Public Hearing Public Hearing State Environmental Quality Review Act - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Portageville Bridge Project

Public Hearing Public Hearing

State Environmental Quality Review Act State Railroad Law State Railroad Law Eminent Domain Procedure Law Thursday, January 10, 2013 6 PM – 9 PM Genesee River Restaurant, Mount Morris, New York

Portageville Bridge Project

Introduction

Ray Hessinger New York State Department of Transportation New York State Department of Transportation

Portageville Bridge Project

Introduction

• Welcome and Introductions

S f B i fi

• Safety Briefing
• Purpose of the Meeting
• Presentation by the Project Team
• Public Comments

Public Comments

Portageville Bridge Project

Purpose of the Meeting

• State Environmental Quality Review Act

P t i f ti i t f P j t

p g

– Present information on impacts of Project

• State Railroad Law

– Establish public purpose for Project

• Eminent Domain Procedure Law

– Present information on property acquisition

• Obtain public comment on all of above

Obtain public comment on all of above

Portageville Bridge Project

Presentation Overview

• Project Background

P j Al i

• Project Alternatives
• Environmental Analysis
• Right‐of‐Way Acquisition
• DEIS Public Review Process and Next Steps

DEIS Public Review Process and Next Steps

• Public Comments

Project Background

Early Planning Activities y g

• Project Initiation

P iti D l ti f I t t t P EIS – Positive Declaration of Intent to Prepare EIS, September 17, 2008

P j t S i

• Project Scoping

– Public Meeting October 1, 2008

• Community Advisory Committee

– Meeting April 1, 2009 – Meeting November 12, 2009

Portageville Bridge Project

Purpose and Need Purpose and Need, Alternatives, Design

K i H hildt Kevin Hauschildt Norfolk Southern Railway Company

Project Background

Purpose and Need p

Purpose Provide a modern rail crossing of the Genesee River for Norfolk Provide a modern rail crossing of the Genesee River for Norfolk Southern on the Southern Tier route between Buffalo and Binghamton, capable of carrying current industry standard freight il l d t th t t d ibl ti FRA Cl 4 rail loads, to the greatest degree possible meeting FRA Class 4 speeds, while reducing ongoing maintenance efforts and costs. Needs

• Critical component of Norfolk Southern’s Southern Tier route
• At the end of its useful life as a freight structure; requires

continuous inspection and frequent repair

• Imposes restrictions on the entire Southern Tier route
• Imposes restrictions on the entire Southern Tier route
• Safety concerns for park users who trespass on the bridge

Project Background

Project Goals j

• Eliminate operational constraints along the Southern Tier route

caused by the existing Portageville Bridge y g g g

• Minimize difficult and costly maintenance
• Optimize existing infrastructure and planned improvements to

the Southern Tier route as part of Norfolk Southern’s overall

• perational strategy in New York and in this region of the country
• Minimize dangerous interaction of railroad activities on the

Minimize dangerous interaction of railroad activities on the Portageville Bridge and Letchworth State Park patrons that trespass on it

Project Alternatives

Alternatives Considered

No. Name Status 1 No Action / Maintenance Alternative Studied in DEIS Retains existing route restrictions; bridge will ultimately have to be taken out of service 2 Repair / Retrofit Existing Bridge Rejected Retrofit to meet Project objectives not practicable 3 New Bridge on Same Alignment Rejected No rail operation during construction 4 New Bridge on Parallel Alignment / Remove Existing Bridge Studied in DEIS 5 New Bridge on Parallel Alignment / Convey Existing Bridge Studied in DEIS 6 New Southern Alignment / Remove Existing Bridge Rejected i i d Community impacts and cost 7 New Southern Alignment / Convey Existing Bridge Rejected Community impacts and cost 8 Reroute Rail Traffic / Remove Existing Bridge Rejected 8 Reroute Rail Traffic / Remove Existing Bridge Rejected Eliminates important freight rail corridor 9 Reroute Rail Traffic / Convey Existing Bridge Rejected Eliminates important freight rail corridor

Project Alternatives

• Alt. 1—No Build/Maintenance

/

• Required by SEQRA

R t i i ti b id f il

• Retain existing bridge for rail
• perations with routine

maintenance

• Does not meet need for Project:

– Speed and weight restrictions and need for extensive maintenance remain Jeopardizes viability of Southern – Jeopardizes viability of Southern Tier route; may ultimately become unusable and have to be taken out of service

Project Alternatives

• Alt. 4—New Bridge / Remove Existing Bridge

g g g

• Build new bridge, 75 feet

h f i i b id south of existing bridge

• Allow for 35 mph train
• perations
• Remove existing bridge

g g

• Open views of gorge
• Realign Park Road
• Realign Park Road
• Replace Highbridge

ki l t parking lot

Project Alternatives

• Alt. 4—New Bridge / Remove Existing Bridge

g g g

Project Alternatives

• Alt. 5—New Bridge / Convey Existing Bridge

g / y g g

• Build new bridge, 75 feet

h f i i b id south of existing bridge

• Allow for 35 mph train
• perations
• Convey existing bridge to

y g g a suitable owner

• Realign Park Road

Realign Park Road

• Replace Highbridge

parking lot parking lot

Project Alternatives

• Alt. 5—New Bridge / Convey Existing Bridge

g / y g g

Project Alternatives

Construction Stages: Rock Excavation g

Project Alternatives

Construction Stages: Bridge Structure g g

Project Alternatives

Construction Stages: Completion g p

Portageville Bridge Project

Environmental Analysis

Chris Calvert AKRF, Inc. AKRF, Inc.

Environmental Analysis

DEIS Conclusions

Topic No Impact Impact Social Conditions

• Economic Conditions
• Wetlands
• Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses
• Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses
• Wild and Scenic Rivers
• Navigable Waters
• Navigable Waters
• Floodplains
• Coastal Resources
• Groundwater, Aquifers, and Reservoirs
• Stormwater Management
• General Ecology and Wildlife Resources
• Critical Environmental Areas

Environmental Analysis

DEIS Conclusions

Topic No Impact Impact Historic and Cultural Resources

• Parklands and Recreational Resources
• Visual Resources
• F

l d Farmlands

• Air Quality
• Energy and Greenhouse Gases
• Energy and Greenhouse Gases
• Noise
• Asbestos
• Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials
• Construction Effects
• Indirect Effects
• Cumulative Effects

Environmental Analysis

Wetlands

Impact Filling of 0.05‐acre freshwater g wetland near parking area Mitigation Mitigation Implement permit conditions, if any, to be set by U.S. Army Corps

• f Engineers
• f Engineers

Environmental Analysis

Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses

Impacts

• Potential erosion and sediment

loading into Genesee River

• If bridge piers are removed, river

habitats could be disturbed Mitigation

• Implement a Stormwater Pollution
• Implement a Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan

• If existing piers are removed,
• btain the required permits and
• btain the required permits and

implement suitable mitigation, such as turbidity curtains, pursuant to permit requirements pursuant to permit requirements

Environmental Analysis

General Ecology and Wildlife Resources gy

Impact Removal of approximately 3 acres of forested habitat and disturbance of 1.1 acres pp y

• f cliff habitat

Mitigation Mitigation

• Implement a tree planting and revegetation program
• Establish an invasive species control program

Environmental Analysis

Historic and Cultural Resources

Impacts

• Removal (Alternative 4) or alteration

( ) (Alternative 5) of the existing Portageville Bridge

• Alteration or removal of historic park

p features: – Park Road – Highbridge Parking Area Highbridge Parking Area – Stone walls and steps – Relocation of trailheads of Gorge and Mary Jemison Trails and Mary Jemison Trails

Environmental Analysis

Historic and Cultural Resources

Mitigation

• Documentation of the Portageville

B id d th ff t d hi t i Bridge and other affected historic resources

• An interpretive kiosk with text and

h t h t d t th hi t photographs to document the history, design, and use of the Portageville Bridge F Alt ti 4 l f t f th

• For Alternative 4, salvage features of the

bridge for display or use in Letchworth State Park R t f t ll f

• Reuse stone from stone walls for

replacement walls, to the extent feasible

• Use an appropriate paint color for the

b id d l f li d new bridge and apply form liners and coloring to surfaces of all approach piers and abutment stems to resemble rock

Environmental Analysis

Parks and Recreational Resources

Impacts

• Acquisition of approximately 2.8 acres of parkland for the new right‐of‐way

q pp y p g y

• Relocation of park features, including Park Road, the Highbridge Parking Area,

and portions of two trails

Environmental Analysis

Parks and Recreational Resources

Mitigation

• Realign Park Road and construct new, expanded replacement parking

g , p p p g

• Replace a portion of the Mary Jemison Trail and a portion of the Gorge Trail,

including its stone steps and stone walls

• Upgrade the entrance booth at the Castile Entrance to the park

Upgrade the entrance booth at the Castile Entrance to the park

Environmental Analysis

Section 6(f) ( )

• Applies to parkland that received funding by the U.S. Land and Water Conservation

Fund Act; required for replacement of parkland used for Portageville Bridge Project I l d P k t b tl t d t t t ti d t b

• Includes Park areas to be permanently converted to transportation use and areas to be

used during construction for more than 6 months

• National Park Service will make NEPA findings based on the SEQRA EIS

Total Conversion Area 3.6 acres: 2.8 acres permanent 0 8 acres temporary 0.8 acres temporary

(for more than 6 months)

Total Replacement Area 2.1 acres Temporary conversion will be returned to park use f after construction (total use

• f less than 3 years)

Environmental Analysis

Visual Resources

Impacts

• Under Alternative 4, removal of the existing bridge would result in an adverse

, g g impact on visual resources in Letchworth State Park

• Under Alternative 5, two bridges side by side would result in an adverse

impact on visual resources in Letchworth State Park p

Alternative 4: New Bridge / Remove Existing Bridge Alternative 5: New Bridge / Convey Existing Bridge

Environmental Analysis

Visual Resources

Mitigation

• Align the new bridge to be parallel and close to the existing bridge location

g g p g g rather than introducing a new bridge elsewhere in the park

• Use an arch bridge to avoid obstructing views in the gorge
• Plant new vegetation to selectively screen portions of the new bridge

Plant new vegetation to selectively screen portions of the new bridge structure

• Select an appropriate bridge color: an earth‐tone color would blend in more

with the surrounding landscape than other colors with the surrounding landscape than other colors

• Use tinted shotcrete and/or a metal mesh curtain on newly exposed rock

areas of the gorge that must be excavated for the Project, to minimize the visibility of the excavation visibility of the excavation

• Use form liners and coloring on the surfaces of all approach piers and

abutment stems to resemble rock

• Consult with OPRHP with respect to the re creation of park features that must
• Consult with OPRHP with respect to the re‐creation of park features that must

be relocated for construction of the new bridge, such as stone walls at the Highbridge Parking Area and trailheads for the Mary Jemison and Gorge Trails

Environmental Analysis

Wild and Scenic Rivers

Impact

• The bridge spans the Genesee River, a NYS Scenic River and a federal Wild and

Scenic Study River Scenic Study River Mitigation

• Undertake consultation with the National Park Service
• Implement mitigation commitments for ecology and visual resources impacts

Environmental Analysis

Construction Effects

Impacts

• Construction activities would temporarily
• Construction activities would temporarily

impact Letchworth State Park for a 3‐year period

• Cranes and other large equipment would be

g q p visible to park visitors

• The Portageville Entrance, a portion of Park Road, the Highbridge Parking Area, and a

portion of the Gorge Trail and Mary Jemison Trail would be closed during construction; p g y g ; a portion of the Genesee Valley Greenway Trail would be closed occasionally

• Temporary use of parkland for construction staging
• Construction noise would be audible in the park, including at times at the Glen Iris Inn,

its cottages, and at cabins within 1 mile

• Loss of 1.1 acres of shale cliff and talus community, which may be habitat for the rare

coast creeping moss l f d b f b ld l h b l h h

• Potential for temporary disturbance to a pair of bald eagles that nest nearby, although

they are already tolerant of frequent train noise

Environmental Analysis

Construction Effects

Mitigation

• Provide an upgraded entrance booth at the Castile Entrance to increase

pg capacity, to mitigate for the lack of access to the park through the Portageville Entrance

• Use measures during controlled blasting to minimize the size and volume of

g g rocks that may fall into the Genesee River

• Use drilled piles rather than driven piles to reduce noise
• Use erosion and sediment control measures

Use erosion and sediment control measures

• Use turbidity curtains or other control measures to limit effects on water

quality if the piers of the existing bridge are removed in Alternative 4

• If dewatering is required conduct the discharge in accordance with applicable
• If dewatering is required, conduct the discharge in accordance with applicable

requirements

Environmental Analysis

Construction Effects

Mitigation (Continued)

• Obtain Incidental Take Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for

potential disturbance to bald eagles and conduct construction in accordance with permit requirements

• Implement a Health and Safety Plan to protect workers

p y p

• Implement measures to avoid accidental damage to park features near the

construction zone, such as stone walls. Repair any such damage that occurs accidentally

• If the area on the east side of the river between Portageville Road and the

existing railroad tracks is used as a staging area, take measures to avoid the potential for impacts to archaeological resources p p g

• Repair Park Road and Portageville Road once construction is complete

Portageville Bridge Project

Property Acquisition

Joseph Picciotti Harris Beach PLLC Harris Beach PLLC

Right‐of‐Way Acquisition

Procedures and Process

• Small area of parkland and private property to be acquired for new right‐of‐way
• Acquisition by Norfolk Southern in accordance with Section 6(f) process for parkland

and NYS Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) and Railroad Law

• Acquisition will not displace residential property or businesses
• EDPL requires notice to property owners, public hearing concerning public purpose of

d ff b d d l l d d f acquisition, and an offer based on appraised value; EDPL also provides procedures if parties do not agree on the purchase

Portageville Bridge Project

Conclusions

Ray Hessinger New York State Department of Transportation New York State Department of Transportation

DEIS Public Review Process and Next Steps

Schedule

December 17 ‐ 22, 2012 bli i f S Public notice of DEIS January 10, 2013 Public hearing February 1, 2013 Comment period ends Spring 2013 Publish FEIS and SEQRA Findings Summer 2013 Begin construction

DEIS Public Review Process and Next Steps

Viewing Locations g

On‐line d / ill b id www.dot.ny.gov/portagevillebridge Repositories

N Y k S D f T i 50 W lf Rd Alb NY

• New York State Department of Transportation, 50 Wolf Rd, Albany, NY
• New York State Department of Transportation, 1530 Jefferson Rd, Rochester, NY
• Letchworth State Park Visitors’ Center, Castile, NY
• Bell Memorial Library, 16 East St, Nunda, NY
• Mt. Morris Library, 121 Main St, Mount Morris, NY
• Cordelia A. Greene Library, 11 South Main St, Castile, NY

Cordelia A. Greene Library, 11 South Main St, Castile, NY

• Perry Public Library, 70 North Main St, Perry, NY
• Pike Library, 65 Main Street West, Pike, NY

DEIS Public Review Process and Next Steps

Submission of Written Comments

By E‐mail ill id @d PortagevilleBridge@dot.ny.gov B M il By Mail Raymond Hessinger Director, Freight & Passenger Rail Bureau NYSDOT 50 Wolf Road, POD 54 Albany, NY 12232 All comments are due by February 1, 2013

Public Comments

• Speaking order

Individuals who registered to speak – Individuals who registered to speak – Open the floor for any other comments If l b f i di id l h i t d t

• If a large number of individuals have registered to

speak, NYSDOT and Norfolk Southern reserve the right to limit comments to three minutes to limit comments to three minutes

• Stenographer will record all comments
• Please begin by stating your name and organization for
• Please begin by stating your name and organization for

the record

• NYSDOT and Norfolk Southern will not be responding to

NYSDOT and Norfolk Southern will not be responding to questions posed during public comment period tonight

SEQRA, EDPL, and Railroad Law Public Hearing

Submission of Written Comments

By E‐mail ill id @d PortagevilleBridge@dot.ny.gov B M il By Mail Raymond Hessinger Director, Freight & Passenger Rail Bureau NYSDOT 50 Wolf Road, POD 54 Albany, NY 12232 All comments are due by February 1, 2013

For more information, please contact:

Raymond Hessinger Director, Freight & Passenger Rail Bureau , g g NYSDOT 50 Wolf Road, POD 54 Albany, NY 12232 (518) 457‐7331 PortagevilleBridge@dot.ny.us