Creek Road, Huntington, NY ● AOC No. 8: Former Landfill (CLEARS Designation L-8), currently occupied by a boat storage and repair operation, Creek Road, Huntington, NY

These six adjacent AOCs of Moderate risk will be addressed, as necessary, by including appropriate items in the contract/specifications to deal with any contamination issues that may be encountered during construction activities.

IV.B.3.j. Construction Impacts – It is anticipated that the construction activities would take place during normal daytime working hours. Roadway closures, if necessary, would be coordinated with the Town of Huntington. There may be temporary delays along Route 110 and the surrounding roadways during construction, but the maintenance and protection of traffic will be a priority issue during the construction activities.

IV.B.3.j.(1) Borrow Areas – Borrow areas have not been designated at this time. However, based on the small proposed changes in the roadway grades, the amount of borrow material will be a relatively small volume. The contractor will identify potential borrow areas prior to construction.

IV.B.3.j.(2) Spoil Areas – Spoil areas have not been designated at this time. However, based on the small proposed changes in the roadway grades, the amount of spoil material will be a relatively small volume. The contractor will identify potential spoil areas prior to construction. Installation of any of the proposed drainage alternatives will likely result in spoil materials for disposal. If Drainage Alternative II is selected, the portion of Mill Dam Creek between Mill Lane and Hill Place would be re-graded and widened to accommodate the stormwater flow. This would result in additional spoil materials for disposal. Again, the contractor will identify potential spoil areas prior to construction. The spoil areas will be located outside of regulated wetland and open water areas.

IV.B.3.k. Anticipated Permits, Approvals and Coordination –

NYSDEC/USACE Joint Application for Permit: ● Freshwater wetlands ● Tidal water wetlands ● Water Quality Certification

IV-19 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

NYSDEC SPDES: ● Stormwater Discharge from Construction Activities

USACE Permits: ● Section 404 Individual Permit (Drainage Alt II and stream dredging) ● NW#3 – Maintenance ● NW#7 – Outfall Structures ● NW#12 – Utility Line Discharges

New York State Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation: ● SHPO concurrence

New York State Department of State: ● Coastal Zone Consistency

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

IV.B.4.a. Indirect/Secondary Impacts – The project involves the reconstruction of an existing roadway, and improvements to the stormwater drainage system. These improvements to the infrastructure are not expected to induce further development in the area, but rather improve the current deficiencies that exist in these systems to reduce flooding impacts. Furthermore, the project area is nearly fully developed with few remaining undeveloped properties in the area. The proposed stormwater treatment wetlands to be constructed on the former Naval Reserve property will require the use of a portion of this presently undeveloped property in the project area.

As discussed in detail in the April 2000 Local Waterfront Revitalization Program for Huntington Harbor, opportunities exist in and adjacent to the project area to improve the natural and cultural resources of the area. The development of the former Naval Reserve property for public access is discussed, including the use of this site as a “Gateway to the Harbor”. The April 2000 report also discusses the restoration of the harbor waterfront, as well as Mill Dam Pond, including removal of the invasive phragmites reed and construction of walking trails for public access. These types of actions should be considered by local government for the overall enhancement and enjoyment of the natural resources of the harbor area.

IV.B.4.b. Cumulative Impacts – The existing impacts on the built environment include the frequent flooding episodes along Route 110 and their impacts on the local businesses and residences, as well as the resulting difficulty and hazards involved in traveling along this portion of Route 110 during the storm events. Existing impacts to the natural environment include the on-going, long-term impacts to Mill Dam Creek and Huntington Harbor from pollutant and silt-laden stormwaters discharged to the creek. It is evident that the creek has been severely impacted over the years from stormwaters transporting silt and other debris and contaminants. The creek channel is clogged with thick deposits of silt and debris which severely limit its hydraulic capacity. Removal of the silt and debris and installation of the proposed drainage features will improve the natural environment by deepening the creek water column and allowing for more mixing and oxygenation, and by reducing the sediment and pollutant load from future stormwater inputs.

IV-20 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Reconstruction of the proposed roadway will reduce flooding impacts and allow for more efficient transportation through the area, as well as more effective use of the existing residences and businesses in the area. The project will enhance the quality of life for the residents, workers and traveling public within the project area.

Although no other present or proposed nearby projects are known to exist at this time, these improvements may induce current homeowners or business owners to upgrade their properties/structures, since potential flooding impacts will be reduced. The Town of Huntington also may elect to improve or construct new public facilities on town-owned properties, to allow for greater access to and use of the Huntington Harbor waterfront. Potential impacts to the environment from any future projects can be avoided or minimized by proper planning and design.

IV-21 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

CHAPTER V – EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

The proposed project includes three feasible drainage alternatives as well as two feasible highway alternatives, not including No-Build. The drainage alternatives are independent of the highway alternatives. Any of the drainage alternatives could be combined with either highway alternative. Documentation of the evaluation of each alternative is included in the first four chapters of this report. The feasible alternatives, other than No-Build, meet the objectives of this project as discussed in Chapter II of this report. The No-Build alternatives do not meet the project objectives, and are not considered feasible.

Feasible Alternatives are grouped into two categories, Drainage Alternatives and Highway Alternatives. Estimated construction costs are presented Section III.D.1 of this report, and are summarized in Table V-1 below, together with the level of protection against a 10-year and a 5-year storm each Drainage Alternative provides at the low point on Route 110, where flooding has been the most severe. Values shown for the proposed Drainage Alternatives represent estimated depths of expected flooding (in feet) at the Route 110 low point, based on drainage modeling. Negative values indicate that no flooding would be expected to occur.

Table V-1 Comparison of Drainage and Highway Alternatives NYS Route 110 Drainage Alternative: Drainage Alternative II Drainage Alternative III Drainage Alternative IV

Highway Alternative: Hwy. Alt. 2 Hwy. Alt. 3 Hwy. Alt. 2 Hwy. Alt. 3 Hwy. Alt. 2 Hwy. Alt. 3

Subtotal Construction $12,440,000 $12,810,000 $13,750,000 $14,120,000 $18,280,000 $18,680,000

ROW Costs $7,428,000 $7,565,000 $7,428,000 $7,565,000 $7,428,000 $7,565,000

Total Project Costs $19,868,000 $20,375,000 $21,178,000 $21,685,000 $25,708,000 $26,245,000

Est. Flooding (10-yr. storm) -0.03 ft. 2.04 ft. 2.00 ft.

Est. Flooding (5-yr. storm) -0.86 ft. 1.20 ft. 1.13 ft.

All feasible Drainage Alternatives have various elements in common, including maintenance and repair of existing culverts and streambed (silt removal and re-grading), repair of tide gates and installation of an additional tide gate, removal of creek constriction caused by partially collapsed culvert at Hill Place, relocation of sewer lines to allow unimpeded flow within creek, and installation of watertight manhole covers on existing culvert beneath Route 110.

Due to these common design elements all Drainage Alternatives would have similar impacts to surface waters, as the creek will be cleaned of sediment and debris and re-graded under all alternatives. However, the impacts will be temporary and are expected to benefit the creek long-term. In regard to stormwater impacts, the benefits of the Forebay/Filtration Pond outweigh any adverse impacts, because this BMP setup will capture sediments and pollutants that now are discharged directly into the creek via storm drains and overland flow. Therefore, stormwater impacts will be reduced and surface water quality will be improved by use of these BMP features.

V-1 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

Drainage Alternative II will have the greatest initial impact on the wetlands in the area between Mill Lane and Hill Place with the widening of the creek. This widening will impact the existing, low quality wetlands immediately adjacent to both sides of the creek in this area. However, although some wetlands will be lost via the creek widening, the overall impacts are expected to be positive with improvements made to the creek border, with restoration and plantings of native vegetation to stabilize the shoreline of the creek.

In summary, all of the Drainage Alternatives are expected to have long-term positive benefits to stormwater, surface water and wetlands due to the proposed stream cleaning and installation of the Forebay/Filtration Pond BMP features.

The two Highway Alternatives are not expected to have significant variation in terms of impacts to stormwater, surface water or wetlands. There is little difference in new impervious surface between the two, and stormwater runoff from each alternative will be treated in the Forebay/Filtration Pond BMP. Both Highway Alternatives will result in improved treatment of stormwater, improved surface water quality and no direct impacts to wetlands.

The preferred drainage alternative is Alternative II, the only feasible drainage alternative which is expected to eliminate flooding at the Route 110 low point between Hill Place and Creek Road for the five and ten year storm events, according to drainage modeling. Since Drainage Alternative II utilizes the creek to carry the flow between Mill Lane and Hill Place, it minimizes the physical length of major culvert to be constructed. Therefore, the construction cost is lower than the other alternatives. In addition, culvert construction on Creek Road will have less impact on utilities, traffic, and businesses than construction on Route 110.

The preferred highway alternative will be determined following the public hearing process. As discussed in Section III.C.1.b.(4) of this report, an option to implement a continuous two-way left turn lane from Prime Avenue to Hill Place was evaluated and is feasible. The continuous two- way left turn lane option is recommended as the preferred action under both feasible highway alternatives, since it is expected to increase safety and improve access along this portion of Route 110, without additional construction cost.

V-2 October 2007 Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment PIN 0112.52

CHAPTER VI – PROJECT COORDINATION

A Public Information/Scoping Center Open House was held in May 2003 in Huntington to present alternatives and discuss the project with the public, and to circulate opinion surveys. Comments and survey results were received from the public both at and subsequent to the Open House. Some of the key results of these comments are as follows: ● The majority of attendees expressed the opinion that the drainage improvements are needed, and that treatment of highway runoff is an important issue. ● The majority of attendees believed that traffic pattern improvements are needed in the area between Creek Road and Mill Dam Road. ● Nearly a 3 to 1 majority felt that roundabouts would improve traffic conditions as well as the character of the roadway and surrounding area.

Additionally, an Open Forum/Public Hearing has been scheduled for November, 2007. Refined studies and displays will be made available for review by the public, and knowledgeable NYSDOT and consultant staff will be available to discuss project features. Additional public comments will be sought and documented.

The following is a list of agencies that will participate in the Advisory Agency Review process: ● NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) ● U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ● NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) ● Suffolk County Department of Planning ● Suffolk County Department of Public Works ● Town of Huntington

The Preferred Alternative will require additional consultation with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for required permitting.

Additionally, coordination will be required with utility companies to coordinate relocation and protection requirements.

VI-1