Crescent Connector Project...Crescent Connector Project ES-i 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 This...

Environmental Assessment

Crescent Connector Project

Village of Essex Junction, Vermont

Prepared for:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION

AND THE

VILLAGE OF ESSEX JUNCTION

DECEMBER 2013

Village of Essex Junction

CRESCENT CONNECTOR PROJECT VILLAGE OF ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Prepared for:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION

AND THE VILLAGE OF ESSEX JUNCTION

DECEMBER 2013


Environmental Assessment December 2013

Crescent Connector Project ES-i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

This Environmental Assessment (EA) identifies, analyzes and discusses the potential 2

environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic effects associated with the construction of the 3

Crescent Connector Project in the Village of Essex Junction, Vermont. 4

The EA has been prepared under the provisions of, and in accordance with, National 5

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et seq.), Council 6

of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA 7

(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), and 23 CFR 771 (Environmental Impact 8

and Related Procedures). In addition, the document has been prepared based on guidance 9

contained in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, 10

Guidance For Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents. 11

Project Purpose and Need 12

The purpose of the of the Proposed Action is to facilitate regional travel to destinations south, 13

east, and northeast of the Village, as well as improve local circulation in the Village Center, 14

improve safety, and enhance opportunities for economic development and employment growth 15

within the Village Center. 16

The need for the Proposed Action is based on the current levels of traffic congestion that exist 17

within the Village at the “Five Corners” intersection, which result in excessive vehicle delays, 18

traffic volumes exceeding capacities of the adjacent roadways, disruptions to adjoining 19

businesses, and a high vehicle crash rate for a portion of Park Street, an adjacent roadway. In 20

addition, there are properties located within the Village Center and along the New England 21

Central Railroad that have not been able to be more fully developed due to a lack of suitable 22

accessibility. An overview of the project, including a discussion of the purpose of and need for 23

the project, is described in Section 1.0. 24

25

26



Crescent Connector Project ES-ii

Summary Description of the Proposed Action 1

The Village proposes to construct a new segment of roadway near the center of the Village to 2

provide an alternative route for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians around the Five Corners 3

intersection. The proposed Crescent Connector Project (“Proposed Action”) is intended to 4

improve traffic flow within the Village, allow traffic through the Village to flow more 5

efficiently, and to reduce traffic volumes at the Five Corners intersection. The Proposed Action 6

is described in detail in Section 2.0. 7

Project Alternatives 8

This EA provides a comparative analysis of three alternatives, summarized as follows: 9

• Northern Alternative (Preferred Alternative) – Construction of the Northern 10

Alignment of the Crescent Connector roadway and reconstruction of Railroad Street. 11

A detailed description of the Proposed Action is included in Section 2.0. 12

• Southern Alternative – The Southern Alignment alternative was studied, but not 13

selected for further assessment. A detailed description of this alternative is also 14

included in Section 2.0. 15

• No Build Alternative – The Proposed Action would not be implemented. 16

17

Environmental Effects 18

The Proposed Action was evaluated to determine its potential direct and indirect effects on the 19

physical, environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic aspects of the Project Study Area. 20

Technical areas evaluated include: traffic, land use, farmlands, socioeconomics, environmental 21

justice, acquisitions (rights-of-way), infrastructure, air quality, noise, surface water resources, 22

wetlands, groundwater resources, prime agricultural soils, floodplains and floodways, hazardous 23

materials, biological resources, historical and archaeological resources, aesthetics and visual 24

resources, and construction impacts. This EA also includes an assessment of potential cumulative 25

impacts, and provides an analysis of impacts to Section 4(f) resources. 26



Crescent Connector Project ES-iii

The Preferred Alternative would result in the effects identified throughout Section 3.0. Under the 1

Preferred Alternative, minor adverse impacts associated with ROW acquisitions and very slight 2

increases in noise levels for several receptors would be expected. There would also be minor and 3

temporary adverse impacts to traffic, noise, air and water quality as a result of construction 4

activities. It is expected that implementation of the Preferred Alternative would have beneficial 5

impacts due to the improved traffic flows and increased accessibility. Section 3.22 of this EA 6

provides a list of commitments that would be undertaken by the Village of Essex Junction to 7

avoid or mitigate impacts associated with the Proposed Action. These commitments include 8

providing replacement parking spaces and using a specific style of street lights. 9

Conclusion 10

This EA is being made available to the public and resource agencies for review and comment. 11

Comments received during the review period will be summarized, and responses prepared for 12

inclusion into the revised EA. 13




THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1



Crescent Connector Project TOC-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... ES-i 2

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................. 1-1 3

1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 4

1.2 Project Background ............................................................................................................. 1-2 5

1.3 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 1-3 6

1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ............................................................................ 1-5 7

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION and ALTERNATIVES .......................... 2-1 8

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 9

2.2 Alternatives Considered ...................................................................................................... 2-1 10

2.3 Summary of Preferred Alternative ...................................................................................... 2-4 11

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, 12

AND MITIGATION ......................................................................................................... 3-1 13

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 14

3.2 Traffic ................................................................................................................................. 3-1 15

3.3 Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 3-9 16

3.4 Farmland Impacts.............................................................................................................. 3-12 17

3.5 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................ 3-12 18

3.6 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 3-15 19

3.7 Acquisitions (Rights-of-Way) ........................................................................................... 3-16 20

3.8 Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 3-18 21

3.9 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 3-19 22

3.10 Noise ............................................................................................................................... 3-23 23

3.11 Surface Water Resources .................................................................................................. 3-27 24

3.12 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................... 3-29 25

3.13 Groundwater Resources .................................................................................................... 3-30 26



Crescent Connector Project TOC-ii

3.14 Floodplains and Floodways .............................................................................................. 3-32 1

3.15 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-32 2

3.16 Historic and Archeological Preservation .......................................................................... 3-34 3

3.17 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................................................... 3-38 4

3.18 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ...................................................................................... 3-41 5

3.19 Construction Impacts ........................................................................................................ 3-47 6

3.20 Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................... 3-49 7

3.21 Summary of Resource Impacts ......................................................................................... 3-52 8

3.22 Summary of Mitigation and Project Commitments .......................................................... 3-53 9

4.0 SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 4-1 10

4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................. 4-1 11

4.2 Description of Resources .................................................................................................... 4-2 12

4.3 Use of Resources................................................................................................................. 4-2 13

4.4 Measures to Minimize Harm .............................................................................................. 4-2 14

4.5 Section 4(f) Summary ......................................................................................................... 4-2 15

5.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION/PERMITTING ..... 4-1 16

5.1 Public Involvement ............................................................................................................. 5-1 17

5.2 Permitting ............................................................................................................................ 5-2 18

6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 6-1 19

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................................... 7-1 20

21



Crescent Connector Project TOC-iii

LIST OF APPENDICES 1

Appendix A Agency Coordination Letters and Responses 2

Appendix B Crescent Connector Traffic Assessment 3

Appendix C Crescent Connector Air Quality Assessment 4

Appendix D Crescent Connector EA Technical Noise Assessment 5

Appendix E Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the Crescent Connector (Technical 6

Report only) 7

Appendix F Archaeological Resources Assessment and Historic Resources Review of the 8

Proposed Village of Essex Junction Crescent Connector STP 5300(13) Project 9

Appendix G Crescent Connector Pre-Preliminary Plans 10

LIST OF TABLES 11

Table 3.2.1 Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections 12

Table 3.2.2 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Results for the No Build Scenario 13

Table 3.2.3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Results for the No Build Scenario 14

Table 3.2.4 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Results for the Build Scenario 15

Table 3.2.5 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Results for the Build Scenario 16

Table 3.5.1 Regional Population Data for the Village of Essex Junction, Chittenden County, 17

Vermont 18

Table 3.5.2 Regional Economic Data for the Village of Essex Junction, Chittenden County 19

and the State of Vermont 20

Table 3.9.1 Summary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 21

Table 3.9.2 Change in Vehicle Pollutant Emissions, Energy from 2015 No-Build to Build 22

Scenarios (PM Peak Hour of Traffic) 23

Table 3.9.3 Change in Vehicle Pollutant Emissions, Energy from 2025 No-Build to Build 24

Scenarios (PM Peak Hour of Traffic) 25

Table 3.9.4 Change in Vehicle Pollutant Emissions and Energy from 2015 to 2025 Build 26

Scenario (PM Peak Hour of Traffic) 27

Table 3.10.1 Potential Noise Impacts Associated with the Preferred Alternative 28

Table 3.19.1 Maximum Sound Levels from Various Construction Equipment 29



Crescent Connector Project TOC-iv

LIST OF TABLES (continued) 1

Table 3.21.1 Summary of Impacts Associated with the Preferred Alternative 2

LIST OF FIGURES 3

Figure 1 Project Location Map 4

Figure 2 Project Study Area Map 5

Figure 3 Project Alternatives 6

Figure 3A Railroad Street Alternative with Continuous Sidewalk 7

Figure 3B Railroad Street Alternative with Partial Sidewalk 8

Figure 4 Proposed Action – Crescent Connector 9

Figure 5 Proposed Action – Railroad Street 10

Figure 6 Traffic Study Area Intersections 11

Figure 7 2011 Essex Junction Zoning Map 12

Figure 8 Acquisitions Map 13

Figure 9 Essex Junction 2008 Village Plan Map 7 Wastewater Distribution System 14

Figure 10 Essex Junction 2008 Village Plan Map 8 Water Distribution System 15

Figure 11 Surface Water Resources 16

Figure 12 Stormwater Map 17

Figure 13 Natural Resource Atlas – Natural Resources 18

Figure 14 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 19

Figure 15 Cultural/Historical Resources Map 20

Figure 16 Natural Resource Atlas –Brownfields 21

Figure 17 Important Visual Resources Map 22

23



Crescent Connector Project TOC-v

LIST OF ACRONYMS 1

µg/m3 Micrograms Per Cubic 2 Meter 3

AADT Annual Average Daily 4 Traffic 5

AASHTO American Association of 6 State Highway and 7 Transportation Officials 8

ACHP Advisory Council on 9 Historic Properties 10

amsl Above Mean Sea Level 11

ARPA Archaeological Resources 12 Protection Act 13

AST Aboveground Storage Tank 14

BMP Best Management Practice 15

CAA Clean Air Act 16

CAP Corrective Action Plan 17

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 18

CCMPO Chittenden County 19 Metropolitan Planning 20 Organization 21

CCRPC Chittenden County Regional 22 Planning Commission 23

CCTA Chittenden County Transit 24 Authority 25

CEQ Council on Environmental 26 Quality 27

CERCLA Comprehensive 28 Environmental Response, 29 Compensation and Liability 30 Act 31

CERCLIS Comprehensive 32 Environmental Response, 33 Compensation and Liability 34 Information System 35

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 36

CWA Clean Water Act 37

dB Decibels 38

dBA A-weighted in Decibels 39

DEC Vermont Department of 40 Environmental Conservation 41

EA Environmental Assessment 42

EIS Environmental Impact 43 Statement 44

EO Executive Order 45

EPSC Erosion Prevention and 46 Sediment Control 47

ESA Endangered Species Act 48

FEMA Federal Emergency 49 Management Agency 50

FHWA Federal Highway 51 Administration 52

FONSI Finding of No Significant 53 Impact 54

ft Feet 55

FY Fiscal Year 56

GIS Geographic Information 57 System 58

GPS Global Positioning System 59

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 60

HHS United States Department of 61 Health and Human Services 62

HTMW Hazardous and Toxic 63 Materials/Waste 64

HUD United States Department of 65 Housing and Urban 66 Development 67

LOS Level of Service 68

LP Liquid Propane 69

LWCF Land and Water 70 Conservation Fund 71

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 72

mph Miles Per Hour 73

N/A Not Available 74

NAAQS National Ambient Air 75 Quality Standards 76

NAC Noise Abatement Criteria 77



Crescent Connector Project TOC-vi

NEPA National Environmental 1 Policy Act of 1969 2

NHPA National Historic 3 Preservation Act 4

NOA Notice of Availability 5

NPDES National Pollution Discharge 6 Elimination System 7

NRCS Natural Resources 8 Conservation Service 9

NRHP National Register of Historic 10 Places 11

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 12

OMB Office of Management and 13 Budget 14

OSHA Occupational Safety and 15 Health Administration 16

OTR Ozone Transport Region 17

PA/SI Preliminary Assessment/Site 18 Inspection 19

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic 20 Hydrocarbon 21

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl 22

PEM Palustrine Emergent 23 Wetland 24

PF Prime Farmland 25

PFO Palustrine Forested/Shrub 26 Wetland 27

PM Particulate Matter 28

ppm Parts Per Million 29

PUBFb Palustrine Pond 30

RCRA Resource Conservation and 31 Recovery Act 32

ROW Right-of-Way 33

RSA Revised Statutes Annotated 34

SHPO State Historic Preservation 35 Office 36

SOP Standard Operating 37 Procedure 38

SPCC Spill, Prevention, Control & 39 Countermeasures 40

STP Standard Treatment Practice 41 T&E Threatened and Endangered 42 TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 43 USACE United States Army Corps of 44

Engineers 45 USC United States Code 46 USDA United States Department of 47

Agriculture 48 USDOT United States Department of 49

Transportation 50 USEPA United States Environmental 51

Protection Agency 52 USFWS United States Fish & 53

Wildlife Service 54 USGS United States Geological 55

Survey 56 UST Underground Storage Tank 57 VANR Vermont Agency of Natural 58

Resources 59 VDHP Vermont Division for 60

Historic Preservation 61 VSA Vermont Statutes Annotated 62 VSMM Vermont Stormwater 63

Management Manual 64 VTrans Vermont Agency of 65

Transportation 66



Crescent Connector Project 1-1

1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1

1.1 Introduction 2

The Crescent Connector Project, proposed by the Village of Essex Junction, Vermont (the 3

Village), is located in the Village of Essex Junction, which is in Chittenden County in the 4

northwestern portion of Vermont, as shown in Figure 1. Located approximately 500 feet to the 5

east and south of the center of Essex Junction, the Project would combine a new roadway with 6

existing roadways to provide an alternative route for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians around 7

the "Five Corners" intersection, which consists of the intersections of VT Route 2A (also called 8

Lincoln Street to the north, and Park Street to the south), VT Route 15 (Pearl Street to the west, 9

and Main Street to the northeast), and VT Route 117 (Maple Street to the east), as shown in 10

Figure 1. 11

The proposed Crescent Connector Project is intended to reduce the traffic volumes at the Five 12

Corners intersection, improve traffic flow within the Village, allow traffic through the Village to 13

flow more efficiently, and facilitate future development within the Village. 14

The Village has long been concerned about the traffic congestion at the Five Corners 15

intersection. It is one of the most congested intersections in one of the most populous areas of the 16

State. Complicating traffic flow through the intersection is the presence of two rail lines that 17

have their confluence in the same proximity, and a small rail yard. Train traffic on the Genesee 18

& Wyoming/New England Central Railroad (NECR) Main Line, and the NECR Burlington 19

Branch travels through the area several times a day, and causes vehicular traffic to stop on the 20

roads leading to/from the Five Corners, further aggravating traffic conditions, especially during 21

peak hours. While the Village has made improvements to the intersection to improve traffic flow, 22

such as synchronizing the surrounding traffic signals, the intersection still suffers from poor 23

levels of service during peak travel hours. 24

The Crescent Connector Project would consist of a new segment of roadway that would roughly 25

parallel the east side of the NECR Burlington Branch rail line between Park Street and Maple 26

Street, and then continue between Maple Street and Main Street along the existing alignment of 27

Railroad Street. It would be an alternative route around the east side of the Five Corners 28




intersection for traffic that is travelling between Park Street, Maple Street, and Main Street. 1

Because some on-street public parking and some private parking would be lost with the 2

construction of the road, the Project would include new parking spaces to mitigate the lost 3

parking. 4

A Project Study Area Map is included as Figure 2. Unless noted otherwise in this 5

Environmental Assessment (EA), the Project Study Area is defined as the area encompassing the 6

Crescent Connector Project’s right-of-way (ROW) and adjacent properties and extending 7

north/west to include the Five Corners intersection. Several additional intersections outside of 8

the Study Area boundary have been included and analyzed as part of this project to allow for 9

signal coordination throughout the Village. The Project Study Area is a relatively flat, developed 10

urban center that contains a variety of one and two story wood-framed commercial and 11

residential structures, parking lots, rail yard, rail lines, and Village streets. There are a few 12

underutilized lots, but very little undisturbed or green space exists within the Project Study Area. 13

This EA was prepared to describe and assess the environmental consequences that may result 14

from the proposed Crescent Connector Project (“the Project” or “the Proposed Action”) and 15

includes the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that would result from the Proposed Action. 16

Environmental, social, and cultural resources were considered, and impacts to these resources 17

were avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practicable. 18

1.2 Project Background 19

The congestion at the Five Corners intersection has been an issue for many years, and is 20

continuing to get worse. With the on-going delays of the Circumferential Highway, the Village 21

wanted to investigate other options to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow at the Five 22

Corners intersection. 23

The Village received assistance from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission 24

(CCRPC), who has developed several studies of the project. A Steering Committee was formed 25

by the CCRPC to oversee the process and included representatives from the Village of Essex 26

Junction, the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO), the Vermont 27

Agency of Transportation (VTrans), Chittenden County Transportation Authority (CCTA) and 28




the Lincoln Development Group, which is a group that owns a portion of land needed to 1

construct the Project. The Steering Committee also met with representatives from the NECR and 2

Genesee & Wyoming (formerly RailAmerica). The studies that were developed as part of this 3

process include: 4

• Essex Junction Village Connector Road Analysis (February 2010) - This Study 5

determined that traffic flow could be improved by the construction of a new roadway 6

around the east side of the Five Corners intersection. 7

• Essex Junction Crescent Connector Road Final Scoping Report (August 2011) - This 8

Study investigated alternatives, impacts and costs for a Crescent Connector roadway. 9

• Essex Junction Crescent Connector Road Final Scoping Report Supplemental Memo 10

(June 2012) - This supplemental memo refined the preferred alternative identified in the 11

2011 Final Scoping Report. 12

• Essex Junction Crescent Connector Road Final Scoping Report Supplemental Memo - 13

Railroad Street (September 2012) - This Study investigated alternatives, impacts, and 14

costs for improvements to the Village's Railroad Street, which would form the northern 15

segment of the Crescent Connector. 16

Through the development of these planning studies, the Village and supporting agencies have 17

determined and endorsed a Preferred Alternative for the Crescent Connector Project, which is 18

described in Section 2.0 of this EA. 19

1.3 Purpose and Need 20

As defined in the August 2011 Essex Junction Crescent Connector Road Final Scoping Report, 21

the purpose of the Proposed Action is to facilitate regional travel to/from destinations south, east, 22

and northeast of the Village, as well as improve local circulation in the Village Center, improve 23

safety, and enhance opportunities for economic development and employment growth within the 24

Village Center. 25

The need for the Proposed Action is based on the current levels of traffic congestion that exist 26

within the Village at the Five Corners intersection, which result in extensive vehicle delays, 27

traffic volumes exceeding capacities of the adjacent roadways, disruptions to adjoining 28




businesses, and a high vehicle crash rate for a portion of the adjacent roadway. In addition there 1

are properties located within the Village Center and along the NECR rail lines that have not been 2

able to be more fully developed due to a lack of suitable accessibility. 3

Input from the Steering Committee and Local Concerns public meeting, as well as analyses of 4

existing traffic conditions in the project area, further identified project objectives as follows: 5

• Improve regional mobility and local connectivity in the Village. Currently there are no 6

alternate routes linking Park Street with Maple Street and Main Street that would 7

facilitate regional and local travel by allowing vehicles to bypass the congested Five 8

Corners intersection. Construction of an alternate route would allow traffic to bypass the 9

Five Corners intersection, and would diminish traffic conflicts/delays that result from rail 10

traffic on the NECR Burlington Branch. 11

• Reduce traffic congestion and increase safety around the Five Corners intersection. 12

Excessive traffic congestion creates and contributes to the following existing conditions: 13

o Vehicle delays at the Five Corners intersection exceed the threshold for Level of 14

Service (LOS) F on multiple approaches during peak hour travel (AM and PM). 15

The overall intersection LOS is F during the AM and PM peak hours; 16

o Traffic volumes exceed approach capacities during peak hours of travel (AM and 17

PM); 18

o Long vehicle queues disrupt access to adjoining business; and 19

o High vehicle crash rates for the segment of Park Street from the Burlington 20

Branch rail crossing to north of the Five Corners intersection when compared to 21

similar roadway segments around the state - it is designated a High Crash 22

Location (HCL) by VTrans, and is ranked 28th in the State. 23

24

• Increase development potential and promote economic growth in the Village Center. 25

Certain prominent parcels located in the commercial heart of the Village, particularly 26

those adjacent to the NECR rail lines, have a large amount of underutilized or vacant 27

space that lacks suitable accessibility. This situation hampers their attractiveness to new 28

businesses, as well as their ability to obtain state and local permits for development. 29




1.4 Scope of the Environmental Assessment 1

The scope of this EA encompasses a detailed review of potential environmental, cultural, and 2

socioeconomic effects associated with the implementation of the Proposed Action in the Village. 3

This analysis includes a review of the following resources: traffic, land use, farmlands, 4

socioeconomics, environmental justice, acquisitions (rights-of-way), infrastructure, air quality, 5

noise, surface water resources, wetlands, groundwater resources, prime agricultural soils, 6

floodplains and floodways, hazardous materials, biological resources, historical and 7

archaeological resources, aesthetics and visual resources, and construction impacts. A review of 8

potential impacts to Section 4(f) resources in the vicinity of the Proposed Action is also included. 9

The EA has been prepared under the provisions of, and in accordance with, National 10

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et seq.), Council 11

of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA 12

(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), and 23 CFR 771 (Environmental Impact 13

and Related Procedures). In addition, the document has been prepared based on guidance 14

contained in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, 15

Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents. 16

This EA includes the analysis for the following three possible alternatives, which were 17

developed and identified as part of the screening process: 18

• Northern Alternative (Preferred Alternative) – Construction of the Northern 19

Alignment of the Crescent Connector roadway and reconstruction of Railroad Street. 20

A detailed description of the Proposed Action is included in Section 2.0. 21

• Southern Alternative – The Southern Alignment alternative was studied, but not 22

selected for further assessment. A detailed description of this alternative is also 23

included in Section 2.0. 24

• No Build Alternative – Construction of the Crescent Connector and reconstruction 25

of Railroad Street would not be implemented. This alternative is presented as a 26

baseline for comparison of the Build Alternative. 27




2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION and 1

ALTERNATIVES 2

2.1 Introduction 3

In accordance with NEPA regulations, the Village of Essex Junction has considered several 4

alternatives to satisfy the Purpose and Need for the Project. The following section provides an 5

assessment of alternatives, including the No-Build Alternative, and describes the Proposed 6

Action. 7

2.2 Alternatives Considered 8

NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) and CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) require that all 9

reasonable alternatives be rigorously explored and objectively evaluated. In addition, 10

alternatives that are eliminated from detailed study must be identified along with a brief 11

discussion of the reasons for eliminating them. For purposes of analysis, an alternative was 12

considered “reasonable” only if it would meet the Purpose and Need for this project. 13

2.2.1 Alternatives Development 14

As part of the February 2010 Essex Junction Village Connector Road Analysis Study, it was 15

determined that a connector road between Park Street and Maple Street in the Village was 16

feasible. The subsequent August 2011 Essex Junction Crescent Connector Road Scoping Study 17

evaluated the impacts of connector road alternatives and identified a Preferred Alternative. More 18

specifically the study identified an alternative route to connect Park Street with Maple Street and 19

Main Street in order to facilitate travel to destinations south, east, and northeast of the Village. 20

An additional route in this area would allow travelers to bypass the congested Five Corners 21

intersection. The alternatives being considered were further refined in subsequent scoping studies 22

including the June 2012 Essex Junction Crescent Connector Road Final Scoping Report 23

Supplemental Memo (Phase A), and the September 2012 Crescent Connector Road Final 24

Scoping Report Supplemental Memorandum-Phase B: Railroad Street Alternative. In each of 25

these studies, the alternatives were developed to address local Village needs and consider all 26

modes of transportation. Possible changes to the rail operations and alignment were considered 27




that would increase the speed of rail transit through the Village. The development of alternatives 1

also considered the regional transportation planning efforts as they relate to land use and 2

transportation and the inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in highway projects. 3

For evaluation of the alternatives, traffic volumes were projected for an initial build year of 4

2015, and a design year of 2025. A combination of recent and new traffic counts were utilized to 5

develop the projected traffic volumes. Regional growth factors were applied to the traffic counts, 6

and traffic volumes from anticipated developments were added to estimate the future traffic 7

volumes. 8

2.2.2 Alternatives Considered 9

The 2010 Essex Junction Village Connector Road Analysis study evaluated the traffic impacts of 10

a proposed local road connecting Park Street and Maple Street and the August 2011 Essex 11

Junction Crescent Connector Road Final Scoping Report identified two build alternative 12

alignments for the connector road. Both of these build alignments created new signalized 13

intersections with Park Street and Maple Street, and included an at-grade rail crossing with the 14

NECR Main Line. Due to changes and additions requested by the Village, two supplemental 15

memorandums were prepared that identified two scoping phases for the Crescent Connector 16

Project. Scoping “Phase A” included the proposed new local road connecting Park Street and 17

Maple Street, as described in the previous scoping study. The Essex Junction Crescent 18

Connector Road Final Scoping Report Supplemental Memo (June 2012) summarizes slight 19

revisions to the preferred alignment identified in the August 2011 document and provided an 20

updated evaluation matrix and cost estimates. Scoping “Phase B”, consisting of additional 21

improvements to Railroad Street to accommodate expected increases in vehicle and truck traffic 22

and better accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel, is described in the September 2012 23

Supplemental Memorandum-Phase B: Railroad Street Alternative. As a result of these studies 24

and memoranda, the following alternatives were considered for advancement in this EA: 25

• Northern Alignment Alternative with Railroad Street Improvements 26

• Southern Alignment Alternative with Railroad Street Improvements 27

• No Build Alternative 28




Northern Alignment Build Alternative with Railroad Street Improvements 1

The Northern Alignment Build Alternative with Railroad Street Improvements includes a 2

proposed new two-lane roadway extending from Park Street, traveling in a northeasterly 3

direction to Maple Street (the Northern Alignment). New signalized intersections would be 4

included at both intersections. The alignment crosses the NECR Main Line, and new crossing 5

gates would be installed at this location. Figure 3 illustrates the alignment of the Northern 6

Alignment. 7

This alternative includes improvements to Railroad Street. The September 2012 Supplemental 8

Memorandum-Phase B: Railroad Street Alternative evaluated two build options for 9

improvements to Railroad Street. Both Railroad Street build options included complete 10

reconstruction of curbing, roadbed and stormwater conveyances, a new fence along the NECR 11

Main Line, and a geometric design that accommodated tractor trailers. Both build options also 12

provided a bike lane in each direction and on-street parking. The first build option (listed in the 13

Memorandum as Alternative 2) included continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, as 14

shown on Figure 3A. The second build option (Alternate 3) included a continuous sidewalk on 15

the east side of the street and a partial sidewalk on the west side of the street, as shown on 16

Figure 3B. As a result of coordination with the NECR, it was determined that continuous 17

sidewalk would not provide adequate separation (15 feet between the closest rail and any 18

proposed features) between the rail line and the proposed sidewalk. For this reason, the build 19

option with continuous sidewalk was removed from consideration and is not evaluated as part of 20

this EA. The alternative being carried forward in this EA includes improvements to Railroad 21

Street with continuous sidewalk on the east side of the street and partial sidewalk on the west. 22

Southern Alignment Build Alternative with Railroad Street Improvements 23

The Southern Alignment Build Alternative is also a proposed new two-lane roadway, beginning 24

at a more southerly point along Park Street, and traveling in a northeasterly direction to Maple 25

Street. New signalized intersections would be provided at both intersections. The alignment 26

crosses the NECR Main Line and new crossing gates would be installed at this location. The 27

alignment of the Southern Alternative is also shown on Figure 3. The Southern Alignment was 28

proposed by the Lincoln Development Group in conjunction with planned developments along 29




the alignment. This alternative would include improvements to Railroad Street as described in 1

the Northern Alignment narrative above. 2

An initial Archeological and Historic Resource Review of the Study Area indicated that the 3

Southern Alignment would potentially have an adverse effect on the Baxter Bros. 4

Cannery/Mason Bros. Warehouse, which is considered a historically significant resource. The 5

Southern Alignment Build Alternative was also identified as less preferable from a railroad 6

system perspective as it would potentially have greater impacts to current and/or future rail 7

operations than the Northern Alignment Alternative. The Southern Alignment also had greater 8

impacts to abutting properties than the Northern Alignment. For these reasons, the Southern 9

Alignment Build Alternative was removed from consideration and is not evaluated as part of this 10

EA. 11

No Build Alternative 12

The No Build Alternative assumes that the Crescent Connector would not be built, resulting in 13

continued congestion in the Study Area. The No Build Alternative does not fulfill the project’s 14

Purpose and Need but is considered for comparison purposes to the build alternatives. The No 15

Build Alternative establishes a baseline in order to assess the environmental impacts and benefits 16

of the Proposed Action. Other projects identified in long-range plans, such as the Statewide 17

Transportation Improvement Program, would be expected to still be implemented. See Section 18

3.0 for a discussion of environmental impacts. 19

2.3 Summary of Preferred Alternative 20

The Preferred Alternative carried forward in this EA is the Northern Alignment Alternative with 21

Railroad Street Improvements. This alternative would provide an effective alternate route to the 22

Five Corners intersection for traffic traveling between Park Street and Maple Street as well as 23

Main Street and would satisfy the Purpose and Need of the Project. The Northern Alternative 24

also provides good access to abutting properties for future development allowing for future 25

growth within the Village. The Village Board of Trustees, during their March 8, 2012 meeting, 26

unanimously endorsed the Northern Alignment as the preferred alternative for the Crescent 27

Connector Project. On June 12, 2012, the Village Trustees voted unanimously to accept the build 28




option with continuous sidewalk on the east side of the street and partial sidewalk on the west 1

side as the preferred alternative for the improvements to Railroad Street. Together, the new 2

roadway and reconstruction of Railroad Street represent the Preferred Alternative and the 3

Proposed Action consists of implementing this alternative. The estimated construction cost of 4

the Proposed Action is approximately $4.5 million. 5

The Proposed Action would include a combination of a new roadway and an improved existing 6

roadway that would be designed to meet AASHTO and State standards, as well as incorporate 7

Complete Streets principles. The roadways would provide one 11-foot lane of travel and one 4-8

foot bike lane in each direction, and a 5-foot wide sidewalk on one or both sides. The roadways 9

would also have street lights that match the other street lights located throughout the Village 10

Center District, and limited landscaping features. The roadways would impact existing parking, 11

so new parking will be incorporated into the project to mitigate the losses. See Figures 4 and 5 12

for a detailed depiction of the Proposed Action. Pre-Preliminary Plans for the Proposed Action 13

are included as Appendix G. 14

The project will affect Park Street, Maple Street and Main Street, all of which are Class 1 Village 15

highways. Railroad Street (a Class 3 Village highway) will be improved as part of the Crescent 16

Connector Project. A right turn lane will be added for northbound Park Street, a left turn lane 17

will be added for westbound Maple Street, and the westbound Main Street left turn lane will be 18

lengthened. 19

Numerous traffic signals would be affected by the project. New signals are proposed for the 20

intersections of the Crescent Connector/Park Street and Crescent Connector/Maple Street. 21

Additional intersections with traffic signals that would be affected and would require 22

coordination with other signals in the project area are shown in Figure 6, and include: 23

• Five Corners intersection 24

• Park Street and Iroquois Avenue 25

• Park Street and South Street/River Street 26

• Pearl Street and South Summit Street 27

28




In addition to the traffic signals at the above listed roadway intersections, several traffic signals 1

at rail crossings would be affected by the project. These are also shown in Figure 6, and are: 2

• NECR Burlington Branch and Park Street 3

• Southern Wye and Park Street 4

• NECR Main Line and Maple Street 5

• NECR Main Line and Main Street 6

• A new signal at the Crescent Connector and the NECR Main Line 7

8

As part of the Project, the foregoing traffic and railroad signals would all be coordinated with 9

each other to maximize the efficiency and safety of traffic within the Project Study Area. 10

Additionally, upgrades such as the addition of emergency pre-emption equipment, the addition of 11

gates, and updating of pavement markings and signs would be included, as warranted. 12




3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL 1

CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION 2

3.1 Introduction 3

This section describes the existing condition of environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic 4

resources in the Study Area of the proposed Crescent Connector Project. A thorough review of 5

current resources provides a baseline understanding which is critical to building a comparative 6

analysis of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, which is provided for the resource 7

areas in each of the following subsections. 8

3.2 Traffic 9

This section describes the existing conditions within the Study Area and the consequences of the 10

Preferred Alternative and No Build Alternative on traffic levels within the Study Area. A 11

Technical Traffic Assessment has been completed for the project and is provided in Appendix 12

B. The traffic assessments were completed for both the build year 2015 and the design year 13

2025. 14

3.2.1 Affected Environment 15

From a traffic standpoint, the affected environment and subsequent review of environmental 16

consequences are best described through a congestion analysis utilizing Highway Capacity 17

Manual procedures. Traffic volumes and traffic performance are indicated by their Level-of-18

Service (LOS), which is a qualitative measure describing the operating conditions as perceived 19

by motorists driving in a traffic stream. LOS is estimated using the procedures outlined in the 20

2000 Highway Capacity Manual. In addition to traffic volumes, key inputs include the number of 21

lanes at each intersection and the traffic signal timing plans. The No Build LOS results are based 22

on the existing lane configurations and control types (signalized or unsignalized) at each study 23

intersection. 24




The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) defines six qualitative grades to describe the level 1

of service at an intersection. LOS is based on the average control delay per vehicle. Table 3.2.1 2

shows the various LOS grades and descriptions for signalized and unsignalized intersections. 3

TABLE 3.2.1 4 Level-of-Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections 5

LOS Characteristics

Unsignalized

Total Delay (sec)

Signalized

Total Delay (sec)

A Little or no delay ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0

B Short delays 10.1-15.0 10.1-20.0

C Average delays 15.1-25.0 20.1-35.0

D Long delays 25.1-35.0 35.1-55.0

E Very long delays 35.1-50.0 55.1-80.0

F Extreme delays > 50.0 > 80.0

The delay thresholds for LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections differ because of the 6

driver’s expectations of the operating efficiency for the respective traffic control conditions. 7

According to HCM procedures, an overall LOS cannot be calculated for two-way stop-controlled 8

intersections because not all movements experience delay. In signalized and all-way stop-9

controlled intersections, all movements experience delay and an overall LOS can be calculated. 10

The VTrans policy on Level-of-Service is: 11

• Overall LOS C should be maintained for State‐maintained highways and other streets 12

accessing the State’s facilities 13

• Reduced LOS may be acceptable on a case‐by‐case basis when considering, at minimum, 14

current and future traffic volumes, delays, volume to capacity ratios, crash rates, and 15

negative impacts as a result of improvement necessary to achieve LOS C. 16

• LOS D should be maintained for side roads with volumes exceeding 100 vehicles/hour 17

for a single lane approach (150 vehicles/hour for a two‐lane approach) at two‐way 18

stop‐controlled intersections. 19




As shown in Figure 6, a total of seven intersections were incorporated into the traffic analysis in 1

order to analyze existing conditions and appropriately account for changes in traffic that would 2

be caused by the proposed Crescent Connector: 3

• VT Route 15 (Pearl Street)/Summit Street 4

• Five Corners Intersection 5

• VT Route 2A (Park Street)/Crescent Connector 6

• VT Route 117 (Maple Street)/Crescent Connector/Railroad Street 7

• VT Route 2A (Park Street)/Iroquois Avenue/Franklin Street 8

• VT Route 2A (Park Street)/South Street/River Street 9

• VT Route 15 (Main Street)/Railroad Street 10

Weekday turning movement counts were conducted from 6:45 AM – 6:00 PM on October 23-24, 11

2012 (schools in session) and June 27, 2013 (schools not in session), and Saturday turning 12

movement counts from 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM on October 27, 2012. The counts were obtained for 13

the 6 initial study intersections. For the intersection at Main Street and Railroad Street, counts 14

were obtained by D.L. Hamlin Consulting Engineers in June 2012. The count information was 15

then input into a traffic analysis software package, Synchro (v6), to assess congestion at the 16

study intersections. 17

As the weekday and Saturday peak hours vary with each intersection, an overall Study Area peak 18

hour was established based on the peak hour of the summed network traffic volumes as follows: 19

• AM Peak Hour: 7:30–8:30 20

• PM Peak Hour: 4:30–5:30 21

A review of these data indicate that the Five Corners intersection is currently operating at an 22

overall LOS of F with greater than a 100 second delay in both the AM and PM peak hours. 23

Table 3.2.2 and Table 3.2.3 are shown below and represent the AM peak and PM peak hour 24

traffic analysis for the “No Build” condition. 25

26

27




TABLE 3.2.2 1

AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Results for the No Build Scenario 2

Signalized Intersections

AM Peak Hour

2015 No Build 2025 No Build

LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c Pearl Street/Summit St

Overall B 15 0.49 B 15 0.50

EB, along Pearl Street B 12 - B 13 -

WB, along Pearl Street A 7 - A 7 -

NB, exiting Summit St D 47 - D 47 -

Five Corners

Overall F 90 1.17 F 93 1.19

EB, from Pearl Street F >100 - F >100 -

WB, from Maple Street E 78 - F 80 -

NB, along Park Street D 47 - D 47 -

SB, along Park Street E 76 - E 77 -

SWB, from Main Street F >100 - F >100 -

Park Street /Iroquois Ave/Franklin St

Overall B 17 0.69 B 17 0.70

EB, from Iroquois Ave D 44 - D 44 -

WB, from Franklin St D 44 - D 44 -

NB, along Park Street B 11 - B 11 -

SB, along Park Street B 15 - B 15 -

Park Street /South St/River St

Overall E 71 1.01 E 75 1.03

EB, from South St E 56 - E 58 -

WB, from River St C 30 - C 30 -

NB, along Park Street C 24 - C 24 -

SB, along Park Street F >100 - F >100 -

Unsignalized Intersections

Maple Street /Railroad St

EB, along Maple Street A <1 0.01 A <1 0.01

WB, along Maple Street A <1 0.29 A <1 0.29

SB, exiting Railroad St C 16 0.13 C 16 0.14

Main Street /Railroad St

EB, from Ivy Lane C 20 0.04 C 20 0.04

WB, from Railroad St C 17 0.13 C 17 0.13

NB Left, from Main Street A 9 0.01 A 9 0.01

NB Through/Right, along Main Street A <1 0.21 A <1 0.21

SB Left, from Main Street A 8 0.03 A 8 0.04

SB Through/Right, along Main Street A <1 0.32 A <1 0.33

3

4




TABLE 3.2.3 1

PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Results for the No Build Scenario 2


PM Peak Hour

2015 No Build 2025 No Build

LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c Pearl Street /Summit St

Overall C 20 0.69 C 21 0.71

EB, along Pearl Street C 23 - C 24 -



Five Corners

Overall F >100 1.01 F >100 1.02

EB, from Pearl Street F >100 - F >100 -

WB, from Maple Street F >100 - F >100 -

NB, along Park Street E 77 - E 77 -

SB, along Park Street F 81 - F 81 -

SWB, from Park Street F 84 - F 85 -


Overall B 17 0.70 B 18 0.71

EB, from Iroquois Ave E 65 - E 65 -

WB, from Franklin St E 65 - E 65 -


SB, along Park Street A 10 - A 10 -


Overall F 90 0.81 F 92 0.82

EB, from South St F >100 - F >100 -

WB, from River St F 91 - F 90 -

NB, along Park Street F >100 - F >100 -

SB, along Park Street B 20 - C 20 -



EB, along Maple Street A <1 0.02 A <1 0.02

WB, along Maple Street A <1 0.23 A <1 0.23

SB, exiting Railroad St C 17 0.13 C 17 0.13


EB, from Ivy Lane D 28 0.14 D 29 0.14









3.2.2 Environmental Consequences Associated with Traffic 1


Under the No Build Alternative, the Crescent Connector would not be constructed and the 3

existing traffic experienced at the Five Corners intersection and throughout the Village would be 4

expected to remain unchanged. Tables 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 presented in Section 3.2.1 provide a 5

summary of the No Build traffic analysis for both 2015 and 2025 and indicate that the Five 6

Corners intersection would remain at a LOS F. In addition, intermittent train traffic would 7

exacerbate congestion during peak hours. 8

Preferred Alternative 9

The Crescent Connector Project would result in the majority of vehicles (75%) traveling to or 10

from Park Street, Maple Street and east of the Five Corners using the new roadway. New traffic 11

signals would be installed at the intersections of Crescent Connector and Park Street, and 12

Crescent Connector and Maple Street. The intersection of Railroad Street and Main Street would 13

not have sufficient traffic volumes to warrant a new signal, and thus this intersection would 14

remain Stop sign controlled for the Railroad Street approach, as it is today. 15

For the AM peak hour in 2015, the Crescent Connector would see approximately 650 vehicles 16

(total for both directions), reducing a similar amount of traffic from the Five Corners 17

intersection. In 2025, vehicles using the new roadway would increase slightly. In both 2015 and 18

2025, traffic at the Five Corners intersection would be reduced as a result of the Preferred 19

Alternative, as evidenced in the reduced vehicle delays and improved LOS shown in Table 3.2.4. 20

LOS’s at this intersection would improve in 2025 from LOS F with 93 seconds of delay under 21

No Build conditions, to LOS E with 63 seconds of delay. 22

Another benefit of implementing the Preferred Alternative is that conflicts between motor 23

vehicles and train traffic on the NECR Burlington Branch will be reduced. Vehicles that travel 24

between Park Street and either Maple Street or Main Street will be able to use the Crescent 25

Connector to avoid conflicts with the train traffic on NECR’s Burlington Branch. 26




TABLE 3.2.4 1 AM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Results for the Build Scenario 2


AM Peak Hour

2015 Build 2025 Build


Overall B 13 0.58 B 13 0.59



NB, exiting Summit St C 29 - C 30 -

Five Corners

Overall E 61 0.97 E 63 0.87

EB, from Pearl Street E 59 - E 62 -

WB, from Maple Street E 73 - E 77 -

NB, along Park Street D 50 - D 51 -

SB, along Park Street E 69 - E 71 -

SWB, from Main Street D 52 - D 52 -

Park Street /Crescent Connector

Overall B 16 0.59 B 16 0.60

WB, exiting Crescent Connector D 41 - D 41 -

NB, along Park Street A 4 - A 4 -



Overall B 16 0.75 B 17 0.76

EB, from Iroquois Ave C 31 - C 32 -

WB, from Franklin St C 32 - C 32 -




Overall D 46 0.91 D 48 0.93

EB, from South St F 94 - F 99 -

WB, from River St D 40 - D 40 -


SB, along Park Street C 31 - C 32 -


Overall A 10 0.61 A 10 0.61

EB, along Maple Street A 9 - A 9 -

WB, along Maple Street A 9 - A 9 -

NB, along Crescent Connector B 11 - B 11 -

SB, along Crescent Connector A 10 - A 10 -



EB, from Ivy Lane D 26 0.05 D 27 0.05









For the PM peak hour in 2015, 712 vehicles would use the Connector (total for both directions). 1

In 2025, vehicles using the new roadway would increase slightly. For both 2015 and 2025, traffic 2

at the Five Corners intersection would be reduced, as evidenced in the reduced vehicle delays 3

and improved LOS shown in Table 3.2.5. LOS’s at this intersection would improve in 2025 4

from LOS F with over 100 seconds of delay under No Build conditions, to LOS E with 65 5

seconds of delay. 6

TABLE 3.2.5 7 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Results for the Build Scenario 8

9


PM Peak Hour



Overall B 16 0.74 B 16 0.76




Five Corners

Overall E 63 0.95 E 65 0.96

EB, from Pearl Street E 59 - E 61 -

WB, from Maple Street F 94 - F 97 -

NB, along Park Street E 65 - E 68 -

SB, along Park Street D 55 - D 55 -

SWB, from Main Street D 52 - D 53 -

Park Street /Crescent Connector

Overall B 13 0.52 B 13 0.53

WB, exiting Crescent Connector D 39 - D 40 -




Overall B 11 0.70 B 11 0.71

EB, from Iroquois Ave E 71 - E 71 -

WB, from Franklin St E 66 - E 67 -




Overall D 47 0.75 D 48 0.77

EB, from South St F >100 - F >100 -

WB, from River St F 90 - F 88 -



10

11




TABLE 3.2.5 (continued) 1 PM Peak Hour Traffic Analysis Results for the Build Scenario 2


PM Peak Hour


LOS Delay v/c LOS Delay v/c Maple Street /Railroad St

Overall B 12 0.65 B 12 0.65

EB, along Maple Street B 12 - B 12 -

WB, along Maple Street B 11 - B 11 -

NB, along Crescent Connector B 14 - B 14 -

SB, along Crescent Connector A 10 - A 10 -



EB, from Ivy Lane E 40 0.20 E 42 0.20






Limited approaches for two intersections would experience a slight increase in traffic volumes 3

and delays as a result of the Preferred Alternative. Mitigation is not proposed as the intersections 4

would see an overall improvement, the increases are minimal with 41 additional cars or less, and 5

LOS “D” is considered acceptable for urban intersections. 6

Overall, implementation of the Crescent Connector would be expected to divert substantial 7

traffic from the Five Corners intersection. The Crescent Connector would reduce delays and 8

improve LOS at the Five Corners intersection, as well as at other project area intersections such 9

as Pearl Street/Summit Street, Park Street/Iroquois, and Park Street/South Street/River for all 10

time periods analyzed. 11

3.3 Land Use 12

This section identifies the current and allowed uses within the Project Study Area. Land use is 13

subject to the Village of Essex Junction, “Land Development Code”, adopted September 22, 14

1992, last revised March 29, 2011, pursuant to State of Vermont statutory provisions in Title 24. 15




Projects may also be subject to review under Vermont’s Land Use Law (Act 250) under Title 10, 1

Chapter 151, if project involves more than 10 acres of land within the Village of Essex Junction. 2

Potential land use impacts were assessed based on the property acquisitions necessary for the 3

construction of the project, existing parcel data, and existing zoning. 4


Current land use and zoning conditions were identified by field visit/windshield survey, review 6

of existing mapping, and land use policies and plans for the project area including: 7

• 2013 Chittenden County Regional Plan 8

• 2011 Village of Essex Junction Land Development Code 9

• 2013 Village of Essex Junction Comprehensive Plan 10

As depicted in the 2011 Essex Junction Zoning Map (Figure 7), the project is completely 11

contained within the core of the Village. This area can be characterized as a typical urban village 12

center containing a mix of commercial, municipal, and residential uses supported by a series of 13

intersecting roadways and parking areas. The area which will be directly impacted by the project 14

consists of existing roadway, a small NECR rail yard and a parking lot, as shown in Figure 2. 15

Within the Project Study Area, NECR also has two rail lines. The Project Study Area also 16

includes the Five Corners intersection, which, as discussed in Section 1.0, is a highly congested 17

intersection. 18

The Village of Essex Junction Comprehensive Plan lists several goals and objectives for land use 19

and transportation relevant to the project area as noted below: 20

Challenge – the planning challenge for Essex Junction is to manage and encourage 21

reinvestments in the existing urban environment, and protect existing neighborhoods and 22

ensure that redevelopment or new development preserves and promotes the “Village” 23

character of Essex Junction. 24

Goal 1.3 – Continue efforts to revitalize the Village Center and attract business through 25

public investment in infrastructure. 26




Land Use Goal 5 – To coordinate Land Use decisions with associated public 1

infrastructure needs including streets, sidewalks, bicycle paths, drainage, water, sewer, 2

schools, recreation and other public needs. 3

The Village has a number of public parks and recreation facilities. With the exception of the 4

Veterans Memorial Park, none of these are located within the Project Study Area. A review of 5

Section 6(f) sites within the Village was also conducted. Section 6(f) sites include outdoor 6

recreation areas that were acquired or developed with funds from the Land and Water 7

Conservation Fund (LWCF). Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 8

USC 4601) states that property purchased with LWCF funds should not be converted to other 9

use. There are no Section 6(f) sites in the Project Study Area. 10

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences to Land Use 11


Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no direct impact to land use and the existing land 13

uses would remain unchanged in the near term. The levels of congestion around the Five 14

Corners area are projected to increase, creating a less friendly environment for pedestrians, 15

vehicles, residents, and businesses. As a result, the potential for current and or future businesses 16

to invest or reinvest in the Village area would potentially be diminished. 17


No displacement or relocation of existing residences or businesses would be required to 19

accommodate the additional Right-of-Way and construction of the project. (See Section 3.7 for 20

additional ROW discussion). The project would not directly impact any public park, recreational 21

facility or community facility. 22

The project is consistent with the local and regional plans and would enhance vehicle and 23

pedestrian safety within the Village Center, through improved traffic flow (see Section 3.2), new 24

sidewalks, lighting and parking. As the traffic analysis indicates, the effects of the project are 25

very localized and thus would not have adverse impacts on land use patterns or growth in the 26

region. The project would also facilitate in-fill growth on the underutilized parcel directly 27

adjacent to the project through improved accessibility. 28




3.4 Farmland Impacts 1

In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, land already in or committed to 2

urban development is not considered “farmland”. As the Project Study Area is located in an 3

urban area, there are no farmland impacts associated with either the no build or preferred 4

alternative and no further discussion is provided as part of this EA. 5

3.5 Socioeconomics 6

This section describes the existing sociological and economic conditions of the affected area, 7

including demographics, employment, economic activity, housing, schools, and public and 8

occupational health and safety. 9


The region used for analyzing population and economic conditions is the Village of Essex 11

Junction, although some information for the entire State of Vermont and Chittenden County is 12

also provided. The data provided are based on information from the U.S. Census Bureau. 13

14

Demographics and Regional Economy 15

The most recent measured population and demographic data for the State of Vermont, 16

Chittenden County and the Village of Essex Junction comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 17

decennial survey. These data, compared with measured populations for the same areas in 2000, 18

indicate that the population has increased at the State, county, and village levels. As shown in the 19

table below, this increase was greatest at the village level. 20

TABLE 3.5.1 21 Regional Population Data for the Village of Essex Junction, Chittenden County, Vermont 22

Area 2000 2010

Change in

Population

2000-2010 (%)

2012

(estimate)

Change in

Population

2010-2012 (%)

State of Vermont 608,827 625,741 2.8% 626,011 0.0%

Chittenden

County 146,571 156,545 6.8% 158,504 1.3%

Village of Essex

Junction 8,591 9,271 7.9% 9,498 2.4%




Source: US Census 2010, 2011 1

The U.S. Census provides economic data for the five-year period between 2007 and 2011. Based 2

on these data, the Village of Essex Junction has an estimated labor force of 5,559 and an average 3

unemployment rate of 4.0%. For the same time period, the State of Vermont and Chittenden 4

County had slightly higher rates of unemployment at 6.3% and 5.4%, respectively. Within the 5

Village of Essex Junction, the most dominant employment is found in the management, business, 6

science, and arts occupations. 7

8

Based on the 2010 Census, there are 3,409 households within the Village of Essex Junction. The 9

estimated median household income (from years 2007-2011) is $64,013. As demonstrated in the 10

table below, this income is considerably higher than the estimated incomes found region-wide in 11

Chittenden County and the entire State of Vermont. The Village of Essex Junction also has a 12

greater percentage of its residents in the labor force and has slightly higher per capita income 13

levels. Vermont’s largest private employer, IBM’s Microelectronics Division, is also located 14

within Essex Junction. 15

TABLE 3.5.2 16 Regional Economic Data for the Village of Essex Junction, 17

Chittenden County and the State of Vermont 18 Based on Five-Year Averages (2007-2011) 19

Area

In Labor

Force

(%)

Unemployed

(%)

Below Poverty

Level

(%)

Median Household

Income

Per Capita

Income

State of Vermont 68.6% 6.3% 11.3% $53,422 $28,376

Chittenden

County 71.5% 5.4% 10.9% $62,260 $32,533

Village of Essex

Junction 74.6% 4.0% 4.0% $64,013 $33,061

Source: US Census, American Community Survey 2011 20 21

Schools 22

The Village of Essex Junction has three elementary schools. The Summit Street School (grades 23

preK-3) and the Thomas Fleming School (grades 4-5) are both located less than half a mile to the 24

northwest of the project site. The Hiawatha Elementary School (grades preK-3) is located 25

approximately one mile to the southwest. Essex Junction has one middle school, the Albert D. 26

Lawton School (grades 6-8), which is located approximately half a mile to the east of the project. 27




Essex High School is also located within the Village, approximately half a mile to the north of 1

the project, and also includes a technical education center. There is no school busing provided 2

within the Village. While many students walk to their schools, many others drive or are driven. 3

This school traffic contributes to the poor levels of service at the area intersections, particularly 4

during the AM peak hour. 5

6

Shops and Services 7

The area surrounding the project, including the Five Corners area, is at the heart of Essex 8

Junction and has numerous services including the fire department, library, municipal offices, 9

senior center, and teen center. There are also many commercial establishments, some of which 10

include banks, restaurants and cafes, retail shops, professional offices, and auto repair. 11

12

Public and Occupational Health and Safety 13

The Village of Essex Junction utilizes the E-911 emergency response system. The Village has a 14

Fire Department that responds to fire and other emergencies, and Essex Rescue provides 15

emergency response services in the Village and several surrounding communities. In the event of 16

an emergency, the closest hospital is the Fletcher Allen Hospital, located approximately five 17

miles to the west in Burlington, VT. 18

19

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences to Socioeconomics 20


Under this alternative, there would be no change to the current socioeconomic resources and the 22

potential would not be realized for increased economic activity in the short-term due to 23

construction or the long-term due to redevelopments as a result of improved accessibility. 24


Implementation of the Preferred Alternative introduces the potential for longer-term economic 26

development by providing improved accessibility to existing, under-developed properties that 27

would be better positioned for future redevelopment or rehabilitation. 28

There are no changes anticipated to population data as a result of the Preferred Alternative. 29




Construction of the sidewalks associated with implementation of the Preferred Alternatives 1

would provide a connection between the neighborhoods around the Village, thereby increasing 2

accessibility for pedestrians through this area. Children and, in particular, students that reside in 3

neighborhoods south of the Village Center and walk to the Lawton School would benefit from 4

the improved pedestrian route. 5

3.6 Environmental Justice 6


Executive Order (EO) 12898 requires Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, 8

any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 9

policies, and activities on minority or low-income populations. The following section describes 10

the geographic distribution of minority and low-income populations within the region and 11

provides an analysis of potential impacts to such populations. 12

According to 2010 U.S. Census data, approximately 91.5% of the Village of Essex Junction 13

residents classified themselves as “white alone, not Hispanic”. This is slightly lower than the 14

rates reported for Chittenden County (92.3%) or the State of Vermont (95.4%). Within the 15

Project Study Area there are two census blockgroups; one of which has a minority population of 16

26%, with the other blockgroup being listed as 2%. At these various geographic levels, the 17

minority populations were primarily comprised of individuals identifying themselves as Asian, 18

Hispanic or Latino, African American, American Indian, or some combination of other races. 19

The most recent data published by the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that the Village of Essex 20

Junction has only 4.0% of the population living below HHS poverty limits, which is considerably 21

lower than levels found in Chittenden County (10.9%) or the State of Vermont (11.3%). 22

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences Associated with Environmental Justice 23


Under this alternative, there would be no disproportionate impact to low-income or minority 25

populations within the Project Study Area. 26





Overall, implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in very limited impacts and 2

those project impacts would not disproportionately affect any particular population group, 3

including minorities or low-income populations in the communities surrounding the Project 4

Study Area. Construction of the sidewalks associated with implementation of the Preferred 5

Alternatives would provide an improved connection around the Village, thereby increasing 6

accessibility, which would benefit members of the population that are dependent on pedestrian 7

facilities. 8

3.7 Acquisitions (Rights-of-Way) 9

This section discusses the type and location of properties that would be affected by the Proposed 10

Action including acquisition, relocation or temporary easements to facilitate construction. 11

Acquisition of property and/or displacement of people must comply with Uniform Relocation 12

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended (49 CFR 24). Property 13

boundaries and ownership were determined through a review of the Village Tax Maps/Records, 14

deed research, railroad records, and field survey. Right-of-Way (ROW) impacts were then 15

estimated by overlaying the proposed alignment and cut/fill limits onto the base mapping. 16


The project is located within the urban center of Essex Junction, adjacent to the convergence of 18

two NECR rail lines. The area is highly developed containing a mix of residential, commercial, 19

municipal, and railroad properties/buildings. 20

Properties between Park Street and Maple Street include the commercial properties of McEwing 21

Properties, LLC; William Kalanges; the NECR; Land Mark Architecturals; and the 22

Kaynor/Godbersen property. Between Maple and Main Street is the existing Railroad Street 23

ROW, NECR property, five residential properties and two commercial properties. Three 24

additional residential properties abut Maple Street within the project limits. 25




3.7.2 Environmental Consequences to Acquisitions 1


The No Build alternatives would not involve any relocations, ROW acquisition, permanent or 3

temporary easements. 4


Acquisition impacts have been broken into four categories, including relocations, right-of-way 6

acquisitions, permanent easements, long-term lease agreements, and temporary easements. 7

• Relocations – Purchase of home or business requiring relocation, none of 8

which are required by implementing the Preferred Alternative. 9

• Right-of-Way Acquisitions - Permanent public ROW acquired for the 10

construction of new or improved roadways and sidewalks, installation of 11

traffic signals, street lighting and drainage facilities, and maintenance. 12

Under the Preferred Alternative, ROW acquisition would be required from 13

the following five properties, as shown in Figure 8. 14

� 11 Maple Street (2,600 SF) 15

� 17 Maple Street (2,100 SF) 16

� 19 Maple Street (300 SF) 17

� 16 Maple Street (200 SF) 18

� 34 Park Street (18,500 SF) 19

• Long-term Lease Agreements – Approximately 0.95 acres would be leased 20

from the NECR/Genesee & Wyoming for a minimum of 50 years. The 21

leased areas would be needed for the roadways and the parking lot. 22

• Temporary Easements – Areas outside the permanent ROW or easements 23

necessary for the construction of the improvements including grading. 24

Temporary construction easements would be required on each of the 25

properties that abut the project. 26

27




The acquisition and relocation program will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform 1

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and 2

compensation is available to all impacted residences and businesses without discrimination. 3

3.8 Infrastructure 4

This section discusses the existing infrastructure (roads, utilities, rail lines and facilities) within 5

the project area and the effects resulting from the Preferred Alternative and No Build 6

Alternative. 7


Existing infrastructure, utilities, and facilities were established through field survey and 9

communication with the respective utility authority. The Village of Essex Junction owns and 10

maintains the public roadways, water, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers within the project area, 11

and has adopted standards for the installation and maintenance of these utilities. Vermont Gas 12

Systems, Inc. owns and controls the gas utility lines in the project area. Green Mountain Power 13

services the project area. The public utility lines are overhead suspended by utility poles in the 14

project area. FairPoint Communications provides internet and phone service within the project 15

area and Comcast Services also provides internet, cable, and phone service in the project area. 16

Figures 9 and 10 provide an illustration of the wastewater and water distribution system within 17

the Village. An underground fiber optic line, owned by Sprint, also runs along the east side of the 18

rail line. 19

Any gas line installation, alteration or services are subject to review and approval by Vermont 20

Gas. In addition, water, sewer, and stormwater treatment practices would comply with applicable 21

state standards and regulations. 22

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences to Infrastructure 23


Under the No Build Alternative, the proposed updates and changes to the existing infrastructure, 25

utilities and facilities would not occur. 26





No new water or sanitary sewer lines would be constructed as a part of the project. Minor 2

relocation of portions of these utilities may be required, but would be completed within the 3

project ROW and would adhere to State and Village Standards. A new closed stormwater 4

collection system would be constructed along the Crescent Connector tying into the existing 5

Village system. No off-project improvements are anticipated. Treatment and control of 6

stormwater both during and following construction would comply with the State of Vermont 7

Stormwater Program, as described in Section 3.11 Surface Water Resources. Two existing 8

power poles connecting power, phone and cable (on the Kalanges and Land Mark Architecturals 9

parcels) would be impacted and require relocation as a part of the project, which would be 10

coordinated with the respective utilities. 11

The Proposed Action roughly parallels the NECR rail line and includes an at-grade crossing of 12

the Main Line between Park Street and Maple Street. Coordination with the NECR/Genesee & 13

Wyoming has commenced and would continue throughout the design and construction of the 14

project. 15

All infrastructure and utility improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance 16

with applicable Federal, State, Village and Utility company codes and standards. 17

3.9 Air Quality 18

The term “air quality” refers to the concentrations of air pollutants in ambient air. The level of 19

pollutant concentrations is a function of a number of factors, including long range transport of 20

emissions from out-of-state pollution sources and local pollution sources, such as motor vehicles, 21

building heating devices (boilers), and local commercial/industrial activities. 22

The Clean Air Act (CAA), Amended 1990, US Code Title 42, Chapter 85, is the law that defines 23

EPA’s responsibility for protecting and improving the Nation’s air quality. In accordance with 24

the CAA, EPA promulgated the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for “criteria 25

pollutants” to protect human health and welfare. Primary standards are set to protect human 26

health, including the health of people with respiratory or cardiovascular illnesses and other 27

sensitive human populations, such as the elderly and children. Secondary standards are set to 28




protect human welfare by preventing reduced atmospheric visibility, damage to vegetation and 1

soils and damage to building exteriors. The criteria pollutants include lead, nitrogen dioxide, 2

particulate matter, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide. There are two standards for 3

particulate matter, one for particulates with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a 4

nominal 10 micrometers (PM10) and one for particulates with an aerodynamic diameter less than 5

or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). 6

Table 3.9.1 summarizes the current NAAQS. The table provides the primary and secondary 7

standard, the time period or “averaging time” for each standard, the NAAQS level for each 8

pollutant which may be exceeded on a very limited basis, and a description of how each NAAQS 9

is mathematically expressed. 10

TABLE 3.9.1 11 Summary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 12

Pollutant

Primary/

Secondary

Averaging

Time

NAAQS

Level Description

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Primary

8-hour 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year 1-hour 35 ppm

Lead (Pb) primary and secondary

Rolling 3 month average

0.15 µg/m3 Not to be exceeded

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Primary 1-hour 100 ppb 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

primary and secondary Annual 53 ppb Annual Mean

Ozone (O3) primary and secondary 8-hour

0.075 ppm

Annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr concentration, averaged over 3 years

Particle Pollution

PM2.5

Primary Annual 12 µg/m3 annual mean, averaged over 3 years

secondary Annual 15 µg/m3 annual mean, averaged over 3 years

primary and secondary 24-hour 35 µg/m3

98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

PM10 primary and secondary 24-hour 150 µg/m3

Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years

13




TABLE 3.9.1 (continued) 1 Summary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 2

Pollutant

Primary/

Secondary

Averaging

Time

NAAQS

Level Description

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Primary 1-hour 75 ppb

99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years

secondary 3-hour 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year

FHWA provides guidance on evaluating air pollution from mobile sources, including a category 3

of pollutants called Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs), which are regulated by the EPA. 4

MSATs include the following priority pollutants: acrolein, benzene, butadiene, diesel particulate 5

matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic 6

organic matter. FHWA Air Quality specialists were contacted to discuss the project and to 7

identify what level of MSAT analysis is required for this project. According to FHWA, a 8

“qualitative analysis” is required given the level of annual average daily traffic projected for this 9

project. The full Air Quality Assessment is provided in Appendix C. 10


For the purposes of analyzing air quality, the affected environment is defined as the existing air 12

quality in the Five Corners area. The air quality, or the healthiness of the air, can be assessed by 13

comparing pollutant concentrations with NAAQS. All areas in the country are required to meet 14

the NAAQS. More stringent analysis and pollution control requirements may apply to regions in 15

“non-attainment” with the NAAQS. Vermont is currently in attainment with all NAAQS. 16

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences to Air Quality 17

The effect on air quality was estimated with the EPA MOVES 2010b model. MOVES was used 18

to estimate emissions from motor vehicles and is a “guideline model” or model which EPA 19

requires for a given type of air quality study. The database on which MOVES is based contains 20

emission factors for the current year and for successive future years. A MOVES analysis was 21

conducted to estimate what the expected vehicle emissions and energy use would be for the 2015 22

and 2025 build scenarios. The time period modeled was the PM peak hour of traffic. 23





Under the No Build Alternative, the Crescent Connector would not be constructed and existing 2

air quality levels would not be affected. As shown in Tables 3.9.2 and 3.9.3 below, decreases in 3

vehicle emissions and energy use are expected despite an increase in vehicle miles traveled, due 4

to the expected improvements in vehicle fuel economy. These findings are consistent with those 5

of the EPA, which used MOVES to estimate national MSAT emission trends using MOVES 6

2010b. According to FHWA: 7

“…even if vehicle-miles travelled (VMT) increases by 102 percent as assumed from 8 2010 to 2050, a combined reduction of 83 percent in the total annual emissions for the 9 priority MSAT is projected for the same time period.” (FHWA 2012) 10


Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in a further reduction in pollutant 12

emissions, as shown in Tables 3.9.2 and 3.9.3 below. These reductions occur from decreased 13

congestion and fewer vehicle hours traveled through the Study Area as a result of improved 14

traffic flow under the Preferred Alternative, combined with expected increases in vehicle fuel 15

economy. 16

TABLE 3.9.2 17 Change in Vehicle Pollutant Emissions, Energy from 2015 No-Build to Build Scenarios 18

(PM Peak Hour of Traffic) 19

Category No Build Build

Percent

Change

CO (grams) 21,944 19,593 -11% CO2 (grams) 3,591,389 2,789,477 -22%

MSATS (grams) 101 73 -28%

NOx (grams) 6,012 5,072 -16%

PM10 (grams) 568 433 -24%

PM2.5 (grams) 315 247 -22%

SO2 (grams) 49 38 -22%

VOC (grams) 1,181 869 -26%

Energy (kJ) 49,616,751 38,572,334 -22%

20

21




TABLE 3.9.3 1 Change in Vehicle Pollutant Emissions, Energy from 2025 No-Build to Build Scenarios 2

(PM Peak Hour of Traffic) 3

Category No Build Build

Percent

Change

CO (grams) 13,206 12,558 -5% CO2 (grams) 3,278,804 2,579,936 -21%

MSATS (grams) 40 30 -24%

NOx (grams) 2,260 1,905 -16%

PM10 (grams) 441 336 -24%

PM2.5 (grams) 185 144 -22%

SO2 (grams) 44 35 -21%

VOC (grams) 433 344 -21%

Energy (kJ) 45,358,975 35,708,797 -21%

A microscale CO analysis was not performed for the two new intersections, Park St/Crescent 4

Connector and Maple St/Crescent Connector that would be created as part of the Crescent 5

Connector Project. Under the Preferred Alternative, these intersections would be signalized and 6

coordinated with other intersections, maximizing the efficiency of traffic flow through these and 7

other Study Area intersections. As a result, high levels of congestion are not expected at the 8

intersections, as indicated in overall LOS B, or better, for all build scenarios. This is considered a 9

“short delay” by the Highway Capacity Manual and intersections with short delays will have 10

relatively low idling emissions. 11

3.10 Noise 12

This section discusses the existing noise levels and the potential effect of project-generated noise 13

that might be experienced by adjacent noise receptors. Changes in traffic patterns, levels and or 14

distribution over the street network have the potential to increase or decrease noise levels at 15

adjacent properties. Noise can be characterized as excessive or unwanted sound. Sound becomes 16

unwanted when it interferes with normal activities such as sleep, work or play. How humans 17

perceive sound depends on several factors, which include frequency (tone or pitch, varied or 18

constant) and intensity (level or loudness). Sound levels are generally measured in decibels 19

(dB). 20




In July 2011, VTrans established a “Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy” for the purpose of 1

“ensuring statewide uniformity in the analysis of transportation generated noise, the 2

identification of potential impacts of transportation projects, and implementation of noise 3

abatement measures that are determined to be reasonable and feasible…”. The policy 4

implements the requirements of FHWA 23 CFR Part 772, regulating the noise impacts of 5

federally funded projects. An “impact” is defined as either: 6

• A noise level that approaches (within 1 dB) or exceeds the established Noise 7

Abatement Criteria (NAC) levels for the given activity category associated with 8

the specific receptor, or... 9

• A substantial increase in noise levels equaling or exceeding 15 dB in sound 10

pressure level at any given noise receptor. 11

The analysis for this project, which is defined as a Type 1 noise project under FHWA 12

regulations, has been prepared according to the 23 CFR part 772, Procedures for Abatement of 13

Highway Traffic and Construction Noise, as implemented in the July 2011 VTrans Noise 14

Analysis and Abatement Policy. 15

The analysis presents the existing sound levels, modeled traffic noise levels during both 2015 16

and 2025 no-build and build scenarios, and it will assess the feasibility and reasonableness of 17

noise abatement. The full Technical Noise Assessment is provided in Appendix D. 18


Four intersections and connecting roadways were incorporated into the noise analysis to account 20

for sound emissions from the proposed Crescent Connector: 21

• Five Corners intersection 22

• Main Street and Railroad Street 23

• Maple Street/Railroad Street and Crescent Connector 24

• Park Street and Crescent Connector 25




Noise receptors are representations of the land uses. For this project, these were identified by 1

reviewing the Vermont E911 database, which geocodes all residential, commercial, industrial, 2

governmental, and other land uses in the State. 3

Day-long sound monitoring was conducted from November 29 to December 3, 2012 in order to 4

determine the hour with the highest sound level within the project area. The highest sound levels 5

consistently occurred between 8:30 AM and 10:30 AM. These measurements were taken with a 6

Rion NL22 IEC/ANSI Type 2 sound level meter. The microphone was fitted with a three inch 7

wind screen and mounted on a tripod approximately 1.5 meters (5 feet) above the ground. 8

Short term sound monitoring was conducted June 25, 2013 between 8:30 AM and 10:30 AM. 9

Larsen Davis LD831 ANSI/IEC Type 1 sound level meters with ACO Pacific 7” wind screens 10

were used for monitoring. The meters were placed on tripods on sidewalks near noise receptors 11

1.5 meters above the ground. 12

The monitoring was conducted at seven noise receptors, including at the Five Corners 13

intersection, and along the proposed project alignment. Each meter recorded 1-second A-14

weighted equivalent sound levels (Leq) for a period of 20 minutes. At the same time, traffic 15

counts were taken at all roads where sound levels were being measured. These sound levels 16

were used to calibrate the TNM base model. The Technical Noise Assessment in Appendix D 17

includes maps and figures showing all receptor locations. 18

3.10.2 Environmental Consequences Related to Noise 19


Under the No Build Alternative, the Crescent Connector would not be constructed and existing 21

noise levels would be expected to continue. Within the noise analysis, this condition is reflected 22

in the 2015 and 2025 no-build scenarios, which indicate that only one receptor approaches or 23

exceeds its respective NAC. This was the Village office located on the corner of Lincoln Street 24

and Pearl Street. The predicted sound level is 67.0 dBA in 2015 and 68.1 dBA in 2025. 25


Noise levels as a result of the Preferred Alternative were determined by comparing traffic noise 27

levels under the no-build scenario with the build scenario for the design year of 2025. Traffic 28




volumes for the 2025 design year were input into the FHWA TNM 2.5 traffic noise model, 1

which was utilized for each analysis to forecast one-hour A-weighted equivalent sound levels at 2

each of the 408 receptors. Table 3.10.1 below lists the noise receptors that would experience the 3

greatest maximum expected noise levels and the receptors that would experience the greatest 4

increase in noise levels as a result of the Preferred Alternative. 5

As seen in Table 3.10.1, there is one receptor (R315) that approaches its corresponding NAC 6

level and is therefore considered a noise impact under the VTrans noise policy. This receptor is 7

the same Village office that is described in the analysis of the No Build Alternative above. 8

Although implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in slightly lower expected 9

noise levels, this receptor would still approach the NAC level. 10

A feasibility and reasonableness analysis was conducted for this receptor (included in Appendix 11

D) and found that noise abatement in the form of a barrier was not feasible due to physical and 12

technical constraints and would have constructability and maintenance issues. In addition, 13

construction of a noise abatement barrier would not be reasonable due to the limited benefits and 14

opposition to a barrier expressed by the Village. 15

The maximum increase in sound pressure level between the no build and build scenarios at any 16

one receptor was found to be an increase of 3.3 dBA, which is an increase that is barely 17

perceptible to the human ear and well below the 15 dBA increase defined as an impact by the 18

VTrans Noise Policy. 19




TABLE 3.10.1 1 Potential Noise Impacts Associated with the Preferred Alternatives 2

Noise

Receptor*

Within the Study Area?

Maximum Sound Pressure Level (2025 Build Alternative) (dBA)

Does max sound pressure level exceed or (approach within 1dBA) NAC levels?

Increase in Sound Pressure Level (2015 No Build to 2025 Build Alternative) (dBA)

Does increase in sound pressure levels exceed 15 dBA?

Noise Impact?

Receptors with greatest maximum sound pressure levels

C036 Yes 69.0 No No

C047 No 68.8 No No

C053 Yes 68.5 No No

C048 Yes 67.3 No No

R315 No 66.3 Approaches Yes

C080 No 65.6 No No

C059 Yes 65.3 No No

R093 No 65.1 No No

C058 No 65.0 No No

R018 No 65.0 No No

Receptors with greatest increase in sound pressure levels

R297 Yes 3.3 No No

C063 Yes 0.7 No No

R278 No 0.4 No No

C071 No 0.2 No No

C076 Yes 0.2 No No

R295 No 0.2 No No

C077 No 0.2 No No

R283 No 0.1 No No

R192 No 0.1 No No

R245 No 0.1 No No *Noise Receptors “C” have commercial NAC levels of 72 dBA; “R” have residential NAC levels of 67 dBA. 3

3.11 Surface Water Resources 4

Surface waters (“waterbodies”) are regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the 5

Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The DEC regulates stream 6

alterations and crossing structures in accordance with 19 V.S. A. Chapter 1 Section 10(12). The 7

DEC’s Watershed Management Division, Stormwater section, regulates stormwater discharges 8

to surface waters. 9





A field review of the project area in October 2012 revealed no streams or surface waters within 2

the Study Area. As shown in Figure 11, the Winooski River is located approximately 2,000 feet 3

to the south of the project and there is a small unnamed tributary to the Winooski River that is 4

the closest surface water to the project, located approximately 1000 feet to the south. 5

A field survey of the existing stormwater infrastructure was accomplished in the fall of 2012 and 6

spring of 2013. Following that, coordination was accomplished with the Village of Essex 7

Junction’s Public Works Department regarding the existing stormwater facilities, discharge 8

points, capacities and any known problems, and with the VT DEC Stormwater Section regarding 9

treatment options. Figure 12 illustrates both the existing stormwater infrastructure as well as the 10

preliminary stormwater collection design based on that coordination. 11

Stormwater in the northern portion of the Study Area currently flows southerly along Railroad 12

Street to easterly along Maple Street towards Elm Street. Eventually, this system discharges to 13

an open ditch south of the railway and Wrisley Street. Stormwater in the southern portion of the 14

Study Area flows southward along Park Street, then east along Mill Street. Eventually, this 15

system discharges to the Winooski River south of Mill Street. 16

A review of the 2010 EPA-approved list of impaired surface waters, prepared in accordance with 17

part 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, indicated that there are no impaired surface waters within the 18

Project Study Area. In addition, stormwater discharge originating from within the Project Study 19

Area drains to the Winooski River, which is also not impaired for stormwater. 20

The VANR mapping data was checked for the potential presence of Surface Water Source 21

Protection Areas within the Study Area and the results of this review indicated that there are no 22

Surface Water Source Protection Areas in the Study Area. 23

3.11.2 Environmental Consequences to Surface Water Resources 24


Under the No Build Alternative, construction of the roadway would not occur and the current 26

drainage systems located within the project area would remain in place, unchanged. 27




The Project Study Area is currently densely developed and minor redevelopment changes are 1

likely to continue over time, but would be unlikely to trigger significant changes to the existing 2

stormwater system. Redevelopment projects would most likely tie into the existing system, and 3

would need to conform to the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. 4


No streams or other surface waters, or Surface Water Source Protection Areas, are present in the 6

Project Study Area. 7

As shown on Figure 12, the stormwater from the proposed project would be directed into the 8

existing infrastructure. Stormwater from the Railroad Street area would flow south to the Maple 9

Street system. The portion of the Crescent Connector between the crossing of the NECR and 10

Maple Street would drain north to the Maple Street system. Stormwater south of the 11

Connector’s crossing of the NECR would flow south into the existing Park Street system. 12

The proposed action would conform to the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual (VANR 13

2002), and would likely require both Construction and Operational Phase stormwater permits. 14

Coordination with the VANR Stormwater Section was accomplished on May 9th and October 15

17th 2013. Due to the impervious surfaces proposed as part of the project, stormwater 16

management measures would be required to provide water quality treatment, such as infiltration 17

or other filtration measures. Specific treatment practices would be determined in subsequent 18

analysis and submitted for written approval by the VANR Stormwater Section. 19

3.12 Wetlands 20

Wetlands in Vermont are regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Vermont 21

Agency of Natural Resources (VANR), and EO 11990. The federal wetland regulations are 22

based upon Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the State regulations are contained within 23

the Vermont Wetland Rules. 24

The COE regulates all wetlands and waterbodies, but does not regulate buffers adjacent to such 25

resources. The VANR regulates a subset of Vermont’s wetlands, those that are considered by 26

the State to be significant enough to merit protection under the Vermont Wetland Rules 27




(designated as Class I and Class II wetlands), and regulates buffers around those wetlands as 1

well. 2

Wetlands in Vermont must be delineated for both Federal and State reviews in accordance with 3

the technical criteria of the US Army Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual (Technical Report 4

Y-87-1, January 1987) and the 2012 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland 5

Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region. 6

The VANR’s Natural Resource Atlas (NRA) indicates that there are no mapped Class II 7

wetlands, wetland advisory areas or vernal pools in the vicinity of the proposed project, as shown 8

in Figure 13. 9

The Study Area was searched by a wetlands biologist for the presence of wetlands and water 10

bodies during field work accomplished in October 2012. No wetlands or water bodies were 11

found within the Study Area. 12


No wetlands or water bodies exist within the Study Area. 14

3.12.2 Environmental Consequences to Wetlands 15


The No Build Alternative would not result in any environmental consequences to wetlands or 17

water bodies. 18


Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in any environmental consequences 20

to wetlands or water bodies, as there are none located within the Study Area. 21

3.13 Groundwater Resources 22

Vermont’s Groundwater Protection Rule and Strategy was adopted under the authority of 10 23

Vermont Statutes Annotated (V.S.A.). It is implemented through the VANR to minimize the 24




risks of groundwater quality deterioration by limiting human activities that present unreasonable 1

risks to the use classifications of groundwater in the vicinities of such activities. 2

The VANR Natural Resource Atlas Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection layer displays 3

locations and information on drinking water resources. Source Protection Areas are those areas 4

of land that likely recharge or pass groundwater through them to public water sources. Public 5

water systems must have an approved Source Protection Plan (SPP) to address the actions the 6

public water system will perform to minimize the contaminant risks to their drinking water 7

supply source(s).The NRA maps identify known Ground Water Source Protection Areas and 8

Sole Source Aquifers. 9


The VANR mapping data was checked for the potential presence of Groundwater Source 11

Protection Areas or Sole Source Aquifers within the Project Study Area and the results of this 12

review indicated that there are neither. 13

Specific groundwater quality information within the Study Area was obtained by Stone 14

Environmental, Inc. in July 2013. Twenty-seven samples of groundwater were collected and 15

tested for pollutants; results of the groundwater testing are included as part of the Phase II 16

Environmental Site Assessment Report, which is provided as Appendix E. 17

3.13.2 Environmental Consequences to Groundwater Resources 18


There are no Ground Water Source Protection Areas in the Study Area, so there would be no 20

effect on such resources associated with the No Build alternative. 21


Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in any effect to Ground Water 23

Source Protection Areas, as there are none located within the Study Area. 24




3.14 Floodplains and Floodways 1

Projects with federal participation are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 11988, 2

Floodplain Management (1977). Executive Order 11988 requires the avoidance and 3

minimization of impacts to 100-year flood plains mapped by the Federal Emergency 4

Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA regulates floodplains, with rules often implemented at the 5

municipal level. FHWA also addresses floodplain impacts under 23 CFR 650A, “Location and 6

Hydraulic Design of Encroachments on Floodplains.” The VT DEC’s River Management 7

Program provides technical support and coordination for the implementation of flood hazard 8

management programs throughout the State. 9


Review of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (Figure 14) for the potential presence 11

of 100-year floodplains or floodways indicates that there are no FEMA-mapped 100-year 12

floodplains or floodways within the Study Area. 13

3.14.2 Environmental Consequences to Floodplains and Floodways 14


The No Build Alternative would not affect FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplains or floodways as 16

there are none located within the Study Area. 17


There are no FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplains or floodways within the Study Area, so the 19

Preferred Alternative would not impact such resources. 20

3.15 Biological Resources 21

The biological resources reviewed in this study include wildlife, and threatened and endangered 22

species. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (7 U.S.C. §136 and 16 U.S.C. §1531) is 23

designed to regulate a wide range of activities affecting plants and animals designated as 24

endangered or threatened, and the habitats upon which they depend. The Act is administered by 25

the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 26




Administration. With some exceptions, the ESA prohibits activities affecting these protected 1

species and their habitats unless authorized by a permit from the USFWS. The USFWS 2

maintains a list of federally threatened and endangered species subject to federal protection. 3

The Vermont Endangered and Threatened Species Rule (10 V.S.A. App. §10) authorizes the 4

VT Fish and Wildlife Department (VT F&W) to maintain a list of State threatened and 5

endangered species. VT F&W’s Wildlife Diversity Program (WDP) manages and promotes 6

nongame wildlife and inventories and protects rare, threatened and endangered species and 7

significant natural communities. The WDP provides recommendations on Act 250 reviews, and 8

administers the Endangered and Threatened Species Taking Permit program. 9

The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department provides wildlife and fisheries management and 10

habitat conservation services and enforces Vermont’s wildlife-related laws and rules. 11


The VANR Natural Resource Atlas was reviewed for uncommon, rare, threatened and 13

endangered species and natural communities of concern (Figure 13). No such resources are 14

mapped within the Project Study Area. A search for these resources was conducted during a 15

field review in October 2012. 16

The VANR Natural Resource Atlas was also reviewed for the potential presence of wildlife and 17

habitat resources of concern to the USFWS and the State, including deer winter range, habitat 18

blocks, VT F&W managed lands and Indiana bat hibernacula and summer range. A search 19

conducted in October 2012 found none of these resources in the project area. 20

3.15.2 Environmental Consequences to Biological Resources 21


The No Build Alternative would not impact any uncommon, rare, threatened or endangered 23

species, significant natural communities or wildlife or wildlife habitat of concern. 24





No uncommon, rare, threatened or endangered species, significant natural communities or 2

wildlife or wildlife habitat of concern to the USFWS or VT F&W are known to occur in the 3

Study Area. The Preferred Alternative would therefore not impact any such resources. 4

3.16 Historic and Archeological Preservation 5

Historic Resources are those listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 6

Places. To be eligible, a resource (site, district, building, or object) must meet the National 7

Register Criteria for Evaluation, which assesses the age, integrity, and significance of a resource. 8

This includes resources that can be considered historic (generally being at least 50 years old), 9

while still retaining historic integrity, and also being considered significant, such as a property 10

associated with events, activities, or developments important to the past. Objects or sites 11

associated with important people, with significant architectural or landscape history, engineering 12

achievements, or the potential to yield information through archeological investigations into the 13

past may also be considered significant. 14

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, requires that all 15

federal agencies consider the effects of their actions on resources listed or eligible for listing on 16

the National Register of Historic Places. Normally, this requires consultation with the Advisory 17

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in Washington D.C. and the State Historic 18

Preservation Office (SHPO) if there are possible effects. For transportation projects in Vermont, 19

however, there is a Programmatic Agreement in place which delegates this authority from the 20

State SHPO to the VTrans Historic Preservation Officer and exempts most projects from ACHP 21

review. 22

In addition, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 protects cultural 23

resources, which is discussed in Section 4.0 of this EA document. 24

An Archeological Resource Assessment (ARA) and Historic Resource Review (HRR) were 25

originally completed in December of 2010 as a part of the project Scoping Study. As part of this 26

EA process, an updated Archaeological Resources Assessment and Historic Resource Review 27




were prepared based on the review of Preliminary Plans and further site review. A copy of the 1

updated Study is provided in Appendix F. 2


Archaeological Resources 4

As described in the updated ARA (Appendix F), the Vermont Archaeological Inventory 5

maintained by the VT Division of Historic Preservation (VDHP) lists eight previously reported 6

pre-contact Native American sites within a 0.6-mile radius of the Project Study Area; however 7

none of these sites are located within the Project Study Area. The entirety of the Project Study 8

Area has previously been disturbed and the VDHP’s Environmental Predictive Model for 9

Locating Pre-contact Archaeological Sites indicates that this area is not considered 10

archaeologically sensitive. 11

The ARA also concluded that “it is unlikely that any significant historic archeological resources 12

would be encountered or additional significant information on the buildings would be 13

determined” and that the Project Study Area is also “unlikely to yield significant pre-contact 14

Native American archeological material and information, therefore, no additional archaeological 15

work is recommended within the project area” (UVM 2010). 16

Historic Resources 17

Development of the project area began in the mid-1800s with much of the initial development 18

occurring as a result of the arrival of the railroad. 19

The HRR identified six buildings within the Project Study Area that were individually listed in 20

the Vermont State Register of Historic Places. One of these buildings, the Fletcher Block (2 21

Railroad Street; VDHP Survey No. 0405-85) was added to the National Register of Historic 22

Places as part of the Downtown Essex Junction Commercial Historic District in 2004. A second 23

building listed in the State register, the Baxter Bros. Cannery/Mason Bros. Warehouse (11 Maple 24

Street; VDHP Survey No. 0405-105) also appears to be eligible for inclusion in the National 25

Register of Historic Places, under Criterion C. Alterations to the other four State-listed buildings 26

appear to make them not individually eligible for inclusion in the National Register. However, 27

they may retain significance at the State level, as part of the district(s) of historic buildings that 28




reflect development of this area of Essex Junction beginning in the mid-1800s with the arrival of 1

the railroad. 2

Based on the current Pre-Preliminary Plans for the proposed Crescent Connector Project 3

(included in Appendix G) an additional five historic buildings, all located along Maple Street, 4

also have the potential to be considered historically significant. Four of the buildings are 5

currently included as contributing resources to the State Register-listed Maple Street Historic 6

District; the fifth building (17 Maple Street) could also be considered part of the District based 7

on its period of construction, architectural style and location along the linear streetscape. The 8

Maple Street Historic District is a well-established, linear streetscape of residential buildings that 9

was spurred by the economic boost of the railroad. Houses along the street reflect various styles 10

dating from the mid-1800s through the early 20th century, including vernacular examples of 11

Italianate, Queen Anne, and Shingle styles. The Maple Street Historic District has retained its 12

historic integrity, distinctive architectural characteristics, and qualities of location, design, 13

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association and it is considered eligible for 14

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. 15

3.16.2 Environmental Consequences to Historic and Archeological Resources 16


Under the No Build Alternative, construction of the Crescent Connector would not occur and 18

there would be no effect to historic or archaeological resources. 19


A determination has been made by the VTrans Archaeology Officer that implementation of the 21

Preferred Alternative would have no adverse effect on archaeological resources. This 22

determination is based on the Project Study Area containing no previously identified pre-contact 23

Native American sites, the area having previously been disturbed, and the predictive model 24

results indicating the area is unlikely to yield substantial archaeological material and 25

information. 26

As described in the 2013 HRR, construction of the Crescent Connector as part of the Preferred 27

Alternative would potentially have an effect on the historically significant resources located 28




within the Project Study Area. The following presents the preliminary determinations of effect 1

associated with each of these historic properties, which are shown on Figure 15: 2

11 Maple Street/Mason Brothers Warehouse: Part of the Crescent Connector would be 3

built along the west side of the parking lot associated with the historic cannery building 4

that presently houses the Mason Brothers Architectural Salvage Warehouse. A new 5

parking lot would be constructed to the west of the proposed road, alongside the NECR 6

railroad tracks. Right-of-Way (ROW) acquisitions would be needed to construct the road 7

at this location. The impact to the historic property would be minimal and project work 8

would have No Adverse Effect on this historic resource. No further review is 9

recommended. 10

2, 12, 14 and 16 Railroad Street/Essex Agency, Residences, Essex Eye Assoc.: Proposed 11

project work along Railroad Street includes the reconstruction of the street and existing 12

sidewalks. Work would take place within the existing ROW; only temporary 13

construction easements would be required to complete the project work. There would be 14

No Adverse Effect to the four historic buildings located along the east side of Railroad 15

Street as a result of the project. No further review is recommended. 16

17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 Maple Street/Residences, AllState Insurance: Proposed project 17

work along Maple Street includes the reconstruction of the street and existing sidewalks. 18

For most of these properties, only temporary construction easements would be required 19

as most of the work would take place within the existing ROW. 20

The proposed left-hand turning lane from Maple Street onto the Crescent Connector 21

Project alignment would require widening a portion of Maple Street, necessitating the 22

acquisition of ROW along the south side of the street. One historic building located on 23

the south side of Maple Street (17 Maple Street) would likely be affected by ROW 24

acquisition. This property has a lawn area in front with house set back from the road. 25

Although the exact amount of ROW acquisition is not known at this time, conceptual 26

plans indicate that only a minimal amount of the existing lawn area is required and the 27

undertaking would not adversely affect the historic resource. The proposed project work 28




would therefore have a preliminary determination of No Adverse Effect on both the 1

Maple Street Historic District and the five historic properties located along Maple Street. 2

Additional General Project Improvements: Additional improvements that would take 3

place as part of the Preferred Alternative, including the installation of traffic signals, 4

railroad signals, and street lighting would have No Adverse Effect on any historic 5

properties. The new traffic signals proposed for the intersection of Maple Street and the 6

Crescent Connector roadway would not directly affect any historic property, and it does 7

not appear that they would cause any indirect adverse effects to resources within the 8

nearby Maple Street Historic District. Street lighting proposed as part of the project 9

would be painted black, installed at approximately 70-foot intervals along each side of 10

the Crescent Connector Project and the south side of Maple Street and would match the 11

other existing street lighting within the Village. 12

3.17 Hazardous Materials 13

Investigation, management, and remediation of subsurface hazardous materials are regulated by 14

several state and federal programs including the Resource and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the 15

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Recovery Act (CERCLA). In 16

addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides regulations 17

ensuring the protection of worker safety, including Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency 18

Response (HAZWOPER) for the protection of construction personnel working in areas of 19

hazardous materials. At the State level, the DEC’s Waste Management Division oversees 20

hazardous material regulations. 21


According to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) Environmental Interest Locator, 23

there are 11 State of Vermont Hazardous Waste Sites, one State-listed hazardous waste 24

generator, and seven facilities with registered underground storage tanks (USTs) within one-25

quarter mile of the Five Corners intersection. 26

A previous area-wide environmental site assessment of the Project Study Area has revealed that 27

past land use includes various industries and commercial enterprises that may have utilized 28




hazardous materials and may have released these materials to the environment. Chief among 1

these past uses is over 150 years of rail transport and commerce through the Project Study Area. 2

During this time, many diverse goods were produced and consumed by the Village. As a result, 3

various types of hazardous materials may have passed through the rail system. In addition, 4

maintenance activities performed on rail infrastructure typically includes the use of various 5

hazardous materials, including wood preservatives and insecticides to prevent decay to rail ties 6

and herbicides to prevent unwanted plant growth along the rail corridor. 7

Nearby past and current use of environmental concern includes operation of 15 gasoline service 8

stations. Three of these properties are VT DEC-listed hazardous waste sites, including Simons 9

Store, located at 2 Park Street, Bushey’s Sunoco, located at 15 Maple Street, and Road Res-Q 10

located at 1 Main Street. Of particular concern to the Project Study Area is a past release of 11

gasoline from the former underground storage tank and dispensing system from Simons Store. 12

Dissolved phase gasoline from this release has migrated in groundwater to the northern portion 13

of the Project Study Area. 14

To assess the presence/absence, nature and extent of hazardous substances relative to the project 15

area, a more detailed Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Phase II ESA) was performed in 16

July 2013. This investigation and analysis included performing 30 soil borings, which were field 17

screened for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using a photoionization detector (PID). 18

Samples were collected for laboratory analysis for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic 19

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 13 Priority Pollutant Metals, and organo-chlorinated pesticides. 20

In addition, composite samples were collected from surface soil for asbestos contamination. The 21

Phase II ESA report is attached as Appendix E. 22

This Phase II ESA identified polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and the metals arsenic, 23

antimony, lead, and mercury in shallow soils at concentrations in excess of relevant regulatory 24

criteria. Coal ash waste and unburnt coal debris was found in nearly every boring performed as 25

part of the Phase II ESA and has resulted in PAH contamination in shallow soils with higher 26

concentrations of PAHs generally observed in the uppermost 0.5 ft of each boring. Four metals 27

were detected in Site soils, including arsenic, antimony, lead and mercury. The arsenic 28

contamination is likely in part due to a natural occurrence; however four samples had arsenic 29




concentrations that cannot confidently be attributed to natural sources. The most likely source of 1

this contamination is from historic maintenance activities, either arsenic fortified creosote or 2

arsenic-based insecticides, for the railroad. 3

Gasoline volatile organic compounds from either a known hazardous waste site or a historically 4

documented underground storage tank were not detected in Site soil and do not appear to present 5

a risk to future workers or users. 6

A brownfield site exists in the western portion of the Project Study Area, at 3 Maple Street, as 7

shown in Figure 16. Analysis of the site, as documented in the VANR Natural Resources Atlas, 8

appears to be limited strictly to that property. 9

No other site contaminants of concerns were detected at concentrations greater than relevant 10

regulatory criteria. 11

3.17.2 Environmental Consequences Associated with Hazardous Materials 12


Based on the results of the Phase II ESA, contaminants including PAHs, arsenic, lead, antimony, 14

and mercury were identified in shallow soil that are in excess of relevant regulatory criteria. 15

However, the No Build Alternative would not result in the excavation or removal of 16

contaminated soils. 17


As a result of the Preferred Alternative, the existing hazardous materials under the proposed 19

roadway would be excavated to enable the installation of suitable engineered subbase fill. The 20

effect to hazardous materials would be a removal of contaminant mass from the environment. 21

Based on the concentrations of contaminants identified in the Phase II ESA, soils removed from 22

the Project Area would require management and disposal to be handled in accordance with 23

applicable regulations. It is expected that the excavation associated with the construction of the 24

roadway would sufficiently remediate the extent of contaminated materials to acceptable levels 25

and that no additional mitigation or remediation would be required. 26




The stormwater management system that would potentially be utilized as part of the Preferred 1

Alternative would introduce surface water runoff into the subsurface soils as a means of 2

treatment. Although this infiltration may occur in proximity to the dissolved phase gasoline-3

contaminated groundwater, coordination with ANR has indicated that this would not have an 4

adverse impact. 5

3.18 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 6

This section describes the existing visual context of the Study Area, as well as the expected 7

effect of the Preferred Alternative and No Build Alternative on the visual context and aesthetics 8

of the area. Roadway projects within developed village settings have the potential to affect the 9

character or quality of the visual environment experienced by viewer groups such as local 10

residents, commuters, through travelers and workers within the project area. The potential 11

modifications to the visual context of the area and/or important features or resources are 12

considered in this section. 13

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) set out general guidelines for evaluating the 14

impacts associated with the highway project in their publication entitled “Visual Impacts 15

Assessment for Highway Projects”. This publication serves as a basis for the project analysis 16

and involves the following steps: 17

• Description of existing visual context of the region and local landscape. 18

• Identification of important visual features or resources within the Study Area both natural 19

and manmade. 20

• Identification of sensitive viewpoints. 21

• Definition of viewer groups and assessment of existing and proposed views. 22

• Assessment of visual impacts on sensitive view points, features or resources. 23

• Identification of mitigation measures to minimize or avoid adverse effects. 24

25





Landscape Setting and Context 2

The project is located in the Village Center of Essex Junction. Essex Junction lies within 3

Chittenden County and the Champlain Valley of Vermont. While the region contains a varied 4

natural landscape of rolling hills, lakeshore, mountains, stream and river valleys and manmade 5

features of historic village centers, farmland and suburban residential and commercial 6

development, the relatively small size of the Project Study Area is limited to a developed village 7

setting. The project area runs parallel to the NECR rail line between Park Street and Main 8

Street. This relatively flat, developed urban center contains a variety of one and two story wood-9

framed commercial and residential structures, parking lots, rail yard, rail lines, and city streets. 10

As seen in Figures 4 and 5, there are a few underutilized lots, and no undisturbed or green space 11

exists within the Project Study Area. 12

The Five Corners intersection and the heart of the downtown business district are located in the 13

western portion of the Project Study Area. This area contains a mix of one to three-story 14

residential, commercial and municipal structures of primarily wood or brick façade. The Village 15

has undertaken a number of activities to enhance the aesthetics of the Village Center area 16

including plantings, pedestrian facilities, and uniform, architecturally-pleasing lighting. 17

As a result of the topography and urban setting, views of and from the Crescent Connector are 18

limited to the immediate area adjacent to the proposed location of the road. 19

Starting at the southern terminus of the project, Park Street is a two-lane paved highway with an 20

at-grade railroad crossing transitioning to four lanes as it approaches the Five Corners 21

intersection to the north. South of the railroad crossing, angled parking is provided on both sides 22

of the roadway in front of the commercial buildings. 23

From Park Street, the alignment moves northeast parallel to the NECR Burlington Branch rail 24

line through a paved parking area and underutilized area, then crosses the NECR Main Line just 25

to the south of the point where the two rail lines converge. The alignment continues north, 26

parallel to the rail line through the rail yard and along the alignment of an existing driveway. A 27




parking lot, commercial building, railroad building and wood framed home (former Jailhouse) 1

flank the alignment. 2

The alignment then intersects with Maple Street. Maple Street is two lanes at this location with 3

an at grade railroad crossing just to the west. From the rail crossing, Maple Street transitions to 4

three lanes as it approaches the Five Corners intersection to the west. A gas station is located on 5

the northeast corner of Maple Street and Railroad Street. West of the railroad tracks, Maple 6

Street is flanked by parking lots and commercial buildings; residential buildings are located to 7

the east. Heading north from Maple Street, the Crescent Connector roadway alignment follows 8

Railroad Street and roughly parallels the NECR Main Line. 9

Several wood-framed residential structures front along the east side of Railroad Street. Parallel, 10

on-street parking is provided along the west side of Railroad Street. At the north end of Railroad 11

Street, the Crescent Connector alignment intersects with Main Street. Main Street is three lanes 12

at this location with an at grade railroad crossing just to the west. Ivy Lane is directly across 13

Main Street from Railroad Street. Several downtown businesses are located just beyond the 14

railroad crossing on Main Street. A two-story brick commercial building is located at the 15

southeast corner of Railroad Street and Main Street, and a gas station on the opposite side of 16

Main Street. 17

Important Visual Resources 18

There were no distinctive natural features identified within the Project Study Area that contribute 19

to the visual character and quality of the project area. Figure 17 illustrates the locations of 20

distinctive manmade features within the project area, which include: 21

• The rail junction (convergence of two track lines) - currently located behind 22

parking lots and an underutilized lot. 23

• The Lincoln Inn - located on the west side of the rail line from the proposed 24

location of the Crescent Connector. 25

• The Five Corners and Veterans Memorial Park 26




View Points 1

Primary views of the project will occur at its intersection with Park Street, Maple Street and 2

Main Street, from walking, biking, or driving along the proposed roadway, and from adjacent 3

properties. 4

Viewers 5

Three basic viewer groups have been identified, including local residents, business owners and 6

employees, and thru-traffic commuters. Local residents along Railroad Street and other area 7

adjacent roadways can view visual resource changes from their homes, yards and when traveling 8

on local roads in proximity to the project. Business owners are very astute to changes in the 9

surrounding landscape and how they may impact, positively or negatively on their businesses. 10

Employees tend to be more focused on the immediate surroundings of their place of business and 11

may also walk, bike or travel through the project on their way to or from work. Thru-travelers or 12

commuters view the landscape from their automobiles. Views are influenced by the road profile, 13

buildings, other vehicles on the roadway, intersection and traffic control devices. When driving, 14

views tend to be narrowly focused as the field tends to be moving and the driver’s attention is 15

more focused on other traffic, pedestrians, and other potential points of conflict especially in an 16

urban setting. The passengers have a higher sensitivity to the visual landscape than the driver. 17

3.18.2 Environmental Consequences to Aesthetics and Visual Resources 18


Future growth through in-filling, redevelopment and development in and around the project area 20

would be anticipated to continue, where possible. With no improvements or adjustment to the 21

existing roadways, this additional growth would likely result in greater traffic volumes and 22

congestion at the Five Corners. Under the No Build Alternative, improved accessibility to 23

underutilized parcels within the project area would not occur and redevelopment of these parcels 24

would remain difficult. The potential for more aesthetically-pleasing structures and landscaping 25

in these areas would therefore not be realized. 26





A new traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Park Street and Crescent Connector. 2

A right-turn lane will be added to Park Street. The Crescent Connector will be a two-lane, paved 3

roadway with a parallel raised sidewalk and bike lanes (see Figures 4 and 5). 4

The Crescent Connector will parallel the NECR Burlington Branch then make an at-grade 5

crossing of the NECR Main Line track. Appropriate pavement markings and signals will be 6

provided at the crossing. The Crescent Connector then follows the alignment of an existing 7

driveway to Maple Street. A new parking area will be constructed in the former rail yard area 8

between the Connector and the NECR Main Line. A new sidewalk will connect a new parking 9

area to the Maple Street sidewalk in addition to the Crescent Connector sidewalk. A traffic 10

signal will be installed at Maple Street. A turn lane will be added to Maple Street and the 11

sidewalks on both sides of the road reconstructed within the area between the NECR rail 12

crossing to the west and Elm Street, approximately 390 feet to the east. 13

From Maple Street, the Crescent Connector follows the alignment of Railroad Street to Main 14

Street. A raised sidewalk separated by a 4.5 foot grass strip will be provided along the east side 15

of the roadway. Two parallel parking areas will be provided at either end (Maple Street and 16

Main Street) of the Connector with connecting sidewalks to the adjacent street sidewalk. No 17

traffic signal will be installed at the Main Street intersection as the projected traffic volumes for 18

this intersection indicated that a signal is not warranted. 19

The project is located within the Village Center of Essex Junction, an urban area in which the 20

proposed alignment of the Crescent Connector is already a transportation corridor that consists of 21

rail line, private drive, city street or parking area. Redevelopment of this corridor as the Crescent 22

Connector is in character with its surroundings. 23

Impact on Important Visual Resources – 24

• Rail junction –This area will become a more visible feature as it would be in clear 25

view from the Crescent Connector. 26

• Lincoln Inn –Views of and from the Connector are across the tracks and parking lot 27

looking from or at the back of the Inn. The road would improve the aesthetics of the 28




existing underutilized lot (current view) which contains some old foundations, and 1

storage materials. 2

• Five Corners/Veterans Memorial Park – By improving traffic flow in and around the 3

Five Corners, the project would have a positive effect on the area. The Crescent 4

Connector traffic lights on Park Street and Maple Street would be visible from the 5

Five Corners, but not out of character for a downtown urban center. 6

Impact to Views and Viewers – 7

• Views - Given the topography and the urban setting, views from and of the project 8

are very limited. As noted previously this is an urban area characterized by a mix of 9

residential, commercial and municipal buildings, within multiple parking areas, 10

connected by a series of street and sidewalks. The majority of the alignment is 11

already existing street or parking area. Thus the project would not interfere with or 12

substantially alter existing views within or outside of the project area. 13

• Local Residences - Local residents would notice the change but would quickly 14

adjust and are not expected to view the change as adverse. The most noticeable 15

change would be for residents along Railroad Street in that they would see a slightly 16

wider roadway and an increase in traffic. Existing vegetation (trees) along the 17

roadway in front of the homes would be maintained as would the grass strip 18

between the roadway and the sidewalk. With the connection of a sidewalk from 19

Park to Main Street pedestrians would also have an opportunity to walk through and 20

observe the area. 21

• Business Commuters and Through Travelers – As noted, these viewers are more 22

focused on their place of work or their immediate surrounding with short duration 23

views as they travel. The Crescent Connector is anticipated to have little visual 24

impact on these groups of viewers. 25

As noted previously, the existing street trees in front of the houses along Railroad Street would 26

be maintained, as well as the landscape island in the sidewalk at Main Street. 27

Lighting – Street lights would be included along the entire length of the new project, including 28

Crescent Connector and Maple Street. The lights would match the other street lights used 29




throughout the Village of Essex Junction’s downtown area and would be placed at intervals 1

consistent with other locations throughout the Village. Because the entire project is located in 2

the downtown area of the Village in a Village Center zoning district, no adverse impacts are 3

expected from the additional lights. 4

3.19 Construction Impacts 5

Construction impacts represent temporary effects associated with the construction of the 6

Proposed Action and are short-term in nature. Under the No Build Alternative, the Crescent 7

Connector Project would not be constructed and there would be no construction impacts 8

associated with that alternative. Construction of the Preferred Alternative would potentially 9

result in short-term impacts to traffic, economic resources, air quality, noise, and surface water 10

resources, as described below. 11

Traffic: Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would result in roadway construction that 12

would cause short-term and temporary traffic delays. With limited exceptions, the contractor 13

would be required to maintain access to driveways throughout the construction process. 14

Economic: Effects to socioeconomic resources as a result of the Preferred Alternative would 15

likely include a short-term increase in economic activity while construction of the roadway is 16

ongoing. These construction activities would generate a limited increase in employment and 17

income. Given the scale of the construction activities in relation to the overall economic activity 18

within the Village, these temporary socioeconomic effects may go unnoticed. Access to existing 19

businesses would be maintained throughout construction. 20

Air Quality: During construction, exposed soils would potentially impact air quality due to the 21

introduction of dust. Measures to control and minimize dust would be implemented, with 22

construction specifications to include the following: 23

� Areas of disturbed soils and areas of open excavation minimized to the extent possible. 24

� Stockpiling minimized by coordinating the excavation and placement of material. 25

� Stockpiles stabilized to minimize wind erosion, including the covering of stockpiles. 26




� Water and/or calcium chloride applied to active earthwork areas as needed. 1

� Areas would receive final land treatment as soon as possible following completion of site 2

preparation 3

4

Noise: Under the Preferred Alternative there would be a temporary increase of sound emissions 5

during the construction of the proposed Crescent Connector. Even though construction would 6

occur during the daytime for only a brief period, there is a possibility that the noise emissions 7

would represent a short-term minor adverse impact on receptors in the vicinity of the 8

construction. 9

The equipment used for the construction would be varied. Some of the louder pieces of 10

equipment are shown in Table 3.19.1 below. Included are the approximate maximum sound 11

pressure levels at 50 feet (15.2 m) and 100 feet (30.4 m). 100 feet is the approximate distance of 12

the closest sensitive receptor from the construction area. 13

TABLE 3.19.1 14 Maximum Sound Levels from Various Construction Equipment 15

Equipment Sound Pressure Level at 50 feet (dBA)

Sound Pressure Level at 100 feet (dBA)*

Excavator 83 77

Dumptruck, being loaded 86 80

Dumptruck at 25 mph, accelerating

76 70

Tractor Trailer at 25 mph, accelerating

80 74

Concrete Truck 81 75

Bulldozer 85 79

Rock drill 100 94

Loader 80 74

Backhoe 80 74

Generator 80 74

Diesel Truck 70 64

Impact Wrench 62 56 *Shortest approximate distance from construction site to any sensitive receptor. 16

Blasting is not anticipated to be needed. Should blasting be required, it would occur 17

intermittently and only for limited periods of time. Major construction work would occur 18

primarily during the day; however, minor construction work may extend earlier or later. 19




Construction activities would be conducted in accordance with OSHA standards and, as a best 1

management practice, all equipment would be properly muffled during operations, which would 2

be limited to daytime hours, defined as 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM in the State of Vermont. 3

Surface Waters: During the course of construction, soils within the footprint of the Crescent 4

Connector Project would be disturbed. The temporarily exposed soils would be subject to 5

erosion, potentially resulting in sedimentation within the closest surface waters. Impacts to 6

surface waters would be minimized through the implementation of an Erosion Prevention and 7

Sediment Control (EPSC) Plan. This EPSC plan, consistent with the 2006 Vermont Standards & 8

Specifications for Erosion Prevention & Sediment Control, would be implemented as part of the 9

stormwater permitting requirements associated with construction phase activities. 10

3.20 Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts 11

This section addresses the indirect effects and cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action. 12

Indirect effects are those impacts caused by the Proposed Action, but are later in time or farther 13

removed in distance, while still being reasonably foreseeable. For the purposes of this EA, 14

indirect effects are discussed as part of direct effects in the earlier resource sections. Cumulative 15

effects are defined by the CEQ in 40 CFR 1508.7 as: 16

“Impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action 17

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 18

what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” 19

Cumulative impact analysis captures the effects that result from the Proposed Action(s) in 20

combination with the effects of other actions that could impact the same resource as the 21

Proposed Action. Because of extensive influences both within the Proposed Action areas and 22

outside the boundary, cumulative effects are the most difficult to analyze. NEPA requires 23

analysis of cumulative environmental effects of a Proposed Action, or set of actions, on 24

resources that may often be manifested only at the cumulative level, such as traffic congestion, 25

noise, and stormwater. 26




3.20.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions 1

The following projects have either been recently constructed within the vicinity of the Project 2

Study Area, are currently planned for the area, or are being considered and therefore reasonably 3

foreseeable: 4

• A streetscape project along Railroad Avenue was implemented in 2003, narrowing 5

the street, adding wider sidewalks, antique style streetlamps, benches, trees and green 6

space (Essex Junction Comprehensive Plan 2013). 7

• A streetscape project between Main Street and Railroad Avenue was implemented in 8

2004, which added antique style streetlamps, new sidewalks and benches (Essex 9

Junction Comprehensive Plan 2013). 10

• Veterans Memorial Park at the Five Corners intersection was constructed in 2007. 11

• A redevelopment project widening the sidewalks along Park Street in Essex Junction 12

was conducted in 2008. 13

• The reconstruction of signals at Five Corners intersection and improvements to Park 14

and Pearls Streets was implemented in 2009. 15

• The Williston-Essex Network Transportation Study (WENTS) scoping report was 16

developed in 2012 to review potential transportation improvements between Williston 17

and Essex Junction, including the Five Corners intersection (CCMPO 2013). 18

• A scoping report to develop and evaluate alternatives to the Pearl Street corridor in 19

Essex Junction was also conducted in 2012. 20

• The Circ-Williston (Segment AB) Final Environmental Impact Statement was 21

completed in July 2010 with a Record of Decision on a preferred alternative issued in 22

May 2011. The study reviewed issues and options for transportation improvements 23

from Interstate I-89 to Williston, Essex and Essex Junction, including the southern 24

portion of the previously proposed Chittenden County Circumferential Highway. 25




• A proposed redevelopment project at the corner of Park Street and Pearl Street with 1

commercial uses on the first floor and apartments located on upper floors. This 2

property is located in the Five Corners area. 3

3.20.2 No Build Alternative 4

Under the No Build Alternative, the Crescent Connector would not be constructed and none of 5

the Proposed Action would be implemented. The No Build Alternative would not result in 6

cumulative impacts to resources. 7

3.20.3 Preferred Alternative 8

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative in conjunction with the projects listed above is not 9

expected to result in any adverse cumulative impacts to resources. By definition, cumulative 10

impacts are only considered for those resources that are being impacted by the Proposed Action. 11

The following analysis reviews each of the resources being impacted by the Proposed Action. 12

Noise: Noise effects associated with those projects noted in Section 3.20.1 that have already 13

been constructed have already transpired and were included as part of the existing conditions 14

reviewed in the noise analysis for direct impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative. Future 15

projects are also considered as they contribute to the future traffic projections that were used in 16

the noise model. There are no operational noise effects associated with the other projects being 17

considered and no adverse cumulative noise impacts are expected as a result of the 18

implementation of the Preferred Alternative. 19

Historic and Architectural Resources: As described in Section 3.16, there are several 20

historically-significant resources located within the Project Study Area. It is anticipated that the 21

Preferred Alternative, in conjunction with proposed projects in the vicinity, would have no 22

adverse effects to cultural resources. Within the list of projects, most have already been 23

completed and none have impacted the Maple Street Historic District. Implementation of the 24

Preferred Alternative would not contribute to any cumulative adverse impacts to any cultural 25

resources or historic and architectural resources. 26




3.21 Summary of Resource Impacts 1

The Preferred Alternative would potentially result in minor adverse impacts associated with 2

ROW acquisitions and one noise impact for a single receptor. There would also be minor and 3

temporary adverse impacts to traffic, noise, air and water quality as a result of construction 4

activities. It is expected that implementation of the Preferred Alternative would have beneficial 5

impacts due to the improved traffic flows and increased accessibility. The impacts are 6

summarized in Table 3.21.1 below. 7

TABLE 3.21.1 8 Summary of Impacts Associated with Preferred Alternative 9

Resource Area Description of Impact

Traffic Overall Beneficial Impact – Delays reduced and LOS improved at Five Corners and other study intersections with only limited intersections experiencing increases in traffic volumes and delays

Land Use Beneficial Impact – Improved pedestrian and land accessibility

Farmland No Impact – No resources within Project Study Area

Socioeconomics Beneficial Impact – Improved pedestrian and land accessibility

Environmental Justice No Impact – No disproportionate impact

Acquisitions (ROW) Minor Adverse Impact – Minor ROW acquisitions

Infrastructure No Adverse Impact – Minor utility relocations

Air Quality Beneficial Impact – Vehicle emissions reduced due to improved traffic flow

Noise Minor Adverse Impact – one noise receptor approaches its respective NAC level

Surface Water Resources

No Impact – No resources within Project Study Area

Wetlands No Impact – No resources within Project Study Area

Groundwater Resources No Impact – No resources (Source Protection Areas) within Project Study Area

Floodplains and Floodways

No Impact – No resources within Project Study Area




TABLE 3.21.1(continued) 1 Summary of Impacts Associated with Preferred Alternative 2

Resource Area Description of Impact

Biological Resources No Impact – No resources within Project Study Area

Historic and Archeological Preservation

No Adverse Impact – No archeological resources in Project Study Area & no adverse effect to historic resources

Hazardous Materials Beneficial Impact – Existing contaminated material remediated

Aesthetics and Visual Resources

No Adverse Impact – Project design in character with surroundings

Construction Impacts Minor Adverse Impact – Temporary disruptions to traffic, construction noises, air and water quality effects due to exposed soils

3

3.22 Summary of Mitigation and Project Commitments 4

The following commitments would be undertaken by the Village of Essex Junction to avoid or 5

mitigate impacts associated with the Proposed Action. 6

RAILROAD 7

• Roadway, sidewalk and other project improvements would be separated from the closest 8

rail line by a minimum of 15 feet. 9

• Gates, signals, and pavement markings shall be provided at rail crossings. 10

MODES OF TRANSPORTATION 11

• Parking will be provided to replace parking otherwise lost due to project impacts. 12

ACQUISITIONS (ROW) 13

• All acquisitions will be conducted in accordance with VTrans ROW procedures and with 14

the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 15

as amended. As such, compensation is available to all impacted residences and businesses 16

without discrimination. 17




SURFACE WATER 1

• The Proposed Action would implement stormwater BMPs to treat stormwater runoff 2

from impervious surfaces created by the Proposed Action. 3

• An Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control (EPSC) Plan, consistent with the 2006 4

Vermont Standards & Specifications for Erosion Prevention & Sediment Control would 5

be implemented as part of the stormwater permitting requirements associated with 6

construction phase activities. 7

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 8

Subsurface contamination would be removed and/or remediated to acceptable levels. A Soil 9

Management Plan, including calculation of volumes for disposal, transportation options, and 10

associated costs, would be developed in consultation with the VT DEC. 11

VISUAL IMPACTS 12

Proposed street lights would be painted black with fluted columns to match other street lights 13

within the Village. 14

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 15

• Traffic Control Plans that specify lane use, hours of operation and access to abutting 16

properties would be developed during final design. 17

• The contractor would be required to install temporary traffic signs to inform and direct 18

motorists and pedestrians within work zones. 19

• Areas disturbed by construction activities would be restored to their preconstruction 20

condition. 21

• Temporary fences would be erected around construction areas to isolate the construction 22

area from adjacent properties. 23




• In order to minimize the potential for construction-related dust, construction 1

specifications would include the following: 2

� Areas of disturbed soils and areas of open excavation minimized to the extent 3

possible. 4

� Stockpiling minimized by coordinating the excavation and placement of material. 5

� Stockpiles stabilized to minimize wind erosion, including the covering of stockpiles. 6

� Water and/or calcium chloride applied to active earthwork areas as needed. 7

� Areas would receive final land treatment as soon as possible following completion of 8

site preparation 9




� THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK1




4.0 SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES 1

4.1 Overview 2

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (as amended) requires the U.S. 3

Department of Transportation to consider impacts on public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and 4

waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. Under Section 4(f), no transportation project may be 5

approved by FHWA or FTA which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public 6

park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge or historic site unless there is no “feasible or 7

prudent” alternative to the use of such land. As defined in 23CFR774, “use” of a Section 4(f) 8

resource occurs when one of the following conditions applies: 9

• Land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility. 10

• There is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s 11

preservation purpose. 12

• There is a constructive use where the project’s proximity impacts are so severe that the 13

protected activities, features, or attributes of a property are substantially impaired. 14

Projects which use land from such sites must include all possible planning to minimize harm 15

resulting from their use. The Section 4(f) evaluation provides facts about each site to help 16

determine whether there are feasible/prudent alternatives to the use of the site and to identify 17

measures to minimize harm. 18

A de minimis impact determination, however, does not require analysis to determine if avoidance 19

alternatives are feasible and prudent, but consideration of avoidance, minimization, mitigation or 20

enhancement measures should occur. For publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, and 21

wildlife and waterfowl refuges, a de minimis impact is one that will not adversely affect the 22

activities, features, or attributes of the property. For historic sites, a de minimis impact means 23

that FHWA has determined (in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800) that either no historic property 24

is affected by the project or that the project will have "no adverse effect" on the historic property. 25




4.2 Description of Resources 1

Section 4(f) resources within the Project Study Area include the Veterans Memorial Park, which 2

is a recreational park that is open to the public and located at the Five Corners intersection. NR-3

eligible historic properties located within the Project Study Area are also considered Section 4(f) 4

resources. These properties and their historical significance are described in detail in Section 5

3.16 above and in Appendix F and include the following: 6

• 11 Maple Street/Mason Brothers Warehouse 7

• 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 Maple Street 8

• 2, 12, 14 and 16 Railroad Street 9

4.3 Use of Resources 10

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not result in any use of the Veterans 11

Memorial Park. The Proposed Action would, however, result in minor acquisitions of land from 12

historic properties, as described in Section 4.5. As part of the Section 106 coordination, 13

preliminary determinations indicated that the Proposed Action would result in No Adverse Effect 14

to all of those identified historic properties. Therefore, the Proposed Action would likely have a 15

de minimis impact determination. 16

4.4 Measures to Minimize Harm 17

Coordination with the VTrans Historic Preservation Officer and the VTrans Archaeology Officer 18

indicates that the Proposed Action will have no adverse effect on above-ground historic 19

properties and no adverse effect on archaeological resources. Any mitigation identified as part of 20

the Section 106 process would be incorporated into the project and would provide a means to 21

minimize harm under Section 4(f). 22

4.5 Section 4(f) Summary 23

The Proposed Action involves de minimis impacts to three of the eleven Section 4(f) resources 24

identified within the project area: 25




• 11 Maple Street/Mason Brothers Warehouse – minor ROW acquisition 1

• 17 Maple Street – minor ROW acquisition 2

• 19 Maple Street – minor ROW acquisition 3

There is no proposed use of land from the remaining Section 4(f) resources within the Project 4

Study Area. 5




5.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY 1

COORDINATION/PERMITTING 2

5.1 Public Involvement 3

As specified in NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) and NEPA’s implementing regulations 4

promulgated by the CEQ (40 CFR 1500-1508), 32 CFR 651, and the guidance provided in the 5

FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, Guidance For Preparing and Processing Environmental 6

and Section 4(f) Documents, public and resource agency participation is an important component 7

of the NEPA process. The following provides a listing of key public notification and 8

participation events that are part of this environmental review process: 9

• Numerous public informational meetings have been conducted throughout the project 10

development process, including the following: 11

� Local Concerns Meeting on July 20, 2010 12

� Alternatives Presentation Meeting on February 22, 2011 13

� Preferred Alternative Meeting on March 8, 2011 14

� Public Information Update Meeting on March 12, 2013 15

16

• The Village of Essex Junction conducted coordination with resource agencies 17

pursuant to the requirements of NEPA. Appendix A provides a list of agencies and 18

individuals consulted and a copy of the letter submitted to the respective agencies and 19

individuals, as well as the responses that were received. These agencies and the 20

public are being provided the opportunity to review and comment on this EA. 21

Coordination with these entities will continue through final design. 22

• In accordance with 23 CFR 771.119 and 40 CFR 1506.6, the Village of Essex 23

Junction is making this EA available for a 30-day public comment period. 24

Notification of the availability of this EA is being accomplished through publication 25

of a legal Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Essex Reporter and Burlington Free 26

Press, the local newspapers that service this region of Chittenden County, Vermont. 27




Copies of this EA and important reference documents are available for public review 1

at the Brownell Library, located in Essex Junction, Vermont. Mr. Robin Pierce, 2

Development Director for the Village of Essex Junction, and Mr. Kenneth Sikora, 3

Environment & Right-of-Way Program Manager for the FHWA Vermont Division, 4

will be the primary points of contact for all public comments related to this EA. A 5

public hearing to present the project will be held at the Village of Essex Junction 6

offices during the 30-day public comment period and will offer an opportunity for the 7

public to provide verbal comments on the project. 8

5.2 Permitting 9

Based on current information, it is expected that implementation of the Proposed Action would 10

require a Construction Stormwater Permit and an Operational Phase Stormwater Discharge 11

Permit, both of which permit programs are administered through VT DEC’s Watershed 12

Management Division. 13




6.0 REFERENCES 1

AASHTO. 2011. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition. 2

CCMPO. 2010. Essex Junction Village Connector Road Analysis. February 2010 3

CCMPO. 2011. Essex Junction Crescent Connector Road Final Scoping Report. August 2011. 4

CCMPO. 2012a. Essex Junction Crescent Connector Road Final Scoping Report Supplemental 5

Memo. May 2012. 6

CCMPO. 2012b. Essex Junction Crescent Connector Road Final Scoping Report Supplemental 7

Memo - Railroad Street. September 2012. 8

FHWA. 2005. Section 4(f) Policy Paper. Office of Planning, Environment and Realty. 9

U.S. Census. United States Census Bureau. 2007-2012. www.census.gov. Accessed on 25 July 10

2013. 11

U.S. Department of Transportation. 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Federal 12

Highway Administration. 13

University of Vermont. 2010. Archeological Resource Assessment and Historic Resources 14

Review for the Crescent Connector Scoping Study, Essex Junction, Chittenden County, 15

Vermont. UVM Consulting Archeology Program. December 2010. 16

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 2002. The Vermont Stormwater Management Manual. 17

Fifth Printing. April 2002. 18

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 2006. The Vermont Standards & Specifications for 19

Erosion Prevention & Sediment Control. 20

Vermont Agency of Transportation. 2011. VTrans Noise Analysis Abatement Policy 21

Village of Essex Junction. 2011. Village of Essex Junction Land Development Code. Adopted 22 22

September 1992 with latest revision 29 March 2011. 23




Village of Essex Junction. 2013. Village of Essex Junction Comprehensive Plan 2013. Re-1

adopted 12 March 2013.2




7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 1

Evan Detrick, PE, has over 29 years of experience in the design and management of road, 2

bridge, and pedestrian improvement projects. He is responsible for project management, staffing, 3

budgeting, scheduling, quality control, and client coordination. His experience encompasses 4

traffic engineering, hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, planning studies, site development, 5

rehabilitation of historic bridges, and federal, state and local environmental permitting 6

throughout the northeastern United States. Mr. Detrick co-authored an Environmental 7

Assessment for the PA Route 52 Relocation Project at Longwood Gardens in Kennett Square, 8

PA, and has prepared numerous Categorical Exclusion documents for many federally funded 9

local projects. Mr. Detrick’s responsibilities for this EA include coordination and management of 10

the subconsultants, supplying project background and design information, and quality control 11

review of the document. 12

John Benson, PE, has over 35 years of experience in design, management, and budgetary 13

responsibility for projects involving land development, transportation, utility, site engineering 14

and environmental permitting. He oversees staffing, client coordination, scheduling, quality 15

control, and regulatory agency coordination/permitting. His experience encompasses civil/site 16

engineering, architectural, mechanical/electrical design, energy conservation, and federal, state 17

and local environmental permitting throughout northern New England. Mr. Benson has authored 18

or co-authored numerous Environmental Assessments for federal and state agencies and 19

municipalities. Mr. Benson’s responsibilities for this EA include assessment of impacts to air 20

quality, traffic, noise, and infrastructure, as well as project coordination and quality assurance of 21

the product. 22

Heather Voisin, PE, has over 14 years of technical experience in the planning, design, and 23

permitting for development, municipal, and transportation projects. She is proficient in 24

environmental documentation, including the analysis of resource impacts, permitting, agency 25

coordination, and GIS mapping associated with the development of NEPA documentation. She 26

recently served as co-author of an EA for a biomass facility in the City of Montpelier, Vermont. 27

She also authored EAs for a dam removal project for the Army Corps of Engineers in Warren, 28

Vermont, and for several Vermont Agency of Transportation highway development projects. In 29




the past few years, Ms. Voisin has secured Categorical Exclusions for more than a dozen federal, 1

state, and municipal projects throughout New Hampshire and Vermont. Ms. Voisin serves as the 2

principal author of this EA. 3

Charlotte W. Brodie, Certified Wetland Scientist and Field Naturalist, is trained in 4

environmental evaluation, interpretation, and monitoring. As a naturalist, she integrates 5

information on the biotic and abiotic components of ecosystems for site descriptions, inventories, 6

criterion-based evaluations, and impact evaluations. Through her training and 25 years of 7

experience, Ms. Brodie investigates, identifies, and evaluates geology and geomorphology, soils 8

chemistry, botany, vertebrate and invertebrate zoology, and hydrology. She specializes in 9

wetlands analysis and has a thorough knowledge of state and federal regulations pertaining to 10

wetlands and other waters of the United States. For this EA, Ms. Brodie assessed biological and 11

water resources. 12

Crescent Connector Project...Crescent Connector Project ES-i 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 This...

Documents

Transcript of Crescent Connector Project...Crescent Connector Project ES-i 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 This...