public involvement plan - erdman anthony g.pdfpublic involvement plan schedule of milestone dates...

APPENDIX G

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN

MEETING MINUTES, STAKEHOLDER & PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE

January 2011 Appendix G PIN 6754.12

G-1

Public Involvement Plan This Public Involvement (PI) Plan has been prepared and conducted in general accordance with the NYSDOT Project Development Manual (PDM) Appendix 2: Public Involvement Manual. G.1. Project Information G.1.1. Project Identification

Center at Horseheads Connector Road PIN: 6754.12 Chemung County Town and Village of Horseheads

G.1.2. Initial Project Proposal (IPP) An Initial Project Proposal (IPP) has not been prepared for the project. The Center at Horseheads Highway Corridor Analysis (2006) is considered the scoping report for this project and is available for review. G.1.3 Project Type This PI is for a highway project in an underdeveloped urban area. This project involves construction of a connector road between Route 13 and Old Ithaca Road in the Town and Village of Horseheads. A new bridge over Newtown Creek is included project scope. The preliminary environmental classifications are as follows:

NEPA – Class III SEQR – Non-Type II (EA)

G.1.4. Costs and Project Schedule Design Approval is scheduled for winter of 2009. Construction funding has not been secured for the project; however, it is anticipated that funding may be available in the latter part of 2010. Construction is expected to last one year, depending on the availability of project funds. The anticipated project schedule can be seen in Exhibit 1.6-A.

Exhibit 1.6-A Project Schedule

Activity Date Occurred/Tentative

Scoping Approval 2007

Design Approval Spring 2011

ROW Acquisition Spring / Summer 2011

Construction Start Spring 2012 (pending funding)

Construction Complete Fall 2013 (pending funding) G.1.5. Previous Public Involvement The public has had opportunities for involvement during the various planning studies that have been prepared for the project. In addition, a steering committee has been assembled and has convened several times over the course of the project.


G-2

G.1.6. Project Coordination Project coordination that occurred during the preparation of this report primarily involved correspondence with agencies and the steering committee to determine the environmental significance of the project. Comments from the public were also received following Public information Meeting No. 1.

Exhibit G.1.6 Included Correspondence

Date Correspondence Topic

June 24, 2008 Meeting Minutes Steering Committee Meeting No. 1

December 23, 2008 Meeting Minutes Steering Committee Meeting No. 2

February 10, 2009 Tel-con memo: Mark Watts, Chemung County Soil & Water District FEMA hydrology

June 23 & 24, 2009 E-mail w/ Melissa Ryan & Tamra Scanlon (DHS / FEMA representatives) CLOMR

June 24, 2009 Tel-con memo: Tamra Scanlon (DHS / FEMA representative) Floodplain Evaluation & CLOMR

July 6, 2009 Letter from P. Perazio to L. Ramos SHPO No Effect

July 17, 2009 Meeting Minutes Steering Committee Meeting No. 3

July 31, 2009 Letter from L. Lauritzen to D. Elias Hanson Aggregates Site Security

September 30, 2009 Letter from R. Sherman to Mayor Zeigler Ground Water Supply Impact Evaluation

November 12, 2009 Meeting Minutes Newtown Creek Levee Certification

December 1, 2009 Meeting Minutes Steering Committee Meeting No. 4

December 3, 2009 E-mail from S. Maggio to A. Avery Public Information Meeting No. 1

December 14, 2009 Tel-con memo: Benjamin Kaiser (DHS / FEMA representative) CLOMR & levee accreditation

December 15, 2009 E-mail from Matt Learn to A. Avery Public Information Meeting No. 1

December 15, 2009 Meeting Minutes Public Information Meeting No. 1

December 21, 2009 Comments from R. & D. Cass Public Information Meeting No. 1

December 23, 2009 Comments from G. Allen Public Information Meeting No. 1

October 10, 2010 Letter from R. Hart to C. Millington, FHWA Cultural Resources Concurrence request

October 25, 2010 Letter from C. Millington, FHWA to R. Hart Cultural Resources Concurrence

December 16, 2010 e-mail w/Karis Manning, NYS DEC Newtown Creek Flood Eval. & Floodplain

December 20, 2010 e-mail w/Jason Fenn, DHS / FEMA Newtown Creek Flood Eval. & Floodplain

December 22, 2010 e-mail w/Tom Skebey, T. Horseheads Newtown Creek Flood Eval. & Floodplain G.2. Context Identification G.2.1. Identify Stakeholders

The stakeholders in this project are as follows:

Chemung County Department of Public Works Elmira-Chemung transportation Council (ECTC) Southern Tier economic Growth (STEG) New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Village of Horseheads Town of Horseheads Property owners and businesses within the CHH and adjacent to the project Project engineering/environmental consultants


G-3

G.2.2. Identify Potential Concerns Potential Concerns are as follows:

Speeding on Route 13 Creating a direct truck access route from CHH to I-86 Creating new access for planned development Protecting public waters from storm water pollution Protecting existing wetlands Limiting impacts on existing flood plains Reducing congestion and truck traffic at the historic Hanover Square intersection Pedestrian and bicycle activity Extending improvements to 5th Street or E Street Viability of a Roundabout at Route 13/ Connector Road Intersection

G.2.3. Community Impact Assessment The project is not anticipated to negatively impact the community in the project study area. The project will increase accessibility to the CHH and Route 13, increase mobility for commuters and emergency services providers, enhance economic development opportunities, and remove commuter and truck traffic from residential and historically significant areas. G.3. PI Plan Objectives G.3.1. Anticipated level of PI Stakeholders have been highly involved in the project development process and continued public involvement is anticipated. G.3.2. Structured Decision Making Chemung County is the project sponsor, as well as the SEQR Lead Agency, and will be responsible for selection of the preferred alternative/subalternative. The preferred alternative/subalternative will be selected after extensive coordination with regulatory agencies, project stakeholders, and the public. G.4. PI Plan Activities Public involvement activities shall be coordinated with project development milestones. Project information shall be made available to stakeholders prior to steering committee meetings. Exhibit 1.8 shows the anticipated PI schedule.

Exhibit 1.8 Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates


Internal Scoping Meeting 2007

Steering Committee Meeting No. 1 June 24, 2008

Steering Committee Meeting No. 2 December 23, 2008

Steering Committee Meeting No. 3 July 17, 2009

Steering Committee Meeting No. 4 December 1, 2009

Public Informational Meeting December 15, 2009

Public Hearing Feb/March 2010


G-4

Exhibit 1.8 Public Involvement Plan Schedule of Milestone Dates


Final Public Informational Meeting Winter 2011

Project Letting (pending funding) Spring 2012

The Public Information Meeting held on December 15, 2009 followed an open-house format with a slide show presentation and an opportunity for questions. Comment forms were provided for public input and were accepted for 15 days following the meeting date. Two comment forms were received and are included in the following section. A brochure was prepared and is included in the following section. A second Public Information Meeting/Public Hearing will be held once the Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment have been reviewed by FHWA for NEPA classification concurrence. The project information and Environmental Assessment (EA) will be made available to the public at least 15 days prior to the Public Hearing. Oral comments received during the Public Hearing will be recorded by a stenographer and included in the project records. Written comments will be accepted for 30 days after EA availability. The contact fro comments shall be:

Andrew P. Avery, P.E. Director of Public Works

email: [email protected] telephone: (607) 739-3896

Mailing Address:

Chemung County Department of Public Works 803 Chemung Street

Horseheads, New York 14845 All relevant correspondence and/or meeting minutes are included in the following section.

10.1F22G (10/01/06)

Meeting Minutes

Date: June 24, 2008 Location: Elmira-Chemung Transportation Council

Project Name: Center at Horseheads Connector Road Project No.: 19225.00 Subject: Steering Committee Meeting

(Project kickoff) Scribe: McCormick / Kenward

Attendees Representing Phone Number E-Mail

Andy Avery Chemung County 607-739-3896 [email protected] Murl Sebring Chemung County 607-739-3896 [email protected] Jay Schissell ECTC 607-737-5510 [email protected] Brian Kelly NYSDOT 607-324-8410 [email protected] Brent Rauber NYSDOT 607-324-8431 [email protected] Jamie Johnson STEG 607-733-6513 [email protected] Bob Kramer Center at Horseheads 607-739-3856 Joel Hoffman Center at Horseheads 516-481-4500 [email protected] John Tallis Thomas & Betts 607-796-5656 [email protected] Roger Phillips Thomas & Betts 607-796-5712 [email protected] Brian Morgan Pepsi Bottling Group 607-795-2120 [email protected] Brian Pierce Pepsi Bottling Group 607-795-2128 [email protected] Jason Huntley Fed Ex Ground 607-796-2072 [email protected] Doug Sarsfield Fed Ex Ground 607-796-2072 [email protected] Don Zeigler Mayor, Vg. Horseheads 607-739-3579 [email protected] Marc Whitney Manager, Vg. Horseheads 607-739-5666 [email protected] Chris Lawrick Vg. Horseheads Public Works 607-739-5691 [email protected] Bill McCormick Erdman Anthony 585-427-8888 x454 [email protected] Marc Kenward Erdman Anthony 585-427-8888 x465 [email protected]

1) Introduction Jay Schissell opened the meeting, welcomed all attendees and made reference to the meeting agenda. Jay asked all attendees to introduce themselves and sign their name on the sign-in sheet. Jay provided a general overview of the role of the Elmira-Chemung Transportation Council (ECTC) and how they are responsible for identifying projects, attaining funding and developing scoping for projects. The project will be administered by Chemung County under the direction of Andy Avery following New York State Department of Transportation’s (NYSDOT) Locally Administered Federal Aid (LAFA) process. The ECTC will work with both the County and the NYSDOT on the project. Jay indicated that the engineering firm of Erdman Anthony has been retained by the County to help with the planning and final design of the project. Marc Kenward will serve as Erdman Anthony’s project manager. Jay indicated that the project is a high priority for the area and funding is currently available for the preliminary and design phases, but not the construction phase. He felt that the ECTC is well positioned to

Center at Horseheads Connector Road Steering Committee Meeting 6-24-08 Page 2 of 4

secure construction funding for the project because of the significant economic component that the project brings to the Horseheads area.

2) Steering Committee Group Jay discussed some of the roles of the steering committee. In general terms, the steering committee is a filter to review the design prior to public review. Jay indicated that steering committee members can anticipate reviewing project materials and attending 1-2 more meetings. These meetings provide an opportunity to review the project design activities, ask questions and make suggestions.

3) Status of Project to Date Jay reviewed the prior work completed on the project, including description of the 2006 report prepared by Southern Tier Economic Growth (STEG) entitled “Center at Horseheads Highway Corridor Analysis”. This report reviewed several alignment options and identified a preferred alternative, which will be the basis for the current project. Jay described several factors that contributed to the need for the project including economic stimulus, designation of NY Route 17 to I-86, and rail service provided by Norfolk Southern railroad.

4) Process Description Jay made reference to the handout provide to committee members. The information provided is the understanding and approach section extracted from Erdman Anthony’s response to Chemung County's request for qualifications for the subject project. The document describes the approach that will be taken to complete the project, and describes some critical areas that need to be addressed. Marc Kenward delivered a PowerPoint presentation that summarized the overall process to be followed to complete the project. Marc talked about several studies that will be completed during the preliminary studies of the project. Studies will involve technical investigations, surveys, preparation of a design report, public participation, final design and construction activities. The goal in the preliminary phase of the project is to identify existing conditions, alternatives and impacts. A design report will be prepared as a means to document project findings and as a means to attain design approval by the NYSDOT and FHWA. Design approval signifies acceptance of the project by these agencies, and allows the project to advance into the final design phase. Marc reviewed the approximate location of the preferred alignment from the STEG report. This alignment will be refined and numerous studies will be conducted as part of the process. Marc discussed some of the critical elements to be studied as part of the project. The existing underpass on NY Route 13 needs to be considered in the layout of the connector road and the new intersection at NY Route 13. This structure is recommended for preservations as a means to cross under NY Route 13, possibly for a pedestrian trail. Studies will include evaluating the appropriate intersection treatments at both Old Ithaca Road and NY Route 13, considering stop signs, traffic signals and a modern roundabouts. Roundabouts may be favorable to eliminate the need for left turn lanes. This will be critical on NY Route 13, as southbound vehicle storage at the intersection of NY 13 and E. Franklin Street will determine the location of the new connector road’s intersection with NY Route 13. Various bridge types and spans will also be investigated for the new bridge that will carry the connector road over Newtown Creek. Studies


will also investigate environmental needs / impacts associated with the project including impacts to floodplains and ground water, among others. Marc presented the project schedule. He stated the preliminary design phase (studies through design approval) will likely take 12 months. The detailed design phase (design approval through final plans) is anticipated to take 9 months. Once funding for construction is identified, it is likely that construction will take 2 construction seasons. Construction could start as soon as spring of 2010 if funding is available. Bill McCormick mentioned that a critical path will be right-of-way (ROW) acquisitions. The NYSDOT will be acquiring the needed properties (likely 12 fee takings) and 12-18 months are needed to finalize these acquisitions. Federal guidelines require that all properties are acquired prior to project advertisement, so ROW will play an important role in determining project schedule.

5) Concerns, Suggestions, Ideas Jay Schissell began discussions of concerns, suggestions or ideas and opened the floor for discussion and questions. The following comments were discussed:

Don Zeigler identified the need to reduce truck traffic on Westinghouse Road (NY Route 14) from Route 17. The project should identify ways to reduce truck traffic on Westinghouse Road and accommodate truck deliveries from the west.

Don Zeigler stressed the desire to reduce traffic and congestion in Hanover Square. Geometry in this area is particularly challenging and he hopes that the project will offer relief, particularlty from truck traffic.

Brian Kelly asked about the level of detail that is needed on the groundwater study. Marc Kenward stated that the studies will provide a better understanding of the groundwater flows. The study will identify how the project may impact the groundwater and identify ways to minimize impacts to the Village water system.

Chris Lawrick stated that a village well (#4) is located in close proximity to the preferred alignment location. This well is very shallow (50’ +/-) and is a large producer of village water.

Don Zeigler asked if the project needs to consider treatments to protect the well. With the potetnial for heavy truck traffic on the connector road, Don felt that tuck spills might be a concern and that the project should provide some type of containment, possibly within the draiange system.

Andy Avery asked that the committee be open minded about the project. He suggested that consideration be given to use of roundabouts at the intersections of the new roadway with both Old Ithaca Road and NY Route 13. Andy stated that signals are somewhat expensive ($95-$125k) and involve future maintenance costs. Roundabouts can be designed to accommodate large trucks and may be an economical, lower cost alternative to safely move traffic.

Andy Avery stressed the importance of the public participation process and the role of the steering committee with respect to the project.


The location of the new intersection of Old Ithaca Road and the new connector road was discussed. It was asked if roadway improvements within the Center at Horseheads facility can be included as part of the project. It was suggested that the connector road should be extended to North Main Street in the Village of Horseheads (southwest of the facility). Jay Schissell and Andy Avery stated that the new road will terminate at Old Ithaca Road. Driveway connections from the new intersection into the Center of Horseheads facility are likely. Additional improvements or extension of the roadway can be added by the Village through as betterment to the project.

6) Other Matters Jay Schissell asked Brian Kelly to provide some discussion of the Norfolk Southern railroad facility located west of the Center. Brian indicated that the railroad is concerned about the economic needs of the railroad and the funding needs that they have to maintain the facility that serves the Center at Horseheads. The railroad is experiencing structural problems to their facilities that traverse the marsh area. The NYSDOT is working with the railroad to identify funding sources to improve their facilities.

This is the writer’s interpretation of the above meeting. If there are any issues that need to be revised or discussed, please inform the author within five days of receiving the minutes.

Next Meeting: Copies: Attendees Shumaker Consulting Engineers

(All copies sent via e-mail) Marc D. Kenward, PE

Project Manager

10.1F22G (10/01/06)

Meeting Minutes

Date: December 23, 2008 Location: ECTC

Project Name: Center at Horseheads Connector Road Project No.: 19225.00

Subject: Steering Committee Meeting No. 2 Scribe: Dennis Elias

A. Introduction & Administrative Matters

1. Andy Avery opened the meeting, welcomed all attendees and referred to the meeting agenda. Mr.

Avery noted that Marc Kenward, Erdman Anthony’s project manager, was not able to attend the

meeting due to other commitments – but other representatives of Erdman Anthony were in attendance.

2. All attendees introduced themselves and their respective role in the project.

B. Status of the Project

1. Progress since the initial steering committee meeting was discussed. Erdman Anthony received a

signed copy of the consultant agreement in late November and has begun the information

gathering\planning stage of the project. The project was started approximately two months later than

originally anticipated, but the anticipated construction contract award date of August 2010 is expected

to be attainable.

2. Erdman Anthony has prepared a conceptual alignment (discussed further in Part C) to be used as the

basis for the instrument survey. Shumaker will begin scheduling their field crews as soon as the

conceptual alignment is received from Erdman Anthony and when the snow cover is reduced enough

to allow for proper collection of data.

3. Shumaker has begun contacting various state and federal agencies as part of the environmental

screening process.

Attendees Representing Phone Number

E-Mail

Andy Avery Chemung County (607) 739-3896 [email protected]

Jay Schissell ECTC (607) 737-5510 [email protected]

Jim Arey ECTC (607) 737-5510 [email protected]

Brent Rauber NYSDOT (607) 324-8431 [email protected]

Jamie Johnson STEG (607) 733-6513 [email protected]

Marc Whitney Village of Horseheads (607) 739-5666 [email protected]

Kelly Saladis Shumaker (607) 798-8081 [email protected]

Brian Zick Shumaker (607) 798-8081 [email protected]

Bill McCormick Erdman Anthony (585) 427-8888 [email protected]

Mark Laistner Erdman Anthony (585) 427-8888 [email protected]

Dennis Elias Erdman Anthony (585) 427-8888 [email protected]

Center at Horseheads Connector Road

Steering Committee Meeting No. 2

12-23-08

Page 2 of 4

C. Preliminary Alternatives

1. A conceptual alignment has been overlaid on base mapping composed of digital orthoimagery

provided by NYSDOP and LiDAR topography provided by Chemung County. The conceptual

alignment closely resembles scoping Alternative 2B, which was previously identified as the preferred

alternative in the scoping study. Minor modifications to the alignment include: flattening and

combination of curves to produce one gradual reverse curve; shifting the proposed intersection at

Route 13 south to better fit the topography, as well as to avoid impacts to the existing gravel pit

underpass; and shifting of the crossing of Newtown Creek to a location that appears to be more

suitable for the proposed bridge.

2. The intersection treatment at Old Ithaca Road currently shows the addition of 200-foot left turn lanes

in the northbound and southbound directions. Likewise, the proposed intersection at Route 13 reflects

the addition of a 200-foot left turn lane in the northbound direction and shadow lane in the southbound

direction. The intersection treatments are conceptual at this point, and were developed to better define

the limits of survey and to aid in the preparation of a planning-level construction cost estimate.

3. Mark Laistner discussed bridge opportunities and constraints, as well as future studies and analyses to

be completed. The project is located in a detailed flood study area, which will require in-depth

hydraulic modeling and close coordination with FEMA, NYSDEC, and USACE. The data for the

existing hydraulic model has been requested from FEMA and will likely take several weeks to obtain.

Mr. Laistner explained that the data will be used to recreate the existing model; corrections will be

made to the existing model to reflect current stream geometry and cross section; and various

alternative bridge configurations will be tested to obtain the optimum structure type with the least

impact to the floodplain hydraulics. Mr. Laistner went on to explain that any changes in the

floodplain limits will require approval of FEMA and will likely necessitate filing of a Conditional

Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR). Marc Whitney suggested that Erdman Anthony contact Mark

Watts at the Chemung County Soil & Water Conservation District to discuss the effects of the

upstream dam on stream hydraulics.

D. Next Steps

1. Erdman Anthony will continue traffic analysis, accident analysis, and other preliminary design

studies; as well as development of the conceptual alternative.

2. Shumaker will continue environmental screenings, gather data for the aquifer study from the village,

and begin report preparation. Shumaker can contact the village or any other agencies for information

directly, but should copy Marc Kenward on any correspondence.

3. Shumaker will schedule their field crews for the instrument survey, but will likely have to wait until

the snow cover has diminished. Erdman Anthony will forward an electronic file of the concept

alignment to be used as the basis for the instrument survey. Brian Zick asked that the county prepare

a letter of introduction for the project, explaining that field crews may have to enter private property



12-23-08

Page 3 of 4

for data collection. Bill McCormick agreed to draft a letter of introduction for the project and forward

to the county for placement on official letterhead.

E. Concerns, Suggestions, Ideas to be Addressed

1. Jamie Johnson gave a brief overview of the existing and proposed land uses at the Center at

Horseheads facility, as well as STEG’s involvement in the economic development process. Mr.

Johnson mentioned that current major occupants include Pepsi Bottling Group, FedEx, Thomas &

Betts, and Gas Field Specialists. Future developments include a maintenance facility for Kayden

Industries, a warehouse for the local Food Bank, and a large development (88 acres) employing

approximately 400 people on the Schlumberger parcel. STEG expects to see a concept plan for the

Schlumberger development in the near future, since a site engineer has been hired. The remainder of

the Centers parcel is largely vacant warehouse space, which is expected to increase in occupancy once

the connector road is constructed.

2. Mr. Johnson agreed to forward a copy of the most-recent site survey for the Centers, as well as a

general description of the existing and proposed uses to Erdman Anthony for their use in traffic

modeling and growth projections.

3. Marc Whitney and Jamie Jonson questioned whether improvements to 5th

Street or E Street located on

the Centers property could be included in the project. Mr. Johnson noted that STEG has had

preliminary discussion with the village on potentially improving E Street and dedicating it as a public

right-of-way, while the village has suggested doing the same for 5th

Street. Andy Avery confirmed

that the westerly limits of the connector road will remain at Old Ithaca Road, although minor

realignment of the entrance to the Centers property could be studied further.

4. Marc Whitney questioned whether or not a roundabout was still being considered at the new Old

Ithaca Road intersection. Andy Avery explained that NYSDOT policy requires that a roundabout be

“considered” as an alternative for all intersections approaching warrants for signalization. Dennis

Elias went on to explain that the intersection at Old Ithaca Road, as well as Route 13, would likely

approach warrants for signalization before the design year; therefore, a roundabout would need to be

considered at either intersection. He went on the explain that high volumes, high speed, and

proximity to the signalized East Franklin Street intersection may make a roundabout less desirable on

Route 13; however, a roundabout me prove to be a good fit for Old Ithaca Road. Bill McCormick

added that a roundabout may provide an opportunity for visual enhancement or a “gateway feature” to

the Center at Horseheads and Village of Horseheads.

F. Other Matters

1. Jay Schissell thanked all attendees for their time and input. Mr. Schissell stated that the next steering

committee meeting would likely be scheduled when the report and conceptual alignment are

progressed further. Doing so would provide an opportunity for the committee to provide feedback on

the design before it is presented to the general public. Bill McCormick estimated that the Draft

Design Report could be ready for steering committee review between the last week of April and the

second week of May 2009.



12-23-08

Page 4 of 4

Action Items

• Shumaker will contact Chris Lawrick ([email protected] or (607) 739-5691) at the Village of

Horseheads Department of Public Works to discuss the Village’s water supply facility near Old Ithaca

Road.

• Erdman Anthony will draft a letter of introduction for the project and forward to the county for

placement on official county letterhead.

• Erdman Anthony will update the conceptual alignment and forward to Shumaker to be used as the

basis for the instrument survey.

• Erdman Anthony will contact Mark Watts ([email protected] or (607) 739-2009) at the

Chemung County Soil & Water Conservation District to discuss the effects of the upstream dam on

stream hydraulics.

• STEG will forward a copy of the property survey of the Center at Horseheads, as well as a brief

description of existing\proposed land use, to Erdman Anthony for their use in modeling existing and

proposed traffic conditions.

This is the writer’s interpretation of the above meeting. If there are any issues that need to be revised or discussed, please inform the author

within five days of receiving the minutes.

Next Meeting:

Copies: Attendees

Absent committee members

(All copies sent via e-mail)

Dennis J. Elias, PE

Associate

10.1F35G (02/07/08)

Telephone/Meeting Memo Date: February 10, 2009 Time: 11:00 am Project Name: Town of Horseheads Connector Road Project No.: 19225.00 Subject: FEMA Study Hydrology

Telephone Call: To: From Name: Mark Watts Company: Chemung County Soil &

Water District Telephone No.: (607) 739-2009

Meeting With: Name: Company: Originator: Tiphaine Williams Office: Rochester I called Mark Watts at the Chemung County Soil and Water District to follow up on a FEMA hydrology issue that was brought up during Steering Committee Meeting #2, which was held on 12/23/09. At the steering committee meeting, Mark was concerned that the FEMA study hydrology did not include all relevant dams upstream of the project site. When I spoke to Mark on the phone, he said that he re-evaluated the FEMA study and noticed that it did in fact include the effects of the Sullivanville Dam. Mark said he was satisfied with the hydrology of the FEMA study and was no longer concerned. Mark also gave me contact information for Scott Rodobaugh, DEC, and Tom Skebey, local FEMA code enforcement, for further coordination on the project.

1

Tiphaine A. Williams

From: Tamra Scanlon [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 11:09 AMTo: Tiphaine A. WilliamsCc: Melissa RyanSubject: CLOMR project in Horseheads, Chemung County, NY

Categories: Filed by Newforma

Based on the e-mail below (I did not receive attachments), the project would warrant a CLOMR submittal.

Please follow the MT-2 instructions http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/dl_mt-2.shtm and submit the proper

documents and models. If the project causes increases in BFE over existing conditions, 65.12 items will be

required, which include alternatives analysis, certification of no structures in increase area and notification to

property owners of increase area (including vertical only increase).

Tamra Scanlon, P.E. (717) 221-2011 Revisions Manager ~ Regions I & II FEMA National Service Provider Michael Baker, Jr.

From: Ryan, Melissa [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tue 23-Jun-09 4:02 PM To: Tamra Scanlon Cc: Tiphaine A. Williams Subject: RE: CLOMR project in Horseheads, Chemung County, NY

Hi Tamra, I received this information by email in reference to a request for a CLOMR. Please let me know if you can review this information and any additional information that I can help you with. Thank you Melissa

Melissa Flynn Ryan Natural Hazard Program Specialist Floodplain Management/Flood Insurance Branch DHS/FEMA Region II 26 Federal Plaza, 13th floor New York, NY 10278-0002 212-680-3625-desk 212-680-3602-fax ‘For a happy ending, there must be a happy journey, hold the vision, trust the process, all is well’- Abraham-Hicks

From: [email protected]

[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tiphaine A. Williams Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:26 PM

To: Ryan, Melissa Cc: Marc D. Kenward

Subject: CLOMR project in Horseheads, Chemung County, NY Melissa,

2

We spoke on the phone a few months ago about a new bridge crossing over Newtown Creek in the Town of Horseheads, Chemung County, NY. The project is located within a FEMA detailed study area with a delineated floodplain. Since the project is proposing a crossing where currently none exists, a CLOMR will be required. We are in the preliminary stages of the project and I am looking for some feedback regarding the proposed increases to the water surface elevation as a result of the new bridge crossing. I have attached several figures that include aerial images of the site. I have also attached the HEC-RAS profile, cross sections, and a table of water surface elevations. You will see that there is a maximum increase of 2.35 ft upstream of the bridge. However, the edges of the floodplain are confined by embankments (one is an old roadway embankment) so the increase covers a very small area. From the aerial photos, you will be able to see that there are no structures located within the existing floodplain or the area of impact. What I am looking for from you is feedback regarding our increases on the project. I would like to know if you see any potential “deal breakers” with our design. We are trying to open the doors of communication and coordination with FEMA early so that we don’t run into any major obstacles later in the design process. Please let me know what you think about the proposed bridge placement and impacts. I would greatly appreciate your feedback. Call me if you need any further explanation regarding the attached figures and tables. Sincerely, Tiphaine (pronounced like “Tiffany”) Tiphaine Williams, PE Associate Erdman Anthony 2165 Brighton Henrietta Town Line Rd Rochester, NY 14623 [T] 585.427.8888 ext.395 [F] 585.427.8914 www.erdmananthony.com

10.1F35G (02/07/08)

Telephone/Meeting Memo Date: June 24, 2009 Time: 11:15 a.m. Project Name: Center at Horseheads Connector Road Project No.: 19225.00 Subject: FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision for Floodplain Impacts

Telephone Call: To: From Name: Tamra Scanlon Company: Michael Baker, Jr.

FEMA National Insurance Provider

Telephone No.: (717) 221-2011

Meeting With: Name: Company: Originator: Tiphaine Williams Office: Rochester I spoke to Tamra Scanlon, Revisions Manager for FEMA Regions I and II, on June 24, 2009, and I gave her a brief synopsis of the Horseheads project. I explained that the project was causing increases to 100-year water surface elevations in a detailed study area with a delineated floodway. The vertical increases result in very little increase to floodplain area because the floodplain is bounded on both sides by a levee and a railroad embankment. I explained that there are no structures within the impacted floodplain area. I expressed to Tamra that we wanted to be sure that we were proposing a scenario that would be acceptable to FEMA so that we would not run into any issues with approval for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) at a later time. Tamra said that it sounded like all of the criteria for a CLOMR would be met and we would just have to follow the checklist in the CLOMR application forms.

10.1F22G (10/01/06)

Meeting Minutes

Date: July 17, 2008 Location: Elmira-Chemung Transportation Council

Project Name: Center at Horseheads Connector Road Project No.: 19225.00 Subject: Steering Committee Meeting No. 3 Scribe: Kenward


Andy Avery Chemung County DPW 607-739-3896 [email protected] John Webert Chemung County DPW 607-739-3896 [email protected] Jay Schissell ECTC 607-737-5510 [email protected] Brian Kelly NYSDOT 607-324-8410 [email protected] Mike Krusen Chemung County 607-737-8431 [email protected] Jamie Johnson STEG 607-733-6513 [email protected] George Miner STEG 607-733-6513 [email protected] Chris Lawrick Vg. Horseheads DPW 607-739-5691 [email protected] A. Curren Town of Horseheads 607-739-8783 [email protected] Tom Nagle Horseheads Planning Board 607-739-9136 [email protected] John Tallis Thomas & Betts 607-796-5656 [email protected] Randy Hanson 101, 110, 118 Old Ithaca Rd 607-739-8118 [email protected] Robert Clapp Lehigh / Hanson 315-762-2209 [email protected] Larry Lauritzen Lehigh / Hanson 610-366-4707 [email protected] Dennis Elias Erdman Anthony 585-427-8888 x454 [email protected] Marc Kenward Erdman Anthony 585-427-8888 x465 [email protected] Kelly Saladis SCE 607-798-8081 [email protected] Paul A. Waters SCE 607-798-8081 [email protected]

1) Introduction Jay Schissell opened the meeting, welcomed all attendees and made reference to the meeting agenda. Jay asked all attendees to introduce themselves and place their name and contact information on the sign-in sheet. A handout in the form of a preliminary draft of Chapter 1 of the Draft Design Report, essentially an executive summary, was provided to all attendees and is also attached to these meeting minutes..

2) Project Status M. Kenward reported on the project status. Data collection is nearly completed and has been evaluated to ascertain project objectives and guide the development of alternatives and subalternatives. Data collection and analysis has included survey and mapping; property ownership and boundaries, an inventory of existing roadways in the project area; traffic and accident data; land use; hydraulic analysis of Newtown Creek; and relevant environmental screenings and investigations including wetlands, historic and archeological resources, noise, groundwater and the potential for encountering hazardous/ contaminated materials. M. Kenward also briefed the attendees on change in the base alignment alternative (Alternative 2) relative to the Lehigh/Hanson gravel quarry and its status as an active mining operation. Hanson still holds a permit to mine gravel from an area on the southeast quadrant of the property adjacent to NY Route 13, and as such, the alignment

KenwardMD

Line

KenwardMD

Text Box

9

Center at Horseheads Connector Road Steering Committee Meeting No. 3 minutes 7-17-09 Page 2 of 4

was shifted northward at the eastern end. Also, due to concerns expressed by Hanson, the alignment midway across their property as it approaches Newtown Creek was shifted southward away from the water body (lake or pond) encompassing the now abandoned gravel pit that covers a large portion of their property.

3) Alternatives / Subalternatives D. Elias reviewed and discussed the base alternative and the subalternatives for the intersection at Old Ithaca Road and the resulting geometry for connecting to E-Street and 5th Street within the Center at Horseheads (CHH) property. The discussion also included results and conclusions of the traffic analysis which were important considerations in the development of the alternatives. Refer to attached handout for a description and plan of the alternatives and subalternatives. Based on existing and projected traffic analyses, the base alternative (Alternative 2) is needed to alleviate congestion and delay (due to projected traffic increases) within the Hanover Square area in the Village of Horseheads (a multi-leg stop controlled intersection) approximately ½ mile south of the proposed connector road’s intersection with old Ithaca Road. Two base subalternatives were developed for the proposed connector road’s intersection with old Ithaca Road, a conventional 4-leg intersection and a modern roundabout. The subalternatives were then further refined with respect to how the geometry of E-Street and 5th Street within the CHH were tied into the Old Ithaca road intersection. D. Elias briefly discussed the reasoning behind the subalternatives their respective advantages and disadvantages and right-of-way impacts. (Refer to attached handout) D. Elias also briefly reviewed the right-of-way impacts of the base alternative and subalternatives, referencing the summary chart in the handout. The conventional intersection subalternative has additional right-of-way impacts over and above the modern roundabout subalternative because of the need for strip taking along properties fronting on Old Ithaca Road in order to accommodate widening for dedicated left-turn lanes Comments:

Sub-alternative plans do not match conceptual E-Street alignment being prepared for STEG by Bergmann Associates. Based on this comment, there will only be two subalternatives (conventional intersection vs. modern roundabout) for the Old Ithaca Road intersection). EAA to contact Bergmann to coordinate plans.

With respect to the conventional intersection sub-alternative, A. Avery and others present felt that it would need to be signalized to be acceptable. While it may not meet warrants for a signal until at least ETC+10, B. Kelly and Region 6 need to advise/determine if funding for a future signal can be sought/included; or if a traffic signal be completely installed as part of the initial construction since it would soon be warranted.

Overall, A. Avery and J. Schissel favored the modern roundabout over the conventional intersection, especially if a traffic signal cannot be included in the project at the ETC or in future programmed funding at ETC or soon thereafter. They cited increased safety, better traffic flow, reduced right-of-way acquisitions, and lower initial and long-term maintenance costs as the main benefits.

STEG members inquired to how projected traffic was developed. M. Kenward and D. Elias assured the Steering Committee that they had coordinated with Bergmann with respect to the Schlumberger project. M. Kenward offered that they would provide the County and ECTC a copy of their analysis of existing and projected traffic conditions.

Several attendees expressed interest in being made aware of other sites similar to the CHH that have a modern roundabout as a primary entrance in order to attain further assurances that such an intersection will functional satisfactorily and safely under similar traffic conditions. P. Waters mentioned the Route 201 Johnson City


roundabout (Binghamton) as a possible example. EA will contact Howard McCulloch with the NYS DOT Main Office for such examples.

M. Kenward briefly reviewed the status of the hydraulic analyses conducted for Newtown Creek and the proposed bridge. Flood flows along the creek through the project area are limited by the existing maintained flood control levee to the west and an old railroad embankment to the east, which in itself acts as a levee. In order to maintain minimum freeboard requirements on the adjacent maintained flood control levee, the bridge was lengthened to approximately 238 feet. While there is an increase in all the design year flood elevation and impacts to the associated floodplain, impacts occur only to vacant, undeveloped lands located between the levees. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) will still be required from FEMA. EA has conducted early, informal coordination with FEMA (maps , diagrams, proposed conditions modeling results, etc.) and their response indicated that there were no “show stoppers” to a formal CLOMR application. Construction cost for the alternative and sub-alternatives were briefly reviewed (reference attached handout). These estimates are based on today’s costs (not projected costs). B. Kelly and A. Avery stressed the importance and need for accurate cost estimates, recommending that EA ascertain and develop an accurate bridge cost as early as possible.

4) Environmental: K. Saladis reviewed/discussed the following environmental issues:

General Ecology & Endangered/ Threatened Species – DEC response letter identified two (2) birds and three (3) plants. No species were observed during the site investigation. Based on the identified vegetative community types, impacts are not anticipated. SCE will review impact locations and coordinate with DEC as necessary to confirm no impacts will occur to potential habitat.

Wetlands – Newtown Creek is mapped as riverine wetland on the National Wetland Inventory Wetland (NWI) Mapping. Based on field review, no wetlands were identified along the stream corridor. Impacts to the stream will be regulated as a linear impact and volume of fill below the Ordinary High Water elevation under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act, rather than wetland impacts. The former mine area, just north of the project corridor, is depicted on the NWI map as an excavated pond; this area will not be impacted. The other smaller pond area is also depicted on the NWI map as an excavated pond. A portion of the mapped area falls within our project corridor; however, based on the field investigation, the portion of this area, within our project does not meet the three criteria to be considered a wetland. Appropriate E&S control measures should be employed to minimize impact to the adjacent area, located just beyond the project corridor.

Prime and Unique Soils – Four (4) soil types within the corridor are identified as prime/unique. SCE will complete the AD Form 10006.

Aquifer – Project corridor is situated over the Elmira-Horseheads Big Flats Aquifer and within 200 feet of a public well. The majority of the recharge is from the direction of the creek. A Toler Analysis was performed to estimate worst case scenario chloride concentration resulting from the increase in impervious surface. Two scenarios were run, one for the portion of the project most likely to affect the nearby well/aquifer and another for the entire length of the project. Both scenarios resulted in chloride concentrations well below the maximum contaminant levels. The main concern is releases associated with accidents west of the creek. Stormwater should be handled appropriately to minimize this concern. An Aquifer Study has been prepared.

Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials – Identified a couple of sites with the potential for concerns based on interviews, database review and field reconnaissance which include Monroe Tractor, the former Knipsel Construction Company, Center at Horseheads properties, and Hanson Aggregates. Subsurface investigations


are recommended depending on proposed ROW acquisition and scope of anticipated excavation. A Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials Screening Report has been prepared.

Historic/Cultural – The Public Archaeology Facility at Binghamton University performed a Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey and prepared the associated report. The report indicated that they found 1 isolated Onondago Chert Flake. They dug additional test pits to make sure it was not a potential site; however, no further prehistoric material was encountered. The report concluded that the project corridor does not contain pre-historic or historic archeological site and no building eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places existing within the corridor. The New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation issued a “No Effect” letter on July 6, 2009.

Noise – a subconsultant is working on the Noise Study. The field work has been completed and the report will be issued within approximately two weeks.

General feeling among attendees was that the environmental impacts may not be as significant as once thought. C. Lawrick has assisted SCE in their data gathering for the groundwater study and indicated no major concerns regarding the Villages’ groundwater supply based on the presented information. M. Kenward indicated copies of relevant reports will be shared with interested committee members and affected property owners as may be requested/desired. SCE will be updating their environmental factors map with current Alternative 2 alignment.

5) Property and Boundary Research P. Waters pointed out that right-of-way along Route 13 is fee without access issue and inquired about the process. The new connector road boundary may be fee without access to the first part or portion of the connector off of Route 13 depending on the access management requirement, if any. Also, the Town of Horseheads tax parcel # 059.01-1-8 listed the United State of America as the owner. The research performed to date of this meeting indicates that the USA has an easement over part of the parcel. The owner of the parcel at the date of the easement (June 15, 1944) was Vanduser.

6) Next Steps

Coordinate with Bergmann Associates to revise intersection subalternatives for the Old Ithaca Road intersection

Prepare and submit pre-Draft Design Report/EA Conduct another Steering Committee meeting in early Fall, prior to public informational meeting Retain a geotechnical subcontractor to conduct subsurface investigations Submit environmental reports to County and State for their review and comment.


Next Meeting: Copies: Attendees Shumaker Consulting Engineers

(All copies sent via e-mail) Marc D. Kenward, PE

Project Manager

MRB group www.mrbgroup.com

Engineering/Architecture/Surveying, P.C.

September 30, 2009

Donald W. Zeigler, MayorVillage of Horseheads202 South Main StreetHorseheads, New York 14845

RE: EVALUATION OF CONNECTOR ROAD IMPACT ON MUNICIPAL GROUND WATER SUPPLY

WELL No. 4

VILLAGE OF HORSEHEADS , CHEMUNG COUNTY, NEW YORK

MRB GROUP PROJECT No. 0835 .09002.000

Dear Mayor Zeigler & Village Board of Trustees:

MRB Group and our subconsultant, Moody and Associates, Inc., have reviewed the July 2009draft Groundwater Assessment Report prepared by Shumaker Consulting Engineering & LandSurveying, P.C., relative to the potential impact of the proposed Center at Horseheads ConnectorRoad Project from Old Ithaca Road to NYS Route 13 on Village Ground Water Supply Well 4.Please find attached the September 16, 2009, letter report prepared by Moody ProfessionalGeologist David Anderson. MRB Group concurs with Mr. Anderson's review comments andrecommendations.

MRB Group recommends that this letter report be forwarded to Mr. Andrew P. Avery, P.E.,Chemung County Director of Public Works, and Mr. Thomas G. Kump, P.E., Chemung CountyDirector of Environmental Health Services. Please contact this office if you have questionsregarding this submission.

Sincerely,

MRB GROUP, P.C.

encl

c: John G. Groff, Esq.Christopher J. LawrickJames R. Gresens, P.E.Kenneth CramerDavid M. Anderson, P.G.

2750 Westinghouse Road, Suite 1 - Horseheads, New York 14845 - 607-796-9340 - FAX 607-796-6600

Gynoud Water and Environ,nental Rnfer,ionaf -Since 1891

Moodyand Associates, Inc.

11548 Colton Road

Meadville, PA 16335

Ronald J. Sherman, Jr., P.E.MRB Group2750 Westinghouse RoadSuite 1Horseheads, NY 14845

September 16, 2009

RE: Village of Horseheads, New YorkWell 4 / Center at Horseheads Connector Road Project Review

Dear Mr. Sherman:

Moody and Associates, Inc. (Moody) has completed a review of the draft report:

Groundwater Assessment ReportNYSDEC - Designated Primary Aquifer

Elmira-Horseheads-Big Flats AquiferTown ofHorseheads, Chemung County, New York

Center at Horseheads Connector Road ProjectOld Ithaca Road to NY Route 13

NYSDOT PIN 6754.12

The report was prepared by Shumaker Consulting Engineering & Land Surveying ofBinghamton, New York and was dated July 2009. The draft report detailed the potential impactsof the proposed Center at Horseheads Connector Road on the local aquifer and the Village ofHorseheads public water supply Well No. 4. Well 4 is approximately 120 feet north of theproposed connector road.

Three potential post construction effects on the aquifer were identified in the draft report.Moody's comments on the post construction effect are as follows:

1. Proposed Stormwater Management (Draft report section 6.2.1)

The storm water management plan for the connector road project was not reviewed as part of thegroundwater assessment. The draft report indicated that the design of the stormwater controls

814.724.4970

814.724.4973 fax

800.836.5040

www.moodys .<om Meadville , PA • Fairport, NY • Houston, PA

had not been completed at the time of the assessment. Section 4.4 V of the New York StateDepartment of Transportations (NYSDOT) Environmental Procedures Manual indicates thesusceptibility of the aquifer to changes in stormwater runoff should be examined as part of theassessment.

The draft report identified two items which should be addressed by the stormwater controls:i. The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) requires a minimum of 300 foot

separation between Well 4 and the stormwater discharge point. (See Page 5-1)ii. To prevent contamination from petroleum releases from traffic accidents, the draft report

recommends the use of lined ditches with discharges south of the proposed connector.(See Page 6-6) (Note: The discharge points from the recommended lined ditches wouldneed to be at least 300 feet from Well 4 to comply with NYSDOH requirements.)

Moody recommends that the NYSDOT required assessment of stormwater runoff be completedas part of the final report of the groundwater assessment . The assessment should note how theNYSDOT and NYSDOH requirement regarding the protection of the aquifer and Well 4 will beaddressed by the stormwater runoff controls.

2. Effect of Deicing Chemicals on Groundwater (Draft report section 6.2.2)

A "Toler Analysis" was completed to estimate the potential increase in the chloride concentrationin the aquifer due to road salt. The Toler Analysis assumes road salt applied during the winterseason is evenly distributed in the aquifer through out the entire year. That is the potentialaquifer chloride concentration due to road salt is the same in August as it was in February. Thedraft report indicates that a high chloride concentration from a February 26, 2009 sampling was"a seasonal high level after deicing chemical applied during the winter season had entered theaquifer system". (See Pages 4-1 & 6-1).

Moody recommends an evaluation of potential seasonal variations in aquifer chlorideconcentrations be included in the final report of the groundwater assessment.

3. Effects of Vehicle Pollutants on Groundwater (Draft report section 6.2.3)

To prevent contamination from petroleum releases from traffic accidents, the draft reportrecommend the use of lined ditches with discharges south of the proposed connector. (See Page6-6) This item should be addressed in the design of the stormwater controls for the connectorroad.

Moody recommends that the NYSDOT required assessment of stormwater runoff be completedas part of the final report of the groundwater assessment . The assessment ' should note how thestormwater control will mitigate potential impacts from vehicle pollutants.

Construction Phase Stormwater Pollution Prevention

The draft reports recommends the development of a site specific Stormwater PollutionPrevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project and the utilization of required minimum separation

Ronald J. Sherman Page 2 September 16, 2009Village of Horseheads, New York Well 4 / Center at Horseheads Connector Road

distances to protect Well 4. A list of required separation distances was provided in the draftreport . The list does not specifically reference a specific separation distance for constructionactivities or the use and storage of hydrocarbons (i.e. diesel fuel , gasoline, lubricants , etc.).There is a general 200 foot separation distance for "All known sources of contaminationotherwise not shown above" . Since Well 4 is less then 50 feet deep , the separation distance isincreased by 50% to 300 feet.

The draft report contained a report, dated December 12, 1990, regarding the potential impacts ofa gasoline spill at the Knispel Construction Company on Well 4. The report was prepared by ITCorporation . The Knispel spill was 400 feet from Well 4. The IT report stated "After a longenough period of pumping , it appears the cone of depression intercepts the contaminant plumeand draws it towards the Village well (Well 4)". This determination was made at a Well 4pumping rate of 720 gallons per minute (gpm). Well 4 is currently pump at a rate of 1,420 gpm.

Moody recommends a 600 to 800 foot radius buffer zone be considered for Well 4 . The 600 to800 foot distance is 1.5 to 2 times the 400 foot distance described in the IT report . The followingactivities would be restricted in the buffer zone:

• Storage and parking of construction vehicles and equipment• Storage of hydrocarbons (i.e. diesel fuel , gasoline, lubricants, etc.)• Vehicle and construction equipment refueling and maintenance• Storage of any potentially hazardous materials

Please contact Ken Cramer or me if there are any questions regarding this review.

Sincerely,

David M. Anderson, PG.Moody and Associates, Inc.

Ronald J Sherman Page 3 September 16, 2009Village of Horseheads , New York Well 4 / Center at Horseheads Connector Road

Meeting Minutes

Date: November 12, 2009 Location: Chemung County Soil & Water 51 Chemung Street

Project Name: Center at Horseheads Connector Road Project No.: 19225.00 Subject: Newtown Creek Levee Certification Scribe: Kenward

Attendees Representing Phone Number E-Mail Andy Avery Chemung County DPW 607-739-3896 [email protected] John Webert Chemung County DPW 607-739-3896 [email protected] Jimmie Joe Carl Chemung County Stormwater

Coalition 607-739-XXXX [email protected]

Thomas Skebey Town of Horseheads 607-739-7605 [email protected] Michael Smith Chemung County Emergency

Management 607-737-2096 [email protected]

Scott Rodabaugh NYS DEC Region 8 Water 607-739-0809 [email protected] Marc Kenward Erdman Anthony 585-427-8888 x465 [email protected] Tiphaine Williams Erdman Anthony 585-427-8888 x395 [email protected]

1. Introduction & Purpose

M. Kenward and T. Williams opened by explaining the meeting’s purpose and background history leading to today’s meeting. The hydraulic modeling of Newtown Creek under the proposed project conditions indicates the new bridge crossing Newtown Creek will only impact undeveloped vacant lands and be contained within the existing levee and floodplain limits. However, the CLOMR process has been reviewed in detail and it has been noted that although the current FEMA hydraulic model of Newtown Creek includes the levee, for purposes of any flood map revisions, recent FEMA rules and regulations only allow levees to be used in hydraulic modeling if the levee is certified (i.e has known or designated ownership and maintenance responsibility, and is certified by a qualified engineer as to meeting certain standards / requirements). Unfortunately, that is not the case with the existing levees along Newtown Creek. While hydraulic modeling without the levee has not been performed, it is fairly certain that homes and businesses would be impacted under such a scenario, and that the proposed bridge crossing would further exacerbate this impact, thus precluding the project’s construction. It was further noted and understood by attendees that they are in fact aware that pending FEMA flood hazard re-mapping (tentatively scheduled for 2010) would likely preclude the existing “uncertified” levee, thus placing a significantly larger area of developed Town and Village lands in an undesirable flood hazard zone. T. Williams confirmed with Benjamin Kaiser (FEMA CLOMR Reviewer) that the existence of structures in the floodplain would cause a CLOMR to not be approved. The desire to pursue a CLOMR for the subject project simply advances the need for local officials to pursue the levee’s certification. S. Rodabaugh suggested the meeting as a means to begin formulating an action plan that would achieve the levee’s certification. Erdman Anthony representatives presented a “record plan” base map last dated 1944 of the “Center at Horseheads” which indicates the presences of the levees. (This map was obtained earlier in the morning from the current CHH administration office.)

Center at Horseheads Connector Road Levee Meeting Minutes 11-12-09 Page 2 of 2

2. Ownership and Maintenance: T. Skebey produced copies of land transfers (deeds and maps) that would suggest or otherwise indicate that as of June 3, 1975, the Town of Horseheads is responsible for the subject levees. Those present understand that getting the levee certified will require funding of some unknown amount (at this time). T. Skebey indicated to those present that any assistance would be welcomed by the Town.

S. Rodabaugh indicated that his office/agency could assist in the development of a maintenance and emergency action plan, and could perhaps in the end be responsible for maintenance through an agreement with the Town.

3. Levee Certification: T. Williams passed out copies of FEMA Information which details the requirements for

levee certification. Attendees agreed that the certification must be pursued. Erdman Anthony agreed to a request by T. Skebey that the project’s hydraulic model used by Erdman Anthony be run without the levees so that a preliminary determination of impacted area could be attained. M. Kenward and T. Williams agreed to this but noted that Chemung County’s lidar mapping would be used so the accuracy of such modeling is limited.

S. Rodabugh indicated that he may have some time available in the near term to further search through archives at the CHH administrative office for additional record plan information on the levees. What information that cannot be attained from record plans (for certification) will need to be captured in field investigations. In addition, the existing levees appear to be substantially overgrown with trees which would need to be cleared and grubbed as part of a needed restorative effort.

3) Other related Action Items

• Existing Village of Horseheads Pumping Station: J Carl recommended that Erdman Anthony check / review the ten-state standards to assure that vertical “free-board” to the finish floor is met under proposed bridge conditions

• A. Avery requested upon completion of the “with levees” model is run (and the potential impact area identified), a memo be prepared geared to the County Executive detailing and explaining the impacts of not pursuing levee certification. This memo would also be copied to Town and Village leaders.


Next Meeting: Copies: Attendees Jay Schissell, ECTC

A. Williams, NYS DOT Region 6 C. Lawrick, Vg. Horseheads DPW Shumaker Consulting Engineers

(All copies sent via e-mail) Marc D. Kenward, PE Project Manager

10.1F22G (10/01/06)

Meeting Minutes

Date: December 1, 2009 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm

Location: Elmira-Chemung Transportation Council

Project Name: Center at Horseheads Connector Road Project No.: 19225.00 Subject: Steering Committee Meeting No. 4 Scribe: Kenward/Elias


Andy Avery Chemung County DPW 607-739-3896 [email protected] John Webert Chemung County DPW 607-739-3896 [email protected] Jay Schissell ECTC 607-737-5510 [email protected] Mike Krusen Chemung County 607-737-2031 [email protected] Tom Santulli Chemung County Executive 607-707-2912 [email protected] Brian Kelly NYSDOT Region 6 607-324-8410 [email protected] Andy Williams NYSDOT Region 6 607-324-8433 [email protected] George Miner STEG 607-733-6513 [email protected] Walt Herbst Vg. Horseheads Manager 607-739-5691 [email protected] Chris Lawrick Vg. Horseheads DPW 607-739-5691 [email protected] Tom Skebey Town of Horseheads 607-739-7605 [email protected] Al Curren Town of Horseheads 607-739-8783 [email protected] John Tallis Thomas & Betts 607-796-5656 [email protected] Brian Pierce Pepsi Bottling Group 607-795-2128 [email protected] Randy Hanson 101, 110, 118 Old Ithaca Rd 607-739-8118 [email protected] Bob Kramer The Center at Horseheads 607-739-3856 [email protected] Larry Lauritzen Lehigh/Hanson 610-366-4707 [email protected] Dennis Elias Erdman Anthony 585-427-8888 [email protected] Marc Kenward Erdman Anthony 585-427-8888 [email protected] Kelly Saladis SCE 607-798-8081 [email protected]

1) Introduction Jay Schissell opened the meeting, welcomed all attendees and made reference to the meeting agenda. Jay asked all attendees to introduce themselves and place their name and contact information on the sign-in sheet. A handout of Chapter 1 of the Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment, (the executive summary) was provided to all attendees.

2) Project Status M. Kenward reviewed the current project status. The first draft of the Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment (DDR/EA) has been submitted to the County and State for their review, and is available for Steering Committee members to access and download on the project FTP site. Instructions for access were provided in the expanded meeting agenda that was sent via e-mail with this meeting notification. M. Kenward also briefly reviewed the project needs and the project objectives as a preface to the following update and review of the base alternative and subalternatives.


3) Alternatives/Subalternatives D. Elias first reviewed and discussed the most recent revisions to the base alternative. The connector road’s intersection with NY Route 13 is now recommended to be signalized since some traffic signal warrants are nearly met for the estimated time of completion (ETC) and are met in the future ETC+20 conditions. Signalizing this intersection eliminates the need for a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane. The base subalternatives for Old Ithaca Road intersection are for either a conventional 4-leg signalized intersection with dedicated left turn lanes on Old Ithaca Road (subalternative “A_”) or a modern roundabout (subalternative “B_”). Each of the subalternatives is further broken down into how the roadway connection is made into the Center at Horseheads, with “2” being a direct connection to 5th Street (A2 or B2) and “3” being a direct connection to E Street (A3 or B3). There are minor changes in the locations and amount and right-of-way acquisition since the last meeting. Videos of traffic simulation models of each of the four subalternatives for the Old Ithaca Road intersection were shown in order to demonstrate the traffic operational characteristics of each of the subalternatives. A fifth simulation model of a truck convoy leaving the CHH during off-peak traffic hours was also shown to demonstrate the efficiency of the roundabout subalternatives to handle such a condition. D. Elias indicated that overall, the roundabout will provide a better overall level of service in the future conditions than a conventional signalized intersection 4-leg intersection, which is documented in the DDR/EA. M. Kenward and D. Elias indicated that the direct connection to 5th Street offers better traffic flow operations even if volumes on E Street are larger. A. Avery suggested that under the direct 5th Street connection, a stop sign could be considered on the eastbound 5th Street approach to E Street if traffic becomes problematic, thus decreasing the potential for southbound traffic queues on E Street. G. Miner indicated that the approach would be acceptable to STEG provided that E Street is still shifted away from building 13-1. Subsequently, A. Avery recommended that subalternatives A3 and B3 be dropped from further consideration. D. Elias reviewed the “components” of a modern roundabout, including truck apron, splitter islands and the desired approach/entrance geometry. Since the new Old Ithaca Road intersection will need to handle a potentially large volume of trucks accessing the CHH, the roundabout diameter is greater than the minimum required by design standards. Video simulations showing the path of two different semi-trailer trucks traveling through the roundabout were shown. The first video demonstrated that WB-40 (33-foot trailer, similar to a large delivery truck) traveling through the roundabout did not need to utilize the interior truck apron. The second video demonstrated that a WB-65 (53-foot trailer) passing through the roundabout would need to utilize the interior truck apron. The safety aspects of both intersection alternatives were discussed. D. Elias explained that the conventional intersection with turn lanes has 33 potential conflict points between vehicles, while the roundabout would reduce that to 8. The importance of the types of accidents was also discussed. Common types of accidents at signalized intersections include left turns, right angles, and rear ends. Roundabouts eliminate the potential for left turn and right angle accidents by converting all movements within the roundabout and approaches to right turns and through moves. Therefore, common accidents at roundabout are either rear ends or sideswipes – both of which are lower speed and less severe than left turn and right angles accidents. The estimated costs of the subalternatives were discussed. The roundabout subalternatives are estimated to cost approximately $600,000 less than a conventional 4-leg intersection. In addition to the cost of the traffic signal, the conventional intersection requires more right-of-way acquisition to accommodate the widening of Old Ithaca Road for dedicated left-turn lanes, additional closed drainage system installation and utility relocation, and the limits of work extend further to the north and south.


Comments

R. Hansen asked about driveway entrance to the connector road for the property on the southeast corner of the proposed Old Ithaca Road intersection. Since a similar entrance is being considered for the property on the northeast corner, Erdman Anthony will evaluate the feasibility of accommodating a similar driveway.

B. Kelly noted that the limit of federal-aid funding would be the western approach boundary of the Old Ithaca Road intersection. The proposed roadway reconfiguration within the CHH would likely not be Federal-aid eligible, even if E Street (or 5th Street) becomes a dedicated county or local roads. D. Elias indicated that the proposed improvements to E Street and 5th Street amount to approximately $250,000 of the estimated $8.8 M construction cost for the entire project.

B. Kelly and A. Williams noted that they will be discussing the environmental classification of the project with FHWA in the near future. While NYSDOT believes an EA is an appropriate environmental document, they need to confirm with FHWA that the project will not require preparation of an EIS.

4) Environmental K. Saladis described the various environmental reviews and studies performed to date and presented the following summary:

Air Quality - A Mesoscale Analysis is expected to be required for this project since the total lane-miles added will exceed one mile. This analysis will be performed upon confirmation that such analysis is required. A Microscale Air Quality Analysis is not expected to be required.

Energy – Potential direct annual energy consumption of the Build Alternative would be less than the energy consumption of the No-Build alternative. Similarly direct greenhouse gas emissions would also be less. The No Build alternative would result in the least amount of indirect energy expended, and that construction of the Build alternative would produce higher indirect energy demands than the No-Build alternative. Subsequently, the No Build alternative will result in a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the Build Alternative are predicted to be slightly lower compared to the No Build by 2030. Noise – A study was conducted to determine the impacts of both traffic generated noise and construction noise which may be expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. Two criteria were used to determine if noise impacts would occur:

1. A 6 dBA increase between existing and design year 2031 Build Alternative noise levels. 2. The predicted traffic noise level approaches or exceeds the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)

associated with each analysis site.

A comparison of the predicted design year noise levels to Criteria 2 reveals that analysis sites in the project corridor approach or exceed their respective NAC. This impact would occur with or without the construction of the project. Abatement techniques were reviewed for this project, but were not found to be reasonable or feasible. Therefore, no noise abatement measures are recommended for this project.

5) Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) M. Kenward discussed and reviewed the latest development with respect to the CLOMR. Although the current FEMA hydraulic model of Newtown Creek includes the levee, for purposes of any flood map revisions, recent FEMA rules and regulations only allow levees to be used in hydraulic modeling if the levee is accredited (i.e. has known or designated ownership and maintenance responsibility, and is certified by a qualified engineer as to meeting certain standards/requirements). Unfortunately, that is not the case with the existing levees along


Newtown Creek. Preliminary hydraulic modeling without the levee indicates that a fairly large area of homes and businesses would be impacted under such a scenario, and that the proposed bridge crossing would further exacerbate this impact, thus precluding the project’s construction. It was further noted and explained that pending FEMA flood hazard remapping (tentatively scheduled for 2010) would likely preclude the existing “uncertified” levee, thus placing a significantly larger area of developed Town and Village lands in an undesirable flood hazard zone. T. Skebey added that the Town of Horseheads appears to be the party responsible for maintenance of the levees. T. Skebey, M. Kenward, A. Avery and various other local officials met last month to discuss the issues related to the levee accreditation, and after the meeting it was apparent that the Town needs to pursue accreditation of the levees - regardless of whether the connector road project progresses. B. Kelly recommended this discussion be added to Floodplain Report and the DDR/EA 6) Funding B. Kelly and J. Schissell discussed the TIGER grant application that was recently submitted for the project’s construction funding. Although this is a “good” project because the application includes funding for other related multimodal work, he is not optimistic given the number of applications and the amount of available funding. In addition, the 5-year capital project funding program up for renewal is expected to decrease. Nevertheless, design will continue to completion so that the project is ready for immediate construction upon funding availability. G. Miner and T. Santulli discussed the implications of not constructing the project after it has been introduced to the public. The need to examine every avenue of potential funding was stressed to the committee members.

7) Other NYSDOT Comments: Based on NYSDOT review to date of DDR/EA, A. Williams and B. Kelly offered the following:

• The proposed schedule in the report is aggressive and assumes availability of construction funding. County and EA should consider revising the report in light of previous discussion. TIGER grant decisions are expected in January or February of 2010.

• Committee was advised of a 2011 safety improvement project at the Route 13 and East Franklin Street intersection which is expected to add auxiliary lanes on Route 13. Since it is likely the two projects will overlap, the first project to be constructed needs to accommodate the following project. DDR/EA needs to reflect this project. NYSDOT will forward any information on the project to Erdman Anthony as it becomes available.

• Williams reviewed the “Break-in-Access” for Route 13 needed for this project’s roadway connection. A map will soon be needed in order to progress the change in access. Map will need to show the right-of-way without access extending 300± feet westerly along new connector road right-of-way. This break-in-access will also require a “refund” or payment back to New York State since the property owners adjacent to the Route 13 right-of-way were compensated for their future loss of access.

• The concrete underpass located just north of the proposed Route 13 intersection provided vehicular access under Route 13 for the landowner whose property was split or divided by the construction of Route 13. However, ownership over the years has changed, such that either side now has different owners. Subsequently the underpass is no longer needed for cross access and should be eliminated. Since the CHH connector road project work limit extends northward to just past this structure, the CHH project should address the subject abandonment. In addition, slope flattening and guiderail elimination needs to be considered in conjunction with the culvert abandonment.


• Acquisition of property from the United States of America should be avoided if possible because of the long time frame needed to accomplish such acquisition. (Post Meeting Note: NYS DOT Region 6 is responsible for Title searches to verify ownership)

The above comments and other comments by NYSDOT personnel will be forwarded to the County after December 4th.

8) Next Steps

Public Informational Meeting, 12:00 Noon, December 15th at Village of Horseheads Village Hall. This is the writer’s interpretation of the above meeting. If there are any issues that need to be revised or discussed, please inform the author within five days of receiving the minutes.

Next Meeting:

Copies: Attendees Shumaker Consulting Engineers


From: Sam Maggio [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:46 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]

Cc: [email protected] Subject: Schlumberger Public Information Session

Andrew and all---

I cannot attend the Public Information Session Scheduled today (Dec 3) to discuss the “PROPOSED”

Schlumberger Connector Road Work.

However, for the record, I want my voice to be heard:

I strongly oppose the road work Schlumberger is seeking to perform.

The DEC and others have already found Schlumberger contaminating Catharine Creek and ground water.

Schlumberger also have ignored and/or disobeyed DEC and health department orders.

They show a pattern of irresponsibility, and dishonesty and utter disregard for the health of the people

in our region. They exhibit an arrogance and total lack of concern for the community and our

environment. I live downstream near the edge of Catharine Creek. Schlumberger has sent contaminants

my way and they clearly do not care about my health and welfare. What will happen IF they start major

operations? Will we wait until they create a major spill or environmental crisis before we stop their

activities? Jobs are of no value if the environment is polluted.

They put greed above all human health and environmental concerns. Schlumberger is NOT a good

neighbor nor are they committed to safeguarding the people of our region.

Sincerely,

Sam Maggio

Millport, NY 1486

Sam Maggio

President of ICM

630 Elmira Rd

Ithaca, NY 14850

RESIDENCE: MILLPORT, New York

10.1F35G (02/07/08)

Telephone/Meeting Memo Date: December 14, 2009 Time: 4:15 p.m. Project Name: Center at Horseheads Connector Road Project No.: 19225.00 Subject: FEMA CLOMR for Floodplain Impacts & Levee Certification

Telephone Call: To: From Name: Benjamin Kaiser Company: URS Corporation

200 Orchard Ridge Dr Suite 101 Gaithersburg, MD 20878

Telephone No.: (301) 258-9780

Meeting With: Name: Company: Originator: Tiphaine Williams Office: Rochester Ben Kaiser returned my call to answer a question regarding levee certification and CLOMR applications. I asked Ben if our CLOMR submission for the Horseheads submission would get approved if the levee was provisionally accredited? Ben stated that the CLOMR would not be approved with provisional accreditation. It has to be demonstrated that the levee meets all certification requirements. He said that we can submit certification data and documentation along with the CLOMR and the CLOMR would be approved even if FEMA had not yet completed their formal levee certification review. He said this way we can submit the CLOMR and levee certification concurrently and the pace of levee approval would not hinder CLOMR approval.

From: Matt [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:28 PM To: [email protected]

Subject: Connector Project

Hello,

I was recently introduced to the Center at Horseheads Connector Road Project. I was wondering

if you would be able to inform me of the purpose of the project, as I'm still in the blue as to the

need for the road.

From my perspective, it looks to be a giant waste of taxpayer money. Alongside asking the

taxpayer to fund yet another government project (a project I see has having little to no beneficial

impact) in this time of economic hardship, I also foresee the highway to bring about a major

headache for the locals. I live in Horseheads, right off of Old Ithaca Rd., and I get the feeling

this project is going to bring a lot of congestion and unneeded traffic to the area.

Instead of creating an entire new connector road, why don't we collect funds to replace and fix

the actual roads that we already have? Route 13 is falling apart and I fail to see the logic in

building yet another expensive, and hugely excessive, road when our current roadways are in the

shape they are.

I appreciate your time and listening to my concerns. Take care.

Matt Learn.

10.1F22G (10/01/06)

Public Information Meeting Synopsis

Date: December 15, 2009 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm

Location: Vg. Horsehead Village Hall 202 South Main Street

Project Name: Center at Horseheads Connector Road Project No.: 19225.00 Subject: Public Information Meeting No. 1 Scribe: Kenward/Elias

On Tuesday, December 15, 2009 an “open house” format Public Informational Meeting was held at the above noted location from 12:00 noon until 4:00 pm Officials and consultant representatives present to discuss the project and respond to questions included:


Andy Avery Chemung County DPW 607-739-3896 [email protected] John Webert Chemung County DPW 607-739-3896 [email protected] Jay Schissell ECTC 607-737-5510 [email protected] Brian Kelly NYSDOT Region 6 607-324-8410 [email protected] Andy Williams NYSDOT Region 6 607-324-8433 [email protected] Dennis Elias Erdman Anthony 585-427-8888 [email protected] Marc Kenward Erdman Anthony 585-427-8888 [email protected] Tiphanie Williams Erdman Anthony 585-427-8888 [email protected] Kelly Saladis Shumaker Consulting Engineers 607-798-8081 [email protected]

1) Meeting format/Set-up

Meeting format was “open house.” No formal presentation was made. Four “stations” were set up:

• A colored plot roll was hung on one wall along with the two intersection sub-alternatives for Old Ithaca Road.

• A power point slide show loop was projected onto a display screen. • A laptop computer displayed visual operational simulations of the two intersection sub-alternatives for Old

Ithaca Road (4-leg signalized intersection and a modern roundabout). • A display of aerial imagery was provided and staffed showing the existing and proposed conditions of the

floodplain analysis relative to Newtown Creek and the proposed bridge. Forms for submitting written comments were provided. NOTE: Two formal written comment forms were received subsequent to the meeting

1) Introduction

A. Avery opened the meeting at 12:00 noon with a brief introduction of the project and introduction of attendees present to discuss the project and answer questions. No formal project presentation was provided. It was noted that numerous (over two-dozen) attendees were already present.

Center at Horseheads Connector Road Public Information Meeting No. 1 Synopsis 12-15-09 Page 2 of 2

2) Key concerns/interests (in no particular order)

• Specific roadway location • Roundabout intersection operational and safety characteristics • Abutting property access and driveway locations • Property impacts • Accommodations for tractor-trailers • Locations of properties with respect to the existing and proposed flood hazard areas. • “Next steps” • Project costs and funding source(s) • Scope and extent of improvements to other access locations/routes to the Center at Horseheads

3) Intersection sub-alternatives

The overall reaction to the proposed roundabout sub-alternative was measured skepticism. While there was some opposition voiced or disagreement expressed, the overall consensus of the attendees was more aligned with providing a safe, sustainable and long-term solution for the proposed Old Ithaca Road intersection with the new connector road.

4) Specific concerns: B. Kelly of NYS DOT Region 6 forwarded the following two specific questions from M. Swasta (a meeting attendee) to Region 6 Traffic and Safety for their review and response (these questions concern existing access conditions on the west side of the CHH, outside the subject project limits):

Both of these concern the intersection of Westinghouse Rd & Watkins Rd where our SR14 transitions between them.

1. Watkins Rd. NB traffic tends to get stranded in the intersection when SR14 SB traffic continues to move through the intersection on a green turn arrow. Is there anything that can be done to improve this?

2. There is some type of sign on the east side of this intersection directing trucks north on SR14 to get into the CHH facility. Who owns the sign? Can it be improved and/or made bigger? Mr. Swasta indicated that there continues to be a fair amount of truck traffic that heads south from this intersection rather than north to get into the CHH facility.


Next Meeting:

Copies: Attendees Shumaker Consulting Engineers


12.15.09

Center at Horseheads Connector Road Town and Village of Horseheads

The Chemung County Department of Public Works

is the project sponsor. Other local, state, and

federal agencies are participating in the planning

process including: the Federal Highway

Administration, the New York State Department of

Transportation, and the Elmira-Chemung

Transportation Council.

There are a variety of ways you can provide your

thoughts:

♦ Speak with one of the project representatives

♦ Use the comment form

♦ Attend future public input sessions

For additional information or to provide your

comments, contact:

Andrew P. Avery, PE

Director of Public Works

E-mail: [email protected]

Phone: 607.739.3896

Mail: Department of Public Works

803 Chemung Street

Horseheads, NY 14845

Please identify this project as Center at

Horseheads Connector Road and include the six

digit Project Identification Number (PIN) 6754.12 to

ensure your comments are received.

Who is Proposing the Project and How Can I Be Involved?

PIN 6754.12

Public Information Meeting

Proposed View

Subalternative A2

Proposed View

Subalternative B2

Existing View

Existing View

Proposed View

Old Ithaca Road

Route 13

Why is the Project Needed? The project is the culmination of a decade-long planning ef-

fort. The need to reduce large truck traffic through historic

and residential areas was identified as a community goal in

the planning stage of the Hanover Square reconstruction

project. The need to improve truck access to the Center at

Horseheads was recommended in the Town of Horse-

heads Routes 13 and 14 Corridor Management Assess-

ment (2004) and further refined in the Center at

Horseheads Highway Corridor Analysis (2006).

What Are the Planned Improvements? A new roadway will be constructed from the

entrance to the Center at Horseheads on Old Ithaca

Road east across the former gravel pit to Route 13.

A tee intersection would be constructed on Route

13 with a northbound left turn lane and a traffic

signal. A new two-span bridge will carry the road-

way over Newtown Creek and the flood control

levees.

Two subalternatives are under consideration for the

intersection at Old Ithaca Road.

♦ Subalternative A2 (blue oval at right) provides

for the construction of a traditional, signalized

intersection with dedicated northbound left and

southbound left turn lanes on Old Ithaca Road.

♦ Subalternative B2 (yellow oval) would retain

the existing lane configuration on Old Ithaca

Road and construct a modern roundabout in

place of the traditional intersection.

Minor realignment of E Street and 5th Street within

the Center at Horseheads would improve access,

safety, and traffic flow at the approach to Old

Ithaca Road.


PIN 6754.12

How Will the Environment be Affected? Approximately 10 acres of property will be acquired for the

project. The new roadway construction will have minor

impacts on drainage patterns, floodplain limits, noise, and

travel patterns. Benefits of the project include reduced long

-term energy use, vehicle emissions, and traffic noise in

sensitive areas as compared to maintaining the existing

roadway network.

New Signal at

Route 13

New 2-Span

Bridge Over

Newtown Creek

Realigned E

Street and

5th Street

New Connector

Road

Subalternative

A2 Subalternative

B2

KenwardMD

Text Box

State of New YorkDepartment of Transportation

Region Six107 Broadway

Hornell, New York 14843

BRIAN C. KELLY, P.E. STANLEY GEEREGIONAL DIRECTOR ACTING COMMISSIONER

October 12, 2010

Mr. Chris MillingtonArea EngineerFederal Highway AdministrationLeo O'Brien Federal Building, Suite 719Clinton Avenue and North Pearl StreetAlbany, NY 12207

Locally Administered ProjectRe: PIN 6754.12 09PR03551Center at Horseheads Connector RoadTown of Horseheads, Chemung County

Dear Mr. Millington:

Enclosed is a copy of the cultural resource coordination for the above-referenced Locally-AdministeredFederal-Aid project. The project will provide for the construction of a new connector road from the Centerat Horseheads to Route 13 and include the construction of a new bridge over Newtown Creek. Twosubalternatives are also being considered for the intersection of Old Ithaca Road and the new connectorroad. One subalternative would provide a conventional 4-leg signalized intersection at Old Ithaca Roadand the new connector road/realigned Fifth Street; the other would provide a single-lane modernroundabout on Old Ithaca Road and a direct connection to a realigned Fifth Street and the new ConnectorRoad. The project is needed to address existing and emerging traffic, mobility and access deficiencieswithin the Town and Village of Horseheads in the vicinity of the Center at Horseheads industrial park.

The Federally recognized Indian Nations were provided an opportunity to comment on June 12, 2010. Nocomments have been received from the Nations. Based on our review of the cultural resourcecoordination with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), we agree with the SHPO opinion that thisproject will have No Effect upon properties in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of HistoricPlaces. We request your agency’s concurrence that the requirements of 36 CFR 800 have been satisfiedfor this project.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Ruth E. HartRegional Cultural Resource Coordinator

Enclosurecc: Andrew P. Avery, Chemung County Director of Public Works

Marc Kenward, PE, Erdman AnthonyKelly Saladis, Shumaker Consulting Engineering & L.S., P.C.Brent Rauber, Regional Local Projects Liaison, Region 6P. Dunleavy, Office of the Environment, POD 4-1

1

Marc D. Kenward

From: Karis Manning [[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 3:46 PMTo: Marc D. KenwardCc: Joy Brewer; Scott Rodabaugh; Scott Sheeley; William NechamenSubject: Re: PIN 6754.12: Center at Horseheads Connector Road, Chemung County, NY

Marc, In response to your request, I have obtained the following comments regarding floodplain management for the project: "Please note that ECL Chapter V, Part 502 does not allow DEC to issue a variance for any project that results in an increase in the base flood elevation due to an encroachment into the floodway. They would first have to go to FEMA for a Letter of Map Revision that changes the flood insurance rate map. The LOMR would be contingent upon the town of Horseheads certifying the levee, and the project being shown as containing the increased BFE within areas that do not have any development." (Thank you Bill, for your concise response.) With regard to flood protection, this area does not have a flood protection system that the DEC has jurisdiction over, and therefore DEC has no comments or issues from this program. I have communicated with Region 8 Division of Permits, which has performed a preliminary screening of the area, and does not have issue(s) that would prohibit this project. There may be additional permits required, or coordination needed once the project begins. As such, we do not believe that this project has any elements that DEC would deem 'show-stoppers'. Sincerely, Karis

Karis Manning, P.E. Environmental Engineer II NYSDEC, Region 8 Water Division 6274 East Avon-Lima Road Avon, NY 14414 (Ph) 585-226-5445 [email protected]>>> "Marc D. Kenward" <[email protected]> 12/2/2010 2:56 PM >>> Karis; The subject project is a Locally Administered Federal Aid project administered by Chemung County. The project proposes a new road connecting NY Route 13 with Old Ithaca Road and the Center at Horseheads, located just north of the village of Horseheads. A new bridge to carry the proposed roadway over Newtown Creek is also included as part of the project. This new crossing will impact the floodplains and floodway associated with Newtown Creek. However our hydraulic analysis of Newtown Creek has shown that the rise in flood elevation will have no effect on any structures or buildings as none are present. Your predecessor, Scott Rodabaugh should be quite familiar with the project. The Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment has been sent to FHWA for their review and comment. The FHWA has requested that before they sign‐off on the current version of the DDR/EA, the local, state and federal agencies having jurisdiction over the Newtown Creek floodway and floodplain be given an opportunity to review the DDR/EA and supporting appendices for any issues or “show stopping” concerns. This “formal review” is being requested prior to their approval of the DDR/EA for the formal DDR/EA “Phase II distribution” (agency and public review period). FHWA is also aware of the Town’s need to have the levee certified before a CLOMR can be approved for the project’s construction.

2

Rather than burden you with hard copies of a rather voluminous report, we have a website that can be accessed for *.pdf copies of the report and various appendices that comprise the DDR/EA. Please type into your internet browser or click on the following link: http://www.erdmananthony.com/horseheads. The relevant documents which FHWA would like your written (letter or e‐mail) response is as follows:

1. Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment , 3.3.3.7 – Hydraulics of Bridges & Culverts (pg 3‐22) and 4.4.5 – Floodplains (pg 4‐6)

2. Appendix E – Structures Information; Floodplain Evaluation Report 3. Appendix G – Public Involvement Plan which includes meeting minutes, tel‐con memos and e‐mails pertaining

to project issues. This includes tel‐con memos and e‐mails with FEMA representatives regarding the Floodplain Evaluation and the Newtown Creek levee certification.

The FHWA has advised the State and County that we respectfully request your written response within 15 days of receipt of this notification. You are being sent this e‐mail and the above information / review request in your role as NYS DEC Region 8 Flood Control Engineer. If you prefer printed copies of the relevant DDR/EA documents please advise us and they will be produced and sent. On behalf of Chemung County, we thank you for your time and attention to this request. Sincerely; Marc Kenward, PE Senior Associate Erdman Anthony 2165 Brighton Henrietta Townline Road Rochester, NY 14623 Tel: (585) 427 - 8888 x465 Cell: (585) 813-4212 FAX: (585) 427 - 8914 e-mail: [email protected]

1

Marc D. Kenward

From: Fenn, Jason [[email protected]]Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 10:18 AMTo: Marc D. KenwardSubject: RE: PIN 6754.12: Center at Horseheads Connector Road, Chemung County, NY

Mr. Kenward: This is in response to Erdman Anthony’s request for FEMA review and comment on the Draft Design Report /Environmental Assessment (DDR/EA) for a highway and bridge project (Project Identification Number 6754.12 ). The documents for which FEMA review and comment was requested are as follows:


2. Appendix E – Structures Information; Floodplain Evaluation Report 3. Appendix G – Public Involvement Plan

In reference to these documents, FEMA Region II Mitigation concurs with the following input provided by the New YorkState Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC):

“The section of levee in the area is a Town (sic) owned levee that is not part of the federal levee system. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)(sic) states that the increased Base Flood Elevation (BFE)(sic) would belimited to a 3.9 acre area between a levee and a berm. The levee is not currently shown on the Flood InsuranceRate Map as offering protection from the Base Flood (sic). The Town (sic) of Horseheads is currently pursuing certification of the levee, which requires the levee to meet freeboard requirements of at least three feet above the BFE, plus an additional foot at either side of structures such as bridges, as well as FEMA defined operation,maintenance and physical standards. The EIS also states that should the levee be certified, the increased BFE (sic) would remain within the levee freeboard requirements. Issues of levee certification and freeboard would have to be addressed during the CLOMR and LOMR process. FEMA will not issue a CLOMR or LOMR showing the affected area limited to the levee controlled area unless such levee is certified as meeting FEMAregulations contained in 44 CFR 65.10. If the levee cannot be certified, or if the increase in the BFE (sic) resultsin elimination of the freeboard requirement, the project would affect a much larger area including a large number of structures.

Under State requirements the project cannot move forward unless it is accompanied by a Letter of Map Revision(LOMR) from FEMA that physically changes the flood map. The LOMR will not be issued if the project results in increased damages to structures. Therefore, the LOMR is fully contingent on the Town of Horseheads certifyingthe levee and berm. DEC is legally constrained form issuing a variance for the project if an encroachment in thefloodway results in an increase in the BFE (sic).”

Additionally, compliance with the following is required: New York State Environmental Conservation Law Article 36, § 36‐0107: Powers of local governments Notwithstanding any other law: 1. All local governments with land use jurisdiction over any area of special flood hazard shall, and are authorized to, take any action necessary to achieve and maintain participation in the national flood insurance program.

2

2. Any local law or ordinance adopted for the purpose of qualifying a local government as a participant in the national flood insurance program shall apply to any construction or improvement undertaken within any such local government by any county, city, town, village, school district or public improvement district. & §§1‐0101, 3‐0301, Article 36, Part 502: Floodplain Management Criteria for State Projects which can be found here: http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4471.html

No other substantive issues on matters subject to FEMA regulations were noted in FEMA’s review of the documentsprovided. If you require any further information please let me know. Best regards, Jason Fenn Hazard Mitigation Specialist Mitigation Division, FEMA Region II 26 Federal Plaza, 13th Floor New York, NY 10278 [email protected] TEL: 212.680.3624 FAX: 212.680.3602

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marc D. Kenward Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 2:56 PM To: Fenn, Jason Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Dennis J. Elias Subject: PIN 6754.12: Center at Horseheads Connector Road, Chemung County, NY Mr. Fenn; The subject project is a Locally Administered Federal Aid project administered by Chemung County, NY. The project proposes a new road connecting NY Route 13 with Old Ithaca Road and the Center at Horseheads, located just north of the village of Horseheads. A new bridge to carry the proposed roadway over Newtown Creek is also included as part of the project. This new crossing will impact the floodplains and floodway associated with Newtown Creek. However our hydraulic analysis of Newtown Creek has shown that the rise in flood elevation will have no effect on any structures or buildings as none are present. Your predecessor, Melissa Ryan has been previously contacted about the subject project and may have some familiarity with it. (See attachment.) The Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment (DDR/EA) has been sent to FHWA for their review and comment. The FHWA has requested that before they sign‐off on the current version of the DDR/EA, the local, state and federal agencies having jurisdiction over the Newtown Creek floodway and floodplain be given an opportunity to review the DDR/EA and supporting appendices for any issues or “show stopping” concerns. This “formal review” is being requested prior to their approval of the DDR/EA for the formal DDR/EA “Phase II distribution” (agency and public review period). FHWA is also aware of the Town’s need to have the Newtown Creek levee certified before a CLOMR can be approved for the project’s construction.

3

Rather than burden you with hard copies of a rather voluminous report, we have a website that can be accessed for *.pdf copies of the report and various appendices that comprise the DDR/EA. Please type into your internet browser or click on the following link: http://www.erdmananthony.com/horseheads. The relevant documents which FHWA would like your written (letter or e‐mail) response is as follows:


5. Appendix E – Structures Information; Floodplain Evaluation Report 6. Appendix G – Public Involvement Plan which includes meeting minutes, tel‐con memos and e‐mails pertaining to

project issues. This includes tel‐con memos and e‐mails with FEMA representatives regarding the Floodplain Evaluation and the Newtown Creek levee certification.

The FHWA has advised the State and County that we respectfully request your written response within 15 days of receipt of this notification. You are being sent this e‐mail and the above information / review request in your role as FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Specialist for the area of New York that includes Chemung County. If you prefer printed copies of the relevant DDR/EA documents please advise us of an address and they will be produced and sent. On behalf of Chemung County, we thank you for your time and attention to this request. Sincerely; Marc Kenward, PE Senior Associate Erdman Anthony 2165 Brighton Henrietta Townline Road Rochester, NY 14623 Tel: (585) 427 - 8888 x465 Cell: (585) 813-4212 FAX: (585) 427 - 8914 e-mail: [email protected]

1

Marc D. Kenward

From: Tom Skebey [[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 1:24 PMTo: Marc D. KenwardSubject: Re: PIN 6754.12: Center at Horseheads Connector Road, Chemung County, NY

I have reviewed the documents requested in the email and have no comments to offer on the documents. In regard to a definitive schedule of activities for achieving levee certification, at this time there is no set schedule. The Town will be meeting with the stakeholders of the levee to address the activities and eventual certification of levee. This meeting should take place after the new year. Tom SKebey ----- Original Message ----- From: Marc D. Kenward To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; Dennis J. Elias ; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 2:55 PM Subject: PIN 6754.12: Center at Horseheads Connector Road, Chemung County, NY Tom; As you know from your participation in the Steering Committee meetings, the subject project proposes a new road connecting NY Route 13 with Old Ithaca Road and the Center at Horseheads. A new bridge to carry the proposed roadway over Newtown Creek is also included as part of the project. This new crossing will impact the floodplains and floodway associated with Newtown Creek. However our hydraulic analysis of Newtown Creek has shown that the rise in flood elevation will have no effect on any structures or buildings as none are present. The Draft Design Report / Environmental Assessment has been sent to FHWA for their review and comment. The FHWA has requested that before they sign‐off on the current version of the DDR/EA, the local, state and federal agencies having jurisdiction over the floodway and floodplain be given an opportunity to review the DDR/EA and supporting appendices for any issues or “show stopping” concerns. This “formal review” is being requested prior to their approval of the DDR/EA for the formal DDR/EA “Phase II distribution” (agency and public review period). FHWA is also aware of the Town’s need to have the levee certified before a CLOMR can be approved for the project’s construction. Rather than burden you with hard copies of a rather voluminous report, we have a website that can be accessed for *.pdf copies of the report and various appendices that comprise the DDR/EA. Please type into your internet browser or click on the following link: http://www.erdmananthony.com/horseheads. The relevant documents which FHWA would like you written (letter or e‐mail) response is as follows:


2. Appendix E – Structures Information; Floodplain Evaluation Report 3. Appendix G – Public Involvement Plan which includes meeting minutes, tel‐con memos and e‐mails pertaining

to project issues. This includesd tel‐con memos and e‐mails with FEMA representatives regarding the Floodplain Evaluation and the Newtown Creek levee certification.

Another comment which FHWA has asked to be addressed is a definitive schedule of activities for achieving the Newtown Creek levee certification per Section 65 of the NFIP. (i.e. completion of the study, design of repairs and improvements, construction completion).

2

The FHWA has advised the State and County that we respectfully request your written response within 15 days of receipt of this notification. If you prefer printed copies of the relevant DDR/EA documents please advise us and they will be produced and sent. You are being sent this e‐mail and the above information / review request as we understand that you are the Town of Horsehead’s designated staff‐person for floodplain administration. If you are not the Town’s floodplain administrator, please forward this onto the appropriate official. On behalf of Chemung County, we thank you for your time and attention to these questions and concerns. Sincerely; Marc Kenward, PE Senior Associate Erdman Anthony 2165 Brighton Henrietta Townline Road Rochester, NY 14623 Tel: (585) 427 - 8888 x465 Cell: (585) 813-4212 FAX: (585) 427 - 8914 e-mail: [email protected]

public involvement plan - erdman anthony g.pdfpublic involvement plan schedule of milestone dates...

Documents