final tompkins county residency at ithaca tompkins ... · the nysdot tompkins county...

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency at Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport

AIP GRANT NO. 3‐36‐0047‐084‐2018 NYSDOT PIN 3M00.18

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND PREFERRED ACTION ........................................................................ 7 4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................ 12 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .............................................................................................. 20 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................................... 46 7.0 Public Involvement Activities ....................................................................................................... 47

APPENDICES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE

A Ithaca Tompkins Airport Layout Plan

with Pen & Ink Changes

B Project Plans

C Figures

D Wetland and Stream Delineation and Correspondence

E Habitat Assessment and Endangered Species Correspondence

F Airspace Analysis

G Section 106 Documents and Correspondence

H Noise Analysis

I Farmland Protection Policy Act Correspondence

J Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment

K Asbestos Containing Materials Survey

L Visual Impact Analysis

M Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Hearing

N Response to Public/Agency Comments

O Written Comments

P Public Hearing Transcript

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE NUMBER

1 Project Components 2

2 No Action Alternative 8

3 Build Alternative‐ Project Component Size 8

4 Build Alternative – Relocate NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐

Residency 10

5 Estimated Emission Levels 26

6 Common Noise Levels 38

7 Summary of Potential Impacts & Key Issues 44

https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/region3/projects/Tab



ii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACRONYMS

ABBREVIATION MEANING

ACM Asbestos‐containing material

ALP Airport Layout Plan

AOA Airport Operation Area

ATC Air Traffic Control

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DBH Diameter at Breast Height

DOT Department of Transportation

EA Environmental Assessment

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIS Flood Insurance Study

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

H & H Hydrologic and Hydraulic

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation

ITH Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHP Natural Heritage Program

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation

NYSOPRHP New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

RSA Runway Safety Area

SEQR State Environmental Quality Review Act

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service



1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Assessment (EA) documents the evaluation of potential impacts associated with the proposed construction of the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) maintenance facility in the City of Ithaca on lands to be transferred to NYSDOT by Tompkins County which are currently part of the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport (ITH) property. The official name of the proposed maintenance facility is the Tompkins County Sub‐Residency, which will house and service the NYSDOT’s regional fleet of maintenance trucks and snow plows. The facility will consist of a several buildings and related facilities and is to be constructed on vacant property currently owned by the Airport. The full project description is provided in Section 1.2 below. This EA was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 to address potential impacts associated with the release of approximately 15.55 acres of land currently part of the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport (ITH) (Deed of Release), modification of the FAA approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) and construction of the Tompkins County Sub‐Residency. The study was conducted in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines, including:

FAA Order 5050.4B “NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions”

FAA Order 1050.1F “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures”

The FAA Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions This document will be referenced by the NYSDOT Design Report to assist in fulfilling the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) implementing regulations 17 NYCRR (New York Codes, Rules and Regulations) Part 15. This EA includes the following sections:

1.0 Introduction 2.0 Purpose and Need 3.0 Alternatives Analysis and Preferred Action 4.0 Affected Environment 5.0 Environmental Consequences 6.0 List of Preparers 7.0 Technical Appendices

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND & FEDERAL ACTIONS The Federal Action is a formal FAA Land Release and FAA approval to a change to the Ithaca Tompkins County Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The Airport intends to sell the property needed for construction of the maintenance facility to the NYSDOT. This process includes a formal request by the Airport to the FAA, which addresses several FAA requirements, provides a detailed justification, and includes a property survey and a new deed for the subject property. Like all public airports that accept federal funds for improvement and rehabilitation projects, it is subject to a set of FAA Grant Assurances, including an obligation that airport property can only be used for airport purposes. To release the Airport from this obligation requires the formal FAA Land Release to allow a land use change to other than aeronautical purposes. The Land Release process is concluded with FAA’s issuance of a Deed of Release and subsequent deed filing with the County. As described below, the deed of release will include the subject airport property (see Section 1.2) to accommodate the proposed maintenance facility. Once this process is completed, the released land will become NYSDOT property and will no longer be federally‐obligated.



2

Although no FAA funding is being used to construct the maintenance facility, the proposed development will be located on property to be released by the FAA to Tompkins County for non‐aeronautical purposes, requiring an FAA approval to a change to the airport’s ALP. New buildings and other site development features on the Airport property are regulated by the FAA to the extent that the property is located in navigable air space as defined in Federal Airport Regulations (FAR) Part. This ALP change is considered a Federal Action that triggers the NEPA process. The FAA has determined that the ALP revisions will be considered a ‘Pen & Ink’ ALP Change. The change does not impact any airport facilities or alter airport activity, and thus a comprehensive ALP update is not required by FAA. The project cannot commence prior to FAA approval of the Pen & Ink ALP Change and completion of the NEPA process. The revisions to the ALP (provided in Appendix A) will involve removing the 15.55 acres from the ALP. These facilities are described in detail in Section 1.2 below, and illustrated in Appendix B. This EA satisfies the NEPA process for both related Federal Actions – the ALP Change and the Land Release. If the FAA finds that the impacts of this proposed project are not significant and/or can be effectively mitigated, the FAA will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The FONSI must be issued before the FAA can subsequently approve the ALP Change and the Land Release. The future disposition of the existing maintenance facility and property located in the City of Ithaca is currently unknown and not addressed in this EA. The environmental impacts of a future use or reuse of that site will not involve the FAA and will be addressed by the appropriate federal, state and local agencies responsible for funding, permitting, approving or directly undertaking the project when that specific project is identified. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The EA addresses the Deed of Release, the change in the ALP and the construction of the proposed Tompkins County Sub‐Residency, including a maintenance garage, office space, workshop space, truck parking and salt storage on approximately 15.55 acres of property located northwest of the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport facilities. The property is currently owned by the Airport to protect the overlying airspace and prevent incompatible development. The parcel is located approximately ½ mile northwest of the Airport’s primary runway (Runway 14‐32) and below the FAA protected airspace. The square footage of the various components are as follows:

Table 1‐Project Components

Component Approximate Size in Square Feet (sf)

Sub‐residency maintenance building 30,000 sf

Cold Storage 5,000 sf

Salt Barn 8,200 sf

Hopper Building (covered lean‐to) 2,500 sf

Total 45,700 sf

The proposed maintenance building will have vehicle storage for 10 trucks, a loader and tow plow, with one additional double depth mechanical bay and single depth, drive‐thru truck washing bay. It also includes an office area (three rooms), lunch/break room (30 people), toilet/shower/locker rooms, storage rooms and



3

mechanical/electrical rooms. The site will also contain stockpile areas for pipe, stone and millings, and ancillary site features including a fueling station, parking for 40 vehicles, and stormwater management facilities. The project will require construction of an access drive from Warren Road and the extension of utilities. 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION The Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport is a public use commercial airport owned and operated by Tompkins County. The NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency project area consists of an approximately 15.55‐acre portion of Airport lands owned by Tompkins County in the Town of Lansing located on Warren Road, approximately ½ mile northwest of the airport’s primary runway and just north of the City of Ithaca. The Airport is located primarily in the Village of Lansing, however, both ends of Runway 14‐32 extend into the Town of Lansing. Tompkins County owns approximately 53 acres northwest of the Airport; the NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency will be accessible via a new driveway connecting to Warren Road. A location map and aerial map are shown as Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix C. 1.3 INVOLVED AND INTERESTED AGENCIES The project will include a number of federal, state and local agencies that will be directly involved with or have an interest in the project. Federal:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – The FAA will serve as the lead federal agency. The federal action will approve the land‐release of airport property and enable NYSDOT to purchase property from Tompkins County. After purchasing the property, NYSDOT will relocate a maintenance facility (known as the Tomkins Co. Sub‐Residency) from downtown Ithaca. See Section 1.0 for further information on the project description and FAA involvement.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – Stream and wetland impacts associated with the project will require verification from USACE that they qualify for a Nationwide Permit. See Sections 4.1 and 5.17 for further information on the wetland and stream resources and the permitting process.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act the federal Action Agency (FAA) is required to consult with the USFWS regarding threatened and endangered species. See Sections 4.2 and 5.7 for additional information on threatened and endangered species.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) – The NRCS is a federal coordinating agency responsible for implementation of the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act. See Section 5.6 for further information on farmland protection.

State:

NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) – A State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity Notice of Intent will be submitted to NYSDEC. Authorization of stream and wetland impacts under the USACE Nationwide Permit program requires corresponding Water Quality Certification by the NYSDEC. See Section 5.16 for additional information on water quality. In addition, NYSDEC is responsible for the protection of NYS‐listed threatened and endangered and other protected plants and animals pursuant to Article 11 of the Environmental Conservation Law. See Section 5.7 for additional information on threatened and endangered species.



4

NYS Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) – NYSDOT is the project sponsor and will own the land and new facility.

NYS Office of General Services (NYSOGS) – NYSOGS will be responsible for issuing the permit to construct the facility.

NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) – SHPO serves as the state coordinating agency for historic and archeological resources under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. See Sections 4.4 and 5.10 for further information on historic resources.

Local:

Town of Lansing – The project is in the Town of Lansing. The Town must approve the amendment of the Warren Road Sewer District.

Tompkins County – The Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport is owned and operated by Tompkins County. The land to be transferred to NYSDOT is Airport/County property. The County (and FAA) must approval the transfer of the land. See Section 1.0 for further information on the land transfer.

Village of Cayuga Heights & Village of Lansing ‐ While the project is not within the villages, they must approve a sewer connection permit.

Southern Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission‐ The Water Commission must approve the water connection permit.



5

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED Purpose: The purpose of the proposed action is to provide NYSDOT with a Tompkins County Sub‐Residency of appropriate size and layout to allow for safe and efficient operations of the maintenance facility on a parcel of land available for purchase at the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport. This will be accomplished by:

Relocating operations of the existing NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency from its current location at the southern tip of Cayuga Lake, in the City of Ithaca, to a parcel north of the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport Runway 14‐22, in the Town of Lansing, to provide a facility of appropriate size and layout to allow for safe and efficient operations.

Constructing a new Tompkins County Sub‐Residency that meets 21st century needs of the NYSDOT; thereby improving its ability to provide excellent customer service to the traveling public. The proposed site is strategically located with excellent access to main roadways.

Need: In 1958, the NYSDOT constructed the Tompkins County Sub‐residency highway maintenance facility in the City of Ithaca along the Cayuga Inlet at the southern tip of Cayuga Lake. NYSDOT’s operations from this facility have increased over the years to respond to development and the growing needs for highway maintenance in the area surrounding the facility. In as early as 1992, NYSDOT had identified the need to relocate the Tompkins County Sub‐Residency. In 2016, it commissioned a report by Fisher Associates entitled “NYSDOT Maintenance Facility Relocation and Redevelopment Feasibility Study.” The study articulated the operational requirements of the NYSDOT and the deficiencies of the Tompkins County Sub‐Residency. Current deficiencies include:

The current sub‐residency is bounded by the Cayuga Inlet, North Meadow Street, the Norfolk Southern railroad line (an active freight line), and the former Steamboat Landing. The construction of this facility in 1958 preceded the relocation of Route 13 to North and South Meadow Street, the dredging of the inlet flood control channel (1964‐1969), the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Facility (1987), the Ithaca Farmer’s Market (1988), and the Carpenter Business Park (not yet developed). As such, the current facility cannot expand to meet the current needs of the NYSDOT.

Because of the increased traffic generated by the development around the current sub‐residency, the ingress and egress to the site has become increasingly difficult. Specifically, there has been increased operational difficulty in getting trucks in and out of the facility during snow events

The existing facility is over 55 years old and the useful life of the buildings and utility infrastructure will continue to diminish, necessitating escalating maintenance costs over time.

Formerly, portions of the state roads in Tompkins County were plowed, by agreement, by other

municipalities. These agreements are no longer in place. Several years ago, NYSDOT increased the

number of trucks at the Ithaca facility from 5 to 10 vehicles to serve all of Tompkins County. There is



6

insufficient garage space to store the additional trucks and equipment and they are frequently stored

outside, adding to the wear and tear on the vehicles.

There is insufficient space in the existing primary maintenance structure for both equipment storage and bulk material storage needs. For example, the former sign shop building has been adapted to garage space and two Quonset hut structures have been erected to house trucks.

The location, access and size of the existing salt barn causes operational inefficiencies. The limited size requires more frequent truck deliveries to replenish stock. Staff man hours required to load and manage the stockpile is excessive.

The City of Ithaca was issued a Use and Occupancy permit for the Cayuga Waterfront Trail. The

construction of the trail and security fence has reduced the area that was used by the NYSDOT for storage

of equipment and bulk materials.

The location of the current sub‐residency is incompatible with current and proposed land use surrounding the site including public use of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail, the continued revitalization of the Cayuga Lake Waterfront, and the City of Ithaca’s plan for recreational use of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail and potential mixed‐use development.

The NYSDOT needs a new sub‐residency on a larger piece of land, with better access to State highways, away from the environmentally sensitive Cayuga Inlet and Cayuga Lake, away from pedestrian uses and concentrated vehicular traffic, and with more modern structures and facilities.



7

3.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND PREFERRED ACTION This chapter addresses the potential alternatives that were analyzed for the development of the NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency to be located within the planned Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport Industrial/Business Park. The NEPA and FAA Order 5050.4B require the consideration of alternatives commensurate with the purpose and need statement. The intent is to evaluate various options that address the recognized need so that potential environmental impacts can be compared and minimized. This section addresses the preferred alternative and No‐Action alternative. The Council on Environmental Quality requires all federal EAs to address the No Action alternative. Sites that were considered during the initial site screening/selection process but dismissed from further consideration are discussed in Section 1.2. 3.1 ALTERNATIVES 3.1.1 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative retains the existing NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency at its current location on Cayuga Lake in the City of Ithaca. In 2016, it was determined that the existing facility has insufficient space in the primary maintenance structure and the existing salt barn which creates operational inefficiencies related to size and access. The Cayuga Waterfront Trail traverses a portion of the NYSDOT site that was formerly used for the storage of equipment and bulk materials. Overall, the Facility does not meet the DOT’s needs and its location limits access to and redevelopment of the waterfront. The No Action Alternative would not have impacts associated with development of a currently undisturbed parcel or the cost to construct a new facility. However, there would be continued safety and capacity issues associated with operation of the existing facility. These include safety issues related to operational inefficiencies and concerns with the storage of materials in proximity to Cayuga Lake. The current facility is also undersized relative to the capacity of trucks and personnel, as well as volume of salt that can be stored on site. The continued use of this site will also limit the recreational use of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail that bisects the property and the potential for mixed‐use redevelopment of the site as envisioned in the City of Ithaca’s Waterfront Plan and reflected in its zoning. The No Action Alternative maintains an inefficient facility located on a site that is incompatible with maintaining access to Cayuga Lake and the Cayuga Waterfront trail.



8

The following summary table highlights potential advantages and disadvantages of the No Action Alternative.

Table 2‐No Action Alternative

Project Goal: Provide additional space & improved site conditions for safe and efficient Tompkins County Sub‐Residency operations.

Description: Continue operation of the existing Tompkins County Sub‐Residency; and have no action at the proposed site.

Advantages Disadvantages

No new wetland, stream, water quality or floodplain impacts.

No new impacts to biological resources, habitats or species of concern

Least costly alternative.

Does not meet the purpose of the project.

Retains existing operational and storage inefficiencies.

Existing facility would continue to limit access to the Cayuga Waterfront Trail.

3.1.2 Build Alternative ‐ Relocate NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency Build Alternative would relocate the NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency from its current location in the City of Ithaca (Figure 3, Appendix C) on the eastern shore of Cayuga Lake to a site in the Town of Lansing just northwest of the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport. The relocation meets the goals of several agencies and organizations:

A new NYSDOT facility consisting of office space, workshop space, truck parking and salt storage. This would allow the NYSDOT adequate space to properly store all equipment and materials as well as improve operational efficiency.

Decommissioning the existing NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency will provide opportunity for the County and the City to meet the goals of the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan, including maintaining the integrity of the Cayuga Waterfront Trail, a 5.5‐mile multi‐use trail connecting waterfront destinations along the southern shore of Cayuga Lake.

Continued revitalization of the Cayuga Lake Waterfront as envisioned by the City of Ithaca. Build Alternative involves construction of a new NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency, providing office space, workshop space, truck parking and salt storage on approximately 15.55 acres northwest of the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport. The square footage of the various components are as follows:

Table 3‐Build Alternative ‐Project Component Size

Component Approximate Size in Square Feet (sf)

Sub‐residency maintenance building 30,000 sf

Cold Storage 5,000 sf

Salt Barn 8,200 sf

Hopper Building (covered lean‐to) 2,500 sf

Total 45,700 sf



9

The proposed maintenance building will have vehicle storage for 10 trucks, a loader and tow plow, with one additional double depth mechanical bay and single depth, drive‐thru truck washing bay. It also includes an office area (three rooms), lunch/break room (30 people), toilet/shower/locker rooms, storage rooms and mechanical/electrical rooms. The site will also contain stockpile areas for pipe, stone and millings, and ancillary site features including a fueling station, parking for 40 vehicles, and stormwater management facilities. The project will require construction of an access drive from Warren Road and the extension of utilities. As part of this project, the property currently owned by Tompkins County will be released to the NYSDOT in accordance with the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) dated April 2012 with pen and ink changes dated August 2018. This alternative would meet the purpose of the project to provide an updated facility with additional room for maintenance and storage, as well as good site access and circulation to provide a safe and efficient environment. Refer to Appendix B for project plans for Build Alternative. This alternative would result in impact to less than 0.1 acre of waters of the U.S., including wetlands and would cross two small, unnamed intermittent streams. As per USACE Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 401 Water Quality Certification regulations, the wetland and stream impacts will be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practicable to meet the purpose and need of the project. Culverts for the two stream crossings will be sized to meet Nationwide Permit Conditions regarding aquatic life passage and maintenance of water flows as well as meeting the design criteria for a 50 year storm, as identified in Highway Design Manual Chapter 8. Although additional impervious surfaces will be created (approximately 6.8 acres), no significant water quality impacts will occur due to construction of stormwater management facilities on‐site and adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The state and federally listed northern long‐eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) was the only state or federally listed threatened or endangered species having the potential to occur within the project site or project vicinity. The site is not located in proximity to known hibernacula or known maternal roost trees. Due to tree removal at the site, the action may affect the northern long‐eared bat, but complies with the 4d rule and will not cause prohibited take under the Endangered Species Act.



10

The following summary table highlights potential advantages and disadvantages of Build Alternative.

Table 4‐Build Alternative‐ Relocate NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency

Project Goal: Provide additional space & improved site conditions for safe and efficient Tompkins County Sub‐Residency operations.

Description: Construct a new NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency on an undeveloped site north of Runway 14‐22, on property currently owned by Ithaca –Tompkins Airport and decommission existing facility in Ithaca.

Advantages Disadvantages

New site provides room to provide safe and efficient Tompkins County Sub‐Residency operations.

New Tompkins County Sub‐Residency provides updated equipment, storage and office space.

Good access to State highway.

Opportunity for redevelopment of Cayuga Lake waterfront.

Eliminates conflicts with trail system at Cayuga Lake.

Releasing the Property from airport purposes does not impact airport safety and security.

Potential for impacts to less than 0.1 acre of wetland and stream.

Removal of approximately 10.5 acres of young forest community.

Effects on adjacent historic resources that will be minimized by conditions which retain vegetation on‐site and install vegetative screening.

3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED During the initial planning for the relocation, the following additional sites were considered but based on screening had sufficient disadvantages to be discarded.

A 10.8‐acre undeveloped site in the Village of Dryden was screened as a potential location for the Tompkins Sub‐Residency. While the site was already owned by NYSDOT and would have provided enough space to allow for updated equipment, storage and office space, it had a number of disadvantages. Because of its location, snow and ice removal operations for the lane‐miles to the south and west of Cayuga Lake would not have been feasible. Response times and cycle times for plows would be too long. In addition, mapping indicates that 7.5% of the site was designated federal wetland and there was no direct access to State Route 13 or State Route 38.

The Southwest Park Property, a 59.4 acres site in the City of Ithaca was screened as an option to relocate the Tompkins Sub‐Residency. While the site would have provided enough space to allow for updated equipment, storage and office space, an initial screening identified a number of disadvantages. State Route 13 would have been difficult to access. Approximately 20 acres of the site were reserved for dredge spoils and therefore were undevelopable. The site has a high‐water table, poor soil conditions, and has



11

been historically used as a landfill. Additionally, 23% of the site is designated federal wetland. Therefore, despite the large size of the parcel, there was limited available land to locate the buildings and facilities on the site.

Tompkins County offered the portion of the County‐owned property at the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport offered to NYSDOT was located in the northeast corner of the site. The location offered to NYSDOT met its criteria for new locations for the Sub‐residency (described in Response B‐1). Based on publicly available information, including the County’s 2016 Feasibility Study for the Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport Industrial/Business Park (2016 County Feasibility Study), a variety of constraints exist on the other portions of the parcel as described below. These, coupled with the need for direct access to Warren Road and the site acreage needs of the sub‐residency, limited the available location offered by the County to the present site. Other sites within the undeveloped portions of the ITH Property were screened to see whether they would provide enough space for updated equipment, storage and office space. Lands on the southeasterly portion of the property were within the Runway Protection Zone which precluded construction of essential facilities and the stream running through the property limited available land for construction. Lands on the far west of the site do not have direct access to Warren Road. Locating further from Warren Road increases the cost to install infrastructure and increases disturbance of natural habitat. Lands on the far northwesterly portion of the property contained mapped National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetlands. The Clean Water Act mandates project proponents avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands. 3.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Based on the evaluation identified in this section, and review by NYSDOT, Tompkins County, the airport sponsor and FAA, the build alternative has been chosen as the “Preferred Alternative”. This alternative meets FAA design standards, does not impact airport safety and security, and identified environmental impacts can be adequately mitigated. The No Action Alternative is not considered appropriate as it does not address the operational inefficiencies and storage needs of the NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency. The remainder of this EA document focuses on the evaluation of potential impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. The goal of the evaluation is to enable the FAA to determine if the impacts of the Proposed Action are substantial or could be implemented without significant impact.



12

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This chapter describes the environment that may be affected by the construction of the new NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency under consideration. The information provided in this chapter serves as the basis for the assessment of potential environmental, social, and economic impacts in Chapter 5 as required by the FAA The environmental resources of concern within and adjacent to the project area that may be impacted by the proposed project include:

Wetlands & Streams

Threatened and Endangered Species

Land Use Compatibility

Historic Resources 4.1 WETLANDS & STREAMS A wetland delineation was completed by CHA Consulting Inc. The wetland and stream delineation report is provided in Appendix D. AL The project area is on existing airport property. The project site is in a generally rural residential area to the north

of the City of Ithaca and located northwest of the Ithaca Tompkins Airport. There are some residences north of the project area as well as a commercial storage center east of the project area. The delineated area includes Wetlands A, B, C, and streams A and B. Wetland A drains into an unnamed tributary to Cayuga Lake. Wetland A (0.39 AC/16889 SF) is a shallow emergent wetland dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). The unnamed tributary (Stream A – 300 LF) is an intermittent stream with some channelized areas, likely remnant from past agricultural activities. Wetland B (0.005 AC/206 SF) is a scrub shrub wetland along an intermittent stream corridor. Stream B (270 LF) drains into an unnamed tributary to Cayuga

Lake. Wetland C (0.02 AC/932 SF) is a shallow emergent wetland with no surface connections to other waters. The wetlands include: palustrine, emergent, non‐persistent (PEM2) and palustrine, scrub shrub, broad‐leaved deciduous (PSS1). Wetlands and streams are shown on the Vegetative Communities Map provided in the Wetland and Stream Delineation report (Appendix D).

PROJECT ARIAL OVERVIEW

Wetland A Shallow Emergent Marsh (PEM)



13

Wetland A consists of species such as reed canary grass and bur reed (Sparganium eurycarpum). Wetland B consists of species such as tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), red‐osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis), fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea), hop sedge (Carex lupliformis), spotted Joe‐pye weed (Euthrochium maculatum), and narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia). Wetland C consists of species such as arrow‐leaved tearthumb (Persicaria inereal), giant goldenrod (Solidago giantea), Canada goldenrod, Sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and Flat‐topped goldenrod (Euthamia graminifolia). None of the identified wetlands are mapped by NYSDEC under Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL). Stream B is mapped on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) as Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed, Seasonally Flooded (R4SBC), and mapped by NYSDEC as a Class and Standard C stream (Part Item 898‐245), identified with the name “Tribs. of Cayuga Lake”. Stream A is not mapped on the NWI or by NYSDEC, and as an unmapped, intermittent stream is expected to be assigned to Class D per 6 NYCRR 898.2(k) The project proposes impact to less than 0.10 acre of emergent wetland (Wetland A), including approximately 145 linear feet of intermittent stream. Stream B will be impacted by the access road to the site from Warren Road. Stream A will be crossed by in internal access road needed to utilize lands north of the stream and wetland complex. Section 5.17 further discusses wetland impacts, as well as federal and state wetland regulations and the applicable permitting activities. The wetland and stream delineation report is provided in Appendix D. 4.2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES A habitat assessment report (Appendix E) was prepared for the project site that addresses the potential for state and federally listed threatened, endangered and other rare species to be impacted by the proposed project. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) database review indicated that one federal and state listed threatened species, the northern long‐eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), has the potential to occur in the project’s action area (see IPaC Official Species Report in Appendix E). No critical habitat for any species was identified within the project’s action area. According to the USFWS, suitable summer habitat for northern long‐eared bats is as follows:

After hibernation ends in late March or early April, most northern long‐eared bats migrate to summer roosts. The active season is the period between emergence and hibernation from April 1 – October 31. Suitable summer habitat consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non‐forested habitats. This includes forests and woodlots containing potential roosts, as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. The bats roost in cavities, underneath bark, crevices, or hollows of both live and dead trees and/or snags (typically ≥ 3inches diameter at breast height (DBH)). They are known to use a wide variety of roost types, using tree species based on presence of cavities and crevices or presence of peeling



14

bark. They have also been occasionally found roosting in structures like buildings, barns, sheds, houses, and bridges1.

Suitable winter habitat for the northern long‐eared bat (hibernacula) include underground caves and cave‐like structures (e.g., abandoned or active mines, railroad tunnels, and other locations where bats hibernate in winter). “Northern long‐eared bats show a high degree of philopatry to the hibernacula used, returning to the same hibernacula annually”1. There are no known hibernacula within or in proximity to the project’s action area. The Cayuga Salt Mine is approximately 3.5 miles from the project site but the USFWS and the NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has not documented northern long eared bat hibernacula or roost trees within or adjacent to the mine. Therefore, impacts to potential winter hibernacula are not expected. The project does not occur within 0.25 mile of a known hibernaculum or within 150 feet of a known occupied maternal roost tree (tree cutting buffers identified in the USFWS Final 4(d) Rule for northern long‐eared bat), nor does it occur within 5 miles of a known hibernaculum or within 1.5 miles of a known occupied maternal roost tree (tree cutting buffers identified NYSDEC for northern long‐eared bat). The NHP database was reviewed on July 5, 2018 by trained NYSDOT environmental staff, using guidance contained in the “New York Natural Heritage Program, Notes for Data Users” and the Environmental Manual (TEM) § 4.4.9.3. NYSDOT Environmental Staff indicated that there are no known occurrences of any listed species or rare or significant ecological communities within 1.5 miles of the project location. Per the 2018 “New York Natural Heritage Program, Notes for Data Users”, NYSDOT environmental staff also reviewed the NHP 1 mile around the project’s action area for bog turtle and 1.5 miles around the project’s action area for timber rattlesnake. No known occurrences of either species was found on the NHP database. The project action area is not within the distance from known occurrences that NYSDEC considers NLEB occupied habitat (e.g. located within 5 miles of a known hibernation site or 1.5 miles of a documented summer occurrence). NYSDOT staff also reviewed NYSDEC’s most recent list of streams having the potential to contain S1/S2 mussels. None of the streams on site were included in NYSDEC’s list as having the potential to contain S1/S2 mussels. Based on review of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Mapper, there are no EFH’s, no Habitats of Concern and no EFH areas protected from fishing located within the project area. A field investigation was completed by CHA in August 2018 to document the habitats within the project area. The project area consists of mowed/maintained areas, successional fields, successional northern hardwoods, successional scrub shrub corridors, and streams (unnamed tributaries) with fringe emergent wetlands. The vegetative communities map is provided in Appendix D.

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Midwest Regional Office. 2016. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Bloomington, Minnesota.



15

The mowed/maintained areas contain plant species such as various grasses, common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), broadleaf plantain (Plantago major), northern bedstraw (Galium boreale), birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), common yarrow (Achillea millefolium), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Allegheny blackberry (Rubus allegheniensis), timothy grass (Phleum pratense), red clover (Trifolium pratense), orchard grass (Dactylis glomerate), and common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). The forested areas/ areas of scattered/clustered trees

are dominated by White ash (Fraxinus americanai), tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa), raspberry sp. (Rubus sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Eurasian buckthorn (Rhamus cathartica), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), butternut (Juglans cenerea), and sugar maple (Acer saccharum). The plant species within the emergent wetlands are discussed in Section 4.1.

Some of the wildlife anticipated to be within the project area include gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), a variety of rodents, green frog (Lithobates clamitans melanota), American toad (Anaxyrus americanus), spring peeper (Pseudacris c. crucifer), and eastern garter snake (Thamnophis s. sirtalis). Additionally, aquatic organisms, various birds, a variety of butterflies, moths, and other insects are likely present.

Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species is discussed in Section 5.7. 4.3 COMPATIBLE LAND USE According to the Town of Lansing Zoning Code, the project site is zoned Industrial/Research (IR) (Appendix C, Figure 4). The Town of Lansing Land Use Ordinance indicates the intent of the Industrial‐Research (IR) District is to designate areas where some form of light manufacturing, fabrication, assembly or research, mining and power generation/utilities are appropriate and desired land uses. The Ordinance notes that “These areas will become

Successional Old Field

Upland Adjacent to Wetland C



16

small employment centers that could contain a variety of land use activities. To achieve the type of development that will be compatible with the surroundings, it is appropriate to consider each proposal individually. Site planning concerns relate to accessibility, impact on nearby neighborhoods, parking and safe traffic movement, landscaping, buffers, environmental factors, lighting, size, location and such other elements as may be reasonably related to health, safety, property value and the general welfare of the Town.” Uses within each of the zoning districts are characterized as permitted, permitted with site plan review, permitted but special conditions apply, special use permit required, not permitted or zoning permit required. Nearly every allowable use in this zoning district requires site plan review as noted above. Uses such as natural resource exploration (not production) and vehicle wrecking and salvage yard require a special use permit and a vehicle body shop is permitted with special conditions. Residential and community uses are generally not permitted in the IR zone; certain business uses such as car sales, vehicle fuel and service are allowed but require either an accompanying site plan and/or a special use permit or must meet special conditions. Zoning to the north of the project site and Hillcrest Road zoning is a combination of Residential Moderate Density (R2) and Residential Low Density (R1) as well as Residential Mixed Use (R3). Lands to the south are also zoned IR in the Town of Lansing and Business and Technology within the Village of Lansing. West of the project site are both IR and R2 zones. East of the site, also within the Village of Lansing, zoning consists of Business and Technology which includes Airport lands. The project site is undeveloped and consists of forested areas, mowed fields, and some small wetlands and stream corridors (Appendix C, Figure 5 and Vegetative Communities Map, Appendix B). Land use surrounding the project site varies, ranging from undeveloped forested lands and scattered residential structures. Adjacent to the site on the east is a residential structure and a storage facility that includes a residential structure. Both of these uses front Warren Road. Land use to the north includes forest, fields and several scattered residences. Lands to the south and west are undeveloped also consisting of forests and open areas. South of Cherry Road, Airport lands are maintained fields as part of FAA protected airspace. Lands to the east of Warren Road include the Cornell University Radiation Biology Laboratory. Land use compatibility considers the project’s intended use relative to the property’s existing land use(s) and the land uses assigned to property surrounding the project site. Properties immediately abutting the project site, as well as those in close proximity can be impacted by a shift in land use at the proposed project site. These impacts are discussed in detail in Section 5.3. In addition, property proximate to an airport have additional land use constraints. The impact on the air space above the property and it’s affect on airport operations ‐ in particular the safety of incoming and outgoing flights.

To determine if the proposed Tompkins County Sub‐Residency would cause land use impacts by posing an

obstruction or possible hazard to air navigation as defined by the FAA, a standard airspace analysis was

conducted by Stantec (Appendix F). Formal FAA approval of a Form 7460 (NOTICE OF PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION) is pending submission of data by ITH. Construction is contingent on approval. This analysis reviewed the proposed facility location against the following FAA regulations:

14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace (Part 77);



17

FAA Order 8260.3C, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS); and

FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5340‐30J, Design and Installation Details for Airport Visual Aids, to address the required Obstacle Clearance Surface (OCS) of the Runway 14 Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) lights.

In the context of this project these regulations define the following:

Part 77 – Part 77 requires a notice with the FAA whenever development will occur above a certain height or within the vicinity of an airport. This regulation also establishes the process for evaluating FAA aeronautical studies and subsequent action. Objects (such as a building, tower, tree, etc.) that fall within a Part 77 surface have no direct impact on aircraft operations. That is, restrictions are not placed on arriving and departing aircraft in the form of higher approach or takeoff minimums or departure climb gradients. While Part 77 addresses several different imaginary surfaces (the protected airspace over and around an airport), the evaluation focused on the “approach” and “transitional surfaces.”

o Approach Surface‐ A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. An approach surface is applied to each end of each runway based upon the type of approach available or planned for that runway end.

o Transitional Surface‐ The transitional surface extends outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces.

TERPS‐ TERPS are used to develop instrument procedures into and out of an airport. Objects within a TERPS surface can impact landing or departure procedures through the application of higher minimums, restrictions to operations, the required lighting of an obstruction, or in a worst‐case scenario if an obstruction is not removed, the cancellation of a procedure. Two TERPS surfaces were examined at ITH: the approach surface to Runway 14 and the departure surface of Runway 32. For approaches to Runway 14, we examined the Visual Area Surface (VAS), which is a trapezoid‐shaped surface that begins at the runway threshold and slopes outward and upward at a 20:1 slope. We also examined the Runway 32 departure surface, which begins at the beginning of Runway 32 and slopes outward and upward, but at a 40:1 slope. In both cases, the approach and departure surface lie over the proposed NYSDOT buildings.

PAPI OCS‐ The PAPI provides a visual glideslope (GS) to arriving pilots. The ITH Runway 14 GS is set at 3.0 degrees; however, the maximum angle is 4.0 degrees. If an object penetrates the protected surface (set ½ degree below the GS), then the FAA will increase the GS until reaching the maximum, and then the system is turned off and possibly decommissioned if the problem is not resolved.

RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ). The RPZ is a two‐dimensional trapezoidal area located at the end of Runway 14 centered about the extended runway centerline. The function is required to enhance the safety and protection of people and property on the ground. It is recommended that the airport control the full RPZ by land ownership and keeping and maintaining the RPZ clear of incompatible objects and activities. The Runway 14 RPZ falls within the ITH airport property boundary and begins 200 feet from the



18

Runway 14 threshold and extends for 1,700 feet. The inner width is 500 feet and extends to an outer width of 1,010 feet.

The proposed Tompkins County Sub‐Residency is located beyond the limits of the RPZ. The Stantec study concluded that based on current runway classifications, the proposed NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency will have no impacts to the airspace surfaces noted above. FAA will evaluate a Form 7460 to be submitted by the airport and make a formal determination. The Build Alternative was also reviewed against the criteria outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200‐33B Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, Section 2 lists land use practices on or near airports that potentially attract hazardous wildlife. While the construction and operation of a maintenance facility is not included on this list, storm water management facilities are included on the list. “The FAA strongly recommends that off‐airport storm water management systems located within the separations identified [in Circular 150/5200‐33B] be designed and operated so as not to create above‐ground standing water. Stormwater detention ponds should be designed, engineered, constructed, and maintained for a maximum 48–hour detention period after the design storm and remain completely dry between storms.” The Stormwater management facilities have been designed in accordance with these guidelines to minimize the potential for attracting wildlife considered hazardous to airport operations. Additional information on the adherence to these guidelines can be found in Section 5.16. 4.4 HISTORIC RESOURCES The Project is a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and its implementing regulation, 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. The NYSDOT, in coordination with the FAA, initiated consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in August 2018, providing a Cultural Resources Screening document for a Study Area that included the entire project site and two adjacent residential properties to the east and northeast. Due to potential effects associated with changes to the setting of the adjacent nineteenth‐century dwellings, the NYSDOT recommended an architectural inventory and evaluation of 8 Hillcrest Road and 16 Hillcrest Road. The NYSDOT also recommended an archaeological survey within an Area of Potential Effects (APE) that includes the entire project site. The SHPO concurred with the APE and scope of survey recommendations by letter dated September 20, 2018. A Phase I archaeological survey was conducted by the Cultural Resource Survey Program, New York State Museum, to determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources within the APE. As documented in the Phase I Archaeological Survey Report (October 2018), no archaeological resources were identified. Based on review of this report, the SHPO concurred and provided the opinion that no additional archaeological work was necessary (SHPO letter dated October 22, 2018). The NYSDOT sent Section 106 consultation letters to the Cayuga Nation and Onondaga Nation, providing copies of the Phase I Archaeological Survey Report to designated contacts for the Nation. No comments were received from the Cayuga Nation or Onondaga Nation by the NYSDOT or FAA. The Architectural Survey Report (October 2018) recommended two architectural properties, 8 Hillcrest Road and 16 Hillcrest Road, as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Lauren B. Arnold House (8 Hillcrest Road), built ca. 1865, is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C, as an example of vernacular Gothic Revival architecture in the Town of Lansing, and is notable as one of a few examples of that style in a town that was dominated by Greek Revival architecture in the mid‐nineteenth century. The integrity of the building is good.



19

The property retains integrity of setting in front of the building, but has been compromised at the rear of the lot by the associated storage facility. The Thomas Bishop House (16 Hillcrest Road), built ca. 1815, is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C, as an excellent example of Federal style domestic architecture in the Town of Lansing. The building is substantially intact, and the property is enhanced by the setting. The historic alignment of Hillcrest Road is maintained as a lawn along the front and west sides of the dwelling, with mature trees defining the road edge. Across the road are fields and a barn once owned by the Bishops, with the foundation of a second barn in the adjacent trees. The Thomas Bishop Barn, although located in the Tompkins County Property, was historically associated with the Thomas Bishop House (16 Hillcrest Road) and was constructed in the mid‐1800s. It is a gabled structure with a square rule hewn post and beam frame. The barn is in deteriorated condition but has been determined to be Nation Register Eligible. In a letter dated October 31, 2018, the SHPO concurred with the findings that the Arnold and Bishop homes (8 Hillcrest Road and 16 Hillcrest Road, respectively) are National Register eligible. In addition, the SHPO determined that the barn is a contributing feature of the Bishop farm complex that includes the farmhouse, spring house, stone culvert, foundation ruins and the extant English bank‐barn. The SHPO also found that the barn on its own met the criteria for inclusion in the National Register as a rare surviving example of mid‐19th century timber‐frame barn architecture in the community. While the building is in an advanced state of deterioration, its extant square‐rule frame is key to its significance along with what appears to be original siding planks.



20

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter describes the potential environmental, social, and economic impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative (i.e. Proposed Action). The analysis in this chapter was conducted in accordance with FAA Order 5050.4B “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions,” FAA Order 1050.1F “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” and applicable federal and state environmental regulations. Based on the information in this chapter, coordination with federal and state agencies, and review of public comments, the FAA will determine if the Preferred Alternative would involve significant impacts. The FAA will also ensure that the document presents a full, accurate, and fair assessment of the environmental consequences of the proposed action. Consistent with the FAA Orders 5050.4B and 1050.1F the following impact categories are addressed: Air Quality (Section 5.1) Coastal Resources (Section 5.2) Compatible Land Use (Section 5.3) Construction Impacts (Section 5.4) Department of Transportation Act: Section 4(f) (Section 5.5) Farmland (Section 5.6) Fish, Wildlife, and Plants (Section 5.7) Floodplains (Section 5.8) Hazardous Materials and Pollution Prevention (Section 5.9) Historic Resources (Section 5.10) Light Emissions and Visual (Section 5.11) Natural Resources and Energy Supply (Section 5.12) Noise (Section 5.13) Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks

(Section 5.14) Solid Waste (Section 5.15) Water Quality (Section 5.16) Wetlands (Section 5.17) Wild and Scenic Rivers (Section 5.18)

Anticipated permit requirements and a potential impact summary are provided at the end of the chapter. 5.1 AIR QUALITY 5.1.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impact to air quality. 5.1.2 Impact of the Proposed Action The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 authorized the EPA to establish standards, known as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which are considered harmful to the public and the environment.



21

The Clean Air Act established two national air quality standards, including Primary and Secondary Standards. Primary Standards were established to set limits on harmful pollutants to protect the public and sensitive receptors (asthmatics, children and the elderly). Secondary Standards were set to protect the public welfare by accounting for the effects of air pollution on the public welfare, which includes protection against impaired visibility, damage to animals, soil, vegetation, crops, buildings, and other aspects of the general welfare. The EPA has established NAAQS for the following six “criteria air pollutants” in order to protect the health and welfare of the general public. These pollutants are listed below.

Ozone (O3) Carbon monoxide (CO) Particulates (PM‐10 and PM 2.5) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Lead (Pb)

The CAAA also mandated that the EPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. In addition, EPA identified nine compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional‐scale cancer risk drivers or contributors and non‐cancer hazard contributors. These are 1,3‐butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, diesel particulate matter (diesel PM), ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. According to the EPA Green Book, Tompkins County is currently in attainment for all criteria air pollutants as of August 8, 2018.

The project will not change the operating characteristics of the airport. There will be no changes in activity levels, aircraft types or other facilities at the airport. The project will not increase airport capacity or cause significant changes in local ground traffic. Because the Tompkins County Sub‐Residency will be relocated from another nearby location, the project will not cause permanent increase in air or local traffic. The project was evaluated using the Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook published by the FAA. The first step of the process was to determine the need for assessment based on four factors: project definition, FAA involvement, emissions increase, and ambient air quality. Using these four factors and handbook flowcharts, the level of assessment required was determined to be an emission inventory. The results of the inventory indicated that there would be no permanent increase in air emissions caused by the project. Only temporary emissions increased from construction activities would be caused by the project. The construction impacts are discussed in Section 5.4.2.2. In addition to the FAA air quality analysis procedures, the potential effect of the project on local traffic conditions and air quality was also evaluated using the procedures defined in the NYSDOT Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM) (Revised November 2018). The comprehensive procedures in the EPM contain guidance for air quality matters applicable to all attainment, nonattainment and maintenance areas. The EPM provides specific information on transportation conformity requirements and indicates policy for determining when project level air quality analyses are necessary.



22

As previously noted, the project is located in Tompkins County which is classified by the EPA as an attainment area for each criteria pollutant and National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In accordance with 40 CFR Part 93, a conformity determination is only required if an area is a designated nonattainment or maintenance area. Furthermore, the project does not meet any of the criteria for projects requiring a mesoscale analysis indicated in Section 9 of the EPM. The build alternative would not substantially impact emissions on a regional basis. Section 9 of the EPM also lists specific criteria for determining if a project requires a microscale air quality analysis. The EPM outlines a three‐step screening process consisting of a level of service (LOS) screening followed by a capture criteria screening and then a volume threshold screening, only if any of the capture criteria are met. The screening analysis for the project is described below. Based on the number of vehicle trips (30) during the peak hour of traffic expected to use the facility, the NYSDOT determined that a left‐turn lane from Warren Road into the proposed driveway is not warranted. However, since there is no documented LOS for the intersection of the driveway and Warren Road, a LOS of D was assumed for the purposes of LOS screening. The EPM dictates that any impacted roadway or intersection exhibiting a LOS of D or worse be screened by the following capture criteria: 1. A 10% or more reduction in the source‐receptor distance: The project does not involve widening or adding a

turn lane to Warren Road. There will be no reduction in source‐receptor distance. 2. A 10% or more increase in traffic volume: There are no anticipated changes to traffic patterns as a result of

the project. Changes in peak hour traffic were analyzed as part of the NYSDOT’s left turn lane warrant analysis. The anticipated number of vehicles (30) using the facility during the AM/PM peak hours would not constitute a 10% increase over the average weekday peaks as determined by traffic counts conducted in June 2018.

3. A 10% or more increase in vehicle emissions: The project would not result in speed changes, operating conditions or vehicle mix. Categorically, an increase in vehicle emissions is not anticipated.

4. An increase in the number of queued lanes: There will be no increase in the number of queued lanes as part of the project.

5. A 20% reduction in speed, when build estimated average speed is at 30 mph or less: A reduction in speed is not anticipated as result of the project.

Since none of the capture criteria is met, the project does not require a carbon monoxide microscale air quality analysis. Based on the estimated number of vehicle trips in and out of the facility, the project does not require a particulate matter microscale analysis. In summary, an air quality analysis is not necessary since this project will not increase traffic volumes, reduce source‐receptor distances or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to jeopardize attainment of the NAAQS or cause a meaningful increase in mobile source air toxic emissions. 5.2 COASTAL RESOURCES 5.2.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative As discussed below, there are no coastal resources at the airport, therefore, there will be no impact. 5.2.2 Impact of the Proposed Action



23

The New York State Coastal Management Program protects the States valuable natural and man‐made resources. Based on review of the New York State Coastal Boundary Map, the Airport is not located within a designated Coastal Zone. Additionally, based on review of the Coastal Barrier Resources System Mapper, the Airport is not within an area mapped as coastal barrier. Therefore, there will be no impact to designated coastal areas as a result of the Preferred Alternative. No additional evaluation is necessary. 5.3 COMPATIBLE LAND USE 5.3.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impact to land use. 5.3.2 Impact of the Proposed Action As noted in Section 4, the relocated NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency will be located on lands in the Town of Lansing zoned Industrial/Research. While the proposed use is allowable, the Town requires that any site planning concerns related to accessibility, impact on nearby neighborhoods, parking and safe traffic movement, landscaping, buffers, environmental factors, lighting, size, and location must be specifically addressed. Although the Town has no regulatory authority over the proposed land use, this EA evaluates the effects on adjacent land uses using the criteria established by the Town, as noted above. Section 4 identifies nearby site conditions as undeveloped consisting of forested areas, mowed fields, and small areas of wetlands and streams located to the west and south. Two residences occur to the north and east of the project site. To the east and adjacent to the project site is a residence with a commercial self‐storage facility. Site design will meet all applicable standards and Best Management Practices (BMP) to allow for the safe ingress and egress of vehicles, as well as safe movements within the site. Parking is located close to the access driveway to the south of the maintenance building and the salt barn west of the maintenance building to maximize the distance from nearby residential structures. There are three residences located adjacent to the project site, all located on Hillcrest Road. The most northerly home is approximately 200 feet from the northern property boundary of the site, placing it approximately 700 feet from the proposed salt shed and maintenance building. The next home to the south on Hillcrest is located east of the project site and approximately 350 feet from the maintenance building and 450 feet from the salt barn. The third home is located within a self‐storage commercial facility and is 300 feet from the maintenance building and 600 feet from the salt shed. Based on the site access being located directly off of Warren Road, it is unlikely that there will be traffic issues that would impact the homes on Hillcrest Road. The NYSDOT estimates that the project would result in 30 additional vehicles in the peak hour of traffic. This represents a 4% increase over existing conditions. They also performed a left turn lane warrant analysis and based on the small increase in traffic, a left turn lane was not warranted. Views of the project site will change from its current undeveloped state to a fully developed NYSDOT maintenance facility. These changes were anticipated in the Town’s comprehensive plan and zoning. Based on the results of the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) (Section 5.11 and Appendix H), two homes (8 and 16 Hillcrest Road) would have views of the proposed facility but 8 Hillcrest Road has only partial views. The existing commercial development (storage facility) blocks some of the views from 8 Hillcrest Road.



24

Two of the adjacent homes (8 and 16 Hillcrest Road) have been identified as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. NYSOPRHP has determined that the farm complex associated with 16 Hillcrest Road, including the existing barn structure, another barn foundation, and a road culvert which have been located on the County property and are part of the project site are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. See Section 5.10 for discussion of the historic resources. The site design has located the maintenance facility, salt shed, and other storage structures as far as possible from the existing residences. The project will maintain the existing vegetation between 16 Hillcrest Road and facilities in the far northern portion of the property. Additionally, the landscaping recommendations from the VIA include the incorporation of a berm and both deciduous and evergreen tree plantings that will minimize the views from both 8 and 16 Hillcrest Road to the extent possible. Nighttime lighting will alter the views from the adjacent historic properties.t. Existing nighttime lighting is associated with the self‐storage facility located at 8 Hillcrest Road and directly adjacent to 16 Hillcrest Road. The existing lighting consists of 16’ +/‐ high shoebox style downlight fixtures and building mounted downlight style fixtures, which are motion sensor activated. At 8 Hillcrest Road, the existing foreground lighting available at the self‐storage facility behind the residence at 8 Hillcrest Road reduces potential contrast within the nighttime environment. Lighting of the new Tompkins County Sub‐Residency will be noticeable from 16 Hillcrest Road since new lighting will be cast over the proposed action area where one does not currently exist. The proposed lighting plan minimizes potential nighttime impacts by utilizing downlight style fixtures with sharp cut offs, directing all lighting inward facing to the site, and not using permanent multidirectional lighting that would produce glare to adjacent properties and having no light trespass off the property. Additionally, the light fixtures will be motion activated that when no activities are occurring on site, the light levels will dim by approximately 60 percent. Refer to Section 5.11 and Appendix L for more information on lighting. A noise analysis (Appendix H) was conducted for the proposed project. A summary of this analysis is provided in Section 5.13. Ambient noise levels were recorded on the project site as well as at the existing NYSDOT facility in the City of Ithaca. The noise generated by the existing facility in Ithaca was determined to be the best representation of future noise generation on the project site. The results of the analysis indicate that there will be an approximately 2‐decibel increase in the noise levels at the property lines of the adjacent residences during normal hours of operation. This increase would be barely perceptible and not likely to be noticeable. During nighttime snow and ice removal operations, bedrooms in the house located at 16 Hillcrest Road can expect to see a 5 dBA increase in noise levels. A change of 3 dBA is generally accepted as the threshold of a perceptible change to the average person. This slight increase in nighttime noise levels at 16 Hillcrest Road will be noticeable during nighttime snow and ice removal operations. Based on this analysis, and due to the short duration and infrequency of nighttime snow and ice removal operations, significant noise increases due to the operation of the proposed maintenance facility are not anticipated for normal operations or for snow and ice operations. In further consideration of the Town’s land use plans for this area, supported by the current zoning designation of Industrial/Research (Appendix C, Figures 4 and 6), the proposed project will not have significant impacts on surrounding land uses.



25

5.4 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 5.4.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no construction impacts. 5.4.2 Impact of the Proposed Action Potential construction impacts from development of the preferred alternative include several activities that can be mitigated through best management practices and site design. Potential impacts include noise from construction equipment and generators, generation of dust, soil erosion and sedimentation, and minor disruption of local traffic patterns. These impacts can be mitigated through careful planning and consideration, as well as quality construction supervision. Specifically, there will be limitations on time and day of construction, use of appropriate certified equipment and use of approved safety and phasing plans. The duration of construction can also be a factor in the significance of the impact. Construction activities that are most likely to cause impacts and annoyances to adjacent land uses are primarily related to clearing, grading, and general construction of the buildings, parking surfaces and roads. These activities are estimated to take approximately 12 months to complete. Less invasive activities include interior finishing of buildings. The potential impact and associated measures to minimize the impact for each major construction issue are discussed in further detail below. 5.4.2.1 Construction Noise

It is recognized that minimizing construction noise is important. Due to the rural setting and construction equipment frequency of use (seasonal and daytime construction) noise modeling for the analysis of the construction related noise is not needed. Any increases in noise due to construction related activities will be temporary in nature and would only occur during the limited hours of construction. 5.4.2.2 Air Quality Air quality impacts during construction would be limited to short‐term increases in fugitive dust, particulates, and localized pollutant emissions from construction vehicles and equipment. All construction equipment should be properly maintained and outfitted with emission reducing exhaust equipment. Adherence to the erosion and sediment control plan as required in the SWPPP will mitigate any significant potential impacts from dust and gross particulates. During dry periods, water trucks will be used to wet down dirt access roads and other areas of traffic that would generate dust. An air quality screening assessment was performed for the project using emission inventory methodology. This method of assessment was determined to be the appropriate methodology by evaluation of the project relative to requirement outlined in the Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook. The Emission Inventory determined that only emissions from construction activities would be caused as a result of the project. Emissions from construction activities were estimated using the Airport Construction Emissions Inventory Tool (ACEIT) published by the Airport Cooperative Research Program in Report 102. ACEIT estimates the construction equipment activity that will be required based on the type and amount of construction being performed. This activity is used with emission factors for construction and other mobile vehicles to estimate the emissions that



26

will result during construction of the project. Based on the proposed structures at the facility, five major construction activities in ACEIT were identified as part of the project. These activities consist of the following with the applicable portion of the project identified:

Building construction – 1 story (10,000 sq. ft.) – vehicle maintenance building

Hangar building (10,000 sq. ft.) – salt storage shed and cold storage barn

Gas station – 1 story (1,400 sq. ft.) – fueling station

Open parking lot (10,000 sq. ft.) – parking/paved areas

Site work (10,000 sq. ft.) – clearing and grading of unimproved land The default sizes for these construction activities do not match the proposed building sizes. Therefore, the activity factors in ACEIT were adjusted to account for these differences. The emission inventory provided estimated emission levels during construction activities as indicated in the following table. The table also includes de minimis exemption thresholds from 40 CFR 93, Subpart B, which are included for comparison/reference purposes. TABLE 5‐ Estimated Emission Levels

Contaminant NOx CO VOC SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2

Emissions (tons/yr) 17 17 25 0.1 3 1 8,900

Exemption Threshold 100 100 50 100 100 100 None

All of the estimated emission levels are below the de minimis exemption threshold levels. As a result, the estimated emission from construction activity for this project are not considered significant. 5.4.2.3 Sedimentation & Erosion The potential for erosion during construction would exist as soils are disturbed by excavation and grading. A SWPPP will be prepared in accordance with the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (GP‐0‐15‐002), New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control (November 2016), the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (January 2015), the NYSDOT Highway Design Manual, Chapter 8, Appendix B NYSDOT Design Requirements and Guidance for SPDES General Permit for Construction Activity (January 15, 2015), and FAA Advisory Circular 150‐5370‐10A, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, Item P‐156, Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control. The Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan will include temporary and permanent ESC measures such as silt fence, stone check dams, stabilized construction entrance, storm drain inlet protection, ESC blankets, wetland protection fence, and rock outlet protection. The project is intended to be constructed in phases and not to disturb greater than 5 acres of soil at any one time. Therefore, the Notice To Disturb Greater Than 5 Acres of Soil (form HC 209) or 5 Acre Waiver is not anticipated for this project at this time. 5.4.2.4 Traffic Construction vehicles will enter and exit the site from Warren Road. Impacts to traffic patterns will be limited as all construction activities will be performed beyond the limits of the public roadways. In order to limit impacts



27

related to construction vehicle movements on the roadway, the community will be notified of the start date of this project to alert them to potential construction traffic. 5.4.2.5 Wetland and Stream Disturbance Initial site clearing activities may require crossing the two intermittent streams (A and B) and associated wetland A prior to the installation of the final crossing design. It is anticipated that this will be accomplished by installing a temporary culvert stabilized with stone. Stone aprons may be placed at both the upstream and downstream inverts of the culverts as needed. The temporary crossings will convey existing flows (should any be present) as well as stormflows. The impact areas for both crossings are the same areas where the permanent crossings will be constructed. As a result, there are no additional temporary or permanent stream and wetland impacts associated with the temporary crossings beyond those described in. 5.5 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT: SECTION 4(f) LANDS CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

5.5.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impact to Section 4(f) lands. 5.5.2 Impact of the Proposed Action Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 states that the FAA and other DOT agencies cannot approve any program or project that requires the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historic sites unless there is a determination that there is no feasible and prudent alternative, and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use. There are no parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges within the project area. Section 4(f) applies to historic sites that are listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Through the Section 106 process, the National Register eligible properties at 8 Hillcrest Road and 16 Hillcrest Road, including the extant mid‐19th century barn, have been determined to qualify as Section 4(f) historic sites. The former Thomas Bishop barn is also National Register eligible as a contributing feature of the historic farm complex associated with 16 Hillcrest Road. As defined in 23 CFR 774.17, a “use” of a Section 4(f) property occurs:

1. When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; 2. When there is a temporary occupancy of land that does not meet the conditions in § 774.13(d) that

determine a temporary occupancy is so minimal as to not constitute a use for the purpose of Section 4(f); or

3. Where there is a constructive use of a Section 4(f) property that would substantially impair the protected features, activities, or attributes of the Section 4(f) property, as determined by the criteria in § 774.15.

The project does not require any taking of land from within the boundaries of the privately owned historic properties at 8 Hillcrest Road and 16 Hillcrest Road. Though originally part of the Bishop farm, the barn is now



28

located on the county‐owned airport property. The project does not require the removal of the barn or propose any changes to the structure. Construction of the proposed sub‐residency will occur entirely within the airport property and will not require a temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) lands during construction. As determined through Section 106 consultation, the project will not substantially impair the historic attributes that qualify 8 Hillcrest Road and 16 Hillcrest Road for Section 4(f) protection. The historic fabric of the buildings will remain intact. Measures to minimize potential indirect effects associated with changes in the viewshed include screening (berms and plantings), siting the structures at a lower grade relative to the surrounding landscape, using non‐specular (reflective) building materials, and using down lighting, motion sensors and dimmers to reduce nighttime lighting impacts. In summary, the project will involve no permanent incorporation of Section 4(f) lands into the transportation facility, no temporary occupancy, and no constructive use. There will be no use of Section 4(f) properties. 5.6 FARMLAND

5.6.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impact to farmland. 5.6.2 Impact of the Proposed Action The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop criteria for identifying the effects of federal programs on the conversion of farmland to non‐agricultural uses. The prime and unique farmland regulations require that the U.S. Department of Agriculture determine whether land affected by any proposed action is prime and unique farmland. If the proposed project involves the acquisition of farmland that would be converted to non‐agricultural use, it must be determined whether any of that land is protected by the FPPA. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have established guidelines under the FPPA for federal activities that involve directly undertaking, financing, or approving a project that would impact farmland soils. The guidelines recognize that the quality of farmland varies based on soil conditions, and places higher value on soils with high productivity potential. To preserve these highly productive soils, the NRCS classifies soil types as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. The NRCS requires that soils in these categories be given proper consideration before they are converted to non‐farming uses by federal programs. The NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmland are published in the Federal Register (Volume 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978). According to Web Soil Survey from the NRCS, there were no soil types identified as prime farmland; however, the entire site is made up of soils identified as farmland of statewide importance. Farmland of Statewide Importance:

Bath and Valois soils (BgC) 5‐15% slopes

Erie Channery Loam (EbB) 3‐8% slopes



29

Langford Channery Silt Loam (LaB) 2‐8% slopes Although the above listed soils in the project area are identified as soils of statewide importance, they are not currently used for agricultural activities. Additionally, the parcels in the project area are not located in a New York State Agricultural District as per NYS Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25AA. The proposed project would not involve the conversion of existing active farmland to non‐agricultural uses. The provisions of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (7CFR Part 658) apply to the proposed project. The proposed project will involve permanent conversion of farmland of statewide importance. The Farmland Conversion Impact Rating was submitted to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The total ROW taking of all farmland is 15.55 acres and of this amount, 15.55 acres is FPPA defined farmland. A map of the project site showing the soils identified as Farmland of Statewide Importance and the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Worksheet (AD‐1006) are included in Appendix I. Based on the response from NRCS dated December 26, 2018 (Appendix I), the total impact rating for the project is 89. Projects with scores less than 160 are not subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act. As a result, the requirements of the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act have been met and to the maximum extent practicable, adverse agricultural impacts have been minimized or avoided. 5.7 FISH, WILDLIFE, and PLANTS

5.7.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impact to fish, wildlife and plants. 5.7.2 Impact of the Proposed Action As discussed in Section 4.4, the project area consists of undeveloped mowed fields, emergent wetlands, and old successional shrubland and forest. Based on the age of the forest community, the site was almost completely farmed in the past, probably no longer than 20 years ago. The proposed project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 13 acres as a result of the construction of the Tompkins County Sub‐Residency at Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport:

Approximately 2.2 acres of successional old fields

Approximately 0.10 acres of wetland and stream

Approximately 10.5 acres of forest to be removed comprised of approximately 4,600 trees.

Approximately 3 of the 15.6 acres of the project site will be avoided by the project. The wetland and stream corridor in the northern portion of the project site will be preserved but fragmented by a road crossing to access the northern upland areas. The remaining patches of forested lands will offer visual buffering of adjacent lands and buffering along stream corridors but will not offer significant habitat value due to the limited size and fragmentation from the undeveloped lands to the west and south. Many common species of animals use the project site, but the diversity of species is likely limited by the dominance of invasive herbaceous and shrub species. The most obvious dominant species in the shrub communities and in the understory of the forest communities is honeysuckle. This species clearly dominates the site and is extremely thick. The dominance of any one species of plant, especially invasive, exotic plants, significantly reduces the habitat value of the site. Wetland A, located in the northern portion of the project site, is dominated by reed canary grass, a common invasive species used on many farms as a hay crop in wet areas. As a result, this wetland would be considered of



30

low wildlife value. The site also showed strong evidence of impacts from emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) with significant areas of dead or dying white ash trees. Therefore, while loss of general wildlife habitat will occur, the overall habitat value would be considered poor. Northern long‐eared bat Forested communities with trees that are 3‐inches dbh or larger and including some with exfoliating bark, crevices, and cavities, as currently exist on the site, are considered suitable summer habitat for northern long‐eared bat, a federal and state listed threatened species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has established rules to protect the northern long‐eared bat through Section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act. The 4(d) rule for federal activities provides USFWS with the flexibility to protect the habitat most critical to the bat with the least amount of impact on land owners and managers. As a result, the 4(d) rule focuses on the protection of hibernacula, known maternal roost trees, and other critical habitat for this species. The project does not occur within 0.25 mile of a known northern long‐eared bat hibernaculum or within 150 feet of a known occupied maternal roost tree (tree cutting buffers identified in the USFWS Final 4(d) Rule for northern long‐eared bat), nor does it occur within 5 miles of a hibernaculum or within 1.5 miles of a known occupied maternal roost tree (tree cutting buffers identified by NYSDEC). The project is expected to remove approximately 10.5 acres of forest within the project’s action area (refer to the Vegetative Communities Map located in Appendix D). It is estimated that approximately 4,600 trees will be removed, primarily consisting of white ash, red maple, shagbark hickory, and black locust, as well as snags and other trees with crevices and exfoliating bark that would serve as potential summer roost habitat for northern long‐eared bats. Based on the lack of critical habitat and the other factors noted above, the 4(d) rule allows for tree clearing during any time of the year. The USFWS has established best management practices (BMP) to further prevent impacts to the bat. The most commonly employed BMP is a time of year tree cutting restriction where cutting is restricted to prevent any direct impact to bats by cutting during the hibernation period, or restricting cutting during the pup season, when new bats are being reared. Based on the distance to known occurrences of the bat, these are voluntary measures. A tree cutting restriction during the pup season will be employed that will extend from June 1 to July 31. A Northern Long‐Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Coordination Form has been prepared for Section 7 consultation to verify the proposed actions are consistent with those evaluated in the programmatic intra‐Service consultation for the final 4(d) rule and does not require separate consultation. The FAA submitted the signed 4(d) Rule form to USFWS via email on December 17, 2018. Based on the 4(d) rule and there being no other species identified in IPaC, FAA anticipates determining that the action may affect the northern long‐eared bat, but complies with the 4(d) rule and will not cause prohibited take under the Endangered Species Act within the Finding of No Significant Impact for this project. Notification to NYSDEC included identification that project activities are not occurring within the occupied habitat for any state listed species (see letter in Appendix D). The project will not occur within known occupied habitat. As such, no take is anticipated under Article 11 and no incidental take permit is required under Part 182. NYSDEC concurred that no take is likely (see February 14, 2019 email in Appendix D).



31

5.8 FLOODPLAINS

5.8.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impact to floodplains. 5.8.2 Impact of the Proposed Action According to the National Flood Insurance Program the entire project site is located in Flood Zone C, a classification for areas that have been determined to be outside of the 500‐year floodplain. As a result, no impacts to floodplains are expected as a result of this project. 5.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 5.9.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impact associated with hazardous materials, pollutions prevention, and solid waste generation. 5.9.2 Impact of the Proposed Action Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment CHA performed a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Appendix J) for the project area in general conformance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice E 1527‐13, with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527‐13. The Phase I ESA report: provides a general description of the site, any structures occurring thereon, and the site vicinity; discusses the current and historical usage of the site; and identifies the presence or absence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the site, based upon the results of historical and regulatory records reviews, interviews, and a site reconnaissance. Review of Federal and State regulatory databases indicated that the subject site is not listed/identified by any of the databases searched for this investigation. The database search identified a limited number of facilities/incidents within the specified search distances established for this investigation. None of the listed sites/facilities are considered to have impacted the subject site based on being located either cross or downgradient relative to the subject site, satisfactory closure of any reported leaking tanks or releases, and/or releases being restricted to the lands of the facility at which the release occurred. Historical research indicated that the subject site has continually been vacant undeveloped land since at least the 1930s, with the exception of a small barn structure in the northeastern portion of the subject site present since at least the 1960s. There was no evidence of the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products observed on the subject site at the time of the site inspection under conditions that indicate an existing release, past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the subject site.



32

Vapor encroachment potential is considered to be low as there have been no documented volatile organic compound (VOC) releases to soil or groundwater directly on or reported to be potentially migrating toward the subject site. There were no limitations or significant data gaps encountered during this investigation that are considered to have hindered CHA’s ability to evaluate or identify RECs associated with the subject site. This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs to be associated with the subject site. The complete ESA is included as Appendix J. Asbestos Containing Materials CHA conducted a Pre‐Demolition survey for the presence of Asbestos‐Containing Materials (ACM) of the barn structure located in the northeastern area of the project site (Appendix K). Initial project planning included potential demolition of the barn structure; however, demolition is no longer proposed as part of project activities. The survey was conducted in accordance with the requirements of 12 NYCRR 56 and identified five suspect ACM materials to be associated with the barn. Of the five suspect materials sampled, laboratory analysis confirmed the presence of one ACM in the form of window glazing on the windows on the southeast and southwest sides of the barn. Demolition of the barn not proposed, so there will be no disturbance to ACM as a result of the project. The Asbestos Containing Materials Survey is included in Appendix K. Based on the findings of the Phase I ESA and Pre‐Demolition ACM Survey, no impacts related to hazardous materials are anticipated as a result of the preferred alternative, Demolition of the barn structure is not included in this action. Pollution Prevention Pollution prevention (P2) is the concept of reducing or eliminating the production of waste, particularly hazardous materials. For vehicle maintenance facilities, this typically involves:

Recycling used oil

Recycling antifreeze

Recycle vehicle batteries

Using refillable spray bottles, vs. aerosol cans, where applicable. Aerosol cans are prone to nozzles clogging such that product goes unused and cans become (possibly hazardous) waste.

Oil/water separators – periodic maintenance is needed to remove any collected oil

Keep a dry shop – do not flush solvents, oil, antifreeze down storm drains

Implement first‐in, first‐out inventory control.

Order only those products needed to complete the work. Avoid ordering more as too much product on hand causes unused material to eventually become a waste.

Recycle Fluorescent Lamp Tubes (FLTs) and batteries as universal waste

Recycle shop towels and manage rags & wipers Implementing the above practices saves money, and results in a cleaner environment. The proposed Tompkins County Sub‐Residency at Ithaca Tompkins Regional Airport will implement the practices cited above. Oil/water separators will be required for the vehicle maintenance facility. Discharge from this facility will be to the sanitary sewer system as opposed to the stormwater management system.



33

5.10 HISTORIC RESOURCES 5.10.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impact to historical, architectural, archeological and cultural resources. 5.10.2 Impact of the Proposed Action The NYSDOT, in coordination with the FAA, prepared documentation for an assessment of effects, applying the

Criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR 800.5(a)(1)) to identified historic properties at 8 Hillcrest Road and 16 Hillcrest

Road (see Appendix G). As described in this document, the Project would have No Adverse Effect with Conditions.

This finding takes into account the development of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse

effects, based on consultation with the SHPO and coordination with adjacent property owners.

The project proposes no direct, physical impact to National Register eligible buildings and structures associated

with these properties, including the partially collapsed Thomas Bishop Barn located within the boundary of the

proposed project site. The Build Alternative incorporates design modifications and refinements to minimize

potential indirect effects to the historic setting associated with changes to the viewshed, lighting, and potential

increases in noise levels.

The preliminary site layout has been modified to reorient and move NYSDOT structures away from the adjacent

properties to the extent possible. The location of the Sub‐residency building has been shifted to the south, further

from boundary of the property at 16 Hillcrest Road. As measured from the center of the sub‐residency to the

property line, the building will be approximately 350 feet from the property of 16 Hillcrest Road (450 feet from

the house) and 480 feet from 8 Hillcrest Road.

Similarly, the Salt Barn has been moved further west, away from 16 Hillcrest Road. The barn will have a gambrel (or barn style) roof and will not be a dome shaped building. The Salt Barn will be approximately 540 feet from 16 Hillcrest Road and 720 feet from 8 Hillcrest Road. The other structures proposed for the site will be located along the north‐westerly portion of the property, as far from 8 Hillcrest and 16 Hillcrest Road as possible. A driveway to be constructed from Warren Road will provide access to the sub‐residency along the southern boundary of the proposed facility. Parking is located close to the access driveway to the south of the maintenance building and the salt barn west of the maintenance building to maximize the distance from nearby residential structures. Based on the site access being located directly off Warren Road, there will be no traffic issues that would impact the homes on Hillcrest Drive. Within the proposed facility, the site layout maximizes forward movement of vehicles, limiting audible effects associated with back‐up alarms on trucks. The Visual Impact Analysis (VIA, Appendix L) identified limited visual impacts to the National Register eligible property at 8 Hillcrest Road, and more substantial impacts to 16 Hillcrest Road. Measures to minimize these impacts include screening (berms and plantings), siting the structures at a lower grade relative to the surrounding landscape, using non‐specular (reflective) building materials, and using down lighting, motion sensors and dimmers to reduce nighttime lighting impacts.



34

Lighting of the new Tompkins County Sub‐Residency will be noticeable from both 8 and 16 Hillcrest Road, since there will be a new nighttime light source where one did not previously exist. At 8 Hillcrest Road, the existing foreground lighting associated with the self‐storage facility will reduce potential contrast within the nighttime environment. The proposed lighting plan minimizes the potential impacts to the extent practicable given the operational and safety needs of the facility. Nighttime impacts will be minimized by utilizing downlight style fixtures with sharp cut offs, minimizing glare, and directing all lighting inward facing to the site. There will be no permanent multidirectional lighting that would produce glare to adjacent properties or cause light trespass off the property. Additionally, all onsite exterior lighting will be on motion and dimming sensors, allowing for a 60% reduction in visible light cast when vehicles or activity at night are not occurring at the site. It is anticipated that the fully lit condition of the facility will occur for approximately 35 nights of the year and for portions of other nighttime hours, depending on weather events. For the remainder of the nighttime conditions, the lower lighting level is expected. Project construction will convert the 16 Hillcrest Road property’s existing midground and background views from fallow agricultural fields and hedgerows to pavement, site lighting, metal panel building and a salt barn. The proposed screening plan effectively minimizes the first‐floor views to the project from a height of about five to ten feet down to the ground plane, but also substantially foreshortens the current viewshed. In addition, the visual context of the setting changes from a rural to a contemporary built environment, though contributing features of the historic farm complex, including the Thomas Bishop Barn and the old road alignment remain intact and undisturbed in the foreground. While the project’s proposed minimization measures reduce the visual exposure of 16 Hillcrest to the project, there will be a change in the historic setting and new nighttime lighting that will be minimized to the extent practicable. Construction of the project will result in the conversion of the midground and background views from 8 Hillcrest Road from hedgerow type vegetation to buildings and pavement and lighting of similar style and shape as those available in the foreground of the views. The change in context, visual quality or character is not significant and the nighttime views only minimally change the cast and distance of available light within the view. Based on the existing context and proposed screening plan the project has minimized the visual impacts to 8 Hillcrest Road to the greatest extent practicable and while the project is visible it is not in contrast to the existing quality or character. As described in the Section 106 Finding Documentation (Appendix G), the NYSDOT proposes the following conditions to minimize potential adverse effects associated with changes in the existing setting of identified historic properties due to changes in viewshed.

To minimize views of the proposed sub‐residency, a planted berm roughly 200 feet long by 40 feet wide

will be constructed in the northeast quadrant of the project site. The berm is proposed to be 5’ high and have a meandering natural form with both deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs being planted on and around it. The proposed plantings include evergreen trees with an installed height of 12 feet; overstory deciduous trees with an installed height of 12‐14 feet; understory trees with an installed height of 10 feet; and deciduous shrubs with an installed height of 4 feet.



35

The project will retain the existing vegetation between the property at 16 Hillcrest Road and the northern

portion of the facility.

The NYSDOT will implement a plan for long‐term monitoring and maintenance of the planted berm, and existing vegetation in the northern portion of the facility, including replacement of trees as needed, to ensure the continuity of a visual screen.

Based on consultation with the SHPO and coordination with the owners of 16 Hillcrest Road: the Salt Barn will be designed with a gambrel roof; the Sub‐residency building and Salt Barn roofs will be similar shades of grey and non‐reflective; and there will be no branding on the Sub‐residency building roof on the slope facing 16 Hillcrest Road.

Temporary impacts during construction will be minimized to the extent possible through best management practices. During dry periods, water trucks will be used to wet down dirt access roads and other areas of traffic that would generate dust.

During construction of the project, the NYSDOT will keep owners of the adjacent properties informed of

the construction schedule, activities, work hours, and practices to minimize impacts associated with noise, lighting, and visual impacts as details become available.

The NYSDOT will develop and submit to the SHPO a draft nomination form to the National Register of Historic Places for the National Register eligible property at 16 Hillcrest Road. The draft form, including the required research, maps, and photographs, will be prepared by a qualified professional architectural historian in coordination with SHPO staff. The property will not be listed if the owner objects.

The NYSDOT, in coordination with FAA, submitted the Section 106 Finding Documentation to the SHPO on December 20, 2018. Based upon a review of the submitted materials, the SHPO concurred with the NYSDOT’s recommendation to the FAA that the project will have No Adverse Effect on the identified resources. This concurrence is based on the conditions that were included in the Finding Documentation dated December 20, 2018 (Appendix G). FAA made their determination that the project will have No Adverse Effect on the identified resources based on the conditions described (see Appendix G). The NYSDOT will carry out ongoing consultation with the SHPO relating to the final design and implementation of the identified project conditions. 5.11 LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL 5.11.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no visual impacts or light emissions. 5.11.2 Impact of the Proposed Action 5.11.2.1 Light‐ Emissions Nighttime lighting will be introduced to the study area. Existing nighttime lighting is associated with the self‐storage facility located at 8 Hillcrest Road and directly adjacent to 16 Hillcrest Road. The existing lighting consists



36

of 16’ +/‐ high shoebox style downlight fixtures and building mounted downlight style fixtures, which are motion sensor activated. At 8 Hillcrest Road, the existing foreground lighting available at the self‐storage facility behind the residence at 8 Hillcrest Road reduces potential contrast within the nighttime environment. Lighting of the new Tompkins County Sub‐Residency will be noticeable from 16 Hillcrest Road since new lighting will be cast over the proposed action area where one does not currently exist. The proposed lighting plan minimizes potential nighttime impacts by utilizing downlight style fixtures with sharp cut offs, directing all lighting inward facing to the site, and not using permanent multidirectional lighting that would produce glare to adjacent properties and having no light trespass off the property. Additionally, all onsite exterior lighting will be on motion and dimming sensors, allowing for a 60% reduction in visible light cast when vehicles or activity at night are not occurring at the site. Additionally, it is anticipated that a fully lit condition of the facility will be available for approximately 35 nights of the year and for portions of other nighttime hours, depending on weather events. For the remainder of the nighttime conditions, the lower lighting level is expected. It is recognized that there will be a new nighttime light source in a location that previously did not contain one. The proposed lighting plan minimizes the potential impacts to the extent practicable given the operational and safety needs of the facility. Refer to Appendix L for the complete Visual Impact Assessment. 5.11.2.2 Visual Impacts The Visual Impact Assessment (Appendix L) evaluated the project’s potential to impact the visual environment surrounding the project site. This assessment considers the proposed residency’s visual impact when viewed from adjacent resources. These resources are located southwest of the Warren Road and Hillcrest Road intersection in the Town of Lansing, NY. The evaluation revealed indirect project visibility from limited areas along public roads. The site is screened from the Warren Road corridor by retained, existing vegetation. The project will be directly visible in short viewing windows provided by gaps in the existing vegetation. The gaps allow filtered views of the project buildings’ second and higher stories. In all views, the buildings’ first story will be fully screened. Based on the Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) it does not appear that the motorists, bicyclists and pedestrian viewer groups using the Warren Road transportation corridor will be impacted the by facility’s construction and operation. Two historic residential properties (8 and 16 Hillcrest Road) are located to the north/northeast of the proposed project site. Both properties have views to the proposed project, however, the views from 8 Hillcrest Road will be limited. The existing commercial development located immediately adjacent to 8 Hillcrest Road blocks views into the project site. The Visual Impact Assessment (VIA – Appendix L) demonstrates that views from 16 Hillcrest Road to the project site will be changed as result of this action. Contextually important historic elements, such as the alignment of Hillcrest Road, the barn foundation remains, and the existing Thomas Bishop Barn will be maintained (refer to Phase 1 Architectural Survey (Appendix G)). However, existing views from 16 Hillcrest Road to agricultural fields will be supplanted by views of the proposed facility. To minimize this impact, a berm and a meandering, dense hedgerow screening ‐ consisting of both evergreen and deciduous material – has been designed and situated at the proposed grading limit line. The berm and associated plantings minimize views to the proposed sub‐residency, however the historic property’s rural context, currently provided by views to open fields, will be lost.



37

The proposed project will also introduce facility lighting. These lights will be functional every night, with higher levels of illumination during nighttime operations. The VIA – presented as photosimulations in Figures 22 and 23 in Appendix L – simulates the lights’ impacts when the facility is fully operational. Mitigation measures include the use of downcast lighting (to direct the light source down to the ground level) and the placement of the proposed berm and associated vegetation. The berm and plantings will reduce the glare of the lights reflecting off the surrounding pavement. Non‐operational light levels are anticipated to be reduced by 63%. The VIA identifies limited visual impacts to 8 Hillcrest, and more substantial impacts to 16 Hillcrest. Mitigation measures focus on ways to minimize these potential impacts and include screening (berms and plantings), siting the structures at a lower grade relative to the surrounding landscape, using non‐specular (reflective) building materials and using down lighting, motion sensors and dimmers to reduce nighttime lighting impacts. 5.12 NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLY 5.12.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impact to natural resources and energy supply. 5.12.2 Impact of the Proposed Action Energy demands associated with the proposed project are expected to increase during construction of the new Tompkins County Sub‐Residency. During construction, the demand for energy supplies will be limited to transportation and construction vehicles and equipment. This will not impact local or regional supplies. During operation, the proposed facility will relocate services from the current Tompkins County Sub‐Residency on Cayuga Lake to the proposed project site. Although the new site will offer more space both in terms of outdoor storage and circulation and additional inside storage space, the fleet of vehicles serviced by this facility will not change. Additionally, the new facility will incorporate energy saving fixtures, better insulation and more effective and efficient heating and cooling equipment. As a result, it is anticipated that there will be a net decrease in overall energy use. 5.13 NOISE 5.13.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impacts associated with noise. 5.13.2 Impact of the Proposed Action A noise analysis was conducted to assess the potential impacts of noise generated from the proposed project on noise sensitive receptors. A noise analysis report is provided in Appendix H. 5.13.2.1 Existing Conditions Land use surrounding the proposed maintenance facility is categorized as rural with mixed residential and farming land uses. For purposes of this analysis, the closest residential home (residential noise sensitive receptor) was



38

identified and considered in the analysis. This house is located adjacent to the proposed facility at 16 Hillcrest Road. Noise measurements were conducted on the property line of the house located at 16 Hillcrest Road. These measurements represent the ambient noise levels at this location. The noise measurement was conducted at a location near to the house such that it replicates the noise experienced in the front yard of the house facing the proposed facility. Hourly decibel (dBA) levels ranged from 48 dBA to 60 dBA at the noise measurement location during the 12‐hour period of 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. It is assumed the higher readings are due to airport operations (takeoffs and landings). The 12‐hour equivalent noise level was 56 dBA. 5.13.2.2 Effects Assessment To determine the expected noise levels at the residence due to operation of the proposed maintenance facility, noise levels due to operation of the existing NYSDOT maintenance facility at Third Street in Ithaca were obtained. The facility was fully operation during this noise measurement. Hourly decibel (dBA) levels ranged from 50 dBA to 55 dBA at the noise measurement location during the 12‐hour period of 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. The 12‐hour equivalent noise level was 53 dBA. The resulting noise level at the residential receptor at 16 Hillcrest Road due to operation of the maintenance facility is determined by adding the noise contribution from the proposed maintenance facility to the existing noise level at this location. The addition of two noise levels is done with a mathematical formula. This results in a 12‐hour equivalent noise level of 58 dBA at the residential receptor located at 16 Hillcrest Road with the additional sound contribution of the operations at the maintenance facility. To summarize, the noise level would be expected to increase by 2 dBA. The noise level increase was compared to the criteria established in the NYSDEC Program Policy for Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts. The increase of 2 dBA is in the range of 0‐3 dB. In accordance with the NYSDEC policy, the increase of 0‐3 dB should have no appreciable effect on noise sensitive receptors. Although the majority of the operations at the proposed maintenance facility will occur between the hours of 6:00 AM and 4:00 PM from April to November and 3:30 AM to 8:30 PM from November to April, there are instances when operations will take place during nighttime hours. These instances will occur primarily when snow storms during winter months require maintenance crews to remove snow and ice from state highways for public safety. Hourly decibel (dBA) levels ranged from 40 dBA to 51 dBA at the noise measurement location, near the house located at 16 Hillcrest Road, during the 12‐hour period of 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM, which would represent the nighttime hours. The 12‐hour equivalent ambient noise level (Leq) during these nighttime hours was 45 dBA. Noise levels generated from the nighttime operations at the maintenance facility were estimated using FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) software. One (1) loader and one (1) snow plow were used in the RCNM which represents the typical equipment combination that would be used in the maintenance facility at any given time during a nighttime snow and ice removal operation. Noise levels generated from this equipment were estimated at 16 Hillcrest Road (Approximately 450 feet from the center of the proposed maintenance facility) and resulted in an equivalent noise level of 58 dBA.



39

During nighttime snow and ice removal operations, outdoor activity at 16 Hillcrest Road would be limited. Due to winter temperatures, it can be assumed that windows at 16 Hillcrest Road would be closed and that typical noise levels within bedrooms of the house would be around 30 dBA. Most residential single pane windows provide around 25 dBA in noise reduction which means that noise levels generated from the equipment at the maintenance facility would be perceived at about 33 dBA inside the bedrooms. Based on these assumptions, and applying the noise addition formula, bedrooms in the house located at 16 Hillcrest Road can expect to see a 5 dBA increase in bedroom noise levels during nighttime snow and ice removal operations, resulting in a new bedroom noise level of 35 dBA. A change of 3 dBA is generally accepted as the threshold of a perceptible change to the average person. This slight increase in nighttime noise levels at 16 Hillcrest Road will be noticeable during nighttime snow and ice removal operations. These estimations do not consider airport operations or existing snow plowing. Based on this analysis and due to the short duration and infrequency of nighttime snow and ice removal operations, significant noise increases due to the operation of the proposed maintenance facility are not anticipated for normal operations or for snow and ice removal operations. Common indoor and outdoor noise levels are shown in Table 6.



40

Table 6 Common Noise Levels

Common Outdoor Noise Levels

Noise Level (dBA)

Common Indoor Noise Levels

Jet Fly over at 1000 Ft. Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft. Diesel Truck at 50 Ft. Noisy Urban (Daytime) Gas Lawn mower at 100 ft. Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 300 ft. Quiet Urban (Daytime) Quiet Urban (Nighttime) Quiet Suburban (Nighttime) Quiet Rural (Nighttime)

‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐

Rock Band Inside Subway Train (New York) Food Blender at 3 Ft. Garbage Disposal at 3 Ft. Shouting at 3 Ft. Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft. Normal Speech at 3 Ft. Large Business Office Dishwasher Next Room Small Theatre (Background) Library Bedroom at Night Concert Hall (Background) Broadcast and Recording Studio Threshold of Hearing



41

5.14 SOCIOECONOMIC ISSUES 5.14.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impact. The existing NYSDOT maintenance facility proposed to be relocated is currently located within a mapped NYSDEC Environmental Justice area. 5.14.2 Impact of the Proposed Action 5.14.2.1 Social Social impacts include a variety of considerations as discussed below. The social and economic concerns are specific to the proposed action, and may include as displacement of residents, neighborhood disruption, tax base reduction, changes in school population, public services and other community concerns. Socioeconomic impacts are typically defined as disruptions to surrounding communities, such as shifts in patterns of population movement and growth, changes in public service demands, loss of tax revenue, and changes in employment and economic activity. These impacts may result from road closure, increased traffic congestion, acquisition of business districts or neighborhoods, and/or by disproportionately affecting low income or minority populations. There will be no acquisition of land from public to private use that would displace tax revenues. The proposed project site is currently owned by Tompkins County and would be transferred to New York State ownership. The site is not located in a densely populated area and is not expected to effect neighborhood character or adjacent property land uses. A discussion of the potential land use conflicts associated with bordering residentially zoned property is discussed in Section 5.3. Property values are unlikely to be impacted by this project. Current zoning and land use considerations by the Town are more likely to affect property values than the current proposed use. With no displacement/impact to populations there will be no impact to school populations. Relocation of the Ithaca Tompkins County Sub‐Residency to the proposed site improves access to a State highway, thereby improving the delivery of future public services to the area. The relocation will also improve the facility’s operational safety and efficiency. 5.14.2.2 Environmental Justice The EPA defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Title VI was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the intent to protect against discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance2. To prevent further such occurrences, Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐Income Populations” was authorized in 1994. E.O. 12898 directs Federal agencies to take

2 Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq, United States Department of Justice



42

the appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of Federal projects on the health or environment of minority or low‐income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations have defined an area as predominately minority if the minority population is 50 percent (50%) or greater. According to the EPA Environmental Screening and Mapping Tool, EJSCREEN, the Project site is in Census Block group 361090015003. The ACS summary report (2011‐2015 American Community Survey) estimates that the population is 3,151 and includes a resident population that consists of 18% minority and 18% low income. This falls below the threshold of minority population cohorts required to trigger an environmental justice analysis. The U.S. Census Bureau follows the Office of Management and Budget’s Statistical Policy Directive 14 determines poverty threshold using a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition. If a family’s total income is less than the threshold, then that family, and every individual in it, is considered low‐income. The poverty threshold established by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2017 for a 4‐ person household, with two people being children under the age of 18 was used to determine the low‐income populations within Census Tract 15. The average poverty threshold is $24,858. The estimated median income for the entire Town of Lansing for the year 2016 (ACS 2012‐2016) was $65,568 and the mean income was $106,964. At a Census Tract level, the median household income was $74,000 and the mean household income was $106,212. Therefore, the Census Tract in which the proposed project is located is not considered low‐income. In addition to the EJSCREEN tool, the NYSDEC Map of Potential Environmental Justice Areas in Tompkins County was reviewed. The project area is not within a potential Environmental Justice area on that Map. No minority or low‐income populations have been identified that would be adversely impacted by the proposed project as determined above. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of E.O. 12898, no further EJ analysis is required. 5.14.2.3 Children’s Health and Safety Risks The proposed project site will include operations that are not safe for children. The facility will involve the operation and maintenance of large trucks, plows and other vehicles and will store petroleum products and other chemicals for the use and maintenance of the vehicles. Children and any person not authorized to be within the facility will be precluded by surrounding the entire facility with a security fence and monitoring the facility with cameras and personnel. As a result of these security measures, the proposed project will not result in environmental health and safety risks. 5.15 SOLID WASTE 5.15.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impact.



43

5.15.2 Impact of the Proposed Action The proposed project will generate solid waste during construction and operation. Wastes generated during construction would include debris from clearing and grading activities such as brush and excess soils. It is likely that a balance between excavation and fill on site can be achieved during grading operations. If excess soils must be removed, it will be placed in upland areas at other NYSDOT project sites or disposed of at a licensed and permitted solid waste management facility. Tree removal activities will be conducted by a licensed and insured tree removal contractor. With the exception of limited vegetative matter that may be spread on site for decomposition, all materials, such as salvageable timber (lumber), firewood, and woodchips for landscaping or pellets will be recycled. These materials will be removed from the site by the contractor. No significant impacts are anticipated. Excess construction materials may also become wastes that will be removed by the contractor and disposed of at a licensed and permitted solid waste management facility. During operation, the proposed facility will generate approximately the same amount and type of solid waste as currently generated at the existing City of Ithaca facility, where an 8 cubic yard dumpster is emptied weekly by a local waste hauler. Assuming a full dumpster each week, the facility generates approximately 166 tons per year. As there will be no increase in the amount of solid waste generated by the facility, there will be no impact on regional solid waste management facilities. 5.16 WATER QUALITY 5.16.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impact to water quality. 5.16.2 Impact of the Proposed Action A majority of the proposed project site is designated as a stormwater hotspot based on the following definition listed in Section 4.11 of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual (NYSSMDM ‐ January 2015). Classification of stormwater hotspot includes land uses and activities such as vehicle fueling stations, vehicle service and maintenance facilities, vehicle and equipment cleaning facilities, outdoor liquid container storage, outdoor loading/unloading facilities, and public works storage areas. If a site is designated as a hotspot, stormwater runoff cannot be allowed to infiltrate untreated into groundwater, potentially contaminating water supplies, and a greater level of stormwater treatment for hydrocarbons, trace metals or toxicants is needed to prevent pollutant wash‐off after construction. The only portion of the proposed project that is not considered as hotspot is the main building rooftop, where the runoff from the roof drains can be collected and treated with an underground infiltration gallery system. However, based on soil borings and infiltration test results, bedrock was found 7 to 10 feet below existing grades onsite. Installing an underground infiltration gallery system is not a feasible solution. To address Runoff Reduction (RRv) and Water Quality (WQv) with attention to mitigating impacts due to hotspot runoff from the site, the Bioretention basin has been chosen as the feasible solution in accordance with the



44

NYSSMDM performance criteria of filtering systems in Chapter 6 and SMP selection procedure in Chapter 7. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared for the project. The following stormwater management practices have been selected to provide the minimum Runoff Reduction volume (RRv) required, fully treating the Water Quality volume (WQv) required, and providing peak flow mitigation for the 1‐ year Channel Protection volume (Cpv), 10‐year Overbank Flood (Qp), and the 100‐year Extreme Storm (Qf) events, with consideration of the existing Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D soils onsite.

Three Bioretention Basins lined with an impermeable liner will be located along the western side of the project site and will be designed to provide the minimum RRv required (0.131 acre‐feet). The total runoff reduction credit provided by bioretention is ±0.219 acre‐feet. The bioretention basins will also treat 0.341 acre‐feet of water quality volume. The bioretention basins are designed to completely drain out (no standing water) within 48 hours by incorporating 30 inches of soil media and a 6‐inch underdrain outlet, in compliance with FAA AC 150/5200‐33B requirements, to reduce the potential for wildlife hazards near airports.

Two Detention Ponds will be designed to mitigate the peak flows for the 1‐, 10‐, and 100‐year 24‐hour storm events. One of the detention ponds (North Pond) will provide storage for a total volume of ±0.235 acre‐feet located at the northwest side of the site. The second detention pond (South Pond) will store a total volume of ±1.366 acre‐feet, located at the southwest corner of the site. Both detention ponds will be constructed with a 6‐inch underdrain outlet, designed to drain out (no standing water) within 48 hours in accordance with FAA AC 150/5200‐33B requirements.

Four hydrodynamic separator WQv treatment units will be utilized for pretreatment of hotspot runoff prior to entering the three bioretention basins, as required by the NYSSMDM. The hydrodynamic separators are designed to capture oil, grease and sediment from stormwater runoff. Two 6‐foot diameter units are proposed to pretreat the runoff to the south bioretention basin and two 4‐foot diameter units are proposed to pretreat the runoff to each of two north bioretention basins.

One dry swale, located north of the proposed access drive entrance, will be constructed and will be ±180 feet long with 4‐foot wide bottom. This dry swale will provide a runoff reduction credit of ±0.006 acre‐feet and will treat 0.017 acre‐feet of water quality volume.

A closed storm conveyance system will be designed to convey the 10‐year storm event, while also providing safe overland conveyance of the 100‐year storm event.

Two culverts for stream crossings will be designed to convey the 50‐year storm event and meet NYSDEC and USACE general permit conditions for aquatic life passage.

Based on the incorporation of the stormwater management practices as outlined above, there will be no significant impacts to water quality as a result of the proposed project. 5.17 WETLANDS AND STREAMS 5.17.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with this alternative, therefore, there would be no impact on wetlands.



45

5.17.2 Impact of the Proposed Action The wetland delineation conducted for the project site and discussed in Section 4.1 identified federally jurisdictional wetlands and streams. These features are shown on the wetland delineation map provided in Appendix D. The following resources are present within the project boundaries:

Wetland A (0.39 AC/16889 SF) is a shallow emergent wetland dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea).

Stream A (300 LF) is an intermittent stream.

Wetland B (0.005 AC/206 SF) is a scrub shrub wetland along an intermittent stream corridor.

Stream B (270 LF) is an ephemeral to intermittent stream.

Wetland C (0.02 AC/932 SF) is an isolated shallow emergent wetland in the northern portion of the project site. It is assumed to be jurisdictional as a Waters of the U.S. for the purposes of calculating impacts.

The project has been designed to limit wetland and stream impacts to the greatest extent practical. Impacts have been limited to that necessary to access the site and utilize the upland areas to accommodate all the project components. Stream B will be crossed at the site access road from Warren Road. This stream is only 2‐4 feet in width. The stream provides few aquatic resources due to the lack of flow. It does not support fish and the use by other aquatic and semi‐aquatic animals (insects, reptiles and amphibians) appears to be very limited due to the lack of suitable habitat. The crossing design will follow the guidelines in the 2017 Nationwide Permits including those detailed in the New York State Regional Conditions and NYSDEC Blanket Section 401 Water Quality conditions. As such the culvert will be sized to accommodate 1.25 times the stream’s ordinary high water mark. This width varies within the proximity of the crossing but a 4 foot stream width will be used to calculate the culvert dimensions. The culvert will also be designed to pass the 50 year storm event, as identified in Highway Design Manual Chapter 8. Approximately 65 linear feet (lf) of stream will be enclosed by the crossing, totaling 195 sf (0.004 ac). Utilities (including water and sewer line, Underground conduits and duct banks for power, telephone and internet services connections) will enter the site at this location, but will be installed at a depth below the stream bed sufficient to avoid impacts to the stream or be entirely contained within the footprint of the stream crossings. The second crossing will occur in the northern portion of the project site to gain access to the northern upland areas. This crossing will result in impacts to Stream A and Wetland A. The wetland in this location is separated from the main wetland body to the east. It occurs as an emergent area among the young forested area and is directly connected to the stream. Wetland functions and values are limited due to the small size of the wetland. Based on its characteristics, the wetland likely provides stormwater storage function but based on its size it has little or no effect on peak flows and water quality. The wetland may support wildlife in the spring when the stream is flowing and this area is flooded. Approximately 2350 sf (0.05 acre) of Wetland A will be impacted by the crossing. Additionally, Wetland C (932 sf or 0.02 acre), the small emergent wetland located north of Wetland A, will be filled to accommodate project components to the north. Stream A is similar in character to stream B with a defined but narrow channel. This stream appears to carry more flow but the characteristics of the stream bed and banks suggest that its flow is ephemeral to intermittent and does not provide much aquatic habitat. Site circulation needs dictated the location of this crossing. An ordinary high water width of 7 feet was used to size the culvert crossing to meet the Nationwide Permit conditions. The



46

culvert will also be designed to pass the 50 year storm event, as identified in Highway Design Manual Chapter 8. Approximately 80 linear feet of stream will be enclosed by the crossing, totaling 852 sf (0.02 acre). Based on the proposed wetland and stream crossings, approximately 0.07 acre of permanent wetland impacts will occur. A total stream length of approximately 145 lineal feet (0.024 acres) will be enclosed. It is anticipated that the proposed project will be eligible for a USACE Nationwide Permit. In order to receive authorization under a Nationwide Permit, it is anticipated that a Pre‐Construction Notification will be prepared and submitted to USACE for review and concurrence. Because, total impacts to Waters of the United States are less than 0.10 acre, it is further anticipated that no mitigation will be required. The wetlands and streams are not regulated by NYSDEC and it appears that the conditions of the blanket Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the 2017 Nationwide Permits will be satisfied. 5.17.3 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) As discussed in this section, the Project contains all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands occurring on‐site. Efforts to avoid and to minimize impacts to these wetlands were made both through both design and the identification of construction best management practices. As designed the project will impact <0.1 acres of wetlands. Notification that the project included impacts to wetlands was included with the Notice of Availability of the Draft EA and of the Public Hearing on January 2, 2019 (see complete notice in Appendix M). In accordance with EO 11990, FAA anticipates making the determination that there is no practicable alternative to construction in the wetland and that the Project contains all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands in accordance with Executive Order 11990 within the Finding of No Significant Impact for this project. 5.18 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 5.18.1 Impact of the No Action Alternative No development would occur with the No Action Alternative, therefore, there would be no impact to Wild and Scenic Rivers. 5.18.2 Impact of the Proposed Action According to the National Park Service National Rivers Inventory website, there are no Wild and Scenic Rivers in the vicinity of the project site. Also, review of the NYSDEC list of Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers did not list any rivers in the vicinity of the project site. As a result, there will be no impact to any designated Wild and Scenic Rivers. 5.19 SUMMARY OF CONSEQUENCES

Table 7 provides a summary of the anticipated impacts and key issues associated with the proposed project. The project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts or environmental concerns.



47

TABLE 7 – SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND KEY ISSUES

Impact Category Proposed Action‐Potential Impact or Key Issue No Action Alternative‐ Potential Impact or Key Issue

Air Quality

Project will not increase traffic volumes, reduce source‐receptor distances or change other existing conditions to such a degree as to jeopardize attainment of the NAAQS or cause a meaningful increase in mobile source air toxic emissions

No impact

Coastal Resources There are no federal coastal resources within the project area.

No impact

Compatible Land Use

The project is consistent with local land use planning and zoning. No compatible land use impacts are anticipated. The presence of adjacent, off‐site National Register historic properties will be addressed through visual screening.

Existing facility continues to conflict with local land use plans for the Cayuga waterfront and with the existing trail.

Construction Impacts

All construction equipment and vehicles will be properly maintained. Adherence to the erosion and sediment control plan as required in the SWPPP will minimize potential water quality impacts. Construction noise is likely to exceed ambient noise levels but will be limited to normal daytime working hours. As such, significant construction impacts i.e., noise, air quality, erosion, traffic, etc. are not anticipated.

No Impact

Department of Transportation Act: Section 4(f)

No use of Section 4(f) properties.

Farmland

Completion of the NRCS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form resulted in a score of 40 out of a possible 200 points. This low score indicates that the project will have little potential to impact farmland of value.

No Impact

Fish, Wildlife, and Plants The action may affect northern long‐eared bat but complies with the 4(d) rule. Tree cutting will be precluded during the pup season from June 1 to July 31.

No Impact

Floodplain No Impact No Impact

Hazardous Materials

No potential hazardous materials or RECs were identified by the site inspection, regulatory database reviews, and/or review of historical resources completed during the course of the Phase I ESA.

No Impact



48



Asbestos‐Containing Materials

ACM was confirmed through laboratory analysis to be present in the form of window glazing on the windows on the southeast and southwest sides of the barn. Demolition of the barn is not proposed, so ACM will not be disturbed.

No impact

Historic Resources

The project has a Section 106 finding of No Adverse Effect with Conditions which include measures to minimize effects to the setting of two adjacent historic properties.

No Impact

Light Emissions & Visual Effects

The project will be visible from the two adjacent historic homes. The project proposes to screen the views using berms and tree plantings.

No Impact

Natural Resources & Energy Supply

The fleet of vehicles serviced by this facility will not change. Additionally, the new facility will incorporate energy saving fixtures, better insulation and more effective and efficient heating and cooling equipment. As a result, it is anticipated that there will be a net decrease in overall energy use.

Continued use of inefficient lighting, heating and cooling.

Noise

The proposed facility is projected to raise the noise levels during operation by 2 dB during normal daytime working hours. This increase is barely perceptible by the human ear and not considered an impact. A 5 dBA increase in bedroom noise levels is projected during nighttime snow and ice removal operations. This increase will be noticeable but not significant due to the short duration and infrequency of nighttime operations.

No impact.

Socioeconomic Impacts

The project area is not within a potential Environmental Justice area. The existing NYSDOT Tompkins County Sub‐Residency is currently located within a mapped Environmental Justice area. The project will therefore eliminate a potential source of localized impact within a low income and/or minority area of the City of Ithaca.

No impact.

Solid Waste Solid waste generation will be similar to the existing Tompkins County Sub‐Residency. No significant increase in solid waste generation is expected.

No impact.

Water Quality No significant water quality impacts will occur due to adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that will be prepared prior to construction.

Existing facility lacks stormwater management practices to address water quality.



49



Wetlands & Streams

Impacts to wetlands and streams will be limited to road crossings and will be less than 0.10 acre. Culvert crossings will be designed to meet or exceed federal and state nationwide permit requirements.

No Impact

Wild & Scenic Rivers No Impact. No Impact


AIP GRANT NO. 3‐36‐0102‐093‐2016 NYSDOT PIN 3M00.18 46

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS The following individuals prepared this EA on behalf of the airport sponsor. CHA Companies, Inc. Rogina Camilli, Senior Environmental Scientist Chris Einstein, PWS Principal Scientist Seth Fowler, CHMM, Associate Vice President Jean Loewenstein, AICP, Principal Planner Paul McDonnell, AICP Principal Planner John Roche, Scientist III Nicholas Schwartz, RLA, Senior Landscape Architect Cole Scrivner, Scientist I Foit Albert Michael R. Bray, AIA, Project Architect



51

7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES

This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Airport Land Release and Relocation of a New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Sub‐Residency at Ithaca Tomkins Regional Airport was made available for public review and comment as outlined below. Additionally, a formal Public Hearing has been scheduled to present the study information and findings and solicit public comments. These activities were conducted in accordance the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq., and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 40 C.F.R. parts 1500‐150, and are summarized below. Public Hearing: A Public Hearing on the Draft EA was held on January 16, 2019 at the Lansing Town Hall. Both written and oral comments from the public will be accepted at the public hearing and open house. The hearing included Open House periods from 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM and from 5:30 PM to 6:00 PM, where participants had an opportunity to review and discuss the project with NYSDOT representatives and to provide statements through a stenographer. Between 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM, participants made formal oral statements for the public record. The public was also offered the opportunity to submit written comments at the public hearing. All written and oral comments received at the hearing are included in this Final EA document in Appendix P. Advertisement and Notifications Legal notification of the Draft EA and Public Hearing was published in the Ithaca Journal on January 2, 2019, with a second publication made the following week. Copies of these notifications and affidavit of publications are included in Appendix M in this Final EA Document. In addition to the public advertisements, elected officials, neighboring property owners, and regulatory agencies were provided with the notification in order to improve outreach to interested parties. Specifically, notifications were provided by certified mail to each of the following: Elected Officials:

Town of Lansing – Town Supervisor

Village of Lansing – Mayor

Tompkins County – County Administrator

Tompkins County Legislature – District 10 Lansing

Tompkins County Legislature – Chair

Tompkins County Legislature – Transportation Committee Chair Residents/Property Owners:

8 Hillcrest Road

16 Hillcrest Road

39 Hillcrest Road

50 Hillcrest Road

51 Hillcrest Road

80 Hillcrest Road

410 Triphammer Road



52

Agency Recipients:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

NYSDEC‐Region 7

NYS Office of General Services

New York State Division for Historic Preservation

Draft EA Availability: Printed copies of the Draft EA were available for public review during the business hours at the following locations:

Lansing Public Library (27 Auburn Road, Lansing, NY 14882)

Lansing Town Hall (29 Auburn Road, Lansing, NY 14882)

Ithaca Tompkins County Airport Administrative Offices (72 Browning Road, Ithaca, NY 14850) Online: The Draft EA was available for review, download, and printing at the following website: https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional‐offices/region3/projects/ITH%20DOT%20Draft%20EA_12‐28‐18%20Submittal%20‐%20print.pdf Comment Period: The NYSDOT, the Ithaca‐Tompkins County Airport, and FAA all encourage parties to review and provide written comments within the 30‐day period. The comment period commenced on January 2, 2019 and extended through February 2, 2019. Written comments received are included in this Final EA as Appendix P. Notification text: The full text of the public notification is provided in Appendix M. Responses: The NYSDOT and FAA have considered the comments received on the Draft EA, including the written and recorded

comments provided at the public hearing. Appendix N summarizes and provides responses to the substantive

written and recorded comments received on the Draft EA and includes a table cross‐referencing the comments

received. The comments received are provided in Appendix O (Written Comments) and Appendix P (Public Hearing

Transcript) of the Draft EA.

Appendix A

Ithaca Tompkins Airport Layout Plan

with Pen & Ink Changes

Appendix B

Project Plans

Appendix C

Figures

Scale 1" = 2000'Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National

Geographic Society, i-cubedWest Groton USGS Quadrangle Date: 1976

Figure 1 - USGS Project Location Map

CHA Project No.34701

Tompkins County Sub-Residency at IthacaTompkins Regional Airport

Town of Lansing, Tompkins Co., NY

Project Location

±

Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, ©OpenStreetMap contributorsSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,

Scale 1" = 200' CHA Project No.34701

LegendProject Location

Image Courtesy of USGS and Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2014 Nokia © Photo Date: 04/2015

Figure 2 - Aerial Location MapTompkins County Sub-Residency at Ithaca

Tompkins Regional Airport Town of Lansing, Tompkins Co., NY±

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri,DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community

k

k

I t h a c aI t h a c a

Proposed NYSDOT Maintenance Facility

o o Ithaca ThompkinsRegional Airport

Existing NYSDOT Maintenance Facility

L a n s i n gL a n s i n gC a y u g a C a y u g a L a k eL a k e

CHA Project No.34701

Image Courtesy of NYS Office of Information Technology Services, GIS Program Office. Photo Date: 2015

Proposed Future Land Uses from the Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan, Adopted May 2, 2018

Figure 3 - Community Context MapNYSDOT Ithaca Maintenance FacilityLansing, Tompkins County, New York ± Scale 1" = 7200'


Cherry Rd

Cherry Rd

Warren Rd

Hillcrest Rd

Warren Dr



Zoning (2003)Redidential - Low Density (R1)

Redidential - Moderate Density (R2)

Industrial / Research (IR)

Tax Parcel 2018


Zoning courtesy of Tompkins County Planning Department, Town of Lansing Zoning Ordinance 2003

Figure 4 - Zoning MapNYSDOT Ithaca Maintenance FacilityLansing, Tompkins County, New York ±

Service Layer Credits:

Davis Rd

¬«34B

Salmon Creek Rd

Holden Rd

Decamp Rd

¬«13

Auburn Rd

Buck Rd

Ridge Rd

Lansing Station Rd

Ridge Rd

Oakcrest Rd

Auburn Rd

E Sho

re Dr

Conlon Rd

Lansingville Rd

Warren RdVan Ostrand Rd

Fenner RdN Triphammer Rd

Locke Rd

Asbury Rd

Peruville Rd

Jerry Smith Rd

E Lansing Rd

Ridge Rd

Milliken Station Rd

Lake Ridge Rd


LegendLand Use and Land Cover

Agriculture

Inactive Agriculture

Residential

Commercial

Public/Institutional

Industrial, Transportation, Transmission

Recreation

Barren or Disturbed

Vegetative Cover

Wetlands

Water

Tax Parcel 2018

Image Courtesy of USGS and Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2014 Nokia © Photo Date: 04/2015

Land Use & Land Cover data courtesy of the Tompkins County Planning Department GIS, 2012

Figure 5 - Land Use & Land Cover Map NYSDOT Ithaca Maintenance FacilityLansing, Tompkins County, New York ±

123

Typewritten Text

123

Typewritten Text


Cherry Rd

Cherry Rd

Warren Rd

Hillcrest Rd

Warren Dr



Proposed Future Land UsesResidential Mixed Use

Residential Moderate Density

Commercial Mixed Use

Industrial / Business / Research Developement

Tax Parcel 2018


Proposed Future Land Uses from the Town of Lansing Comprehensive Plan, Adopted May 2, 2018

Figure 6 - Proposed Land UseNYSDOT Ithaca Maintenance FacilityLansing, Tompkins County, New York ±

Appendices D-Land

Appendices M-Pcan be accessed via:

