draft project pel report

ROUTE 17 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT LINKAGE (PEL) STUDY,ORANGE AND SULLIVAN COUNTIESPIN 8065.09

Draft Project PEL Report

ATTACHMENT 4 – SOCIAL, ECONOMIC ANDENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTSSeptember 2021

Prepared for

Prepared by

September 2021 Attachment 4: PIN 8065.09 Social, Economic and Environmental Constraints

Route 17 PEL Study, Orange and Sullivan Counties i

ContentsSOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ............................................................ 31 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Study Area/Existing Conditions............................................................................................... 31.2 Coordination with Agencies .................................................................................................... 4

2 Social ................................................................................................................................................ 52.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................................... 52.2 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed ....................................................................................... 82.3 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship .................................................. 9

3 Environmental ................................................................................................................................. 113.1 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................. 113.2 Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses ............................................................................... 133.3 Floodplains .......................................................................................................................... 143.4 Coastal Resources ............................................................................................................... 153.5 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and Reservoirs ............................................................... 153.6 Stormwater Management ..................................................................................................... 163.7 General Ecology and Wildlife Resources .............................................................................. 163.8 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 173.9 Parks and Recreational Resources....................................................................................... 193.10 Visual Resources ................................................................................................................. 203.11 Farmlands ............................................................................................................................ 203.12 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 203.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 223.14 Asbestos .............................................................................................................................. 253.15 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated Materials .................................................................... 25

TablesTable 1. Potential Cooperating and Participating Agencies ................................................................... 4Table 2. Property Constraints for Reasonable Alternatives ................................................................... 6Table 3. Environmental Justice Populations by Interchange ................................................................. 9Table 4. Constraints to Reasonable Alternatives from Recreational Areas .......................................... 10Table 5. Constraints to Reasonable Alternatives from Wetlands ......................................................... 11Table 6. Constraints to Reasonable Alternatives from Historic Resources .......................................... 18Table 7. Activity Category and FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria ........................................................ 23Table 8. Common Noise Environments within Project Study Area ...................................................... 24

ExhibitsExhibit 1. Interchange 103 - Rapp RoadExhibit 2. Interchange 104 - Route 17BExhibit 3. Interchange 107 - Heiden/Bridgeville RoadExhibit 4. Interchange 110 – Lake Louise Marie (Option 1)Exhibit 5. Interchange 110 - Lake Louise Marie (Option 2)Exhibit 6. Interchange 115 - Burlingham RoadExhibit 7. Interchange 120 - Route 211Exhibit 8. Interchange 122 - Crystal Run RoadExhibit 9. Interchange 123 - Route 17M (Option 1)Exhibit 10. Interchange 123 - Route 17M (Option 3)


Route 17 PEL Study, Orange and Sullivan Counties ii

Exhibit 11. Interchange 123 - Route 17M (Option 4)Exhibit 12. Interchange 124 - Route 207Exhibit 13. Interchange 128 - Oxford/CraigvilleExhibit 14. Interchange 130 - Route 208 (Option 1)Exhibit 15. Interchange 130 - Route 208 (Option 2)


Route 17 PEL Study, Orange and Sullivan Counties 3

Social, Economic and Environmental Constraints1 INTRODUCTION

The Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL) process facilitates meeting environmental reviewrequirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other regulatory requirements thatmay be required for future transportation projects in the Route 17 study corridor. The Route 17 PEL Studyis not a substitute for the project-level environmental review and documentation required by NEPA butcould accelerate project delivery by allowing the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as the leadNEPA agency, to use this information to inform the NEPA reviews and documentation for future projectsin the Route 17 study corridor. New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) intends to usethe information, analysis, and products developed as a part of the Route 17 PEL Study for theenvironmental review process under NEPA and expects reduced redundancy and duration of the NEPAphase of the project development process as a result of the Study. Therefore, this attachment to theRoute 17 PEL Report documents preliminary data, analysis and information that can be used to informthe environmental review and documentation that may be required by NEPA for future projects in theRoute 17 study corridor, including the existing environmental conditions and potential environmentalconstraints for any reasonable alternative identified by this Route 17 PEL Study.

1.1 Study Area/Existing ConditionsThe Route 17 study corridor is defined as Route 17 from exit 103 (Rapp Road) in Sullivan County to exit131 (I-87-Harriman) in Orange County. The study area around the corridor varies by environmentalresource. For instance, the study area for the assessment of land use and historic resources extendsone-half mile from the centerline of the Route 17 study corridor, while the study area for water resources,parks and noise is a 500 foot buffer of the Route 17 study corridor. Environmental resources wereexamined in this study to establish a baseline context and generally describe the existing conditionswithin the study area. The results of this effort are presented in Appendix B of Attachment 1 of the Route17 PEL Report, Technical Memorandum 1 – Project Context, History, Transportation Plans, Conditionsand Needs. Information gathered from existing online reports and GIS data was supplemented by findingsfrom field work and information obtained from the Transportation Partnering Committee and InteragencyWorking Group.

Land use for the study area ranges from suburban to rural and lightly developed. Commercial and lightindustrial land uses predominate around the highway interchanges. Rural suburban residential and lowdensity, single-family homes predominate along the segments between highway interchanges. Thesouthern segment of the corridor (from I-87 in the Village of Woodbury, to I-84 in the Town of Wallkill) ismore heavily urbanized. The northern segment of this corridor (from I-84 in the Town of Wallkill, to NewYork State Route 42 in the Village of Monticello) is more rural and lightly developed. The corridor ischaracterized by many surface waterbodies that either cross the study corridor or are immediatelyadjacent to the corridor. There are large areas of undeveloped land immediately adjacent to the highwaythat are either State parks or forests, farmland, or vegetated open spaces. The Sullivan County section ishilly and scenic. There are historic resources dotted throughout the communities adjacent to the Route 17study corridor, with a higher concentration in the Villages of Chester, Goshen and Monticello.

NYSDOT utilized this information on the Route 17 study corridor resources during its development ofalternatives and the alternatives screening process to broadly assess the potential constraints associatedwith each of the evaluated alternatives. This attachment presents analysis of potential constraints fromeach of the environmental resources for addition of a third lane, proposed interchange improvements, andpark-and-ride lot enhancements. Since the analysis conducted for the Route 17 PEL Study is preliminaryand based on existing information, this attachment also includes a discussion of additional data gathering,analyses, and agency consultation that would be required to determine impacts as part of subsequent



NEPA or New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) processes. The potential need formitigation and/or permitting is also addressed.

1.2 Coordination with Agencies

1.2.1 NEPA Cooperating and Participating AgenciesCooperating and Participating Agencies are defined by 40 CFR 1508.5 and 23 USC 139(d), respectively.Cooperating Agencies are specifically those that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respectto any environmental impact involved in a proposed project or project alternative. A state or local agencyof similar qualifications, or when the effects are on lands of tribal interest, a federally recognized NativeAmerican tribe may, by agreement with the lead agencies, also become a Cooperating Agency. Councilon Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1501.5) also state than an agency may request theLead Agency to designate it a Cooperating Agency.

Participating Agencies are those federal, state, local agencies or federally recognized Native Americantribes with an interest in the project. The standard for Participating Agency status is more encompassingthan the standard for Cooperating Agency status. Therefore, Cooperating Agencies are, by definition,Participating Agencies, but not all Participating Agencies are Cooperating Agencies.

The agencies in Table 1 were sent an invitation on December 2, 2020 to become a Cooperating orParticipating Agency for the Route 17 PEL per 23 USC 139(d)(2). Virtual interagency meetings were held,via Microsoft Teams, on December 17, 2020, February 25, 2021, April 1, 2021, June 24, 2021, andAugust 26, 2021. The list of cooperating and participating agencies will be refined once a project isdefined within the corridor, depending on the resources that may be affected.

The need for additional consultation with specific agencies, for NEPA or permitting purposes, is discussedin the relevant section for each environmental resource.

Table 1. Potential Cooperating and Participating Agencies

AGENCY ANTICIPATED ROLEU.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Cooperating AgencyU.S. Coast Guard Participating AgencyNational Park Service (USDOI) Participating AgencyU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Participating AgencyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Cooperating AgencyNOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Participating AgencyFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Region II Participating AgencyUS Department of Homeland Security Participating Agency

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Participating Agency, possible Section 106Consulting Party

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Participating AgencyNew York State Department of State (NYSDOS) Participating AgencyNew York State Historic Preservation Office (Office of Parks, Recreation &Historic Preservation) (NYSHPO)

Participating Agency; possible Section 106Consulting Party

New York State Park Police, Hudson Valley District Headquarters, Palisades Zone Participating AgencyNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation Police, SullivanCounty Participating Agency

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Police, OrangeCounty Participating Agency

New York State Thruway Participating AgencyMetropolitan Transit Authority, Metro-North Railroad Participating Agency



AGENCY ANTICIPATED ROLENew York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) Participating AgencyHudson Valley Regional Council (Sullivan County) Participating AgencyOrange County Transportation Council Participating AgencyOrange County Planning Participating AgencySullivan County Division of Planning Community Development and Real Property Participating AgencyTown of Thompson Participating AgencyTown of Mamakating Participating AgencyTown/Village of Goshen Participating AgencyTown of Blooming Grove Participating AgencyTown/Village of Monroe Participating AgencyTown of Woodbury Participating AgencyTown of Palm Tree (formerly Village of Kiryas Joel) Participating AgencyTown of Chester Participating AgencyTown of Wallkill Participating AgencyCity of Middletown Participating AgencyVillages of Monticello Participating AgencyVillage of Wurtsboro Participating AgencyVillage of Chester Participating AgencyVillage of Harriman Participating Agency

In addition, NYSDOT contacted the following Federally-recognized Native American tribes with potentialinterest in the study via letter on August 18, 2021 to initiate Government-to-Government outreach andinvite them to learn more about the Route 17 PEL Study as a potential Participating Agency:

· Delaware Nation· Delaware Tribe· Saint Regis Mohawk· Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians

The tribal nations were given an opportunity to provide input regarding potential resources of areas ofconcern along the Route 17 corridor and express interest in continued consultation regarding futureprojects.

2 SOCIAL

This study involves the New York State Route 17 corridor between the Village of Woodbury in OrangeCounty, New York, and the Village of Monticello in Sullivan County, New York. The southern (eastern)segment of this corridor is more heavily urbanized while the northern (western) segment of this corridor ismore rural and lightly developed. U.S. Census Bureau data (American Community Survey 2018) wasused to analyze demographic data for the census tracts within 1-mile of the Route 17 study corridor(defined as the study area for analysis of Census data).

2.1 Land UseThe study area for the assessment of land use for this study extends one-half mile from the studycorridor. Land use for the study area ranges from suburban to rural and lightly developed. Commercialand light industrial land uses predominate around the highway interchanges. Rural suburban residentialand low density, single-family homes predominate along the segments between highway interchanges.Medium-density residential and commercial land uses predominate along the southeast portion of thecorridor, which runs through the Town of Palm Tree, the Village of Woodbury, and the Village of Monroe.There are large areas of vacant, agricultural and park land adjacent to the study corridor.



In general, the addition of a general use third lane, interchange improvements and improved transitconnections would be consistent with existing transportation land uses within the study area. It is notexpected that there would be any change to zoning required.

Potential constraints from land use should also consider the potential for private property takings anddisplacement of residences or businesses, or limits to access to businesses. Based on preliminaryanalysis of available information, the general use third lane would be constructed within the existinghighway right-of-way; therefore, no property takings would be expected. Stormwater managementpractices or environmental mitigation may need to be placed outside of the right-of-way, depending on thedesign, and may require property takings. See Table 2 for potential impacts to property from theinterchanges improvements and park and ride lot expansions.

Table 2. Property Constraints for Reasonable Alternatives

Interchange Road Crossing Property ConstraintsSullivan County

103 Rapp Road Option 1 – encroachment on residences, use of private property through drivewayOption 2 –encroachment on residences, larger use of private property

104 Route 17B Minor encroachment on residences (slivers of land)

107 Heiden/Bridgeville Road Interchange – use of vacant (forested) landNew Park & Ride Lot – use of vacant land

108 Bridgeville No impact from removal of partial interchange

110 Lake Louise Marie Option 1 – Minimal impact from shifting interchangeOption 2 - Minimal use of vacant land

111 Wolf Lake Road No impact from removal of partial interchange114 Mamakating Road No impact from removal of partial interchange

115 Burlingham Road Option 1 – Minimal impact to vacant (forested) landOption 2 – No impact from removal of partial interchange

Orange County120 Route 211 Small takings of land adjacent to the right-of-way122 Crystal Run Road Impact to vacant land and unused parking area

123 Route 17MOptions 1 & 2 – use of private (commercial) propertyOptions 3 & 4 – use of private (residential and commercial property); impact accessfor one business

124 Route 207 Interchange – use of vacant (landscaped) land; encroachment on two businessesExpanded Park & Ride Lot – use of vacant (landscaped) land

126 Summerville Way Expanded Park & Ride Lot – use of vacant (landscaped land)127 Greycourt No impact from removal of partial interchange128 Oxford/Craigville Impacts to vacant (forested) land129 Museum Village No impact from removal of partial interchange

130 Route 208

Option 1 – Encroach slightly on business and residences; impact access for onebusinessOption 2 – Minimal encroachment on business and residences; impact access forone businessNew Park & Ride Lot – Use of vacant (landscaped) land within right-of-way

Next Steps: The acquisition and relocation program will be conducted in accordance with the UniformRelocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and relocationresources will be available to all residential and business without discrimination. Consideration ofacquisition and relocation will be included in NEPA documentation.



As projects are defined and design of the reasonable alternatives progresses, interchange improvementsor park and ride lots, property lines and ownership should be identified to determine the need for propertytakings or easements.

2.1.1 Comprehensive Plans and ZoningSection 2.2.1 of Technical Memorandum 1 (Attachment 1 of this Report) presents a detailed descriptionof the local plans as well as proposed or approved development plans along the corridor. In accordancewith the Public Involvement Plan for the PEL study, the Project Team met with presentatives of the townsand villages along the corridor, as well as from both Orange and Sullivan Counties, to gather informationon planned development, areas of potential growth, and local transportation improvements.

There are several economic development projects in Orange and Sullivan Counties including privatebusinesses, major tourist destinations, and downtown revitalization efforts that are being developed orunder construction. On the southern side of the project corridor, the LEGOLAND New York Resort projectopened in Summer 2021. It is anticipated that the resort will result in increased tourism to Orange Countyand the Mid-Hudson region. The project is projected to create 1,300 full-time, part-time, and seasonaljobs for the region. Within Sullivan County, the Village of Monticello is proposing to bolster businessthrough the construction of the East Broadway Business & Industrial Park.

Based on preliminary analysis of available information, the addition of a general use third lane would beconsistent with local planning goals and comprehensive plans for Orange County and municipalities alongthe corridor by increasing traffic capacity and reducing delays. The additional lane would be expected toallow for continued business and residential growth in the area. The potential interchange improvementsin both Orange and Sullivan Counties would be expected to support ongoing and planned developmentalong the corridor by improving safety and reducing congestion. The improvements to traffic would beexpected to benefit tourism in Sullivan County.

Next Steps: Continue discussions with Transportation Partnering Committee members to maintain thelatest information on development and transportation projects that may impact future projections anddesign requirements. Incorporate the latest information in the NEPA analysis and documentation forfuture projects.



2.2 Social Groups Benefited or Harmed

2.2.1 Elderly and/or Disabled Persons or GroupsA review of U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that there is a significant concentration of elderly persons(greater than 65 years of age) in the study area, particularly in Sullivan County. The proportion of elderlypersons in the study area (31.7% in the Orange County section and 35.1% in the Sullivan County section)is consistent and actually slightly lower than those of Orange and Sullivan Counties overall (33.5% and37.1%, respectively) but considerably higher than that of New York State (9.6%). The concentration ofdisabled persons is higher in the Sullivan County section of the study area (16.7%) and Sullivan Countyoverall (16.0%), while the concentration in the Orange County section of the study area (11.2%) isconsistent with Orange County overall (11.7%) and New York State (11.3%).

The Regency Manor Senior Housing complex is located immediately adjacent to Route 17, southeast ofexit 104; however, the proposed interchange improvement at that location would not encroach on theproperty, impact access, or generate additional noise at the facility.

Based on preliminary analysis of existing data, there would no impacts to elderly and/or disabled personsor groups would be expected from any of the reasonable alternatives.

2.2.2 Transit DependentBased on U.S. Census Bureau data, the concentration of zero-car households in the study area is lowand consistent with that of Orange and Sullivan Counties overall. For those commuting to work, the vastmajority in the study area travel alone by car, truck or van alone (74.8%), while 9.6% carpool in a car,truck or van, and 5.2% use public transportation. The rates of carpooling and use of public transportationare higher for Orange County than for Sullivan County.

The primary means of transit service in the corridor is currently the Coach USA/Shortline commuter andintercity bus service provided from various communities in the corridor to the Port Authority Bus Terminaland other locations in Manhattan. Buses stop at a variety of locations including Coach USA/Shortline-owned bus stations, downtown bus stops, and NYSDOT and other park and ride lots at differentinterchanges along the study corridor. The reasonable transit connectivity alternatives presented in thisReport (expanded park and ride capacity, new passenger waiting shelters, real time information, andmobility hubs) would be expected to encourage carpooling and bussing and support the transit-dependentpopulation.

In addition, improvements at Exit 120 and on the mainline between there and Exit 122 would be expectedto improve access to the Middletown Metro-North Railroad station by reducing congestion at the mainaccess route to the station. Similarly, reasonable alternatives that would reduce congestion on theeastern end of the study corridor between Exits 130 and 132 would improve access to the HarrimanMetro-North station.

2.2.3 Low Income, Minority and Ethnic Groups (Environmental Justice)The study corridor passes through several Environmental Justice Areas. Based on demographic datacollected for census tracts within the study area from the American Community Survey 2018, there areminority populations in Village of Monroe, City of Middletown, and Village of Monticello and low incomepopulations in the Town of Palm Tree, Town of Goshen, City of Middletown, and Town of Thompson.1

1 For this assessment, minority communities were identified where the minority population of the affectedarea exceeds 50 percent of the total population and low-income communities were identified as censustracts in the study area that exceed the state poverty level of 14.3 percent.



Consistent with Executive Order 12898 and FHWA Guidance on Environmental Justice, the reasonablealternatives would not be expected to directly or indirectly use criteria, methods or practices thatdiscriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or income level. As projects are defined anddesign progresses as part of the NEPA process, whenever feasible, mitigation measures will addresssignificant adverse environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.

The addition of a general use third lane, interchange improvements, and transit connectivity projectswould be expected to benefit the environmental justice populations along the corridor by improving trafficflow and reducing congestion and delays. The resulting improvements to air quality and reduction ingreenhouse gas emissions would similarly benefit the EJ populations. The potential for adverse impactsat specific locations is first addressed in the assessment of environmental consequences for eachresource (see Section 3). Table 3 identifies which interchanges with proposed improvements or park andride expansions are located adjacent to minority or low-income communities.

Table 3. Environmental Justice Populations by Interchange

Interchange Road Crossing Proximity to Environmental Justice PopulationsSullivan County

103 Rapp Road Low-income104 Route 17B Minority and low-income107 Heiden/Bridgeville Road108 Bridgeville110 Lake Louise Marie111 Wolf Lake Road114 Mamakating Road115 Burlingham Road

Orange County120 Route 211 Minority122 Crystal Run Road123 Route 17M Low-income124 Route 207 Low-income126 Summerville Way127 Greycourt128 Oxford/Craigville129 Museum Village130 Route 208 Minority and low-income

Next Steps: Continued outreach as part of NEPA/SEQRA scoping will ensure there is a focused effort toreach EJ communities, including ways to serve limited English proficiency households. As specificprojects are selected for advancement and design progresses, consideration will be given to avoiding orminimizing adverse effects on the health or environment of minority and/or low-income populations to thegreatest extent practicable.

2.3 School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship

2.3.1 School DistrictsThe study corridor traverses multiple municipalities and school districts. Fifteen schools were identifiedwithin the study area (defined as one-half mile of the corridor). Four of the schools are close to an existinghighway exit or located within a parcel that borders Route 17; however, none of the schools wouldconstraint any of the reasonable alternatives.



2.3.2 Recreational AreasThere are several State-owned and local recreational areas along the study corridor. The addition of ageneral use third lane would be constructed entirely within the existing right-of-way and would not beconstrained by recreational areas. Although several interchanges are in proximity to recreational areas,based on preliminary analysis of existing information, there would be no impacts expected as a result ofthe proposed interchange improvements of park and ride expansions.

Table 4. Constraints to Reasonable Alternatives from Recreational Areas

Interchange Road Crossing Constraints from Recreational AreasSullivan County

103 Rapp Road None104 Route 17B Monticello Raceway northwest of interchange; no impacts107 Heiden/Bridgeville Road None

108 Bridgeville Holiday Mountain Ski and Fun; removal of partial interchange would have no impactsince there would be no change to nearby exit 109

110 Lake Louise MarieRoute 17 runs between Lake Louise Marie and Wanaksink LakeOption 1 – no impact to lakes or access to the recreational areasOption 2 – no impact to lakes; removes westbound interchange with direct access toWurtsboro Mountain Road and Wanaksink Lake

111 Wolf Lake Road None114 Mamakating Road None115 Burlingham Road None

Orange County120 Route 211 None122 Crystal Run Road None

123 Route 17MOrange Heritage Trail intersects with Route 17 immediately north of interchangeOptions 1, 2, & 4 – no impact to trailOption 3 – westbound exit ramp would encroach on the trail

124 Route 207Good Time Park located north of interchange and N Connector RoadInterchange improvement – no impactExpanded Park & Ride Lot – no impact

126 Summerville Way Castle Fun Center located north of the interchangeExpanded Park & Ride Lot – no impact

127 Greycourt Goosepond Mountain State Park located south of Hwy 17MNo impact to park from removal of partial interchange

128 Oxford/CraigvilleGoosepond Mountain State Park located south of Hwy 17MNo impact to park expected from addition of westbound on and off ramps; propertylines and jurisdiction should be verified

129 Museum Village Orange Heritage Trail runs immediately south of the interchangeNo impact from removal of partial interchange; access provided by nearby exit 130

130 Route 208Orange-Rockland Lake immediately west of the interchange and Orange HeritageTrail turns south at this locationInterchange Options 1 & 2 and new Park & Ride Lot at interchange would not impactlake or access to the recreational areas

Next Steps: Identify Goosepond Mountain State Park boundary limits and jurisdiction to determine ifproposed improvements at exits 127 and 128 would impact any park property (if so, see Section 4(f)discussion in Section 3.12). Address potential impacts to recreational areas in NEPA documentation forfuture projects.



2.3.3 Places of WorshipThere are numerous places of worship adjacent to the study corridor. Forty places of worship wereidentified within the study area (defined as one-half mile of the corridor). Six of the places of worship areclose to an existing highway exit or located within a parcel that borders Route 17; however, based onpreliminary analysis of the existing information, none of the places of worship would be expected toconstrain any of the reasonable alternatives.

3 ENVIRONMENTAL

3.1 WetlandsBased on a review of NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands maps and mapping from the National WetlandsInventory, there are NYSDEC regulated freshwater wetlands and federal jurisdictional wetlands in oradjacent to the study corridor.2 A review of the NYSDEC GIS wetland data files indicates that there are noNYSDEC jurisdictional tidal wetlands or regulated adjacent areas within or near the study corridor, andECL Article 25 does not apply.

The Sullivan County portion of the study corridor is located within the Delaware River Basin Commission’sjurisdictional area, and any impacts due to projects that are developed within this area must comply withthese regulations.3

Based on preliminary analysis of existing information, it is anticipated that wetlands may constrain someof the reasonable alternatives. There are no mapped wetlands within the median, except where thehighway crosses streams and rivers. Therefore, the addition of a general use third lane would not beexpected to impact wetlands, unless field surveys indicate wetland conditions within the median. In thosecases, there is no alternative to construction in wetlands since avoidance is not practicable.

Table 5 identifies where there are mapped wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed interchangeimprovements or park and ride lot expansions that may constrain the reasonable alternatives.

Table 5. Constraints to Reasonable Alternatives from Wetlands

Interchange Road Crossing Constraints to WetlandsSullivan County

103 Rapp Road None

104 Route 17B NYSDEC and NWI wetland located west of Rt 17, south of interchangeAddition of impervious surface would be across from mapped wetland; no impact

107 Heiden/Bridgeville RoadNYSDEC and NWI wetland located west of the interchangeInterchange improvement and new Park & Ride lot would avoid impacts to mappedwetland, although expansion of Bridgeville Road is immediately adjacent tounmapped pond

108 Bridgeville None

110 Lake Louise Marie Wetlands associated with Wanaksink Lake and Lake Louise MarieOptions 1 & 2 would have no impact to nearby wetlands

111 Wolf Lake RoadNWI wetland immediately southeast of the interchangeRemoval of the partial interchange would have no impact on the wetland; mayprovide a potential wetland mitigation area

114 Mamakating Road NWI wetland associated with a small stream or ditch located west of the interchangeRemoval of the partial interchange would have no impact on the wetland

2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Environmental Resource Mapper(accessed October 8, 2020).3 www.nj.gov/drbc (accessed December 1, 2020).



Interchange Road Crossing Constraints to Wetlands

115 Burlingham Road

NWI wetland associated with stream off of Shawangunk Kill runs northeast of theinterchangeOption 1 – Rerouting of Roosa Gap Road on the westbound side of the interchangehas the potential to impact the wetland (delineation needed)Option 2 – Removal of the partial interchange would have no impact on the wetland

Orange County

120 Route 211 NWI wetland crosses under Route 17 north of the interchangeInterchange improvements would have no impact on the wetland

122 Crystal Run RoadSmall, isolated NWI wetlands in the area surrounding the interchange; wetlandsassociated with the Wallkill River immediately south of the interchangeWidening of the westbound approach as it crosses over the Wallkill River may impactwetlands; no impact to the small, isolated wetlands

123 Route 17M

Small, isolated NWI wetlands in the area surrounding the interchange; NYSDECwetland associated stream that crosses Route 17 immediately north of theinterchangeOption 1 & 2 – No impactsOption 3 & 4 – Potential impact to isolated NWI wetland northwest of the interchange

124 Route 207Large NYSDEC and NWI wetlands located on both sides of Route 17Interchange improvements – Impact to wetlands between the westbound lane and NConnector RoadExpanded Park & Ride Lot – No impacts

126 Summerville WaySeveral small NWI wetlands surrounding the interchange and riverine wetlandcrossing under Route 17 north of the interchange, passing northwest of the existingpark and ride lotExpanded Park & Ride Lot – Would avoid impacts to nearby wetland

127 GreycourtNWI wetland located immediately east of the eastbound interchange; wetlandsassociated with Seely Brook on the westbound side of Route 17Removal of the partial interchange would have no impact on wetlands; may providea potential wetland mitigation area on eastbound side

128 Oxford/CraigvilleLarge NYSDEC and NWI wetland located west of the interchange on both sides ofRoute 17Interchange improvement may result in minor impacts to isolated NWI wetland butremoval of old ramp pavement may provide opportunity for wetland mitigation

129 Museum Village Wetlands associated with Orange-Rockland Lake to the north of the interchangeRemoval of the partial interchange would have no impact on wetlands

130 Route 208

Wetlands associated with Orange-Rockland Lake to the west, small, isolated NWIwetland located directly north of the interchange and NWI wetland associated withstream or ditch crosses through southern interchange loopOption 1 – Potential impact to stream wetland in southern loopOption 2 – Minor impact to stream wetland in southern loopNew Park & Ride Lot – No impact

Next Steps: A wetland field delineation will be required to confirm the type, size, and boundaries of thewetlands. NYSDEC and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) should be consulted prior to delineationand continue through any permitting and NEPA process.

An Executive Order 11990 Wetland Finding will need to be approved by FHWA stating and supportingthat (1) there are no practicable alternatives to construction in the wetland(s), and (2) the proposed actionincludes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetland(s) which may result from such use.



It is expected that some mitigation for impacts to wetlands will be required and work will adhere to allpermit conditions. As part of the PEL Study, potential wetland mitigation sites adjacent to the corridorwere identified. The suitability of those sites should be investigated further in consultation with thepermitting agencies.

Future projects may require a NYSDEC Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit, pursuant to 9 NYCRR578, for proposed work in the state-regulated wetland or regulated adjacent area (100 feet). The permitwill be obtained from NYSDEC once the location and extent of the impacts are ascertained. An IndividualSection 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) and/or an Individual Section 404/Section 10 Permit fromthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may be required for this project, depending on the ultimate projectdefinition. In addition, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required, pursuant to 15 NYCRR608, Protection of Waters.

3.2 Surface Waterbodies and WatercoursesThere are many surface water bodies that either cross the study corridor or are immediately adjacent tothe corridor.

Based upon a review of the NYSDEC GIS data maps for regulated surface water bodies, there are eightregulated streams (brook, creek, river), as well as one regulated water body within the study area(defined as 500 foot buffer of the study corridor):

· Orange and Rockland Lake (exit 129, west of exit 130)

· Youngs Brook (between exits 127 and 128)

· Black Meadow Creek (north of exit 126)

· Otter Kill (east of exit 125)

· Wallkill River (south of exit 122)

· Shawangunk Kill (between exits 115 and 116)

· Basher Kill (southeast of exit 113)

· Neversink River (east of exit 107)

· Tannery Brook (between exits 105B and 106)

The study corridor is not located within or adjacent to a TMDL Watershed.

The Shawangunk Kill River, within the study area, is in the State Wild, Scenic and Recreational Riversystem as an inventory stream with remarkable values for scenery and recreation. Any projects inproximity to the river will be reviewed for adverse impacts and the project activities must not adverselyaffect the free-flowing characteristics of the river or alter or preclude the river’s status.

The Wallkill River and the Neversink River, state regulated navigable waters, are located within the studyarea. The two waterways are used for recreational traffic (canoes, kayaks, and small, one to two personelectric vessels). Although some project work may require placement of fill in these waters, based onpreliminary analysis of existing information, navigability of the waters is not expected to be affected.

The addition of a general use third land would not be expected to impact surface water since bridges tocross the various streams and rivers already exist and the widening would likely occur with the medianand on existing structures. There is the potential for increased impervious surface from future projects toresult in increased runoff that would impact the water quality of the surface waters. However, stormwatermanagement practices would be implemented as part of those projects to provide both water qualitytreatment and runoff reduction for stormwater volumes prior to discharge into nearby surface waters.



Of the proposed interchange improvements and park and ride lot expansions, only the work at exit 122and potentially the work at exit 115 would require work over a surface water body (Wallkill River andShawangunk Kill, respectively). Consultation with regulatory agencies and potential permitting may berequired.

Temporary construction effects from individual projects, such as increased turbidity or pollution, will beavoided, minimized, or managed through erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices(BMPs) and will be further detailed in a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to be preparedduring final design.

The reasonable alternatives from the Route 17 PEL Study do not involve work in or adjacent to a wildlifeor waterfowl refuge; however, the study corridor does run through the Bashakill Wildlife ManagementArea, in Sullivan County near Wurtsboro. This wildlife management area is located immediately south andeast of exit 113. No improvements are proposed to that interchange, nor is it expected that the addition ofa general use third lane would extend to that point in the corridor.

Next Steps:

Depending on design, future project activities may require temporary fill in Waters of the U.S, that wouldrequire Nationwide Permits authorized under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) Section 404:Nationwide Permit #3 - Maintenance Activities in All Waters of the U.S., Nationwide Permit #14 – LinearTransportation Projects, or Nationwide Permit #33 - Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering.The proposed project activities may also be authorized under an Individual Permit. The permits would beobtained once the location and the extent of the impacts are ascertained. Mitigation to minimize impactsmay be required. Work will not commence until the permit(s) are acquired and will adhere to anyconditions set forth by the permit requirements.

If a project would involve the construction or modification of a bridge, dam, dike, or causeway overnavigable waters of the United States, such as the improvements to interchange 122 (impacts to bridgeover Wallkill River), Section 9 would be applicable.

A NYSDEC Protection of Waters Permit for Excavation or Placement of Fill in Navigable Waters may berequired for work near the Wallkill River or Neversink River, pursuant to ECL Article 15, Title 5. Thepermit will be obtained once the location and extent of the impacts are ascertained.

The NYSDEC will be consulted to determine any restrictions to construction activities due to fishspawning seasons or other water quality concerns.

If a project involves a change of use or easement in the Bashakill Wildlife Management Area (notexpected), a separate Section 4(f) evaluation must be prepared to justify the “use” of this land. It willinclude the findings that (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from theproperty; and (2) the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting insuch use.

Once a project is further developed, New York State Office of General Services should be contacted and,if necessary, arrangements made for an easement for any underwater holdings that may be impacted.

3.3 FloodplainsThe study corridor, in some locations, is within the 100 year floodplain, as indicated by FEMA on the GISdata base. In general, the mainline of Route 17 crosses over floodplains associated with streams andrivers and there are limited floodplains within the median that would be impacted by the construction of ageneral use third lane within the median. A more detailed analysis may find some areas of floodplain thatwould be impacted by the third lane and those areas will be mapped and quantified.



Based on preliminary analysis of existing information, there are only three interchanges with proposedimprovements that may impact floodplains.

· For Exit 123, Option 3, the floodplain associated with a stream that crosses under Route 17 northof the interchange would intersect with a proposed exit loop from the westbound direction. Thiswould result in an adverse impact to the floodplain.

· At Exit 124, a large area of floodplain crosses over Route 17 and encompasses the area betweenthe highway and N Connector Road where the interchange would be relocated. A larger area ofimpervious surface would be removed from the floodplain than would be added so it is expectedthere would be no adverse affect to floodplains. The associated park and ride expansion north ofthe interchange would not impact floodplains.

· At Exit 128, the floodplain is located on the north side of Route 17, with some floodplainsappearing to cover the highway and median. The proposed improvements to the interchange areimmediately east of the floodplain and would not be expected to be affected, although moredetailed mapping and surveys may identify some impacts.

Next Steps: In order to comply with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, an evaluation ofpotential effects of any actions taken within the floodplain, and alternatives to avoid any adverse effectsshall be considered. If a specific project requires the use of a floodplain, there will be an attempt tominimize potential impacts, and consistent with the regulations issued in accord with section 2(d) of theEO, NYSDOT will prepare and circulate a notice containing an explanation of why the action is proposedto be located within the floodplain.

Similarly, in accordance with the provisions of 6 NYCRR 502 - Flood Plain Management for StateProjects, the project will consider and evaluate the practicality of alternatives to any floodplainencroachments.

If necessary, a floodplain hydraulic analysis will be performed during the advance detail plan phase.

3.4 Coastal ResourcesThis study corridor is not within a State Coastal Zone Management (CZM) area, according to the CoastalZone Area Map from the NYS Department of State’s Coastal Zone Management Unit. In addition, Thestudy corridor is not located in a Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat, as defined by the NYSDOSDivision of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization.

The study corridor is not located in or near a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, nor is the study corridorlocated in, or near a coastal area under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) orthe Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA).

According to NYS DOS “List of Approved Coastal Local Waterfront Revitalization Programs (LWRPs),”dated March 2007, the study corridor is not located in a Local Waterfront Revitalization Area.

No further action is required.

3.5 Groundwater Resources, Aquifers, and ReservoirsThe study corridor is not located in an identified NYSDEC Primary Water Supply or Principal Aquifer Area.No further investigation for NYSDEC designated aquifers is required.

A review of the EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer Areas Federal Register Notices, Maps, and FactSheets illustrates the southeastern end of the study corridor is located in the Ramapo River Basin AquiferProject Review Area. This Sole Source Aquifer covers the eastern end of the Route 17 corridor from I-87



to just east of Exit 130. Any work on a general use third lane within that section of the highway mayimpact groundwater resources and the Sole Source Aquifer. There are no proposed interchangeimprovements or park and ride expansions proposed within the area of the Sole Source Aquifer.

Next Steps: If a project would occur east of Exit 130, it would require Federal Sole Source AquiferSection 1424(e) review by FHWA and EPA, pursuant to Executive Order 12372 due to the nature of theproject activities within the Sole Source Aquifer. A Groundwater Assessment Report will be prepared andconsultation and coordination with EPA will be undertaken when design is further progressed.

An investigation into municipal drinking water wells, wellhead influence zones, or reservoirs within or neara project area (once defined) will be performed as the project develops. For work east of Exit 130, duringthe design phase, measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to the Sole Source Aquiferwill be identified. Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect the aquifer will be employed, includingErosion and Sediment Control, Stormwater Management and Construction Chemical Storage andHandling.

3.6 Stormwater ManagementStormwater management is an important issue along the project corridor. There are stormwater practices(swales and catch basins) within the median of Route 17 in many locations along the corridor. In addition,many of the existing interchanges have large drainage areas within the exit loops. The study corridor isnot located within or adjacent to a TMDL Watershed or a listed 303(d) water body.

Projects that disturb soils and increase the extent of impervious surfaces have the potential to affect thequality and quantity of stormwater run-off that may discharge into subsurface or surface waters.“Disturbance” is defined as “any activity that disturbs or exposes soil” by clearing, grubbing, excavating orgrading operations during the life of the project Although the reasonable alternatives would be expectedto increase impervious surfaces, and disturb more than one acre of soil cumulatively, the run-off wouldnot be expected to drain directly into any waters of the United States.

Existing drainage ditches/structures to remain would be cleaned as part of all reasonable alternatives.Under the general use third lane addition, the existing grass median may be used for the additional laneand widened left shoulder. This would necessitate installation of closed drainage along the roadwaymedian, including catch basins and a trunk line. As the widening is progressed in segments, locations forstormwater treatment and green infrastructure practices would be identified and evaluated duringpreliminary design to meet NYSDEC requirements for stormwater quality and quantity treatment. A moredetailed stormwater management report is currently underway. Other work would consist of replacementof deteriorated cross culverts and repair or replacement of existing drainage structures.

In many cases, based on preliminary analysis, the proposed interchange improvements would at leastpartially offset new impervious surface with removal of impervious surface from the existing interchange.These would alleviate some of the stormwater needs for that specific element of the project. Theexpanded park and ride lots would increase impervious surface and require stormwater managementpractices or infrastructure to meet quality and quantity requirements.

Construction activities involving previously paved travel lanes and shoulders are excluded from the StatePollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) general permit for construction activities (GP-0-15-001).Any projects identified by this study would employ effective erosion and sediment control practices duringconstruction, as set forth in NYSDOT’s statewide stormwater and erosion and sedimentation controlspecifications, standard construction details, and design and construction guidance procedures.

3.7 General Ecology and Wildlife ResourcesThe existing roadside vegetation along the study corridor includes maintained lawn areas, drainageareas, and wooded areas. There is the potential for invasive species within the right-of-way. Considering



the adjacent waterbodies and forested/natural areas, it is likely that the study area has habitat and/orbreeding area for certain species of plants or animals.

According to the NYSDEC GIS information database, there is a possibility that a state-protected,threatened, and endangered plant and animal species is located within or near the study area andaccording to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) iPaC database, the following Federally-protected,threatened, or endangered species are located in or near the study area (within ½ mile):

· Indiana Bat (endangered)

· Northern long-eared bat (threatened)

· Bog turtle (threatened)

· Dwarf Wedgemussel (clam; endangered)

· Small Whorled Pogonia (threatened)

If a field survey and site species assessment confirms the presence of any of these species in areas thatwould be impacted by a specific project, NYSDOT would take appropriate measures during design andconstruction to avoid any direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the species or their habitat.Precautions will be taken to prevent the introduction of invasive species during project design andconstruction.

The study corridor does not involve work in, or adjacent to, a wildlife or waterfowl refuge. The studycorridor does run through the Bashkill Wildlife Management Area, in Sullivan County near Wurtsboro.However, based on preliminary analysis of existing information, it is unlikely any project would adverselyaffect the area or involve a “use” of the land.

According to information obtained from NYSDEC4, the reasonable alternatives do not involve work in ornear a Critical Environmental Area. The closest CEAs are the Ridge Preservation Area in the Town ofWawayanda, located approximately three miles west of Middletown, and Shawangunk Ridge in the Townof Shawangunk, located approximately four miles north of Bloomingburg.

According to information obtained from NYSDEC, the reasonable alternatives do not involve work in ornear state forest preserve lands.

Next Steps:

Once a project is defined, NYSDEC would be contacted to identify the species of concern in the projectarea. If necessary, based on potential impacts. site visits and habitat evaluation would be performed toconfirm the presence of fish, wildlife and plant species, including invasive species, that are located withinthe area to be impacted by a specific project.

Consultation with NYSDEC, USFWS and NOAA would continue regarding studies and effectsdetermination as part of NEPA and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

3.8 Historic and Cultural Resources

If a project that is identified from this Study is a federally funded action, involves a federal permit, or isstate funded with the possibility of becoming federally funded, NYSDOT would follow the Section 106

4 DECinfo Locator, gisservices.dec.ny.gov/gis/dil, accessed November 24, 2020.



Process of the National Historic Preservation Act. This ensures compliance with the NYSHPA Section14.09 process.

The reasonable alternatives do not have to potential to impact any Historic Parkways. The section of thestudy corridor within Orange County is located in the Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Valley NationalHeritage Area. There are no bridges listed on NYSDOT’s Historic Bridge Inventory that are locatedwithin the study corridor.

For this PEL Study, only those historic resources with a previous determination by the State HistoricPreservation Office were identified and evaluated for the potential to be impacted by the reasonablealternatives. Resources listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places wereidentified through SHPO’s Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS). Additional evaluation ofresources older than 50 years of age that have not yet been assessed will be required as part of NEPA.

Based on preliminary analysis of existing information, none of the reasonable alternatives – general usethird lane, interchange improvements, or park and ride lot expansion – would be constrained by a knownhistoric resource (see Table 6). Resources close to the existing highway include: John Wells Homesteadat Six And Half Station Rd (eligible) and Katrina View (Land & Sea Restaurant) at 40 Katrina Falls Rd(eligible); however, the widening to a third lane would be expected to take place within the existingmedian and entirely within the right-of-way. Indirect impacts (visual impacts, noise, etc.) to historicresources may occur but will be evaluated once the other project impacts are more fully understood.

Table 6. Constraints to Reasonable Alternatives from Historic Resources

Interchange Road Crossing Known Historic ResourcesSullivan County

103 Rapp Road Option 1 – removal of Rapp Road Bridge (built 1960; not eligible); no direct impactOption 2 – no direct impact

104 Route 17B No direct impact

107 Heiden/Bridgeville RoadInterchange – replacement of Heiden Road Bridge (built 1957; not eligible); no directimpactNew Park & Ride Lot – no direct impact

108 Bridgeville No direct impact from removal of partial interchange110 Lake Louise Marie No direct impact from Options 1 & 2111 Wolf Lake Road No direct impact from removal of partial interchange114 Mamakating Road No direct impact from removal of partial interchange

115 Burlingham RoadOption 1 - Residence at 10 Johnson Ln (eligible) and Seven Acres (eligible); no directimpactOption 2 – no direct impact from removal of partial interchange

Orange County120 Route 211 No direct impact122 Crystal Run Road 758 East Main St (eligible); no direct impact123 Route 17M Options 1, 2, 3 & 4 – close to several buildings; no direct impact

124 Route 207Interchange – Young House (Huwits Residence; listed) and Geo Wisner House(Andrews Residence; listed); no direct impactExpanded Park & Ride Lot – no direct impact

126 Summerville Way Expanded Park & Ride Lot127 Greycourt No direct impact from removal of partial interchange128 Oxford/Craigville No direct impact129 Museum Village No direct impact from removal of partial interchange

130 Route 208 Options 1 & 2 – close to several buildings; no direct impactNew Park & Ride Lot – no direct impact



The reasonable alternatives may require minor ROW acquisition, with minor earth moving activities inpreviously undisturbed areas that have the potential to contain archeological resources. An archeologicalsurvey will be conducted to determine the presence of such resources once a project is more defined. Inthe event that resources are found, their significance will be determined (through coordination withSHPO) and the project will be designed to mitigate any impacts to these resources as appropriate.

According to NYSDEC, the following tribal nations may have an interest in land within the study area5:

· Delaware Nation (Oklahoma)

· Delaware Tribe of Nations (Oklahoma)

· Stockbridge-Munsee Band of the Mohican Nation of Wisconsin

· Ramapough-Lenape

These tribal nations have been contacted to determine interest in continued consultation regarding thisstudy corridor.

Next Steps: Work with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to develop an area of potentialeffect (APE) for a project once defined, identify and evaluate historic properties within the APE todetermine if any resources meet the criteria for listing on the State and National Resisters of HistoricPlaces, then prepare an effects assessment to determine if the proposed work would result in an AdverseEffect.

A Phase I archeological survey will be conducted to determine the presence of archeological resources.If necessary, a Phase II archaeological survey will be conducted to more precisely determine thelocations, quantity and significance of the resources. This report will make it possible to fully identify andevaluate potential impacts from the project, and to determine if a Data Recovery effort will be necessary,and to determine what mitigation measures will be appropriate.

Consult with the tribal nations to determine if there are areas of concern, particularly related toarchaeology, within the project limits and identify areas with religious or cultural significance to sites withinthe APE.

Contact the Executive Director of the Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area toensure that the project is consistent with the Heritage Area Management Plan.6

3.9 Parks and Recreational ResourcesThere are no State Heritage Areas within the study corridor.

There are no listed nationally significant natural areas within, or adjacent to, the study corridor.

The study corridor is located adjacent to several parks and recreation areas, as described in Section 2.3,School Districts, Recreational Areas, and Places of Worship. The level of “use” of any of the significantpublicly-owned parks will be determined once design has progressed on a specific project and aProgrammatic or Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation will be prepared, if necessary.

Based on consultation with the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, theonly parkland or facility within the study corridor that has been partially or fully federally funded throughthe Land and Water Conservation Act (Section 6(f)) is the Bashakill Wildlife Management Area. At this

5 https://www.dec.ny.gov/public/974.html6 Per hudsonrivervalley.com, the Executive Director of the National Heritage Area is Scott Keller([email protected]).



stage of design, it does not appear that there would be any impact to the wildlife management area fromany of the reasonable alternatives; therefore, a Section 6(f) conversion would not be necessary.

Based on preliminary analysis of existing information, the reasonable alternatives do not involve the useof land from a park to which Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program funds have been applied.

3.10 Visual ResourcesThe study corridor covers two counties, through developed commercial areas, historic neighborhoods,farmlands and forested parklands. The viewshed is an important feature of the corridor; however, thereasonable alternatives are consistent with the existing landscape and transportation features of Route17. The general use third lane would be expected to be constructed within the existing right-of-way andwould not expand into adjacent land uses and change existing viewsheds. The proposed interchangeimprovements would either remove or reconfigure existing interchanges. There would be no newinterchanges proposed where one does not currently exist; therefore, the impacts to visual resourceswould be minor. Two bridges (Rapp Road at exit103 and Heiden Road at exit 107) may be replaced aspart of interchange improvement alternatives. Based on preliminary analysis, neither bridge is visuallysignificant and the replacement bridge would be expected to be similar in style, scale, and location. Theproposed park and ride lot expansions at exits 124 and 126 would be minor and would be consistent withsurrounding environment. The new lot at exit 130 would be immediately across Orange-Rockland Lakefrom the existing park and ride lot associated with exit 129 and would be located within the existinginterchange loop. No visual impacts are anticipated from the park and ride lot expansions.

Next Steps: If necessary, once a specific project is further refined, a Visual Impact Assessment followingNYSDOT guidance would be prepared.

3.11 FarmlandsBased on a review of the NYS Agricultural District Maps for Orange and Sullivan Counties, the studycorridor is located through portions of NYS Agricultural Districts. If a specific project would not acquiremore than one acre from an actively operated farm within any of the Agricultural Districts, or more thanten acres within any of the individual Agricultural Districts, the notification requirements of the NYSAgriculture and Markets Law would not apply.

The general use third lane would be constructed within the existing median; therefore, no land fromagricultural districts would be expected. Based on preliminary analysis of existing information, only acouple of the intersection improvements and park and ride lot expansions would be near a NYSAgricultural District – exit 114 (removal only) and exit 128 (located opposite side of Craigville Road thanthe proposed reconfigured interchange). These reasonable alternatives would not be expected to meetthe threshold for notification of the NYS Agriculture and Markets Law.

Next Steps: The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets has potential jurisdiction throughthe New York State Agriculture and Markets Law and the department will be invited to participate in futureNEPA processes.

Further evaluation of prime and unique farmland, or farmland of state or local importance, as defined bythe USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, is required to determine if there is the potential forimpact as a result of a specific project, once properly defined. If necessary, the US Department ofAgriculture Farmland Conversion Rating (Form AD 1006) will be completed and submitted to the NRCS(Natural Resources Conservation Service), followed by consultation with the NRCS and a review ofalternatives that do not require farmland acquisition.

3.12 Air QualityThe Clean Air Act (CAA) sets forth the framework and goals for improving air quality to protect publichealth and the environment. It requires the USEPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards



(NAAQS) for the following “criteria” pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than or equal to 10micrometers (PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than or equal to2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and lead (Pb).

The NAAQS are divided into two types of criteria: primary standards, which are intended to protect thepublic health with an adequate margin of safety, and secondary standards, which are intended to protectthe public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effect of a pollutant (e.g., soiling, vegetationdamage, material corrosion). The State of New York has adopted these standards (both primary andsecondary) as the state standards.

Each criteria pollutant is monitored on a continuous basis throughout the State of New York by theNYSDEC. Areas with measured air quality concentrations lower than the NAAQS are designated“attainment” for that standard. Areas that exceed the NAAQS are designated “nonattainment.” An areacan be attainment for one pollutant and nonattainment for others. Areas that previously did not meet oneof the NAAQS but have since attained the standard are subject to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) forair quality “maintenance.” Such areas are commonly referred to as “maintenance areas.” Maintenanceareas can also be classified as attainment, maintenance, or nonattainment for other pollutants.

The project corridor is located within Sullivan County, which is not designated as a nonattainment ormaintenance area for any pollutant, and Orange County, which is designated a maintenance area forPM2.5. Thus, the CAA transportation conformity requirements, 40 CFR Part 93 and 6 NYCRR Part 240,would apply to proposed projects in the Orange County portion of the study area.

3.12.1 CO ScreeningThe intersection traffic used for the CO screening analysis was based on level of service (LOS) andvolume data at intersections in the study area (45 intersections). Per TEM guidance, only thoseintersections with a Build LOS of D or below have been screened further (17 intersections). These 17intersections were then screened according to the volume threshold screening, as detailed in Section I-3of the NYSDOT TEM Chapter 1.1. The emission factors applied within this screening come from USEPA’sMOVES2014b emission factor program and represent the year of estimate to completion.

The emission factors applied within this screening are from USEPA’s MOVES2014b model and representthe year of ETC. CO emission factors were generated for both idle and the average speed within theproject corridor, 30 mph. The resulting emission factors are as follows:

· Idle = 8.4 grams per hour

· 30 mph = 2.1 grams per mile

Upon comparison to Table 3C in the TEM, when applying the above emission factors, intersections in thestudy corridor would screen out if they have approach volumes of less than 4,000 at any approach.

One signalized intersection, Exit 120 eastbound (NY Route 211) has volumes in the southboundapproach exceeding 4,000 under Build ETC+30. This intersection would likely require detailed analysis.None of the other intersections in the study corridor meet the criteria that would warrant a CO microscaleanalysis.

Next Steps: Since Orange County is classified as a maintenance area for particulate matter smaller thanor equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), a particulate matter microscale analysis would need to be performed if aproject is classified as a project of air quality concern (POAQC). To facilitate this decision, the projectteam would compile applicable project information – including description, AADT and truck percentagesunder no build and build conditions, intersection LOS and delay – into an interagency memo. This memowould be provided to the Interagency Consultation Group (ICG), which is normally composed of various



involved agencies including NYSDOT, FHWA, and EPA. The ICG would then decide whether the projectis a POAQC. If it is not a POAQC, no further action will be required. If it is a POAQC, then a microscalePM2.5 analysis will need to be conducted, following EPA’s Transportation Conformity Guidance forQuantitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas.

For NEPA purposes, a mesoscale (regional) analysis would likely be conducted for a given project usingUSEPA’s MOVES emissions model. This analysis would use link-by-link traffic data along with specificvehicle mix and speed information. The analysis would be conducted for applicable criteria pollutants -carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter(PM10 and PM2.5), as well as greenhouse gases (GHG) and energy consumption. Per FHWA’s UpdatedInterim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, if the Build AADT on Route17 is over 140,000, the mesoscale analysis will also be conducted for the nine priority mobile source airtoxics (MSAT). The same link network would be used for all mesoscale analyses, which would bedeveloped in coordination with FHWA and NYSDOT based upon project specific links and those links with+/- 5% changes in volume between build and no build conditions. If the Build AADT on Route 17 is notover 140,000, or if a quantitative analysis was not directly requested by NYSDOT, a qualitative MSATanalysis could be conducted.

As part of NEPA, the GHG emissions and energy use from construction of the Build Alternative for aproject would be calculated using FHWA’s Infrastructure Carbon Estimator, a spreadsheet tool thatestimates GHG emissions and energy use from the construction of transportation facilities. This analysiswould be based on specific project inputs, including average daily traffic (ADT) of Route 17, lane-miles ofroadway widening and construction, and lane-miles of bridge widening and construction. The tool alsoestimates annual GHG emissions and energy use from the construction impacts on vehicle operations,which cause vehicle delay.

3.13 NoiseBased on preliminary analysis of existing information the projects from this study would likely becategorized as a Type I Project, as defined in the NYSDOT TEM Section 4.4.18 Noise Analysis Policyand Procedures (NYSDOT Noise Policy) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Procedures forAbatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (23 CFR 772).

A noise screening analysis was conducted to determine the need for environmental noise studies underNEPA. According to Chapter 3 of NYDOT’s Environmental Procedure Manual (EPM), the first step in anoise analysis is to identify the areas and associated activities (i.e., land uses) to be potentially affectedby highway noise. The areas on both sides of the entire length of the proposed highway project shall beconsidered. These areas must then be assigned to the Activity Categories listed in Table 7. Due to thelarge study corridor and study area, land uses with noise sensitive receptors were grouped into CommonNoise Environments (CNE). A CNE is a group of receptors that are exposed to similar noise sources andlevels.



Table 7. Activity Category and FHWA Noise Abatement CriteriaACTIVITY

CATEGORYLEQ(H)DB(A)

EVALUATIONLOCATIONS DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY CATEGORY

A 57 Exterior Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important publicneed and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serveits intended purpose.

B 67 Exterior ResidentialC 67 Exterior Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers,

hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, publicmeeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios,recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails and trail crossings.

D 52 Interior Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, publicmeeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios,schools, and television studios.

E 72 Exterior Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties or activities notincluded in A-D or F.

F — — Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities,manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, watertreatment, electrical), and warehousing.

G — — Undeveloped lands that are not permitted

Land uses with noise sensitive receptors were grouped into CNEs on both sides of Route 17 within theapproximately 500-foot study area. Due to many mixed-use areas along the study corridor, the CNEsinclude areas with multiple receptors and different types of activity categories. Google aerial imagery wasused to identify noise sensitive activity categories such as residential, commercial, institutional, andrecreational areas. CNEs were grouped between the major exits on Route 17 and are listed in Table 8with corresponding land use maps (see Attachment 4 of Appendix B of Attachment 1, TechnicalMemorandum 1). Agricultural, industrial, and utility corridors (Activity Category F) and undeveloped lands(Activity Category G) were not identified as part of this screening.

Based on the preliminary screening analysis, the study area includes many sensitive receptors that couldbe impacted by a specific project. The reasonable alternatives most likely to result in noise impacts arethose that would shift roadways (including interchange ramps) closer to sensitive receptors. That mayoccur at exit 104, exit 123 (particularly Options 3 and 4), exit 128, and exit 130. Although the general usethird lane would add a travel lane, it would be located interior to the existing lanes in the median andwould not move the travel lane closer to receptors. The proposed park and ride lot expansions would notbe located near noise sensitive receptors.



Table 8. Common Noise Environments within Project Study AreaCNE Land Use Activity

CategoryLocation

1 Central Valley Elementary School/Monroe Woodbury Middle School/MonroeWoodbury High School C/D North of Rt 17

2 Residential areas in the Town of Woodbury B North of Rt 173 Residential areas in the Village of Kirays Joel B North of Rt 17

4A Residential and commercial areas in the Village of Harriman B/E South of Rt 174B Commercial areas in the Village of Harriman E South of Rt 175A Residential areas in the Village of Monroe B South of Rt 175B Residential and commercial areas in the Town of Monroe B/C/D/E South of Rt 176A Jack and Louise Birnberg Preserve C North of Rt 177A Residential areas in the Village of Chester B North of Rt 177B Commercial areas in the Village of Chester C/D/E North of Rt 176B Goosepond Mountain State Park B South of Rt 178 Residential and commercial areas in the Town of Chester B/C/D South of Rt 179 Residential areas in the Town of Goshen B South of Rt 17

10A Residential and commercial areas in the Village of Goshen B/D/E North of Rt 1710B Residential areas in the Village of Goshen B North of Rt 1710C Good Time Park C North of Rt 1711 Orange-Ulster BOCES Arden Hill Campus C/D South of Rt 1712 Residential areas in the Town of Goshen B South of Rt 17

10D John S. Burke Catholic High School C/D North of Rt 1710E Residential areas in the Village of Goshen B North of Rt 1713A Wallkill Cemetery C South of Rt 1713B Orange Regional Medical Center C/D South of Rt 1714A Residential areas in the Town of Wallkill B North of Rt 1714B Residential areas in the Town of Wallkill B North of Rt 1715 Residential areas in the City of Middletown B South of Rt 1717 Residential areas in the Town of Wallkill B North of Rt 1720 Residential and commercial areas in the Village of Wurtsboro B/C/D/E North of Rt 1718 Residential areas in the Village of Bloomingsburg B South of Rt 1719 Residential areas in the Town of Mamakating B South of Rt 1721 Residential and commercial areas in the Town of Mamakating B/C/D/E North of Rt 17

22A Residential areas in the Town of Mamakating B South of Rt 1722B Residential and commercial areas in the Town of Mamakating B/C/D/E South of Rt 1723A Residential and commercial areas in the Town of Thompson B/C/D/E North of Rt 1723B Residential and commercial areas in the Town of Thompson B/C/D/E North of Rt 1725 Residential areas in the Village of Monticello B North of Rt 1726 Residential areas in the Town of Thompson B North of Rt 17

24A Residential and commercial areas in the Village of Monticello B/C/D/E South of Rt 1724B St. Peters Cemetery C South of Rt 1727 Residential areas in the Town of Thompson B South of Rt 17

Next Steps: A detailed noise study, as defined in the NYSDOT TEM Section 4.4.18 Noise Analysis Policyand Procedures (NYSDOT Noise Policy) and the FHWA Procedures for Abatement of Highway TrafficNoise and Construction Noise (23 CFR 772), is expected to be required once a project is properlydefined.



3.14 AsbestosNext Steps: Asbestos investigations would occur as necessary for any of the defined projects.

3.15 Hazardous Waste and Contaminated MaterialsA review of NYSDEC online databases found that there are no open remediation sites within a one-halfmile study area of the study corridor.7 Within the Orange County study area, there are 58 bulk storagesites and 27 spill incident sites. Within the Sullivan County study area, there are 18 bulk storage sites and3 spill incident sites.

Next Steps: When a project is further developed, a Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Materials SiteScreening would be conducted in accordance with NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter5, in order to document the likely presence or absence of hazardous/contaminated environmentalconditions. A hazardous/contaminated environmental condition is the presence or likely presence of anyhazardous substances or petroleum products (including products currently in compliance with applicableregulations) on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a materialthreat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property orinto the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property.

7 https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8437.html


Route 17 PEL Study, Orange and Sullivan Counties

EXHIBITS



Exhibit 1. Interchange 103 - Rapp Road



Exhibit 2. Interchange 104 - Route 17B



Exhibit 3. Interchange 107 - Heiden/Bridgeville Road



Exhibit 4. Interchange 110 – Lake Louise Marie (Option 1)



Exhibit 5. Interchange 110 - Lake Louise Marie (Option 2)



Exhibit 6. Interchange 115 - Burlingham Road



Exhibit 7. Interchange 120 - Route 211



Exhibit 8. Interchange 122 - Crystal Run Road



Exhibit 9. Interchange 123 - Route 17M (Option 1)



Exhibit 12. Interchange 124 - Route 207



Exhibit 13. Interchange 128 - Oxford/Craigville



Exhibit 14. Interchange 130 - Route 208 (Option 1)



Exhibit 15. Interchange 130 - Route 208 (Option 2)