The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBridge Improvement Project - Greenport Route 25 over LIRR, Town of Southhold Bridge Improvement Project PIN 0042.28 Comparison of Alternatives Estimated Construction ROW Wetland Approximate Cost Estimated ~,lternative Description Duration Impact Impact Project Cost Comments (months) (acrasI (acres) ROW Const. I Do nothing ..... Bridge will continue to deteriorate. Complete superstructure replacement or strengthening. Will not provide II Bridge rehabilitation 10 months - - $3.00M $3.00M accommodations for bicyclists. Shortest construction duration of bridge Bridge replacement along replacement alternatives, minimizes "northern" alignment (new ~mpacts to Penny Lumber property but has III ali,qnment) 12 months 1.48 0.64 $0.36M $9.88M $10.24M the largest ROW and wetland impacts. Bridge replacement along Reduces impacts on "nor'th" side of the "northern" alignment (stage roadway but has the highest construction Ilia construction) 18 months 1.11 0.52 $0.29M $11.3M $11.59M duration and cost. Minimum ROW and wetland impacts of all Bridge replacement along same the bridge replacement alternatives. Some IV alignment w/temporary bridge 14 months 0.75 0.37 $0.19M 10.63 $10.82M ~mpacts to Penny Lumber property. Bridge replacement along Impacts to Penny Lumber property ara V "southern" alignment 18 months 1.48 0.25 $0.36M $11.3M $11.66M most severe. Alignment same as Alternative II1. Increased accident potential due to the Grade crossing west of existing relatively high vehicle approach speeds and VI bddge (new ali,qnment) 8 months 0.47 0.12 $0.20M $3.0M $3.2M windin(3 alic~nment of the roadway. - 625 mm, [ OF BRIDGE 625 mm - (2 FT -*) ic (2 FT -*) 2.4 m (8 FT +) 3.6 m (]2 FT -+)i3.6 m (lB FT -+) 2.4 m (8 FT -+) I 760 mm {2.49 FT) I 1 ' Z ii, _ TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION 8.725 m STAGE I CONSTRUCTION 625 mm (2 FT (28.65 FTI --300 mm (1 FT -*) 300 mm (1 FT Z - [ OF BRIDGE 4.525 m STAGE II CONSTRUCTION (14.85 FT) ~-TEMPORARY BARRIER -- 450 mm ~ CLOSURE POUR (18") TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION STAGE CONSTRUCTION OPTIONS 13.25 rn OUT-TO-OUT 1525 mm 2.0 m (6,5 FT -+) 3.3 m (11 FT +-) 3.3 m (]1 FT -+) 2.0 m (6.5 FT ~IDEwA[~ '; SHOOt'ER ~R~VEL LANE c TRAVEL LANE SHOULDER (5 FT) I I I I ,~ ¢_ OF BRIDGE FUTURE TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION WITH SIDEWALK ADDED ON ONE SIDE ONLY PROPOSED ROADWAY TOE OF SLOPE 13.25m OUT-TO-OUT EXISTING ABUTMENT U-WALL (TYP.) -- L EXitS T_~NG~R~OA~A ¥ STAGE I ' STRDcT'°N ......... ' '- ~ ' TOE OF SLOPE PLAN VIEW ,~;-' ,'. / "..'-'. .:~. -.. ~ -~.>-~. _~ . _ , ~.. ~e/~~ ~.-'J ~'.-~.~-.. Z~ ~ ~ q ,,'/, ~,. . ...~-~ ,'~ '~'/ ~.:~:~-~ ('-~ ~ ,~ -. ~'~ -..-- . SPAN, L=29.000ill [ TO ~_ BRGS I r 0 5m 1Om 15m 20m 400 SCALE ~mml~)lmlm~ml~ml~)~m~ ~1~1~1~1~1 ~m~m~l , STA~ ~ NEW YORK ~/L~~ / ~ ~ ~m DEP~T'NT ' TRAN~TATI~ I VERT.~LEARANC~ EN~LOP/ : ' --PIN 0042.28 - NY25 OVER LIRR ..... ~- ~ PRELIUINARY PLAN ......... ~TOP OF RAIL ................. ~[ LIRR ~EPARED BY R. 13.25 m (43.47 FT) OUT-TO-OUT 625 mm (2 FT +_) 2.4 m (8 FT +) SHOULDER >'< COMBINATION BRIDGE RAIL TRAFFIC + BICYCLE (TYP.) GRANITE CURB (TYP.) 3.6 rn (12 FT _+) TRAVEL LANE C__ OF BRIDGE 3,6 m (I2 FT +) TRAVEL LANE 150 mm (6" +) MONOLITHIC DECK ~ 2.4 rn (8 625 mm (2 FT +_) /' / FT _+) SHOULDER 10 BOXES ~ 1.220 rn + 9 JOINTS Q 20 mm = 12.38 m (40.62 FT) 436 mm+_ (1.43 FT) 436 mm+ (1.43 FT) TYPICAL BRIDOE SECTION 13.25 rn (43,4? FT) OUT-TO-OUT 625 mm (2 FT +) 2.4 rn (8 FT +) SHOULDER COMBINATION BRIDGE TRAFFIC + BICYCLE GRANITE CURB (TYP.) RAIL (TYP.) i< 6_ OF BRIDGE %6 m (12 FT +_) ,I 3.6 m (12 FT 2) TRAVEL LANE >1< TRAVEL LANE 240 mm (9.5" 2) MONOLITHIC DECK 2.4 m (8 FT SHOULDER 5 SPACES © 2.346 m = 11.73 m (38.48 FT) 625 mm (2 FT 2)1 +) L m 760 mm (2.49 FT) 760 mm (2.49 FT) TYPICAL BRIDOE SECTION SPAN, L:29,000m { TO ~ BRGS 5-RAIL BRIDGE RAILING LIRR CLEARANCE ', / ~VERT. CLEARANCE!/ /! ! ENVELOPE TOP OF RAIL ....................................... i~ { LIRR ELEVATION PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. ChErman RICHARD CAGGIANO WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L, EDWARDS MARTIN SIDOR P.O. Box 1179 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Fax (631) 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Neboysha R. Brashich From: Victor L'Eplattenier, Sen. ior Pla~'t~ Subject: Gateway Bridge Advisory Committee Date: January 13,2003 Regarding the advisory committee for the Gateway bridge project membership should include the following groups and their representatives: Southold/Greenport Chamber of Commerce New President: John Barnes (Shorecrest B&B) 54300 North Rd.,Southold Phone: 765-1570 Peconic Bay Estates Property Owners President: Tony Salvatore 477-8640 Pipes Cove Committee President: Cathy Tole LIPA Gov't Relations: Vincent Frigeria III 175 E. Old Country Rd Hicksville,NY11801 (516) 545-3504 Cablevision Public Relations:Joan Gilroy 1600 Motor Parkway Hauppauge,N.Y. 11788 ,/ Suffolk County Water Authority Director: Steve Jones 4060 Sunrise Highway Oakdale,N.Y. 11769 (631) 563-0219 Thomas F. Oelerich, P.E. Acting Regional Director stat~ uz ~w Tork Department of Transportation State Office Building 250 veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, FlY 11788 FB252 SUPERVISORS f.,FFCE E TOWN OF q.C~i fTHO] !) Joseph H. Boardman Commissioner February 22, 2002 Honorable Joshua Y. Horton Supervisor, Town of Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 _.__PIN_ 0042.28 Route 25 Br_id,qe Replacement over 1 Town of Southold, Suffolk County Request for Comments on Relevant Environmental Issues Dear Mr. Horton: The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, is preparing an Environmental Assessment on a proposal to replace the deteriorating bridge carrying Route 25 over the LIRR in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County. The proposed project will reconstruct approximately 0.75 miles of the existing highway between Dolphin Drive at reference marker MM25-0701-1635 and Pipes Neck Road at reference marker MM25-0704-1642 (see attached Project Location Map (Figure 1). The reconstructed highway will retain one traffic lane in each direction. Project objectives are to increase the structural capacity of the bridge and improve sight distance along the project corridor. Alternatives under consideration include (1) taking no action; (2) bridge rehabilitation; and (3) bridge replacement. Incorporated into and studied with the various build alternatives will be design variations of grade and alignment. Some alignment alternatives under consideration at this time are to build a replacement bridge along a new alignment on the north side of the existing structure or to build a new bridge on the existing alignment. Issues that Will be analyzed in depth include the project's effect on freshwater and tidal wetlands, wildlife habitat, water quality, and cultural and recreational resources, as well as other social, economic and environmental effects. Particular attention will be focused on assessing, minimizing and mitigating potential effects on the Hashamomuck Pond ecosystem. As part of NYSDOT's environmental initiative program, we will also be assessing opportunities to enhance local environmental conditions beyond standard project mitigation. Examples of previous environmental initiative actions include stormwater filtering structures, wetlands restoration, habitat enhancement (e.g., vegetation plantings, nesting boxes/platforms), streetscape beautification, pedestrian and bicyclist improvements. As part of the process for identifying the important issues related to the proposed action, we request your comments on the above issues and any other issues that you can identify as important. We intend to use your comments to: - Identify the range of alternatives and impacts and the important issues to be addressed in the Environmental Assessment. Identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not important or which have been covered by prior environmental review. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements. We request your comments by April 1, 2002. If you do not reply by that date, we may not be able to evaluate your comments at this initial stage of project development. There will be additional opportunity for comment at later stages in the project design prior to the Department making a final decision and alternative selection. An Information Center in the Town of Southold will also be scheduled in 2002/2003 to further discuss this project. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please contact me at (631) 952-6654. Very truly yours, Joseph G. Scariza Regional Design Engineer Attach. 0 1 2 Miles Project Location Figure I , ' EcTs IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 8/4/2003 PIN PROJECT DESCRIPTION SCOPE OF WORK LETTING DATE CONST COST 080733 BRIDGE CLEANING CONTRACT CLEANING OF 241 BRIDGES 1N THE TOWNS OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD, HEMPSTEAD, OYSTER BAY, HUNTINGTON, BABYLON, ISLIP, SMITHTOWN, BROOKHAVEN, RIVERHEAD, SOUTHOLD & SOUTHAMPTON 11/6/2003 446,420.00 004~ NY25 R&P HIGHLAND RD TO 6TH ST PAVEMENT REPAIR, RESURFACING, UPGRADE DRAINAGE SYSTEM & TP,~FFIC SIGNALS, MITIGATE STORMWATER RUN-OFF & PROVIDE LEFT TURN STORAGE LANES 080739 080724 LANDSCAPE RESTORATION & ESTABLISHMENT PRIORITY SURFACE TREATMENT CONT MAINTAIN REPLACEMENT PLANTING WORK INCLUDING WEEDING, WATERING, MULCHING, LITTER REMOVAL & TURF RESTORATION MILLING, CONCRETE & ASPHALT PAVEMENT REPAIRS, SINGLE COURSE OVERLAY ON NY25A IN MANHASSET, NY107 1N BROOKVILLE, NY25 IN MATTITUCK AND MILLING & RESURFACING OF RAMPS ON I495 IN JERICHO, NY27 IN ISLIP TERRACE, E PATCHOGUE & E MORICHES 3/18/2004 14,~00~ 4/1/2004 3,000,000.00 4/1/2004 4,200,000.00 004214 NY25 &NY27 DRAINAGE IMPVT 4 LOCATIONS IN THE TOWNS OF RIVERHEAD, SOUTHOLD & EASTHAMPTON INVOLVING RESURFACING & NEW DRAINAGE, INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF A RECHARGE BASIN & SWALE 4/15/2004 2,400,000.00 /O~ECTS IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PIN 080546 PROJECT DI~SCRIPTION BRIDGE REPAIR CONTRACT SCOPE OF WORK 26 LOCATIONS INVOLVING LETTING DATE 9/9/2004 8/4/2003 CONST COST 3A62,000.00 NY25 BRIDGE REPLACE OVER LUre (R) THE REPAIR OF BRIDGE DECKS & LARGE CULVERTS INCLUDING EROSION & SCOUR REPAIR AT ABUTMENTS IN THE TOWNS OF HEMPSTEAD, OYSTER BAY, HUNTINGTON, BABYLON & SOUTHOLD REPLACEMENT OF THE 4/27/2006 BRIDGE INCLUDING SHOULDERS WIDE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE ~ BICYCLES, STORMWATER / CONTROLS TO MINIMIZE / AND/OR ELIMINATE ~ R=G31 m NORTH P R FI TN A 0 20 0 R Y TH WI 20 40 60 80 ~00 rn I I I I SCALE IQNMI NT S p NEW BRIDGE PI R=550o00 m / / R=350o00 m R=220,05 m 5 m m NORTH 1 PRf-I IM1-NARY T M B TE)C 20 0 R:220o03 m P Al -rCNM 20 ,~0 60 80 ~00 m SCALE TEMPORARY R=311o98 m \ RA NT BRIDGE '! RY 'x 7o NEW BRIDGE R=63i °03 m NORTH R=500.O0 m P A 0 ¥ 2O 0 I 20 ~0 60 80 ~00 m I I I SCALE T 'x R=500.O0 m / / R=220o03 IT1 m NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT IDENTIFICATION NO. 0042.28 The New York State Department of Transportation is developing design studies to reconstruct the Route 25 bridge over the Long Island Rail Road in the Town of Southold. The project will start at Albacore Drive and extend eastward to Pipes Neck Road. The total length of the project is 0.7 + miles, all in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County. An Environmental Assessment has been prepared which assesses the project's effect on the quality of the human environment in accordance with the provisions of Section 102 (2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, P.L. 91- 190 (NEPA). The Environmental Assessment shows the project to have impacts on wetlands and private properties. In accordance with Executive Order 11990, there are no practical alternatives that eliminate work in wetlands and all possible measures are taken to minimize harm to the wetlands. Copies of the Environmental Assessment are available for review and copying during business hours at the offices of: Regional Director, New York State Department of Transportation 250 Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788 FHWA Division Engineer Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building Clinton Avenue and North Pearl St., Albany, N.Y. 12207 Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 (Main Road), Southold, NY 11971 Southold Public Library 53704 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Floyd Memorial Library 539 First Street, Greenport, NY 11944 Written comments shall be forwarded to Mark Bocamazo P.E., Regional Design Engineer, New York State Department of Transportation, 250 Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788 or to the FHWA Division Engineer, Leo W. O'Brien Building, Clinton Ave. And North Pead St., Albany, N.Y. 12207 by September 16, 2005. TRANSPORTATION DRAFT DESIGN REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT P.I.N. 0042.28 Route 25 over the Long Island Rail Road Bridge Improvement Project Town of Southold Suffolk County June, 2005 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GEORGE E. PATAKI, Governor JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, Commissioner DRAFT DESIGN REPORT P.I.N. 0042.28 Route 25 over the Long Island Rail Road Bddge Improvement Project Town of Southold Suffolk County June, 2005 PIN 0042,28 Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement Project - BIN 1060890 Route 25 over the Long Island Rail Road Town of Southold, Suffolk County Environmental Assessment U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration and New York State Department of Transportation Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c). This assessment was prepared in consultation with FHWA and has been reviewed for scope and content and is released for comments. DATE De~hlief Engineer NYS Department of Transportation DATE Dl~tdct Engir~eer ( Federal Highway Administration TABLE OF CONTENTS PaRe COVER PAGE TITLE SHEET TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........................................ I-1 CHAPTER II PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, EVOLUTION, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS, AND OBJECTIVES A. Project Identification ................................................. I1-1 1. Project Type .................................................. I1-1 Project Location/Description ..................................... I1-1 - State Map - Location Map B. Project Evolution .................................................... 11-2 C. Conditions and Needs ................................................ 11-5 1. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations ... 11-5 m. I~. O. p. q. r. S. t. U. Functional Classification and National Highway System (NHS) Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction Culture, Terrain and Climatic Conditions Control of Access Existing Highway Section Abutting Highway Segments and Future Plans for Abutting Highway Segments Speeds and Delay Traffic Volumes Level of Service Non-Standard Features and Non-Conforming Features Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis Pavement and Shoulder Conditions Guide Railing, Median Barder, Impact Attenuators Traffic Control Devices (Signs, Signals, etc.) Structures Hydraulics of Bddges and Culverts Drainage Systems Soil and Foundation Conditions Utilities Railroads Visual Environment Provisions for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Planned Development for Area System Elements and Conditions Environmental Integration Miscellaneous 2. Needs ..................................................... 11-20 Project Level Needs Area or Corddor Level Needs Transportation Plans D. Project Objectives .................................................. 11-22 CHAPTER III - ALTERNATIVES A. Design Cdteria ..................................................... II1-1 1. Standards .................................................. II1-1 2. Cdtical Design Elements ....................................... II1-1 3. Other Controlling Parameters ................................... 111-3 B. Alternatives Considered .............................................. 111-3 C. Feasible Alternatives ................................................ 111-6 1. Description of Feasible Alternatives ............................... 111-6 2. Engineering Considerations of Feasible Alternatives ................. 111-14 m. n. O. p. Special Geometric Features Traffic Forecasts, Level of Service and Safety Considerations Pavement Structures Hydraulics Drainage Maintenance Responsibility Maintenance and Protection of Traffic Soils and Foundations Utilities Railroads Right-of-Way Landscaping Development Provisions for Pedestrians, Including Persons with Disabilities Provisions for Bicycling Lighting D. Project Costs and Schedule ......................................... 111-24 1. Costs ..................................................... 111-24 2. Schedule .................................................. 111-25 CHAPTER IV - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. Introduction ....................................................... IV-1 B. Social, Economic and Environmental Consequences ....................... IV-1 1. Social Consequences ......................................... IV-1 Affected Population Local Planning Community Cohesion Changes in Travel Patterns or Accessibility Impacts on School Districts, Recreation Areas, Churches or Businesses Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access Impacts on Highway Safety, Traffic Safety and Overall Public Safety and Health General Social Groups Benefitted or Harmed 2. Economic Consequences ...................................... IV-3 Impacts on Regional and Local Economies Impacts on Existing Highway-related Businesses Impacts on Established Business Districts Relocation Impacts 3. Environmental Consequences ................................... IV-4 a= Surface WatersNVetlands Water Source Quality General Ecology and Wildlife Historical and Cultural Resources Visual Resources Parks and Recreational Facilities Farmland Assessment Air, Noise and Energy Contaminated Materials Assessment Construction Impacts Anticipated Permits and Approvals 4. Indirect/Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ....................... IV-19 a. Indirect/Secondary Impacts b. Cumulative Impacts CHAPTER V - EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES A. Introduction ........................................................ V-1 B. Comparison of Alternatives ............................................ V-2 1. Engineering Comparisons ................................. V-2 2. Social, Economic and Environmental Comparisons .............. V-2 C. Conclusions ........................................................ V-4 CHAPTER VI - DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION (not applicable) CHAPTER VII - PROJECT COORDINATION Correspondence with other agencies and Local Governments ................. VI I-2 Correspondence with Utility Companies ................................. VI1-13 Correspondence with Task Force ...................................... VII-15 REFERENCES TECHNICAL APPENDICES Appendix A - Bridge Inspection Report (May 2003) Appendix B - Accident History and Analysis Appendix C - Visual Impact Assessment Appendix D - Preliminary Engineering Drawings of Feasible Alternatives Appendix E - Construction Schedule Timeline Appendix F - Wetland Delineation Report Appendix G - Wetland Evaluation Appendix H - Coastal Assessment Form / Coastal Policy Assessment Appendix I - Wetland Impact Assessment METRIC UNITS It is the policy of the NYSDOT to use metric units for all projects to be let for construction after September 30, 1996. This project is being designed using metric units and the text of this report uses metric units. The following table of approximate conversion factors provides the relationship between metric and inch-pound units for some of the more frequently used units in highway design. The table allows one to calculate the Inch-Pound Unit by multiplying the corresponding Metric Unit by the given factor. Metric Unit x Factor = Inch-Pound Unit Lenqth kilometer (km) x 0.621 = miles (mi) meter (m) x 3.281 = feet (ft.) Area hectare (ha) x 2.471 = acres (a) square meter (m2) x 1.196 = square yards (sy) square meter (m2) x 10.764 = square feet (sf) Volume cubic meter (m3) x 1.308 = cubic yards (cy) cubic meter (m3) x 35.315 = cubic feet (cf) Speed kilometer per hour (km/h) x 0.621 = miles per hour (mph) meter per second (m/s) x 3.281 = feet per second (fi/s) SPECIAL TERMINOLOGY NOTE Although Route 25 is an east-west route it predominantly runs north-south in the project area. Therefore, the approach roadway on either side of the bridge is referred to as being eastbound or westbound of the existing bridge while features alongside the approach roadway are referred to as being on the "north" or "south" side of the road. Features alongside the existing bridge are referred to as being east or west of the existing bridge. ROUTE 25 Eastbound (to Montauk) LIRR Westbound (to Riverhead) 'South"side of road North See Figure 11-2 on paqe 11-2 for a more detailed map of the proiect area CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION This report is being prepared to develop, study and describe appropriate alternatives to rehabilitate/replace the deteriorating bridge carrying Route 25 over the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and assess the impacts that the proposed alternatives will have on the environment. The bridge was originally constructed in 1929 and is identified by New York State Bridge Identification Number (BIN) 1060890. It supports two travel lanes on Route 25 (one eastbound lane and one westbound lane) with a sidewalk cantilevered off one side of the bridge. The need for improvements to this bridge is evidenced by its poor structural condition which is a result of age, deterioration and a Iow original design load. The existing bridge was not designed to support the heavy truck loads that routinely utilize the State Highway System without overstressing the structure. As a result of these overloads, the bddge deteriorates at an accelerated rate. To offset this accelerated deterioration, the Department has restricted overloaded trucks from utilizing the bridge. However, the bridge will continue to deteriorate until it is reinforced/replaced with a design that better protects the structure from the environment and increases its load carrying capacity. The purpose of this project is to provide a new or rehabilitated structure that is capable of accommodating today's legal trucking loads without overstress. This will allow the bddge to function for the following 30 years without major rehabilitation. The design alternatives described in this report that are currently being considered are: Alternative I Alternative II Alternative III Alternative IlIA - Alternative IV Alternative V Alternative VI Do nothing (No-Build alternative) Bridge rehabilitation Bridge replacement adjacent to existing on the west sideI (new alignment) Bridge replacement adjacent to existing on the west side utilizing staged construction (new alignment) Bridge Replacement in Same Location as Existing Bridge2 (new alignment) Bridge replacement adjacent to existing on the east side utilizing staged construction (new alignment) Remove existing bddge and create grade crossing (new alignment) Alternatives III, IliA, IV, and V will construct a new two lane bridge with shoulders to safely accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians and will also include reconstruction of approximately 1,180 fl (360 m) of roadway on each side of the bridge. This project is being progressed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a Class III action under USDOT Regulations 23CFR771 and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) as a Non-Type II (EA) action under Part 15 of Title 17 of the NY Codes, Rules and Regulations. Although Route 25 is an east-west route, ~t ,s predominantly running north-south ~n the bridge area. Therefore, the location of the proposed bridge on the new alignment is referred to as west (or east) of the existing bridge. 2 Due to the girder/floorbeam construction of the existing bddge, replacement along the same alignment will require a complete road closure with traffic detoured around the site via local roads or a tempora~ bridge alongside the existing bridge to maintain traffic. I-1 The New York State Department of Transportation is the Lead Agency for this project and, as such, is responsible for: 1. Preparation of this environmental document. 2. Compliance with State and Federal environmental laws and regulations. 3. Makingthedeterminationiftheproposedalternativeswillhaveasi~Tnificantimpactonthe environment. Factors to consider under the State and Federal Environmental Regulations when determining the significance of an impact on the environment include, but are not limited to: · · · · · · Its setting The number of people affected Beneficial and adverse impacts Its magnitude and duration Its irreversibility Controversy The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the Co-lead Agency because the project will utilize Fereral-aid for design and construction. A community Task Force consisting of local officials and concerned citizens was formed to work with the Department and provide feedback for this project to insure that the overall project goals are in unison with the local community. Several meetings were held to discuss Design Alternatives, construction duration and impact to the community, environmental concerns, and cost. Minutes of the meetings are provided in Chapter VII. Copies of this report are being distributed for public review and comment by the New York State Department of Transportation to Federal, State and Local Advisory Agencies in addition to local residents and property owners. A public information meeting and/or Public Hearing will be held for this project to insure public involvement in the planning and project development early enough to influence technical studies and final decisions. Date, time and location of these public meetings will be made public when available. If no significant impacts to the environment are identified, a Final Design Report/Environmental Assessment will be prepared which will contain a Final Design Recommendation and responses to comments received during the public review period. After a thorough review, design approval will be granted and development of the final construction plans and specifications will begin. Federal funds will be utilized to pay for 80% of the design and construction cost of the proposed project. The remaining 20% of the costs will be bourne by the State. Additional information regarding this project can be obtained by contacting the Regional office of the New York State Department of Transportation at the address below and referencing the following project: Project Identification Number (PIN): PIN 0042.28 Bridge Improvement Project Route 25 over the Long Island Rail Road Town of Southold, Suffolk County Address: Mr. Subimal Chakraborti, Regional Director New York State Dept. of Transportation State Office Building 250 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 I-2 CHAPTER II - PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, EVOLUTION, CONDITIONS AND NEEDS, AND OBJECTIVES II.A. Project Identification II.A.I. Project Type This project involves major bridge rehabilitation or bridge replacement to eliminate the structural deficiencies of the existing bridge carrying State Touring Route 25 over the Long Island Rail Road in the town of Southold, Suffolk County. The project will also reconstruct the approach roadways on both sides of the bridge to improve the safety for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians as much as practical. II.A.2. Project Location/Description The project is located on Route 25 in the town of Southold, Suffolk County, on Long Island's north fork (see Figure I1-1). Route 25 is also State Highway 8229. I Project Location Figure I1-1 I1-1 The project will begin at Albacore Drive at reference marker MM25-0704-1635 and continue eastward along Route 25 to Pipes Neck Road at reference marker MM25-0704-1642 for a total length of approximately 0.7 miles (1 ,'100 meters). A project map is shown in Figure 11-2. The bridge over the railroad is identified by New York State Bridge Identification Number (BIN) 1060890. Route 25 in the project area is also known as Main Road and is classified as a Minor Arterial. Shelter Island 0 1 2 Miles , I PROJECT LOCATION Figure 11-2 Although Route 25 is an east-west route it predominantly runs north-south in the project area. Therefore, features of the approach roadways on either side of the bridge are referred to as being eastbound or westbound of the existing bddge. Features alongside the existing bridge are referred to as being east or west of the existing bridge. Also refer to the Special Terminology Note located prior to Chapter I of this Report. ll.B. Project Evolution The existing bridge over the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) was constructed in 1929 (see Figure 11-3) and carried one lane in each direction on a 30 foot wide concrete bridge deck. 11-2 The approach roadways on either side of the bddge, which were constructed in 1926, consisted of two 10 foot wide concrete travel lanes. In 1959, the approach roadways in the project area were reconstructed and widened under contract F.A.R.C. 58-57. The approach grades to the bridge were reduced to 4.5% and an asphalt overlay was placed on the bridge. The new approach roadway measured 40 foot wide and consisted of two 12 foot travel lanes with 8 foot shoulders. This roadway width currently exists on either side of the bddge. 5'-0" 33'- 4" STRUCTURAL CONCRETE DECK-' FLOORBEA~ ENCASEB IN CONCaETEj ...,-CONCRETE WEARING SURFACE ¥ MAIN GIRDER ORIGINAL 1929 BRIDGE CROSS SECTION Figure 11-3 Bridge deck cores taken in 1971 and 1972 indicated that the structural bridge deck had deteriorated and a complete deck replacement was recommended for bridge rehabilitation. During this period, an experimental process being developed by the Brookhaven National Laboratory, and funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), aspired to restore deteriorated concrete with a polymer impregnation process without necessitating complete replacement. Testing of the polymer impregnation process began on the bddge in 1973 to evaluate the feasibility of this process for complete deck rehabilitation. It was hoped that this process could extend the life of the bridge deck 20 years~. In 1977 the existing wearing surface was removed and the structural bridge deck was rehabilitated under contract D95313 by polymer impregnation to reconstitute and strengthen the deteriorated concrete. A new wearing surface was placed over the reconstituted The Suffolk Times, "An Injechon In Time ...', page 3, Augus 9, 1973. Quote from Ron Mediatore, NYSDOT Project Engineer. 11-3 concrete deck and the deteriorating concrete encasement was removed from the lower flange of the main girders to protect the railroad tracks and trains below from falling concrete. Concrete safety shape barders on both sides of the roadway were also constructed under this contract which reduced the pavement width on the bridge to approximately 29 feet. This is the current configuration of the bddge. See Figure 11-4 for current configuration of the existing bridge. A new asl3halt overlay was placed on the bridge in 1996 by milling off 1~ inches of the existing weadng surface and replacing it with t½ inches of new asphalt pavement. The existing bridge was not designed to support overloaded trucks that routinely utilize the State Highway System without overstressing the steel members and, therefore, accelerating the deterioration. As a result, the bridge is R-posted to restdct overloaded trucks from utilizing the bridge. Recent bddge inspections reveal that the structural deck and concrete encasement of the girders and floorbeams is deteriorating again. The 1999, 2001, and 2003 bddge inspection reports document extensive deterioration of the underside of the structural deck such as cracks with efflorescence, spalls, and hollow sounding concrete affecting up to 50% of the area in each span. A safety flag was issued to remove loose and hollow sounding concrete from the concrete encasement of the steel members. See Appendix A for a copy of the 2003 Bridge Inspection Report. ~$1DEWALK P'-7" 12' TRAVEL LANE 12'TRAVEL LANE 2'-7" WEc, TI~O UND E~,STB,OUND FLOORBEAM ENCASED IN CONCRETE ~ MAIN OlRBER ~/ CURRENT BRIDGE CROSS SECTION Figure 11-4 I1-4 II.C. Conditions and Needs I1.C.1. II.C.l.a. II.C.l.b. II.C.1 .c. II.C.1 .d. II.C.l.e. Transportation Conditions, Deficiencies and Engineering Considerations The estimated time of construction (ETC) for the proposed bridge project is in the year 2007. Future transportation conditions discussed in the following subsections are based on a 30 year projection (ETC+30) of existing conditions which is characterized as the future no-build design year of 2037. Functional Classification and National Hiclhway System (NHS) Route 25 in the project area is classified as a Minor Artedal and is not on the National Highway System (NHS). The roadway is not part of the 16 foot (4.9 m) vertical clearance network for military traffic accommodations. However, there are no vertical clearance restrictions on Route 25 in the project area. Route 25 in the project area is not a Qualifying or Access Highway on the National Network of Designated Truck Access Highways or within 1 mile (1.6 kin) of a Qualifying Highway. These highways are designated for use by Special Dimension Vehicles (ie: trailers or semitrailers exceeding 48' in length) and do not have a restriction on vehicle gross weight. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction Both the ownership and maintenance jurisdiction of Route 25 in the project area, including the bddge over the LIRR, belong to the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). Culture, Terrain and Climatic Conditions The project area can generally be characterized as rural with mostly undeveloped wooded land. However, the roadway eastbound of the bddge has some commercial buildings. The surrounding terrain is fiat except for the approach roadway at the bridge location, which dses and falls rather sharply over the railroad tracks. There are no unusual weather conditions that affect traffic flow in the project area such as flooding, frecluently falling tree limbs, pavement buckling due to high temperatures, etc. However, extensive tree growth adjacent to the roadway along the horizontal curve south of the bddge prohibits the sun from drying out the pavement and can create icy conditions in the winter that require more frequent application of salt. Control of Access Access is not controlled on Route 25 in the project area. Existing Hiclhway Section The existing highway right-of-way width is 50 ft (15.2 m) minimum. However, the right-of-way width widens to approximately 150 ft (46 m) at the bddge location. The roadway contains one 12 ft (3.66 m) travel lane in each direction with paved shoulders. The shoulder width vades from 8 ft (2.44 m) typical in the majodty of the 11-5 II.C.l.f. project area to 2'-7" (0.79 m) minimum on the bridge over the LIRR. See Figure 11-4 for the current typical bridge section. Except for the bridge, there are no sidewalks in the project area although sidewalks do exist to the west of the project limits in the hamlet of Southold and to the east in the Village of Greenport. (1) Typical Highway Section The roadway contains one 12 fl (3.66 m) travel lane with an 8 ft (2.44 m) paved shoulder in each direction and is uncurbed. Except for the bridge approach, the roadway is generally fiat with winding horizontal curves. The horizontal curve just westbound of the bridge is signed for "no stopping any time' on the outside portion of the curve. Several Iow volume local streets intersect the roadway in the project area at small skew angles. (a) Clear zone The clear zone is the total roadside border width starting at the edge of the travel lane which provides a reasonably safe area for errant vehicles to re-enter the roadway or come to a stop. This includes the shoulder width and all traversable ground beyond. On the eastbound approach to the bddge, the existing clear zone is approximately 10 ff (3 m) to 12 ff (3.6 m) from the edge of the travel lane. In the eastbound lane, utility poles are located 10 ft (3 m) from the travel lane. On the westbound approach to the bddge, the clear zone is 16 ft (4.9 m) in the westbound direction and approximately 40 ft (12.2 m) in the eastbound direction. In the westbound direction, utility poles are located 13 ft (4 m) from the edge of the travel lane. In the eastbound direction utility poles are located at the edge of the 40 ft (12.2 m) clear zone. (2) Bdd.qe Approach Roadway There is a faidy steep 4.5% approach grade to the bridge over the LIRR. This grade does not have a significant impact on the travel speed of approaching vehicles and trucks. The shoulder width narrows from 8' at the existing highway section to 2'-7" (0.79 m) at the bridge. Box beam guide rail is present on both sides of the roadway that transitions into the concrete barder on the bridge. An asphalt tip-up gutter directs roadway drainage down the approach grade to prevent erosion of the embankment. (3) BfidCle The pavement width on the bddge is apl~reximately 29 fl (8.84 m) which consists of a 12 ft (3.66 m) travel lane and 2'-7" (0.79 m) shoulder in each direction. Concrete safety shape barriers are present on both sides. A sidewalk is cantilevered off the westbound side of the bddge. There are no approach sidewalks to the bridge. Abuttin(~ Hiohwav Seoments and Future Plans for Abuttino Hiohwav Seqments The proposed bddge project is located between the Hamlet of Southold to the west and the Village of Greenport to the east. As you travel toward the Hamlet of 11-6 I1.C.1 .g. Southold and the Village of Greenport from the project area the roadway charecter becomes more urban with sidewalks alongside the road and a higher density of commercial development. The spc~:l limits on Route 25 are also reduced from 55 mph in the project area to 30 mph in both the Hamlet of Southold and the Village of Greenport. Adjacent to the project area, the roadway consists of a 12 ff (3.66 m) travel lane and 8 ft (2.44 m) shoulder in each direction and the surrounding terrain along the highway is exceptionally fiat. The horizontal alignment of the roadway becomes much more circuitous as you travel westbound from the project area towards the Hamlet of Southold. These curves have speed limit warning signs to alert oncoming motorists of the sharp curves. Outside the project limits the pavement in many locations is in poor condition. However, the Department will address these pavement deficiencies under Project Identification Number (PIN) 0041.99 [D259518] which is currently under construction and expected to be completed by the end of 2005. This project calls for resurfacing of Route 25 and upgrading traffic signals between Highland Road in Cutchogue to 6~' Street in the village of Greenport and will not increase the capacity of the roadway. There are no plans to reconstruct or widen Route 25 in the project area within the next 20 years. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with future plans for the abutting highway segments. Scccds and Delay The posted speed limit within the project area is 55 mph with a 45 mph warning sign for the horizontal curve just westbound of the bridge. Actual vehicle operating speeds on Route 25 in the project area were measured with Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATR). This method of data collection is valuable because speeds can be measured continuously over the entire day and not iust at one point in time. Data was collected for several days in April of 2001. Speeds were measured on the existing bridge in both the eastbound and westbound directions as well as the westbound approach to the bridge between Pipes Neck Road and Albertson Lane. The westbound approach has the highest s~ccd because of the relatively straight alignment of the roadway on this side of the bridge. ACTUAL MEASURED OPERATING SPEEDS APRIL, 2001] LOCATION 50TM PERCENTILE 85TM PERCENTILE SPEED= SPEED= Westbound al)Drnech to bridge between 50 mph 56 mph Pipes Neck Road and Albertson Lane Westbound on the b~ge 48 mph 54 mph Eastbound on the bridge 47 mph 53 mph 250~ percentile speed is that speed at which 50% of all motorists are traveling at or below. 385~ percentile speed is that speed at which 85% of all rnotedsts are traveling at or below. II - 7 Speeds were also measured with a hand held radar gun over a 1.5 hour midday period in July of 2001. Results of this survey again revealed that the westbound approach to the bridge has the highest speeds with a 50t~ percentile speed of 48 mph and an 85th percentile speed of 52 mph. Based on the data obtained from the ATR's and radar survey, the off-peak 85= percentile speed in the project area is established at 55 mph (90 km/hr). This speed encompasses 85% of the motodst traveling in the project area during periods of frae traffic flow. The Regional Traffic Engineer has certified that the established 85~ percentile speed is accurate and indicative of the actual daily conditions along the roadway in the project area. It is not anticipated that this project will affect the existing operating speeds in the project area. Field observations, in conjunction with the speed data from the ATR, reveal free traffic flow during all hours of the day as there are no traffic control devices (ie: traffic signals), busy intersections, or extensive development on Route 25 in the project area to impede traffic flow. Therefore, there are no noticeable delays as motorists travel along this section of the highway. Due to the relatively Iow existing traffic volume in the project area, it is not anticipated that future traffic growth will cause any significant delays. II.C.l.h. Traffic Volumes (1) Existina traffic volumes Treffic volume counts on Route 25 in the project area were performed in April and August of 2001. Peak hourly volumes occur during the mid-day pedod between the hours of 12:00 PM and 4:00 PM. There is no discernable rush hour variation in the eastbound and westbound travel lanes as volumes peak dudng the afternoon hours in both directions. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES April, 200t August, 2001 Average Daily Traffic (Two-way) 6,330 vpd 9,533 vpd Maximum Average Hourly Volume (Two-way) 526 vph 737 vph Maximum Measured Hourly Volume (One-way) 318 vph 557 vph % Trucks 7 Not Measured Based upon comparison of these measured volumes with those of NYSDOT's continuous traffic count station on Route 25 in Laurel, the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) in the project area is estimated to be approximately 7,150 vehicles per day (vpd). As evidenced by the above table, there is a significant seasonal difference in traffic volumes in the project area. Furthermore, during the August study period, weekend traffic was consistently higher than the weekdays with an average daily traffic of 11,375 vehicles per day. II -8 (2) Future no-build design year (2037) traffic volume forecasts Traffic in the project area is anticipated to grow at a rate of 1.8% per year (non-compounded). The estimated time of construction (ETC) for the proposed bridge project is in the year 2007. Therefore, the future 30 year traffic volume forecast for the design year 2037 will increase 36 x 1.8% = 65% and is summarized in the table below. The average annual daily traffic (AADT) will be increased to 7150 vpd x 1.65 = 11,798 vpd. FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECAST Apdl, 2037 August, 203T~ Projected Average Daily Traffic (Two-way) 10,444 vpd 13,647 vpd ProJected Average Houdy Volume (Two-way) 867 vph 1,078 vph % Trucks Assume 10% Assume 10% II.C.1 .i. Under ideal conditions, two lane rural highways can generally carry a maximum of 2,800 passenger cars per hour, total in both directions, without significant delays. On Long Island, a typical two lane highway with moderate commercial develol~ment causing vehicles to enter and exit the roadway can expect to carry al~proximately 2000 I~assenger cars per hour, total in both directions before significant delays are introduced. Therefore, future traffic volume forecasts are not expected to have a significant impact on spccds and delay in the project area. Level of Service A level of service (LOS) is a letter designation that describes a range of operating conditions on the highway. Six levels of service are defined and are given the designations A through F, with LOS A representing the best range of operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Specific parameters that effect level of service ara 1) s~ccd and travel time, 2) traffic density, and 3) delay time. In general, LOS A describes a free flowing condition in which individual vehicles of the traffic stream are not influenced by the presence of other vehicles. LOS F generally describes breakdown operations which occur when traffic flow arriving at a point is greater than the highway's capacity. At such points traffic backs up and significant delays are experienced. Levels of service B, C, D, and E represent intermediate conditions. Based on speed and traffic volume data collected by the ATR as well as field observations, Route 25 in the project area currently operates at LOS C or better throughout the day and should continue to operate at this LOS in the future Design year of 2037. 4It is difficult to predict the seasonal traffic variation for the future no-build design year since much of the additional traffic dudng the summer pednd is likely linked to tourist activity on the norlh fork and vacation traffic to#rom the Olient Point Fern/. We do not ex~e~ a 65% in=ease in existing summer traffic by the year 2037. However, them likely will be some additional traffic. The difference between the A~dl and August 2001 data likely represents the seasonal traffic increase in the ama. Therefore, we will add this dif~mnse to the Ap~12037 traffic predictions in order to obtain the August 2037 predictions. 11-9 II.C.I.j. (1) Non-Standard Features and Non-Conforming Features Non-Standard Features There are several critical elements of the existing highway that do not meet current NYSDOT design standards for Route 25 in the project area, which is classified as a Rural Arterial. These standards are based on a Design Speed which fits the travel desires and habits of neady all drivers (the 85th percentile) for the anticipated off-peak conditions. The table below identifies the critical design elements that do not meet the current standards for Rural Arterials in the project area. These non-standard features are further explained in the accompanying paragraphs. NON-STANDARD FEATURE.~ HYSDOT Design F. xtat]n~ Highway Standard Facility Design Speed 55 mph (90 km/hr) Measured 85"' ~ercentile speed = 56 mph Bridge Roadway Width 40'-0" (12 m)5 29'-2' (8.9 m) Maximum Grade 4.0% 4.5% Horizontal Cuwature 1100 tt (335 m) at 6% 1020 It (310 m) at 3.6%6 Minimum Radius of Curve superelevation superelevation Stopping Sight Distance 525 It (160 m) minimum 380 It (115 m) Stopping Sight Distance 525 It (160 m) minimum 282 It (86 m) (vertical) Clear Opening for Rail Road 38 It (11.6 m) 29 It (8.8 m) Structural Capacity 45 ton Safe Load Capacity = 21 ton The bridge roadway width over the LIRR does not match that of the approach roadway which consists of a 12 ff (3.66 m) travel lane with 8 ff (2.44 m) shoulder in each direction. The 2'-7" (0.79 m) shoulder provided on the bddge is inadequate to propedy accommodate bicyclists traveling adjacent to the travel lane. The existing 4.5% approach grade to the bddge exceeds the current standard maximum. Since rate of grade has a direct effect on the operating speed of vehicles on a highway, the 4% maximum allowable grade is chosen to encourage uniform operating speeds throughout the traffic stream for highways on relatively fiat terrain. However, as evidenced by our speed study in section Bndge roadway wdth must match the e~st~ng approach roadway width (trave ed way p us shou ders. 6 This curve will be superelevatod to 6% under PIN 0041.99/0259518 which is scheduled for completion by the end of 2005. (2) II.C. 1 .g, this relatively short approach grade to the bridge has a negligible effect on vehicle travel speeds. The horizontal curve just westbound of the bridge has a radius that corresponds to a safe operating speed of 46 mph. However, there is a 45 mph warning sign at this curve. This is also the first tight curve that vehicles encounter as they travel westbound along Route 25 in the project area once they leave the Greenport Village limits. The stopping sight distance around this curve is also limited due to the moderately heavy brush that is located at the side of the road. This could help explain the accident pattern identified at this curve in section II.C.l.k. This curve will be fully superelevated to 6% during a pavement rehabilitation contract on Route 25 from Highland Road to 6~ Street [PIN 0041.991D259518]. This contract was recently awarded and should be completed by the end of 2005. The sight distance on the crest vertical curve at the bridge over the LIRR is non- standard for the measured operating speeds in the area. The 282 ft (86 m) sight distance, measured from a driver's eye height 3.50 ft (1.07 m) above the road surface to a 24 inch (610 mm) high object in the road, correlates to a safe operating speed of only 38 mph. The 24 inch (610 mm) object height to be seen by the driver, also e~uivalent to the taillight height of a passenger car, is representative of an object that involves risk to drivers and can be recognized by a driver in time to stop before reaching it. For bridges crossing railroads, it is desirable to carrv the railroad's existing section or planned standard section under the bridge without alteration. In addition, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has specified participation limits which determine the length of bddge they will fund. For single track layouts, FHWA specifies an off-track maintenance roadway be provided on one side and a minimum clear opening between piers and/or abutments of 38 ff (11.58 m). The existing clear opening of 29 ff (8.84 m) does not meet this criteria. A wider clear opening will provide for an off-track maintenance roadway and make the bridge structure less susceptible to impact damage should a train derail. The existing load carrying capacity of the bridge over the LIRR is far below the current standard and, therefore, is R-posted to restrict overloaded trucks from utilizing the bridge. Current NYSDOT design specifications utilize a three axle standard truck weighing 45 tons. Based on a thorough analysis, the safe load capacity of the bridge in its existing condition is 21 tons. The bridge can accommodate heavier loads without failure although the girders and floorbeams will be overstressed resulting in an accelerated deterioration of the structure. Non-Conforming Features There are other design elements that must be considered in addition to the critical design elements when evaluating an existing highway facility. These other elements are identified as non-conforming features which do not conform to normally accepted practice. II.C.l.k. The existing clear zone in the project area is a non-conforming feature. Based on the existing vehicle operating speeds and the current volume of traffic in the project area, a clear zone of 24' (7.0 m) from the edge of the travel lane is desirable. Westbound of the bridge, where the roadway begins to wind with tighter horizontal curves and speeds must be reduced as you approach the Hamlet of Southold, the clear zone is only 12 ff (3.66 m) wide. This is particularly true around the horizontal curve westbound of the bridge, where there is a concentration of accidents as described in section II. C. 1.k. Improving the clear zone around his curve will also increase the horizontal sight distance, which is currently a non-standard feature of the roadway. Safety Considerations and Accident History and Analysis An accident analysis was performed along Route 25 in the project area for the period from September 1996 through May 2002. This is the most recent accident data available at the time this Design Report was written. The study area begins at the Mill Creek bridge [MM25-0704-1633], approximately one half mile west of the bridge over the LIRR, and ends at the intersection with Chapel Lane [MM25-0704- 1646], approximately eight tenths of a mile east of the bddge (see Figure 11-5). Accident Reports were obtained and studied within these limits to determine safety improvement needs within the project limits. The total study length for the accident analysis is 1.25 miles (2.01 km). ACCIDENT ANALYSIS STUDY AREA Figure 11-5 Accidents are classified as reportable or non-reportable. An accident is defined as non-reportable if there was no personal injury and the amount of vehicular and/or propertv damage does not exceed $1,000. Reportable accidents are further classified as either injury or property damage only (PDO). PDO accidents involve no personal injury but have property damage (including damage to vehicles) exceeding $1,000. Forty nine (49) accidents occurred in the study area over a 69 month pedod. Fifteen (15) of these were injury accidents, thirty (30) were PDO, and four (4) were non- reportable. None of the injury accidents involved fatalities. However, there was one accident which involved an overturned car that crossed into oncoming traffic. Accident descriptions, diagrams, summary tables, and accident rate calculations are included in Appendix B. Based on an AADT of 7150 vpd [see section fl.C.l.h(1)], the forty nine (49) accidents yield an overall accident rate of 2.61 accidents per million vehicle miles (IVlVM) which is lower than the Statewide average rate of 2.81 accidents per IVlVM for similar highways. However, accidents involving collisions with deer make up the overwhelming majority of the total number accidents. Twenty seven (27) of the forty nine (49) accidents were caused by deer running across the roadway. If deer related accidents are eliminated from the study [49 total accidents - 27 deer accidents = 22] the accident rate in the project area drops to 1.17 accidents per IVlVM ACCIDENT ANALYSIS RESULTS Total Wet Fixed Accidents Pavement Obiect Accidents Accidents No. of Accidents 22? 8 6 Accident Rate (per MVM) 1.17 0.43 0.32 Stat~wvide Average Accident Rate (per MVM)s 2.81 0.29 0.43 Eight (8) accidents were influenced by wet/icy pavement which results in an accident rate of 0.43 accidents per MVM which is higher than the statewide accident rate of 0.29 accidents per MVM for this parameter. Of the twenty two (22) non-deer related accidents in the 1.25 mile (2.01 km) study area, eight (8) of them (equivalent to 36%) occurred at or near the horizontal curve just westbound of the bridge over the LIRR, indicating that the horizontal geometry, roadside features and sight distance around this curve may have been a contributing factor in these accidents. Sight distance is limited around this curve and the radius is much tighter than those preceding it from the westbound direction. Accidents ~th deer cross~ng the road are not included in the accident rate calculation. SAverage accident rate (mainline plus intersection accidents) for 2 lane undivided State Highways with flee access control (Rural Functional Class). Based on accident data from June 2000 through May 2002 and published by NYSDOT in March, 2004. See Appendix B for Statawioe average accident rate tables. II - 13 II.C.I.L II.C.l.m. II.C.l.n. II.C.1 .o. Five (5) accidents occurred at the intersection of Route 25 and Chapel Lane. This represents 23% of the total non-deer related accidents in the project area and corresponds to an intersection accident rate of 0.33 accidents per million entering vehicles (MI-V) which is higher than the Statewide average accident rate of 0.16 accidents per MEV for 3 legged rural intersections. However, the intersection geometry, sight distance, and vehicle approach speeds would not indicate a potential problem. Furthermore, the five (5) intersection accidents over the 69 month study period corresponds to less than one accident per year. There are no Priority Investigation Locations (PIL's), Safety Deficient Locations (SDL's) or Pdority Investigation Intersections (PIl's) in the study area. However, according to the Regional Bad Actor Listing for utility pole/light support accidents, one utility pole was struck f'we times over a six year period from January 1992 through December 1998 between reference marker 25-0704-1634 and 25-0704- 1636. This utility pole is located west of the project limits in the Hamlet of Southold and is being addressed in a separate project (PIN 0041.99/D259518) scheduled for completion by the end of 2005. No other accident problems were identified in the study area. Pavement and Shoulder Conditions The travel lane and shoulder consist of asphalt pavement with a concrete foundation beneath the travel lanes. The pavement and shoulder condition in the project area is in fairly good condition and the ride guality is mostly smooth. However, there is some longitudinal cracking in the asphalt surface between the travel lane and the shoulder at several locations. Guide Rail. Median Barrier. Impact Attenuators There is box beam guide railing in good condition on both sides of the roadway on the eastbound and westbound approach to the bridge and meets current design standards. This guide railing transitions into the concrete safety shape barrier on the bridge. There are no median barriers or impact attenuators in the project area. Traffic Control Devices There are no traffic signals or stop signs on Route 25 in the project area. The existing signing consists of a curve warning sign for the horizontal curve on the eastbound approach to the bridge (in both directions of travel) and a ddveway warning sign, for the upcoming Lumber yard and asphalt plant, as you approach the bddge in the eastbound direction. There are also INo Trucks with R Permits" signs on both ends of the bridge warning truck drivers with restricted permits that they are not permitted to use the bddge. Structures The existing bddge carrying Route 25 over the LIRR is identified by Bddge Identification Number (BIN) 1060890. It is a three (3) span bridge, constructed in 1929, consisting of two main girders with transverse floorbeams. All girders and floorbeams are encased in concrete. However, some of the concrete encasement, especially at the lower flange of the main girders, has been removed over the years do to its deteriorated condition. The bridge has a large skew angle of 55 degrees. The 56 ft (17.07 m) main span over the railroad is flanked on each side by a 32 ft II- 14 (9.75 m) span for a total bridge length of 120 ft (36.58 m). The bridge caries one 12 ft (3.66 m) travel lane with 2'-7" (0.79 m) shoulder in each direction and a sidewalk on the westbound side of the bridge only. The approach roadway consists of a 12 ft (3.66 m) travel lane with 8 ft (2.44 m) shoulder in each direction. There are no sidewalks on the approach roadway. The clear opening in the main span of the bridge in which one track from the LIRR passes is 29 ft (8.84 m). The minimum vertical clearance over the railroad track is 20'-8" (6.30 m) from the top of the reil to the underside of the concrete encased steel floorbeams. The existing bridge has several geometric deficiencies such as Door sight distance and a narrow bridge width. The limited stopping sight distance is due to the relatively steep approach grades and short crest vertical curve. The overall bridge width is narrower than the approach roadway and the existing 2'-7" (0.79 m) shoulder width is inadequate to properly accommodate bicycle traffic adjacent to the travel lane. This bridge is inspected every two years (biennially) as recluired by New York state law. Numerous elements of the bridge are rated on a scale from I to 7 in which a '7' indicates a new condition with no deterioration and a "1' represents a member that is totally deteriorated or in a failed condition. A rating value less than '5" indicates more than minor deterioration. A weighted average of all the inspection ratings for a bridge is used to determine the State Condition Rating in which ratings for the superstructure primary member, structural deck, abutment stem, and pier stem receive the most relative weight. The State Condition rating for this bridge is 4.089 indicating a structurally deficient bridge with more than minor deterioration. The State numerical ratings are also converted to a Federal rating to formulate a Federal Sufficiency Rating for this bridge which is 32.4. This rating, used by the Federal Highway Administration to compare bridge structures in different states, is on a scale between zero and one hundred. Previous bridge inspections were performed in May 2001 and May 2003. The 2003 bridge inspection report is included in Appendix A for reference. These inspection reports reveal that the structural deck, which had previously been rehabilitated by polymer impregnation in 1982 is deteriorating again. The structural deck is rated '4" in two of the throe spans with cracks, efflorescence, spells and hollow sounding concrete affecting 50% of these spans. The remaining concrete encasement for the floorbeams and girders is deteriorating and a safe~ flag was issued to remove loose concrete at the most severe locations. Also, the concrete pier stems are showing signs of deterioration with numerous cracks and heavy efflorescence and are rated '4". The existing bridge was not originally designed to support the current standard truck loads that routinely utilize the State Highway System. As a result the bridge is R- posted to restrict overloaded trucks from traveling on the structure. This restriction is intended to increase the service life of the bridge by preventing overloads that accelerate bridge deterioration. II.C.l.p. II.C.l.q. II.C.1 .r. If the structural deficiencies are not addressed, including increasing the load carrying capacity, the bridge will continue to deteriorate a! an accelerated rate over time. The concrete encasement will continue to come loose and spall-off, exposing the steel members to subsecluent corrosion and reducing their load capacity. Of particular concern is the connection between the steel floorbeams and the main girder which will eventually detadorate to the point of failure as the deck continues to crack and absorb salt laden run-off. This will result in severe cracking of the structural deck and further load postings. Eventually, the concrete deck will crumble away and the bddge will no longer be deemed safe to cam/traffic. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts There are no hydraulic considerations for the bridge over the LIRR since this bridge does not span a stream or waten~vay. There are two (2) culverts within the project limits that cross under Route 25. One is located between Albacore Drive and Tarpon Drive and drains runoff towards Hashamomuck Pond. The other is located between Albertson Lane and Pipes Neck Road and drains run-off towards Pipes Cove. Hydraulically, these culverts are functioning adeguately and prevent flooding and overtopping of the roadway during severe storms. Therefore, a detailed hydraulic analysis of the watershed area for these culverts will not be performed as part of this project. However, both culverts may require repair due to deterioration and/or cleaning to insure that they continue to operate efficiently. Drainac;e Systems There is no closed drainage system in the project area. At present, rainwater is collected on the bddge and allowed to run down the approach grade along an asphalt tip-up gutter to the base of the vertical curve where the runoff naturally drains into the surrounding wetlands. This system appears to be functioning well since there are no signs of flooding on the roadway. However, there is no mechanism to remove roadway pollutants from the runoff that is discharged directly into the surrounding wetlands. Soil and Foundation Conditions Subsurface soil exploration was performed between July and November of 2003 to investigate the soil bearing capacity and settlement properties at the bddge site. During this time five (5) borings were taken that gathered soil samples for testing. It was discovered that a 40 ff + ( 12 m) clay layer is present that begins at the ground surface. This will affect the settlement of a new bridge foundation. Settlement occurs as the soil compresses under the weight of the foundation. For clay soils, settlement takes place slowly and continues over a long period of time due to its tight grain structure and inability to drain water quickly from within its voids. Testing of the clay layer indicates that significant settlement will occur up to nine (9) months after completion of construction which could lead to cracking of concrete substructures and uneven riding conditions. Therefore, it is likely that pile supported II.C.l.s. foundations that penetrate through the clay layer will be required for bddge replacement alternatives. Utilities The existing bddge carrying Route 25 over the LIRR does not support any utility lines and there are no utilities running under the bridge within the railroad Right-of- Way. However, there are several overhead and underground utilities within the project limits, as well as highway lighting, that are described below. There are no gas facilities in the project area. Hiahwav liahtin<3 Highway lighting in the project area is sporadio with luminaire mast arms attached to utility poles. On the 'south' side of the roadway lighting is present between Albacore Drive and Sage Boulevard with mast arms spaced approximately 260 feet apart. There is no lighting on the bddge or bddge approaches. On the 'north' side of the roadway lighting is present from Penney Lumber to Albertson Lane with mast arms spaced approximately 250 ft (76 m) apart. There is also one mast arm on the 'south" side of the read at the intersection of Pipes Neck Road and Route 25. Overhead Utilities A 13,000 kV overhead electric transmission line (LIPA) and overhead telephone (Vedzon) lines run along utilitv poles on the "north' side of Route 25. These utility poles spread out away from the road as you approach the bridge and cross over the railroad track approximately 65 tt (20 m) west of the bridge. Overhead telephone lines (Verizon) and overhead Cablevision lines run along utility poles on the 'south' side of Route 25. These utility poles spread out away from the road as you approach the bridge and cross over the railroad track approximately 50 ff (20 m) east of the bridge. Undemround Utilities A 69,000 kV high voltage underground electdc transmission line (LIPA) runs underground along Ken,yin Boulevard and then runs eastbound along Route 25. Underground telephone (Verizon) lines within the project area is limited to a 100'+ (30 m) run under the LIRR along Kemdn Boulevard. Cablevision has a small substation located on Route 25 just westbound of Albertson Lane (across from Penny Lumber). Underground fiber optic cable runs down Albertaon lane and then follows along Route 25 westbound to this substation, the 'north" side of Route 25 from Albertson Lane to this substation. There are no other known underground Cablevision facilities within the project area. A 10" diameter water (SCWA) main runs along the "south" side of Route 25 in the project area except at the bridge location. Just after Sage Boulevard Il.C.I.t. II.C.l.u. II.C.1 .v. (as you trevel eastbound) the water main is diverted along the reilroad treck until it reaches Kerwin Boulevard. From there the water main is jacked under the LIRR and runs along Kenvin Boulevard toward Route 25 before continuing eastbound. There are 5 hydrants located on Route 25 between Albacore Drive and Pipes neck Road. Railroads There is one non-electrified reilroad track, owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and operated by the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), that crosses under the bddge carrying Route 25 in the project area. This track is non-signalized, located on the Greenport branch of the LIRR, and is utilized for freight and passenger service by approximately 6 trains per day. Diesel locomotives with bi- level coaches are used to transport passengers along this segment of the railroad at speeds up to 40 mph. The existing minimum vertical clearance from the top of the reil to the underside of the bddge is 20'-8" (6.30 m). The lateral clearance from the centerline of the track is 14'-8" (4.42 m) on each side for a total clear opening of 29'-0" (8.84 m). Visual Environment The visual environment within the project area varies greatly within a short distance. At the eastbound approach to the bridge (near Sage Blvd.), the views consist mainly of wooded oak forests with small ponds and stands of phragmites (a tall grass-like plant with feathery plumes). Upon traveling eastbound over the bridge the land use consists of more commercial development with views of an asphalt plant silo, lumber yard, and other small commercial or industrial complexes. The bridge itself is at a high point in the readway and affords scenic views of Peconic Bay and the surrounding estuary. Although the structure itself is not particularly remarkable, it acts as a landmark because it is higher than the surrounding landscape and is visible from a distance. The unique charecteristics of the area result in a great deal of visual interest. See Appendix C - Visual Impact Assessment for additional information regarding the visual environment. Previsions for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Except on the westbound side of the bridge, there are no sidewalks in the project area. Pedestrians and bicyclists walk/ride on the 8' shoulder that typically exists adjacent to the travel lanes. At the bddge, however, the shoulder narrows to 2'-7" (0.79 m) wide which is directly adjacent to a concrete safety shape barrier. This forces bicyclists to encroach into the travel lanes as they travel over the bridge. Pedestrians and bicyclists traveling over the bridge were counted in July of 2004 (see table below). The maximum hourly pedestrian volume on either side of the roadway was found to be 6 pedestrians/hour. It is interesting to note that the majority of the pedestrians traveling along the westbound side of the road did not utilize the sidewalk - preferring to use the narrowed shoulder instead. EXISTING PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE VOLUMES [duly, 2004] Pedestrians Bicyclists Westb'nd Eastb'nd Westb'nd Eastb'nd side of road skJe of road side of road side of road Friday, July 16 (1:00 - 6:00pm) 2 I 7 3 Saturday, July 17 (10:00am - 5:00pm) 18 16 33 25 Sunday, July 25 (10:00am - 5-00pm) 12 9 31 24 I1.C.1 .w. II.C.l.x. TOTAL ~P~Nt~ 123 Bicyclists Route 25 in the project area is part of a planned future bicycle route which currently runs between Odent Point and the Village of Greenport. Future plans are to expand this bicycle route further west along Route 25 into Riverhead. Therefore, bicycle travel along Route 25 in the project area should increase as provisions for bicyclists are enhanced. Planned Development for Area Discussions in March of 2002 with the Southold Town Planning Board reveal that there is no planned development in the project area which would significantly change the character or traffic patterns of Route 25 in the project area. Traffic volumes are expected to grow incrementally on the North Fork with increases in both residential construction and small recreation/tourist attractions such as restaurants and shops. Within the project limits, the adjacent property is currently zoned as "LI" (light industrial) or 'R-80" (residential 2 acre lot size). Any new construction within the project limits is likely to have a Iow impact on the land use due to the environmentally sensitive nature of the area surrounding Hashamomuck Pond. At the comer of Route 25 and Albertson Lane, the Southoid Town Planning Board recently gave approval to build an ecluipment and repair building. Additionally, LIPA has submitted a proposal to build a small generating station adjacent to their existing sub-station east of Albertson Lane. System Elements and Conditions The deteriorating bridge over the LIRR will eventually lead to additional changes in current truck traffic patterns if not corrected. Currently, overloaded trucks must bypass this bridge and travel along County Route 48, a parallel route to the north, by virtue of the R-permit restriction for the bridge, utilizing local streets as a detour. If the bridge deterioration is allowed to continue to the point of additional load posting, this truck diversion will become more pronounced and the local streets utilized as a detour will deteriorate at an accelerated rate. If the bddge load restriction is eliminated, all truck traffic can remain on the State Highway System, thereby minimizing impact on the local street network. This may, however, increase the percent of truck traffic on State Route 25 with a corresponding decrease, on the parallel County Route 48 since overall truck traffic on the eastern tip of the North Folk should not he affected. II.C.1 .y. II.C.1 .z. Environmental Integration As mentioned in Section II.C. 1.v, an opportunity to expand the existing bike route that currently runs from Odent Point to Greenport along Route 25 exists under this project and is included in the project Objectives [Section II.D]. Expansion of the bike route will promote altemate means of transportation and help to reduce noise and air pollution. The area surrounding the Hashamomuck pond is habitat for many endangered species and is also surrounded by numerous wetlands. An opportunity for habitat and wetland improvement exists within the project limits. Miscellaneous Existing conditions in front of Penny Lumber wan'ant further attention because the highway boundary extends up to the front of the existing buildings and is currently being utilized as parking for customers without Department authorization. This property was part of the original highway alignment which was subsequently shifted to the 'north' as part of the 1959 highway reconstruction project. Record plans from the 1959 highway reconstruction shows a 2 story frame & concrete block building (lumber) in place very near the original highway boundary. It is likely that the original Route 25 pavement was left in place at the conclusion of the contract and has informally been utilized as parking since. I1.C.2. II.C.2.a. Needs Project Level Needs Bridge Structural Needs The structural capacity of the bridge carrying Route 25 over the LIRR clearly needs to be increased. The original bridge was not designed to support today's standard truck loading and is deteriorating as a result. Recent bddge inspections reveal that the structural deck, which was rehabilitated in 1977, has hollow sounding and spalling concrete that is further weakening the structure and also poses a safety hn7nrd to the railroad below. The R-posting at the bridge, which restricts overweight trucks from overstressing the structure, will eventually be replaced by a weight restriction. This will result in changes to the truck traffic patterns in the area and increase truck traffic on local roads in order to circumnavigate the bridge. (2) Safety Needs The horizontal curve just westbound of the bridge is non-standard and needs to he addressed in the proposed project as this appears to be the root of the accident problem in the area. Many of the accidents in the project area occurred at this curve, which is the first sharp curve that motorists encounter traveling westbound from the bridge with even sharper curves beyond. The sight distance around this curve is insufficient for the vehicle approach spccds. Although none of the reported accidents are considered severe, the crossover accidents have the potential to cause loss of life. Providing the standard curve radius and superelevation will reduce the accidents at this location. Improving the clear zone will also allow more daylight to reach the II.C.2.b. I1.C.2.c. road surface and will allow the roadway to dry quicker dudng wet/icy conditions. The vertical curvature of the bridge also limits the sight distance and should also be addressed in the proposed project. Although an accident pattern due to the non-standard sight distance over the bddge does not exist, the safe operating spccd (31 mph to 40 mph) is below the measured speeds (55 mph) on the roadway. This non-standard condition, which is prevalent in both directions, needs to be corrected, especially in light of the fact that the asphalt plant located just eastbound of the bddge on the dght side of the road will have slow trucks entedng and exiting the highway. (3) .Railroad Needs The clear opening for the LIRR track needs to be widened in order to satisfy FHWA funding requirements. This wider opening will allow easier track maintenance for the railroad. (4) Environmental Needs The existing drainage system allows potentially contaminated runoff to drain directly off the pavement into the surrounding wetlands without treatment and/or containment. The addition of leaching basins in the upland areas of the project to contain the solids and heavy metals is needed. Corddor or Area Needs A continuous shoulder needs to be provided throughout the project area to accommodate bicyclists and extend the existing Bicycle Route, which currently runs from Odent Point to Greenport, westward into Riverhead. The existing 2'-7" (0.79 m) shoulder on the bridge structure forces bicyclists to encroach into the travel lane while riding along the roadway. Consideration should be given to adding deer crossing warning signs and improving the clear zone due to the rather high number of deer related accidents in the project area. A wider clear area adjacent to the roadway may help motorists notice deer before they travel onto the pavement. TransPortation Plans The Long Island Transportation Plan to Manage Congestion (known as LITP 2000), subtask 7, the North Fork Transportation Study provides an evaluation of the special transportation needs of the rural, primarily recreational North Fork of Long Island. A draft report published in August 2001 describes near term recommendations for improvements to the North Fork study area transportation system. Recommendations discussed in this report do not identify any special transportation or safety needs along Route 25 in the project area. ll.D. Project Objectives Project objectives have been formulated to meet the needs as described in Section II.C of this report and provide an evaluation criteda for comparing how well alternative solutions fulfill identified needs. The project objectives are identified below. ~' Restore the bridge condition rating to 5.0, or greater, using cost effective technigues to minimize the life cycle cost of maintenance and repair while providing a service life of 30 years. See section I1.C.1 .o for a discussion of the bddge condition rating. ~ Increase the structural capacity of the bridge to meet current design specifications and eliminate the R-Permit restriction at the bddge. ~ Improve safety within the project corridor by using accident reduction measures consistent with typical roadway reconstruction work concurrent with the application of current design standards. ~ Provide accommodations for bicyclists within the project area in order to help meet the Departments goal of creating a Bicycle Route along Route 25 which extends from Orient Point into Riverhead. ~ Provide a drainage system within the project area at a reasonable cost that reduces discharge of roadway pollutants directly into the surrounding wetlands. CHAPTER III - ALTERNATIVES III.A. Design Criteria The design cdteria for this project consists of a specific listing of values (standards) for 14 critical design elements. These cdtical design elements are intended to provide operational efficiency of the roadway, comfort, safety, and convenience for the traveling public including pedestrians. In addition, other controlling parameters with established values must also be considered in conjunction with the critical design elements. Theses other parameters can affect some of the cdtical design elements and have a considerable impact on the cost, scope, and quality of the project. While it is Department policy to at least meet the design cdteda values proposed for this project, there may be some situations where values less desirable are apl~ropdate for a particular situation and may provide the most cost effective, quality design after consideration of factors such as social, economic, and environmental impacts. When this occurs and design cdteda values are not attained, formal justification is provided in section IIl. C. 2. a of this report. Please note that the NYSDOT desiglns all of its projects usin.q metrfc units. Therefore, the standard metric values will be presented throu.qhout the remainder of this report with the equivalent (or approximate) English values in parentheses. III.A.I Standards The standards promulgated for this project were developed by the Amedcan Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) based on the functional classification of the highway, existing traffic volumes, operating speeds, and terrain. Specifically, the standards are prescribed in the following publications: · AASHTO ~A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets", (2001) · NYSDOT "Highway Design Manual (HDM)", Chapter 2 - Design Cdteda · NYSDOT "Bddge Manual', Section 2 - Geometric Design Policy for Bddges III.A.2 Critical Design Elements Table II1-1 identifies the cdtical design elements and their associated standard values for the proposed project. The values proposed are based on a design speed of 90 kin/hr (approximately 55 mph) which is the anticipated vehicular off-peak 85t~ percentile speed once the project is completed. The Regional Traffic Engineer has verified this speed as appropriate for this project based on measured operating speeds on the existing highway in the project area. See section fl.C.l.g for a discussion of the existing speeds in the project area. The design speed for this project is selected independent of the speed limit on the highway and is based on the habits and comfortable operating speed of nearly all the motorists (85~h percentile) using the highway. Table II1-1 DESIGN CRITERIA - RURAL ARTERIALS IN FLAT TERRAIN Critical Design Element Standard Existing Proposed Value Design Speed~ 90 kin/hr (55 90measuredkm/hr (5685~ml)h) 90 km/hr (55 mph +) percentile speed mph +) Travel Lane Width 3.6 m (11.8 It) 3.66 m (12 ft) 3.6 m (11.8 fi) Shoulder Width 2.4 m (7.9 It) 2.44 m i8 It) 2.4 m (7.9 It) Match existing approach 8.89 m (29.2 It) 12.0 m (40 It +) Bridge Roadway Width roadway width (12.0 m / 40 It +) Maximum % Grade 4.0% 4.5% 4.0% Horizontal Curvature (minimum radius of 336 m (1,100 It) 310 m (1020 fi) 350 m (1148 It) curve) Superelevation Rata 6% maximum 3.6% 6% maximum Stopping Sight Distance 160 m (525 It) 86 m (282 It) 160 m (525 It) minimum Lateral Clearance - Railroad 11.6 m (38 It) 8.8 m (29 It) 11.6 m (38 ft) Vertical Clearance - Railroad 6.4 m (21 It) 6.3 m (20'-8") 5.64 m (18'-6")z Pavement Cross Slope 2% 2% 2% Rollover (between travel lanes and at 4% at crown, 8% 4% at crown only 4% at crown, 2% edge of the traveled way) at shoulder at shoulder Sate load capacib/= Bridge Structural Capacity MS23, 41 met~c tons 19 mebic to~s {21 (HS25, 45 tens) tens). B~',~ is R- MS23, 41 metric tens posted te restrict (HS25.45 tons) ovemmight vehicles. In acco~ance wilh ADA guidelines and Coml)lias with ADA Cofflplis$ with ADA guidelines and guidelines and Pedestrian Accommodations Chapter 18 of the Chapter 18 of the Chaptaf 18 of the NYSDOT Highway HDM HDM Design Manual I The Regional Traffic Engineer has concurred with the setected design speed. 2 Proposed bricige vedical clearance i= non-standard Justification for retaining this non-standard feature is included in Section IIl.C.2.a. (1) on page 111-14. 111-2 III.A.3 Other Controlling Parameters All design alternatives shall maintain a Level of Service C or better in the project area throughout the design life of the project. See Section I1.C.1 .i for a discussion on level of service and predictions for level of service in the future design year. III.B. Alternatives Considered Several alternatives have been considered for this project including the no-build, rehabilitation, and new bridge options. Some of these alternatives meet the project objectives and have been deemed feasible and worthy of further investigation. Feasible alternatives are designs that lead toward the project objectives stated in Section II.D of this report and can be accomplished from engineering, operational, environmental, cost and schedule perspectives. Some alternatives have been eliminated from further study by failing to meet the proiect objectives. All alternatives presented in this section may be revised/ul~dated based on I~ubilc inl~ut that identifies a social, economic, or environmental impact not previously understood. Alternative I - Do Nothine (No-build Altemative) The no-build alternative offers no repair or modification to the existing bridge and roadway at this time other than maintenance work that can be performed utilizing Department labor and equipment. The load capacity of the bridge would not be increased and the bridge would continue to deteriorate. Furthermore, geometric improvements to the existing roadway features such as the horizontal curve, insufficient bridge shoulder width, limited sight distance, etc. (non-standard features as explained in Section II.C. 1.1~ which impact roadway safety would not be addressed. Therefore, this alternative will not meet the project objectives, is considered not feasible, and is eliminated from further study. Altemative II - Bddge Rehabilitation The rehabilitation alternative involves substantial work to the bridge superstructure in order to increase the load carrying capacity of the structure. The entire structural deck recluires complete replacement in order to insure a service life of 30+ years. In addition, the floorbeams and girders must be strengthened to meet current design specifications and remove the R-permit restriction. Virtually the entire superstructure will be replaced or strengthened at a cost at or near that of a now one while retaining a deteriorating substructure that is not designed in accordance with teday's standards and will require additional maintenance work to extend its service life to meet that of the rehabilitated superstructure. Furthermore, because the main thru-girders protrude above the roadway surface, wider shoulders cannot bo accommodated on the rehabilitated bddge. This would prevent accomplishing a project objective of improving bicycle safety on the bridge and extending the existing bicycle route from Greenport westward into Riverhead. Some geometric improvements can be made to the approach roadways in order to improve safety. However, the rehabilitation alternative will retain several non-standard features at a total construction cost similar to the new bridge options. Although many of these non-standard features do not have a related accident history, retaining them for the next 30+ years is not prudent. Consequently, the rehabilitation alternative is not considered feasible and will no longer be considered for further study. Alternative III - Bddge Replacement West of ExistinQ Bddee (new alignment) This alternative proposes to construct a new bridge to the west of the existing structure. The new bddge will have a clear opening for the LIRR consistent with current Federal mandates to allow more efficient track maintenance and afford better protection to the structure should a train derail. Geometric improvements to the approach roadways will also increase the sight distance for motorists. Wider shoulders will be provided on the new bddge to accommodate bicyclists and promote expansion of the existing bike route from Greenport westward into Riverhead. The new alignment of the roadway will, not only eliminate impacts to the asphalt plant located north and east of the bddge but, provide opportunity for additional screening to hide the sand piles, hoppers, and other equipment on the site. The new bddge can be constructed while traffic is maintained on the existing structure, thereby minimizing construction costs and impacts to the local community as much as practical. This alternative meets all the project objectives and is considered feasible. Alternative Ilia - Bridge Replacement West of Existincl Bridc~e (StaQe Construction) This alternative is similar to Alternative III except the new bridge will be constructed in stages in order to keep its centerline closer to the existing bridge centeriine, thereby minimizing ROW impacts and disturbance to the surrounding terrain while maintaining traffic along Route 25 during construction. Stage 1 of the construction will build approximately half of the new structure alongside the existing bridge on the west side. This new bridge portion will be just wide enough to accommodate two lanes of traffic without shoulders. Temporap/concrete barriers will be utilized to contain vehicles on the bridge. Stage 2 of the construction will shift traffic to the new bddge portion in order to demolish the existing bridge. Stage 3 of construction will build the remaining half of the new bridge and join them together to form the completed structure. Just like Altemative III, the new bddge will have a clear opening for the LIRR consistent with current Federal mandates to allow more efficient track maintenance and afford better protection to the structure should a train derail. Geometric improvements to the approach roadways will also increase the sight distance for motorists. Wider shoulders will be provided on the new bddge to accommodate bicyclists and promote expansion of the existing bike route from Greenport westward into Riverhead. Although the completed bddge structure will be virtually identical to that of Alternative itl, it will be more costly to construct and take more time to complete because of the staged construction. However, this alternative will minimize ROW impacts while maintaining two traffic lanes on Route 25 during construction. This alternative meets all the project objectives and is considered feasible. Alternative IV - Bddge Replacement in Same Location as Existing Bridge (new Alignment) This altemative proposes to construct a new bddge in the same location as the existing bddge. Although the new bddge will be constructed in the same footprint as the odginal bddge, the roadway alignment will be modified to incorporate geometric improvements to the approach roadways. The new bddge will have all of the features of the new bridge proposed under Alternatives III and Ilia such as an increased clear opening for the LIRR, wider shouldem, etc. However, traffic will have to be maintained via an off-site detour or temporary bddge while the new bddge is constructed in-place. Although more costly, the use of a temporary bridge to maintain traffic dudng construction is preferred in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding businesses and prevent possible overcrowding to the adjacent roadways. Construction duration for Alternative IV will be several months more than Alternative III due to the need to construct the temporary bridge before new bridge construction can begin. This alternative meets all the project objectives and is considered feasible. Altemative V - Bridge Replacement East of Existin.q Bridge (Stage Construction) This alternative proposes to construct the new bridge along a new alignment to the east of the existing structure via staged construction (similar to Alternative IliA). The new bridge will have all of the features of the new bridge proposed for the other Alternatives (111, IliA and IV~ but the new roadway alignment will have the greatest negative impact to the Asphalt Plant and the Penny Lumber property located just eastbound of the bridge. However, wetland impacts on the 'north' side of the roadway will be completely eliminated. This alternative meets all project objectives and is feasible. However, the new roadway alignment and grading impacts are perceived to have a negative impact to the adjacent property owners and this alternative is therefore not considered desirable at this time. Altemative VI - Remove Existino Brid(~e and Create Grade Crossing This alternative propeses to remove the existing bridge and create a grade crossing with the railroad track. The new roadway would be constructed on either side of the existing bridge in order to maintain traffic during construction. The new roadway could also be constructed along the existing alignment by utilizing a temporary grade crossing alongside or re-directing traffic around the site via a temporary detour route. With relatively few trains per day (see section II.C. 1.t for a discussion of existing train service) it would seem logical to investigate such an altemative. Construction duration, as well as project costs, for this alternative will almost certainly be lower than all of the bridge replacement options discussed previously. However, inherent with this alternative is a significant risk of increasing the accident potential. The severe skew of the roadway with the railroad track, relatively high vehicle approach spccds [85a percentile speed of 84 km/hr (52 mph)], and rather winding alignment of the roadway all contribute to the very real possibility of additional accident potential. Furthermore, these accidents would likely be susceptible to the possibility of severe injury. The Department feels that the risk of increased accident potential outweighs the cost and environmental benef'~ts associated with this alternative. As a general rule, grade crossing at rail roads are being reduced to eliminate risk of severe injury. In addition, the number of trains per day may increase as part of a future plan to alleviate traffic congestion, reduce environmental impacts (air quality, noise, etc.), or improve freight transportation. This would obviously increase the accident potential even further. Therefore this alternative is not feasible and is eliminated from further study. IIl. C. Feasible Alternative(s) This section of the Report provides a more detailed description of the feasible alternatives identified in Section III. B - Alternatives Considered. Preliminary engineering drawings of all the feasible alternatives showing plans, profiles and typical sections are included in Appendix D. Only bridge replacement alternatives are considered feasible for this project since they are the only alternatives that meet all the project objectives stated in Section ll.D. These alternatives propose to construct a new bridge over the LIRR on various alignments. All feasible alternatives are under consideration. A final design alternative will be selected and develooed into contract plans for competitive bid after comments on the draft design approval document (this report), comments from the public information meeting, and the altematives' impacts on the environment have been fully evaluated. The public information meeting is anticipated to be held in the summer/fall of 2005. The final design alternative to be completely developed by the Department will be fully documented and explained in the Final Design Report/Environmental Assessment (FDR/EA) which will be published after all impacts have been studied and all comments are evaluated. Together with this Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment, the FDR/EA will become the Design Approval Documentation (DAD) for this project. Common Features for all Feasible Alternatives No. of travel lanes One travel lane in each direction. Typical roadway section 3.6 m (11.8 It) travel lane + 2.4 m (7.9 It) shoulder. No curb except on the bridge. Typical bridge section 3.6 m (11.8 It) travel lane + 2.4 m (7.9 It) shoulder. Metal bridge railing with brush curb. 13.25 m (43.47 ft) out-to-ouL Width and type of median No median is proposed for this project Width of sidewalk / bicycle No sidewalk is proposed for this project. Bicyclists and lanes pedestrians will utilize the 2.4 m (7.9 It) shoulder, Vertical clearance 5.64 m (18'-6") minimum clearance from top of rail to underside of bddge. Proposed minimum clear zone 4.6 m (15 It) around horizontal curve westbound of the bridge. II1.C.t. Description of Feasible Alternatives All feasible altematives I~roposed share many common features and will construct a new bridge carrying Route 25 over the LIRR. The new bddge and approach roadways will match the adjacent highway section and consist of one 3.6 m (12 ft) travel lane in each direction with 2.4 m (8 ft) shoulders. The proposed bddge can be either a steel multi-girder type [Figure III-la] or adjacent prestressed box beam design [Figure II1-1b]. I I I ' , STEEL MULTI-GIRDER SUPERSTRUCTURE Figure III-la 0.605m PRESTRESSED BOX BEAM SUPERSTRUCTURE Figure III-lb The steel multi-girder design is preferred by the Department when considering cost, aesthetics and special design features. Section IlL C. 2. d has a more detailed analysis of the proposed superstructure alternatives and the rational for selecting the steel multi-girder type as the preferred bddge replacement design. A typical section of the proposed roadway is shown in Figure 111-2. Roadway reconstruction along Route 25 for all feasible alternatives will begin at Albacore Ddve and end at Pipes Neck Road - a distance of approximately 1.1 km (0.7 miles). Roadway alignments for all feasible altematives are established to provide a smooth transition from the relatively straight open roadway to the more winding alignment as you travel westbound in the project limits. Within the project limits, as you travel westbound, the roadway character of Route 25 transitions from a relatively straight open roadway to a more winding alignment with more vehicles entedng and exiting the roadway. Consecluently, vehicle speeds are higher as they approach the bddge from the westbound direction. The proposed horizontal alignments for all feasible alternatives ars developed so that motorists traveling westbound on Route 25 experience increasingly tighter curves as they progress through the project area. This should encourage ddvers to slow down gradually before they experience the tighter curves ahead that ars located just outside the project limits (there is a 220 m radius curve just westbound of Albacore Drive). See Appendix D for preliminary plans of all feasible alternatives presented in this report. Alternative III - Bridge Replacement West of Existinq Bridge (new alignment) Roadway reconstruction on Route 25 will begin at the intersection with Albacore Drive and continue eastbound. Just east of this intersection the roadway curves to the left with a 350 m (1148 ft) radius [PC at station 15+706.679]. This curve, between Albacore Ddve and Sage Boulevard, will be slightly greater in radius than the existing curve and provides a larger buffer zone to the wetlands on the north side of the roadway. The curve ends at a tangent section that directs the roadway alongside the existing bddge. A new bddge over the LIRR will be constructed on this tangent section alongside the existing bddge. Upon crossing over the LIRR, the roadway then curves to the right with two 550 m (1804 ft) radius curves [PC's at stations 16+314.058 and 16+601.342 respectively] with a short tangent section between them before meeting the existing roadway just east of AIbertson Lane. Roadway reconstruction ends at the intersection with Pipes Neck Road. TYPICAL HIGHWAY SECTION Figure 111-2 The "broken-back" arrangement of two successive 550 m (1804 ft) curves to the right (with a short tangent section between them) is not desirable as most drivers do not expect consecutive curves to be in the same direction. The preponderance of successive curves in opposite directions on almost all roadways may develop a subconscious expectation among ddvers that makes successive curves in the same direction unexpected3. However, in order to avoid much greater right-of-way impacts, and maintain a smooth horizontal alignment with the adjacent roadway sections as described above, a broken back arrangement is necessary for this aitemative. The proposed vertical alignment of the roadway is designed to provide increased sight distance beyond the crest of the bridge while providing a 5.64 m (18'-6") clearance over the rail road tracks. The 4% approach grades, which are slightly flatter than the existing 4.5% grades, combined with a longer length of curve, improves the stopping sight distance to 160 m (525 fi). Unfortunately, flattening and lengthening the vertical curve in the bridge area, as well as re-aligning the new roadway, results in impacts to the surrounding area - particularly on the 'north' side of the existing roadway. The new embankment slope recluired to re-align the roadway will require property acquisition on the *north" side between Sage Boulevard and Albertson Lane. Additional property will also be accluired to maintain a 20 m (65 ft) wide highway boundary in order to accommodate utility work, possible future sidewalk construction, and maintenance of a clear zone for sight distance and safety considerations. In all, approximately 0.603 ha (1.49 acres) of property will be accluired for this Alternative. See Section II1.C.2.1 for a more detailed discussion on the Right-of-Way impacts. Construction of the new approach embankment for the new bridge will fill in a portion of wetlands on the mnorth' side of the roadway - mostly between Sage Boulevard and the rail road track. To minimize the impact, a retaining wall is proposed to limit the embankment width as much as practical. With the wall in place, impacts to the wetlands is limited to approximately 0.163 ha (0.40 acres). However, because the roadway is shifted to the "north", additional wetland may bo created or restored on the *south" side of the roadway where the existing approach embankment is removed - thereby minimizing the wetland impacts further. Two driveways along Route 25 will be provided into Penny Lumber as shown on the preliminary plans (see Appendix D). During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge while the new bridge is constructed alongside. Compared with the other Alternatives, this will minimize traffic disruptions to the maximum extend practical while allowing for the quickest construction schedule. Policy On The Geometric Design Of Highways And Streets", Fourth Edition (2001) - AASHTO, page 234. III - 9 Alternative Ilia - Bridge Replacement West of Existing Bridge (Stage Construction) This alternative is very similar to Alternative II1. Stage construction is utilized to keep the new roadway centertine closer to the existing roadway centerline - thereby reducing environmental impacts on the ~north' side of the roadway. Roadway reconstruction on Route 25 will begin at the intersection with Albacore Ddve and continue eastbound. Just east of this intersection the roadway curves to the left with a 350 m (1148 ft) radius [PC at station 15+706.679]. This curve, between Albacore Ddve and Sage Boulevard, will be slightly greater in radius than the existing curve and provides a larger buffer zone to the wetlands on the 'north" side of the roadway. The curve ends at a tangent section that directs the roadway alongside the existing bddge. The new bddge over the LIRR will be constructed on this tangent section alongside the existing bddge (utilizing stage construction). Upon crossing over the LIRR, the roadway then curves to the right with two 600 m (1969 ft) radius curves [PC's at station 16+335.063 and 16+577.282 respectively] with a short tangent section between them before meeting the existing roadway just east of Albertson Lane. As described in Altemative III previously, the 'broken-back' arrangement of consecutive curves to the right is necessary to minimize right-of-way impacts. Roadway reconstruction ends at the intersection with Pipes Neck Road. The proposed vertical alignment of the roadway is designed to provide increased sight distance beyond the crest of the bddge while providing a 5.64 m (18'-6'3 clearance over the rail road tracks. The 4% approach grades, which are slightly flatter than the existing 4.5% grades, combined with a longer length of curve, improves the stopping sight distance to 160 m. Although the proposed roadway centedine will be closer to the existing roadway centertine for this alternative, there will still be impacts to the surrounding area. The new roadway alignment will recluire property acguisition on the 'north' side of the roadway for construction of the new approach embankment to lengthen the vertical curve in the bridge area and provide increased sight distance. And just like Alternative III, additional property will be acquired to maintain a minimum 20 m (65 ft) highway corridor to accommodate utility work, possible future sidewalk construction, and maintenance of a clear zone for sight distance and safety considerations. The total area of property to be accluired for this alternative is approximately 0.490 ha (1.21 acres) which is the least impact to private property of all the feasible alternatives published in this report. See Section II1.C.2.1 for a more detailed discussion on the Right-of-Way impacts. Wetland impacts for this alternative are limited to 0.093 ha (0.23 acres). A retaining wall is proposed (similar to Alternative III) to reduce wetland impacts on the 'north* side of the roadway. The roadway alignment for Alternative Ilia is closer to the Penny Lumbar building and only one driveway entrance can be provided due to the grade change between the parking area and the proposed roadway. During construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge while the stage I bddge Ix)dion is constructed alongside. Traffic will then be shifted to the completed stage I portion of the new bridge and the existing bridge will be demolished to allow for construction of the remaining bddge portion in stage II. Following stage II both bridge portions will be joined together and traffic will travel over the completed structure. Although some environmental impacts are minimized with this alternative, the construction costs is much higher. The construction duration is also longer with stage construction as the two bddge portions must be built sequentially. See Figure 111-3 for additional stage construction details. STAGE I CONSTRU(:I1ON ~/ALKNAY TRAVEL LANE __ TRAVEL LANE ' TEk~DORARY B~RIER ~ ', CENTERLINE OF PROPOSED BRIDGE J CENTERLINE OF EXISTING BRIDGE CENTERLINE OF PRCADOSED BRIDOE~ STAGE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Figure 111-3 Alternative IV - Bridae Reolacement in Same Location as Existinf:l Bridge (New Alignment) This alternative will demolish the existing bridge to allow the new bddge to be constructed in the same location as the existing without utilizing stage construction. A temporary bddge alongside the existing bridge must first be constructed and made ol)erational before demolition of the existing bridge can begin. The new roadway will also follow a new alignment to improve safety and reduce impacts to the surrounding properties as much as practical. Roadway alignment for this alternative is similar to Alternatives III and Ilia with the exceDtion that the 'broken-beck" arrangement of consecutive curves is eliminated. A 370 m (1214 fi) curve to the left between Albacore Drive and Sage Boulevard followed by a 555 m (1821 ft) curve to the right after the proposed bddge over the LIRR is perhaps the best geometric roadway alignment (from the motorists perspective) of all the alternatives proposed. Roadway reconstruction on Route 25 will begin at the intersection with Albacore Ddve and continue eastbound. Just east of this intersection the roadway curves to the left with a 370 m (1214 fl) radius [PC at station 15+703.244]. This curve, between Albacore Ddve and Sage Boulevard, is greater in radius than the existing curve and provides a larger buffer zone to the wetlands on the north side of the roadway. The curve ends at a tangent section along which the new bddge over the LIRR will be constructed. Upon crossing over the LIRR, the roadway then curves to the dght with a 555 m (1821 ft) radius curve [PC at station 16+440.596] before meeting the existing roadway just east of Albertson Lane. Roadway reconstruction ends at the intersection with Pipes Neck Road. The proposed vertical alignment of the roadway is designed to provide increased sight distance beyond the crest of the bddge while providing a 5.64 m (18'-6") clearance over the rail road tracks. The 4% approach grades, which are slightly flatter than the existing 4.5% grades, combined with a longer length of curve, improves the stopping sight distance to 160 m (525 fi). Unfortunately, flattening and lengthening the vertical curve in the bddge area, as well as re-aligning the new roadway, results in impacts to the surrounding area - particularly on the "north" side of the existing roadway. Property acquisition on the 'north" side of the roadway (between the rail road tracks and Albertson Lane) is required for construction of the new approach embankment. Additional property will also be acquired to maintain a minimum 20 m (65 ft) highway boundary width in order to accommodate utility work, possible future sidewalk construction, and maintenance of a clear zone for sight distance and safety considerations. In all, approximately 0.612 ha (1.52 acres) of property will be acquired for this Alternative. See Section III. C. 2.1 for a more detailed discussion on the Right-of-Way impacts. Construction of the approach embankment for the new bddge will fill in some wetlands between Sage Boulevard and the rail road track. To reduce this impact, a retaining wall is proposed to limit the embankment width as much as practical. In fact, this altemative has the least impact on wetlands of all the Feasible Alternatives studied in this report. With the wall in place, impacts to the wetlands is limited to approximately 0.040 ha (0.10 acres). As shown on the preliminary plan (see Appendix D), only one ddveway entrance on Route 25 can be provided into Penny Lumber due to the elevation difference of the parking area and the proposed roadway. Because a temporary bddge must be constructed and made operational before construction of the new bridge can begin, this alternative is more costly than Alternative III. Construction duration is also longer by virtue of the time needed to build the temporary bddge and by-pass roadway. III - 12 Alternative V - Bridf:le Replacement East of Existing Bddge (Stage Construction) This alternative is similar to Alternative IliA in that stage construction is utilized to reduce impacts to the asphalt plant and the Penny lumber property while re-aligning the roadway to the east of the existing bddge. Roadway reconstruction on Route 25 will begin at the intersection with Albacore Ddve and continue eastbound. Just east of this intersection the roadway curves to the left with a 375 m (1230 ft) radius [PC at station 15+715.597] followed by a 570 m (1870 ft) curve to the left (PC at station 16+021.155). These curves provide a larger buffer zone to the wetlands on the 'north" side of the roadway. The "broken-back' arrangement of consecutive curves to the left, although undesirable, is necessary to avoid greater right-of-way impacts on the 'south" side of the road. The last curve ends at a tangent section that directs the roadway alongside the existing bridge. The new bddge over the LIRR will be constructed on this tangent section alongside the existing bridge (utilizing stage construction). Upon crossing over the LIRR, the roadway then curves to the right with a 570 m (1870 fi) radius curve [PC at station 16+436.579] before meeting the existing roadway just east of Albertson Lane. Roadway reconstruction ends at the intersection with Pipes Neck Road. The proposed vertical alignment of the roadway is designed to provide increased sight distance beyond the crest of the bddge while providing a 5.64 m (18'-6") clearance over the rail road tracks. The 4% approach grades, which are slightly flatter than the existing 4.5% grades, combined with a longer length of curve, improves the stopping sight distance to 160 m. Unfortunately, re-aligning the new roadway and providing the proper sight distance requires property acquisition between Tarpon Drive and Albertson Lane. Additional property will also be acquired to maintain a minimum 20 m (65 fi) highway boundary width in order to accommodate utility work, possible future sidewalk construction, and maintenance of a clear zone for sight distance and safety considerations. As a result, this altemative has the greatest impact on pdvate property with the acquisition of approximately 1.002 ha (2.47 acres) of property in order to re-align the roadway and construct the approach embankments. Retaining walls on the "south" side of the roadway are proposed to prevent further property acquisition. See Section III. C. 2,1 for a more detailed discussion on the Right-of-Way impacts. The proposed alignment will require construction within the existing wetland boundary on the 'south" side of the road but wetland impacts on the ~north" side of the road will be completely eliminated. Even with the proposed retaining walls to limit property acquisition, approximately 0.198 ha (0.49 acres) of wetland will be filled in under this alternative. This alternative shifts the alignment closest to the asphalt plant and Penny Lumber. Consequently, impacts at these properties are the greatest under this alternative. A retaining wall to minimize Right-of-Way impacts to the asphalt plant is proposed as shown on the preliminary plan (see Appendix D). The driveway entrance at the asphalt plant also extends approximately 40 m (120 ft) into the property due to the grade change of the roadway. Only one driveway into Penny Lumber can be accommodated. III - 13 III.C.2. III.C.2.a. Just like Alternative IliA, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge while the stage I bddge portion is constructed alongside. Traffic will then be shifted to the completed stage I portion of the new bridge and the existing bridge will be demolished to allow for construction of the remaining bridge portion in stage I1. Following stage II beth bddge portions will be joined together and traffic will travel over the completed structure. Construction cost and schedule will be similar to Alternative IliA. The major benefit of this alternative is the elimination of wetland impacts on the 'north" side of the roadway. Engineering Considerations of Feasible Alternatives ^ further detailed description of each feasible alternative as they pertain to specific engineering details is discussed in this section of the report. Special Geometric Features - All feasible alternatives comply with the geometric features and cross section elements in the design criteria except for those features as described in III.C.2.a (1) below. (1) Non-standard Features Bridge Vertical Clearance - All alternatives presented for consideration propose a reduced vertical clearance over the railroad of 5.64 m (18'-6") which has been approved by the Regional Director and the LIRR4. The proposed lower clearance would accommodate the additional structure depth required to replace the existing thru-girder design with a preferred multi-girder design and minimize visual impacts to the surrounding area by maintaining approximately the same pavement elevation on the bridge. The lower pavement elevation resulting from the reduced clearance will also lower the cost of the bridge substructure and approach roadway. (2) Non-conforming Features Clear Zone - The area adjacent to the traveled way (including the shoulder) that out of control vehicles can utilize to mc, over without striking a fixed object is known as the clearzone. Since vehicle speeds in the project area are relatively high (above 50 mph), the clear zone requirements can be quite large. Current design standards recommend a clear zone of approximately 7.4 m (for fiat embankment slope) to 12.2 m (for I on 4 embankment slope) for a design st, ccd of 90 km/h (55 mph) with an additional 30-40% adjustment for the horizontal curves in the project area. Providing such a large clear zone on Route 25 in the project area is impractical given the lack of right-of-way, proximity to wetlands, and the relatively iow accident history in the project area. However, since there are a number of collisions with utility poles, especially around the horizontal curves between Sage Boulevard and Albacore Drive, it is 4 A copy of NYSDOT's letter (dated January 22, 2002) to the LIRR requesting a reduced vertical clearance and the LIRR concurrence is included in the References Section of this Report. III.C.2.b. decided to iml3rove the clear zone to 4.6 m (15 ft). This will iml~rove safety in the project area without introducing additional environmental impacts. Broken Back Curves - Alternatives III, Ilia & V utilize broken-back curves to minimize impacts to the surrounding properties. Typically, almost all roads follow an alignment with a preponderance of successive curves in opposite directions (a curve to the left followed by a curve to the right, and so on). The broken back curve represents consecutive curves in the same direction which is not desired as most drivers have leamed through experience to expect consecutive curves in opposite directions. However, laying out a new roadway alignment within a corridor of existing buildings and environmental constraints makes the broken back curve arrangement unavoidable at times. For Alternatives III and Ilia the broken back curve arrangement is necessary to avoid wetland impacts on the "north' side of the roadway near Sage Boulevard. For Alternative V the broken back curve minimizes right-of-way impacts on the 'south' side of the roadway. Traffic Forecasts, Level of Service and Safety Considerations (1) Design Year Traffic Volume and Levels of Service (a) Future Design Year Traffic Volume - Traffic in the project area is anticipated to grow at a rate of 1.8% per year (non-compounded) regardless of the design alternative selected for construction. Based on traffic counts measured in April and August of 2001, the future design year [ETC+30 at year 2037] traffic volumes are projected to be as follows: FUTURE DESIGN YEAR TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECAST April, 2037 August, 2037 Projected Average Daily Traffic (Two-way) 10,::; vpd 13,647 vpd Projected Average Hourly Volume (Two-way) 867 vph 1,078 vph % Trucks Assume 10% Assume 10% (b) Please see Section/LC. 1.h for additional information regarding existing measured traffic volumes and future traffic volume forecasts. These future traffic volume forecasts will not have a significant impact on speeds and delay in the project area. Future Design Year Level of Service - Based on existing speed data collected along Route 25 in the project area and future traffic volume forecasts, the future design year level of service [ETC+30 at year 2037] will be at LOS C or better. Please see Section II.C. 1J for additional information regarding level of service. II1.C.2.c. (2) Safety and Traffic Control Considerations - Although accident rates in the project area are not high, all design alternatives propose to increase safety by utilizing cost effective countermeasures that are common to all feasible alternatives. Particular attention is given to the horizontal curve between Sage Boulevard and Albacore Drive as this location seems to have the highest concentration of accidents (including accidents with deer) in the project area. Many of these accidents are attributable to driver inattentiveness, slippery pavement, and limited lighting. Guide rail will continue to be utilized to protect vehicles from the steep embankment slopes at the bridge approaches. Below is a list of the accident countermeasures proposed for all design alternatives. New Pavement - The new pavement will improve the skid resistance and help prevent some of the accidents that are attributable to wet weather conditions. Imoroved Sioht Distance - The improved vertical profile will provide a substantial increase in sight distance on the new bridge and approaches. This is especially important at the lumber yard and asphalt plent located just eastbound from the bridge, as slow moving trucks (as well as other vehicles) will likely exit and enter the roadway at an increased frequency than the rest of the project area. Improved Roadway Liahtin(~ - Improved roadway lighting is proposed for all feasible altemativas. Additional light in the project area will increase the visibility of deer along the side of the road and improve driver inattentiveness. Increased Clear Zone - Increasing the clear zone to 4.6 m (15 ft), especially around the horizontal curve between Sage Boulevard and Albacore Drive, should have a substantial benefit to safety. The utility poles that were hit in this location will be moved further away from the roadway, thereby providing a larger refuge area for vehicles that inadvertently run off the road. The increased clear zone will also improve the sight distance around this curve just westbound of the bridge which can have a substantial safety benefit in this critical area. Deer and oncoming vehicles will be more visible from a distance and the road surface will get more sunlight which will help prevent the road surface from icing over in the winter. There are no traffic control changes being made in the project area. All traffic on Route 25 in the project area is free flowing and will remain that way at the conclusion of this project. Pavement - All design altematives will provide a new full depth asphalt pavement consisting of approximately 200 mm of asphalt pavement over a 300 mm subbese course. Since the AADT is relatively Iow, it is anticipated that the pavement surface will require an occasional overlay every 15 - 20 years to maintain a good quality riding surface. IIl. C.2.d. Structures - The new bddge over the railroad will be designed to support MS23 (HS25) truck loading and will carry one travel lane in each direction. The MS23 (HS25) truck is the standard design vehicle for all NYSDOT bridge designs and represents a three (3) axle truck with a gross weight of 40.8 metric tons (45 tons). The new bridge width is developed to accommodate the full width of the planned approach roadway (including shoulders) allowing motorists to share the road with bicyclists as they cross over the bridge. A 5.64 m (18'-6'3 vertical clearance over the railroad track below will be provided. Justification for this non- standard clearance is included in Section III-C. 2. a.(1). Bridge superstructure options consist of a steel multi-girder type or adjacent prestressed box beam type. Multi-beam bridge types are preferred by the department because they provide a redundant design that can withstand a substantial amount of unanticipated damage from impacts and extreme events without a high risk of major damage or collapse. The two-girder design of the existing bridge is more vulnerable to collapse should one of the girders fail to support the bridge weight and/or traffic loads. The steel bddge option will be fabricated from weathering steel with a composite concrete deck. The weathering steel forms a protective coating when exposed to continuous wetting and drying that protects the base metal from further corrosion. Since the metal does not require periodic painting a substantial saving in life cycle cost is realized. For the steel bddge option, alternatives III and IV utilize a 240 mm (9 ~") monolithic deck system while alternatives Ilia and V propose a two course deck system consisting of a 190 mm (7 %") structural deck plus a separate 40 mm (1 %") concrete overlay. A monolithic deck is almost always the preferred deck system for new bddges because of its general performance and cost when compared to alternate deck systems. However, it is usually very difficult to get the decks of the two stages of construction to match perfectly without introducing a variable cross slope within the closure pour or irregularities in the dding surface where the supports for the concrete finishing machine have been patched. Therefore, the two course deck system may be preferred for the stage construction alternatives to insure that the final dding surface is smooth and free of irregularitiess. See Figure III-la on page 111-7 for a typical section of the steel superstructure option. In order to keep the structure depth as shallow as possible the span-to-depth ratio of the girders is relatively high. Thus, the girders are more flexible and subject to wider variations in deflection during construction. The two course deck system also minimizes girder deflection by reducing the initial slab weight during construction. This can be an important consideration for stage construction designs where deflections must be consistent between the various stages of bridge construction in order for them to join together without difficulty. The prestressed concrete option reguires the use of adjacent box beams to reduce the structure depth as much as possible in order to minimize impacts to two course deck system requires the Deputy Chief Engineer - Structures Division (D.C.E.S.) approval. III - 17 III.C.2.e. III.C.2.f. the surrounding property. A 150 mm (6") minimum monolithic deck will be provided since the deck will not have to span between beams. Standard box beam units are available in widths of 915 mm (3'-0") and 1220 mm (4'-0"). Designs that use the fewest number of beams for a given superstructure will achieve the greatest economy in fabrication, shipping, and erection costs. Therefore, the prestressed concrete superstructure option will be made exclusively from 1220 mm wide units - necessitating a slightly wider deck than the steel alternative. See Figure II1-1b on page 111-7 a the typical section of the prestressed concrete superstructure option. Of the superstructure options considered, the steel multi-girder type is preferred for the following reasons: 1. Cost - The superstructure costs of a standard steel and prestressed concrete bridge are generally vep/similar. However, other factors explained below not only favor the steel bridge option, but also reduce the final project cost. 2. Weight - Each prestressed concrete girder weighs approximately 3 times that of the steel girder to support the same load. This increased superstructure weight for the concrete option necessitates larger footings and increased steel reinforcement in the bridge substructure to resist seismic loads - all at an increased cost. 3. Accommodation of Utilities - The open spaces between the steel girders accommodate various utilities while hiding them from view. The adjacent prestressed box beam option cannot accommodate utilities unless hung from the side of the bridge (detracting from aesthetics) or jacked beneath the railroad tracks (adding cost). 4. Aesthetics - The amh-like shape of the proposed girders is much less costly to produce for the steel girder option. Previous NYSDOT projects with arch shaped prestressed box beams have resulted in fabrication costs twice that of standard box beams. Furthermore, it is felt that the purple-brown patina of the weathering steel will blend in nicely with the rural environment surrounding the bddge site. Bridge appurtenances include a metal combination bddge railing, modified to incorporate vertical slats as a decorative treatment, with granite curb to direct runoff away from the bridge. A 1.37 m (54") railing height is required to protect bicyclists from toppling over the railing to the railroad track below. Also, the use of a metal rail is proposed to comply with the Town of Southold's desire to maintain the scenic views from the bridge. In addition, pedestrian fencing should be considered to protect the rail road tracks below from potential vandalism. Hydraulics - The new bridge does not cross any streams or waterways. Therefore, hydraulic considerations of the new bridge do not need to be considered. Drainage - The proposed drainage system for all design alternatives will maintain existing drainage patterns and consist of leaching basins and overland flow into the surrounding vegetated slopes. Leaching basins placed in the approach embankment, where they can be placed in permeable soils above the water table, can gather runoff from the bridge and approach pavement. This can be a practical measure to mitigate potential harm to adjacent wetlands by containing the 'first flush" of roadway pollutants. Typical oil/grit separators (vortex chambers) may also be utilized in lieu of leaching basins where appropriate. At lower elevations the runoff will be directed away from the wetlands as much as practical via swales and overland flow. Please refer to Section IV.B.3.b - Stormwater Discharge for additional discussion on the proposed drainage system. III.C.2.g. Maintenance Responsibility - The new roadway and bridge will be maintained by the New York State Department of Transl~ortation. Upon completion of the contract, all underground and overhead utilities will be maintained by their respective owners. IIl.C.2.h. Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) - All design alternatives will maintain two (2) lanes of traffic on Route 25 at all times dudng construction. However, there may be occasional temporary lane and/or road closures of limited duration for certain operations. The contract documents for construction will prohibit lane closures during rush hour periods and other important times. Feasibility of Nighttime Construction At night, poor visibility, worker fatigue, driver condition, and substance abuse can cause hazardous situations for workers and, with less traffic at night, motorists tend to drive faster through work zones. Night shifts are more expensive due to overtime and night-premium pay, lighting expenses, and the use of additional traffic control devices. Construction productivity may also be reduced during nighttime operations due to inadequate lighting, poor worker morale and fatigue. Noise and glare from nighttime operations can be annoying to nearby residents. Construction noise that is acceptable during daytime may be unacceptable at night, particularly when work is near residential communities. Traffic congestion is usually the overriding factor in considering nighttime construction. Traffic volumes are generally higher dudng daytime operations and closing a lane can cause extreme boffienecking, and consequent delays. During nighttime construction, however, delays and stops may be minimized because of less traffic at night. In some instances, productivity may even be increased due to less interference from traffic at night and elimination of peak-hour work restrictions. Since the current traffic volume along Route 25 in the project area results in relatively frae flow conditions throughout the day, it is unlikely that work zone delays will result in unacceptable congestion during daytime construction activities - especially since two (2) traffic lanes will be maintained dudng construction. Therefore, nighttime construction activity is not recommended for this project since it will increase project cost without a comparable benefit in user costs. ^itemative III - This alternative proposes to build the new bridge alongside the existing bridge. For this alternative, traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge while the new bridge is under construction. Once the new bddge is completed and carrying traffic, demolition of the old bridge can proceed. Construction of the new bddge can be completed eff*,ciently without delays from traffic. Thus, this alternative will have the shortest construction duration. Alternative Ilia - This alternative proposes to build the new bridge alongside the existing bridge in three (3) stages in order to keep the centerline of the now bridge as close as possible to the centerline of the existing bridge. Stage I of construction will build only a portion of the new bridge alongside the existing bridge. This now bridge portion will be just wide enough to carry two (2) lanes of traffic. Stage II of construction will shift traffic to the new bridge portion followed by demolition of the old bridge. Stage III of construction will construct the remaining portion of the now bddge and join them together as one complete structure. During stage II and stage III of construction, traffic will be maintained on a new bridge portion with narrowed lane widths of 3.3 m (11 ft) and no shoulder. Temporary concrete barrier will be placed on the new bridge portion to contain vehicles on the bridge. The overall effect will be a constricted roadway with little room to maneuver until the entire bridge is completed. By constructing the new bridge in stages, impacts to the "north" side of the road will be minimized as compared to Alternative II1. Essentially, two (2) bridge hanes must be constructed independently and then joined together to form the completed structure. However, construction duration and, therefore, cost will be increased as a result. It is likely that approximately two (2) years will be required to complete the bridge in this manner. Alternative IV - This alternative proposes to build the new bridge along the same alignment as the existing bridge by utilizing an off-site detour or a temporary bridge. Under this alternative, an off-site detour or temporary bddge will be established before the existing bridge is demolished. After demolition of the existing bridge the now structure can then be constructed in the place of the original while traffic is bypassed. A detour mute, if utilized, would likely direct thru-traffic to Middle Road (C.R. 48) via Youngs Avenue west of the project area and at the intersection of C.R. 48 with Route 25 east of the project area. See Figure 111-4 for a map of possible detour mutes. Local traffic could utilize Aibertson Lane or Chapel Lane to access Route 25 east of the proiect area. However, discussions held with the community Task Force indicate that such a circuitous detour will have a negative impact on the local business community in the project area and, therefore, is not preferred under this alternative. The preferred method to re-direct traffic around the existing bridge is to utilize a temporary bridge alongside the existing bridge. It is anticipated that at least 4 months of construction time is required to construct the temporary bridge and its approach roadway before demolition and subsequent reconstruction can begin Shelter Island ALTERNATE ROUTES Figure 111-4 III.C.2.i. IIl. C.2.j. Alternative V - This alternative is similar to Alternative Ilia in that the new bddge will be constructed in stages in order to keep the centerline of the new bridge as close as possible to the centerline of the existing bridge. Please see the narrative for Alternative Ilia above for a description of the stage construction procedure. Soils and Foundations - Subsurface soil exploration reveals the need for pile supported foundations for all design alternatives due to a 40 foot + clay layer, that begins at the ground surface. Testing of the clay layer indicates that significant consolidation settlement will occur up to nine (9) months after completion of construction for foundations supported on spread footings. This could lead to cracking of concrete substructures and uneven riding conditions. Therefore, pile supported foundations, that penetrate through the clay layer, are required to avoid potential settlement problems. Utilities - Existing underground utilities will have to be relocated in order to accommodate the new alignment for the proposed alternatives. This will likely III.C.2.k. III.C.2.1. only impact Cablevision's facilities. In addition, utility poles that support electric transmission lines, telephone cable, and cable TV will also require relocation to due to the proposed alignments and to increase the clear zone from the edge of the travel lane. This will affect LIPA, Verizon, and Cabievision. Many times this work must be performed by the utility companies themselves. Therefore, special utility coordination notes will be added to the contract plans to minimize construction delays as much as practical. It is also anticipated that many utility companies will request accommodations on the new bridge for future expansion. This can easily be accomplished without sacrificing aesthetics with the steel bridge option. Additional buried conduit can be placed during construction that is suspended between the bridge girders. Railroads - The existing railroad track within the project area will be unharmed for all altematives considered and normal train service is expected to be maintained throughout construction of the new bridge. However, track outages may be required for one weekend during demolition of the existing bridge superstructure. The new bridge will provide a 5.64 m (18'-6") minimum vertical clearance above the top of the rail and a 11.8 m (38 ft) minimum clear opening for the railroad. A minimum lateral clearance of 5.5 m (18 ft) from the centeriine of the track will also be provided. A railroad force account agreement is required for all design altematives to provide flag protection for construction crews working in close proximity to the track during railroad operations. Right-of-Way - All feasible alternatives require property acquisition to attain a proposed 20 m (65 feet) wide highway boundary to accommodate the planned travel lanes and shoulders as well as an additional 4 m (13 feet) on both sides of the roadway for snow storage, future sidewalk, and utility placement. See Figure 111-2 on page 111-8 for the proposed typical roadway section. These FEE acquisitions8 also include the property required to construct and maintain the retaining walls proposed for the various alternatives. RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPACTS Alternative FEE Property Permanent Combined Total Acquisition Easement PE hectares (acres) hectares (acres) hectares (acres) III 0.352 (0.87) 0.251 (0.62) 0.603 (1.49) IliA 0.208 (0.51) 0.282 (0.70) 0.490 (1.21) IV 0.330 (0.82) 0.282 (0.70) 0.612 (1.52) V 0.831 (2.05) 0.171 (0.42) 1.002 (2.47) FEE acquisitions represent the property to be acquired for the proposed highway boundary and all permanent structures which are pa~t of the highway infl-astructure. ilI.C.2.m. In addition, permanent easements? (PE) are recluired to maintain the slope embankment adjacent to the highway boundary to insure the stability of the highway. All right-of-way takings for the proposed project will be with access. This means that the property owner is allowed access across the parcel to the public highway. Landscaping Development - Upon completion of the project, views "to' and "from' the new bridge will be more prominent as a result of the removal of a number of trees for construction of the new approach embankment and the use of an open steel bridge railing. The bridge will act as a landmark as it rises above the surrounding landscape. Therefore, aesthetic treatments of the proposed bridge rail, abutment pylons, and superstructure are appropriate to insure that the proposed project will provide pleasure and satisfaction in its use. Figure 111-5 shows a typical elevation view of the proposed bridge (steel multi-girder option). Additional landscaping with larger plants on the south side approach embankment side of the new bridge will help screen out the view of the adjacent asphalt plant as motorists/bicyclists travel over the bridge. III.C.2.n. TYPICAL WEST ELEVATION STEEL MULTI-GIRDER OPTION Figure 111-5 Provisions for Pedestrians, including Persons with Disabilities - The 2.4 m (8 ft) shoulder proposed for all design alternatives will be utilized to accommodate pedestrians since existing pedestrian activity in the project area is very light (see Section II.C.1 .v for existing pedestrian volumes) and not expected to increase significantly in the future. Therefore, specific pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks will not be incorporated into the design alternatives at this time. Furthermore, immediately adjacent to the project area the roadway does not provide sidewalks and functions well even though typical pedestrian generators such as restaurants, tourist shops, and recreation areas are located sporadically along the roadway. However, if warranted by future development within the project area, pedestrian sidewalks can be added at a later time under a separate project. The planned bridge width for all prolx)sed alternatives can accommodate a future sidewalk while still maintaining adequate safety standards for bicyclists and motor Permanent easements are the acquisition of certain dghts and interest to use or control a property for a designated purpose. vehicles. See Figure 111-6 for a typical section of the proposed bddge reconstructed to include a future sidewalk. III.C.2.o. III.C.2.p. FUTURE SIDEWALK Figure 111-6 Provisions for Bicycling - The 2.4 m (8 ft) shoulder proposed for all design alternatives provides safe and adequate accommodations for bicyclists to share the road with motor vehicles and the limited number of pedestrians. Route 25 in the project area is part of a planned future bicycle route. The shoulders will run continuously on both sides of the roadway for the entire length of the project and on-street parking will be prohibited within the project area to minimize potential conflicts with motorized traffic. Lighting - Street lighting is proposed for all design alternatives in order to improve safety in the project area. The horizontal curve between Sage Boulevard and Albacore Drive is linked to the majodty of accidents in the project area. Many of these accidents involve collisions with deer and/or inattentive ddving. Additional lighting wilt help visibility and should minimize such accidents. III.D. Project Costs and Schedule III.D.1. Costs - The most significant factor influencing project costs is duration of construction. The need to maintain two travel lanes at all times by utilizing staged construction techniques or a temporary bridge significantly increases construction time and, therefore, project cost. Property acquisition to re-align the roadway and construct the approach embankment also adds cost. The table below summarizes approximate costs for the Feasible Alternatives. An additional cost for a force account agreement with the LIRR to provide flag protection for construction crews working in close proximity to the track dudng railroad operations is also required for all project alternatives. Historically, this cost is approximately 5% to 10% of the project construction cost. Estimated Proiect Cost Altemative Highway Bridge Existing Bridge Right-of-Way Total Construction Construction Removal Estimated Cost III $6.05M $2.65M $0,38M $0.65M $9.73M Ilia $7.49M $3.41M $0.38M $0.53M $11.81M IV $5.99M $3,551~ $0.38M $0.66M $10.58M V $7.43M $3.21M $0.38M $1.08M $12.10M III.D.2. Federal HBRRP (Highway Bddge Reconstruction/Rehabilitation Program) funds will be utilized to pay for 80% of the project costs with the remaining 20% bourne by the State. No additional taxes, bonds, or tolls will be created to pay for this project. Schedule - The table below identifies the approximate schedule for design and construction of the various project alternatives. Preliminary Project Schedule Public Information Meeting Summer/Fall 2005 Design Approval Fall 2005 Contract Letting Spring 2007 Bridge Construction Completed April 2008 -Alternative III Oct. 2008 - Altemaflve IIIA/V June 2008 - Alternative IV Completion of Construction First spring after completion of bridge construction to allow for final asphalt paving, line striping and landscaping. Detailed design of the final project (preparing contract plans and specifications) will begin after Design Approval is granted. The various bridge completion dates for the feasible alternatives is influenced primarily by the stage construction activity for alternatives Ill,AN and the requirement of constructing a temporary bridge for alternative IV. Aitemative III proposed to build the entire new bddge alongside the existing bridge. This allows construction of the new bridge to begin almost immediately upon the Contractor's mobilization and, therefore, allows for the shortest construction time. Alternatives IIIA/V utilize staged construction to keep the new bddge as close to the existing alignment as practical. Thereby minimizing clearing impacts to the surrounding land. Under this alternative, the stage I portion of the new bridge will be completed by December 2007 at which time traffic will be shifted over to this new Includes $700,000 for the cost of a temporary bridge. bddge portion to allow for demolition of the existing bridge. The final bridge portion will be constructed in stage II and completed by October 2008. Essentially, this alternative is similar to constructing two individual bridges sequentially and therefore requires much more time to complete than alternative III. Furthermore, construction operations are typically shut down in January and February since winter bridge construction is seldom efficient and this further delays the completed project. Alternative IV proposes to first construct a temporary bridge before the existing bridge can be demolished and rebuilt along the same alignment. Under this altemative, the temporary bddge will be put into service in October 2007, thereby delaying the new bridge construction until that time. A detailed timeline of construction events for the feasible alternatives is presented in Appendix E. IV.B.1. IV.B.I.a. CHAPTER IV - SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IV.A. Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to identify the social, economic and environmental consequences of the feasible alternative, satisfy the applicable social, economic and environmental laws, and identify all permits and approvals needed for the feasible alternative. 1. State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) Classification: This project is classified as a SEQRA Non-Type II project as described in 17 NYCRR Part 15. 2. National Environmental Policy ACt (NEPA) Classification: This project is classified as a NEPA Class III in accordance to 23 CFR 771. This project involves major bridge rehabilitation or bridge replacement to eliminate the structural deficiencies of the existing bridge cam/lng State Touring Route 25 over the Long Island Rail Road. The project will also reconstruct the approach roadways on both sides of the bridge to improve the safety for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians as much as practical. Social, Economic and Environmental Consequences Social Consequences Affected Population - The social activities occurring in the project area are shopping, dinning, banking and church going. The demographics for the project location is as shown below. Southold Town Demographicst Average income $48,898 Ethnic backaround: White 94% Hispanic (any race) 5% African American 3% Asian & Pacific Islander lass than 1% American Indian less than 1% Percent of homes owner occupied 80% Median age 44 1 Information obtained from Southold Town Comprehensive Implementation Strategy and U.S. Census, April 2000 IV-1 IV.B.I.b. IV.B.I.c. IV.B.1 .d. IV.B.1 .e. Local Planning - This project is on the Nassau/Suffolk County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). All projects on the TIP are consistent with the goals and objectives of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, which is the planning organization for the New York metro araa. The Town of Southold has no plans for future development in the project area that would significantly change the character or traffic patterns of Route 25 in the project area. See Section II.C.l.w for additional information regarding planned development for the area. Community Cohesion - The following is a bdef discussion of the anticipated impact to the neighborhoods adjacent to the project. (1) (2) (3) (4) Property values will not be effected by this project. Right-of-Way takings proposed for all Feasible Alternatives will not alter the function or significantly alter the size of the property. Quality of life will improve due to the expected reduction in accidents, increased mobility and providing a more stress free tdp. Population changes are not anticipated in the adjacent neighborhoods as a result of this project since vehicular capacity will not be increased in the project area (ie: the number of travel lanes will remain the same). There are not any neighborhoods, ethnic groups or Iow income communities that will be isolated as a result of this project. Changes in Travel Pattems or Accessibility - This project will not change travel patterns and will not change pedestrian access. Immediately adjacent to the project area the roadway does not provide sidewalks and functions well even though typical pedestrian generators such as restaurants, toudst shops, and recreation areas are located sporadically along the roadway. The 2.4 m (8 ft) shoulder proposed for all design altematives will be utilized to accommodate pedestrians since existing pedestrian activity in the project area is very light (see Section II.C. 1.v for measured pedestrian volumes) and is not expected to increase significantly in the future. Therefore, specific pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks will not be incorporated into the design alternatives at this time. Route 25 in the project area is part of a planned future bicycle route. The proposed 2.4 m (8 ft) shoulder for all design altematives provides adecluate accommodations for bicyclists to share the road with motor vehicles and the limited number of pedestrians. The shoulders will run continuously on both sides of the roadway for the entire length of the project and on-street parking will bo prohibited within the project area to minimize potential conflicts with motorized traffic. Impacts on School Districts, Recreation Areas, Places of Religious Worship and Businesses - School Districts, Recreation Areas, Churches and Businesses will realize the benefits of increased safety and mobility. IV-2 IV. B. 1 .f. IV.B.1 .g. IV.B.I.h. Impacts on Police, Fire Protection and Ambulance Access - The Police, Fire Protection and Ambulances will realize the benefits of increased safety and mobility. Impacts on Highway Safety, Traffic Safety and Overall Public Safety and Health - The traveling public (motor vehicle, bicycle) will realize the benef~s of increased safety. General Social Groups Benef~ed or Harmed (1) Effects on Elderly & Disabled Persons - This project will accommodate elderly and disabled persons by meeting or exceeding the current ADA standards. (2) Effects on Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups -This project will not have a disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effect on minority or Iow- income populations because this project includes only minor roadway m-alignment / widening and will not disrupt any known Iow income or minodty groups. In conformance with FHWA's policy on Environmental Justice and Executive Order 12898, the project area was investigated to identify the presence of any affected minority or Iow-income populations. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) uses the most recent US Census data for identifying the presence of minority and Iow-income populations ("disadvantaged" communities). According to USEPA's data, there are no census blocks of minority and Iow-income populations within the project area. Therefore, this project will not have any disproportionate impacts to disadvantaged communities. IV.B.2. IV.B.2.a. IV.B.2.b. Economic Consequences Impacts on Regional and Local Economies - This project will not have a significant effect on the adjacent land development, tax revenues (sales & property tax), public expenditures, retail sales, and property values. However, temporary employment opportunities may be generated by virtue of the proposed roaclwayfoddge construction. Impacts on Existing Highway-related Businesses - Penny Lumber and Com~-~ini Asphalt are the only businesses within the project area that utilize Route 25 for access. Entrance into these properties will be maintained throughout construction and will become more formalized by constructing concrete driveway aprons along Route 25 at specific locations. The preliminary plans located in Appendix D show the location of these entrances for each Alternative. Each Altemative also raises the highway pavement elevation on Route 25 by various amounts (refer to IV-3 IV.B.2.c. IV.B.2.d. IV.B.3. IV.B.3.a. the proposed roadway profile located in Appendix D) in order to provide for the required sight distance. Therefore, the drivers will descend into the parking areas of the subject business by varying amounts. The greatest impact to the businesses will occur with Alternative V since this alternative will raise the Route 25 pavement the most. Penny lumber currently allows patrons to utilize the State Right-of-way for parking. The feasible alternatives proposed will utilize this property to vadous degrees for regrading the new roadway embankment. Therefore, parking in front of Penny lumber will be affected. Again, the greatest changes will br realized under Alternative V. See Section II.C. 1 .z for additional information regarding the parking area in front of Penny Lumber. Impacts on Established Business Districts - This project will not have any substantial effect on the local Business Districts. Relocation Impacts - There will be no relocations of households or businesses resulting from this project. Environmental Consequences Surface Waters/Wetlands Surface Waters The project area is bounded to the 'north" and 'south" by numerous open water bodies (see Figure IV-l). Most significantly, the Hashamomuck Pond system borders the project ROW on the 'north" side of Route 25. On the 'south' side of Route 25 are fresh and tidal wetlands adjacent to and discharging to Shelter Island Sound. The Heshamomuck Pond system also drains southeasterly toward Shelter Island Sound via Mill Creek. The locally significant 'Salt Pond" is located on the 'north" side of the read at the westbound end of the project area. All tidal waters in the project area are classif'~l as "SA" - the highest saline water guality category. The only classified freshwater stream is a small creek (Class 'C ") located east of the project limits. Best uses for Class "C" waters are fishing, fish survival and pdmary/secondery contact recreational uses. None of the proposed feasible aitematives will directly impact any of the open surface water bodies in the project area. Indirect effects (primarily loss of buffer vegetation near the open water bodies) are incrementally increased by relocating the new bridge farther from the existing bddge alignment. Accordingly, the la~ler indirect effects will occur under Alternative III (new bddge constructed along the west side of the existing bridge) and Alternative V (new bridge constructed along the east side of the existing bridge utilizing stage construction}. A Clualltative analysis of these two alternatives suggest that the greater impacts will occur under Alternative III based on the higher quality of open waters present on the 'north" side of the roadway. IV-4 [~J~ NY SO E C F resl~water Wetl ands (w SufLocal Streets Water. shp 2000 2000 4000 6000 8000 Feet N S Figure IV-1 Surface Water Resources IV-5 These impacts, however, should not result in substantial adverse effects due to the linear character of the project and the proximity of open waters to the proposed bridge alignment. The nearest open water (Salt Pond) is 38 meters (125 ft.) from the worst case pavement realignment (Alternative III) on the westbound end of the project. The proposed Alternative III alignment results in a 40 SM impact (131 s.f.) on buffer vegetation near Salt Pond. This area comprises a thin strip of weedy roadside vegetation (honeysuckle, poison ivy and bayberry) and does not substantially affect the wooded buffer (oaks/maples) located closer to Salt Pond. Wetlands There are fresh and tidally-influenced wetlands on either side of the project highway corridor. Wetlands were delineated in the field using Army Corps and NYSDEC protocol. Wetlands are saturated or inundated lands that are predominantly vegetated by wetland indicator plant species. Data sheets and photographs were recorded for each wetland and upland community. The wetlands delineation report (see Appendix F) identifies fifteen separate wetlands within the project limits. Many of these wetlands are hydrologically-connected to other nearby wetlands. The wetland systems are bisected by the Route 25 pavement/bridge fill and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) tracks. These fill areas separate wetland communities into six (6) major areas of wetlands (see Figure IV- 2). More detailed wetland delineation maps and associated impacts for each alternative are included in Appendix I. Wetlands System #1 includes the estuarine Salt Pond and it's adjacent forested freshwater wetlands. Wetlands System #2 includes wetlands that are east of the LIRR tracks. This system includes a tidal creek tributary to the regionally significant Hashamomuck Pond. Wetlands System #3 is located north of AIbertson Lane at the north end of the project area (west of Route 25). This system includes a creek that discharges into Pipe's Cove. Wetlands System #4 is also located north of Albertson Lane at the north end of the project area (east of Route 25). This system also includes the creek that discharges into Pipe's Cove. Wetlands System #5 includes wooded wetlands and an isolated pond east of Route 25. Wetlands System #6 includes wooded wetlands adjacent to tidal wetlands east of Route 25. As discussed above, the alignments with the greatest deviation from the existing alignment will have the most impact on natural resources including some of the surrounding wetland systems. Impacts on each wetland system are tabulated below for each proposed alignment. IV-6 *ce <, I We0and System ~2~ Cove 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Feet Figure IV-2 Major Wetland Systems The above analysis shows that Alternative IV has the least impacts to delineated wetlands while Alternative III and Alternative V have the greatest potential direct effects. However, it should be noted that construction of the proposed retaining wall substantially reduces wetlands impacts by approximately one-third for all alternatives. The final design for all feasible alternatives will utilize retaining walls as mitigation to reduce wetland impacts as much as possible. Wetlands Functional Assessment The Department assessed wetland impacts considering the functions and values of each wetland system. Table IV-3 shows that Wetland Systems #3 and ~ are not directly impacted by construction of any alternative. Systems #2 and 6 have very minor acreage impacts. Wetland Systems #1 and #5 appear to be most affected by the various project alternatives. Therefore it is necessary to examine the relative value of systems #1 and #5. Wetland System #1 is a "depressional outflow" system (classification according to US Army Corps HGM system) IV-7 and is approximately 20 acres in size. Wetland System #5 is a "depressional closed" system and approximately 30 acres in size. In order to objectively compare the functions and values of these systems, the Department utilized a standard wetlands evaluation methodology (see Appendix G). The wetlands functional assessment for each system revealed that Wetlands System #1 has a slightly higher functional value (score of 31 of a possible 42 points) and has the potential to provide more value than Wetland System #5 (score of 26). The major differences between the functional assessments of these wetland systems is that System #1 is directly connected to Hashamomuck Pond and therefore has the potential to provide organic material export to the adjacent tidal wetlands. The potentially affected portion of wetland System #5 provides relatively lower values and functions than System #1 because it is isolated by the Route 25 bridge embankment, the LIRR tracks and an old abandoned road embankment. Since this portion of Wetland System #5 has a lower present value, it is better suited for wetlands restoration and enhancement work. Wetland Alternative III Alternative Ilia Alternative IV Alternative V System Bridge repl. adjacent to Bridge reol. adjacent to Bridge rep[ in same Bridge reDl. adjacent to existing on west side existing on west side location as existing existing on east side (stage construction) (tamporapJ bridge) (stage construction) with w/out with w/out with w/out with w/out retaining retaining retaining retaining retaining retaining retaining retaining wall wall wall wall wall wall wall wall #1 0.34 0.61 0.22 0.42 0.08 0.25 .... #2 0.06 0.06 ........ #3 .......... #5 .... 0.01 0.01 0.41 0.58 #~ - - 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.08 Total 0.40 0.67 0.23 0.43 0.10 0.27 0.49 0.66 Table IV-3 Wetland Impacts (acres) The primary wetland functions for Wetlands System #1 and #5 are summarized below. Wetlands System #1 Wetlands System #5 Primary Nutrient and Toxicant Removal; Floodflow Alteration; Nutrient and General Wildlife Habitat; Amphibian Toxicant Removal; Amphibian Wetland Habitat; Fish/Shellfish Habitat; Habitat; Functions Native Plant Richness IV-8 Wetlands mitigation, therefore will require replacement of the impacted wetland functions listed above. Mitigation will likely involve a minimum of wetlands restoration and/or wetlands enhancement at a ratio of 1:1. If the new bridge alignment is moved to the east (Alternative IV) or west (Alternative III or IliA), there will be substantial opportunity to restore wetlands on-site at a minimum of 1:1. Wetlands restoration and enhancement typically focuses on improving degraded wetlands and converting Iow value upland areas into wetlands habitat. The Department will consult with the Town of Southold, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to identify the most appropriate methods of wetlands mitigation. Executive Order 11990 In accordance with the Presidential Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands, any federally funded highway project must avoid work in wetlands unless 1) there is no practicable alternative to work in wetlands and 2) all possible measures are taken to minimize harm to wetlands. All alternatives will have some degree of wetlands impact. Accordingly there is no practicable alternative that avoids construction in wetlands. This project also includes measures to minimize harm to wetlands by including a retaining wall to reduce wetland impacts by one-third. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the Department will coordinate with all involved agencies to determine the amount and location of wetlands restoration and enhancement. Early public notification of necessary work in wetlands will be offered in the appropriate public notices required in the NYSDOT design process. Coastal Zone and LWRP Consistency This project is located within the NYS Coastal Zone as well as within the limits of the Town of Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). The proposed project is a SEQRA Non-type 2 action and therefore the Department must document consistency with the NY$ Coastal Program and LWRP policies. Appendix H contains the "Coastal Assessment Form" (CAF) and Coastal Policy Assessment. The coastal policy assessment indicates that the project (replacement of an existing bridge) is consistent with the State Coastal Management Program and the local LWRP. Floodplains The project is partially located within a 100-year flood plain (see Figure IV-4) with a Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of 8 feet above mean sea level (NGVD29). All feasible alternatives require construction of a new roadway alignment either to the west or east of the existing bridge. Although the project does not cross a water body, there are Iow-lying wetlands on both sides of the existing alignment. Therefore, the project reguires a longitudinal encroachment under all feasible alternatives (including Alternative IV - bridge replace in same location as existing bridge). The project area, however is subject to tidally-induced flooding rather than IV-9 IV.B.3.b. riverine flooding. Any minor longitudinal encroachment is not likely to result in substantial flood plain impacts. However, in order to minimize the impact of new fill material in the flood plain, the project will include excavation of the existing ROW to offset as much as possible the required amount of fill below the BFE. The proposed flood plain excavation will likely be the same area chosen for wetlands mitigation. Executive Order 11988 This project is consistent with Executive Order 11988 regarding impacts on flood plains. The proposed bridge is a replacement for an existing structure and does not include substantial widening and associated filling. There is no feasible alternative to construction in the flood way because the entire area surrounding the site is within the regulatory flood plain. Measures to minimize flood plain impacts include: (1) constructing retaining walls to minimize the amount of fill in the flood plain, and (2) excavation of the existing bridge structure and fill material to offset proposed new fill. Water Source Quality Stormwater Discharqe There is a limited highway drainage system within the project limits. A small portion of the existing pavement runoff is collected at the eastbound end of the project limits near the intersection with Albertson Lane. The five catch basins and 450 mm stormwater pipe discharges to the small creek north of Albertson Lane. The remaining length of highway, including the entire roadway westbound of the bridge, drains by sheetflow off the pavement into the grass shoulder and adjacent shrub/woodland vegetation. Stormwater appears to be recharging into the generally sandy/loam soils. This project is subject to the NYSDEC SPDES Phase II regulations concerning discharge of stormwater associated with construction activities. Therefore, it is required that the project design conform with NYSDEC's stormwater design manual as much as practicable. This project, while requiring additional fill to meet new design standards, does not involve a substantial change in impervious surfaces. Accordingly, pursuant to NYSDEC's guidance, the project must attempt to treat approximately 25% of the water quality volume generated within the project limits using standard practices. Non-standard practices may also be used if they treat 100% of the water quality treatment volume. IV-lO Suf Local Street~ P W~ter,~hp ~ 180-¥ear F~oodplal~ Figure ~V~4 100 Year Flood Plain Iv-11 IV.B.3.c. The final design stage will determine the water quantity volume and the associated water quality treatment volume for the new alignment. It should be noted that the proposed water quantity volume will be almost identical to the existing conditions. No new travel lanes are being added as pad of the project and the typical highway section will retain the same pavement width. The proposed the new bridge will be only slightly wider than the existing bridge in order to maintain a continuous shoulder through the project area. The project will attempt to treat 100% of the stormwater quality volume using standard practices. At a minimum, stormwater will be redirected away from wetlands and/or treated with typical oil/gdt separators (vortex chambers). The roadway eastbound of the bridge (towards Albertson Lane) may be an appropriate location for retrofitting the existing 450 mm drainage system with an oil/grit separator. It is recognized that "Salt Pond" and adjacent wetlands on the "north" side of the roadway should be protected from existing and future discharges of stormwater. Under Alternative Ill/l I IA, it may be possible to collect stormwater from the roadway westbound of the bridge and divert it to the "south" side of the proposed roadway by excavating the existing fill slopes and creating a vegetated retention basin. This proposal will accomplish many objectives by: (1) restoring impacted wetlands, (2) replacing flood plain and (3) eliminating stormwater discharge to the high quality shellfish waters. Sole Source Aquifers The entire project area is within the Nassau-Suffolk Sole Source Aquifer as designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). This project, however, is located in "Zone VII" according to the Suffolk County Hydrogeologic Map which is characterized as a discharge zone with groundwater flowing primarily horizontally and discharging to the nearby saltwater areas. There are no public water supply wells adjacent to the project limits. According to nearby USGS monitoring well data, the groundwater table is at approximately elevation 0.6m above sea level (NAVD88). Therefore some temporary dewatering may be necessary for installation of the bridge abutments. This temporary pumping, however, is localized and typically only affects the upper limits of the groundwater table. No impacts are expected on the quality of the sole-source aquifer or any public water supply well. All alternatives propose only minor shifts in the existing alignment and no additional lane miles are being added. Therefore, a Tolar Analysis, which measures the effect additional de-icing chemicals will have on the groundwater, is not necessary. General Ecology and Wildlife - The project corridor was evaluated for the type and quality of existing vegetative communities, wildlife habitat and the presence of endangered and threatened species. IV-12 I Generally, there is extensive natural vegetation and wildlife habitat adjacent to the highway within the proiect limits Immediate roadside vegetation comprises mostly turf grass and weeds. Also there are several water bodies and wetlands within the project limits, further increasing the value of wildlife habitat. Most of the 2/3- mile corridor is bordered by undeveloped lands and virtually no residential development The area east of the bridge between the railraod tracks and Kerwin Blvd contains industrial land use (Penny lumber and asphalt plant). Veqetation and Wildlife Habitat A vegetation community map for the corridor is shown in Figure IV-5a and IV-5b. Figure IV-Sa Vegetation Communities (South End) Roadside vegetation within the existing right-of-way is typical of disturbed "mowed roadside" habitat as described in Reschke's Ecological Communities of NYS (NYSDEC, 1990), The roadside vegetation is dominated by honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) garlic mustard (Alliaria), shrubs such as bayberry (Myrica) and arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum), vines, i,e,, fox grape (Vitis) and small IV-13 trees including black cherry (Prunus serotina) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). Man,¢ of the species in the roadside corridor are non-native invasive species. Areas to the west in ti~e corridor contain a mix of "paiustrine wet~ands" and "successional woodlands" dominated by several oak species (Quercus sp,). This mix of habitat types suggests that the wildlife habitat value is high quality. Further to the south are the "estuarine wetlands" associated with the Salt Pond. These wetlands are also of high quality, Habitat to the east of the existing alignment is also high value but somewhat less valuable than the westerly areas. Project impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat are limited to strip takings along the corridor for the roadway realignment, The strip takings comprise mostly wooded buffer to nearby wetlands. Some of this area within the existing roadway alignment will become re-established with replacement wetlands and/or uplands vegetation upon completion of the project. N S SHF = Success o,~ai Ha rd~,vo o d Forast Figure IV-5b Vegetation Communities (North End) IVy14 Generally, the impacts of this project are limited to local wildlife habitats consisting of small mammals and birds who may utilize the woodlands for nesting, foraging and cover. A review of aerial photo maps in addition to field investigation, however, suggest that the individual and cumulative impact of vegetation cleadng will not be significant. Under Alternatives III, Ilia and V, realignment will impact approximately one and one-half acre of wooded/wetland habitat. However, this impact is minor considering the approximately 80 acres of adjacent woodlands on each side of the roadway. The proposed impact will result in less than one percent impact on woodland habitat in the vicinity. Birds, deer and small mammals that currently utilize the area will find suitable habitat in the surrounding forest land and will become re-established in the area where the existing bddge will be removed. The realignment will not affect connectivity or fragmentation of habitat. Overall, vegetation impacts will be largely offset because the project does not include major widening of pavement. Therefore, the project can include re-establishment of natural vegetation in areas where the existing bddge will be removed. Mitigation for vegetation impacts typically involves investigating alternative technologies to reduce the amount of proposed vegetation removal and planting new vegetation to replace impacted plant communities. In this project, the only alternative to minimizing woodland vegetation impacts is to minimize the amount of realignment needed to construct the new bridge (Altemative IV). The proposed retaining walls will decrease the amount of vegetation impacts by one-third. Also, wildlife crossings will be maintained by allowing sufficient reom beneath the bridge for large wildlife to cross Route 25 without encountering traffic. It may also be possible to clean/enlarge the culvert pipe at the westbound end of the project to allow herpetiles (amphibians and reptiles) to travel between wetlands on either side of the highway. Endangered & Threatened Species The Department contacted the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation's Natural Hedtege Program (NHP) for a listing of known protected species within a half-mile of the project limits. A review of the NYSDEC's NHP maps for this area only show a potential plant species beyond the northern end of the project corridor. The Department conducted a field investigation to inventory plant and animal species within the proposed bddge realignment footprint. The Department and it's consultants did not locate the subject plant species (identity concealed as per NYSDEC request). In discussions with NYSDEC's Bureau of Wildlife, the area of concam is located more than one mile from any vegetation disturbance proposed in this project. Since proposed impacts in the project corridor are limited to a minor shift in alignment along the existing disturbed roadside, there is no expected impact to endangered or threatened species. IV-15 IV.B.3.d. IV.B3.e. Historical and Cultural Resources - A phase I Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey was performed in May 2003 for the entire project corridor. Three archeological sites were identified in this preliminary survey: Brannon House Site (historic), Wickham Site (historic) and Scallop Pond Site (prehistoric). Dudog consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as revised) with the New York State Histodc Preservation Off,ce / Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (SHPO I OPRHP) it was decided that if any of these three sites could not be avoided, then each warranted additional studies at the Phase 2 Site Examination level to assess their importance to prehistory and history of Long Island and the larger northeastern United States (SHPO / OPRHP letter of August 8, 2003)2. These additional studies are conducted to evaluate whether or not a historic or cultural resource satisfies the cdteria for inclusion to the National and State Registers of Historic Places. Through refinement of project plans, two historic archaeological sites are now outside of the proposed construction disturbance areas and will not be impacted. The prehistoric Scallop Pond Site is close to the proposed construction area for all feasible alternatives and may be impacted by ancillary construction. As part of our continued Section 106 consultation, the Scallop Pond Site warrants additional study at the Site Examination level of study and this additional study will be progressed during Summer 2005. Should the site be evaluated as significant and found to be eligible for the State and/or National Registers, the Region will coordinate and consult with FHWA and the SHPO/OPRHP to assess possible site avoidance. Should the site be eligible and unavoidable, the Region will consult and coordinate with the FHWA and SHPO/OPRHP for appropriate site data recovery. Visual Resources - High visual qualit~ is important to travelers on Route 25 in the project area and is an important component of the local economy through tourism. A careful design of the bridge and approach roadway should maintain a sense of place and maintain or enhance the visual character of the area. Judicious use of landscaping is required to enhance scenic views while blocking industrial land uses. The clearing required for construction of the new approach roadway will offer opportunities to enhance scenic views of the Hashamomuck estuary to the north and west. However, this may also open up unattractive views of the asphalt plant and industrial activities in the project area if not screened with appropriate landscaping. This is particularly evident for Alternative V which will construct the new approach roadway closest to the asphalt plant on the east side of the existing bridge. Retaining walls constructed along the boffom of the roadway approach embankment to minimize wetland impacts will be visible to motorists due to the horizontal 2 Included in the References Section of this Report. IV-16 IV.B3.f. IV.B.3.g. IV.B.3.h. curvature of the roadway. Therefore, an aesthetic treatment of these walls is appropriate. Grade changes adjacent to Penny lumbar provide opportunity to organize the parking area in front of the building and requires careful landscaping to maintain the visibility of the business to attract patrons while maintaining the rural character of the area. A complete Visual Resource Assessment with a more detailed discussion of probable visual effects and mitigation strategies for each feasible alternative is included in Appendix C. Parks and Recreational Facilities - Section 4f of the USDOT ^ct requires that all federally funded highway projects avoid the use of publically- owned parklands, histodc sites or wildlife/recreation areas unless there is no prudent and feasible alternative and all possible planning is conducted to minimize harm to parklands. Section 6f of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) rz~:luires replacement of any parkland that is used for transportation purposes that was previously part of a LWCFA funding program. The Department reviewed existing tax maps and contacted relevant agencies to determine the presence of Section 4f/6f resources and found that there are no publically-owned parklands, historic sites or wildlife/recreation areas adjacent to the project limits. Therefore, there will ba no impact to parks and recreational facilities and no Section 4f or 6f involvement in this project. Farmland Assessment - There are no farmlands within any of the proposed alignment impact areas. The project area is also not within a designated Agdcuitural District. ^ review of the NRCS Soil Survey indicates the soils around the existing bridge are either'cut and fill" or hyddc soils. Therefore, there is no potential for the project to impact prime or unique agricultural soils. Air, Noise and Energy - Federal noise regulation (23CFR 772) and the New York State Department of Transportation policy is to evaluate noise abatement, such as installation of noise barriers at noise impacted areas, only as part of major construction or reconstruction project is defined as a project on a new location (where no highway previously existed), or a project with a significant change in horizontal or vertical alignment, or a project that increases the numbar of through traffic lanes. The Route 25 bridge project does not satisfy any of the criteria defining a major construction or reconstruction project. It does not involve addition of through lanes or a significant change in the vertical or horizontal alignment. With no new through lane on Route 25 bridge within the project limit, no substantial change to the noise environment would ba IV-17 IV.B.3.i. IV.B.3.j. IV.B.3.k. expected. This project will not cause noise impacts and therefore, no noise abatement analysis is required. An air quality analysis is not necessary since this project will not increase traffic volumes, reduce source-receptor distances or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to jeopardize attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The project is classified as exempt from air quality conformity requirements, and will not substantially affect energy consumption. Because construction duration for each feasible alternative is less than three years, non-road construction-related air pollutant emissions will not have an impact recluiring mitigation. See Section IV.B. 3.j for additional discussion regarding construction impacts. Contaminated Materials Assessment Asbestos Asbestos materials will be assessed in the final design phase. The Department will utilize licensed asbestos inspectors and project designers to identify any asbestos materials associated with the project area. Blanket variances will be used to remove identified asbestos containing materials. Hazardous Waste The subject project area was assessed for visual observation of potentially contaminated materials and hazardous waste data bases were reviewed to determine known areas of previous contaminant releases (CERCLIS sites, NPL, DEC Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites, EPA TRI Sites, RCRA permitted sites). Due the rural nature of the project area, the only potential area of concern is for the northeast portion of the project corridor where industrial land uses occur. Our field investigation and data base review did not identify any immediate concerns for the areas within proposed limits of property takings, e.g., no evidence of illegal disposal, staining, etc.. The detailed design phase will determine whether it is necessary to include provisions for removal of contaminated soils. Construction Impacts - The adverse conditions caused by machinery on the site and the actual road construction will be temporary. These adverse temporary impacts will be minimized by maintaining traffic flow and access to businesses. See Section II1. C. 2.h for a more detailed discussion of Maintenance and Protection of Traffic (MPT) during construction. Anticipated Permits and Approvals - The project will require the following permits and approvals. IV-18 IV.B.4. IV.B4.a IV.B.4.b · · O O O O O O NYSDEC SPEDES General Permit, Freshwater Wetlands Permit, Tidal Wetlands Permit and Water Quality Certification. US Army Corps of Enqineers Section 404 Nationwide #14 Permit Approval. NYS Department of State Coastal Zone Consistency Concurrence. Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan Concurrence. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Effect Determination. FHWA NEP^ Determination and Concurrence of SHPO finding. FHWA Executive Order 11990 Wetlands Finding. FHWA Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Finding. Indirect/Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. Indirect/Secondary Impacts - The objective of the project is to restore the existing facility (Route 25) without significant changes to the surrounding environment. The overall project length is very short (approximately 720 m) and all feasible alternatives will provide one travel lane in each direction so that highway capacity will not be increased. Furthermore, there is no known development planned in the project area that would significantly alter the character or traffic patterns on Route 25 (see Section II.C. 1.w for additional discussion on planned development). Therefore, it is unlikely that the project itself will be responsible for the generation of further development. However, the continuous 2.4 m (8 ft) shoulder provided in all alternatives will provide for the expansion of the existing bicycle reute through the project area. Therefore, it is likely that the project will attract additional bicyclists in the project area. Cumulative Impacts - Traffic volumes on Route 25 are expected to grow incrementally over the next 30 years as a result of the continued moderate development and expansion of Long Island's North Fork. It is anticipated that the future level of service in the project area will be at Level of Service 'C" or better due to the Iow traffic volumes that currently exist combined with the relatively Iow growth rate. See Section III. C. 2.b.(1) for additional discussion on future traffic volumes and Level of Service in the project area. Additional bicyclists will also be attracted to the project area as the planned bicycle Route expands further along Route 25. The additional traffic resulting from continued sporadic development and the extension of the existing bicycle routes will not have a significant effect on the environment. IV-19 CHAPTER V - EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES V.A Introduction This chapter is meant to help with the decision-making function of the Environmental Assessment. All feasible alternatives, although they meet the project objectives, are not necessarily equal. Cost, construction duration, environmental impacts, etc. vary for each alternative and no single alternative stands out as the clear solution to replace the deteriorating bddge. Table 5-1 summarizes social, economic and environmental impacts for each feasible alternative, Alternative III Alternative Ilia Alternative IV Alternative V Bridge m~l. Bridge tel31. Bridge reid. in same Bridge topi, adjacent to existing adjacent to e]dsfing location as exiting adjacent to ex~sting on ,amst side on wast side (stage (temporary bndge) on east side (stage construc~on) construction) Improve Bridge Condition Yes Yes Yes Yes Rating Eliminate R-posting Yes Yes Yes Yes Provide Bicycle Yes Yes Yes Yes Accommodations Improve Safety Yes Yes Yes Yes Approx. Project Cost $9.7 Million $11.8 Million $10.6 Million $12.1 Million Construction Duration~ 10 months 16 months 12 months 16 months Approx. Right-*of-Way 0.603 ha 0,490 ha 0.612 ha 1.002 ha Impact (1.49 acres) (1.21 acres) (1.52 acres) (2.47 acres) Approx. Wetland Impact 0,163 ha 0.093 ha 0.040 ha 0.198 ha (0.40 acres) (0.23 ac;es) (0.10 estes) (0.49 acres) Impacts to Developed Minimal Some Minimal Mo~t Properties Water Ouality No effect No effect No effect No eff~t Noise No effect No effec~ No effect No effect Air Quality No effect No effect No effect No effect ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON MATRIX Table 5-1 1 Construction duration is the estimated time for major cotls/n~c~on aoffvfty (new foad and bridge consb-u~ion, btidge demolition, etc.). Total pnYlect duration will be naveml months longer. Final paving, grading, landscaping, and aesthetic treatments will take additional time but should have a minimal disruption of traffic. See Appendix E for a more de.lind timeline of conatmution activity. V-1 V.B. Comparison of Alternatives V.B.1 Engineering Comparisons All feasible altematives will improve the bridge condition rating, eliminate the R-posting, and provide adequate accommodation for bicyclists. Hiahwav Alignment - Although all proposed highway alignments meet minimum design standards (see table II1-1), only Aitemative IV eliminates the undesirable 'broken-back* arrangement of consecutive curves in the same direction. All other altemativas r~luire a broken-back alignment with a relatively short tangent length between consecutive curves in the same direction. Alternatives III and Ilia provide the tightest curve radius of 350 m (1150 ft) at the eastbound approach to the bridge. Alternatives IV and V provide a curve radius of 370 m (1200 ft) and 375 m (1230 ft) respectively. All of these curves will be fully superelevated to 6% to further improve dding stability. The existing curve in this area has a non-standard radius of 310 m (1020 ft) with a superelevation of only 3.6%2. Therefore, all alternatives will improve the cornering ability at this curve. V.B.2 Social, Economic and Environmental Comparisons As demonstrated in Table 5-1, all feasible alternatives have varying impacts with respect to wetland impacts, right-of-way impacts, and socio-economic impacts that are further evaluated below. All alternatives eliminate wetland and environmental impacts at the historic scallop pond site (just 'north' of the roadway between Tarpon Blvd. and Sage Blvd.) by shifting the proposed roadway away from this area slightly. Wetland Imcacts - Wetlands are located on both sides of the roadway within the project area and all proposed alternatives will have some impact to existing wetlands. Wetlands on the 'north" side of the roadway are regarded as more valuable by virtue of their direct connection to Hashamomuck pond. Wherever practical, mitigation measures to create new wetlands or enhance existing wetlands are proposed for each alternative. Aitemative IV has the least impact on existing wetlands since the proposed roadway will follow the existing alignment as much as practical. Alternatives III and IliA, by virtue of the roadway re-alignment alongside the existing bddge, will impact wetlands on the 'north' side of the existing roadway. However, opportunity exists for wetland mitigation on the opposite side of the roadway where the odginal roadway embankment will be removed. Alternative V will not impact wetlands on the 'north' side connected to Hashamomuck pond but will impact wetlands on the 'south' side. Again, mitigation 2 This curve will be supemlevated to 6% under PIN 0041.99/O259518 which is scheduisd for compistion by the end of 2005. V-2 opportunity will exist on the opposite side of the road to enhance the existing wetlands. This mitigation, however, will require disturbance to the existing vegetated areas that act as a buffer to the Hashamomuck wetland system. Right-of-Way Impacts - Property taking to re-align the roadway and provide a 20 m (65 ft) highway boundary is necessary for all alternatives. Every effort was made to minimize the right-of-way impacts as much as possible while still maintaining the design standards. Altemative Ilia will have the least impact on property taking as a result of the stage construction design. However, this alternative also has one of the highest costs and length of construction. Alternative V will have the greatest iropact on property taking. Constructing the new bddge east of the existing bridge while minimizing impacts to Penny Lumber and the Asphalt Plant make these impacts unavoidable. Socioeconomic Impacts - Access to all properties will be maintained throughout construction to minimize economic impacts as much as possible. However, the greatest changes will occur in front of the Penny Lumber property. The need to improve the sight distance over the crest of the bridge necessitates raising the approach roadway in front of the Penny Lumber building. Alternative III will have the least impact on the Penny Lumber property. Although the roadway must be elevated to improve the sight distance it is also being shifted away from the building. Alternatives IliA, IV and V encroach progressively closer to the existing buildings compared to Alternative itl resulting in the need to eliminate the southernmost driveway access and regrading over on the State property now being improperly utilized for parking. Reducing these impacts to the Penny Lumber property would necessitate introduction of a non-standard profile that would reduce the sight distance over the crest of the bridge. It should be pointed out that the existing parking in front of the Penny Lumber building is almost entirely within the State highway right-of-way. Water Quality. Noise and Air Quality - All feasible alternatives will maintain the same number of traffic lanes and, therefore, will not attract significantly higher traffic. Highway capacity, speeds, and delays will remain essentially unchanged upon completion of the project. Some additional truck traffic may be realized by removing the R-restriction at the new bridge but this will have a beneficial effect of eliminating through truck traffic on local roads such as Albertson Lane to bypass the bridge. As a result, no changes in air quality, noise and water quality are anticipated. In fact, water quality may increase slightly by virtue of additional storm water quality improvements provided with each altemafive. V-3 V.C Conclusions All feasible alternatives remain under consideration. As stated in Chapter I, comments received as a result of distribution of this document and the Public Information Meeting will be analyzed and a Final Alternative will be proposed by the Department in a Final Design ReportJEnvironmental Assessment. This alternative will be progressed into final design for development of final construction plans to be awarded by competitive bid. V-4 CHAPTER VI - DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION (when applicable) This chapter does not apply to this project and is intentionally left blank. See Section IV.B.3. ffor additional information regarding Section 4(f) applicability. VI-1 CHAPTER VII - PROJECT COORDINATION The Department began preliminary studies and planning for this project in late 2001. Coordination with other agencies and local governments began in 2002. This initial coordination was invaluable to define the project scope and important design issues. To further improve public involvement and cooperation during the initial phases of this project, the Department established a Task Force consisting of local government representatives, community groups, and elected officials. Our first Task Force meeting was held on June 12, 2003. Subsequent meetings have enabled the Department to work closely with the local community to meet their needs while insuring that NYSDOT traffic safety and operation needs are met. Task Force meetings will continue throughout the Design Process until final plans are developed and submitted for construction bids. This remainder of this chapter contains pertinent correspondence with other agencies, local governments, utility companies, and the Task Force that demonstrates the Departments commitment to working cooperatively with the community. Februa~ 22,2002 See List of Recipients PIN 0042.28, Route 25 Bridge Replacement over LIRR Town of Southold, Suffolk County Request for Comments on Relevant Environmental Issues Dear The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, is preparing an Environmental Assessment on a proposal to replace the deteriorating bddge carrying Route 25 over the LIRR in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County. The proposed project will reconstruct approximately 0.75 miles of the existing highway between Dolphin Drive at reference marker MM25-0701-1635 and Pipes Neck Road at reference marker MM25-0704-1642 (see attached Project Location Map (Figure 1). The reconstructed highway will retain one traffic lane in each direction. Project objectives are to increase the structural capacity of the bddge and improve sight distance along the project corridor. Alternatives under consideration include (1) taking no action; (2) bridge rehabilitation; and (3) bddge replacement. Incorporated into and studied with the various build alternatives will be design variations of grade and alignment. Some alignment alternatives under consideration at this time are to build a replacement bridge along a new alignment on the north side of the existing structure or to build a new bridge on the existing alignment. Issues that will be analyzed in depth include the project's effect on freshwater and tidal wetlands, wildlife habitat, water quality, and cultural and recreational resources, as well as other social, economic and environmental effects. Particular attention will be focused on assessing, minimizing and mitigating potential effects on the Hashamomuck Pond ecosystem. As part of NYSDOT's environmental initiative program, we will also be assessing opportunities to enhance local environmental conditions beyond standard project mitigation. Examples of previous environmental initiative actions include stormwater filtedng structures, wetlands restoration, habitat enhancement (e.g., vegetation plantings, nesting boxes/platforms), streetscape beautification, pedestrian and bicyclist improvements. As pad of the process for identifying the important issues related to the proposed action, we request your comments on the above issues and any other issues that you can identify as important. We intend to use your comments to: - Identify the range of alternatives and impacts and the important issues to be addressed in the Environmental Assessment. Identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not important or which have been covered by prior environmental review. Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements. We request your comments by April 1, 2002. If you do not reply by that date, we may not be able to evaluate your comments at this initial stage of project development. There will be additional opportunity for comment at later stages in the project design prior to the Department making a final decision and alternative selection. An Information Center in the Town of VH -2 Southold will also be scheduled in 2002/2003 to further discuss this project. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed, please contact me at (631) 952-6654. Very truly yours, Odginal Signed By: Joseph G. Scariza Regional Design Engineer Attach. bcc: T. Oeledch/ R. Kudla ~/ JGS List of Recipients: US Army Corps of Engineers, NY District Attn: Regulatory Branch--Room 1937 Marc Helman, Acting Chief, Eastern Permits Section 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278-0090 US Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Unit 500 St. Marks Lane, Islip 11751 N¥S Department of Environmental Conservation -- Region One, Ray Cowen, Regional Director, SUNY - Building 40 Stony Brook, New York 11790 NYS Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources Steve Resler, Supervisor, Consistency Review Section 41 State Street Albany, NY 12231-0001 Hon. Robert J. Gaffney Suffolk County Executive H. Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, New York 11788-0099 Peconic Estuary Program Walter Dawydiak, Program Director Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Ecology Riverhead County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Hon. Joshua Y. Horton Supervisor, Town of Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 3 · ":: ' Shelter Island 0 2 Miles Project Location Figure I New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ~)~ uivision of Environmental Permits, Region One ilding 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Phone: (631) 444-0365 · FAX: (631) 444-0360 Website: www.dec.state.ny.us Edn M. Crotty Commissioner March 12, 2002 Joseph G. Scariza Regional Design Engineer, NYSDOT State Office Building 250 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Dear Mr. Scariza: I am writing in response to your request for comments on the proposed Route 25 Bridge Replacement over the LIRR in the town of Southold (PIN 0042.28). It appears that this project will be located in or near NYSDEC regulated tidal and freshwater wetlands. In addition it will be located very near the Peconic Bay Critical Environmental Area. Our major concern would be that the project be designed to minimize or eliminate any adverse impacts to these important wetland habitats. One specific mitigation in which we would be particularly interested would be the inclusion of stormwater controls in the project design. We would strongly encourage the use stormwater controls in an effort to protect and increase the surface water quality of the surrounding area. Thank you for requesting comments at this early stage of the project. As the project develops and more details become available, we would appreciate the opportunity to cormnent further. Sincerely, Environmental Analyst COUNTY OF SUFFOLK OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE Robert J. Gaffney COUNTY EXECUTIVE Mr. Joseph G. Scariza Regional Design Engineer NYS Department of Transportation 250 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Re: PIN 0042.28 March 26, 2002 Dear Mr. Scariza: Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding request for comments on PIN 0042.28, Route 25 Bridge Replacement over LIRR, Town of Southold. I would like to reiterate the sentiments outlined by William Shannon of the Suffolk County Department of Public Works in his correspondence dated February 15, 2002, which outlined our Capital Program #5518. This project, the reconstruction of CR 48, Middle Road fi.om the vicinity of Horton's Lane to New York Route 25 in Greenport, appears to be on a similar schedule with your PIN 0042.28. As such, I recommend that our staffs coordinate maintenance and protection of traffic to ensure that these projects do not conflict with one another. As you know, stormwater management in general, and the Hashamomuck Pond subwatershed in particular, are critical and central to the Peconic Estuary Program planning and management initiatives. Mitigating stormwater runoff to control pathogen loading and other forms of non-point source pollution is a priority for us and the Peconic Estuary Program (see also Actions P-l, P-2, P-4 in the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan). The Program aims to maintain the current level of bottom lands available to shellfish harvesting, with the ultimate goal of re-opening lands currently closed to harvesting. All of the waters within Hashamomuck Pond experience some level of closure to shellfish harvesting due to unacceptable levels of bacteria throughout the year. The main body of Hashamomuck Pond is seasonally closed to shellfishing from May lst to November 30th each year. The most secluded areas in the northeast comer, including almost all of Long Creek, are closed year-round. Because of this, Hashamomuck Pond was selected as one of the pilot embayments for the Peconic Estuary Program's Regional Stormwater Runoff Management H. LEE DENNISON BUILDING · 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY · P.O. BOX6100 * HAUPPAUGE, N. Y. 11788-0099 (631 ~ 8534000 V ti ~ 7 Mr. Joseph G. Scariza Page Two March 26, 2002 Strategy with the goal of reopening productive shellfishing areas closed to harvesting. The focus of the pilot study is to understand the loadings, transport, and fate of fecal coliform bacteria, and we expect a draft of the findings shortly. In fact, Daniel Lewis of the NYSDEC Shellfisheries Unit ranked Suffolk County's Route 48-Hashamomuck Pond Bond Act project as a priority with respect to having a significant positive impact on the likelihood of reopening shellfish beds. Our resources can be made available to you, to the extent possible and to the degree appropriate, for surface water monitoring as well as coordinating with the Peconic Estuary Program Office at the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. I urge you to contact James Peterman, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer and Director of Highway Design and Construction with our Department of Public Works at (631) 852-4112, or Kimberly Shaw at the Office of Ecology in Riverhead at (631) 852-2084 with any further questions or concerns. Very truly yours, ROBERT J. GAFFNEY Suffolk County Executive Office RJG:cr cc: James K. Peterman, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer William Shannon, Chief Engineer Vito Minei, P.E., Director of the Division of Envir. Quality Kimberly Shaw, Office of Ecology VA L~.RrE SCOPAZ TOV/N PLANNER Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 1, 2002 Ron Kudla, Project Manager Structures Group New York State Department of Transportation State Office Building 250 Veter~ans Memorial Highway Hauppa~ge, NY 11788 Re: SR 25, Greenport Bridge ReplacementoverLIRRtrack PIN 0042.28 Dear Mr. Kudla; This letter is in response to your query as to environmental issues surrounding the proposed replacement of the SR 25 bridge over the LIRR tracks in Greenport between Albacore Drive and Pipes Neck Road. This letter supplements an earlier letter dated March 18, 2002, from Victor L. Eplattenier, Sr. Planner, of my staff. That letter provided you with specific information which you had requested about zoning and existing and proposed land uses within the project area. The proposed project lies within an environmentally sensitive stretch of SR 25. To the north and south of the roadbed, lie fresh and salt water wetlands. The wet!ands and marine waters associated with Hashomomack Creek to the north and with Southold Bay, Pipes' Cove and Sage Coves to the south are impacted by the direct discharge of stormwater runoff from roads. Hashomomack is of particular concern because it is regarded as the Town's most productive shellfish creek. Pursuant to the Town's Draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, the remediation of direct discharge of stormwater runoff is of primary importance so as to protect our marine ecosytems and shellfish habitats many of which are considered critical environmental areas (CEAs) by New York State. In addition, any activity that takes place within 100' of these wetland areas must receive permits from the Southold Town Trustees. Please note that the Town Trustees' definition of a wetland is, at times, more restrictive than that of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that you include the Town Trustees in the environmental review process. I also suggest that you access our Draft LWRP for additional environmental information specific to the surrounding wetlands and coastal waters that are adjacent to the project area. (The Draft LWRP can be researched online at www.northfork, net/Southold. The project area lies within Reach 6.) Finally, last September, SR 25 was designated by Southold Town as a Scenic Byway in the Scenic Southold Corridor Management Plan: Farmlands and Seascapes, Hamlets and Heritage. That Plan is currently before the State Legislature for formal designation. Accordingly, the aesthetic character of the proposed bridge reconstruction is of great concern to Southold Town. It also is imperative that the reconstruction incorporate bicycle lanes, appropriate signage and lighting because SR 25 is one of our ISTEA--funded Sea View Trails routes. Accordingly, the Transportation Commission would like you to attend an upcoming meeting in order to discuss the proposed reconstruction before the design phase commences. Elements of the Scenic Corridor Management Plan will be discussed at that time. Please contact me within the next week to schedule this meeting. Sincerely, Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Cc~ Joshua Horton, Supervisor Neboysha Brashich, Chairman, Southold Transportation Commission Albert Krupski, President, Board of Trustees Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman, Planning Board Vt|-io SOUTHOLD TlqANSPOI~TATI ON C05I:MISSION May 16, 2002 Mr. Edward G. Beuel, P. E. Design Supervisor Region 10 NYS Department of Transpanation State Office Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 The Commissioners join me in thanking you and your stuff for a most productive as well as informative meeting on May 13. The discussion ranged far and wide regarding options available in the reconstruction of the Gateway Bridge on Rt 25 which was greatly appreciated by all those present. NYSDOT's decision to incorporate the Southold - Greenport Chamber of Commerce downtown revitalization program into the RT 25 resurfacing project was also most welcome news. The Chamber is equally grateful and will forward the plans through the Commission as soon as these can be retrieved from the individuals charged with this task. Tile Commission looks forward to meeting with your staff to review the preliminary bridge design plans sometime in September 2002. Thank you for your interest in ensuring that Southold's quality of life continues to be preserved. ~o~,~ R. Bmshich ¥11 -I~ Bernadette Castro Commissioner New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and HistoriC'Preservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 Daniel HiLt Cultural Resource Section Environmental Analysis Bureau Department of Transportation New York State Office Campus Building 5 Albany, NY 12232 August 8, 2003 Dear Hr. HiLt: RE: 518-237-8643 STRUCTURES L__ REGION *O DOT/FHWA PIN 0042.28.121 NY25 Over URR/Dolphin Dr. to Pipes Neck Rd. Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York 03PR03016 Thank you for requesting the comments of the State Historic Preservation Office (SI-IPO) with regard to the potential for this project to affect significant cultural/historical resources. SI-IPO has received the report" Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey Report, PIN 0042.28.121, New York State route 25 Over the Long Island Railroad, Dolphin Drive to Pipes Neck Road, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York" prepared by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology in May 2003. Based on this review SI--IPO concurs with the recommendations of that report. These recommendations include avoidance of, or undertaking Phase 2 resource evaluation investigations at, three archaeological sites that were identified. These sites have been assigned the following SHPO inventory numbers: TABLE 1. Archaeolc [cai Site mJmhers and SHPO recommendations. Site Name Type NYSM # OPRHP USN Recommendation Brannon House Site H 11426 A10310.000318 Avoid or Phase 2 Wickham Site H 11427 A10310.000319 Avoid or Phase 2 Scallop Pond Site P 11428 A10310.000320 Avoid or Phase 2 Please 'provide these designations to your archaeological consultant and utilize them in any future correspondenc& regarding these sites. Please contact me at extension 3291 if you have any questions regarding these comments. Cc; ~3"~entil~, DOT Region 10 Robert Ewing, DOT ely, Dougi~s.~.)Mackey ~ Historic P~eservation Program Analyst Archaeology An Equal Opp~ortunity/Affirmative Action Agency TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION File R. Kudla, Structures Unit PIN 0042.28 - UTILITY MEETING BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT NY25 OVER THE LIRR SUFFOLK COUNTY October 29, 2002 A preliminary utility meeting was held in the Structures Conference Room to discuss the above project. Representatives from SCWA, Keyspan, and Verizon were present. Cablevision was not present. Verizon requested that three 4" PVC conduits be accommodated in the new bridge design. Keyspan provided plans/profile of the 69 kV underground cable in the vicinity of the bridge as well as a wish list of conduits to be incorporated into the new bridge design. It was explained that a steel multi-girder bridge can accommodate utility conduits between the girders and a prestressed concrete bridge cannot accommodate utility conduits within the structure. Depending on the final roadway alignment, some utility poles may have to be relocated or the existing utility lines may have to be raised. Preliminary alignments/profiles for the various design alternatives will not be available until the spring of 2003. Rob Angell will contact Cablevision to discuss their facilities and obtain some additional information about the Utility structure located on the north side of the road just west of Albertson Lane. cc: E. Brower R. Angell E. Chamakkala Verizon Keyspan SCWA PIN 0042.28 D:\0042.28 Rt25_Southold\utilities\meetings\ I 0-29-02.wpd TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION File R. Kudla, Structures Unit PIN 0042.28 - ANNUAL UTILITY MEETING BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT NY25 OVER THE LIRR SUFFOLK COUNTY February 11, 2003 The annual utility meeting was held in the Regional Directors Conference Room to discuss the above project. Representatives from SCWA, Keyspan, Verizon, and Cablevision were present. Cablevision requested that two 4" conduits be accommodated in the new bridge design. Keyspan and Verizon have previously expressed a desire for utility conduits on the new bridge at our previous meeting in October 2002. It was explained that a steel multi-girder bridge can accommodate utility conduits between the girders and a prestressed concrete bridge cannot accommodate utility conduits within the structure. Depending on the final roadway alignment, some utility poles may have to be relocated and the existing underground Cablevision facilities may need to be relocated. Cablevision mentioned that they have underground (fiber optic) facilities within the project area. NYSDOT does not have any of their underground facility maps at this time although this was requested many times previously. Rob Angell will contact Cablevision to obtain their maps for underground facilities (fiber optics) as well as additional information regarding the substation just west of AIbertson Lane. CC: E. Brower (via email) R. Angell (via email) E. Chamakkala (via email) PIN 0042.28 D:\0042.28 Rt25_Southold\utilities~neetings~2-11-03.wpd Thomas F. Oelerich, P.E. Acting Regional Director State of New York Department of Transportation State Office Building 250 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788-5518 Joseph H. Boardman Commissioner Honorable Kenneth P. LaValle New York State Senate, 1 st District 325 Middle Country Road, Suite 4 Selden, NY 11784 Dear Senator LaValle, January 30, 2003 The New York State Department of Transportation is beginning work on a project to rehabilitate/replace the deteriorating NY25 bridge over the LIRR in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Project Identification Number (PIN) 0042.28. The project will begin at Albacore Drive and continue eastward along Route 25 to Pipes Neck Road for a total project length of approximately 0.7 miles (see attached map). The current schedule for this project calls for Design Approval in the spring of 2004 with a contract Letting held in the summer of 2005. The Department feels strongly that the establishment of direct communication with the local community will greatly enhance the overall project value and insure that it meets the needs of the entire community. Therefore, the Department wishes to form a Bridge Task Force composed of local community leaders and other representatives who can provide input during the development of this project. Our engineers plan to work closely with his group to help provide a project that meets the needs of the community and addresses NYSDOT traffic safety and operation concerns. We are currently reaching out to the following Agencies, organizations and elected officials to participate in the Task Force: · · · · · Southold Town Supervisor Office Southold Town Board Southold Highway Superintendent The Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) Peconic Estuary Program Office 1 of 3 · · · · · · · Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Southold-Greenport Chamber of Commeme August Acres Civic Association Suffolk County Executive Office Hon. Micheal J. Caracciolo (Suffolk County Legislator) Hon. Patricia L. Acampora (NYS Assembly) Hon. Kenneth P. LaValle (NYS Senate) We invite your participation during this initial project development stage. It is anticipated that meetings will be held on a monthly basis to discuss various project options and obtain community input. We do hope you or your representative will be able to join the Task Fome as we believe your input will be very valuable during this initial project development stage. Please contact Mr. Ron Kudla, Project Manager, at (631) 952-6853 by February 14th if you or a representative will participate in the Task Force meetings. Furthermore, please inform us of any additional community groups or organizations that you feel would add value to the project development process. Thank you for your interest in this very important project. Sincerely, THOMAS F. OELERICH, P.E. Acting Regional Director By R. Kudla bcc: J. Scariza E. Brower P. Besmertnik E. Chamakkala E. Peters PIN 0042.28 2 of 3 VJI PIN 0042.28 - Route 25 over LtRR Town of Southold, Suffolk County lq Projed enas w ~ E -'- NNN\ s N..BERTSON LA Greenpo~ Pipes Cove Route 25 Bddge over L IRR BIN 1060890 Shelter Island Miles 3 of 3 yll-I'/ List of Recipients For Tom Oelerich P.E., Regional Director signature: Honorable Kenneth P. LaValle New York State Senate, 1 st District 325 Middle Country Road, Suite 4 Selden, NY 11784 Honorable Patricia L. Acampora New York State Assembly, 1st District 400 West Main Street, Suite 201 Riverhead, NY 11901 4 of 3 List of Recipients For Joseph Scariza, P.E., Regional Design Engineer signature: Honorable Robert J. Gaffney Suffolk County Executive H. Lee Dennison Building 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Honorable Joshua Y. Horton Southold Town Supervisor Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Mr. Bill Bogradus August Acres Civic Association 190 Pheasam Place Gmenport, NY 11944 Mr. Peter W. Harris, Superintendent Southold Highway Department P.O. Box 178 Peconic, NY 11958 Mr. Walter Dawydiak Peconic Estuary Program Office Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Ecology County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Mr. John Barnes, President Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commeme P. O. Box 1415 Southold, NY 11971 Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Hall 5 of 3 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 6 of 3 VII Mr. Willet Schraft FHWA, New York Division Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building, Suit 719 Clinton Ave and North Pearl Street Albany, NY 12207 Mr. James A. Pagano Principal Engineer of Structures The Long Island Rail Road 93-59 183ra street - 4th Floor Hollis, NY 11423 Honorable Michael J. Caracciolo Suffolk County Legislature, 1 ~t District 423 Griffmg Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 7 of 3 V~I -2-I Thomas F. Oelerich, P.E. Acting Regional Director State of New York Department of Transportation State Office Building 250 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788-5518 Joseph H. Boardman Commissioner Honorable Robert J. Gaffney Suffolk County Executive H. Lee Dennison Building 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 January30,2003 Dear Mr. Gaffney, The New York State Department of Transportation is beginning work on a project to rehabilitate/replace the deteriorating NY25 bridge over the LIRR in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, Project Identification Number (PIN) 0042.28. The project will begin at Albacore Drive and continue eastward along Route 25 to Pipes Neck Road for a total project length of approximately 0.7 miles (see attached map). The current schedule for this project calls for Design Approval in the spring of 2004 with a contract Letting held in the summer of 2005. The Department feels strongly that the establishment of direct communication with the local community will greatly enhance the overall project value and insure that it meets the needs of the entire community. Therefore, the Department wishes to form a Bridge Task Force composed of local community leaders and other representatives who can provide input during the development of this project. Our engineers plan to work closely with his group to help provide a project that meets the needs of the community and addresses NYSDOT traffic safety and operation concerns. We are currently reaching out to the following Agencies, organizations and elected officials to participate in the Task Force: Southold Town Supervisor Office Southold Town Board Southold Highway Superintendent I of 3 VII -ZZ- · · · · · · · · · The Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) Peconic Estuary Program Office Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Southold-Greenport Chamber of Commerce August Acres Civic Association Suffolk County Executive Office Hon. Micheal J. Caracciolo (Suffolk County Legislator) Hon. Patricia L. Acampora (NYS Assembly) Hon. Kenneth P. LaValle (NYS Senate) We invite your participation during this initial project development stage. It is anticipated that meetings will be held on a monthly basis to discuss various project options and obtain community input. We do hope you or your representative will be able to join the Task Force as we believe your input will be very valuable during this initial project development stage. Please contact Mr. Ron Kudla, Project Manager, at (631) 952-6853 by February 14® if you or a representative will participate in the Task Force meetings. Furthermore, please inform us of any additional community groups or organizations that you feel would add value to the project development process. Thank you for your interest in this very important project. Sincerely, JOSEPH SCARIZA, P.E. Regional Design Engineer By R. Kudla bcc: J. Scariza E. Brower P. Besmertnik E. Chamakkala PIN 0042.28 2 of 3 V:I - 25 PIN 0042.28 - Route 25 over LIRR Town of Southold, Suffolk County N I Project ends ~_.~ IMM25-0704-1642 _._ w ~ E .~_~EaTSOg cA Greenpod Pipes Cove I Route 25 Bndge over LIRR I BIN 1060890 I Prelect begins MM25-0704-1635 I Shelter Island 0 1 2 Miles , I 3 of 3 WI List of Recipients For Joseph Scariza, P.E., Regional Design Engineer signature: Honorable Robert J. Gaffney Suffolk County Executive H. Lee Dennison Building 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Honorable Joshua Y. Horton Southold Town Supervisor Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Mr. Bill Bogradus August Acres Civic Association 190 Pheasant Place Greenport, NY 11944 Mr. Peter W. Harris, Superintendent Southold Highway Department P.O. Box 178 Peconic, NY 11958 Mr. Walter Dawydiak Peconic Estuary Program Office Suffolk County Department of Health Services Office of Ecology 4 of 3 County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 Mr. John Barnes, President Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce P. O. Box 1415 Southold, NY 11971 Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Board of Town Trustees Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Mr. Willet Schraft FHWA, New York Division Leo W. O'Brien Federal Building, Suit 719 Clinton Ave and North Pearl Street Albany, NY 12207 Mr. James A. Pagano Principal Engineer of Structures The Long Island Rail Road 93-59 183~d street - 4th Floor Hollis, NY 11423 Honorable Michael J. Caracciolo Suffolk County Legislature, l't District 423 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 5 of 3 The following names were added on February 6'h after receiving information from Neb Brashich: Mr. Anthony Salvatore Peconic Bay Property Owners 1195 Island View Lane Greenport, NY 11944 Ms. Cathy Tole Pipes Cove Committee Pipes Neck Road Greenport, NY 11944 6 of 3 VII-~7 HEHOP, ANDUH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO: FROM: SUBJECT: File R. Kudla - Structures Unit PIN 0042.28 - ROUTE 25 OVER LIRR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY MINUTES OF MEETING (JUNE 12, 2003) DATE: June 19, 2003 On June 12, 2003 our first Bridge Task Force meeting was held at the Southold Town Hall from 6:00pm to 7:30 pm. The following attendees were present: P. Besmertnik - NYSDOT R. Kudla - NYSDOT E. Chamakkala - NYSDOT L. Tortora - Assemblywoman Acampora's Office W. Schraff - FHWA D. Isla - LIRR J. Richter - Southold Town A. Foster - Southold Town Board of Trustees P. McGuckian - Southold/Greenport Chamber of Commerce R. Nuzzi - Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services K. Tole - Committe to preserve Pipes Creek W. Kiefer/S. Kiefer - Peconic Bay Homeowners Association A brief slide show was presented that demonstrated the deteriorated condition of the existing bridge and the need for the project. It was explained that, although the bridge is R-posted to restrict overloaded trucks, the structure is safe and will continue to function until project construction can begin in 2006. Also discussed during the presentation was possible alignment alternatives and possible stage construction options during construction. It was emphasized that the alignment alternatives presented are very preliminary and subject to further engineering review. A new bridge alternative along a northern alignment appears to be favored by many of the members of the Task Fome. It was mentioned by a member of the Task Force that the alternative for the southern alignment appears D:\0042.28 Rt25_Southold\Task ForceLMinutesOtMeeting\6-12-03Meeting\6-12-03Minutes.wpd to introduce a sharp horizontal curve that may not be desirable. The design process was briefly explained and it was stated that a Public Information meeting will be held for this project, No date for the next Task Force meeting was established. Most of the discussion after the slide presentation was related to project cost and construction duration. It was explained that construction costs are expected to be approximately $10 million (based on comparison with similar completed projects) but it is difficult to predict realistic costs and construction schedules before a final alternative is selected since there are too many variables that can have an effect on these parameters. D. Isla of the LIRR stated that the LIRR is looking to increase the clearance above the railroad tracks to 22'-0" to allow freight to travel under the bridge. cc: M. Bocamazo P. Besmertnik M. Hoffman E. Chamakkala File D:\0042.28 Rt25_Southold\Task ForcehMinutesOfMeeting\6-12-03Meeting\6-12-03Minutes.wpd VII MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO: FROM: SUBJECT: File R. Kudla - Project Manager PIN 0042.28 - ROUTE 25 OVER LIRR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY MINUTES OF AUGUST 19, 2003 MEETING DATE: August 22, 2003 On August 19, 2003 a Task Force meeting for the above project was held at the Southold Town Hall from 6:00pm to 8:00pm. The following attendees were present: P. Besmertnik - NYSDOT R. Kudla - NYSDOT E. Chamakkala - NYSDOT A. Libassi - NYS Senator LaValle's Office W. Schraft - FHWA J. Richter - Southold Town K. Tole - Committee to Preserve Pipes Creek W. Bogardus - August Acres Homeowners Association The purpose of this meeting was to present the current Design Alternatives being studied by the Department for this project and discuss additional alternatives that the Task Fome feels warrants further study. Also planned for discussion was the presentation of potential typical sections for the new bridge alternatives. Below is a summary of the discussions held on the main topics of the meeting. Desiqn Alternatives: The Department is currently studying the following 5 alternatives for the proposed project: II No Build - This alternative is not considered feasible and will not be studied further since it does not meet the objectives of the project to improve the structural condition of the bridge and provide accommodations for bicyclists. Bridge Rehabilitation - This alternative is not considered feasible D:\0042.28 Rt25_Southold\Task ForceWI nutesO~leeting\8-19-03 Meeting\8-19-03Minutes.wpd VII III IV V because of the excessive cost required to strengthen the existing steel elements of the bridge which would likely approach 75% - 80% of the cost to replace the structure. In addition, the narrow bridge width would be maintained which is not adequate to propedy accommodate bicyclists. Bridge Replacement west (north) of the existing bridge - This alternative is feasible and may or may not involve stage construction after further study of the potential environmental impacts. Bridge replacement along the same alignment - This alternative is feasible but would require a permanent detour or a temporary bridge to accommodate traffic during construction. Utilization of a temporary bddge would introduce additional cost to the project and may have many of the same envirbnmental impacts (at least in the short term) as Alternative III. The opinion of the Task force was that this alternative would likely not be preferred due to the impact a detour would have on the community. Bridge replacement east (south) of the existing bridge - This alternative would require staged construction to minimize impacts to the asphalt plant located northeast of the bridge and is not considered feasible due to the perceived negative impact the new alignment would have on the adjacent properties. Mr. Schraft brought up an additional alternative to create an at-grade crossing in lieu of a new bridge. This alternative will be studied further by the Department and identified as alternative VI. However, it was mentioned that creating a new crossing may increase the risk of additional accidents. Also, although the number of trains currently passing this location is rather Iow, a future increase in train service is entirely possible. In fact, Mr. Richter stated that the Southold Transportation Commission is seeking to improve rail service in the area to help alleviate traffic/environmental concerns in the future. Typical Bridge Section: Typical sections of a steel multi-girder bridge and an adjacent prestressed concrete box bridge were presented for review. Both bridge types carry two travel lanes (one in each direction) with an approximate 8 ft shoulder and have a total width of approximately 43'-6". No sidewalk was proposed in the typical section since observed pedestrian traffic is extremely light and no sidewalks currently exist along the approaching roadway. Ms. Tole expressed concern for pedestrian safety on the bridge since no sidewalk was proposed. It was discussed that measures for warning motorists of potential pedestrians/cyclists such as pavement marking and/or rumble strips may be incorporated into the final design as appropriate. Further investigation by the Department fo/lowing the meeting reveal that rumble strips between the travel lane and shoulder are generally not desired by cyclists traveling along a bicycle route and were eliminated from a previous NYSDO T roadway improvement project on Route 24 in Riverhead due to concern for cyclists. D:\0042.28 Rt25_Southold~Task ForceVvlinutesOtMeet lng\8-19-03 Meeting\8-19-03 Minutes.wpd V ti -,gl It was demonstrated that a dedicated sidewalk could be included within the proposed bridge width at a later date, if needed, while still maintaining a minimum 6 ft shoulder for bicyclists. This would also require the travel lanes to be narrowed slightly on the bridge. The general opinion of the Task Force was that a sidewalk is not warranted and, therefore, will not be incorporated into the project Design Alternatives at this time. Stage Construction: A staged construction plan was presented to the Task Force in order to describe the likely sequence of events for this type of construction. This type of construction may be necessary to avoid environmental impacts to the adjacent properties. However, impacts to the adjacent properties are not fully known at this time since preliminary plan development has not progressed very far. It was explained that staged construction would likely add as much as one year to the construction duration of the project as well as add to the total project cost. Vertical Clearance: The vertical clearance of a new bridge was discussed in general terms during the meeting. The Department is still discussing this issue with the Freight and Economic Development Division in Albany and a proposed clearance for the new bridge alternatives has not yet been established. Mr. Richter stated that the railroad is utilized occasionally for freight movement. Next Meeting: The next meeting will be scheduled to present preliminary plans for the feasible alternatives. These plans will likely include alignment and profile of the proposed roadway. Plans with this level of detail are not expected to be completed until October, 2003. Therefore, the next meeting will be scheduled for late October or early November. CC: M. Bocamazo P. Besmertnik M. Hoffman E. Chamakkala Task Force members File D:\0042.28 Rt25_Southold\Task Force~IvlinutesOIMeeting\8-19-03Meeting\8-19-O3Minutes.wpd V~I MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: All Task Force Members R. Kudla - Project Manager (odginal$ignedbyR. Kudla) PIN 0042.28 - ROUTE 25 OVER LIRR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2004 MEETING June 21, 2004 On June 17, 2004 a Task Force meeting for the above project was held at the Southold Town Hall from 6:00pm to 7:30pm. The following attendees were present: P. Besmertnik - NYSDOT R. Kudla - NYSDOT E. Chamakkala - NYSDOT W. Schraft - FHWA J. Richter - Southold Town K. Tole - Committee to Preserve Pipes Creek The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the Design Alternatives currently being studied by the Department and present preliminary plans for these alternatives. The design Alternatives currently under consideration for the project are: · Alternative I - Do Nothing · Alternative II - Bridge Rehabilitation · Alternative III - Bridge Replacement Along "Northern" Alignment · Alternative Ilia - Bridge Replacement Along "Northern" Alignment (stage construction) · Alternative IV - Bridge Replacement Along Same Alignment · Alternative V - Bridge Replacement Along "Southern Alignment (new alignment or stage construction) · Alternative VI - Grade Crossing A brief slide presentation (attached) was given that briefly described the D:\0042.28 Rt25_Southold\Task Force~'IinutesO fMeeting\6-17-04Meeting\6-17-04Minutcs.doc -33 project objectives, alternatives under consideration, and outlined the next steps in the design process. It was explained that the Department is currently preparing a Draft Design Report/Environmental Assessment (DR/EA) for this project which will be given to all Task Force members for review prior to going public with the document. Subsequent to the DR/EA review an official public meeting will be scheduled (anticipated to be held in late Fall 2004 or eady 2005). It was further explained that the Department is seeking comments from the Task Force regarding the Alternatives presented. It is important that we understand what aspects of the various alternatives are favorable and what aspects may not be favorable. Preliminary plans were presented for Alternatives III, IV and V. Alternatives IliA and VI are similar in alignment to Alternative III. The general consensus was that Alternative's III and IliA were the most desirable. Concerns were raised regarding the impacts to the wetlands adjacent to the roadway and possible misuse of the existing roadbed by adjacent property owners after construction. Efforts to reduce the overall width of the bridge approach embankment to reduce overall wetland impacts will be further investigated by the Department. Comments were also raised about the need to separate bicycle traffic from pedestrian traffic on the planned shoulder and if separate sidewalks should be constructed for this purpose (or perhaps additional striping on the shoulders). The Department will investigate existing bicycle and pedestrian traffic in the project area to determine the proper treatment for the proposed shoulder and if sidewalks are warranted. The next Task Force meeting will be scheduled when the draft DPJEA is complete so that all members will have time to review and comment at the meeting. Please take the time to review the attached material and provide comments so that the Department can develop project alternatives that are in unison with the local community as much as practical. Attachments cc: M. Bocamazo P. Besmertnik M. Hoffman D:\0042.28 Rt25_Southold\Task ForceLMinutesOfMeeting\6-17-04Meeting\6-17-04Minutes.doc E. Chamakkala File D:\0042.28 Rt25_Southold\Task ForceWlinutesOfMeeting\6-17-04Meeting\6-17-04Minutes.doc MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: J. Strano - LIRR [sent via fax @ (718) 558-3298] R. Kudla - Structures Unit, NYSDOT, R10 ~ PIN 0042.28 - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT SR 25 OVER LIRR (BIN 1060890) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY VERTICAL CLEARANCE Januaw 22,2002 Backqround SR 25 bridge (BIN 1060890) over LIRR is proposed to be replaced under PIN 0042.28. In this instance, the Region is requesting a waiver from the standard vertical clearance value of 22'-0" to 18'-6". The existing bridge, which spans one non-electrified track and has a vertical clearance of 20'-8", is located on the eastern tip of the north fork of Long Island. It is the last overhead structure prior to the railroad's Greenport Station at the end of the line. Train volume at the bridge is currently limited to 4 or 5 commuter trains per day. A map of the project area and vicinity is included for your information. Justification and Explanation Consistency with nearby structure clearances: Other existing structures along the Greenport branch of the LIRR have clearances less than the 22'-0" standard for new bridges. These include: Structure: Clearance: BIN 2261100 - Bridge Lane over LIRR 16'-8" BIN 3364481 - Cross River Drive over LIRR & Hubbard Ave 21'-1" These bridges are not in our local road capital program and are not likely to be replaced in the near future. Cost savings: The proposed lower clearance could reduce project construction costs as much as $0.5M - $1.0M by accommodating the additional structure depth required to replace the existing thru-girder design with a preferred multi-girder design and minimize embankment costs, bridge substructure costs, and retaining wall costs or R.O.W. taking. Environmental Impacts: Reducing the bridge elevation and associated fill required to flatten out the vertical curvature would minimize impacts to the adjacent wetlands and keep the new bridge structure in scale with the surrounding flat terrain. A taller structure will rise above the existing tree line and may alter the visual character of the area. Please respond to this request in a timely manner so that we can incorporate this information in our Design Report. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at (631) 952-6853. Attachments CC: S. Boulos - Highway Rail Unit, 4-214A, MC 0421 E. Brower- Regional Structures Engineer, R10 E. Beuel - Design Unit Supervisor, R10 D. Delgado- Railroad Coordinator, RI0 File D:\0042.28\lirr\LIRRClearance.wpd ,~eves Park LONG ISLAlVD Rin, ROAD COMPANY STRUCTURES DEPARTMENT-3143 HSF 93-59 183~u~ STREET - 4TM FLOOR HOLLIS, NEW YORK 11423 FAX NO 718-$55-3298 IzA..SCSIlWfl.~ TRANSI~u'I-rAL SitgET TO: R. Kudla FROM: Joseph Strano (718-558-3229) DATf~: Febmav] 4, 2002 TOTAL NO. OF PAGiES INCLUDI~IG COvia: 1 Subject: PIN 004_28 NYSDOT Bridge Replacement Project SR 25 over LIRR Main Line Town of Southold In response to your recent fax. your request for a waiver bom the standard 22'-0" vertical clearance to 18'-6" is grained for this project only. If you have any questions or require additional information please call at 718-558-3229 Sincerely; ~//o~'~h Strano, P E Managing Engineer-3'~ Party Inspection cc: J. Sais J. Pagano Nonstandard Feature Justification Form Main Line Design (in accordance with HDM §2.7) PIN: 0042.28 NHS (Y/N): N Route No. & Name: Route 25 Functional Class: Minor Arterial Project Type: Bddge Replacement Design Classification: Rural Minor Arterial (AASHTO Class) % Trucks: 7 Terrain: Flat AADT: 7150 vpd Truck Access Rte.: Does not qualify 1. Description of Nonstandard Feature Vertical Clearance Typo of Feature (e.g., horizontal curve radius): Location: Standard Value: Existing Value: Proposed Value: Route 25 over LIRR 6.4 m (21'-0") 6.3 m (20'-8") 5.64 m (18'-6") Design Spoed: Recommended Speed: Recommended Speed: 90 km/h (55 mph) 90 km/h (55 mph) 90 km/h (55 mph) Accident Analysis Current Accident Rate: 1.17 accJmvm Sfatewide Rate (based on similar type highways): 2.81 acc/mvm Is the nonstandard feature a contributing factor? [] YES Anticipated Accid.: Rate / I Vertical clearance has no effect on accident rate. Sevedty / Dost I Cost Estimates ~' NO Cost to Fully Meet Standards: I $1,000,000 _+ (for additional embankment fill, retaining walls, 2 girder bridge design, and additional ROW impacts) Cost(s) For Incremental improvements: $ 4. Mitigation (e.g., increased superelevation and curve warning signs for a nonstandard horizontat curve): I No mitigation proposed. The proposed 5.64 m (18'-6") vertical clearance is adequate for LIRR commuter trains and future fi.eight operations. 5. Compatibilify with Adjacent Segments & Futura Plans: I Other bridges over the rail rood in the vicinity of the project have non-standard vertical clearance. NYSDOT Freight and Transportation study indicates that 5.64m (18'-6") clearance is applicable along this segment of the rail road branchline. The LIRR has concurred with the use of the proposed vertical clearance of 5.64 m (18'-6"). 6. Other Factors (e.g., Social, Economic & Environmental): I Retaining the standard value for vertical clearance would raise the pavement elevation an additional 0.76 m (2.5 ft) which would dramatically increase ROW impacts and project costs. Due to the higher pavement elevations required, driveways into adjacent properties wautd descend down dramatically fi.om the roodway and extend well into the property to meet the existing ground. Wetiand impacts will also be increased due to the higher pavement elevations in the vicinity of the bndge. 7. Proposed Treatment (i.e., Recommendation): I Bernadette Castro Commissioner New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic~;~eservation Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 Daniel Hitt Cultural Resource Section Environmental Analysis Bureau Department of Transportation New York State Office Campus Building 5 Albany, NY 12232 Dear Mr. Hit-t: August 8, 2003 RE: 518-237-8643 RECEIVED 13Y STRUCTURES L.__ REGION 10 DOT/FHWA PIN 0042.28.121 NY25 Over L[RR/Dolphin Dr. to Pipes Neck Rd. Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York 03PR03016 Thank you for requesting the comments of thc State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) with regard to the potential for this project to affect significant cultural/historical resources. SHPO has received the report" Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey Report, PIN 0042.28.121, New York State route 25 Over the Long Island Railroad, Dolphin Drive to Pipes Neck Road, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York" prepared by the Institute for Long Island Archaeology in May 2003. Based on this review SHPO concurs with the recommendations of that report. These recommendations include avoidance of, or undertaking Phase 2 resource evaluation investigations at, three archaeological sites that were identified. These sites have been assigned the following SI-[PO inventory numbers: TABLE 1. Archaeolo ical Site m~rnbers and SItPO recommomlatlnns. Site Name Type NYSM # OPRHP USN Recommendation Brannon House Site H 11426 A10310.000318 ~,void or Phase 2 Wickharn Site H 11427 A10310.000319 Avoid or Phase 2 Scallop Pond Site P 11428 A10310.000320 Avoid or Phase 2 Please provide these designations to your archaeological consultant and utilize them in any future correspondenc~ regarding these sites. Please contact me at extension 3291 if you have any questions regarding these comments. Cc: ~__JGa~E~]~, DOT Region 10 Robert Ewing, DOT ely, Dougi~s~_~Mackey Historic P~es~rvation Program Analyst Archaeology An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Historic Preservation Fierd Services Bureau Peebles Island, PO Box 189, Water/ord, New York 12188-0189 November 22, 2004 518-237-8643 Robert L. Ewing NYS Department of Transportation 50 Wolf Road, 4th Floor P.O.D. ~f41 Albany, New York 12232 Re: FHWA/DOT (PIN # 0042.28.121) 'Replacement of NY 25 Bridge over LIRR Abacore Dr to Sage Blvd/near Scallop Pond Southold, Suffolk County 04PR05890 Dear Mr. Ewing: Thank you for requesting the comments of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). We have reviewed the project in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Based upon this review, it is the SHPO's opinion that your project will have No Effect upon cultural resources in or eligible for inclusion in the. National Registers of Historic Places. If further correspondence is required regarding this project, please be sure to refer to the OPRHP Project Review (PR) number noted above. RLP:bsa Mark Bocamazo, NYSDOT ~ Gentile, NYSDOT Sincerely, Ruth L. Pierpont Director An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Agency ~ I~rin~ed on recycled Daoer Appendix A Bridge Inspection Report (May 2003) APPENDIX A - BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT This appendix contains the most recent biennial bridge inspection report which was completed in May of 2003. It contains condition ratings of various bridge components as well as current photos, remarks sheets, condition sketches and flagging documentation. Please refer to Section ILC. 1.o. for a more thorough description of the condition rating scale utilized in the attached biennial inspection report. A biennial Bridge Inspection Report is generated every two (2) years as required by New York State Law. Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Bridge Ratings [ Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2~045~004~094 Inspection Agency: 13 - Consultant Type of Inspection: 1 - BIENNIAL GTMS: 303 - Steel Girder and Floorbeam System POSTED: VC On: 0 Ft 0 In VC Under: 0 Ft 0 In Load: 88 Tons Further Investigation Needed: No State Highway Number: 8229 Milepoint: 4163.89 ~ADT/Yr: 7430 / 1998 Orientation: 2 Northeast Political Unit: 1205 - Village of Greenport Year Built: 1929 Total Spans: 3 Ramp Bridge Attached To Span: NA BIN: NA General Recommendation: 4 Computed Condition Rating: 4.089 Abutment Ratings: Beg Abut End Abut IJoint with Deck 8 8 ~Bearings, Bolts, Pads 9 9 'Seats and Pedestals 4 5 iBackwall 4 5 Stem (Breastwall) 4 4 iErosion or Scour 6 ?ootings 9 9 !Piles 8 8 Recommendation 4 5 Wingwall Ratings: Beg Abut End Abut Walls 5 5 Footings 9 9 Erosion or Scour 5 5 Piles 8 8 Channel Ratings: Channel Stream Alignment 8 Erosion and Scour 8 Waterway Opening 8 Bank Protection 8 ADDroach Ratings: ADproaches Drainage 5 ~Embankment 4 iSettlement 5 iErosion 5 iPavement 4 ~Gumde Razllng 5 Nuz~ber of Flags Issued: RED: 0 Yellow: 0 Safety: 1 Vulnerability Reviews Recomx~ended: 1=Yes, 2=No, 3=NA, X=NotActive 'Hydraulic: 3 Overload: X Steel: 2 Collision: 2 Concrete: X Seismic: X Inspector's Signature: CheckValue: 2,045,00&,09~ Date: 5/13/2003 Harinder T. Singh, PE {) Reviewed By: (Inspector ID:10100026) Date: 6/3/2003 Seth Q. Medwick, PE () (QC ID:10100030) Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Span Ratings I Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2~045~004~094 I Deck Element Ratings: 001 002 003 Nearing Surface 4 4 4 ~urbs 8 8 8 iSidewalks, Fascias 4 5 4 ailings, Parapets 5 5 5 cuppers 8 8 8 ~ratings 8 8 8 ~edian 8 8 8 ~ono Deck Surface 8 8 8 Superstructure Ratings: 001 002 003 Structural Deck 4 4 5 Primary Members 4 4 4 Secondary Members 8 8 8 Paint 4 4 4 Joints 8 8 8 Recommendation 4 4 4 Pier Ratings: 001 002 003 Bearings, Bolts, Pads 9 9 8 Pedestals 5 5 8 Top of Cap or Beam 8 8 8 Stem Solid Pier 4 4 8 Cap Beam 8 8 8 Pier Columns 8 8 8 Footings 9 9 8 Erosion or Scour 6 6 8 Plles 8 8 8 Recommendation 4 4 8 Utility Ratings: 001 002 003 ILighting 8 8 8 ISign Structure 5 8 5 ~tilities and Support 8 8 8 Field Notes: Field Date Arrival !5/12/2003 11:45:00 PM 5/13/2003 8:30:00 AM DeDarture 1:45:00 PM 1:30:00 PM Temp (C) TemD (F) 65 65 Weather Conditions Mosrtly Cloudy A Mix of Sun & Clouds Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Inspection Notes I Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2~045~004~094 I Note ID: 0A0310608900000 General Note for Bridge Referenced Photos: Spans 1-3, left and right fascia girders received 100% Hands-On inspection. Note ID: 0A0310608900001 Beg Abut -- Abutment: Bearings, Bolts, Pads -- Rated 9, Was 9 End Abut -- Abutment: Bearings, Bolts, Pads -- Rated 9, Was 9 Referenced Photos: All bearings at both begin and end abutment are encased in concrete and are not visible for inspection, therefore, rated 9. Note ID: 0A0310608900002 Beg Abut -- Abutment: Seats and Pedestals -- Rated 4, Was 4 Referenced Photos: "1" The area along the top of the stem is rated here and it exhibits several cracks with efflorescence and some hollow sounding areas. Note ID: 0A0310608900003 Beg Abut -- Abutment: Backwall -- Rated 4, Was 4 Referenced Photos: "1", "2~' Begin abutment backwalr left side, there are several cracks with efflorescence and hollow sounding areas, approx. 20% area is affected. In addition, there is a 0.1 SM spal[ with exposed rebars on left side of left fascia girder. Some other bays exhibit efflorescence. Note ID: 0A0310608900004 Beg Abut -- Abutment: Stem (Breastwali) -- Rated 4, Was 4 End Abut -- Abutment: Stem (Breastwall) -- Rated 4, Was 4 Referenced Photos: "1", "2", "3" Both begin and end abutment stem exhibit several cracks with efflorescence and I hollow sounding areas on approx. 25% area. Hollow sounding areas have been identified with spray paint. Note ID: 0A0310608900005 I Approaches: Embankment -- Rated 4, Was 4 I Referenced Photos: "4" ' The retaining wall on right side of pier 2 supporting the embankment is rated here and exhibits numerous map cracks and vertical cracks with efflorescence on its begin face. Similar retaining wall on left side of pier 1 is in similar condition. No I other defects were noted. Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Inspection Notes I Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2~045~004~094 I Note ID: 0A0310608900006 Approaches: Pavement -* Rated 4, Was 4 Referenced Photos: "5" Begin approach pavement has up to 12 mm wide transverse cracks in full width of the pavement. End approach pavement has up to 12 mm wide longitudinal and transverse cracks. Riding quality is good. Note ID: 0A0310608900007 Span 001 -- Deck Elements: Wearing Surface -- Rated 4, Was 4 Span 002 -- Deck Elements: Wearing Surface - Rated 4, Was 4 Span 003 -- Deck Elements: Wearing Surface -- Rated 4, Was 4 Referenced Photos: r'6", "7" Spans t, 2 & 3, the asphalt wearing surface has transverse cracks with deteriorated and cracked asphalt along them. In addition, span 1 wearing surface on left side has a few uneven asphalt patches and some small pot holes. The riding quality is fair. Note ID: 0A0310608900008 Span 001 -- Deck Elements: Sidewalks, Fascias -- Rated 4, Was 4 Referenced Photos: "8", "9" Span 1, right fascia is spalled at bottom in full span length. The underside of left sidewalk exhibits a few areas of delaminated concrete and cracks. Left sidewalk near begin abutment has two asphalt patches for total area of 0.8 sq. meter with adjacent concrete cracked and vegetation growth along left parapet. Left fascia is in good condition. There is no sidewalk at right side of the bridge. Note ID: 0A031060890000A Span 001 -- Superstructure: Structural Deck -- Rated 4, Was 4 Span 002 -- Superstructure: Structural Deck -- Rated 4, Was 4 Referenced Photos: "11", "12" The underside of structural deck of span 1 & 2 exhibits spalls, cracks with efflorescence and hollow sounding areas. Approx. 50% area of underdeck of each span is covered with these defects. There are several filled core holes in both spans. Approx. 10% area of underdeck of span 2 over the track was sounded and no loose concrete was noted. See attached underdeck condition sketch for more details. The 2001 inspection condition sketch has been linked, as there is no change. Note ID: 0A031060890000E Span 001 -~ Superstructure: Primary Members -- Rated 4, Was 5 Span 002 -~ Superstructure: Primary Members -- Rated 4, Was 5 Span 003 -- Superstructure: Primary Members -- Rated 4, Was 5 Referenced Photos: "13", "14", "15", "16" Spans 1 thru 3, the encasement of several floorbeams exhibits cracks, spalled areas and some hollow sounding areas. Most of the bottom flange encasement of through girders has spalled. Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Inspection Notes [ Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR4MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2~045~004~094 Note ID: 0A031060890000E - continued Safety flag # 03-47 (supersedes S.F. # 01-43) has been issued for hollow sounding concrete ~ encasement of floorbeams and thru girders over Rail Road Track in span 2. Note ID: 0A031060890000B Span 001 -- Superstructure: Paint -- Rated 4, Was 4 Span 002 -~ Superstructure: Paint -- Rated 4, Was 4 Span 003 -- Superstructure: Paint -- Rated 4, Was 4 Referenced Photos: "10" Spans 1-3, the exposed portions of the structural steel due to spalled encasement are painted, These painted areas exhibit several rusted areas with minor section loss. Note ID: 0A031060890000C Span 00t - Pier: Bearings, Bolts, Pads -- Rated 9, Was 9 Span 002 -- Pier: Bearings, Bolts, Pads -- Rated 9, Was 9 Referenced Photos: All bearings of piers 1 & 2 are encased in concrete and are not visible for inspection, therefore, rated 9. Note ID: 0A031060890000F Span 001 -- Pier: Stem Solid Pier -- Rated 4, Was 4 Referenced Photos: "17" Pier 1, begin and end face exhibits several up to 3 mm wide vertical cracks with efflorescence. Approx. entire right face is cracked with efflorescence and has some hollow sounding areas. End face has a 750 mm x 750 mm spall near top on left side and a 3 mm wide full height vertical crack at middle. Note ID: 0A0310608900010 Span 002 -- Pier: Stem Solid Pier -- Rated 4, Was 4 I Referenced Photos: "18", "19" i Pier 2, begin and end faces exhibit several up to 3 mm wide vertical cracks with efflorescence. Approx. entire right face is cracked with efflorescence and has i some hollow sounding areas. Begin face has two spalls, 1.2 m x 1.2 m x 30 mm deep and 150 mm x 150 mm x 20 mm deep with exposed rebars. Note ID: 0A0310608900009 Span 003 -- Deck Elements: Sidewalks, Fascias -- Rated 4, Was 4 Referenced Photos: "10" Span 3, right fascia is spalled at bottom in full span length. Left fascia near pier 2 has a full height vertical crack and a 300 mm x 300 mm x 40 mm deep spall with some efflorescence. The underside of left sidewalk has several transverse cracks with efflorescence. There is no sidewalk at right side of the bridge. inspection Date: 5/t3/2003 RC: 02 BiN: 1060890 inspection Photos in Photo Number Order [ Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR~MA~N L~NE CheckVa]ue: 2~045~004~094 t Photo Number: 1 Photo Filename: 03.100 0106.JPG Begin abutment right side. Assignments: Beg Abut -- Abutment: Seats and Pedestals -- Rated 4, Was 4 Beg Abut -- Abutment: Backwall -- Rated 4, Was 4 Beg Abut ** Abutment: Stem (E~reastwall) -- Rated 4, Was 4 Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Inspection Photos in Photo Number Order I C~ded: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2,045,004,094 Photo Number: 2 Photo Filename: 03,100 0107,,JPG Location: Begin abutment left side, Assignments: Beg Abut -- Abutment: Bsckwall -- Rated 4, Was 4 Beg Abut -~ Abutment: Stem (Breastwali) ~ Rated 4, Was 4 ~nspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BiN: 1060890 Inspection Photos in Photo Number Order ! Cr~rrJed: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAtN LINE CheckVa~ue: 2,045,004,094 Photo Numbe~: 3 Photo F;lename: 03,100 012O,JPG E~d ;~:- st~' ¢}r~t oft side Ass 9r~r~e~'lts: Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Inspection Photos in Photo Number Order Cs~ri~d: 25 25 07041839 Crossed: LIRR MA~N LiNE CheckValue: 2,045,004,094 PhotoNu~ be~:4 Photo Filename: 03.100 0114JPG ~nspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 B~N: 1060890 ~nspection Photos in Photo Number Order C~rried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LiRR~MAIN UNE CheckV~lue: 2,045,004,094 Photo Number: 5 Photo Filename: F3eqin ;~ppro~ch Assignments; Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BiN: 1060890 Inspection Photos in Photo Number Order Carried: 25 25 07041539 Crossed: LIRR-MA~N LINE CheckValue: 2,045,004,094 il Photo Numbe~': 5 ?ho~.o Fiiename: 03,100 0101,JPG Span '1 !eft side Assignments: $~a, 00! Deck EeC ert:~ Wearing S~;fface Rated 4, Was 4 ~nspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 B~N: 1060890 inspection Photos in Photo Number Order Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: L~RR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2~045,004,094 ] Photo Number: 7 Photo Filename: 03,100 0102.JPG Span 2 left side Assignments: Span 002 - Deck Elements: Wearin9 Surface - Rated 4, Was 4 Span 003 -- Deck Ele ~ents: Wearing Surf~ce -- Rated 4, Was 4 ~r~spectior~ Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 inspection Photos in Photo Number Order I CaFried: 25 25 07041639 CFossed: LIRR~MAIN L~NE CheckValue: 2,045,004,094 } Photo Number: 8 Photo Filename: 03.100.0108,JPG Span 1 right fascia. Assignments: Span 001 -- Deck Elements: Sidewalks, Fascias -- Rated 4, Was 4 Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BiN: 1060890 ~nspection Photos in Photo Number Order Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckVstue: 2~045,004 094 Photo Number: 9 Photo Filename: 03,100 0105.JPG Location: Span 1 left sidewalk Assignments: Span 001 -- Deck Elements: Sidewalks, Fascias -- Rated 4, Was 4 ~nspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 B[N: 1060890 ~nspection Photos in Photo Number Order l._.C~rried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR~MAiN LINE CheckVatue: 2,045,004,094 Photo Number: I0 Photo Fiiename: 03.100 ~0117,JPG Span 3 right fascia.. Assignmer~ts: Span 001 -~ Superstructure: Paint ~- Rated 4, Was 4 Span 002 -- Superstracture: Paint -- Rated 4, Was 4 Span 003 -- Deck Elements: Sidewalks, Fascias -- Rated 4, Was 4 Span 003 - Superstructure: Pair~t -- Rated 4, Was 4 inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BiN: 1060890 ~nspection Photos in Photo Number Order Carded: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAiN L~NE CheckValue: 2,045,004,094 Photo Number: tl Photo Filename: 03,100 011I,JPG Span ~i underdeck, Assi§nments: Span 001 -~ Superstructure: Structura! Deck -- Rated 4, Was 4 ~nspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 ~nspection Photos in Photo Number Order Carried; 25 25 0704t6;39 Crossed: L~RR~MAIN L~NE CheckValue: 2,045,004,094 Photo Number: 12 Photo Filename: 03,100 0123.JPG Span 2 under'deck Assignments: Span 002 -- Superstr,.~ct re: Structural Deck -- Rated 4, Was 4 ]nspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Inspect]on Photos in Photo Number Order Carried: 25 25 0704~639 Crossed: LIRR~MA~N LINE CheckValue: 2,045,004,094 ] Photo Number: 13 Photo Filename: 03,100 0110.JPG Span 1, floorbeam 7. Assignments: Span 001 -- Superstructure: Primary Members .-- Rated 4, Was 5 ~nspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Inspection Photos ir~ Photo Number Order Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LiNE CheckValue: 2,045,004,094 iJ Photo Number: 14 Photo Fiiename: 03,100 0122,JPG Span 2. Assignments: Span 002 -- Superstructure: Primary Members -- Rated 4, Was 5 Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: I0(~0890 Inspection Photos in Photo Number Order Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValae: 2,045,004,094 I Photo Number: '15 Photo Fileeame: 03.100 0124.JPG Location: Span 2. Assignments: Span 002 ~ Superstructure: Primacy Members *- Rated 4, Was 5 Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BiN: 1060890 inspection Photos in Photo Number Order C~rried: 25 25 07041039 Crossed: LIRR~MA~N LINE CheckVaiue: 2,045,004,094 Photo Numbe~': 18 Photo Fi~enarne: 03,100 0119.JPG Span 3, floorbeam 5 Assignments: Span 003 · Superstructure: Primary Members -- Rated 4, Was 5 ~nspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 B~N: 1060890 ~nspection Photos in Photo Number Order Cart ed: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR~MA~N L~NE CheckVaiue: 2,045,004~094 Photo Number: 17 Photo Fiiename: 03,100 0112.JPG Pier 1 right face Assignments: Spar/ 00I -¢ Pier: Stem Solid Pier ~ Rated 4, Was 4 ~r~spection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 B~N: 1060890 ~r~spectior~ Photos in Photo Number Order Carried: 25 25 07041839 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckVatue: 2,045,004,094 ~ Photo Number: 18 Photo Fi]ename: 03.100_0115.JPG Pier 2 begin face right side. Assignments: Span 002 -- Pier: Stem Solid Pier ~- Rated 4, Was 4 Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 aC: 02 BIN: 1060890 inspection Photos ia Photo Nt. imber Order Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckVakte: 2,045,004,094 Photo Number: 19 Photo Filename: 03~100 0118,JPG Location: Pier 2 right face. Assignments: Span 002 -- Pier: Stem Solid Pier -- Rated 4, Was 4 Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Inspection Sketches in Sketch SyslD Order [ Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2,045,004,094 ] Sketch ID: 0A0310608900000 Sketch Filename: 03.Underdeck. TIF Span 001 -- Superstructure: Structural Deck -- Rated 4, Was 4 Span 002 -- Superstructure: Structural Deck -- Rated 4, Was 4 i Referenced Photos: "11", "12" BIN ___~'~ ~ ¢ ~'O N¥S DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT SHEET ~ OF J TEAM ASST.TEAM Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Inspection Sketches in Sketch SyslD Order I Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2,045,004,094 ] Sketch ID: 0A0310608900001 Sketch Filename: 03PhotoLocationPlan.TIF General Sketch for Bridge Referenced Photos: BIN I~o ~,~ NYS DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT SHEET ._~__ OF I TEAM ASST TEAM NORTH LEGEND Came~ A~ove Deck PHOTOGRAPH LOCATION PLAN Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Inspection Sketches in Sketch SyslD Order [ Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2,045,004,094 ] Sketch ID: 0A0310608900002 Sketch Filename: 03RailRoadClearance. TIF ,i General Sketch for Bridge ~ Referenced Photos: TEAM ASST.TEAM LEADER: /f..~/x/~'ff L~ADER: F¢~w.,',~ C.r~.a: ,~ ?_ '~ NYS DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE INSPECTION REPORT sh~J:~ ~OF / .~. ~Jo~'~.~- LL IDAT~ ~ Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Inspection Sketches in Sketch SyslD Order Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRRoMAIN LINE CheckValue: 2,045,004,094 Sketch ID: 0A0310608900003 Sketch Filename: 03SpecialEmphasisSketch.TIF ! General Sketch for Bridge , Referenced Photos: BIN /0~o~__ NYS DEPT, OF TRANSPORTAT;ON BRIDGE fNSPECTION REPORT SHEET ~ _ OF f LEADER: /~.~x,./~z~, LF-ADER; ~ V~O~.F.F_L.[. _ DA~ ~ I 1~/o Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Gen. Rec., Postings, Federal Ratings, etc. [ Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2~045~004~094 I Overall Condition: GENERAL RECOMMENDATION: 4 Computed Condition Rating: 4.089 Problems Requiring Action: NO Further Investigation Needed ' SAFETY Flag(s) Issued POSTINGS: Posted Vertical Clearance ON the bridge is: No Posting Posted Vertical Clearance UNDER the bridge is: No Posting Bridge is: "R~' Posted Overloads Observed: NO Overload Vehicles were observed on this bridge FEDERAL RATINGS: NBI Deck Condition: 5 NBI Superstruct Condition: 5 NBI Substruct Condition: 5 NBI Channel Condition: N NBI Culvert Condition: N Diving Inspection Needs: Diving Inspection Required? No Inventory Problems: ! Inventory Problems Exist? No Miscellaneous: Time Required to Inspect Bridge: 12 Hours Lane Closure Needs: By Contract for 4 Hours Railroad Flagging is Required for 8.0 Hours No Pedestrian Fence No Snow Fence The BIN Plate is in OK condition Date of Last Diving Inspection: No Date Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Gen. Rec., Postings, Federal Ratings, etc. [ Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2~045~004~094 Special Emphasis Inspection Required: Non-Redundant/Fracture Critical Members - Yes Pin and Hangers - No Fatigue-Prone Welds - No Non-Categorized Fatigue-Prone Details - No Other (Specified in Text) - No Special Emphasis Details: Spans 1-3, left and right fascia girders. General Notes To the Next Inspector: Improvements Observed: Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Review Progress and Personnel Present at Inspection I Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2~045~004~094 I Inspection Submission Status: Submitted to QC Engineer on: 5/16/2003 QC Submission Number: A10302 QC Review Completed: 6/3/2003 QC Engineer: Seth Q. Medwick Submitted to Liaison Engineer on: 6/3/2003 Liaison Submission Number: 10302 Liaison Review Completed: 6/23/2003 Liaison Engineer: Francois Ghanem Submitted for BIIS Processing on: 6/23/2003 BIIS Submission Number: .kpl Current Status: Keypunched, Sent to BIIS Check Value: 2,045,004,094 Personnel Present During Inspection: Harinder T. Singh - Team Leader Sherlock Worrell - Assistant Team Leader Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Flags Issued [ Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2~045~004~094 Safety Flag 03-47 Safety Flag 03-47 - Flagged Bridge Report Prompt Interim Action Recommended: No Inspector: Singh, Harinder T. Flag Number: 03-47 Date Discovered: 5/13/2003 Supersedes Flag Number: 01-43 Bridge Description: BIN: 1060890 Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE Region: 0 - Hauppauge County: 2 - Suffolk Political Unit: 1205 - Village of Greenport Primary Owner: 10 - State Department of Transportation Secondary Owner: 99 - One Agency - Listed in first subfield Primary Maintenance: 10 - State - Highway Maintenance Secondary Maintenance: 99 - One Agency ~ Listed in first subfield Year Built: 1929 Bridge is restricted from vehicles with a "R" Permit. Number of Spans by Type: Num Type Description 003 - 115 - Steel - Plate Girder-Floorbeam System, Thru Bridge is wholly or partially owned or maintained by NYSDOT. Description of Flagged Condition: Span 2, there are several areas of hollow sounding concrete enoasement of fascia girders and floorbeams over Rail Road Track. These hollow sounding areas are marked with yellow/red paint and letter "H". 2 Photos Attached Verbal Notifications: (For RED Flags and Safety Flags with PlA only) To: To: By: of Regional Office on (Responsible Party) on at at_ Signature: Flagged Bridge Report Completed By: Singh, Harinder T. on 5/13/2003 Flagged Bridge Report Signed By: Singh, Harinder T. on 5/13/2003 RC: 02 E~]N: 1060890 Flag Attachment C~rried: 25 2~ 0704'~639 Crossed: LIF~R-MA~N LINE CheckV~ue: 2~045~004~094 03,100_0122.JPG '-- Attached to Safety Flag 03-47 Span 2 eve? Rail Road Track, O Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 03.100 0124.JFG - Attached to Safety Flag 03-&7 Span~,~ over Rail ~,oad~ - Track. Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Inspection Access Requirements [ Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2~045~004~094 J Equipment Required for Inspection ! Access Requirement Changes WERE Noted During This Inspection. This Listing is from the Inspection. ACCESS CATEGORIES FOR ENTIRE BRIDGE Required: Walking, Extension Ladder, 60 Ft UBIU (18 m) Required: Railroad Flagman, Lane Closure, Shadow Vehicle ACCESS CATEGORIES FOR SPAN 1 Required: Walking, Extension Ladder, Railroad Flagman Required: Lane Closure, Shadow Vehicle ACCESS CATEGORIES FOR SPAN 2 Required: Walking, 60 Ft UBIU (18 m), Railroad Flagman Required: Lane Closure, Shadow Vehicle ACCESS CATEGORIES FOR SPAN 3 Required: Walking, Extension Ladder, Railroad Flagman Required: Lane Closure, Shadow Vehicle Inspection Date: 5/13/2003 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Culvert Measurements [ Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: LIRR~MAIN LINE CheckValue: 2~045~004~094 I Culvert Measurements NO CULVERT DATA FOR BIN 1060890 Standard Photos I Carried: 25 25 07041639 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE 1060890_LOCATION_MAP.JpG econk .? _.~:oul:ho a I BIN 1060890 Carned 25 ('25 07041639) Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE Standard Photos I Carried: 25 2507041639 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE 1060890_QUAD_MAP.JPG BIN: 1 060890 Carried: 25 (25 07041639) Crossed: LIRR-MAIN LINE O Standai~d Photos RC: 02 BiN: 1060890 Carried: 25 25 07041839 C~'ossed: LIRRqVlAIN LINE BeginAbutment,jpg,jpg Standard Photos Carried: 25 25 07041639 RC: 02 BiN: 1060890 Crossed: LIRR~MA~N L~NE BeginApproach.jpg.jpg Standard Photos Carried: 25 25 07041639 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Crossed: LIRR~-MA~N LINE EndApproach,jpg,jpg Star~dard Photos Carried: 25 25 07041639 RC: 02 BiN: 1060890 Crossed: L~RR~MAIN L~NE I FeatureCrossedLeft,jpg.jp9 Standard Photos I Carried: 25 25 07041(~39 RC: 02 BiN: 1060890 Crossed: LtRR-MAIN LINE FeatureC~ossedRight,jpg,jpg Standard Photos RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: L~RR-MAIN LINE Framing.jpg,jpg Standard Photos FIC: 02 B~N: 10(~0890 LeftE~evatior~1060890.jpg~jpg Photos RC: 02 BiN: 1060890 Carried: 25 25 07041639 Crossed: Pier2~jpg.jpg Standard Photos Carried: 25 2507041839 RC: 02 BIN: 1060890 Crossed: LIRR MAIN LINE .j RightElevation1060890.jpg.jpg Appendix B Accident History and Analysis APPENDIX B - ACCIDENT HISTORY AND ANALYSIS Accidents in the project area were studied from September 1996 through May 2002 (69 month study period). This appendix contains the following information referenced in Section I1. C. 1.k. Accident Location Drawings Accident Summary Reports New York State Average Accident Rate Tables Please refer to Section II.C.l.k. for a more detailed description of the accident history in the project area. Accident Rate Calculation: Total number of accidents = 49 Study Period = 69 months + 12 = 5. 75 years Average Annual Daily TrafFtc (AADT) = 7150 vpd Length of study area = 1.25 miles Accident Rate (per MVM) = 49a~'¢i~'ent,,- × 1,ooo,ooo = 2.61 365days / yr x 5.75yr x 7150vpd x 1.25rni Accident Rate Calculation (non-deer related): Total number of non-deer related accidents = 22 Study Period = 69 months + 12 = 5. 75 years Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) = 7150 vpd Length of study area = 1.25 miles Accident Rate (per MVM) = 22accidentsx ],000,000 = 1.17 365days / yr x 5.75yr x 7 ] 50vpd x 1.25mi Accident Rate Calculation (wet weather): Total number of wet weather related accidents = 8 Study Period = 69 months + 12 = 5. 75 years Average Annual Daily Traffic (AAD T) = 7150 vpd Length of study area = 1.25 miles Accident Rate (per MVM) = 8accidentsx 1,000,000 365days / yr x 5.75yr x 7150vpd x 1.25mi = 0.43 Accident Rate Calculation (fixed obiect): Total number of fixed object accidents = 8 Study Period = 69 months + 12 = 5.75 years Average Annual Daily Traffic (AAD T) = 7150 vpd Length of study area = 1.25 miles Accident Rate (per MVM) = Oaccidents x L000,000 = 0.32 365days / yr x 5.75yr x 7150vpd x 1.25mi Intersection Accident Rate Calculation ~, Chapel Lane: Total number of intersection accidents = 5 Study Period = 69 months + 12 = 5, 75 years Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) = 7150 vpd 5accidents x 1,000,000 ----0.33 Accident Rate (per MEV) = 365days/yr x 5.75yr x 7150vpd ACCIDENT SUMMARY REPORT ACCIDENT DATE TIME · OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION NO. VEHICLES TYPE ~ 09/26196 ~47 PM 2 INJURY DAY CLOUDY DRY SIDESWIPE VEHICLE "! TRAVELING EASTBOUND ON ROUTE 25CROSSED INTO OTHER LANE AHD COLLIDED WITH MOTDRCYCLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND. 20 40 $0 m PIN 0042.28 ROUTE 25 OVER LIRR ACC]DENT DIAGRAU STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTUENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACCIOE~.DCN lO 04~02 ACC-1 NYT ACC]DENT SUMMARY REPORT ACCIDENT DATE TIME '# OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION NO. VEHICLES TYPE 12 20/09798 9.'09 PM 1 INJURY NIGHT RAIN WET FIX OBJECT VEHICLE TRAVEL]NG EASTBOUND ON WET/SUPPERY ROAD STRUCK UTILITY POLE # B52. 21 05/18/B9 8:26 PM 2 INJURY NIGHT CLEAR DRY SIDESWIPE VEHICLE *'1 TRAVELING WESTBOUND CROSSED INTO EASTBOUND TRAFFIC AND COLLIDED WITH VEHICLE · 2 TRAVELING EASTBOUND. 22 08/29/99 7;55 PM 1 PROPERTY DAMAGE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROLFrE 25. 23 I 0/30/99 6:40 PM 1 PROPERTY DAMAGE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 24 11/03/99 6:30 PM I PROPERTY DAMAGE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTDOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 25 l 1/05/99 10:53 PM ] PROPERTY DAMAGE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 40 3/05/01 5:50 PM 2 PROPERTY VEHICLE ·1 TRAVELING WESTI[OUND LOST CONTROL OF CAR DUE TO ICE AND SLID INTO DAMAGE DAY SNOW SNOW/ICE SIDESWIPE VEHICLE ·2 THAT WAS TRAVEL]ND EASTBOUND. 44 10/27/01 B:07 PM 1 PROPERTY DAMAGE RIGHT CLOUDY DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND STRUCK DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 0 20 40 60 m SCALE SI(NATURE DATE PIN 0042.28 ROUTE 25 OVER LIRR ACCIDENT DIAGRAM -=--- STATE OF NEW YORK ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FILENAME I E£GION I DATE I DRAW)NC NO. ACCIDENT,D(N I0 04/02 ACC-2 ACCIDENT SUMMARY REPORT ACCIDENT DATE TiME # OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT ACCIDENT DESCRiPTiON NO. VEHICLES TYPE NON VEHICLE et, WHILE TRAVEL]ND WESTBOUND WAS INSTRUCTED TO STOP BY FLAGMAN NEAR 2 09/26/96 2:39 PM 2 REPORTABLE DAY CLEAR DRY REAR END, A CONSTRUCtiON SITE AND RAS HIT FROM BEHIND BY VEHICLE e2. * 3' IO/08/BB 12:45 AM 2 INJURY NIGHT CLEAR DRY SIDESWIPE VEHICLE ·I TRAVELING WESTBOUND CROSSED INTO EASTBOUND TRAFFIC AND COLLIDED WITH VEHICLE e2. VEHICLE ~I RAM OFF THE ROAD AND OVERTURNED, NON 4 11~24/96 9:00PM I REPORTABLE NIGHT CLOUDY DRY DEER VEHIOLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. NON 7 I0-~50/97 3:30 AM ] REPORTABLE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELIN~ WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 1] 09/06/98 3:10 PM I INJURY DAY CLEAR DRY FIX OBJECT DRIVER FELL ASLEEP WHILE TRAVELING EASTBOUND AND RAN OFF THE ROAD AND STRUCK UTiLiTY POLE · 860. t5 OI/]3/BB I1:54 AM I INJURY DAY CLEAR DRY FIX OBJECT DRIVER DID NOT PAY ATTENTION WHILE TRAVELING EASTBOURD AND STRUCK UTILITY POLE · 859. I6 02/25/99 ?:47 PM ] INJURY, NIGHT SNOW SNOW/iCE FIX OBJECT VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND ON SLIPERRY ROAD STRUCK UTILITY POLE ~ 880. 18 03/14/99 1:02 AM 1 PROPERTY DAMAGE NIGHT CLOUDY DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 34 lt/IO/O0 5:1~ PM ! PROPERTY DAMAGE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. ' 36 11/29/00 3:45 AM 1 PROPERTY DAMAGE HIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESRBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RURNIND ACROSS ROUTE 25. 39 01/27/0I 2:56 PM 1 PROPERTY DAMAGE DAY CLOUDY DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK DY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE IS. 45 10/27/01 6:15 PM 1 PROPERTY DAMAGE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND STRUCK DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 46 ]1/01/0i G:09 PM I PROPERTY OAMAGE HIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND STRUCK DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 2O 4O SCALE AS BUILT REVISIONS GO m ACC]DENT DIAGRAM STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION o ~.__~ BRIDGE MMZ5 0704 1638 / CABINET SHOWROOM NYT ACCIDENT SUMMARY REPORT ACCIDENT DATE TIME # OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION NO. VEH[CLES TYPE TRUCK "l TOWING A DISABLED C~.R "Z, EXITING FROM A PARKING LOT AN{} MAKING A TDRN 5 05/03/97 10'.22 AM 4 INJURY DAY RAIN WET RIGHT ANGLE ONTO WESTBOUND ROUTE 25, WAS STRUCK BY VEHICLES #3 & #4 TRAVELING EASTBOUND. 29 01/24/00 4:16 PM 2 PROPERTY DAY CLEAR DRY RIGHT ANGLE VEHICLE 'l pULLING OUT OF PENNY LUMBER PARKING LOT WAS STRUCK BY VEHICLE #2 DAMAGE TRAVELLING EASTBOUND UN ROUTE PROPERTY 47 05/]4/02 9:30 PM I DAMAGE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND STRt)CX DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. NOTES: ACCIDENTS FROM SEPT. 199G THRU MAY 2002 0 20 40 EOm SCALE S1GNAIURE DATE PIN 0042.28 ACCIDENT DIAGRAM SLATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FILENAM[ I RECION I DATE I DRAWINGNO- ACCIDENT.DGN lO 04/02 ACC~4 -t- CONTRACT NO. ACCIDENT SUMMARY REPORT ACCIDENT DATE TIME # OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION NO. VEHICLES TYPE NON 8 I1/20/97 ll:13 PM I REPORTABLE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVEL]NO EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 9 01/06/98 9:52 AM 1 PROPERTY DAMAGE DAY FOG WET DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING RESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. PBu~lf VEHICLE #1 TRAVELING WESTBOUND ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TORN AND WAS STRUCK 14 12/10/96 3:32 PM 2 DAMAGE DAY CLEAR DRY LEFT TORN BY VEHICLE '2 FROM BEHIND. 19 04/06/99 7:30 PM 2 RRuP-cnIV VEHICLE '*1 , TOWING A TRAILER, WAS LEAVING PARKING AREA AT NORTH FORK WELDING DAMAGE DAY CLEAR DRY SIDESWIPE WHEN ]T SIDESWIPED VEHICLE "2 THAT WAS PARKED ]N THE SAME PARKING AREA. VEHICLE el COMING OUT FROM KERW]N BLVD. WAS STRUCK BY VEHICLE ~2 TRAVELLING 27 11/23/99 10=55 AM 2 INJURY DAY RAIN WET RIGHT ANGLE EASTBOUND ON ROUTE 25. 30 11/25/00 5:43 PM 1 PROPERTY VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND ON ROUTE 25 SLID ON SNOW / ICE AND STRUCK DAMAGE NIGHT SLEET/HAIL SNOW/ICE FIX OBJECT UTILITY POLE ~' 494. 35 ll/t4/O0 5:45 PM 1 INJURY NIGHT RAIN WET F]X OBJECT VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND ATTE~ED TO AVOID A DOC THAT WAS IN THE TRAVEL LANE AND SLID ACROSS THE ROAD INTO A UTILITY POLE. 37 12/15/00 4:50 AM I PROPERTY DAMAGE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 41 04/OD/Of 3:Ol AM ] PROPERTY DAMAGE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 0 20 40 60 m SCALE SIONAllJRE DATE P]N 0042.28 ROUTE 25 OVER LiRR ACCIDENT DIAGRAM ~ STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FILENAHE I REGION I DATE I DRAW]NG NO. ACCIDENT.DON l 0 04/02 ACC-5 OSPREY o / ACCIDENT SUMMARY REPORT ACCIDENTI DATE TIME # OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION NO. VEHICLES TYPE 6 ] O/Ol/97 9=10 PM I PROPERTY DA&lACE N]GHT CLEAR DRY DEER YEH]CLE TRAVEL]NS EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25, FL~DADIsTA~I CONTRACT PJ.q. 004228 I BJ.N. 0 20 40 50 Am SCALE ACCIDENT DIAGRAM STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FILENA~E I REGION I DATE I DRAWING NO. ACCID~NT.DGN 10 04/02 ACC-6 ACCIDENT SUMMARY REPORT ACCIDENT DATE ~IME · OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER :)AVEMENT ACCIDENT ! DESCRIPTION NO. VEHICLES TYPE lO 8/18/98 2:12 PM 3 PROPERTY DAY CLEAR DRY HEAD ON VEH, '! STOf~OED AT STOP SIGH ON CHAPEL LANE WAS STRLICK BY V[H, *2 WHO SIERVED DAMAGE TO AVOID VE~CLE ~'3 BLOCKZNG ROAD. VEHICLE s2 WAS TRAVELLING WESTBOUND ON RT PASSENGER L~AHED AGAINST DOOR AND FELL OUT AS VEH]CLE WAS PULL]NO OFF 33 11/08/98 4=00 AM I ]NJURY NIGHT .... DRY ...... THE ROADWAY~ VEHICLE ~'1 ~DUTHBOUND ON CHAPEL LANE STOPPED PARTIALLY ~2N~5.0 THE ROADWAY 17 3/10/99 5:03 PM 2 ]NdLIRy DAY CLEAR DRY RIGHT AHOLE WAS STRUCK ~Y V~H]CLE #2 TRAV~LL]NO WESTBOUND ON ROUTE . PROPERTY VEH]CLE TRAmmELING EASTBOUND RAG STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 20 4/23/99 11:56 AM ] DAMAGE DAY CLOUDY DRY OEER 26 11/12/99 ~:31 AM ! PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY D£ER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. DAMAGE PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRA~L]NG WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 3] 2/I 3/00 12:22 AM ] DAMAGE 33 DT/OT/OU 11:25 AM 2 IHdURY DAY CLOUDY DRY REAR END VEHICLE ~'l TRAVELING EASTBO~qD ON RC~TE 25 5TRUCK V~HICLE ~' 2 FROM BEHIND, VEHICLE ~' 2 WAS EASTBOUND ON ROUTE 25 MAKING A LEFT TURN ONTO CHAPEL LANE. PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNIHG ACROSS ROLITE ZS. 38 12/] S/O0 4:40 AM 1 OAMAGE VEHICLE 'l $OUTNB~HD OH CHAPEL LANE PULLED IH FRONT OF VEHICLE ~2 TRAVELLING 42 7/2Z/01 5:Z5 PM 2 INJURY DAY CLEAR DRY RIGHT ANGLE WESTBOUND ON ROUTE 25. VEHICLE ~'1 TRAVELI~ WESTBOUND ON ROUTE Z5 STRUCK VEHICLE '2 MAKING A LEFT 49 5/25/02 10=14 PM 2 INJURY NIGHT CLEAR DRY RIGHT ANGLE TURN FROM CHAPEL LANE ONTO EASTBOUND ROUTE Z5. 0 20 40 60 m FILENA~IE I REGION I DATE I DRAWING NO- ACCID~JIT.DGN l 0 04/02 ACC-T SIONATONE DATE ROUTE 25 OVER LIRR ACCIDENT DIAGRAM STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Accident Summary Report PIN 0042.28 - Route 25 over LIRR Bridge Improvement Project - Route 25 over LIRR Study Period from Sept. 1996 - May 2002 ACCIDENT NO. OF ACCIDENT NO. DATE TIME VEHICLES SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION Truck # 1 [owing a disabled car # 2, exiling from a parking lot and making a turn 7 / U/30/B7 03 30 AM 1 Reportable Night Clear D~¢ Deer Vehicle travelin~l westbound was s6uck by deer runnin~ across Route 25. 15 01/13/99 11:54 AM 1 Injury Da), Clear Dry Fix Object ~J59 16 02125199 07:47 PM 1 Injury Nigh[ Snow Snow/Ice Fix Ojbect Vehicle travelin~ eastbound on slippery road struck Utility Pole # 860. 17 03/10/99 05:03 PM 2 Injury Day Clear D~, Ri~lht An~lle and was struck by Vehicle # 2 traveling westbound on Roule 25. Accident Summary Report PIN 0042.28 - Route 25 over LIRR Bridge Improvement Project - Route 25 over LIRR Study Period from Sept. 1996 - May 2002 ACCIDENT NO. OF ACCIDENT NO. DATE TIME VEHICLES SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION Property 18 03/14/99 01 :U2 AM 1 Damage Night Cloud)' Dry Deer Vehicle traveling eastbound was struck by deer running ac~s Rou[e 25 Property Vehicle # 1, lowing a trailer, was leaving park~n9 area at N~rth Fork Weldin9 19 04/0b/99 U7:30 PM 2 Damaqe Day Clear Dry Sideswipe ~vhen it sideswiped Vehicle # 2 that was parked in the same parkinq area Property 20 04/23/99 11:56 AM I Damaqe Day Cloudy Dry Deer Vehicle traveling eastbound was struck by deer running across Route 25. Vehicle # 1 traveling westbound c~ussed into eastbound traffic and collided with 21 05/18/99 08:26 PM 2 Iniury Night Clear Dry Sideswipe Vehicle # 2 travelinq eastbound Property 22 08129199 07:55 PM 1 Damacle Night Clear Dry Deer Vehicle traveling westbound was struck by deer running across Route 25. Property 23 10/30/99 06:40 PM I Damaqe Night Clear Dr~ Deer Vehicle traveling westbound was struck by deer running across Route 25. Property 24 11 I03/99 06:30 PM 1 Damaqe Night Clear Dr~ Deer Vehicle traveling westbound was struck by deer running across Route 25. Property 25 11/05/99 10:53 PM 1 Damacle Night Clear Dry Deer Vehicle traveling westbound was struck by deer running across Route 25 Properly 26 11/12~99 01:31 AM 1 Damaqe Night Clear Dry Deer Vehicle traveling eastbound was struck by deer running across Route 25. Vehicle # 1, coming out from Ke~win Blvd., was struck by Vehicle # 2 traveling 27 11/23/99 10:55 AM 2 Injury Day Rain Wet Right Angle eastbound on Route 25, Pmperty 28 12/26/99 06:22 PM I Damacffi Night Clear Dry Deer Vehicle traveling westbound was struck by deer running across Route 25 Accident Summary Report PIN 0042.28 - Route 25 over LIRR Bridge Improvement Project - Route 25 over LIRR Study Period from Sept. 1996 - May 2002 ACCIDENT NO. OF ACCIDENT NO. DATE TIME VEHICLES ' SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION 35 11/14/00 05:45 PM 1 Injur~ Night Rain Wet Fix Object and slid across road into a utility pole 36 11/29/00 03:45 AM 1 Damaqe Ni~Jht Clear Dry Deer Vehicle travelin~ westbound was struck by deer running ~c~uss Ruute 25 Property 37 12115/00 04:50 AM 1 DamaRe Nigbt Clear Dry Deer Vehicle travelin,~ westbound was struck by deer runnin[t across Route 25 38 12/15/00 04:40 AM 1 Damage Night Clear Dry Deer Vehicle traveling easlbound was struck by deer ~un~ung at,uss Rou~e 25 Property 39 01/27/01 02:56 PM 1 Dama,qe Day Cloudy D~, Deer Vehicle travelin~ eastbound was struck by deer running across Route 25. Property Vehicle # 1, traveling westbound, lost control of car due to ice and slid into 40 03/05/01 05:50 PM 2 Damaqe Day Snow Snow/Ice Sideswipe Vehicle # 2 that was travelinq eastbound. Property 41 04/06/01 03:01 AM 1 Damage Ni~lht Clear DR/ Deer Vehicle travelin~l westbound was struck by deer runnin9 across Route 25. Vehicle #1 traveling southbound on Chapel Lane pulled in front of vehicle #2 42 07/22/01 05:25 PM 2 Inju~ Day Clear Dry Right Angle Iravellin9 westbound on Route 25. Property 43 10/09/01 12:16 AM 1 Damaqe Night Clear Dry Deer Police Officer travelin~ eastbound struck deer runnin~ across Route 25. Property 44 10/27101 09:07 PM 1 Damaqe Ni,ght Cloud)' Dry Deer Vehicle travelin,~ westbound struck deer runnin,9 across Route 25 Property 45 10/27/01 06:15 PM 1 Damaqe Night Clear Dry Deer Vehicle travelin~ eastbound struck deer runnin~ across Route 25. Property 46 11/01t01 06:09 PM 1 Oamacle Night Clear D~ Deer ~ehicle travelin~ eastbound struck deer running across Route 25 Property 3:03/04 FACILITY TYPE FREE ACCESS CONTROL LE II AVERAGE ACCIDENT RATES FOR STATE HIGHWAYS BY FACILITY TYPE (BASED ON ACCIDENT DATA JUNE 1, 2000 TO MAY 31, 2002) --MAINLINE ALL TYPES ACC/M~/4 ACCIDENTS ONLY (SEE *)-- WET ROAD FIXED OBJECT ACC/MVM ACC/MVM -MAINLINE & JUNCTURE ACCIDENTS ALL TYPES WET ROAD FIXED OBJECT ACC/MVM ACC/MVM ACC/MVM RURAL FUNCTIONAL CLASS UNDIVIDED 3 LANES 2.10 .20 .36 2.77 .25 .39 OF 5 (SEE**) - DIVIDED 4 LANES 1.53 .13 .21 2.15 .20 .23 ALL LANES 1.70 .15 .20 2.47 .24 .22 URBAN FUNCTIONAL CLASS UNDIVIDED 2 LANES 2.19 .25 .22 3.66 .46 .27 3 LANES 3.01 .35 .15 4.98 .64 .19 4 LANES 2.94 .36 .15 5.66 .73 .19 ALL LANES 2.41 .28 .21 4.21 .53 .27 DIVIDED 4 LANES 2.60 .30 .13 5.05 .63 .16 6 LANES 2.51 .29 .13 4.94 .61 .19 7 LANES 1.15 .14 .06 3.59 '.50 .11 ALL LANES 2.59 .30 .12 5.01 .62 .17 ++ Non-Reportable accidents are included in the "Ail Types" category but, excluded from "Wet Road & Fixed Object" categories. * "Non-Intersection Accidents/MVM" is used for linear highway sections where there are no intersecting roads or ramp junctions within analysis limits. An example of the correct use of these rates would involve a linear section of highway which contains no intersections with other public highways, but may contain intersections with private roads or driveways. ** "Intersection & Non-Intersection Accidents/MVM" includes intersection and mainline accidents. They are used for analysis of linear highway sections where intersections are involved within the analysis limits and are the most comu~only used rates for accident analysis purposes. REVISED:03/04 TABLE II PAGE 2 OF 5 FACILITY TXPE PARTIAL CONTROL OF ACCESS AVERAGE ACCIDENT RATES FOR STATE HIGHWAYS BY FACILITY TYPE (BASED ON ACCIDENT DATA JUNE 1, 2000 TO MAY 31, 2002) --MAINLINE ALL TYPES ACC/MVM ACCIDENTS ONLY (SEE *)-- WET ROAD FIXED OBJECT ACC/MVM ACC/MVM -MAINLINE & JUNCTURE ACCIDENTS (SEE**)- ALL TYPES WET ROAD FIXED OBJECT ACC/MVM ACC/MVM ACC/MVM RUP~L FUNCTIONAL CLASS UNDIVIDED 2 LANES 1.58 .17 .25 2.19 .24 .30 ALL LANES 1.58 .17 .26 2.27 .25 .31 DIVIDED 4 LANES 1.57 .17 .49 1.84 .20 .53 ALL LANES 1.56 .17 .48 1.84 .20 .52 ~ FUNCTION~tL CLASS UNDIVIDED 2 LANES 1.67 .23 .29 2.50 .37 .35 ALL LANES 1.88 .25 .24 3.01 .43 .29 DIVIDED 4 LANES 1.31 .17 .25 2.06 .26 .31 6 LANES 1.15 .16 .21 1.72 .23 .26 ALL LANES 1.32 .17 .25 2.04 .27 .30 ++ Non-Reportable accidents are included in the "Ail Types" category but, excluded from "Wet Road & Fixed Object" categories. * "Non-Intersection Accidents/MVM" is used for linear highway sections where there are no intersecting roads or ramp junctions within analysis limits. An example of the correct use of these rates would involve a linear section of highway which contains no intersections with other public highways, but may contain intersections with private roads or driveways. ** "Intersection & Non-Intersection Accidents/MVM" includes intersection and mainline accidents. They are used for analysis of linear highway sections where intersections are involved within the analysis limits and are the most commonly used rates for accident analysis purposes. REVISED:03/04 FACILITY TYPE CONTROLLED ACCESS RURAL FUNCTIONAL CLASS UNDIVIDED ALL LANES TABLE II AVERAGE ACCIDENT RATES FOR STATE HIGHWAYS BY FACILITY TYPE (BASED ON ACCIDENT DATA JUNE 1, 2000 TO MAY 31, 2002) PAGE 3 OF 5 --MAINLINE ACCIDENTS ONLY (SEE *)-- -MAINLINE & JUNCTURE ACCIDENTS (SEE**)- ALL TYPES WET ROAD FIXED OBJECT ALL TYPES WET ROAD FIXED OBJECT ACC/MVM ACC/MVM ACC/MVM ACC/MVM ACC/MVM ACC/MVM 1.97 .15 .22 2.76 .20 26 DIVIDED 4 LANES .99 .07 .25 1.06 .08 .26 5 LANES .97 .09 .28 1.02 .10 .29 6 LANES .78 .09 .20 .87 .10 .23 ALL LANES .98 .08 .25 1.05 .08 .26 URBAN FUNCTIONAL CLASS UNDIVIDED ALL LANES 1.19 .12 .15 1.88 .21 .19 DIVIDED 4 LANES 1.09 .12 .21 1.47 .16 .24 5 LANES 1.44 .15 .18 1.80 .20 .21 6 LANES 1.78 .17 .16 2.26 .22 .20 7 LANES 1.16 .12 .19 1.50 .18 .26 ALL LANES 1.53 .15 .17 1.94 .20 .20 ++ Non-Reportable accidents are included in the "Ail Types" category but, excluded from "Wet Road & Fixed Object" categories. * "Non-Intersection Accidents/MVM" is used for linear highway sections where there are no intersecting roads or ramp junctions within analysis limits. An example of the correct use of these rates would involve a linear section of highway which contains no intersections with other public highways, but may contain intersections with private roads or driveways. ** "Intersection & Non-Intersection Accidents/MVM" includes intersection and mainline accidents. They are used for analysis of linear highway sections where intersections are involved within the analysis limits and are the most commonly used rates for accident analysis purposes. REVISED:03/04 TABLE II PAGE 4 OF 5 AVERAGE INTERSECTION ACCIDENT RATES FOR STATE HIGHWAYS BY INTERSECTION TYPE (BASED ON ACCIDENT DATA JUNE 1, 2000 TO MAY 31, 2002) INTERSECTION TXPE ALL WET LEFT REAR OVER- RIGHT RIGHT RUBAL FUNCTIONAL CLASS TYPES ROAD TURN END TAKING ANGLE TURN ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV LEGGED INTERSECTIONS SIGNAL ALL LANES .36 .05 .04 SIGN ALL LANES .16 .02 .01 NO CONTROL ALL LANES .10 .01 .01 HEAD SIDE- ON SWIPE ACC/MEV ACC/MEV .07 .01 .05 .00 .00 .00 .03 .01 .02 .00 .00 .00 .02 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 4 LEGGED INTERSECTIONS SIGNAL ALL LANES .59 .08 .08 .10 .02 .13 .01 SIGN ALL LANES .35 .04 .03 .04 .01 .10 .00 NO CONTROL ALL LANES .21 .02 .02 .02 .01 .02 .00 ON RAMP MERGE W/ 1 LANE .33 MERGE W/ 2&> LANES .07 .04 01 .00 .01 .00 .00 .01 .00 OFF RAMp MERGE W/ 1 LANE .52 MERGE W/ 2&> LANES .13 06 01 ++ Non-Reportable accidents are included in the "Ail Types" category but, excluded from all other categories. REVIS~ AVERAGE INTERSECTION ACCIDENT RATES FOR STATE HIGHWAYS BY INTERSECTION TYPE (BASED ON ACCIDENT DATA JUNE 1, 2000 TO MAY 31, 2002) PAGE INTERSECTION TYPE ALL WET LEFT REAR OVER- RIGHT RIGHT HEAD SIDE- UI%BAN F~CTIONAL CLASS TYPES ROAD TURN END TAKING ANGLE TURN ON SWIPE ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV ACC/MEV .05 .04 .08 .01 .04 03 .03 .07 .02 .03 03 .02 .06 .02 .03 02 .01 .04 .01 .02 .02 .01 .03 .01 .02 .01 .01 .02 .00 .01 .01 .00 .02 .00 .00 O1 .00 .00 O0 .00 .00 01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 3 LEGGED INTERSECTIONS SIGNAL 1-4 LANES .35 SIGNAL W/LEFT TURN 5 & > I~NES .29 SIGNAL W/0 LEFT TURN 5 & > LANES .23 SIGN 1-3 LANES .16 SIGN 4 LANES .13 SIGN 5 & > LANES .09 NO CONTROL ALL LANES .07 .08 .09 .13 .03 .08 .01 .06 .04 .12 .03 .07 .01 .04 .03 .07 .02 .06 .00 .04 .03 .05 .01 .07 .00 .03 .03 .04 .01 .04 .00 .03 .02 .07 .01 .03 .00 4 LEGGED &> INTERSECTIONS SIGNAL 1-4 LANES .60 SIGNAL W/LEFT TURN 5 & > LANES .46 SIGNAL W/0 LEFT TURN 5 & > LANES .34 SIGN 1-3 LANES .27 SIGN 4 & > LANES .22 NO CONTROL ALL LANES .25 .01 .01 .01 ON RAMP MERGE W/ 1 LANE .24 MERGE W/ 2 LANES .11 MERGE W/ 3&> LANES .07 .00 .00 O0 . O0 O0 . O0 O0 . O0 O0 .00 O0 . O0 OFF RAMP MERGE W/ 1 LANE .16 .03 MERGE W/ 2 LANES .19 .02 MERGE W/ 3&> LANES .15 .01 ++ Non-Reportable accidents are included in the "Ail Types" category but, excluded from all other categories. 164 (7/75) STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC AND SAFETY DIVISION SAFETY BENEFITS EVALUATION FORM Page No. __ TRAFFIC & SAFETY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER f~l40Io~Iz. ZI~,I EVALUATION OF ALTERNATE NO: A.~-~- A.~.~-£~aA'r~VC. ,~ I 1 From I To I No. of Yrs. Intersection With I Route NO. or Street Name J State Highway No. (I f Applicable) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT: State Highway No. From or At Reference Marker '"1'"1'" METHOD I (From Reduction Factor Table) Average Reduction Factor METHOD II ( Engineering Analysis} a. Total Accidents: b. Accidents Reduced; c. Calculated RF {b METHOD III (For General Upgradings) 7 [Na~l'~£' J~''~£~1'$] a. Exls~ingAccldentRate: b. Future Accident Rate: c. Difference (a - bi: d. Calculated RF (c ~ a): BRIEFLY EXPLAIN HOW EXPECTED REDUCT(ON WAS DERIVED: SIGNIFICANCE CHECK OF SEVERITY DISTRIBUTION a. %by severity b. actual c. expected d. difference e. significance FATAL INJURY F & I PDO TOTAL O '/Z 2.~ Z9 ~00~ O .3 Z Z. '1 Z I I BEFORE COST PER ACCIDENT CALCULATION TYPE NO. ACC. COST/ACC ACC. COST Fatal 0 x ~1 ~l, OeO TM $ 0 Injury .~ x l~o~ ;oD = ~OOI ~oo F&I ~ x /~Si~OD ' ~90(~o0 TOTAL $ ~o I ~ ~o~ BEFORE COST/ACC (Tot. Acc. Cost -~Tot. Acc.) A. ESTIMATED ANNUAL ACCIDENT COST WITH NO IMPROVEMENT: ACC/YR hZ X VCF I,{~ X BEFORECOST/ACCIDENT lDOt 2'Z~' =$ /~)~/~/~{ ESTIMATED ANNUAL ACCIDENT COST WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT: ACC/YR O.7 X VCF I~.~'~ X (1.00-.~_~LRF) X AVG. COST/ACC. ESTIMATED ANNUAL SAFETY aENEFiTS {A -- B) TE 164 (7/75) STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC AND SAFETY D~VISION SAFETY BENEFITS EVALUATION FORM Page No. TRAFFIC & SAFETY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER p/l~ ~4VIZ Z ,~ EVALUATION OF ALTERNATE NO: A~- A~-~'~'~IA~*vC.~ I From r To I NO. of Yrs. STUDY PERIOD O~/Ol /g~.~ o$ ~'SI /'~,,oZ $17.~ I State Highway No. I From or At Reference Marker Route No. or Street Name At Intersection With I Route No, or Street Name (I f Applicable) PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT: I I I I I Present AADT: '~/g~O Future AADT: II/7~J~ Volume Correction Factor (VCF): I,C~ ~ METHOD I {From Reduction Factor Table) Average Reduction Factor ~1 % METHOD II ( Engineering Analysis) a. Total Accidents: b. Accidents Reduced: c, Calculated RF (b ~ a): METHOD III (For General Upgradings) a, Existing Accident Rate: b. Future Accident Rate: c, Difference (a - b): d. Calculated RF {c ~ a): % BRIEFLY EXPLAIN HOW EXPECTED REDUCTION WAS DERIVED: SIGNIFICANCE CHECK OF SEVERITY DISTRIBUTION a. % by severity b. actual C. exl:)ectecl d. difference e. significance FATAL INJURY F & I PDO TOTAl BEFORE COST PER ACCIDENT CALCULATION TYPE NO. ACC. COST/ACC ACC, COST A. ESTIMATED ANNUAL ACCIDENT COST WITH NO IMPROVEMENT: ACC/YR O,.~ X VCF .. I~& X BEFORE COST/ACCIDENT B. ESTIMATED ANNUAL ACCrOENT COST WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT: ACC/YR ~.Z. X VCF. /'~ X (1.00-,~o RF) X AVG. COST/ACC. ~.~eo =$ ~. ~ ESTIMATEDANNUALSAFETYBENEFiTS{A-B) = I$ 17/Z5~ I TE 164 (7/75) STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC AND SAFETY DIVISION SAFETY BENEFITS EVALUATION FORM Route No. or Street Name At Intersection With I Route No. or Street Nam} (If Applicable) Page No. STUDY PERIOD From J To J No, of Yrs. O'~/o~ /~'~g= 05/3~ /~ooZ 5 175 State Highway No. State Highway No. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT: From or At Reference Marker To Reference Marker Present AADT: 7l ~ o Future AADT: I1~ ~ Volume Correction Factor (VCF): I.~ ~ METHOD I (From Reduction Factor Table) Average Reduction Factor 20 % METHOD Il [ Engineering Analysis) e. Total Accidents: b. Accidents Reduced: c. Calculated RF (b METHOD III (For General Upgredlngs) a. Existing Accident Rate: b. Future Accident Rate: c. Difference (a. b): d. Calculated RF (c; a}: BRIEFLY EXPLAIN HOW EXPECTED REDUCTION WAS DERIVED: SIGNIFICANCE CHECK OF SEVERITY D(STRIBUTION b. actual c. expected d. difference e. s~gniflcance FATAL INJURY F & I PDO TOTAL IO~ 100% BEFORE COST PER ACCIDENT CALCULATION TYPE NO. ACC. COST/ACC ACC. COST BEFORE COST/ACC (Tot. Acc. Cost-~Tot. Acc.) A. ESTIMATED ANNUAL ACCIDENT COST WITH NO IMPROVEMENT: ACC/YR ~'7 X VCF_ I~ X BEFORECOST/ACCIDENT ESTIMATED ANNUAL ACCI DENT COST WITH PROPOS ED IMPROVEMENT: ACC/YR -~'~ X VCF J,M,~ X (1.00-,17 RF) X AVG. COST/ACC. ESTIMATED ANNUAL SAFETY BENEFITS ,A- B, Appendix C Visual Impact Assessment Report Appendix C - Visual Impact Assessment Report Table of Contents Pa,qe C.1. Introduction ............................................................................................ C-2 C.2. Existing Visual Environment ..................................................................... C-2 C.3. Sensitive User Groups ............................................................................. C-3 C.4. Impacts of the Proposed Alternatives ........................................................ C-4 1. Alternative III - Bddge Replacement West of Existing Bddge ............................. C-4 a. Probable Visual Effects b. Impacts to User Groups 2. Alternative Ilia - Bridge Replacement West of Existing Bridge (Stage Const.) ........ C-8 a, Probable Visual Effects b. Impacts to User Groups 3. Altemative IV- Bddge Replacement in same location as Existing Bddge .............. C-12 a, Probable Visual Effects b. Impacts to User Groups 4. Altemative V - Bddge Replacement East of Existing Bridge (Stage Const.) ........... (3-15 a. Probable Visual Effects b. impacts to User Groups C.S Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. C-18 1. Alternative III - Bddge Replacement West of Existing Bddge ............................. C-19 2. Alternative IliA- Bddge Replacement West of Existing Bridge (Stage Const.) ........ C-21 3. Alternative IV - Bddge Replacement in same location as Existing Bddge .............. C-22 4. Alternative V - Bridge Replacement East of Existing Bddge (Stage Const.) ............ C-23 (2-1 C.1 Introduction Route 25 is a curvilinear roadway which runs predominantly east - west but in the vicinity of the bddge it runs north - south. The bridge lies between the hamlet of Southold and the Village of Greenport in the vicinity of Pipes Neck, Town of Southold, Suffolk County. An existing bddge carries Route 25 over the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Route 25 passes adjacent to environmentally sensitive lands, an asphalt plant, lumber yard, undeveloped lands, utility facilities, and small commercial businesses. These uses are surrounded by residential and agricultural lands. Route 25 has been designated a scenic byway by New York State, North Fork Trail Scenic Hedtage Corridor and Bicycle Route 25. The objective of this project is to improve the condition rating of the bddge, correct safety deficiencies, and provide accommodations for bicyclists. Current standards require changes in the vertical and horizontal alignment of the roadway. Several altematives have been explored, including "do nothing", bddge rehabilitation, bddge replacement, and elimination of the bridge by creating an at-grade crossing. Some of these altematives have been discarded from further study because they do not meet the project objectives. The feasible alternatives for the project are identified below. · Alternative III - Bddge replacement west of the existing bddge · Alternative IliA- Bddge replacement west of the existing bridge (stage construction) · Alternative IV - Bridge replacement in same location as existing bridge (new alignment) · Alternative V - Bddge replacement east of the existing bridge (stage construction) This Visual Resource Assessment was prepared in accordance with NYSDOT Engineering Instruction 02-025 and addresses the significant visual issues associated with the feasible alternatives. C.2 Existing Visual Environment The existing visual environment differs considerably eastbound and westbound of the existing bddge. Visual character surrounding the bridge vades greatly within a short distance 0.9 km (3,000 feet) on either side of the bddge. The bridge is at a highpoint where the road is straight and is visible from a distance. The vertical change in an otherwise relatively fiat landscape accentuates changes in land uses on either side of the bddge. The Bridge is a gateway between these land-uses. The unique characteristics of the area in a short distance result in a great deal of visual interest in a short amount of time for the traveler. The area can be broken down into two distinct visual districts; (1) the Rural Natural Visual Distdct and (2) the Commeroial/Industdal Visual District. Rural Natural Visual District. Immediately westbound of the bddge there is little visible evidence of development. The road and bridge approach pass through woodland and wetlands with some views of a large lake on the "north" side of the road. Lands on either side of the read are environmentally sensitive and have a similar character. Commercial/Industrial Visual District Immediately eastbound of the bridge is Corazzini Bros. asphalt plant and Penny lumber yard on the "south" side of the road. A Cablevison utility building and industrial equipment yards on the "north" side of the road are partially screened by vegetation. There are no state or National Register of Historic Places structures, buildings, objects and districts adjoining or visible from the site. C.3 Sensitive User Groups Lumber Yard Employees and Patrons Penny Lumber is located approximately 180 m (590 ft) eastbound of the bridge on the dght side of the road. Parking is provided in front of the business for employee and customer parking~. Access is provided by an undefined curb cut for truck deliveries and patrons. Employees look out onto Route 25 and the Cablevision utility building located on the opposite side of the road. The visibility and image of the "front yard" of this business and its parking area are important to attracting patrons. Asphalt Plant Employees and Patrons Corazzini Bros. asphalt plant is located approximately 100 m (328 ft) eastbound of the bddge adjacent to Penny Lumber. This is an industrial operation with stockpiles of matedal piled next to the approach. Access is provided by a wide curb cut near the end of the approach. The bddge approach and vegetation on it provide a buffer along most of Route 25. A small segment of Route 25 is visible between the lumber yard and bridge approach. Asphalt is a commodity that is available from a limited number of locations. Therefore, visibility of the business is not likely to be important to attracting patrons. Surroundinq Residents Residents within a one mile radius are a mix of second home owners and year round residents. Many of the homes in the area are seasonal vacation homes. These people visit the area to enjoy the scenic beauty of the North Fork and place a high value on visual quality. Three Civic groups, August Acres Civic Association, The Committee to Preserve Pipes Creek and Peconic Bay Property Owners Association represent the surrounding area. These Groups have been involved in the Task Force and provide community input on project development. Motorists Traffic volumes vary by season, increasing dudng the summer and on weekends (See Section I1.C.1 .h for specific Traffic Volumes). This reflects toudsts visiting the area and the importance of visual character to the area. Dudng the warmer months many motorists are tourists visiting the area to view the scenic aspect of the area and visit local attractions. Tourism is a significant component of the North Fork economy. A bus route serves the North Fork, ridership volume is relatively Iow. The bridge is visible from the rail road crossing at Kerwin Boulevard, a local Town road providing access to a residential area. This is the only location where the bridge will be easily seen in elevation. 1 The parking area in front of the building is part of t~e 0riginal highway pavement which was subsequently shifted to the "north" as part of the 1959 highway reconstruction project. This is State owned property. The highway boundary extends up to the front of the building and the parking area is encroaching onto the Slate right-of-way. C-3 Pedestrians/Bicyclists There are no sidewalks along Route 25 in the vicinity of the bridge with the exception of a pedestrian walkway as part of the existing bddge. Pedestrian and bicyclist volumes are a small pementage of travelers at this location. (See Section II,C. 1 ,v for specific volumes). Route 25 has been designated as "Bike Route 25" over its entire length by New York State. Improvements are currently being planned to address the needs of bicyclists in the project area. Due to the slower speed of the bicyclists and pedestrians, the view sheds are visible for a longer time to these viewers. View shed details are much more visible to these viewers and scenic views from the bddge can be savored that may not be noticed by passing traffic. Lon,q Island Rail Road Users One railroad track passes under the Route 25 bridge. The tracks are classified as mainline and this is the historical main line of the Long Island Railroad. Greenport station, the end of the line, is 2 miles east of the bddge. Passenger and freight service is available, although there may not be any businesses regularly served by freight trains east of the bddge. Greenport is served by three trains a day weekdays and two on weekends. Trains typically consist of a locomotive and two or three cars. Occasionally special excursions are offered. Ridership on the Greenport branch is approximately 250 passengers a day. It is unclear if this reflects any seasonal variations. The current bridge has extensive graffiti on the abutments that is bdefly visible to passing trains. C.4 Impacts of the Proposed Feasible Alternatives The Bridge will have essentially the same structural design for all feasible alternatives. The preferred structure type is a steel multi-girder superstructure constructed of weathering steel with a rusted brown finish. Weathering steel will not require painting and is a dark earth-tone color that will blend with locomotive exhaust stains. An alternate structure type utilizing pre-stressed concrete beams is also being considered. The light color of the pre-stressed concrete beams would contrast with stains from locomotive exhaust, Both structure types will have a similar appearance to travelers approaching on Route 25 with a concrete deck, metal bridge rail and decorative concrete pylons. The structural differences will be most visible from Kerwin Boulevard as this is the best opportunityto view the bddge in elevation. However, this change would not have a significant visual impact to any of the viewers of the bddge. C.4.1 Alternative III - Bridge Replacement West Of Existing Bridge As addressed in Chapter 3 of the Design Report, this alternative (See Figure 1) will construct a new bridge alongside the existing bddge on the west side. The approach roadway will be raaligned to meet the new bridge location. In order to minimize impacts to the existing wetlands on the "north" side of the road a retaining wall will be constructed westbound of the bridge near the bottom of the new bddge approach embankment. The existing bddge approach embankment will be removed to create/enhance wetlands on the "south" side of the road. C.4.1.a Probable Visual Effects Construction of a 220 m (720 ft) long retaining wall westbound of the bddge on the "north" side of the read is necessary to reduce wetland impacts. Without the retaining wall, grading limits would extend up to another 8 meters beyond the wall and require the filling of additional wetlands. C-4 The retaining wall will have a maximum exposed height of 3 m (10 ft). A fence or railing will be required at the top of the wall. A 1:2 slope would be at the top of the wall. At its furthest, the proposed retaining wall would be 7 m (23 ft) west of the existing toe of slope. Some disturbance will be required beyond the retaining wall and toe of slope to permit construction activities. ¢OMME~INOU$ TRL~L ROUTE 25 OVER LIRR GREENPORT SUFFOLK COUNTY P.I_N. # 0042.28.121 Fi.qure I C-$ C.4.1 .b Eastbound of the bridge, rural character would be altered on the "north" side of the road with a wider view shed visible to drivers near the bottom of the approach. Re-grading for the new roadway alignment will eliminate most of the vegetation screening the Cablevision utility building. The extent of screening at the commercial site on the "north" side of the road near Albertson Lane may be reduced. The existing approach slope adjacent to the asphalt plant could be retained substantially the same or re-graded. Re-grading of the side slope would result in the removal of screening at that location, exposing this industrial use and associated storage. Virtually all the vegetation located on the side slopes adjacent to the existing bridge would be removed, either to construct the new bridge approaches or, once the existing bridge is removed, re-grade to create new wetlands on the "south" side of the road. Removal of the existing vegetation on the side slopes near the existing bridge will open up views on both sides of the bridge that are currently blocked. Much of this vegetation is successional vegetation that has become established and matured in the last 25 years. Photos of the bridge around 1975 depict a much more open landscape with views visible into the distance. Because the bridge is taller than much of the surrounding vegetation and the landform is flat, it is possible to see for Lip to 1.5 km (1 mile) to the west. Views vary greatly by season. In winter, a greater viewshed is revealed Some of these views have a high visual quality because they include complex natural visual elements such as farmland, water bodies, forest and fields. Others are lower quality containing industrial facilities such as the asphalt plant, aggregate storage piles and contractors equipment storage yards. Figure 2 depicts the bridge elevation view as seen from the rail road crossing at Kerwin Boulevard. The existing photo on top is dated August 2004 and the proposed view of the steel multi-girder bridge option is on the bottom. Differences between the various alternatives from this viewpoint are minimal and were not individually depicted. Impacts to User Groups Lumber Yard Employees And Patrons Lumber yard employees and patrons will be exposed to the greatest changes. Parking in front of the building will be altered by virtue of regrading the existing roadway and the addition of two (2) curb cuts for access to the property. Route 25 will appear much wider at this location since it will be shifted to the "north" and flat pavement and parking extends up to the building. The Cablevision utility building and the commercial activities on the "north" side of the road will become more conspicuous. Asphalt Plant Employees And Patrons Corazzini Bros. asphalt plant is well screened, although briefly visible to passing motorists. Two alternatives could occur. The existing bridge approach could remain substantially intact after the pavement was removed and the former roadway area that is not utilized for the new approach could be landscaped. The other alternative is that the portion of the existing bridge approach that was not utilized for the new approach would be removed. Removal of this portion of the existing approach would eliminate the mature plant material that screens the asphalt plant. The site would lose much of its privacy and become much more visible to the public. This could result in concerns regarding the aesthetics of the site being raised. The access drive adjacent to Penny Lumber will require a re-graded transition to meet the new alignment. C-d Surroundinq Residents Rural character will be altered and appear more commercial eastbound of the bridge due to the increased exposure of the commercial activities. These changes may not be acceptable and screening and landscaping will be required. Views to the south and west will be more visible, which may be positive due to the high scenic value of the natural environment. Residents traveling on Kerwin Boulevard will notice the new bridge when they slow at the railroad crossing. This is discussed further under Motorists below. Motorists The roadway eastbound of the bridge will appear less rural and more commercial due to the increased clear width and visibility of the businesses. Many of the motorists driving through this area place a high value on visual quality. The commercial qualities will sharply contrast with the natural and rural qualities found along other segments of this route. The increased visibility of the natural areas to the south and west is considered positive due to the high scenic value of the natural environment. Adding trees may help to visually narrow the road. calming traffic and maintaining the rural character of the area particularly on the eastbound side of the bridge. This will soften the oontrast between the wooded, natural areas and wider, paved areas. Viewing the new bridge from Kerwin Boulevard, it will appear larger and more defining. The existing bridge blends into the landscape and appears more as a simple horizontal element than a massive bridge or a gateway The design should acknowledge the role the bridge will play in defining this corridor and its visible location. Pedestrians/Bicyclists Vistas that are re-opened as a result of clearing to the south and west will become a significant feature for slower moving pedestrians and bicyclists. They may be temped to linger to enjoy these views, which will become much more panoramic. They will note the positive and negative elements that may not attract the attention of passing motorists. Clearing adjacent to the asphalt plant will make it visible at slow speeds, severely contrasting with the surroundings. Graffiti on the retaining wall on the "north" side of the roadway may be visible to this group of users that others may not notice. Lonq Island Railroad Users Long Island Railroad passengers may only briefly be aware of the changes to the bridge. The existing abutments are covered with graffiti. Due to the relatively slow speed of the train at this location, combined with the oblique viewing angle and the increased width on either side of the tracks, passengers will note the appearance of the bridge abutments more closely. Graffiti may be more noticeable. C.4.2 Alternative IliA - Bridge Replacement West Of Existing Bridge (Stage Construction) Alternative IliA (see figure 3) is similar to Alternative III in that a new bridge will be constructed to the west of the existing bridge. However, stage construction techniques will be utilized to keep the proposed roadway centedine as close to the existing centedine as practical. This will result in less ROW and wetland impacts on the "north" side of the road. However, a retaining wall is still required westbound of the bridge on the "north" side of the road to further reduce wetland impacts. C-8 ALTERNATIVE IIL4 ALIGbRVlENT MAP #2 ~ RUI~N4TURAL ROUTE 25 OVER LIRR GREENPORT SUFFOLK COUNTY P.I.N. # 0042.2g.121 C.4.2.a Fi.qure 3 Probable Visual Effects Realignment of the roadway west of the existing structure would involve re-grading and fill in close proximity to and/or in wetlands. Construction of a retaining wall will reduce the impacts to wetlands but introduce a 200 m (650 ft) long engineered structure on the "north" side ofthe road -westbound ofthe bridge. Without the retaining wall, grading limits would extend up to another 6 m (20 fi:) and require the filling of some wetlands. C-9 C.4.2.b The retaining wall would have an exposed height varying from meeting grade in the vicinity opposite Sage Boulevard, to a maximum height of 3 m (10 ft). This wall would be composed of a series of tangent sections ending near the Railroad tracks. The wall will curve slightly to the west near the railroad tracks creating a greater distance from the edge of pavement while maintaining a maximum height of 3 m (10 ft). A fence or railing will be required at the top of the wall. A 1:2 slope would be at the top of the wall. At its furthest, the proposed retaining wall would be 6 m (20 ft) west of the existing toe of slope. Disturbance would be required beyond the retaining wall and toe of slope to permit construction activities. Rural character will be altered eastbound of the bridge with a slightly wider viewshed visible to drivers due to the clearing necessary for the proposed roadway alignment. Re- grading for the new roadway alignment will eliminate some of the vegetation screening the Cablevision utility building but it will remain substantially screened by existing vegetation. The existing roadway embankment slope adjacent to the asphalt plant could be kept substantially the same or re-graded. Re-grading of the side slope would result in the removal of screening at that location, exposing this industrial use and associated storage. Virtually all the vegetation located on the side slopes of the existing bridge would be removed, either to construct the new bridge approaches or once the existing bridge is removed if the existing approaches on the east side are regraded. Removal of the existing vegetation on the side slopes of the bridge will open up views on both sides of the bridge that are currently blocked Much of this vegetation is successional vegetation that has become established and matured in the last 25 years. Because the bridge is taller than much of the surrounding vegetation and the landform is flat, it is possible to see for up to 1.5 km (1 mile) to the west. Views vary greatly by season. In winter, a greater viewshed is revealed. Some of these views have a high visual quality because they include complex natural visual elements such as farmland, water bodies, forest and fields. Other views are lower quality containing industrial facilities such as asphalt plants, aggregate storage piles and contractors equipment storage yards. Impacts to User Groups Lumber Yard Employees and Patrons Lumber yard employees and patrons will be exposed to the greatest changes. Although the proposed alignment is shifted to the "north" (away from the existing building), Re- grading the proposed roadway on the State right-of-way in front of the building will alter the parking. Due to the grade change of the roadway, only one (1) curb cut is proposed for entry into the property. Asphalt Plant Employees and Patrons Corazzini Bros. asphalt plant is well screened, although briefly visible to passing motorists. Two alternatives could occur. The existing bridge approach could remain substantially intact after the pavement was removed and the former roadway area that is not utilized for the new approach could be landscaped. The other alternative is that the portion of the existing bridge approach embankment not utilized for the new approach roadway is removed and re-graded. Removal of this portion of the existing approach would eliminate the mature plant material that screens the asphalt plant. The site would lose much of its privacy and become much more visible to the public. This could result in concerns regarding the aesthetics of the site being raised. In either alternative the access drive would require a re-graded transition to meet the new C- 10 alignment which will extend further into the property. Surroundinq Residents Rural character will be altered and appear more commercial eastbound of the bridge due to the increased clear width and increased exposure of the commercial activities. This may not be considered a positive change. Views to the south and west will be more visible, which may be positive due to the high scenic value of the natural environment. It is likely these negative changes may not be acceptable and screening and landscaping will be required. Residents traveling on Kerwin Boulevard will notice the new bridge when they slow at the railroad crossing. This is discussed further under Motorists below. Motorists Rural character will be altered and appear more commercial eastbound of the bridge due to the increased clear width and increased exposure of the commercial activities. Many of the motorists such as tourists driving through this area place a high value on visual quality. The commercial qualities will sharply contrast with the natural and rural qualities found along other segments of this route. The increased visibility of the natural areas to the south and west is considered positive due to the high scenic value of the natural environment. Adding trees may help to visually narrow the road, calming traffic and maintaining the rural character of the area, particularly eastbound of the bridge. This will soften the contrast between the wooded, natural areas and wider, clear areas. Viewing the new bridge from Kerwin Boulevard, it will appear larger and more defining. The existing bridge blends into the landscape and appears more as a simple horizontal element than a massive bridge or a gateway. The design should acknowledge the role the bridge will play in defining this corridor and its visible location. Pedestrians/Bicyclists The extensive open area on the eastbound side of the road may be intimidating to pedestrians who must traverse this area in proximity to fast moving vehicles and vehicles entering and exiting the asphalt plant and lumber yard. Bicyclists may find this less intimidating because they can move through the area faster. Vistas that are re-opened as a result of clearing to the south and west will become a significant feature for slower moving pedestrians and bicyclists. They may be temped to linger to enjoy these views, which will become much more panoramic. They will note the positive and negative elements that may not attract the attention of passing motorists. Any clearing adjacent to the asphalt plant will make it more visible to pedestrians and cyclists. This will severely contrast with the rural character many visit the area to enjoy. Graffiti on the retaining wall on the "north" side of the roadway may be visible to this group of users that others may not notice. The changes in grade around the lumber yard will contrast with the less engineered features found in the area. Long Island Railroad Users Long Island Railroad passengers may only briefly be aware of the changes to the bridge. The existing abutments are covered with graffiti. Due to the relatively slow speed of the train and the increased width on either side of the tracks, passengers will note the appearance of the bridge abutments more closely at an oblique angle and C-Il graffiti may be more noticeable. C.4.3 Alternative IV - Bridge Replacement In Same Location As Existing Bridge Alternative IV proposes to demolish the existing bridge to allow the new bridge to be constructed in the same location as the existing bridge without utilizing stage construction (see Figure 4). Prior to demolition of the existing bridge, a temporary bridge will be provided alongside to accommodate traffic during construction. The roadway will be realigned to improve safety and reduce impacts to the surrounding area. It is described in greater detail in Chapter 3 of the Design Report. C.4.3.a Probable Visual Effects Realignment of the roadway west of the existing structure would involve regrading and fill in close proximity to and/or in wetlands. Construction of a retaining wall will minimize the impacts to wetlands with a 220 m (722 ft) long engineered structure on the "north" side of the road. westbound of the bridge, that would skid the edge of the wetlands. Without the retaining wall, grading limits would extend up to another 6 m (19 ft) and require the filling of some wetlands. The retaining wail wotJid have an exposed height varying from meeting grade in the vicinity opposite Sage Blvd., to a maximum height of 3 m (10 ft). This wall would be composed of a series of tangent sections ending near the Railroad tracks. The wall will curve slightly to the west near the railroad tracks creating a greater distance from the edge of pavement. A fence or railing will likely be provided at the top of the wall Between the top of wall and shoulder the slope will not exceed 1:2. At its furthest, the proposed retaining wall would be 2 m (6 ft) west of the existing toe of slope. Disturbance would be required beyond the retaining wall and toe of slope to permit construction activities. Rural character will be altered eastbound of the bridge with a slightly wider viewshed visible to drivers due to the new roadway alignment. Re-grading necessary for the proposed alignment will eliminate most of the vegetation screening the Cablevision utility building and the commercial activities on the "north" side of the road. The existing approach slope adjacent to the asphalt plant could be kept substantially the same or be re- graded. Re-grading of the side slope would result in the removal of screening at that location, exposing this industrial use and associated storage. A defined curb cut will be installed for entrance into Penny Lumber and will descend down into the lumber yard. Virtually all the vegetation located on the side slopes of the existing bridge will be removed, either to construct the new bridge approaches or once the existing bridge is removed if the existing approaches on the east side are re-graded. Removal of the existing vegetation on the side slopes of the bridge will open up views on both sides of the bridge that are currently blocked. Much of this vegetation is successional vegetation that has become established and matured in the last 25 years. Because the bridge is taller than much of the surrounding vegetation and the landform is flat, it is possible to see for up to 1.5 km (1 mile) to the west. Views vary greatly by season. In winter, a greater viewshed is revealed. Some of these views have a high visual quality because they include complex natural visual elements such as farmland, water bodies, forest and fields. Others are lower quality; containing industrial facilities such as the asphalt plant, aggregate storage piles and industrial storage yards. C-12 ALTERNATIVE IV ALIGNMENT MAP #3 V~$UAL ~ VISUAL DIS)t~ICT ROUTE 25 OVER LmR GREENPORT SUFYOLK COUNTY P~I.N. # 0042.28.121 Fiflure 4 C-13 C.4.3.b Impacts to User Groups Lumber Yard Employees and Patrons Lumber yard employees and patrons will be exposed to the greatest changes, Parking will be altered due to the grade change of the proposed roadway and the need to utilize State right-of-way in front of the building for re-grading. Only one (1) curb cut into the property is proposed. Access will descend from a defined curb cut at the roadway to the lumber yard. Corazzini Bros. asphalt plant is well screened, although briefly visible to passing motorists. Two alternatives could occur. The existing bridge approach embankment could remain substantially intact after the pavement was removed. Any former roadway area that is not utilized for the new approach could be landscaped. The other alternative is that the entire approach embankment is re-graded. Removal of this portion of the existing approach embankment will eliminate the mature plant material that screens the asphalt plant. The site would lose much of its privacy and become much more visible to the public. This could raise concerns regarding the aesthetics of the site. In either alternative the access drive will extend much further into the property and would require a re-graded transition to meet the new alignment. Surroundinq Residents Rural character will be altered and appear more commercial eastbound of the bridge due to the increased clear width and exposure of the commercial activities. This may not be considered a positive change. Views to the south and west will be more visible, which may be positive due to the high scenic value of the natural environment. It is likely these negative changes may not be acceptable and screening and landscaping will be required, Residents traveling on Kerwin Boulevard will notice the new bridge when they slow at the railroad crossing. This is discussed further under Motorists below. Motorists Rural character will be altered and appear more commercial eastbound of the bridge due to the increased clear width and subsequent exposure of the commercial activities. Many of the motorists driving through this area place a high value on visual quality. The commercial qualities will sharply contrast with the natural and rural qualities found along other segments of this route. The increased visibility of the natural areas to the south and west is considered positive due to the high scenic value of the natural environment. Adding trees may help to visually narrow the road, calming traffic and maintaining the rural character of the area, particularly on the eastbound side of the bridge. This will soften the contrast between the wooded, natural areas and wider clear areas. Viewing the new bridge from Kerwin Boulevard, it will appear larger and more defining. The existing bridge blends into the landscape and appears more as a simple horizontal element than a massive bridge or a gateway. The design should acknowledge the role the bridge will play in defining this corridor and its visible location. Pedestrians/Bicyclists The roadway westbound of the bridge will differ little for pedestrians and bicyclist from existing conditions. Vistas that are re-opened as a result of clearing to the south and west will become a significant feature for slower moving pedestrians and bicyclists. C-14 They may be temped to linger to enjoy these views, which will become much more panoramic. They will note the positive and negative elements that may not attract the attention of passing motorists. Graffiti on the retaining wall on the "nor[h" side of the road may be visible to this group of users that others may not notice. The roadway eastbound of the bridge may be intimidating to pedestrians due to the engineered environment without a strong comfort zone for pedestrians in proximity to traffic and vehicles entering the businesses. They will likely pay more attention to negotiating this area than looking at the surrounding environment. Because the materials and design on either side of the bridge will differ from rural to commercial, careful detailing will needed to unify the design and maintain the rural character. Bicyclists may find this less intimidating because they can move through the area faster. Lon,q Island Railroad Users Long Island Railroad passengers may only briefly be aware of the changes to the bridge. The existing abutments are covered with graffiti. Due to the relatively slow speed of the train and the increased width on either side of the tracks, passengers will note the appearance of the bridge abutments more closely at an oblique angle and graffiti may be more noticeable. C.4.4 Alternative V - Bridge Replacement East Of Existing Bridge (Stage Construction) As addressed in Chapter 3 of the Design Report, this alternative (See Figure 5) will construct the new bridge to the east of the existing bridge. This will shift the roadway closer to the asphalt plant and Penny Lumber. Therefore, stage construction is required to keep the proposed centerline as close as possible to the existing centerline in order to minimize impacts to these properties as well as minimize wetland impacts on the "south" side of the road. C.4.4.a Probable Visual Effects Realignment of the roadway east of the existing structure would involve re-grading and fill in close proximity to and/or in wetlands. Construction of a 202 m (663 ft) long retaining wall is necessary to reduce wetland impacts on the "south" side of the road. The retaining wall would have a maximum exposed height of 3 m (10 fi). A fence or railing will be required at the top of the wall. A 1:2 slope would be at the top of the wall. Disturbance would be required beyond the retaining wall and toe of slope to permit construction activities. Mature trees and vegetation that screen the rear of the asphalt plant from eastbound drivers would likely require removal. Rural character would be altered slightly on the "north" side of the road. Much of the vegetation on the side slope of the existing approach could remain. Re-grading for the proposed roadway alignment will eliminate some of the vegetation screening the Cablevision utility building. The extent of screening at the commercial site on the "north" side of the road near Albertson Lane may also be reduced. On the South side of the road, the existing approach slope adjacent to the asphalt plant will be completely cleared and re-graded. The industrial nature of this site is currently screened by large vegetation. The roadway would be closer to the asphalt plant and a retaining wall will be required to prevent additional encroachment on this site. Less space C-15 will be available to screen or buffer this site and the mature size of plant material that could be planted at this location would likely be smaller. Removal of screening will expose this industrial use and associated storage. A railing will likely be required along the top the retaining wall at the asphalt plant. This may not be perceived as desirable by the community. ALTERNATIVE V ~ >' ~ ALIGNMENT ~ '~, MAP ¢4 COMMERCIAUINDUS'TRIAL VL~IAI_ DI~TRtCT VISUAL t~TFIICT Fi.qure 5 ROUTE 25 OVER LIRR GREENPORT SUFFOLK COUNTY P.I.N. # 0042.28.121 C-16 C.4.4.b Potentially scenic views on the west side of the bridge are currently blocked. Much of this vegetation is successional vegetation that has become established and matured in the last 25 years. The existing embankment could remain in place after re-grading occurs but it is likely that it will be removed to mitigate floodplain impacts and loss of wetlands as described in Chapter IV. Because the bddge is taller than much of the surrounding vegetation and the landform is flat, it is possible to see for up to 1.5 kilometers (1 mile) to the west. Some of these views have a high visual quality because they include complex natural visual elements such as farmland, water bodies, forest and fields. These views should be maintained once the vegetation is removed. Impacts to User Groups Lumber Yard Employees and Patrons Lumber yard employees and patrons will experience considerable changes. The proposed roadway will be elevated to provide increased stopping sight distance and the State right-of-way in front of the building will be utilized pdmadly for re-grading the proposed roadway embankment. The area between the building and highway may have turf established and landscaping installed. Due to the grade change only one (1) curb cut is provided for access into the property. The elevation change of the proposed roadway will disrupt or block much of the view from the lumberyard offices. The upper portion of the Cablevision utility building and commercial activities on the opposite side of the road will be more visible. Asphalt Plant Employees and Patrons Corazzini Bros. asphalt plant currently is well screened although it is briefly visible to passing motorists. The proposed roadway re-alignment would require removal of the mature plant material that screens the asphalt plant and construction of a retaining wall. Limited space will be available for screening. The site would become much more visible to the public. Concerns could be raised regarding the aesthetics of the industrial facilities and outdoor storage. The access ddve would require a re-graded transition to meet the new alignment and a retaining wall along the side of the lumber yard building. Surroundinq Residents Rural character will be altered and appear more commercial eastbound of the bridge due to the increased clear width, retaining walls, and increased exposure of the commercial activities. These changes may not be acceptable and screening and landscaping will be required where possible. Views to the south and west will be more visible, which may be positive due to the high scenic value of the natural environment. Residents traveling on Kerwin Boulevard will notice the new bridge when they slow at the railroad crossing. This is discussed further under Motorists below. Motorists The roadway eastbound of the bddge will appear less rural and more commercial due to the increased clear width and visibility of the businesses. Many of the motorists driving through this area place a high value on visual quality. The commercial qualities will sharply contrast with the natural and rural qualities found along other segments of this route. The increased visibility of the natural areas to the south and west is considered positive due to the high scenic value of the natural environment. Adding trees may help to visually narrow the road, calming traffic and maintaining the rural character of the area, particularly eastbound of the bddge. This will soften the contrast C-17 between the wooded, natural areas and wider, clear areas. Viewing the new bridge from Kerwin Boulevard, it will appear larger and more defining. The existing bddge blends into the landscape and appeam more as a simple horizontal element than a massive bddge or a gateway. The design should acknowledge the role the bridge will play in defining this corridor and its visible location. Pedestrians/Bicyclists Vistas that are re-opened as a result of cleadng to the south and west will become a significant feature for slower moving pedestrians and bicyclists. They may be temped to linger to enjoy these views, which will become much more panoramic. They will note the positive and negative elements that may not attract the attention of passing motorists. The asphalt plant will be visible, severely contrasting with the surroundings. Graffiti on the retaining wall on the "south" side of the road may be visible to this group of usem that othem may not notice. Long Island Railroad Usem Long Island Railroad passengem may only bdefly be aware of the changes to the bddge. The existing abutments are covered with graffiti. Due to the relatively slow speed of the train at this location, combined with the oblique viewing angle and the increased width on either side of the tracks, passengem will note the appearance of the bddge abutments more closely. Graffiti may be more noticeable. C.5 Mitigation Measures Each of the feasible alternatives has positive and negative impacts on the visual resources surrounding the bddge. These impacts tend to be geographic, with more potential positive impacts westbound of the bridge in the Rural/Natural Visual District and more potential negative impacts eastbound of the bridge in the areas adjoining the Commercial/Industrial Visual District. Most of these impacts are unavoidable. Some alternatives change the character of the visual environment to greater and lesser degrees. The Visual impact of the bddge itself will be minimal. Design of the proposed bddge and approaches retains the character of the original bridge while improving on those elements that are memorable. The new bddge will create a sense of place as well as define the boundaries between land uses, creating a gateway. New approaches will create the greatest changes to the surrounding land uses. The most noticeable change will be the new relationship of the approach to the surrounding land uses. Skillful use of design and materials can minimize the extent of the unavoidable changes. The bddge alternatives, although differing structurally, utilizing either steel or pre-stressed concrete beams, will look similar to motorists traveling on Route 25. Some minor differences might be noticeable from Kerwin Boulevard since the bridge is visible from the side and the beams will be more visible. To ensure that graffiti is not problematic, the vertical piem, retaining walls and other fiat vertical surfaces should be broken up with relief and/or texture to discourage graffiti artists. Plantings such as vines will also reduce the opportunity to apply graffiti. A combination of techniques may be most effective and reduce visual monotony ensuring the visual appeal of the structure. Removal of any graffiti can be facilitated with an anti-graffiti coating. The addition of shade trees in appropriate locations would visually narrow the roadway to mitigate the additional clearing required for the new roadway alignment. However, these trees would have to be located outside the clear zone or be protected with guiderail. This can be particularly effective near Penny Lumber where a wide clear area will be created. C-18 C.5.1 Alternative III Mitigation Construction of a 202 m (662 fi) long retaining wall up to 3 m (10 ft) in height along the "north" side of the road will introduce a massive contrasting element to this natural landscape to reduce wetland impacts. Although the wall is essentially parallel to the roadway, it will be visible to eastbound motorists/pedestrians due to the horizontal curvature of the roadway. This retaining wall may also attract graffiti. This wall could be designed in a variety of ways to blend in with the landscape and to discourage graffiti and appear more natural. A concrete wall could be constructed of poured, colored concrete in earth tone colors. The face of the wall could be textured to resemble stone, timber, or a rough, irregular surface. A colored, textured wall will not add significantly to the cost of the wall. Since a rough texture does not offer a large smooth surface, it would discourage graffiti. Plantings of trailing or climbing vines and shrubs at the top and bottom of the wall would cover large portions of the wall over several years making it appear more natural and cover surfaces that could be vandalized with graffiti. Other materials and methods could also be considered that would encourage plantings that would make the wall blend in. Engineered soils allow for construction of slopes that are neady vertical. These engineered soils can function as a retaining wall. They also offer opportunities for planting over the entire face of the wall, which would discourage graffiti and reduce the time required to cover the wall with vegetation. Planting a mix of trees and shrubs adjacent to the wall will serve to blend the wall in with the surrounding landscape and break up views along the side of the wall. Protection of the wall will be required. A fence or barrier will be needed along the top of any wall greater than 450 mm (1.5 fi) in height. This can be made less intrusive by planting shrubs along it or on both sides in an irregular fashion. Scenic views to the west are available and plantings should not block these. Rather plant matedal should frame these views and provide opportunities for a scenic vista. Lower growing plant matedal and trees with a canopy height that will not interfere with views from the road should be installed. The "south" side of the roadway will not require as extensive disturbance. Fill will not be required to cover the entire side slope. Maintaining the existing plant matedal and supplementing it with additional matedal where the proposed slope intersects would be the least intrusive and cost effective. It is important to ensure that the slopes met in a seamless manner that discouraged any activities on the side slopes or the location of the former road bed. Limited cut and fill could provide a gentle sloping transition with minimal impact to the existing slope and vegetation. Completely removing the unused portion of the approach embankment on the "south" side of the roadway will result in the loss of a large quantity of successional vegetation. Although these plants may not have a high value as individuals, as a mass they offer screening of the rear of the asphalt plant and stabilize the slope. Vegetation that is removed from this area should be replaced with a mix of native evergreens, deciduous trees and groundcovers that will quickly blend in with the surrounding landscape. C-19 Mitigation eastbound of the bridge will require the greatest detail. The commercial activities sharply contrast with the Rural Natural Visual District. Unifying these features will require skill and care. Most of the screening for the Cablevison utility building and the commercial site westbound of Albedson Lane will be removed. The Right-of-way will appear much wider. To bdng the scale of the area back in harmony with the surrounding community, vegetation should be re-established that screens these commercial uses and provides a sense of scale for the highway. The addition of a mix of evergreen trees, deciduous shrubs and larger scale shade trees along the roadway will eventually knit this landscape together with the surrounding landscape. Native and naturalized plants found in the area would do this most successfully. Mitigating the changes on the "south" side of the read near the asphalt plant will present the greatest challenges. The asphalt plant is a complex commercial site with stock piles of material and austere, massive equipment, Maintaining screening of this site is very important to the visual quality of the area. The "south" side of the roadway eastbound of the bddge will require very little disturbance and much of the roadbed could remain. To prevent the abandoned roadbed from becoming a location for unauthorized activities access should be discouraged. Limited fill could reduce the slope from the new roadway to the crown of the existing slope and limit access. Since fill will not be required to cover the entire side slope, maintaining the existing plant material and adding plant material on the new side slope where the old roadway had been may be the most effective screening. Removing the unused portion of the approach embankment on the "south" side of the road will result in the loss of a large quantity of trees, shrubs and interconnected vines up to 8 meters in height. Although these plants were likely not planted, they serve as an important buffer for the asphalt plant and stabilize the slope. Vegetation that is removed from this area should be replaced with a mix of fast growing evergreens, deciduous trees and groundcovers that will blend in with the surrounding landscape on the "north" side of Route 25. Grade changes adjacent to Penny Lumber may require fill up to 0.75 m (2.5 ft) deep at the edge of the proposed roadway. This fill can be graded to meet existing grades with relatively gentle slopes. Slopes could be landscaped and turf established. Penny Lumber may have concerns related to the aesthetics of the ROW adjacent to their business. Employee's views of Route 25 and the surrounding landscape will remain much like they are today. Travelers will view the business from slightly above. To attract patrons the lumber yard is unlikely to desire screening. The addition of shade trees and/or landscaping that allow views under or around the tree canopy of the lumberyard and signage may be most appropriate to break-up the large open area created by shifting the roadway alignment to the "north". C.5.2 Alternative Ilia Mitigation Many features of Altemative III and IliA are similar except the alignment and will shift slightly to the east - closer to the asphalt plant and Penny lumber. A 227 m (745 ft) long retaining wall up to 3 m (10 ft) in height westbound of the bridge on the "north" C ~ 20 side of the road is required to avoid wetland impacts. Recommendations for this wall would be same as for Alternative III to ensure the wall blends in with the adjacent natural areas and that graffiti will not become an issue. This wall will not be as visible to eastbound traffic due to its alignment as the Alternative III wall would be. The end near the bddge abutment will not sweep out, making it slightly less visible. Mitigation to break up its mass will not need to be as extensive. The "south" side of the roadway westbound of the bridge will require cleadng and re- vegetation as the side slopes will generally be further "south" of the existing toe of slope. This will result in the loss of a large quantity of successional vegetation. Although individually these plants may not have a high value, as a mass they offer screening of the rear of the asphalt plant and stabilize the slope. Vegetation that is removed from this area should be replaced with a mix of native evergreens, deciduous trees, shrubs and gmundcovers that will blend in with the surrounding landscape. Plant succession should be encouraged to occur and be assisted. Mitigation eastbound of the bddge will require the greatest detail. The commercial activities along the roadway eastbound of the bridge sharply contrast with those westbound of the bddge. Unifying these features will require skill and care. The asphalt plant is a complex commemial site with stock piles of matedal and austere, massive equipment. Maintaining screening of this site is very important to the visual quality of the area. A portion of the screening for the Cablevison utility building will be removed. The need for mitigation at this location will not be as cdtical as for Altemative III. To bring the scale of the area back in harmony with the surrounding community, vegetation should be re-established that screens these commercial uses and provides a sense of scale for the highway. The addition of a mix of evergreen trees, and larger scale shade trees along the roadway will eventually knit this landscape together with the surrounding landscape. The "south" side approach embankment eastbound of the bddge will require very little disturbance and portions of the original roadbed could remain. The abandoned roadbed could become a location for unauthorized activities unless access is restricted. Limited fill could reduce the slope from the new roadway to the crown of the existing slope and discourage access. Since fill will not be required to cover the entire side slope, maintaining the existing plant material and adding plant matedal on the new side slope where the old roadway had been may be the most effective screening. Removing the unused portion of the 'south" side approach embankment eastbound of the bddge will result in the loss of a large quantity of trees, shrubs and interconnected vines up to 8 meters in height. Although these plants were likely not planted, they serve as an important buffer for the asphalt plant and stabilize the slope. Vegetation that is removed from this area should be replaced with a mix of fast growing evergreens, deciduous trees and groundcovers that will blend in with the surrounding landscape on the "north" side of the road. Grade changes adjacent to Penny Lumber will require fill up to 1.8 m (5.9 ft) deep at the edge of the proposed roadway. Meeting existing grades will make use of much of the ROW between the roadway and building. Access into the lumber yard will be controlled by a defined curb cut. Slopes could be landscaped and turf established. C-21 Penny Lumber may have concems related to the aesthetics of the ROW adjacent to their business. Employee's views out of the building will be restricted by this change in grade and travelers will be noticeably higher than the floor of the business. To attract patrons the lumber yard is unlikely to desire screening. The addition of shade trees and/or landscaping that allow views under or over them may be most appropriate while breaking up the large open area created by the additional cleadng necessary to shift the proposed roadway to the "north". Views of the lumberyard and signage should be maintained. C.5.3 Alternative IV Mitigation Alternative IV would replace the bddge in the same location with some changes to the alignment. A 234 m 768 ft) long retaining wall up to 3 m (10 ft) in height along the southwest approach will be required to minimize wetland impacts. It will also have a wing wall at the abutment. Recommendations for this wall would be same as for Alternative III to ensure the wall blends in with the adjacent natural areas and that graffiti would not become a significant issue. This wall will be visible to eastbound traffic due to its alignment and location because it is set further to the east. The wing wall near the abutment would be cleady visible until any vegetation matured. Extensive plantings of mitigating plant matedal to break up its mass will be required. The "south" side approach embankment westbound of the bddge will require cleadng and re-vegetation as the side slopes will be approximately 5.5 m (18 ft) beyond the existing toe of slope. This will result in the loss of a large quantity of successional vegetation. Although these plants may not have a high value as individuals, as a mass they offer screening of the rear of the asphalt plant and stabilize the slope. This vegetation should be replaced with a mix of native evergreens, deciduous trees, shrubs and groundcovere that will blend in with the surrounding landscape. Plant succession should be encouraged to occur and be assisted. Mitigation on the eastbound side of the bddge will require the greatest detail. Commercial activities sharply contrast with the natural environment westbound of the bridge. Unifying these features will require skill and care. The asphalt plant is a complex commercial site with stock piles of material and austere, massive equipment. Maintaining screening of this site is very important to the visual quality of the area. A portion of the screening for the Cablevison utility building and contractor's yard at the corner of Albertson Lane will be removed. The need for mitigation at this location will not be as cdtical as for Alternative III but greater than IliA. To bdng the scale of the area back in harmony with the surrounding community, vegetation should be re- established that screens these commercial uses and provides a sense of scale for the highway. The addition of a mix of some evergreen trees, shrubs and larger scale shade trees along the roadway will eventually knit this landscape together with the surrounding landscape. The northeast approach will require very little disturbance with the toe of the proposed slope closely meeting the crown of the existing slope. The construction limits at the "south" side embankment should be located to preserve as much of the existing vegetation as possible to screen the asphalt plant. Although the existing vegetation was probably not planted, they serve as an important buffer for the asphalt plant and stabilize the slope. Vegetation that is removed from this area should be replaced with C - 22 a mix of fast growing evergreens, deciduous trees and groundcovers that will blend in with the surrounding landscape. Grade changes adjacent to Penny Lumber will require up to 2.1 m (6.9 fi) of fill opposite the lumber yard at the edge of the proposed roadway. A defined curb cut will provide access into the lumber yard. Meeting the existing grade will require more space but the proposed roadway is shifted further away from the existing building as compared to Alternative IliA. Therefore, the toe of the proposed embankment slope is in approximately the same location as Alternative IliA. Turf could be established on the embankment slope but other landscaping may reduce the maintenance requirements. Aesthetics of the ROW adjacent to Penny Lumber may be important to the business. Employee's views out of the building may be limited by the change in grade and traveler's horizontal sight lines will be of the side slope and the upper portions of the building. To attract patrons the lumber yard is unlikely to desire screening. Maintenance considerations may limit some landscaping options due to the changes in grade. C.5.4 Alternative V Mitigation Alternative V would replace the bddge east of the existing bridge. A 202 m 663 (ft) long retaining wall westbound of the bddge on the "south" side up to 3 m (10 ft) in height along the southeast approach will be required to minimize wetland impacts. This wall will also have a wing wall at the abutment. The wall will be less visible than those on the "north" side but recommendations for this wall would be same as for Alternative III to ensure the wall blends in with the adjacent natural areas and that graffiti will not become a significant issue. The wing wall near the abutment will be most visible until any vegetation matured. Planting mitigating vegetation to break up its mass will be required. The existing approach embankment on the "north" side of the road westbound of the bridge will likely be removed and the area used to mitigate the loss of wetlands on the "south" side. Scenic views to the west should be maintained by planting lower growing vegetation that will not block these views in the future. Framing these views with limited amounts of tall vegetation may also be appropriate. Mitigation eastbound of the bddge will require the greatest detail. Commemial activities eastbound of the bddge sharply contrast with the natural environment westbound of the bridge. Unifying these features will require skill and care. The asphalt plant is a complex commercial site with stock piles of material and austere, massive equipment. Screening this site is ve~ important to the visual quality of the area but limited space will be available. A portion of the screening for the Cablevison utility building and contractor's yard at the comer of Albertson Lane will be removed. To bdng the scale of the area back in harmony with the surrounding community, vegetation should be re-established that screens these commercial uses and provides a sense of scale for the highway. The addition of a mix of some evergreen trees, shrubs and larger scale shade trees along the roadway will eventually knit this landscape together with the surrounding landscape. The embankment slope adjacent to the asphalt plant will require considerable C - 23 screening and effort to minimize impacts. A buffer for the asphalt plant and stabilization of the slope are critical to maintaining the visual quality of the area. Approximately 6 m (19 ft) will be available for screening which will offer limited space for taller vegetation. This material should be evergreen and mature into a form that will not allow viewers to see through the vegetation. Grade changes adjacent to Penny Lumber will require fill up to 2.4 m (7.9 ft) deep opposite the lumber yard at the edge of the proposed roadway. This is the deepest amount of fill for all of the alternatives. Meeting existing grades will utilize the entire ROW adjacent to the building. A single curb cut will access the site from Route 25. Turf could be established but other landscaping may reduce the maintenance requirements. Penny Lumber may have concems related to.the aesthetics of the ROW adjacent to their business. Employee's views out of the building will be limited by this change in grade and traveler's sight lines will be directed towards the second floor of the business. To attract patrons the lumber yard is unlikely to desire screening. C - 24 Appendix D Preliminary Engineering Drawings of Feasible Alternatives CO~q'RACT N~ N P.I.N, 0042,.2.8 I B.].N, ACCIDENT SUMMARY REPORT ACCIDENT DATE TIME # OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER >AVEMENT ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION NO. VEHICLES TYPE VEHICLE #! TRAVELING EASTBOUND ON ROUTE 25 CROSSED INTO OTHER LANE AND I 09/26/96 6:47 PM 2 INJURY DAY CLOUDY DRY SIDESWIPE COLLIDED ~TB MOTORCYCLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND. NOTES: ACCIDENTS FROM SEPT. 1996 THRU MAY 2002 0 20 40 60 m FILENAME ACCIDENT.DGN SCALE AS BUZkT REV]SIONS SIGNATUI~ DATE PIN 0042.28 ROUIE 25 OVER L1RR ACCIDENT DIAGRAM STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTUENT OF TRANSPORTATION t REGION p DATE I DRAWING NO' lO 04/02 ACC-I Jr CONTRACT NO. NYT i/~llI .... 852 -c- Ell *' 854 ACCIDENT SUMMARY REPORT ACCIDENT DATE TiME # OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION NO, VEHICLES TYPE 12 10/09/98 9~09 PM 1 INJURY NIGHT RAIN WET F]X OBJECT VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND ON WET/SLIPPERY ROAD STRUCK UTILITY POLE · 852. VEHICLE ·l TRAVELING WESTBOUND CROSSED INTO EASTBOUND TRAFFIC AND COLLIDED 21 05/18/99 8=26 PM 2 INJURY NIGHT CLEAR DRY SIDESWIPE WiTH VEHICLE ~ 2 TRAVELING EASTBOUND, PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 22 08/29/99 7=55 PM 1 DAMAGE PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 2S 10/30/99 6:40 PM ! DAMAGE PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 24 1]/03/99 6=30 PM 1 DAMAGE PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 25 11/05/99 10:53 PM 1 DAMAGE PROPERTY DAY SNOW SNOW/ICE SIDESWIPE VEHICLE ·1 TRAVELING WESTBOUND LOST CONTROL OF CAR DUE TO ICE AND SLID INTO 40 3/05/01 5=50 PM Z DAMAGE VEHICLE ·2 THAT WAS TRAVELING EASTBOUND. PROPERTY NIGHT CLOUDY DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND STRUCK DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 44 10/27/0I 9:07 PM I DAMAGE NOTES: ACCIDENTS FROM SEPT. 1996 THRU MAY 200Z NYT 858 ~ 0 20 40 GO nl SCALE AS BUILT REV~SIONB FILENAME ) REGION I GATE ) DRAWING NO. ACCIDENT.DGN 10 04/02 ACC-2 SIGNATURE DATE PIN 0042.28 ROUTE 25 OVER L]RR ACCIDENT DIAGRAM STATE OF NEN YORK __ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NYT NYT 86! P,I.N. 0042.,28 [ B.I.N. 865-S LIL 865-S · 864 865 t ..~ -' ~ ACCIDENT SUMMARY REPORT :ACCIDENT DATE TIME # OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION NO. VEHICLES TYPE NON DAY CLEAR DRY REAR END VEHICLE #1, WHILE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS INSTRUCTED TO STOP BY FLAGMAN NEAR 2 09/26/96 2=39 PM 2 REPORTABLE A CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WAS HIT FROM BEHIND BY VEHICLE e2. VEHICLE et TRAVELING WESTBOUND CROSSED INTO EASTBOUND TRAFFIC AND COLLIDED 3 10/06/96 12=45 AM 2 INJURy WIGHT CLEAR DRY SIDESWIPE WITH VEHICLE ·2. VEHICLE ·l RAN OFF THE ROAD AND OVERTURNED. NON NIGHT CLOUDY DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVEL]N6 EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNN]N6 ACROSS ROUTE 25. 4 11/24/96 9=00 PM I REPORTABLE NON NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 7 10/30/97 3=30 AM ! REPORTABLE DRIVER FELL ASLEEP WHILE TRAVELING EASTBOUND AND RAN OFF THE ROAD AND ll 09/06/9B 3:10 PM I INJURY DAY CLEAR DRY FIX OBJECT STRUCK UTILITY POLE # 860. DRIVER DID NOT PAY ATTENTION WHILE TRAVELING EASTBOUND AND STRUCK I5 01/13/99 11=54 AM I INJURY DAY CLEAR DRY FIX OBJECT UTILITY POLE · 859. 16 02/25/99 7=47 PM I INJURY, NIGHT SNOW SNOW'CE FIX OBJECT VEHICLE TRAVEL]NO EASTBOUND ON SLIPERRY ROAD STRUCK UTILITY POLE · 860. PROPERTY NIGHT CLOUDY DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELiNC EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 18 03/14/99 1:02 AM 1 DAMAGE PROPERTY 34 11/10/00 5:12 PM 1 DAMAGE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25, PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESRBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNN]N6 ACROSS ROUTE 25. 36 11/29/00 3=45 AM I DAMAGE ] PROPERTY DAY CLOUDY DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK DY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 39 01/27/01 2:56 PM DAMAGE PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND STRUCK DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 45 10/Z7/0] 6=15 PM ] DAMAGE PROPERTY N]GHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND STRUCK DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25, 46 11/01/01 6:09 PM I DAMAGE NOTES: ACCIDENTS FROM SEPT. 1996 THRU MAY 2002 20 40 GO rn FILENAME REGION DATE DRAWING NO. ACCIRENT.DGN ! 0 04/02 ACC-3 SIGNAI1JRE DATE P]R 0042.2B ROUTE 25 OVER LIRR ACCIDENT DIAGRAId STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BRIDGE Midi5 0704 1638 ACCIDENT SUMMARY REPORT ACCIDENT DATE T/ME ~ OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION NO. VEHICLES TYPE TRUCK "1 TONING A DISABLED GAR s2, EXITING FROM A PARKING LOT AND MAKING A TURN 5 05/03/97 10:22 AM 4 INJURY DAY RAIN WET RIGHT ANGLE ONTO WESTBOUND ROUTE 25, BAS STRUCK BY VEHICLES #3 & "4 TRAVELING EASTBOUND. 29 01/24/00 4:16 PM 2 PROPERTY DAY CLEAR DRY RIGHT ANGLE VEHICLE ~l PULLING OUT OF PENNY LUMBER PARKING LOT WAS STRUCK BY VEHICLE "2 DAMAGE TRAVELLING EASTBOUND ON ROUTE 25. 47 03/]4/02 9:30 PM I PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND STRUCK DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. DAMAGE NOTES: ACCIDENTS FROM SEPT. 1996 THRU MAY 2002 0 20 40 60 mn SCALE SIGNATLI~ DAT~ PIN 0042.28 ROUTE 25 OVER L1RR ACCIDENT DIAGRAU STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FILENAME REGION DATE DRAW]NG NO. ACCIDENT.DGN 10 04/02 ACC-4 C~TRACT NO. ACCIDENT SUMMARY REPORT ACCIDENT DATE TIME # OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION NO. VEHICLES TYPE NON NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 8 11/20/97 11:13 PM ] REPORTABLE 9 01/06/98 9~52 AM I PROPERTY DAY FOG WET DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. DAMAGE PROPERTY VEHICLE ~1 TRAVELING WESTBOUND ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN AND WAS STRUCK 14 12/10/98 $:SZ PM 2 DAMAGE DAY CLEAR DRY LEFT TURN BY VEHICLE t2 FROM BEHIND. VEH]CLE'! TOWING A TRAILER, WAS LEA~NG PARKING AREA AT NORTH FORK WELDING 19 04/06/99 7:30 PM 2 PROPERTY DAY CLEAR DRY SIDESWIPE DAMAGE WHEN IT SIDESWIPED VEHICLE ~2 THAT WAS PARKED IN THE SAME PARKING AREA. VEHICLE el COMING OUT FROM KERWIN BLVD. WAS STRUCK BY VEHICLE #2 TRAVELLING 27 11/23/99 10~.55 AM 2 INJURY DAY RAIN WET RIGHT ANGLE EASTBOUND ONROUTE 25. 30 11/25/00 5:43 PM J PROPERTY NIGHT SLEET/HAIL SNOW/ICE FIX OBJECT VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND ON ROUTE 25 SLID ON SNOW / ICE AND STRUCK DAMAGE UTILITY POLE ~ 494. VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND ATTEMPED TO AVOID A DOG THAT RAS IN THE TRAVEL LANE 35 11/14/00 5:45 PM 1 INJURY NIGHT RAIN WET FIX OBJECT AND SLID ACROSS THE ROAD INTO A UTILITY POLE. 37 12/15/00 4:50 AM I PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVEL]NG WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK DY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. DAMAGE 41 04/06/01 3:01 AM 1 PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. DAMAGE NOTES: ACCIDENTS FROM SEPT. 199D THRU MAY 2002 0 20 40 60 m SCALE ACCIDENT DIAGRAM STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT.D~N 10 04/02 ACC-5 OSPREY GIFTS ACCIDENT SUMMARY REPORT ACCIDENT DATE TIME # OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION NO. VEHICLES TYPE PROPERTY 6 10/01/97 9:10 PM ! OAMAGE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY OEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 28 12/26/99 6:22 PM I PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. DAMAGE 32 3/05/00 2:00 AM I PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUNO WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. DAMAGE PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER POLICE OFFICER TRAVELING EASTBOUND STRUCK DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. PROPERTY NIGHT CLOUDY DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND STRUCK DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 48 03/28/02 1:30 AM I DAMAGE C) 0 20 40 60 m FILENAME ACCIDENT[DGN SCALE BUILT REVISI~ ACCIDENT DIAGRAM STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I REGION I DATE IDRAWING NO' tO 04/OZ ACC-6 IMM25 0704 1646 LIMIT OF ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION P.].N. 0042.28 I BJ.N. ACCIDENT SUMMARY REPORT ACCIDENT DATE TIME # OF SEVERITY LIGHT WEATHER PAVEMENT ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION NO. VEHICLES TYPE lO 8/18/98 2:12 PM 3 PROPERTY VEH. ~] STOPPED AT STOP SIGN ON CH/~°EL LANE WAS STRUCK BY VEH, #Z WHO SWERVED DAMAGE DAY CLEAR DRY HEAD ON TO AVOIDVERICLE e5 BLOCK]NG ROAD. VEHICLE aZ WAS TRAVELLING WESTBOUND ON RT 25. PASSENGER LEANED AGAINST DOOR AND FELL OUT AS VEHICLE WAS PULLING OFF I] 11/08/R8 4:00 AM I INJURY NIGHT ...... DRY ...... THE ROADWAY, VEHICLE "1 SOUTHBOUND ON CHAPEL LANE STOPPED PARTIALLY INTO THE ROADWAY AND 17 ]/10/99 5:0] PM 2 INJURY DAY CLEAR DRY RIGHT ANGLE WAS STRUCK BY VEHICLE #2 TRAVELLING WESTBOUND ON ROUTE 25. 20 4/2S/99 Il:SD AM I PROPERTY DAMAGE DAY CLOUDY DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 26 11/12/99 I:Sl AM 1 PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. DAMAGE 31 2/13/00 12=22 AM 1 PROPERTY DAMAGE NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING WESTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. 33 07/07/00 11:25 AM 2 INJURY DAY CLOUDY DRY REAR END VEHICLE #l TRAVELING EASTBOUND ON ROUTE 25 STRUCK VEHICLE · 2 FROM BEHIND. VEHICLE · 2 WAS EASTBOUND ON ROUTE 25 MAKING A LEFT TURN ONTO CHAPEL LANE. 38 12/15/00 4:40 AM I PROPERTY NIGHT CLEAR DRY DEER VEHICLE TRAVELING EASTBOUND WAS STRUCK BY DEER RUNNING ACROSS ROUTE 25. OAMAGE VEHICLE ~l SOUTHBOUND ON CHAPEL LANE PULLED IN FRONT OF VEHICLE ·2 TRAVELLING 42 7/22/0! 5:25 PM 2 INJURY DAY CLEAR DRY RIGHT ANGLE WESTBOUND ON ROUTE 25. VEHICLE ·I TRAVELING WESTBOUND ON ROUTE 25 STRUCK VEHICLE =2 MAKING A LEFT 49 5/25/02 10:14 PM 2 INJURY NIGHT CLEAR DRY RIGHT ANGLE TURN FROM CHAPEL LANE ONTO EASTBOUND ROUTE 25. NOTES: ACCIDENTS FROM SEPT. 1996 THRU MAY 2002 20 40 BO m SCALE BUILT REV)SIONS FILENAkE I REGION I DATE J DRAWING NO. ACCIDENT,DGN l 0 04/02 ACC-7 SIGNATURE DATE PIN 0042.28 ROUTE 25 OVER LIRE ACCIDENT DIAGRA~ STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTUENT OF TRANSPORTATION z 15~480 PLAN '\ 4 2 STATION PROFILE D 4 2 15+600 SUFFOLX COUNTY BRIDGE II~ROI~MENT P~OJECT ROUTE 25 OW.R 1HE LONG ISLAND RAILROAD TOIN OF SOUIHHOLD 20 :~0 40 50 m SCALE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEO AS BUILT REVISIONS SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE III - PLAN AND PROFILE ~-- STATE OF NEW YORK ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION l 0 DOCUUENT NAUE DATE DRAWING NO. O c~VEI JOSEPH LA COLA REPUTED OWNER KAROL FILIPKOWSKI REPUTED OWNER ~ELA DYER ~ REPUTED OW~x/ \\ PLAN -2' 15+600 15+650 15+700 15+750 15+800 PROFILE 15+850 PROFILE 0042,28 COI~kCT NO. SHEET TOT~ NO. SHEETS CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA CURVE 1 CURVE 2 CURVE ~AO]LIS (nD 350 550 550 P,C. STAT]ON 15+706.68 I 6+314.06 16+601.34 P.T. STATION 15+920,76 I 6+435.63 16+670.73 8 lO 0 lO 20 30 40 50 m SCALE ALL DII/ENSIONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AS BUILT REV/SIONS SIONATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE III - PLAN AND PROFILE STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTUENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION ] 0 DOCUUENT NAME DATE DRAWING PPO2DGN CURVE I JOSEPH LA COLA REPUTED O~/NER / 8REE S ~' ' EXIST. CENTER LINE /' REPUTED~'~N~ER!TY, IHt.- f "-:" / '-~--~ ~.. / BREEZy SHOREs COMMUNITY, INC. J ~ I REPUTED O~/NER 12- 10 PLAN 4 ...... ., ....... ; ....... ', ..... : .... : ', ', : ', ', : : ,, ,, ~;~ ~1~ : : PROP. :PROFILE: ', .: : ~, : :- .~l ': : : :- r : r -~~---~ ..... :~ ....... ~ ...... ', ~ d ~- , ..... ;~.~--.--'~--~ : : : ,s~ · R;O..~/:m : : : : , , , ........ ...... I ....... ', ........... r ............. J ...... :- .................... ' ................... ~' ............. L ; --~L ..... ~" : , , , ~ ', ~: T : --~ .,,~ ....... : ....... .:J_ L_ _~_~_J___L_~ ~o~'zL- ,~o+at , ~..... , , , , : [ , m ' ' ' : EXIST., PR~LE s~, ,~e~f m , , , : : j I ' ' ' I ~ , ' ' ' ' ' ' I , , , ~ ; , , ~ 5+950 16~ 16+050 16+ 1 O0 16+I 50 ~ 6+2~ STATION PROFILE CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA CURVE I CURVE 2 CURVE RADIUS lin) 550 550 550 8 6 4 lO 0 lO 20 30 40 50 m SCALE ALL DTMENS]ONS ARE IN m UtdLESS OTHERII~SE NOTED AS BUILT RE¥]S]ONS SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE III ~ PLAN AND PROFILE STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION I0 DOCUMENT NAMEPPO3.dgn J DATE J ORAW]HG NO. CSC ACQUISITION-NY INC. REPUTED OWNER CSC ACQUISITION-NY, INC. REPUTED OWNER CURVE 2 BREEZY OWl, ER CURAZZINI BROS, T. CENTERLIKI~ · ,,. REPUTED OWNER ? PLAN PROFILE .................................................................' ' ' ' ' ~ ....... ' ....... ? ...... ~ ....... ~ ...... ~ .............. ~ ...... ~ROFILE 16+200 16+250 16+300 16+350 16+400 6 6 16+450 16+500 STATION SUFFOLK COLIfTf BIUD~E IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ROUTE 25 OVER THE LON~ ISLANO RA~.ROAD , TOWN OF SOUTHHOLD CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA CURVE ! CURVE 2 CURVE 5 RADIUS (nO 350 550 150 DELTA 35002'45" LEFT 12°39'53'' RISHI r013'41' RIGHT TANGENT (m) 110.509 61.035 14.739 P.C. STATION 15+706.68 16+]14.06 [6+601.34 P.T. STATION 15+920.76 ]6+435.63 16+570.T3 10 0 lo 20 30 40 50 m SCALE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AS ObiLT REVISIONS SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE III - PLAN AND PROFILE STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION 10 DOCUHENT NAHEPP~ dgn { DATE { DRAWING NO. ~,~ ', ', JOHN 'NICOLETTI / ~ ; o= REPUTED OWNER o ~ [ * OWNER - PLAN STATION PROFILE FED RO~ STAT~ CONTRACT I~L~' SNEET J TOTAL CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA CURVE I CURVE 2 CURVE ~ADIUS (m} $50 550 ~50 50 m I ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERIt~SE NOTED AS BUILT REVISIONS SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE III - PLAN AND PROFILE STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION l 0 DOCUMENT NAMEPPO~.d~ I DATE IDRA'ING NO' Z 0 '" MANOR GROVE CORP. I REPUTED OWNER : ~ E~ CONSTANTIN MINNIE COSTAS REPUTED OWNERS PLAN 4 2 0 16+800 6+850 16+900 ] 6+950 ! ? +000 10 4 2 0 STATION PROFILE CON.NOT NO. I SlE[T ~ TOTN. 20 :~0 40 50 m SCALE ALL DIk~NSIONO ARE ~N m UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AS BUILT R~V~SIONS SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE III - PLAN AND PROFILE -- STATE OF NEW YORK ~ DEPART~NT OF TRANSPORTATION '~ REGION l 0 DOCUMENT NAME DATE DRAII]NO NO. PP06 dgn ALTERNATIVE III · ~OPOSEO ROADWAY "I W/B W/B /B /B SHOULDER TRAVEL LANE TRAvE~L LANE SH(~J~OER 2,4m I- ].Gm _ ~,,Gm · 2.4m J B FT I- ~Z.~ - - ~ ET I B ET,] ::::::::::::::::::::: ............... ~.. ---:---,d- ,~ ;--: ............. +~;. --;-~ ---,'----,'----.'-~t +--~--t: -6 -'~ ! ~+440.00 5NOW STORAGE AREA · 2.4m = 8FT TRAVERSABLE CURB SCALE 200:1 BOX ~ 3~---~,, ..............,,,,' ........:---~---~---~--H--- .... .__..---.---.--.---.-.-.---.---.---,.--.--- -18 -15 -12 -9 PROPOSED ROADWAY liB TRAVEL LANE 2.4m I 3..6m 16+120.00 TRAVE[/LB LAI~ ~ 3.6 m I 2.4 m 12 FT J 8 FT PLAN t5 I / 15+450 STATION 8 o 15+600 PROFILE 10 0 lO ~0 30 40 50 m SCALE ALL DIMENSION5 ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERWZSE NOTED AS BUILT REVISIO~q5 SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE IIIA - PLAN AND PROFILE ~ STATE OF NEW YORK ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION '-- REGION lO DOCUUENT NAUE DATE DRAWING NO. C~R~E I JOSEPH LA cOLA REPUTEO oWNER OWNER ' -~.£~ gOAD[~...,.,.J CONTRACT ~ I SHEET J TOT~- pAMELA REPUTED PLAN KAROL FILIPKOWSKI REPUTEO oWNER , I ', : . ~ ~ ..... L ...... J ....... L ............. J .............................. L ........................................... : : : : ,, : : : : , : {__;fi. ,a~fi~, .~_..j 0 ..... ;, ...... ,f- ...... ,'~ ...... ;, .... ; ............ , J, ....... ,; ............. , r ...... [ ............... - .......... ,~ ] F : ] ] ,1- , Z, ,F ,' ,' , 15+600 CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATAI ClJRVE ! CURVE 2 CURVE P.C. STATioN P.T. STATION 4 2 0 -2 15+650 15+700 15+750 15+800 15+850 15+900 STATION PROFILE ~07.023 100.054 106.659 50.1431 15+706.67 6+535.06 15+913.70 16+435.12 6+57728 16+673.46 lO 0 lO 20 30 40 50 m SCALE SIGNATONE DATE ALTERNATIVE IIIA - PLAN AND PROFILE STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION lO DOCUMENT NAME DATE DRAWING NO. PPOSdgn R~TAIle~G WALL- JOSEPH LA COLA REPUTED OWNER BRE~:;y SHORES BREEZY SHORES COUi4URIT~ 'IN-~ ', REPUTED OINER ', ' ? - --:--2 PLAN 8 6 4 2 0 15+950 16+000 16+050 16+100 16+150 16+200 STATION PROFILE CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA CURVE I CURVE 2 CURVE 3 RADIUS On) 350 600 600 DELTA 33053'24" LEFT 9°33'15" RIGHT 9011'04'' RIGHT LENGTH (m) 207.023 100.054 9&181 TANGENT lin) 106.639 50.1431 48.193 P,C. STATION 15+706,67 16+355.06 16+577.28 P.T. STATION 15+913,70 16+435.12 1G+OT3.4G lO 0 lO 20 30 40 50 m SCALE ALL DIMENSI08S ARE ]Nm UNLESS OTHER!IISE NOTED AS BUILT REVISIONS SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE IIIA- PLAN AND PROFILE STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION 10 ]6, 12, 4 2 16+200 BREEZY OMNER 16+250 PROP. CENTERLINE DSC ACQUISITION-NY, INC. REPUTED OWNER CURVE' 2 CORAZZINI BROS. REPUTED ONNER L. PENN)' ~. OWNER PLAN EXIST. fPROFILE ', 16+300 16+350 STATION 16+400 PROFILE 16+450 cmn~ct No. s~t &~'~ffs'j CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA} CURVE ! CURVE 2 CURVE 3 RADIUS (m) 350 600 600 DELTA 33'53~24'' LEFT 9"35'15" RIGHT 9011'04" RIGHT LENG]H On) 207.023 100,054 96.181 TANGENT ¢m) 06.639 50.]43] 48.193 P.D. STATION 5+706.67 ] 6+335.06 {6+57T.28 P.T. STATION 15+91 ).70 16+435.12 16+673.46 ]0 0 10 20 30 40 50 m SCALE SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE IliA - PLAN AND PROFILE STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION 10 DOOJMENT NAk~ DRAWING NO. m MANOR GROVE CORP. REPUTED OWNER GGART OWNER JOHN NICOLETTI REPeUTED OWNER PLAN 8 6 4 2 o 16+500 .................................... ? ...... i ..................... ] ............................................................................................................................................................ 16+550 16+6~ 16+650 16+l~ 16+750 PROFILE SUFFOLK COUNTY IUD(~ i'ROVEMENT PR~ECT ROUTE 25 OVER THE LONG ISLAN~ RAILROAD TI OF SOUTHItoLD 0 0 0 CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA CURVE ! CURVE 2 CURVE 3 !P.C. STATION P.T. STATION 15+913.70 i6+435.12 15+675.46 ' l0 ~SCALEO 5.ONO~E£S VERTICAL 0 16+800 I0 0 10 20 50 40 50 m SCALE ALL D)MENSIONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERW].5E NOTED AS BUILT REVISIONS SIONA]~RE DATE ALTERNATIVE IliA - PLAN AND PROFILE ~-- STATE OF NEW YORK ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION lO OOCUENT NAUEPPli.dgn I DATE I DRAWING NO' z PLAN 8 4 2 0 16+850 $ 6+900 16+950 STATION PROFILE FED RO~IsTAiTI 10 0 lO 20 30 40 50 m SCALE ALL DIMENSION~ ARE IN m ONLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AS BUILT REVISIONS 5IGNATtg~E DATE ALTERNATTVE ITIA - PLAN AND PROFILE -- STATE OF NEW YORK -- DEPARTUENT OF TRANSPORTATION -- REGION 10 DOCUMENT NAME DATE DRAW~qG NO. PP12.dgn AL TERNATIVE Ilia CABLEVISION DRIVEWAY 107. 2% PROPOSED ROADWAY W/B E/B E/B TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE 2.4 m 3.6 m 3.6 m 8 FT 12 FT 12 FT 5Z 2.85% PENNY LUMBER -4 -33 -30 -27 -24 -21 -18 -15 -12 -9 -G -3 0 3 16+440.00 9 12 TRAVERSABLE CURB 15 18 21 24 27 30 BOX BEAM GUIDE PROPOSED ROADWAY W/B W/B E/B E/B SHOULDER TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE SHOULDER 2.4 m 3.6 m 3.6 m 2.4 m 8 FT 12 FT 12 FT 4% 2~ 2Z 8 FT 5 -18 -15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 1G+120.00 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 SCALE 200:1 JOSEPH LA cOLA REPUTED oNNER c,~.it t / PAOLA REPUTED PLAN 2. 0 -2 15+600 15+650 15+700 15+750 STATION 15+800 15+850 PROFILE CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA CURVE ] CL~VE 2 CURVE 15+900 RADIUS On) 370 555 DELTA LENGTH 214.768 1175.388 68.431 TANGENT (m) 110.504 P.C. STATION 15+703.24 16+440.6 P.T, STATION 15+918,0! 16+615.98 6 4 PROFILE SCALED 5.000 T]IdES VERTICAL SCALED I.O00 TINES HON]ZONTAL ]0 0 10 20 30 40 50 m SCALE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERI~SE NOTED AS BIm. T REViSIOn5 SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE IV - PLAN AND PROFILE STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION ]0 OOCUUENT NAMEPP~3.00N I GATE tGRAWIN° NG' e e ,' JOSEPH LA COLA / REPUTED OWNER BREEZY SHORES COI4MUNITY,: REPUTED O~/NER k. / PLAN ................... PROP. PROFILE : ! ! ! ~ i ! i [ : ! i : : : : : : I ~: : : ~'_,~'~"=,~": ,;/: ~ ........., ~--~-~- ,_ _ ........ : ~7, ............................................................................................................................ ,,, , ,,, ~ ,,,,,,,,,, ~zt ~ *~ZL,- ,. , , , 0 ............. ~-~- ......... ~:_~_m~ ...... 4 ..... ' --- ~ ' STATION PROFILE H 4 16+200 SUFFOLK COUNTY BRIDGE iMPROVEMENT PROJECT ROUTE 25 OVER TIlE LONG ISLAND RA~ROAD TOIN OF SOUTHHOLD lO 0 lO 20 30 40 50 m L-_-J ~ I I ~ I SCALE ALL OIM[NSIONS ARE DIm UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEO SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE IV - PLAN AND PROFILE ~ sTATE OF NEW YORK ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -- REGION 10 DOCUMENTppi4DGNNAME I DATE I DRAWING NO. CSC ACQUISITION-NY, INC. REPUTED OWNER .'ORVE 2 t - BREEZY SHORES INC. t CORAZZINI BROS. -,, REPUTED OWNER PLAN CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA CURVE I CURVE 2 CURVE 3 RADIUS (mi 370 555 DELTA 33015'27" LEFT 18006'22" RIGHT LENGTH (mi 214.768 175.388 TANGENT (rtl) 110.504 88.431 15+703.24 6+440.6 P.C. STATION P.T. STATION 15+918,01 16+615.98 16+200 PROP. PRO~Jt.E 16+250 16+300 16+350 STATION PROFILE 16+400 16+450 12 10 6 10 0 tO 20 SO 40 50 m SCALE ALL DIMEUS]ONS ARE IN m IN. ESS OTHERWISE NOTEO AS BUILT REVZS]ONS SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE IV - PLAN AND PROFILE -- STATE OF NEW YORK -- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAllON -- REGION l 0 DOCUIdENT NAUEPP,5 DGN p OATE I DRAWING NO' MANOR GROVE CORP. REPUTED OWNER OWNER L[NDA TAGGART REPUTED OWNER dOHN NICOLETTI REPUTED OWNER PLAN ......... ., -. ~:~,.~J.~ ~ , , ~,V~Z L. ~'~ ~ ~ ' ~- --*; ~, ......... ~---~.~,--: ..... : ...... ~ ....... r ...... : ...... ~ ....... ~ ...... : ...... : ..... : ..... ~ ....... .~ ...... :----~uo,=.~ ...... ~ ....... .~ ...... r ..... _ ~ ....... .- ................................................................. STATION PROFTLE ROUTE 25 OVER THE LOI~ ISLANO RAilROAD CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA CURVE I CURVE 2 CURVE RN)IUS (nm) 370 555 DELTA 33°15'2T" LEFT 18006'22" RIGHT G 4 0 16+800 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 m SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE IV - PLAN AND PROFILE STATE OF NEW YORK DEPART~NT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION l 0 DOCUI~HT NAMEPP16.DGH { DATE I DRAw[NG NO' MANOR GROVE CORP. REPUTED OWNER MINNIE COSTAS OWNERS StFFOLK C~NT? BRID~ ~ PROJECT )Rolm[ 25 09~R THE LONG LSLANO RAILROAD TOMJ ~ S(XITHHOLD PLAN 8 16+800 ,:~ ........... ,, [ ~ : ', .... _, ......... ,_ ...... /~'Z L -. ;~78 ,m ...... 16+850 16+900 16+950 l?+O00 11+050 STATION PROFILE PI~FIL~ lO 20 90 40 50 m SCALE SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE IV - PLAN AND PROFILE ~ STATE OF NEW YO~K -- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -- REGION 10 DCCUMENT NAMEPPI7.DON I DATE [DRAWING N°' AL TERNATIVE IV CABLEVISION DRIVEWAY 1o7. PROPOSED ROADWAY W/B E/B TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE 3.G m 3.6 m 12 FT ]2 FT 3.6Z -40 -39 -36 -33 -30 -27 -24 -2! -18 -15 -12 -9 BOX BEAM SUIOE 0 6+440.00 PROPOSED ROADWAY W/B E/B TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE 3,6 m 3,$ mn 12 FT 1;' FT 27. 27. SNOW TRAVERSABLE CURB PENNY LUMBEr - 4 '3 12 15 18 21 24 2~ 1 24 SCALE 200:1 -24 -21 -18 -15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 :3 6 9 12 15 18 21 16+120.00 Appendix Approximate Construction Timeline for Alternatives PLAN ....... ~ ........................................... X .............. J ....... L ...... ~ .............. L ........................................... ~ ...... J .......................................... ...... ~' .............. ~ ...... 4 ....... ~ ............. 4 ....... ~ ...... ~' ....... ~ ............. ~ .................................... F ........................ 0 15+500 15+550 15+400 ] 5+500 ] 5+550 15+450 STATION 4 PROFILE 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 m ALTERNATIVE V - PLAN AND PROFILE ~ STATE OF NEW YORK ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -- REGION l 0 DOCUMENT N~PPI8.DGN t DAT£ IORAw]N(~ NO' -I- JOSEPH LA cOLA REPUTEO O~tIER cURVE GAy O{INER PLAN -2 15+600 i ~- ,~ ~ ,~ : ~ ~ : .................. ~ ....... :- ......,~ ...... ~ ..................... ,~ ................................................................ I .............. , . ......... , , ............. _ .....,_ f .-f,-~ .....,..~__---:~=_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _;_ _ _~_ __ _. _ ,_ ...... STATION 5+800 15+850 ] 5+9D0 PROFILE CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA CURVE I CURVE 2 CURVE 57O DELTA 2B"03'13" LEFT 7'24'16" LEFT 20"19'51" RIGHT LENGTH ~m) IRS.6I 2 ?3.663 202.259 TAN$~NT (~ 93.685 36,883 102.204 P.C. STATION ]5+?{ 5.60 16+0Z{.]6 ]6+456,58 P.T. STATION 15+B99.2I ] 6+~4.82 { 6+658~4 lO 0 10 20 50 40 50 m SCALE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN m LIWLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AS BUILT REVISIONS 51ONATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE V - PLAN AND PROFILE STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION ! 0 Z JOSEPH 4 JOSEPH LA COLA REPUTED OWNER BREEZY SHORES COMMUNITY, INC. REPUTED ~WNER CURVE BREEZY SHORES COk641JNITY INC. REPUTED OWNER PLAN 2 15+900 ' $ .... ~ " S $ " $ .... ~I"- ..... ~L ...... $ ...... 4 ............ ...... ~ ....... L ............. ~ .............. : ...... J .............. J ............................. ,~ ...... 1 ...... ~ ....... : ...... ~ .............. T ...... 1 ..... F ...... l ....... :- ...... ~ ...... ~ ....... , , , ', I " ..... ~' '~$ ,'~' ";, i * -4.00~ , , PROP, PROFILE, ..... ~' .............. ~ .............. ~-- · ....... ~ ........... ~ ...... '~ ........................... ~ I F ~ ; ~, F I ~ F 15+950 16+000 16+050 16+100 16+150 16+200 STATION PROFILE CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA RAO]U5 (In) DELTA TANGENT (Ag P.C. STATION CURVE I 375 28~03'13" LEFT 183.612 93.685 CURVE 2 570 7°24'16'' LEFT ?3,663 36.883 570 CURVE 20°19'51" RIGHT 202~59 102~04 5+715.60 16+021.1 G 16+436.58 P.T. STATION 15+899~1 16+094.82 16+538.84 '8 '6 '4 PROfiLE I0 0 10 20 30 40 50 In SCALE ALL DIMENSIONS A~E IN m UNLESS OTHERW]SE ~OTED AS 8U]LT REVISIONS SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE V ~ PLAN AND PROFILE STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION 10 D~CUMENT NAMEPP~.~ I DATE I DRAWING NO. CSt ACQUISITION-NY, INC. REPUTED OWNER CURRVE 3~ ~ SHORES '*' CORAZZINI 8ROS.~'~ ~ t GEORGE L. PENN'( INC. PLAN PROFILE 16 ~G.RO~ STAT~ CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA CURVE I CURVE 2 CURVE 3 RADIUS (mi 375 570 570 18°03'13" LEFT 7°24'16" LEFT 2001g'51" RIGHT DELTA LENGTH (mi TANGENT (mi P.C. STATION P,T. STATION 183.612 93.685 73.GG3 3G.883 202.259 102.204 5+715.60 l G+021.1 G l G+43G,58 5+899.21 1 G+O94,B 2 G+538.84 4 2 10 0 10 20 30 40 SCALE 50 ra 16+500 ALL D~MENSIONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AS BUILT REVISIONS SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE V - PLAN AND PROFILE ~ STATE OF NEW YORK -~-- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGION 1 o DOCUMENT NAI4E DATE DRAWING NO. 3 MANOR GROVE CORP. REPUTED OWNER DA TAG(iAR/ REPUTED OWNER '~"~CONTRACT NO. I S,gEET I TOTAL IAI 004[.8R J BI.N. 1060880 $I/F01.K ¢0UHIY o PLAN JOHN NICOLETTI REPUTED OWNER CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DATA CURVE 1 CURVE RADIUS (nO 375 5TO T°24'16" LEFT 0019'51" RIGHT DELTA LENGTH (mT TANGENT (mn) 8o03'13" LEFT 83.812 93.665 73.669 36.883 16+021.16 02.259 02.204 6+436.58 P.C. STATION IS+TI5.60 P.T. STATION 15+899.21 16+094.82 16+638.84 ...... , ALL OI~]~S ~E IN m ~ESS OTHER~SE NOTED / m mm ' ~ ' e-~--~ ~ :~ ' L-~ ' m ~+s~ ~6+sso ]6+~ ~6+~so ~6+Too ]6+TSO ~6+8~ ALTERNATIVE V - PLAN AND PROFILE STATION ~ STATE OF NEW Y~K ~ DEPART~NT ~ TRANSP~TATION PROFILE ~ REGION ]0 Z REPUTED OWNER coNSTANTIN e '~ MINNIE COSTAS PLAN 8 $ 2 0 16+850 16+900 16'~950 17+O~+005 STAT[ON PROFILE SUFF~K ClXIITY BRIDGE ]I/PROVEMENT PROJECT ROUTE 25 OVER THE LONG ]SLN~ID RA]IROAD TOIlIN ~ SOUTHHI)LD 10 0 10 ~'0 30 40 50 m SCALE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERRISE NOTED AS BUILT REVISIONS SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE V - PLAN AND PROFILE -- STATE OF NEW YORK ~-- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -- REGION 10 DOCLAIEH'[ NM/~[PP23.dgn I OATE JDRAWING N°' ALTERNATIVE V CABLEVIS]ONDRI~WAY t~ -45 -42 -39 -36 -~3 -30 -27 -24 -2! -18 -~5 -12 ~, PROPOSED ROADWAY ? W/B J W/B I E/O J' E/B SHOULDER TRAVEL LANE TRA~L LAi'IE SHOULDER 2.4 m _ 3.$ m _ 3.6 m _ 2.4 nj 8 FT,- 12 FT - - 12 FT -~ 8 FT- EXISTING I ROADWAY ---~---r,'-r---;-1-[ .... 3 .... ]-- ]'"]-- t ---t---,~ . . ;L, t ........ ~_~_.[ ....... -I .._ f_..:. - ,,-. - -,,-- - -,,- -:- ---:,- - - ~- -[ :,- - - ~,- - - -6 -3 0 3 16+440.00 .2.4 m : PENNY LUMBER § 12 15 18 I 21 24 TRAVERSABLE CURB BOX BEAM GU]DE RA{L ~ J. EXISTING ROADWAY .I .... ~i}iii" __J___J___i___i_-- -30 -27 -24 -21 -18 -15 -12 -9 PROPOSED ROADWAY ~ W/B SH~R TRA~L LANE 2.4 m _ 3.6 m 8 FT - 12 FT - 4X J 2X __t.-y---k..-~--- TRAVEL LANE SHOULDER ~.6 m _ 2,4 m : 12 iT - 8 FT O.2X l 4Z SCALE 200:1 16+120.oo Appendix F Wetland Delineation Report ME Louis Berger Group, Nc. 100 Halsted Street, East Orange, New Jersey 07018 USA Tel 973 678 1960 Fax 973 672 4284 wwwbuisberger.com August 12, 2002 New York State Department of Transportation Region 10 State Office Building 250 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Attn: Gregg Williams PIN 0042.28.121 Route 25, From Dolphin Drive to Pipes Neck Road Town of Southoid, Suffolk County, NY (JR-2522I) Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet Dear Mr. Williams: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (Berger) is pleased to submit the Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet for the above mentioned project. On April 15 through April 17, 2002 Berger conducted a wetland delineation along a 1 kilometer section of Route 25, over the Long Island Railroad in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Pursuant to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, wetland boundaries were identified, field flagged and a GPS unit was utilized to locate each flag position. Enclosed you will find 2 draft packets, with site photographs and an aerial base map with wetland flag locations for your review. If you have any questions or need further assistance please do not hesitate to call myself at 973-678-I 960 ext. 468 or Ed Samanns at ext 486. Sincerely yours, THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. Environmental Scientist Enclosure cc: E. Samanns, Berger 7he Louis Berger Group, Inc. Wetland Delineation DoCumentation Packet - Route WETLAND DELINEATION DOCUMENTATION PACKET NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PIN 0042.28.121 ROUTE 25 FROM DOLPHIN DRIVE TO PIPES NECK ROAD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY I. INTRODUCTION On behalf of the New York State Department of Transportation, Region 10, The Louis Berger Group, Inc., conducted a wetland delineation on April 15, 16 & 17, 2002 along a segment of NYS Route 25, in the town of Southold in Suffolk County, New York. The project area encompasses a 100 meter bandwidth and extends from the north at Pipes Neck Road to the south at Dolphin Drive, an approximate lInear distance of 1 kin. The wetland delineation was performed to provide information for use in the preparation of design plans for the rehabilitation of the NYS Route 25 bridge over the Long Island Railroad. II. WETLAND DELINEATION METHODOLOGY A. Methodology for Determining Wetland Boundaries · Federal-Jurisdictional Wetlands A wetland delineation was performed to determine the federal-jurisdictional wetland boundaries of all wetlands identified in the project area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetland Inventory maps and NYS Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) Freshwater and Tidal wetland maps were reviewed prior to the field delineation. The wetland delineation was based on the presence of hydmphytic vegetation, wetland hydrology and hydric soils, as outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). The Routine On-Site Inspection Methodology, as set forth in the manual, was employed. The wetland lines were marked in the field with sequentially numbered flags and located with a Trimble Pro-XRS GPS Unit to sub-meter accuracy and plotted on an aerial base map. The entire project area was examined and the approximate boundaries of all wetland areas and data points were located on a field base map during the course of the field delineation. The wetland field delineations were performed by personnel trained in the three-parameter methodology as set forth in the Corps' manual. · State-Regulated Wetlands Wetlands under the jurisdiction of the NYSDEC located within the project area were delineated in accordance with the methodologies outlined in the Corps' manual and concurrent with the delineation of wetlands subject to federal jurisdiction. Wetlands boundaries were marked in the field and the approximate boundaries were located on a base field map during the course of the field delineation. Page 1 The Louis Berger Group, hTc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet ~ Route 25 From field observations and available NYSDEC wetland classification sheets, wetland characteristics were determined for each delineated state-regulated wetland, including: · Approximate wetland area within existing or proposed right-of-way; · Wetland cover types (e.g., forested wetland, scrnb-shmb wetland, emergent marsh); · NYSDEC wetland classification(s); and · Dominant plant species B. Method for Performing Vegetative Community Mapping During the course of the field delineation, the predominant upland and wetland vegetative community cover types were identified and mapped within the project limits. Descriptive information of the vegetative communities, including predominant plant species composition and other observable features, were recorded and are presented in Section III.C, below. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps were reviewed to aid in describing existing wetlands. IH. PROJECT SITE ECOLOGY A. Hydrology The project is located within the Northern Long Island watershed. Wetlands located in the lower western portion of the project area drain into the Hashamomuck Pond which empties into the Shelter Island Sound via Mill Creek. Wetlands on the upper western portion as well as the eastern portion of the project area drain into Pipes Cove and the Shelter Island Sound via several hydrologically connected state regulated and NWI mapped estuarine and emergent wetland systems. Wetlands A, B, C, D & E surround and intersect with several NWI mapped wetlands which are seasonally flooded and ponded. The wetlands drain to the east into Shelter Island Sound. Wetlands F, G, H & I border and intersect WvVI mapped and state regulated wetland SO-16, which is seasonally flooded and becomes permanently flooded as it drains to the east into Shelter Island Sound. Wetlands J, K & L border N'WI mapped and state regulated wetland SO-3 which is seasonally flooded and becomes permanently flooded as it drains to the west into the Hashamomuck Pond, which empties into the Shelter Island Sound via Mill Creek. Wetland M is associated with NWI mapped and state regulated wetland SO-58 which is semi-permanently flooded and drains to the west into NWI mapped and state regulated wetland SO~3. Wetland N borders NWI mapped and state regulated wetland SO-2 which is both seasonally and permanently flooded and tidally influenced. The wetland drains into Pipes Cove which empties into Pipes Cove and Shelter Island Sound. Wetland O is a narrow channel that is associated with a IxPNI mapped, tidally influenced wetland which drains to the east into Pipes Cove, which empties into the Shelter Island Sound. Wetland hydrology observed within the project area is associated with seasonal high water tables, surface saturation and seasonal flooding due to flooding from adjacent estuaries. Within several wetlands, Page 2 The Louis Berger Gronp, Inc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet - Route 25 groundwater seeps attributable to a seasonal high water table were evident. Following the Cowardin system (Cowardin et al., 1979, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, USFWS Pub. FWS/OBS-79/31), the hydroperiods of the majority of the palustrine wetland systems delineated within the project area can be classified as seasonally flooded to saturated. B. Soils According to the soil survey for Suffolk County (USDA NRCS, 1981), the following soil types/land uses are mapped within the project area: Candace, Cut and Fill, Fill Land, Haven, Made Land, Muck, Riverhead, Scio, Sudbury, Tidal Marsh and Walpole. Characteristics of these soils are listed in Table 1 and further described below. Of these soils, three are considered to be hydric soils: Candice, Muck, Tidal Marsh, and Walpole. TABLE 1: SOIL CHARACTERISTICS Soil Type Soil Slope Drainage Characteristics Symbol (percent) Canadice silt loam* Ca 0-3 Poorly drained to moderately well drained. Cut and fill land, gently CuB 1-8 Very poorly drained sloping Fill land Fd __ Very poorly drained Haven loam HaA 0-2 Well drained HaB 2-6 -- Non-soil material Made land Ma Muck* Mu -- Very poorly drained Riverhead sandy loam RdB 3-8 Well drained Scio silt loam SdA 0-2 Poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained Sudbuty sandy loam Su 0 Poorly drained to well drained Tidal marsh* Tm -- Poorly drained areas Walpole sandy loam* Wd 0~3 Poorly drained to well drained Notes: * Hydric soil Source: USDA NRCS, 1981 The Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2002 Page 3 The Louis Berger Group, b~c. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet - Route Candice silt loam (Ca): This soil is typically located north and west of Greenport in a nearly continuous area of about 450 acres. These soils formed in reddish silty and clayey deposits. These soils are poorly to moderately well drained with gently forming slopes. This soil is listed as hydric by the USDA NRCS (1995). Cut and Fill Land (CUB): This soil unit is typically made up of gently sloping areas that have been cut and filled for non-farm uses. These areas generally are large, but some areas are about 5 acres in size. Soil material that remains after grading has low available moisture capacity, is droughty, and is low in fertility. Fill Land (Fd): This soil unit is made up of areas that have been filled with material from hydraulic or mechanical dredging operations and is used mainly to widen or deepen boat channels in salt water. Soil material is low in moisture capacity, low in fertility and has a high salt content. Haven loam (HaA, HaB): This soil is typically located on outwash plains between the two terminal moraines. The soil mostly consists of deep, well drained, medium-textured soils that formed in a loamy or silty mnnfle over stratified coarse sand and gravel. Made land (Ma): This land use is made up of areas that are mostly covered with pieces of concrete, bricks, trash, wire, metal, and other nonsoil material. Included in this mapping unit are sanitary landfills that have been excavated and subsequently filled with trash and garbage. Muck (Mu): This soil is generally made up of very poorly drained organic soils that formed in partly decomposed or almost completely decomposed woody or herbaceous plants. The areas generally are nearly level and occur in the bottom of closed or irregularly shaped depressions or kettle holes and along a few of the larger streams. A few areas are found between tidal marshes and areas of better drained upland soils. These soils are considered hydric. Riverhead sandy loam 01dB): These soils mostly occur throughout the county in rolling to steep areas on moraines and in level to gendy sloping areas on outwash plains. This series typically consist of deep, well- drained, moderately coarse textured soils that formed in a mantle of sandy loam or fine sandy loam over thick layers of coarse sand and gravel. Scio silt loam (SdA): These soils are typically located throughout the county on moraines and outwash plains. They generally are in low-lying areas between poorly drained to somewhat poorly drained soils. They consist of deep, moderately well drained, medium-textured soils that formed in a mantle of very fine sandy loam, loam, or silt loam over coarse sand and gravel or compact glacial till. Sudbury sandy loam (Su): These soils mostly occur on outwash plains and moraines. They generally are in lowqying areas between somewhat poorly drained and adjoining well drained soils. They consist of deep, moderately well drained, moderately coarse textured soils that formed in a mantle of fmc sandy loam or sandy loam over coarse sand and gravel. Tidal marsh (Tm): This land use is made up of wet areas that are throughout the county around the borders of calmer embayments and tidal creeks. These level areas are not inundated by tidal flow, but they are subject to flooding during abnormally high moon or storm tides. These areas are very poorly drained and are most suited for certain types of wildlife. These soils are considered hydric. Page 4 The Louis' Berger Group, btc. Wetland Delineation Doctanentation Packet - Route 25 Walpole sandy loam (Wd): This soil mostly occurs on the sides of tidal marshes and creeks, or it is in low-lying areas between poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained soils and well-drained soils on uplands. These areas are small, and in places they are long and narrow and are parallel to the water course that they adjoin. This soil is listed as hydric by the USDA NRCS (1995). C. Vegetative Communities The wetland and upland communities identified during the field delineation are described below. Vegetation observed in the project area is listed in Table 3. Table 4 summarizes the type, size and characteristics of each delineated wetland in the project area. Supporting documentation is included in the following attachments: Attachment A contains photographs of the project area, Attachment B includes copies of the data forms for each soil point and Attachment C presents the wetland delineation map, showing soil point and photograph locations. TABLE 3: DOMINANT VEGETATIVE SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE PROJECT AREA Trees, shrubs and woody vegetation Acer rubrum red maple FAC Alnus incana speckled alder FACW+ Amelanchier serviceberry Carpmus caroliniana musclewood Carya $labra pignut hickory FACU- Carya ovata shagbark hickory FACU- Fraxinus permsylvanica green ash FACW duniperus virgimana red cedar FACU- Lonicerajaponica Japanese honeysuckle FAC- Lonicera tatanca tatarian honeysuckle FACU Nyssa sylvatica black gum FAC Populus tremula quaking aspen FACU Prunus serotina black cherry FACU- Quercas alba white oak FACU- Quercus michattrii swamp chestnut oak FACW Quercus ivalustris lin oak FACW Quercus rubra red oak FACU- Quercus stellata ~ost oak UPL Robinia pseudoacacia black locust FACU- Rosa multiflora multiflora rose FACU Salix s?. willow Sassafras albidum sassafras FACU- Ubnus rubra slippery elm FAC Vacciniurn corymbosum highbush blueberry FACW- Viburnum recognitum uorthem arrowwood FACW+ Page 5 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet - Route TABLE 3: (cont'd) DOMINANT VEGETATIVE SPECIES OBSERVED IN THE PROJECT AREA Forbs Allaira pedolata garlic mustard FACU- Arisaema triphyllum jack-in4he-pulpit FACW- lmpattens capensis jewelweed FACW Osmunda cim~nomea cinnamon fern FACW Onoclea sensibilis sensitive t~rn FACW Phragmites australis common reed FACW Pterdiurn bracken fern FACU Solidago goldenrod Vines fVitislabrusca I lbx grape FACU Toxicodendron radicans poison ivy FAC Indicator Status Legend- Obligate Wetland (OBL): Facultative Wetland (FACW): Occurs ahnost always (estimated probability > 99 %) under natural conditions in wetlands. Usually occurs in wetlands (estimated probability 67%-99%), but occasionally found in non-wetlands. Facultative (FAC): Equally likely to occur in wetlands or on-wetlands (estimated probability 34%-66%). Facultative Upland (FACU): Usually occurs in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67 %-99%), but occasionally found in wetlands (estimated probability 1%-3 %). Obligate Upland (UPL): Occurs in wetlands in another region, but occurs almost always (estimated probability > 99%) under nataml conditions in non-wetlands in the region specified. If a species does not occur in wetlands in any region, it is not on the National List and is represented by NL (Not Listed) in this table. An NI (No Indicator) indicates that insufficient information was available to determine an indicator status for the region. Those plants not identified to species level cannot be given a Regional Indicator Status. Sources: National List qf Plaatt Species that Occur itt Wetlands: Northeaxt (Region 1), U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(26.1), May 1988; and 1995 Supplement to the List of Plant Species that Occur on Wetlands: Northeast (Region 1), U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, August 1995. The Louis Berger Group, Inc., August 2002 Page 6 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet - Route 25 TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF DELINEATED WETLANDS WITHIN PROJECT AREA Wetland Delineated Wetland Cover Soil Points Notes Line Wetland within Type and/or Photos Project Area m~ (acres) A 965.75 (0.24) PFO1B, SP-1, SP-2, P-I Hydrologically connected to NWI (PFO1E) wetland. PFOiC B 1,616.29 (0.40) PFOIB, SP-3, SP-4, P- Hydrologically connected to NWl (PFOIE) wetland. PFO1C, 2 PFO1E C 557.69 (0.14) PFOIB, SP-5, SP-6, Hydrologically connected to NWI (PSS1/EM5E) wetlands. PFOIC P-3 D 2,184.03 (0.54) PEMIE/PSS1E PFOIE SP-7, SP-8, P-4 Hydrologically connected to NWI (EIUBL) wetland. E 1813.72 (0.45) PFOIB SP-9, SP410 Hydrologically connected to NWI (PSSI/EM5E) wetlands and to state regulated wetland (SO-16), also mapped as NWl (PEM5E/PUBH) wetlands. F i39. i8 (0.03) PSSIE/PFOIE Hydrologically connected to state regulated wetland (SO- 16), mapped as NWI (PEM5E, pLIBH and PSS1E) wetlands. G 1,045.29 (0.26) PSS1E/PFOiE SP-11, SP-i2, Hydrologically connected to state regulated wetland (SO- P-5 16), also mapped as NWI (PEM5E, PUBH and PSS1E) wetlands. H 1,169.86 (0.30) PEM1E/PSSIE P-6 Hydrologically connected to state regulated wetland (SO- PFO1E 16), also mapped as NWI (PEM5E, PUBH and PSS1E) wetlands. 688.84 (0.17) PSS1E/PFOiE SP-13, SP-14, Hydrologically connected to state regulated wetland (SO- P-7 16), also mapped as NWI (PEM5E, PIJBH and PSSIE) wetlands. J 2,275.88 (0.60) PSSIE/PFOIE SPq5, SP-16, Hydrologically connected to state regulated wetland (SO-3), P-8 also mapped as NWI (PUBH and PSSI/EM5E) wetlands. Hydrologically connected to state regulated wetland (SO-3), K 12,178.17 (3.00) PSS1E/PEM1E SP-17, SP-18, also mapped as N3,VI (PLIBH, PSSI/EM5E, E2EM5N and P-9, P-10 E2EMSP) wetlands. L I, 198.32 (0.30) PSSIE/PEMIE SP-19 Hydrologically connected to state regulated wetland (SO-3), also mapped as NWI (PUBH, PSS1/EM5E, E2EM5N and E2EM5P) wetlands. Hydrologically connected to state regulated wetland (SO- M 0.00 PSS1E/PEMIE SP-21, SP-22, 58), also mapped as NWI (PEMF) wetland. P-il Hydrologically connected to state regulated wetland (SO-2), N 3,641.37 (0.90) PEMIE/PSS1E SP-23, SP-24, also mapped as NWI (PEM1F) wetland. P-12 O 119.05 (0.03) PSSIE P-13 Hydrologically connected to lO.VI (E2EM5Pd) wetland. Page 7 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Wet.nd Delineation Docu~nentation Packet - Route 25 Notes: Wetland Cover Type - Based on Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the U.S., Cowardin et. al., December 1979 B: Saturated PFOI: Palustrine Broad Leaved Deciduous Forested C: Seasonal PEMi: Palustrine Persistent Emergent E: Seasonal Saturated PSSi: Palustrine Broad-Leaved Deciduous Scrub/Shrub SP: Soil Point P: Photograph 1. Wetlands Three subclasses of palustrine wetlands were observed within the project area: emergent, scrub-shrub and forested wetlands. The plant associations within each wetland type varied as described below. Palustrine Emergent Wetlands (PEM): Two major types of palustrine emergent wetlands were observed: emergent wetlands intermixed with forested and scrub-shrub wetlands in low-lying topographic areas (wetlands D, K, M and N) and an emergent wetland (wetland L) lying in small roadside swale, hydrologically connected to a larger wetland system. The predominant vegetation within the emergent wetlands consists of common reed (Phragmites australis), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnarnomea). Other species include jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), northern arrowwood (Viburnum recognitum), goldenrod (Solidago), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicerajaponica). Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetlands (PSS): These wetlands contain a herbaceous layer similar to the emergent wetlands, but with at least 50 percent of the cover provided by woody shrubs and young trees. Wetlands D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M include areas of scrub-shrub wetlands. The predominam plant species within these areas include northern arrowwood, red maple (Acer mbrum), speckled alder (Alnus incana), Japanese honeysuckle, and highbnsh blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). The herbaceous layer is similar to that observed in the emergent wetlands, with the predominant species consisting of common reed, jewelweed, sensitive fern, poison ivy and various species of goldenrods and grasses. Palustrine Forested Wetlands (PFO): Forested wetlands, dominated by woody vegetation 6 meters or taller, were observed in the some of the delineated wetlands. Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J partially contain or consist entirely of forested wetlands. Dominant canopy species consist of red maple, green ash (Fraxinuspennsylvanica), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxit), speckled alder and slippery elm (Ulrnus rubra). Other canopy species occasionally present include pin oak (Quercus palustris), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) and black cherry (Pmnus serotina). The understory contains saplings of canopy species and arrowwood, highbush blueberry, Japanese honeysuckle and poison ivy. The predominant plant species within the herbaceous layer is similar to the emergent wetlands and includes jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), goldenrod, sensitive fern and cinnamon fern. Page 8 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet - Route 2;, 2. Uplands Four types of upland vegetative communities were observed within the project area and described below. Mowed Turf: Areas containing regularly mowed grass turf include roadside edges and landscaped areas associated with residential and commercial land uses. These areas are common throughout the project area. Successional Old Field/Grassy Meadows: Old fields and upland meadows dominated by forbs and grasses are present in patches along Route 25 within the project area. Dominant species include goldenrod, garlic mustard (Allairiapetiolata), and various grasses, as well as a mix of poison ivy, fox grape (Vitis lubrusca), brackenfern (Pterdium), common reed, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), and northern arrowwood. Successional Shrub Field: Upland successional shrub fields contain a mix of old field species with a predominance of shrubs and young trees and are usually found adjacent to successional old field and forest areas. The predominant species include multiflora rose, tatarian honeysuckle, Japanese honeysuckle, northern arrowwood, poison ivy and saplings of quaking aspen (Populus tremula), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), shagbark hickory ( Carya ovata), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), red maple, sassafras (Sassafras albidum) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). Herbaceous species include golden rod, fox grape, brackenfern, common reed and various grasses. Successional Hardwood Forests: This community of hardwood or mixed forest occurs primarily on sites that have been cleared or otherwise disturbed. Dominant canopy species include quaking aspen, pignut hickory, shagbark hickory, red cedar, black cherry (Prunus serotina), white oak, red oak, black locust, sassafras, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra) and red maple. The understory vegetation consists of multiflora rose, tatarian honeysuckle, Japanese honeysuckle, northern arrowwood, goldenrod, brackenfern, fox grape and poison ivy. IV. WETLAND DESCRIPTIONS Fourteen wetland areas, encompassing approximately 3.0 hectares (7.3 acres) within the project area and one adjacent to the project area, were identified and delineated. A total of 237 flags and 23 soil points were used to delineate and characterize these wetland areas. The wetland delineation map is presented in Attachment C. The wetland areas have been described below. Wetland A and B are located to the east of Route 25 adjacent to and north of Albacore Drive. The wetlands are mainly forested and contain numerous channels and several large ponded areas. The area is seasonally saturated and flooded as it drains east into a large estuarine wetland system. Dominant species include: red maple, swamp chestnut oak, sassafras, arrowwood, Japanese honeysuckle, solidago, highbush blueberry, poison ivy and jack-in-the-pulpit. Wetland C and D are located east of Route 25 between Tarpon Drive and Sage Boulevard. This wetland area consists of a large emergent wetland surrounded by forested wetlands. Several channels branch off to the east. The area has seasonally saturated and seasonally flooded hydroperiods. It drains east into a large estuarine wetland system. Dominant species include: red maple, black gum, pin oak, arrowwood, white oak, common reed, slippery elm, highbush blueberry and poison ivy. Wetlands E, F, G, H and I are located east of Route 25 between Sage Boulevard and the Long Island Page 9 The Louis Berger Gronp, Inc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet - Route Railroad. The wetland series consists of numerous channels and ponded areas. The wetlands am seasonally saturated and seasonally flooded. Wetland H, the largest wetland of this series, consists of several upland inclusions creating large wetland depressions. This series of wetlands drain into a large emergent wetland which in turn drain into Pipes Cove estuary. Dominant species include: common reed, highbush blueberry, pin oak, arrowwood, white oak, speckled alder, red maple, willow, poison ivy and black gmn. Wetlands J and K are located west of Route 25 between Albacore Drive and the Long Island Railroad. The wetlands are mainly forested consisting of several channels and ponded areas. The wetlands are seasonally saturated and seasonally flooded hydroperiods. Wetland K contains a patch of emergent wetland as it borders a large palustine open water wetland. Dominant species include: white oak, arrowwood, serviceberry, speckled alder, highbush blueberry, jewelweed, cinnamon fern, common reed, red maple, poison ivy, swamp chestnut oak and arrowwood. Wetland L is located west of and north of the Long Island Railroad. The wetland contains a small patch of scrub-shrub wetland connected to a small emergent wetland. This wetland is seasonally saturated and seasonally flooded hydroperiods. Dominant species include: arrowwood, Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, multiflora rose and common reed. Wetland M is located between the Long Island Railroad and Albertson Lane, adjacent to the project area. This wetland is seasonally saturated and seasonally flooded hydroperiods. The area is a ponded, heavily vegetated, scrub/shrub wetland. Dominant species include: arrowwood, poison ivy, multiflora rose, poison ivy, green ash and common reed. Wetland N is located adjacent to and north of Albertson Lane. The delineated wetland is the eastern tip of a large emergent wetland which drains east into an estuarine wetland system. This wetland is seasonally saturated and seasonally flooded hydroperiods. The wetland is surrounded by small areas of scrub-shrub wetland. Dominant species include: common reed, Japanese honeysuckle, green ash, red maple, poison ivy, cinnamon fern, arrowwood and multiflora rose. Wetland O is located between Albertson Lane and Pipes Neck Road. A culvert connects Wetland N to Wetland O under Route 25, which drains the wetland system into a large estuarine wetland. Dominant species include: red maple, arrowwood, poison ivy, multiflora rose and Japanese honeysuckle. V. CONCLUSIONS The wetland delineation was based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology and hydric soils, as outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). The wetland lines were marked in the field with sequentially numbered flags and the flags were located utilizing a Trimble Pro-XRS GPS Unit. The wetland delineation map is presented in Attachment C. A total of 14 wetland areas occupying approximately 3.0 hectares (7.3 acres) were identified and delineated within the project area as well as one wetland (Wetland M) adjacent to the project area. All of the delineated wetlands exhibited hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Five wetland areas (D, K, M, N and L) consist of or partially contain emergent wetlands. Nine wetland areas (D, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M) consist of or partially contain scrub/shrub wetlands, and ten wetland areas (A, B, C, D, E, F,G, H, I and J) consist of or partially contain forested wetlands. The delineated wetland areas are associated with numerous NYSDEC regulated wetlands and NWI mapped wetlands within and adjacent to the project area. Page 10 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet - Route VI. LIST OF PREPARERS Edward Samanns Principal Environmental Scientist Certified Professional Wetland Scientist #000402 M.S., Geography, Rutgers University, 1991 B.S., Biology, Slippery Rock University, 1985 Craig Hanlon Environmental Scientist Certified Professional Wetland Scientist #00001335 B.S., Environmental Science, Slippery Rock University 1992 A.S., Wildlife Technology, Pennsylvania State University 1990 Heather Depew Environmental Scientist B.S., Natural Resource Management, Rutgers University, 1996 Page 11 The Louis Berger Group, b~c. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet - Route 25 VII. REFERENCES Adamus et. al. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. The Classification of Wetlands and Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Peterson, Roger Torrey and Margaret Mckenny. A FieM Guide to WiMflowers: Northeastern and North- Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. Petrides, George A. 1972. A Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. Reschke, Carol. 1990. Ecological Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Program, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Latham, NY. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service. 1995. Classification and Correlation of the Soils of Suffolk County, New York. U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service, 1995. Hydric Soils of New York. U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands.. Northeast (Region 1). Biological Report 88(26.1). U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. 1995 Supplement to the List of Plant Species that Occur on Wetlands.. Northeast (Region 1). Page 12 The Louis Berger Groap, Inc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet - Route Attachments Attachment A - Project Area Photographs Attachment B - Field Data Forms Attachment C - Wetland Delineation Map Page 13 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. I'Ve#and Delineation Documentation Packet Photos - Route 25 Photo 1 - View from eastern side of Route 25 of Wetland A, facing southeast at flag A-5. Photo 2 - View from eastern side of Route 25 of Wetland B, facing southeast at flag B-6. Page 1 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet Photos - Route 25 Photo 3 - View from eastern side of Route 25 of Wetland C, facing southwest at flag C-1. Photo 4 - View from eastern side of Route 25 of Wetland D, facing east at flag D-5. Page 2 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet Photos - Route 25 Photo 5 - View from eastern side of Route 25 of Wetland G, facing northeast from flag G-1. Photo 6 - View from eastern side of Route 25 of Wetland H, facing south at flag H-11. Page 3 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet Photos - Route 25 Photo 7 - View from eastern side of Route 25 of Wetland I, facing northeast at flag I-2E. Photo 8 - View from western side of Route 25 of Wetland J, facing northwest at flag J-8. Page 4 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet Photos - Route 25 Photo 9 - View from western side of Route 25 of Wetland K, facing northeast at flag K-3. Photo 10 - View from western side of Route 25 adjacent to Wetland K, facing northwest at flag K-13. Page 5 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet Photos - Route 25 Photo 11 - View from western side of Route 25 of Wetland M, facing south at flag M-6. Photo 12 - View from western side of Route 25 of Wetland N, facing south at flag N-2. Page 6 The Louis Berger Group, Inc. Wetland Delineation Documentation Packet Photos - Route 25 Photo 13 - View from western side of Route 25 of Wetland O, facing southeast at flag 0-4. Page 7 FILE! ,Is DATA FORM Job Number: JR-25221 Wetland: SP-1 Upland: SP-2 Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratl Statu Indicator ..... -,,, om[u~ ~omlnam Flant bpeCleS Stratum Status I .4cert~tbrum Tree FAC 1 IQuercusrubra Tree FACU- 2 Viburnum dentatum Shrub FAC 2 !Juniperus virginians Tree FACU- 3 £onicera japonica Shrub FAC- 3 Vitis labrusca Vine FACU 4 Quet'cus michauxtt Tree FACW 4 Rosa mult!flora Shrub FACU 5 Arisaematri?hyllum Herb FACW- 5 Loniceratatarica Shrub FACU 6 Solidago Herb 6 Pterdium Herb 7 ?aecimum corymbosum Shrub , FACW- 7 8 Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 8 Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) 'Wetland Soils Soil Series/Phase: Walpole Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? yes Depth Mottling :3? >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? . Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) ' ~/ No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) (Inches) Matrix Moulh]g % Texture Upland Soils Soil Series/Phase: Sudbury Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? no Depth Mottling 0-10 10YR2/1 silt 0~8 IOYR4/3 loam 10-18 10YR5/I 10YR6/8 20 clay loam 8-12 10YR5/3 10YR7/8 10. silt loam 12-16 5Y6/6 sand .... ~ 16-18 5Y5/6 .... sand '/ Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) ~ No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationale: Iow chroma values, mottling, iron concretions, sulfer odor Wetland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): -- Soil Saturated? yes Depth to Saturation (Inches): 0 Depth to Fmc-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): 2 Field Evidence of Hydrology: channelization adventugeous roots Hydrie So Chturlon Met? Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) '/ No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationale: hish chmma values Upland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? no Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: none Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? /Yes (Wetland Hydro}ogy Criterion Met) ~.. No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) v/ No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? no Comments: FIELD DATA FORM Wetland: SP-1 Upland: SP-2 Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Status Don I dcer rubrum Tree FAC I ~uercus n~bra Tree FACU- 2 l/iburnutn dentatum Shrub FAC 2 [uni[~erus vir~iniana Tree FACU- 3 Lonicerajaponica Shrub FAC- 3 1/itis labrusca Vine FACU 4 Quercus michauxa Tree FACW 4 Rosa mult!flora Shrub FACU 5 4risaema tri?hyllum Herb FACW- 5 Lonicera tatarica Shrub FACU 6 golidago Herb 6 Pterdium Herb 7 Vaccinium corymbosum Shrub FACW- 7 8 Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 8 ., or Preva ence Index <37 >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) ~ Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) ~'/ No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) Wetland Soils Upland Soils Soil Series/Phase: Walpole Soil Series/Pha~e: Sudbury Is the So Listed aa Hydric? yes Is the Soil Listed as Hydrlc? no Depth Mottling D~pth Mottling 0-10 10YR2/1 silt 0-8 10YR4/3 loam 10-18 I 0YR5/I 10YR6/8 20 clay loam 8-12 10YR5/3 10YR7/8 10 silt loam 12-16 5Y6/6 sand 16-18 5Y5/6 sand Hydric Soil Criterion Met? ~' Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) ~ No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationalo: Iow chroma values, mottling, iron concretions, sulfer odor Wetland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): -- Soil Saturated? yes Depth to Saturation (Inches): 0 Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): 2 Field Evidence of Hydrology: cham~elization, adventageous roots ~ Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) v~ No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationale: hish chroma values Upland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? no Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: none Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ~' Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ~No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ~ Yes (Wetland Hydrolo8y Criterion Met) /'No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? no Comments: FIELD DATA FORM 'Job Nunthen JR~25221 Nearest Wetland Flag: Field Investigators: Hanlon, Depew Date: 4/15/02 Project/Site: Route 25. Souflmld County: Suffolk Wetland: SP-3 Upland: SP-4 Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Status Dominant Plan I Sassafras albidum Tree FACU- I Carya ~,labra Tree FACU- 2 ,4cermtbrt,n Tree FAC 2 Rosamulti,17ora Shrub FACU 3 Viburnum dentatum Shrub FAC 3 Lonicera tatarica Shrub FACU 4 Quercus michauxii Tree FACW 4 Quercus Mba Tree FACU- 5 Toxicodendtx>n radicans Vine FAC 5 ~/itis labrusca Vine FACU 6 6 gassqfras albidum Tree FACU- 7 7 Pterdium Herb 8 8 C or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) ff. No (Hydrophy~ic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) Wetland Soils Upland Soils Soil Series/Phase: Walpole Soil Series/Phase: Haven Is the So L sted as Hydric? yes s the Soil Listed as Hydric* n.~o Depth Motlling Depth Mottling (Inches) Matrix Mottling % Tcxtur~ 0-6 10YR2J1 sandy silt 0.11 10YR3/3 silt 6-7 10YR4/I sand), loam 11 - 15 10YRS/4 10YR6/8 5 silt loam 7-14 I 0YRB/I 10¥R5/2 I0 loam7 sand 15-18 10YRS/6 clay loam 14-18 10YR4/2 10YRS/3 20 loam7 sand Met? Hydric Soil Criterion Me~. ff' Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) ~ No (Hydrie Soil Criterion Not Met) ff. No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationale: Iow chroma values, mottlin8 Rationale: high chroma values Wetland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? yes Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: inundation, drainage patterns ' Upland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? no Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: none none Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ff. Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ~ No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ~ Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ff' No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? no Comments: FIELD DATA FORM Wetland: SP-5 Upland: SP-6 Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Status Dominant Plant 5 I Acer rubrum Tree FAC I Quercus Mba Tree FACU- 2 Nyssas~lvatica Tree FAC 2 Loniceratatatqca Shrub FACU 3 Quercus t~alustris Tree FACW 3 Carla ovata Tree FAC1J- 4 Viburnum dentatum Shrub FAC 4 Sassqfros albidum Tree FACU- 5 Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <37 >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? ~' Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) ~ No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) '/ No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) Wetland Soils Upland Soils Soil Series/Phase: Candice Soil Series/Phase: Haven Is the So Listed as Hydric?~yes Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? no 0-1 10YR2/I silt 0-1 10YR3/1 silt 1-7 10YR4/I sandy silt I-7 10YR4/3 loam %9 10YR7/I sandy silt 7-18 10YRS/6 loamy clay 9-14 10YR7/1 10YR7/6 10 sandy silt 14-18 10YR7/I 10YR7/6 30 silty clay Hydric Soil Criterion Met? Hydric Soil Criterion Yes Olydric Soil Criterion Met) No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationalo: Iow chroma values Wetland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (inches): Soil Saturated? yes Depth to Saturation (inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence &Hydrology: water-stained vegetation Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) IRationalo: high ehroma values, no motllin$ Upland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? no Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth m Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: none none Evidence o£Pmlonged Saturation and/or Inundation? '/ Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ~No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ~Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ~' No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? no Comments: Job Number JR-25221 FIELD DATA FORM Wetland: SP-7 Date: 4/15/O2 County: Suffolk State: NY Upland: SP-8 Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Stratum Status Domi~ I Phragmites australis Herb FACW I Quercus rubra Tree FACU- 2 Quercus alba Tree FACLL 2 ~uercus alba Tree FACU* 3 Ultnus rubra Tree FAC 3 iLonicera tatarica Shrub FACU 4 Vaccinium cotymbosum Shrub FACW- 4 5 Toxicodendt~on radicans Vine FAC 5 6 giburnum dentatum Shrub FAC 6 7 7 8 8 >50% FAC or Wetter, or Preva ence Index <3? >50% FAC or Wetler, or Prevalence Index <3? '/ Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) '/ No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) Wetland Soils Upland Soils Soil SericrdPhasc: Candice Soil Series/Phase: Haven Is the So L sted as Hydric? ye.._~.s Is the So Listed as Hydric? no D~pth Moltling Depth Mottling 0-6 10YR2./I muck 0-2 10YR3/I loam 6-12 10YR4/! clay 2-t2 10YR5/4 silty clay 12-18 10YR4/I IOYRS/6 10 clay 12-18 10YRS/3 10YRS/8 25 silty clay H5 ion Met? Hydric Soil Criterion Met? '/ Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) ~ No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Ratiorlalo: Iow chroma values Wetland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? yes Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: water-stained vegetation channelizafion Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? v/ Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ~No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) '/' No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationale: high chroma values Upland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? no Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: none Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) V/No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) none Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? no Comments: FIELD DATA FORM Wetland: SP-9 Upland: SP-IO Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Status Dominant Plant 5 Stratum Status I ?hragmites australis Herb FACW I ~uercus rubra Tree FACU- 2 Vaccinium corymbosum Shrub FACW- 2 Quercus Mba Tree FACU- 3 Quercus palustris Tree FACW 3 Lonicera tatarica Shrub FACU 4 Vibttrnum dentatum Shrub FAC 4 Vitis labrusca Vine FACU 5 Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? '/ Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) ,~ No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) Wetland Soils Upland Soils Soil Series/Phase: Tidal marsh/Rivethead Soil Series/Phase: Tidal marsh/Riverhead Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? yes/no Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? yes/n_._...o 0-6 I 0YR2/2 silt~ sand 0-5 10YR3/1 silt7 sand 6-12 10YR4/I 10YR5/6 10 seedy clay 5-12 10YR5/4 silt loam 12-18 5Y5/3 5Y5/6 20 silty clay 12-18 10YR6/4 loamy clay Hydric Soil Criterion Met? Hydric Soil Criterion Met? ~' Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) Yes (Hydrie Soil Criterion Met) ~ No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) ,~ No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationale: Iow chrome vlues, mottIin~ Rationale: hi,Ih chroma values, no mottlin~ Wetland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? yes Depth to Saturation (Inchesl: Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: water-stained vegetation, channelization Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ~' Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ~No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Upland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? no Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: none none Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ~ Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ~' No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? no Comments: FIELD DATA FORM Wetland: SP-11 Upland: SP-12 Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant $ Stratum Status Stratum Status I Quercus alba Tree FACU- I ~uercus rubra Tree FACU- 2 Alnusincana Tree FACW+I 2 Acerrubrum Tree FAC 3 Acer rub~ttn Tree FAC 3 prunus serotina Tree FACU- 4 Toxicodendronradicans Vine FAC 4 Populustremula Tree FACU 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? v/ Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) ~ Yes (Hydrophyric Vegetation Criterion Met) ~ No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) ~' No (Hydmphytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) Wetland Soils Upland Soils Soil Series/Phase: Tidal marsb/Riverhead Soil Series/Phase: Tidal marsh/Rivethead Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? yes/no Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? yes/n~o 0-2 10YP,2/1 muck 0-6 I 0YR4/3 sand 2-14 10YR2/I sandy loam 6-18 10YR5/6 stony sand 14-18 10YR2/I 7.5YR5/6 20 sandy loam Hydric Soil Criterion Met? Hydric Soil Criterion Met? ~' Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) ~' No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationalo: Iow chroma values, mottling Ra0orlalo: road embankment, fill Wetland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? yes Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? yes Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: inundation, highwater marks iron concretions Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ~ Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Upland Hydrology 2 Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): 0 Soil Saturated? no Depth to Saturation (Inches): 0 Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: none Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ~ Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) v~ No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Atyp cai Situation in Upland and/or Wetland9 yes Comments: road embankment, fill FIELD DATA FORM Job Number JR-25221 Nearest Wetlal~d Flag: [-1 Field Investigalors: Hanlon, Depcw Date: 4/I 6/02 Wetland: SP-13 Upland: SP-14 Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant ~ Stratum Status Dominant Plant Species Stratum Status I Acer rubrum Tree FAC I Prunus serotina Tree FACU- 2 Phragmites australis Herb FACW 2 Lonicera tatarica Shrub FACLI 3 Salix sp. Tree -- 3 Rosa mult!flora Shrub FACU 4 Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 4 5 Nyssa sylvatica Tree FAC 5 6 Viburnum dentatum Shrub FAC 6 7 7 8 8 >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <37 ~' Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) ~ No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) ~' No (Hydmphytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) Wetland Soils Upland Soils Soil Series/Phase: Tidal marsh/Riverhead Soil Series/Phase: Tidal marsh/Riverhead Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? yes/no Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? yes/n.~o Depth Mottlmg Depth Mottling 0-1 IOYR2/1 muck 0-12 10YR3/3 silty sand 1-6 2.5Y4/2 silt loam 12-16 10YRS/4 IOYR5/8 5 sand 6-10 10YR4/2 2.5Y5/6 20 sandy loam 16+ rock 10-18 I 0YR4/2 7.5YR4/6 40 sandy loam Hydric Soil Criterion Met7 Hydrie Soil Criterion Met? '/ Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) '/ No Crlydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationale: Iow chroma values, mottling[ Rationale: high chmma values Wetland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Sateraled? yes Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: inundation, channelization Upland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? no Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: none none Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? /Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Ev dence of Pro onged Saturation and/or Inundation9 ~ Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) & No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? no Comments: FIELD DATA FORM Wetland: SP-15 Upland: SP-16 Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant S Stratum Status Dominant Plant ~ Stratum Status I Ouercus Mba Tree FACU- I Quercus alba Tree FACU- 2 Viburnumdentautm Shrub FAC 2 Prunusserotina Tree FACU- 3 4melanchiers?. Shrub -- 3 Car~aglabra Tree FACU- 4 IAlnus incana Tree FACW-~ 4 Vaccinium cotymbosum Shrub FACW- 5 :gacciniumcorymbosum Shrub FACW- 5 Solidago Herb -- 6 Impatiens capensis Herb FACW 6 Rosa multiflora Shrub FACU 7 Osmunda cinnamomea Herb FACW 7 8 Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 8 >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? ff. Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) ~ No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) Wetland Soils Upland Soils Soil Scries~Phase: Walpole Soil Series/Phase: Haven Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? yes Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? n~o 0-10 10YR3/2 silty loam 0-4 10YR3/2 loam 10-18 2.5Y6/2 2.5Y4/6 20 sandy loam 4-12 10YR4/3 sandy loam 12-18 10YR4/6 silty loam Hydric Soil Criterion Met? Hydric Soil Criterion Met?. ff. Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) ~ Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) ff. No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationale: Iow chroma values, mottlin~ Rationaln: high chroma values, no mottlin~ Wetland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (inches): Soil Saturated? yes Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence &Hydrology: channelization, saturation 14 Upland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? no Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: none Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ff' Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ~No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ~ Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) '/ No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? no Comments: FIELD DATA FORM Job Number: JR-25221 Nearest Wetland Flag: K-I2 Field Investigators: Hanlon, Depew Dale: 4/16/02 Wetland: SP-17 Upland: SP-18 Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant S~ Stratum Status Dominant Plant Lg ..... Strata,,, Status I Phragmites australis Herb FACW I ~uercus rubra Tree FACU- 2 Acerrubrum Tree FAC 2 ~uercusstellata Tree UPL 3 Quercus michauxii Tree FACW 3 Lonicera tatarica Shrub FACU 4 Viburnum dentatum Shrub FAC 4 5 Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? '/ Yes (Hydrophytlc Vegetation Criterion Met) ~ Yes (Hydmphytic Vegetation Criterion Met) No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) / No (Hydmphytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) Wetland Soils Upland Soils Soil Series/Phase: Tidal marsh and Walpole Soil Series/Phase: Haven Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? yes Is thc Soil Listed as Hydric? no I~pth Mouling D~pth ~ Mottling (Inch.) Matrix Mottling % Tcxtur* (Inches) Matrix Motdi~ % Texmr~ 0-12 IOYR3/I silt'/clay 0-7 10YR3/2 silt laom 12-18 10YRS/t 10YR5/8 10 silt/clay 7-18 10YR4/6 silty sand Hydric Soil Criterion Met? Hydrie Soil Criterion Met? ,/ Yes (Hydrie Soil Criterion Met) Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) / No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationale: low chroma values, mottlinl~ Rationale: high chroma values, no mottlin~ Wetland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? yes Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? yes Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: inundation Upland Hydrology 2 Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): 0 Soil Saturated? no Depth to Saturation (Inches): 0 Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: none none Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ~/ Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ~No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ~ Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) '/ No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? no Comments: FIELD DATA FORM Wetland: SP-19 Upland: SP-20 Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Status Domthant Plant 1 ?iburnum dentatum Shrub FAC 2 Lonicera,japonica Shrub FAC- 2 3 Toxicodendron radicans Vine FAC 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? ,/ Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) ~ No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) ~/ No (Hydrophyiic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) Wetland Soils Upland Soils Soil Series/Phase: Fill land Soil Series/Phase: Fill land Is the So Lisled as Hydric? no Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? no Hydri¢ Soil Criterion Met? Hydric Soil Criterion Met? ~ Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) ~ No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Ratiorlalo: low chroma, mottling Wetland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? Yes Depth (Inches): 2 Soil Saturated? Yes Depth to Saturation (Inches): -~ Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: water-stained leaves, channeIi~ation Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) '/' No (Hydric Soll Criterion Not Met) Rationale: ,fi!! from utility Upland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: none Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? '/ Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ~No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ~ No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? No Comments: FIELD DATA FORM Wetland: SP-21 Upland: SP-22 Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Status Stratum Status t I Viburnum dentatum Shrub FAC I luniperus virg~niana Tree FACU- 2 Fraxinuspenn~?lvanica Tree FACW 2 Viburnumdentatum Shrub FAC 3 3 4cer rubrum Tree FAC 4 4 Prunus serontina Tree FACU- 5 5 Lonicera tatarica Shrub FACU 6 6 7 7 8 8 >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? >50% FAC or Wetter, or Prevalence Index <3? ,/' Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) ~ No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) ~' No (Hydrophytie Vegetation Criterion Not Met) Wetland Soils Upland Soils Soil Series/Phase: Haven Soil Series/Phase: Haven Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? no Is the Soil Listed a~ Hydric? no 0-6 10YR2/1 loamy clay 0-8 10YR4/3 silty loam 6-12 IOYR3/I loamy clay 8-16 10YR4/4 10YR3/1 30 silty loam 12-18 IOYR3/2 loamy clay Hydric Soil Criterion Met? Hyddc Soil Criterion Met? Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rational*: Iow chromas Wetland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? yes Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: innundation, channelization Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) ~' No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationalo: hish chmma, no mottling fill from utility Upland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth {Inches): Soil Saturated? no Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: none none Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ~Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Ev dence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? ~ Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ~' No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? No Comments: FIELD DATA FORM Job Numbc~: J R-25221 Nearest Wetland Flag: N-4 Field Investigators: Hanlon, Depew Date: 4/17/02 ProjecffSite: Route 25, Southold Cmmty: Suffolk Wetland: SP-23 Upland: SP-24 Wetland Vegetation Upland Vegetation Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant S Stratum Status Stratum Status I Phrag~nites attstralis Herb FACW I Prunus serontina Tree FACU- 2 Lonicerajaponica Shrub FAC- 2 Acerrubrum Tree FAC 3 ?raxinuspennsylvanica Tree FACW 3 Phragmitesaustralis Herb FACW 4 4cert~brum Tree FAC 4 Solida~o Herb -- 5 9smunda cinnamomea Herb FACW 5 Rosa tnult!flora Shrub FACU 6 Viburnum dentatum Shrub FAC 6 Robinia pseudoacacia Tree FACU- 7 7 8 8 >50% FAC or WeRer, or Prevalence Index <Y? Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) Wetland Soils Soil Series/Phase: Muck Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? yes >50% FAC or Wet, er, or Prevalence Index <37 Yes (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Met) ff. No (Hydrophytic Vegetation Criterion Not Met) Upland Soils Soil Series/Phase: SudbuD' Is the Soil Listed as Hydric? no (Inches) Mai~sx Mottling % Texture (Inches) Matrix Mottling % Texture 0-3 10YR3/2 loamy clay 0-6 10YR2/I silt~ sand 3-10 I 0YR3/2 10YR5/6 20% loamy clay 6-12 10YR4/3 sandy silt 10-18 2.5YR4/2 10YR5/8 20% loamy clay 12-18 2.5Y4/4 sandy silt Hydric Soil Criterion Met? Yes (Hydric Soil Criterion Met) No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationale: Iow chromas, matrixofmottles Wetland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? No Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? Yes Depth to Saturation (Inches): 2 Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): 0 Field Evidence of Hydrology: water-stained leaves, channelization innundarion Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? '/ Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) __No (Wet]and Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Hydric Soil Criterion Met? Yes (Hydr/c Soil Criterion Met) ff. No (Hydric Soil Criterion Not Met) Rationale: high chroma, no motttin[[ fill from utility Upland Hydrology Ground Surface Inundated? no Depth (Inches): Soil Saturated? no Depth to Saturation (Inches): Depth to Free-standing Water in Probe Hole (Inches): Field Evidence of Hydrology: none none Evidence of Prolonged Saturation and/or Inundation? Yes (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Met) ff. No (Wetland Hydrology Criterion Not Met) Atypical Situation in Upland and/or Wetland? No Comments: Appendix G Wetland Evaluation Report Wedand / Project Name: PIN # 0042.28 Key to HGM Wetland Classification: Long Island Wetland Type Rt. 25 over LIRR - South°Id (East Side) Date: October 22 2004 1) Water levels in wetland usuallycontrolled by fides No - go to 2 Yes - Tidal Fringe 2) Topography is flat and precipitation is onlysource (~09'o) of water to the wetland No - go to 3 Yes - Flat 3) Wetland is contiguous with >8 ha (19.8 ac) open water, and water is deeper than 2 m (6.6 ft) over 30% of open water area No - go to 4 Yes - Lacustrine Fringe 4) Open water is <8 ha (19.8 ac) and >2 m (6.6 ft) deep, but wetland is a {tinge narrower than ~ the radius o£ open water No - go to 5 Yes - Lacustrine Fringe 5) Water flow ill wet]and is unidirectional on a slope, water is not impounded in the wetland No - go to 6 Yes - Slope 6) Wetland is located in a topographic valley with stream or river in the middle No- goto9 Yes - goto 7 7) Have data showing area flooded more than once every 2 yrs.; or indicators of flooding axe present: ] Scol~r mar~s common [] Recent sediment deposition [] Vegetation that is dam*ged or bent in one dixection [] Soils have alternating deposits [] Vegetation along bank edge has flood marks No for all indicators - go to 9 8) Flood waters retained No - Rivefine Flow-through Yes - Riverine Impounding [] Depression in floodplain [-]Constricted outlet [] ?emaanent water 9) Has surface water outflow- Depressional Outflow Has no surface outflow- Depressional Closed Yes for anyindicator- go to 8 Wetland Functions Field Data Form Wetland Functions Field Data Form - NYSDOT BPJ Characterization * Project: Rt. 25 over LIRR - South°id Date: October 22, 2004 Wetland Name: East Side Analyst: Gl Williams Town: Southold County: SuffOlk PIN: 0042.28 A. Flood Flow Alteration (Storage and Desynchronization) 1. Wetland occurs in the upper portion of its watershed, n 2. Wetland is in a relatively flat area and is capable of retaining higher volumes of water during storm events, than under normal rainfall conditions, y 3. Wetland is a closed (depressional) system, y 4. If flow-through, wetland has constricted outlet with signs of fluctuating water levels, algal mats, and/or lodged debris, n 5. Wetland has dense woody vegetation, y 6. Wetlandreceivesfloodwaterfmmadjacentwatcmom~ortidalwate~. n 7. Floodwaters come as sheet flow rather than channel flow. y B. Sediment Removal 1. Sources &excess sediment (from tillage, bare soils, etc.) are present upgradient of the wetland, n 2. Slow-moving water and/or a deepwater habitat are present in the wetland, y 3. Dense herbaceous vegetation is present, y 4. Interspersion of vegetation and water is high in wetland, n 5. Ponding of water occurs in the wetland, y 6. Sediment deposits are present in wetland, n Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Yes -- Mod. to High potential. Likely or not likely to provide. ;Moderate potential. Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE, 1995) and WSDOT BPJ Characterization Method (Null, et al., 2000) C. Nutrient and Toxicant Removal I. Sources o£ excess nutrients (fertilizers) and toxicants (pesticides and heavy metals) are present upgradient of the wetland, y 2. Wetland is inundated or has indicators that flooding is a seasonal event during the growing season, y 3. Wetland provides long duration for water detention, y 4. Wetland has at least 30% areal cover of live dense herbaceous vegetation, n 5. Fine-grained mineral or organic soils are present in the wetland, y D. Erosion Control and Shoreline Stabilization If associated with water course or shoreline. 1. Wetland has dense, energy absorbing vegetation bordering the water course and no evidence of erosion, y 2. A tidal marsh is part of this dense vegetation, n 3. Trees and shrubs able to withstand erosive flood events are also part of this dense vegetation, y E. Production of Organic Matter and its Export 1. Wetland has at least 30% areal cover of dense herbaceous vegetation, n 2. Woody plants in wetland are mostly deciduous, y 3. High degree of plant community structure, vegetation density, and species richness present, n 4. Interspersion of vegetation and water is high in wetland, n 5. Wetland is inundated or has indicators that flooding is a seasonal event during the growing season, y 6. Wetland has tidal outlet from which organic matter is flushed, n Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Yes. High potential based on it's :generally depressional characteristics. Likely or not likely to provide. (~tate yo~ rafi0na!~e.) .... Likely to provide. Likely or not likely to provide. (State YOur rationale.) Not likely to provide. * Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE, 1995) and WSDOT BPJ Characterization Method (Null, et al., 2000). F. General Habitat Suitability 1. Wetland is not fragmented by development, n 2. Upland surrounding wetland is undeveloped, n Wetland has connectivity with other habitat types, y 4. Diversity of plant species is high. n 5. Wetland has more than one Cowardin Class, i.e., y (PFO, PSS, PEM, PAB, POW, etc.) 6. Has high degree of Cowardin Class interspersion, n 7. Evidence of wildlife use, e.g., tracks, scat, gnawed stumps, etc., is present y G. Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates Wetland must have permanent or evidence of seasonal inundation for this function to be provided, y 2. Various water depths present in wetland, n 3. Aquatic bed vegetation or tidal mudflat present, n 4. Emergent vegetation present within ponded area. y 5. Cover (i.e., woody debris, rocks, and leaf litter) present within in the standing water area. y 6. A stream or another wetland within 2 km (1.2 mi) of wetland, y H. Habitat for Herpetiles 1. Wetland contains areas of seasonal and/or permanent s~anding water in most years. (Must be observed for this function to be provided), y Thin-stemmed emergent and/ur floating aquatic vegetation present within areas of seasonal and/or perennial standing water, n Wetland buffer < 40% developed, i.e., by pavement and/or buildings, y 4. Wetlands are tidal, n Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Moderate opportunity for habitat. Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Moderate potential to provide this function. Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Moderate to High potential. Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (CEE, 1995) and WSDOT BPJ Characterization Method (Null, et al., 2000). 5. Woody debris present within wetland, y 6. Lands within 1 km (0.6 mi) of wetland are greater than or equal to 40% undeveloped (e.g., green belts, forest, grassland, agricultural), y 7. Other wetlands, and/or an intermittent or perennial stream within 1 km (0.6 mi) of wetland, y I. Habitat for Wetland-Associated Mammals 1. Permanent water present within the wetland. (Must be present for this function to be provided.) y 2. Presence of emergent vegetation in areas of permanent water, n 3. Areas containing dense shrubs and/or trees are present within wetland or its buffer, y 4. Interspersion between different strata of vegetation, n 5. Interspersion between permanent open water (without vegetation) and permanent water with vegetation, n 6. Presence of banks suitable for denning, n 7. Evidence of wildlife use, e.g., dens, tracks, scat, gnawed stumps, etc., is present, n J. Habitat for Wetland-Associated Birds 1. Wetland has 30 to 50% shallow open water and/or aquatic bed classes present within the wetland, y 2. Emergent vegetation class present within the wetland, y 3. Forested and scrub-shrub classes present within the wetland or its buffer, y 4. Snags present in wetland or its buffer, y 5. Sand bars and/or tidal mud flats present within the wetland, n Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) *see determination on prev. page. Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Moderate potential based on field visit. Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Moderate to high potential. * Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (CEE, 1995) and WSDOT BPJ Characterization Method (Null, et al., 2000). 6. Wetland contains invertebrates, amphibians, and/or fish. y 7, Buffer contains relatively undisturbed grassland shrub and/or forest habitats, n 8. Lands within 1 tan (0.6 mi) of the wetland are greater than or equal to 40% undeveloped (e.g., green belts, forest, grassland, agricultural), y K. General Fish and Shellfish Itabitat ~ast be associated with a fish-bearing water.) 1. Wetland has a perennial or intermittent surface-water connection to a fish-bearing water body. y 2. Wetland has sufficient size and depth of open water so as not to freeze completely during winter, n 3. Connection to tidal estuary, n 4. Herbaceous and/or woody vegetation is present in wetland and/or buffer to provide cover, shade, and/or detrital matter, y 5. Spawning areas are present (aquatic vegetation and/or sand/gravel beds), y L. Native Plant Richness 1. Dominant and codominant plants are native, y 2. Wetland contains two or more CowardinZReschke Classes. y 3. Wetland has three or more strata of vegetation, n 4. Wetland has mature trees, y 5. Tidal wetlands dominated by native species, n/a M. Educational or Scientffic Value 1. Site has documented scientific or educational use. n 2. Wetland is in public ownership, n 3. Parking at site is suitable for a school bus. y Likely or not likely to provide. (State your mtignale.) *see determination on prev. page. Likely or not likely to provide. (Stat.~ y~ ~u!~?~a~ig?le.) Moderate potential. Likely or not likely to provide. ~ (Sha~e YP~ .~ationale.) Moderate potential. Likely or not likely to provide. (Stat~_Y0~ ra~!0na!e.) Low potential, but accessible. * Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (CEE, 1995) and WSDOT BPJ Characterization Method (Null, et al., 2000). N. Uniqueness and Heritage 1. Wetland contains documented occurrence ora state- or federally listed threatened or endangered species, n Wetland contains documented critical habitat, high quality ecosystems, or priority species respectively designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the NYSDEC's Natural Heritage Program, or NYSDOS's Significant Habitat Program. n Wetland is part of a National Natural Landmark designated by the National Park Service or a Natural Heritage site designated by NYSDEC. n 4. Wetland has biological, geological, or other features that are determined rare by the local jurisdiction, n 5. Wetland has been determined significant by the local jurisdiction because it provides functions scarce for the area. n Wetland is part of... an estuary or coastal/dune system, Pine Barrens, n a mature woodland, n Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Not likely to provide. Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE, 1995) and WSDOT BPJ Characterization Method (Null, et al., 2000). Wetland Functions and Values Form Wetland Functions & Values Form Wetland I.D. 0042.28-E Project: Rt- 25 Over LiRR S0uthold CowardinClass: PSS/PUB NYSDEC~. S016 NYSDECClass: 1 Assessed by: G. Williams Wetland size: 30 ac. Date: 10/22/2004 Occurrence Principal Function/Value Y N Rationale Flood Flow Alteration ~ [] 3 Sediment Removal [] ' [] 2 Nutrient & Toxicant Removal [] [~] 3 Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization [] [] 2 Production of Organic Matter and its Export [] [] 0 General Habitat Suitability [~ [] 2 Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates [] [] 2 Habitat for Amphibians [] [] 3 Habitat for Wetland-Associated [] [] 2 Mammals Habitat for Wetland-Associated [] [] 2 Birds General Fish Habitat [] [] ~2 Native Plant Richness [~ [] 2 Educational or Scientific Value [] [] Uniqueness and Heritage [] [] 0 Rank 0 for No Occurrence; 1 for Low; 2 for Moderate; 3 for High -- Add total for score: 26.0 Key to HGM Wetland Classification: Long Island Wetland Type Wetland / Pmject Name: Rtl 25 over LIRR- S0uthold (west Side) PIN # 0042.28 Date: Octob'e(2'J,~OO4 1) Water levels in wetland usually controlled bytides No - go to 2 Yes - Tidal Fringe 2) Topography is flat and precipitation is only source (90%) of water to the wetland No - go to 3 Yes - Flat 3) Wetland is contiguous with > 8 ha (19.8 ac) open water, and water is deeper than 2 m (6.6 ft) over 30% of open water area No - go to 4 Yes - Lacustrine Fringe 4) Open water is <8 ha (19.8 ac) and >2 m (6.6 ft) deep, but wetland is a fringe narrower rh~,~ ~ the radius of open water No - go to 5 Yes - Lacustrine Fringe 5) Water flow in wetland is unidirectional on a slope, water is not impounded in the wetland No - go to 6 Yes - Slope 6) Wetland is located in a topographic valleywith stream or river in the middle No- goto9 Yes- goto7 7) Have data showing area flooded more than once evenT2 yss.; or indicators of flooding are present: [] Sconc ~ co.~on [] Recent sediment deposition [] Vegetation that is damaged or bent in one direction [] Soils have alternating deposits [] Vegetation along banl~ edge has flood mar~ No for all indicators - go to 9 8) Flood waters retained No - Rivcrine Flow-though Yes - Riverine Impounding [] Depression in floodplain [] Constricted outlet r--]Permanent water 9) ~ surface water outflow- Depressional Outflow Has no surface outflow- Deptessional Closed Yes for anyindicator- go to 8 Wetland Functions Field Data Form - NYSDOT BPJ Characterization * Project: Rt. 25 over LIRR - Southold Date: October 21,2004 Wetland Name: West Side Analyst: G. williams Town: S0uthold County: SUffolk PIN: 0042.28 A. Flood Flow Alteration (Storage and Desynchromzation) 1. Wetland occurs in the upper portion of its watershed, n 2. Wetland is in a relatively flat area and is capable of retaining higher volumes of water during storm events, than under normal rainfall conditions, y 3. Wetland is a closed (depressinnal) system, n 4. If flowthrough, wetland has constricted outlet with signs of fluctuating water levels, algal mats, and/or lodged debris, n 5. Wetland has dense woody vegetation, y 6. Wetland receives floodwater fmm ac~acent watercoume or tidal waters, n 7. Floodwaters come as sheet flow rather than channel flow. y B. Sediment Removal 1. Sources of excess sediment (from tillage, bare soils, etc.) are present upgradient of the wetland, y 2. Slow-moving water and/or a deepwat~r habitat are present in the wetland, n 3. Dense herbaceous vegetation is present, y 4. Interspersion of vegetation and water is high in wetland, n 5. Pending of water occurs in the wetland, y 6. Sediment deposits are present m wetland, n Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Yes -- Moderato potential. Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Yes. Moderate potential -- adjacent farm ands. Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE, 1995) and WSDOT BPJ Characterization Method (Null, et al., 20~0) C. Nutrient and Toxicant Removal 1. Sources of excess nutrients (fertilizers) and toxicants (pesticides and heavy metals) are present upgradient of the wetland, y 2. Wetland is inundated or has indicators that flooding is a seasonal event during the growing season, y 3. Wetland provides long duration for water detention, y Wetland has at least 30% areal cover of live dense herbaceous vegetation, n 5. Fine-grained mineral or organic soils are present in the wetland, y D. Erosion Control and Shoreline Stabilization If associated with water course or shoreline. 1. Wetland has dense, energy absorbing vegetation bordering the water course and no evidence of erosion, y 2. A tidal marsh is part of this dense vegetation, y 3. Trees and shrubs able to withstand erosive flood events are also part of this dense vegetation, y E. Production of Organic Matter and its Export 1. Wetland has at least 30% areal cover of dense herbaceous vegetation, n 2. Woody plants in wetland are mostly deciduous, y 3. High degree of plant community structure, vegetation density, and species richness present, y 4. Interspersion of vegetation and water is high in wetland, y 5. Wetland is inundated or has indicators that flooding is a seasonal event during the growing season, y 6. Wetland has tidal outlet from which organic matter is flushed, y Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Yes. High potential based on it's generally depressional :characteristics. Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Yos, Hi[ih potential. Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale;) Yes, Hi[Ih potential. * Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE, 1995) and WSDOT BPJ CharacterizaQon Method (Null, et al., 2000). F. General Habitat Suitability I. Wetland is not fragmented by development, y 2. Upland surrounding wetland is undeveloped, y 3. Wetland has connectivity with other habitat types, y 4. Diversity of plant species is high. y 5. Wetland has more than one Cowardin Class, i.e., y (PFO, PSS, PEM, PAIl, POW, etc.) 6. Has high degree of Cowardin Class interspersion, n 7. Evidence of wildlife use, e.g., tracks, scat, gnawed stumps, etc., is present y G. Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates 1. Wetland must have permanent or evidence of seasonal inundation for this function to be provided, y 2. Various water depths present in wetland, n 3. Aquatic bed vegetation or tidal mudflat present, n 4. Emergent vegetation present within ponded area. y 5. Cover (i.e., woody debris, rocks, and leaf litter) present within in the standing water area. n 6. A stream or another wetland within 2 lan (1.2 mi) of wetland, y H. Habitat for Herpetlles 1. Wetland contains areas of seasonal and/or permanent standing water in most years. (Must be observed for this function to be provided), y 2. Thin-stemmed emergent and/or floating aquatic vegetation present within areas of seasonal and/or perennial standing water, y 3. Wetland buffer < 40% developed, i.e., by pavement and/ur buildings, y 4. Wetlands are tidal, y Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Yes, High potential. Likely or not likely to provide. (State YOur rationale.) Yes, modeate potential. Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Yes. High potential. Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE, 1995) and WSDOT BPJ Characterization Method (Null, et al., 2000). 5. Woody debris present within wetland, y 6. Lands within 1 km (0.6 mi) of wetland are greater than or equal to 40% undeveloped (e.g., green belts, forest, grassland, agricultural), y 7. Other wetlands, and/or an intermittent or perennial stream within 1 km (0.6 mi) of wetland, y I. Habitat for Wetland-Associated Mammals 1. Permanent water present within the wetland. (Must be present for this function to be provided.) y 2. Presence of emergent vegetation in areas of permanent water, y 3. Areas containing dense shrubs and/or trees are present within wetland or its buffer, y 4. Interspersion between different strata of vegetation, n 5. Interspersion between permanent open water (without vegetation) and permanent water with vegetation, n 6. Presence of banks suitable for denning, n T Evidence of wildlife use, e.g., dens, tracks, scat, gnawed stumps, etc., is present, y J. Habitat for Wetland-Associated Birds Wetland has 30 to $0% shallow open water and/or aquatic bed classes present within the wetland, n 2. Emergent vegetation class present within the wet]and, y 3. Forested and scrub-shrub classes present within the wetland or its buffer, y 4. Snags present in wetland or its buffer, n 5. Sand bars and/or tidal mud flats present within the wetland, n Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) *see determination on prev. page. Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Moderate potential based on field visit. Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Moderate to High potential. Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE, 1995) and WSDOT BPJ Characterization Method (Null, et al., 2000). 6. Wetland contains invertebrates, amphibians, and/or fish. y 7, Buffer contains relatively undisturbed grassland shrub and/or forest habitats, y Lands within I km (0.6 mi) of the wetland are greater than or equal to 40% undeveloped (e.g., green belts, forest, grassland, aghcultural), y General Fish and Shellfish Habitat (Must be associated with a fish-bearing water.) Wetland has a perennial or intermittent surface-water connection to a fish-beating water body. y Wetland has sufficient size and depth of open water so as not to freeze completely during winter, n 3. Connection to tidal estuary, y 4. Herbaceous and/or woody vegetation is present in wetland and/or buffer to provide cover, shade, and/or detrital matter, y 5. Spawning areas are present (aquatic vegetation and/or sand/gravel beds), y L. Native Plant Richness 1. Dominant and codominant plants are native, y 2. Wetland contains two or more Cowardin/Reschke Classes. y 3. Wetland has three or more strata of vegetation, y 4. Wetland has matm'e trees, y 5. Tidal wetlands dominated by native species, y M. Educational or Scientific Value 1. Site has documented scientific or educational use. n 2. Wetland is in public ownership, n 3. Parking at site is suitable for a school bus. y Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) *see determination on prev. page. Likely or not likely to provide. (State yom- rat!0~a!~.) Yes. Moderate (fish) to High (shellfish) potential. Likely or not likely to provide. (S~te your mtiona!e:) Yes, High potential. Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationaN~) Low potential, but accessible. Adapted from the H~ghway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE, 1995) and WSDOT BPJ Characterizahon Method (Null, et al., 2000). N. Uniqueness and Heritage 1. Wetland contains documented occurrence of a state- or federally listed threatened or endangered species, n Wetland contains documented critical habitat, high quality ecosystems, or priority species respectively designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the NYSDEC's Natural Heritage Program, or NYSDOS's Significant Habitat Program. y Wetland is part of a National Natural Landmark designated by the National Park Service or a Natural Heritage site designated by NYSDEC. n 4. Wetland has biological, geological, or other features that are determined rare by the local jurisdiction, n 5. Wetland has been determined significant by the local jurisdiction because it provides functions scarce for the area. y Wetland is part of... an estuary or coastal/dune system, Pine Barrens, n a mature woodland, y Likely or not likely to provide. (State your rationale.) Yes, moderate to high potential. Adapted from the Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement for Wetland Functions and Values (COE, 1995) and WSDOT BPJ Characterization Method (Null, et al., 2000). Wetland Functions & Values Form Wetlandl. D. 0042.28-W Project: Rt. 2§ over/IIRR $outhold Assessed by: G. Williams CowardinClass: PSS/EM5 NYSDEC#: $O23 NYSDECClass: '1 Wetland size: +27a¢: Date: 10/21/2004 Occurrence Pr incipal Function/Value Y N Rationale Flood Flow Alteration ~ [] 2 Sediment Removal [] [] 2 Nutrient & Toxicant Removal [] [~] 3 Erosion Control & Shoreline Stabilization [-~ ' [~] 2 Production of Organic Matter and its Export [] [] 2 General Habitat Suitability [] [] 3 Habitat for Aquatic Invertebrates [] [] 2 Habitat for Amphibians [] [] 3 Habitat for Wetland-Associated [] [] 2 Mammals Habitat for Wetland-Associated [] [] 2 Birds General Fish Habitat I ~' I [] 3 Native Plant Richness [] [] 3 Educational or Scientific Value [] [] 0 Uniqueness and Heritage ~ I [] 2 Rank 0 for No Occurrence; 1 for Low; 2 for Moderate; 3 for High -- Add total for score: 31.0 Appendix H Coastal Assessment Form NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM t.o s. u.p pie ~m .e.n.t. ~ot~l~r i~o .r~a~.oe B.s.~ by ~ sm~p a~,ncy ~n making a det~rmrn~ltio~ of signific~nqe pursuant to the State E~nvironment~l Quality Review intended to assist a state age~:y n compyng va h the ~'~*~)~fion requirements of 19 NY~R ~600.4. 2. !f a.ny.q~e,~o~o.i.n' Se~_ti~ (~ on. this fo~m~ is answered "yes", then the preq~ed action m~' aff~t the achievemen~ of the.coastal, poficies con~ r~ed 2. Descdbe nature arm extent of action: alifilnment. Replacement of an existin~l brid~le on or adjacent to the exisfin~l 3, Location of action: (a) Name of applicant: NYSDOT - Region 10 (b) Mailing address: State Office Buildin~l, Veterans Hi~lhwa¥, Hauppauge, NY '11788 (c) Telephone number: AreaCode (631)952-6651 (d) State agency application number: NIA 5. Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a federal agency? Yes X No If yes, which federal agency? USDOT {FHWA) C. COASTAL ASSESSMENT (Check either "Yes" or "No" for each of the following questions) Suffolk Southold Rt. 25 (Main Road) County City, Town or Village Street or Site Description If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the state agency, the following information shall be provided: Will the proposed action be located in, or contiguous to, or have a si,qnificant effect upon any of the resource areas identified on me coastal area map: (a) Significant fish or wildlife habitats? ............................................................................................ (b) Scenic resources of statewide significance? ............................................................................. (c) Important agriculturallands? ..................................................................................................... Will the proposed action have a significant effect upon: (a) Commeroial or recreational use of fish and wildlife resources? .............................................. (b) Scanic quality of the coastal environment? ............................................................................... (c) Development of futura, or existing water dependent uses? ..................................................... (d) Operation of the State's major ports? ....................................................................................... (e) Land and water uses within State's small harbors? ................................................................. (f) Existing or potential public recreation opportunities? ................................................................ (g) Structures, sites or districts of historic, archeological or cultural significance to the State or nation? ........................................................................................................................................ YES NC) X X X X X X X X X X -1- 3. Will the proposed action involve or result in any of the following: (a) Physical alteration of two (2) acres or more land along the shoreline, land under water or coastal waters? ...................................................................................................................... (b) Physical afieration of five (5) acras or more land Iocatad elsewhere in the coastal area? (c) Expansion of existing public services or infrastructure in undeveloped or Iow density areas of the (d) Energy facility not subject to Article VII or VIII of the Public Service Law? ............................ (e) Mining, excavation, filling or dredging in coastal waters? ....................................................... (f) Reducfion of existing or potential public access to or along the shore? ................................ (g) Sale or change in use of state-owned lands tocated on the shoreline or under watar? .......... (h) Development within a designated flood or erosion hazard area? .......................................... (i) Development on a beach, dune, harder island or other natural feature that provides pretection against flooding or erosion? .................................................................................. 4. Will the proposed action be located in or have a siRnificant effect upon an area included in an approved Local Watei'front Revitalization Program? ............. : ........................................................ YES N_Q X X X X X X X X X X D. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS If any question in Section C is answered "Yes", AND either of the following two conditions is met: Section B.l(a).or B.l(b) is checked; or . . Section B.l(c) is checked AND B.5 is answeT~d Yes, THEN one copy of the completed Coastal Assessment Form shall be submitted to: New York State Department of State Coastal Management Program 162 Washington Avenue Albany, New'York 12231 If assistance or further information is needed to complete this form, please call the Department of State at (518) 474-3642 i R EMARKS OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION oastal Policy Assessment The,s. outhem en~d. ofthe proje~ct c,orfidq.r, is adjacent to the Hashamomuck Pond SCFWH. However, the proposed re-at]gnemnt otthe existing oriage will not impact the Pond or the open tidal waters adjacent to the system. A sm.all s,trip.,o,f, road~s~id.e v, eg.e. tation (app, ro~ 1300 s.f.) adjacent to the smaller Salt Pond (part of the Hashamomuck system) win oe axzecma, zaowever a ouzzer of 115 feet will still remain. The proposed p.roj ect will .dis. tur.b approximately 1.5 acres of woodland vegetation and scrub/shrub wetland along the, proposed ,ah ..g~me.n,t w, lthin..the cg~tal zone. ,This,impact, will be mimmiz.ed by installing concrete retaining wans ana reptanung me Jocanon oI the existing oriage (to oe removed) with native vegetation and restoring wetlands within the project area. It is expected ~at the entire 1.5 acres will be restored. The project reqluires a longitudinal encroachment under any alternative (including Alternative IV- replace bridge 9n e,x!sting al.i- .gn:[n. ent) into areas presently below the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The proj eot area, however !.s, su, oj eot to 9d. ally-!nduce, d,~ood.lng rather than riverine flooding. Any minor longitudina'l encroachment is not m~e)y to result in su?stantzal hood plain impacts. However, in order to minimize the impact of new fill material in the flood plain, uae project will include excavation of the existing ROW to offset as much as possible the ~quire.d an2, ount of fill below the BFE. The proposed flood plain excavation will likely be the same area chosen tor wetlanas mitigation. The removal of the existing bridge will allow lowering of the area to below the BFE, therefore mitigating the proposed fill impact. Preparer's Name: Gregg T. Williams ~"": ES - 2 Agency: NYSDOT Telephone Number: 631-952-665f Date: December 13, 20O4 CAF Revised 9/84 -2- Appendix I Wetland Impact Assessment APPENDIX I - WETLAND IMPACT ASSESSMENT This appendix depicts the wetland impacts for each Feasible Alternative by utilizing plan maps of the project area. Each Feasible Alternative has the wetland impact cross hatched on the plan for easy identification. Some of the mapping features are not shown on these plans to better depict the wetland impact. Furthermore, it should be noted that only those plan sheets that depict wetland impacts are shown in this appendix. The reader is referred to Appendix C for a complete set of preliminary plans for each Feasible Alternative. Preliminary Construction Schedule PIN 0042.28 - Bridge Replacement Project Route 25 over LIRR Town of Southold, Suffolk County Contract Letting Date: March 2007 Contract Award Date: May2007 Project Alternative Approximate Timeline of Construction Events Alternative III - new bridge Instant steel shooting to Set stool beams. Form and No b~idge work. Winter Coostmet bridge Bridge opened to traffic. Regreding and landscaping. along "northern" alignment, allow excavation. Form and )our deck. shut~lown, appurtenances (railing Demolish old bridge. 3our abutments, w/brush curb). Seal arid ;groove deck. July - August 2007 October - Nov. 2007 Dec. - Feb. 2008 March 2008 Apd12008 May - June 2008 Alternative Ilia - new bridge Install steel sheeting to Set stool beams. Form and Construct left side bridge Stage I bridge portion Demolish odgiool bridge~ Form arid pour abutments Set stool beams. Form and Pour closure portion of Completed bridge opened to along "northern" alignment ~ltow excavation. Form arid )our desk for stage I. rail w/brush curb. Groove !opened to two-way traffic excavate for stage II for stage I1. pour desk for stage I1. desk. Construct right side traffic (staged construction). ~our abutments for stage I. deck. Set temporary abutments, bridge rail w/brush curb. concrete barrier. Remove temporary concrete barrier. July - August 2007 October - Nov. 2007 December 2007 December 2007 Dec. 2007 - March 2008 April - mid May 2008 June - mid July 200~r mid August - Sept. 2008 October 2008 Alternative IV - new bridge in Install steel shooting. Construct temporary Install Temporary bridge. Demolish original bridge. Set steel beams. Form and Construct bridge Bridge opened to traffic. same location as existing (use Construct temporary piers embankment and detour Open detour bridge to Form and pour abutments. )our desk. appurtenances (railing temporary bridge), for temporary bridge, roadway, traffic, w/brush curb). Seal and groove desk. July - August 2007 July - September 2007 October 2007 Nov. - December 2007 March - April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 Alternative V - new bridge Install stool sheeting to Set stool beams. Form arid Construct right side bridge Stage I bridge portion Demolish original bridge. Form and pour abetments Set steel beams. Form and Pour closure portion of Completed bridge opened to along "southern" alignment allow excavaben. Form arid )our desk for stage I. rail w/brush curb. Groove opened to two-way traffic excavate for stage II for stage II. pour desk for stage II. desk. Construct left side traffic (staged construction), our abutments for stage I. deck. Set temporary abutments, bridge rail w/brush curb. concrete barrier. Remove temporary concrete barrier. July - August 2007 October - November 2007 December 2007 December 2007 Dec. 2007 - March 2008 Apdl - mid May 2008 June - mid July 2008 mid August - Sept. 2008 October 2008 Notes: 1. Major construction activity is not expected until approximately 2 months after the project award date due to Contractor mobilzation and shop drawing preparation/review. 2. Total project duration will be several months longer than shown here. 3. Final paving, landscaping, etc. may take additional time and may not be completed until the first spring after major construction is complete, 4. The schedule of operations presented above is an estimate only. The Contractor is required to submit a plan of construction operations before the start of construction. 15+580 15+600 15+620 ' ' HB P~J~ 0042,,28 CONTRA~NO. JB~ SOFFOLIC COUNTY BRZDCE REPI.AC~NENT PROJECT ROU1E 2S OVER LONG LSLANO RA]LROAD TOtifl4 OF SOU11tOLO rE- 5 0 5 IO 15 20 25 m SCALE ALL D[MENStOflS ARE IN rn UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AS BUILT REVISIONS SIGNATIJRE DATE STATE OF NEW YORK OEPART~NT OF TRANSPORTATION EX~ST. CENIER LINE I I I / / D~ACTED I'ETi. A~D AREA / 15+880 15+940 / BR,~OE RE~ACEBENT PROJECT ROU'IE 25 OVER LOtlO iSLAND RMLRO~D OF SOUTHOLD 5 0 5 10 15 ZO Z5 m SCALE SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE i'I! -- STATE OF NEW YORK ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DOCUidENT NAblE REGIO# DATE E) ® / / 16+020 16+000 16+080 16+060 ~ REPLAC~ENT PROJECT 25 OYER LONG ISL/~D RA~.ROAD TOWN OF SOUTH~.D 5 0 5 lO 15 20 25 m SCALE ALL DIMEN$1ONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AS BUILT REV/SIONS $IONATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE III STATE OF NEY/ YORK DEPARTI~NT OF TRANSPORTATION DOCUIAENT NAU4E REGION DATE DRAWING NO. O0422804_PLT.DGN 10 11/04 GP-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~IdPACTED IIIE~.~ &REA 16+280 SUFFOLK BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROdECT 25 OVER LONG ISU~O RAILROAD TOIN OF SOUIHOLD 10 15 20 25 m SCALE S]GNATLIf~ DATE ALTERNAT]W IZI STATE OF NEw YORJ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENT NAME REGION DATE DRAWING NO. O0422BGS-Ig.T.DON 10 11/04 GP-5 I It--' / / : / ROUTE ~50~R L~ LSLAND RMLROAD TOIN OF SOUIltOLD 5 0 5 ]0 ]5 20 25 m SCALE SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE IIIA STATE OF NEW YORK DEPART]dENT OF TRANSPORTATION 16+040 HB-- EXIST. CENTER LINE ~0~)~ STA,iE .... COHTRACT NO. I ~T I~TA~.$ I I ~F~COUNTY BRIDGE Rr-..H. ACEYE~ ~ECT ROUTES O~F_RLONG~IDR~ TO~I~I~SOUTH~D 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 m SCALE SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE IIIA STATE OF NEW YORK DEPART~NT OF TRANSPORTATION O04228G4A.PLT,DGN 10 1 !/04 GP-4A ]~PAC~D ~L~I) ~-A o 0 o o 16+160 16+18D~ {3 CONTRACT BR{~,E RFr. PI. AC~/ENT PROJECT 25 OVER LONG ZSLANO R~ILROAD TOIM OF SOUTHO~D 5 0 5 10 35 20 25 m ALL DIi, ENSIONS ARE IN m LI, ILESS OTHERWISE NOTED DATE ALTERNATIVE Ilia STATE OF NEW YORI( DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENT Nk¥t[ REGION DATE 10 11/04 DRAWING NO. GP-5A 15+59615+600 15+620 15+640 a HB -- 15+680 15+700 SUFFOLK COUNTY PR(UECT 5 OVER LONG ISLAND RAILROAD TOlllN OF $OUlllOJ. D 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 m SCALE ALTERNATIVE IV STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA~ON DOCUMENT NAME REGION DATE DRAg~'G HO. 10 11/04 GP-IB 0 e,/ee e 0 / 0 o 0· ~ , .1MpjT~CTED IIETLAND AREA / . ...... -- ~- ~T~-~L---~ ~ · ' 16+040 16~o0 16+080 HB -- RD EXIST. CENTER LINE PJ,~. 0042,.28 SUFFOI. I( ~ ~ RE~.ACEMENT PROJECT ROUTE 25 OVER LONG ISLAND RAILRON) TOIIN OF SOUTHOCD 5 O 5 10 15 20 25 m SCALE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AS BUILT REVISIONS SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE IV STATE OF NE)/ YORK DEPARTWENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~04228G4B_~LT.DGN 10 ] l/04 OP-4B 0 0 o o o 16+240 SUFFOII COUNTY BR]I)GE REFi. ACEUENT PROdECT ROUTE 25 OYER LONG ]SL~ID RAILROAD TORN OF SOUTHeLD El- ~-== + EXIST. CENTER LINE 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 m SCALE $]$NATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE i¥ STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DOCLMENTNAME REGION DATE 5 0 5 ]0 ]5 ~0 25 m SCALE ALL DIUENSI(TNS APsE IN m UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AS BUILT REV]SIOHS SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE V STATE OF' NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DOCUMENT NAklE I REGION I DATE I DRAWING NO. C(~iTI~ NO. P.~4. 0042.28 S~FFOLK COUNTY BRIDGE I~PL.U:EMENT PROdECT ROUTE 25 OVER LONG ISLAND RAILROAD TOlm~ OF SOUllIOLD EX]ST. CENTER LINE 5 0 5 ~0 15 20 25 m SCALE ALL DU~ENSIONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERI~SE NOTED AS BUILT REV[SIOHS S~GNATL~E DATE ALTERNATIVE V STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORIATION ]5t900 15+920 £XIST. C[NTER LINE 15+940 15+960 / StFF~LI[ ~ B~UDGE REPLACEWENT PROJECT ROUTE 25 O~R LONG ISLAI~ RAILROAD TOlm OF SOUTItOLD 5 0 5 lO 15 20 Z5 m SCALE SIGNATURE DATE ALTERNATIV[ V STATE OF NE! Y~K DEPARTUENT OF TRANSPORTATION 0 HB / 16+$40 EXIST. CENTER LINE 5 0 5 ]0 15 20 25 m SCALE S]GNATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE V STATE OF NE! YORK -- DEPART~NT OF TRANSPORTATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16+200 -- HB EX1ST. CENTER LINE HB ~'~ HB ~ ::::ii .................. : rf - ~ . ,ATE- '- ~ CONIRACT NO, 0042.28 I O,LN. SUFFOLK C0U#1Y ~ REPLAE~4ENT PROJECT OWr. R L0#G ISLAND RAILROAD TOIIN OF $OUTHOLD S 0 5 10 15 20 25 rn SCALE ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN m UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED AS BUILT REVISIONS SJONATURE DATE ALTERNATIVE V ~ STATE OF NEW YORK ~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DOCIJU~NT NAUE REGION DATE DRAWING NO. DO4226G5CJ't_T.DGN I 0 l I/04 GP-5C