Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SEQR FEAF Parts 1, 2 and 3
Athenex Manufacturing Facility Dunkirk, New York
CHA Project Number: 32615
Prepared for: Athenex
1001 Main Street, Suite 600 Buffalo, NY, 14203
Prepared by:
III Winners Circle Albany, NY, 12205
Phone: (518) 453-4500 Fax: (518) 453-4522
April 18, 2017
V:\Projects\ANY\K4\32615\Reports\Athenex_FEAF_Parts_1_2_&_3_Final Cover and TOC.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FEAF Part 1 – Project and Setting
FEAF Part 2 - Identification of Potential Project Impacts
FEAF Part 3 – Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts and Determination of Significance
Evaluation of Impacts
Evaluation of Impacts – Appendices – Zip Drive
Appendix A Site Location Map Appendix B Concept Plan Appendix C Site Due Diligence Report Book
1. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 2. Phase II Limited Environmental Site Assessment 3. Phase 1A Cultural Resource Screening 4. Phase 1B Cultural Resource Investigation 5. Geotechnical Report 6. Boundary Mapping Survey 7. Wetland Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix D NRCS Soil Survey Appendix E NYS Coastal Assessment Form Appendix F FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Appendix G NYSDEC and IPaC Results Appendix H Traffic Impact Study Appendix I Town of Dunkirk Zoning Letter Appendix J Community Service Correspondence
Page 1 of 13
Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 - Project and Setting
Instructions for Completing Part 1
Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding, are subject to public review, and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to any item, please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information; indicate whether missing information does not exist, or is not reasonably available to the sponsor; and, when possible, generally describe work or studies which would be necessary toupdate or fully develop that information.
Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A & B. In Sections C, D & E, most items contain an initial question thatmust be answered either “Yes” or “No”. If the answer to the initial question is “Yes”, complete the sub-questions that follow. If the answer to the initial question is “No”, proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the project sponsor to verify that the information contained in Part 1is accurate and complete.
A. Project and Sponsor Information.
Name of Action or Project:
Project Location (describe, and attach a general location map):
Brief Description of Proposed Action (include purpose or need):
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
Project Contact (if not same as sponsor; give name and title/role): Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone:
E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
Athenex Manufacturing Facility
3799 Lake Shore Drive E, Town of Dunkirk, Chautauqua County. See Figure 1
Athenex is an innovative global pharmaceutical company focused on the development of next generation therapies for cancer diseases and othersupportive therapies. The proposed Project involves a new pharmaceutical manufacturing facility to be built on a 33.5-acre site on NYS Route 5 (3799Lake Shore Drive E) in the Town of Dunkirk and bounded by (see Figure 1).The project includes clearing and grading of approximately 30 acres of land inpreparation for the construction of a two-story, 40-foot-high structure with approximately 320,000 SF of usable space that would include central utilities,manufacturing, warehouse, laboratories and office spaces (see Figure 2).
(See more detailed description in SEQR Evaluation of Impacts)
Athenex - Dr. Stephen A. Panaro Ph.D.
716-427-2858
1001 Main Street, Suite 600
Buffalo NY 14203
CHA- Nicole Frazer
518-453-8211
III Winners Circle
Albany NY 12205
Fort Schuyler Management Corporation
257 Fuller Street
Albany New York 12203
Page 2 of 13
B. Government Approvals
B. Government Approvals Funding, or Sponsorship. (“Funding” includes grants, loans, tax relief, and any other forms of financialassistance.)
Government Entity If Yes: Identify Agency and Approval(s) Required
Application Date
(Actual or projected)
a. City Council, Town Board, Yes Noor Village Board of Trustees
b. City, Town or Village Yes No Planning Board or Commission
c. City Council, Town or Yes No Village Zoning Board of Appeals
d. Other local agencies Yes No
e. County agencies Yes No
f. Regional agencies Yes No
g. State agencies Yes No
h. Federal agencies Yes No
i. Coastal Resources.i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area, or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? Yes No
ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? Yes No iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? Yes No
C. Planning and Zoning
C.1. Planning and zoning actions.
Will administrative or legislative adoption, or amendment of a plan, local law, ordinance, rule or regulation be the Yes No only approval(s) which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed?
If Yes, complete sections C, F and G.If No, proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part 1
C.2. Adopted land use plans.
a. Do any municipally- adopted (city, town, village or county) comprehensive land use plan(s) include the site Yes No where the proposed action would be located?
If Yes, does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action Yes No would be located?
b. Is the site of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district (for example: Greenway Yes No Brownfield Opportunity Area (BOA); designated State or Federal heritage area; watershed management plan;or other?)
If Yes, identify the plan(s): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, Yes Noor an adopted municipal farmland protection plan?
If Yes, identify the plan(s): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Actual or projected)
✔
✔ Town of Dunkirk- Site Plan Review April 2017 (projected)
✔
✔
✔ County DOH- water April 2017 (projected)
✔
✔ NYSDEC- Section 401 WQC, SPDES Gen. Permit for Construction, State FacilityPermit, Air Permit, Sewer, NYSDOT- Highway Work Permit and Access Permit,NYSDOH-water, NYSDOS- Coastal Consistency
April 2017 (projected)
✔ USACE- Section 404 April 2017 (projected)
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
NYS Heritage Areas:Concord Grape Belt Region
✔
Chautauqua County Farmland Protection Plan
Page 3 of 13
C.3. Zoning
a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. Yes NoIf Yes, what is the zoning classification(s) including any applicable overlay district?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? Yes No
c. Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? Yes No If Yes,
i. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? ___________________________________________________________________
C.4. Existing community services.
a. In what school district is the project site located? ________________________________________________________________
b. What police or other public protection forces serve the project site? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d. What parks serve the project site?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D. Project Details
D.1. Proposed and Potential Development
a. What is the general nature of the proposed action (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial, recreational; if mixed, include allcomponents)?_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. a. Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? _____________ acres b. Total acreage to be physically disturbed? _____________ acres c. Total acreage (project site and any contiguous properties) owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? _____________ acres
c. Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? Yes No i. If Yes, what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units (e.g., acres, miles, housing units,
square feet)? % ____________________ Units: ____________________
d. Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision? Yes No If Yes,
i. Purpose or type of subdivision? (e.g., residential, industrial, commercial; if mixed, specify types) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? Yes No iii. Number of lots proposed? ________iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum __________ Maximum __________
e. Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? Yes Noi. If No, anticipated period of construction: _____ months
ii. If Yes:Total number of phases anticipated _____ Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) _____ month _____ year Anticipated completion date of final phase _____ month _____year Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase maydetermine timing or duration of future phases: _______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
✔
M-2- Industrial
✔
✔
Dunkirk City School District
Dunkirk Town Police Department, Chautauqua County Sheriff
East Dunkirk Fire District 12
Wright Park, Memorial Park, City Pier Park
33.5
31.5
33.5
✔
✔
✔
✔
2
10 2017
12 2020
Phase 1 includes construction and Phase 2 includes internal fit out only.
pharmaceutical manufacturing
Page 4 of 13
f. Does the project include new residential uses? Yes NoIf Yes, show numbers of units proposed.
One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family (four or more)
Initial Phase ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________ At completion of all phases ___________ ___________ ____________ ________________________
g. Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction (including expansions)? Yes No If Yes,
i. Total number of structures ___________ii. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure: ________height; ________width; and _______ length
iii. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: ______________________ square feet
h. Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any Yes No liquids, such as creation of a water supply, reservoir, pond, lake, waste lagoon or other storage?
If Yes, i. Purpose of the impoundment: ________________________________________________________________________________
ii. If a water impoundment, the principal source of the water: Ground water Surface water streams Other specify:_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. If other than water, identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source._________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: ____________ million gallons; surface area: ____________ acres v. Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: ________ height; _______ length
vi. Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure (e.g., earth fill, rock, wood, concrete):________________________________________________________________________________________________________
D.2. Project Operations
a. Does the proposed action include any excavation, mining, or dredging, during construction, operations, or both? Yes No(Not including general site preparation, grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavatedmaterials will remain onsite)
If Yes:i .What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging? _______________________________________________________________
ii. How much material (including rock, earth, sediments, etc.) is proposed to be removed from the site?Volume (specify tons or cubic yards): ____________________________________________Over what duration of time? ____________________________________________________
iii. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged, and plans to use, manage or dispose of them. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? Yes No If yes, describe. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v. What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? _____________________________________acresvi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? _______________________________ acres
vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? __________________________ feetviii. Will the excavation require blasting? Yes No ix. Summarize site reclamation goals and plan: _____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in size of, or encroachment Yes No into any existing wetland, waterbody, shoreline, beach or adjacent area?
If Yes: i. Identify the wetland or waterbody which would be affected (by name, water index number, wetland map number or geographic
description): _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
✔
✔
140 526 802
320,000
✔
✔
✔
federally regulated jurisdictional wetland and isolated- non jurisdictional wetland
Page 5 of 13
ii. Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland, e.g. excavation, fill, placement of structures, oralteration of channels, banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities, alterations and additions in square feet or acres:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Will proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? Yes NoIf Yes, describe: __________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Will proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? Yes No If Yes:
a of vegetation proposed to be removed ___________________________________________________________ acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion ________________________________________
purpose of proposed removal (e.g. beach clearing, invasive species control, boat access): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
proposed method of plant removal: ________________________________________________________________________if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used, specify product(s): _________________________________________________
v. Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
c. Will the proposed action use, or create a new demand for water? Yes No If Yes:
i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: __________________________ gallons/dayii. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? Yes No
If Yes:Name of district or service area: _________________________________________________________________________Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? Yes No Is the project site in the existing district? Yes No Is expansion of the district needed? Yes No Do existing lines serve the project site? Yes No
iii. Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? Yes No If Yes:
Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source(s) of supply for the district: ________________________________________________________________________
iv. Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? Yes No If, Yes:
Applicant/sponsor for new district: ________________________________________________________________________Date application submitted or anticipated: __________________________________________________________________Proposed source(s) of supply for new district: _______________________________________________________________
v. If a public water supply will not be used, describe plans to provide water supply for the project: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi. If water supply will be from wells (public or private), maximum pumping capacity: _______ gallons/minute.
d. Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? Yes No If Yes:
i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: _______________ gallons/dayii. Nature of liquid wastes to be generated (e.g., sanitary wastewater, industrial; if combination, describe all components and
approximate volumes or proportions of each): ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? Yes No If Yes:
Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: _____________________________________________________________Name of district: ______________________________________________________________________________________Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? Yes No
Is the project site in the existing district? Yes No Is expansion of the district needed? Yes No
Under 1/10 an acre of federally regulated wetland is proposed to be impacted by the construction of the facility. The project also proposesimpacts to wetlands determined by the USACE to be isolated/ non jurisdictional.
✔
✔
Jurisdictional wetland impacts will not exceed1/10 acre, therefore, no mitigation is proposed.
✔
phase 1 175,000, with phase 2 250,000
✔
City of Dunkirk
✔
✔✔✔
✔
West to Stegeleske Street, +/- 1,000'
Lake Erie
✔
n/a
n/a
✔
phase 1-122,500/ phase 2-175,000
sanitary and process wastewater
✔
City of Dunkirk
City of Dunkirk
✔✔
✔
Page 6 of 13
Do existing sewer lines serve the project site? Yes No Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? Yes No If Yes:
Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
iv. Will a new wastewater (sewage) treatment district be formed to serve the project site? Yes No If Yes:
Applicant/sponsor for new district: ____________________________________________________________________Date application submitted or anticipated: _______________________________________________________________What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge? __________________________________________________
v. If public facilities will not be used, describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project, including specifying proposed receiving water (name and classification if surface discharge, or describe subsurface disposal plans): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi. Describe any plans or designs to capture, recycle or reuse liquid waste: _______________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff, either from new point Yes No sources (i.e. ditches, pipes, swales, curbs, gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater) or non-point
source (i.e. sheet flow) during construction or post construction? If Yes:
i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel?_____ Square feet or _____ acres (impervious surface)
_____ Square feet or _____ acres (parcel size) ii. Describe types of new point sources. __________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________iii. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed (i.e. on-site stormwater management facility/structures, adjacent properties,
groundwater, on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If to surface waters, identify receiving water bodies or wetlands: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? Yes No
iv. Does proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces, use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? Yes No
f. Does the proposed action include, or will it use on-site, one or more sources of air emissions, including fuel Yes No combustion, waste incineration, or other processes or operations?
If Yes, identify: i. Mobile sources during project operations (e.g., heavy equipment, fleet or delivery vehicles)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ii. Stationary sources during construction (e.g., power generation, structural heating, batch plant, crushers)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________iii. Stationary sources during operations (e.g., process emissions, large boilers, electric generation)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f (above), require a NY State Air Registration, Air Facility Permit, Yes No or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit?
If Yes:i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet Yes No
ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year)ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application, the project will generate:
___________Tons/year ( ) of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)___________Tons/year ( ) of Nitrous Oxide (N2 )___________Tons/year ( ) of Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)___________Tons/year ( ) of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)___________Tons/year ( ) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflo rocarbons (H )___________Tons/year ( ) of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs)
✔✔
West to Stegeleske Street, +/- 1000'
✔
✔
13.37
33.54
existing culvert to be used
A stormwater management area on the west side of the site.
✔✔
✔
Delivery trucks
N/A
Boilers and process emissions from reactors, dryers, generator, storage tanks, and associated equipment
✔
✔
TBD
TBD
0
0
0
TBD
Page 7 of 13
h. Will the proposed action generate or emit methane (including, but not limited to, sewage treatment plants, Yes No landfills, composting facilities)?
If Yes:i. Estimate methane generation in tons/year (metric): ________________________________________________________________
ii. Describe any methane capture, control or elimination measures included in project design (e.g., combustion to generate heat orelectricity, flaring): _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes, such as Yes No quarry or landfill operations?
If Yes: Describe operations and nature of emissions (e.g., diesel exhaust, rock particulates/dust): _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
j. Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial Yes No new demand for transportation facilities or services?
If Yes:i. When is the peak traffic expected (Check all that apply): Morning Evening Weekend
Randomly between hours of __________ to ________.ii. For commercial activities only, projected number of semi-trailer truck trips/day: _______________________
iii. Parking spaces: Existing _____________ Proposed ___________ Net increase/decrease _____________iv. Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? Yes No v. If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads, creation of new roads or change in existing access, describe:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
vi. Are public/private transportation service(s) or facilities available within ½ mile of the proposed site? Yes No vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid, electric Yes No
or other alternative fueled vehicles? viii. Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing Yes No
pedestrian or bicycle routes?
k. Will the proposed action (for commercial or industrial projects only) generate new or additional demand Yes No for energy?
If Yes:i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action: ____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project (e.g., on-site combustion, on-site renewable, via grid/local utility, or
other):________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Will the proposed action require a new, or an upgrade to, an existing substation? Yes No
l. Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply.i. During Construction: ii. During Operations:
Monday - Friday: _________________________ Monday - Friday: ____________________________Saturday: ________________________________ Saturday: ___________________________________Sunday: _________________________________ Sunday: ____________________________________Holidays: ________________________________ Holidays: ___________________________________
✔
✔
✔
✔ ✔
14
0 500 +500
✔
✔✔
✔
✔
4.5 mW, 24,868,000kWh, 8000 amp service
National Grid
✔
7am- 7pm Phase 1- 7am-11:30pm/ Phase 2- 24 hr/day
Phase 2- 24 hr/day
Phase 2- 24 hr/day
Page 8 of 13
m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, Yes No operation, or both?
If yes: i. Provide details including sources, time of day and duration:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? Yes No Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
n.. Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? Yes No If yes: i. Describe source(s), location(s), height of fixture(s), direction/aim, and proximity to nearest occupied structures:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? Yes No Describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________________
o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? Yes No If Yes, describe possible sources, potential frequency and duration of odor emissions, and proximity to nearest occupied structures: ______________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
p. Yes No Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum ( over 1,100 gallons) or chemical products ?
If Yes: i. Product(s) to be stored ______________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Volume(s) ______ per unit time ___________ (e.g., month, year)iii. Generally describe proposed storage facilities ___________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
q. Will the proposed action (commercial, industrial and recreational projects only) use pesticides (i.e., herbicides, Yes No insecticides) during construction or operation?
If Yes:i. Describe proposed treatment(s):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? Yes No r. Will the proposed action (commercial or industrial projects only) involve or require the management or disposal Yes No
of solid waste (excluding hazardous materials)?If Yes:
i. Describe any solid waste(s) to be generated during construction or operation of the facility:Construction: ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)Operation : ____________________ tons per ________________ (unit of time)
ii. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste:Construction: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Operation: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site:Construction: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Operation: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
✔
There will be temporary noise associated with construction. During operation the facility will have air handling equipment on the roof , generators and truck traffic which maycause some noise although not inconsistent with the industrial character of the project area. Additionally, the Town does not have a noise ordinance.
✔
✔
Light fixtures will be scattered throughout the parking lot. The closest fixtures to residences would be ~230'. The entrance will also have lighting. Theentrance is right next to a residence.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
to be quantified after
completion of design
to be quantified after
completion of design
All contractors will be instructed and responsible for collecting and removing all recycle materials to the appropriate near byreclamation facility.
Tenant will initiate a recycle program and have recycle materials sent to the appropriate near by reclamation facility.
same as D.2.r.ii
same as D.2.r.ii
Page 9 of 13
s. Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? Yes No If Yes:
i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site (e.g., recycling or transfer station, composting, landfill, orother disposal activities): ___________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Anticipated rate of disposal/processing:________ Tons/month, if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment, or________ Tons/hour, if combustion or thermal treatment
iii. If landfill, anticipated site life: ________________________________ years
t. Will proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous Yes No waste?
If Yes: i. Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility: ___________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated _____ tons/monthiv. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: ____________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? Yes No If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _______________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E. Site and Setting of Proposed Action
E.1. Land uses on and surrounding the project site
a. Existing land uses.i. Check all uses that occur on, adjoining and near the project site.
Urban Industrial Commercial Residential (suburban) Rural (non-farm) Forest Agriculture Aquatic Other (specify): ____________________________________ ii. If mix of uses, generally describe:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
b. Land uses and covertypes on the project site.
Land use or Covertype
Current Acreage
Acreage After Project Completion
Change (Acres +/-)
Roads, buildings, and other paved or impervioussurfacesForested
Meadows, grasslands or brushlands (non-agricultural, including abandoned agricultural)Agricultural(includes active orchards, field, greenhouse etc.) Surface water features(lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, etc.) Wetlands (freshwater or tidal)
Non-vegetated (bare rock, earth or fill)
OtherDescribe: _______________________________ ________________________________________
Name(s) of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated, handled or managed at facility:r
_____________________________________________________________________Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents: _
____________________________________Specify amount to be handled or generated
___________ tons/month
______
Describe any proposals for on-site minimization, recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents: _p y g __________
_____________________________________________________________________v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility?
If Yes: provide name and location of facility: _y p
__________________________________________________________________________________________If No: describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sentaa to a hazardous waste facility: t
Ethanol 2.5 metric tons/month, HCL 2.5 metric tons/month, NaOH 1.75 metric tons/
month
✔
✔
Ethanol, Hydrochloric Acid, Sodium Hydroxide
Ethanol is part of the pharmaceutical drug production process, others are for waste water pH balancing.
6.75
Use of a Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer will be used for process fume destruction of EthanolWaste water treatment facility will utilize HCL and NaOH to balance pH process waste water before release to City
✔
Clean Harbors, 6057 Corporate Drive, East Syracuse, NY 13057
✔ ✔✔ meadow and brushland
0.7 14.37 +13.67
27.16 10.53 -16.38
3.64 2.15 -1.49(< 1/10 ac is jurisdictional)
Landscaped/mowed lawns and storm watermanagement
2.0 6.45 +4.45
Page 10 of 13
c. Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? Yes No i. If Yes: explain: __________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Are there any facilities serving children, the elderly, people with disabilities (e.g., schools, hospitals, licensed Yes No day care centers, or group homes) within 1500 feet of the project site?
If Yes, i. Identify Facilities:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. Does the project site contain an existing dam? Yes No If Yes:
i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment:Dam height: _________________________________ feet Dam length: _________________________________ feet Surface area: _________________________________ acres Volume impounded: _______________________________ gallons OR acre-feet
ii. Dam=s existing hazard classification: _________________________________________________________________________iii. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________
f. Has the project site ever been used as a municipal, commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, Yes No or does the project site adjoin property which is now, or was at one time, used as a solid waste management facility?
If Yes:i. Has the facility been formally closed? Yes No
If yes, cite sources/documentation: _______________________________________________________________________ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
g. Have hazardous wastes been generated, treated and/or disposed of at the site, or does the project site adjoin Yes No property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste?
If Yes:i. Describe waste(s) handled and waste management activities, including approximate time when activities occurred:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site, or have any Yes Noremedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site?
If Yes: i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site Yes No
Remediation database? Check all that apply: Yes – Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________ Yes – Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s): ________________________________ Neither database
ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities, describe control measures:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? Yes No If yes, provide DEC ID number(s): ______________________________________________________________________________
iv. If yes to (i), (ii) or (iii) above, describe current status of site(s):
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Offsite- Based on review of the toxics targeting map there is a hazardous waste generator to west. This property currently contains a storage facility and isnot a waste generator. There was a historical shovel manufacturing facility immediately adjacent to the west and southwest.
✔
✔
✔
Page 11 of 13
v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? Yes No If yes, DEC site ID number: ____________________________________________________________________________Describe the type of institutional control (e.g., deed restriction or easement): ____________________________________Describe any use limitations: ___________________________________________________________________________Describe any engineering controls: _______________________________________________________________________Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? Yes No Explain: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site
a. What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? ________________ feet
b. Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? Yes No If Yes, what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings? __________________%
c. Predominant soil type(s) present on project site: ___________________________ __________% ___________________________ __________% ____________________________ __________%
d. What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: _________ feet
e. Drainage status of project site soils: Well Drained: _____% of ite Moderately Well Drained: _____% of site Poorly Drained _____% of ite
f. Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: 0-10%: _____% of site 10-15%: _____% of site 15% or greater: _____% of site
g. Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? Yes No If Yes, describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
h. Surface water features.i. Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies (including streams, rivers, Yes No
ponds or lakes)?ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? Yes No
If Yes to either i or ii, continue. If No, skip to E.2.i. iii. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, Yes No
state or local agency? iv. For each identified wetland and waterbody on the project site, provide the following information
Streams: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________ Lakes or Ponds: Name ____________________________________________ Classification _______________________Wetlands: Name ____________________________________________ Approximate Size ___________________ Wetland No. (if regulated by DEC) _____________________________
v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired Yes No waterbodies?
If yes, name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired: _____________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
i. Is the project site in a designated Floodway? Yes No
j. Is the project site in the 100 year Floodplain? Yes No
k. Is the project site in the 500 year Floodplain? Yes No
l. Is the project site located over, or immediately adjoining, a primary, principal or sole source aquifer? Yes No If Yes:
i. Name of aquifer: _________________________________________________________________________________________
✔
3.3-6.7
✔
Niagara silt loam 55
Barcelona silt loam 45
0.5-1.5
✔ 100
✔ 100
✔
✔
✔
✔
USACE federally regulated 2.24 acres
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Page 12 of 13
m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site: ______________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________
n. Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? Yes No If Yes:
i. Describe the habitat/community (composition, function, and basis for designation): _____________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ii. Source(s) of description or evaluation: ________________________________________________________________________iii. Extent of community/habitat:
Currently: ______________________ acres Following completion of project as proposed: _____________________ acresGain or loss (indicate + or -): ______________________ acres
o. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as Yes No endangered or threatened, or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species?
p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of Yes Nospecial concern?
q. Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting, trapping, fishing or shell fishing? Yes No If yes, give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use: ___________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site
a. Is the project site, or any portion of it, located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to Yes No Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304?
If Yes, provide county plus district name/number: _________________________________________________________________
b. Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? Yes No i. If Yes: acreage(s) on project site? ___________________________________________________________________________
ii. Source(s) of soil rating(s): _________________________________________________________________________________
c. Does the project site contain all or part of, or is it substantially contiguous to, a registered National Yes No Natural Landmark?
If Yes:i. Nature of the natural landmark: Biological Community Geological Featureii. Provide brief description of landmark, including values behind designation and approximate size/extent: ___________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
d. Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? Yes No If Yes:
i. CEA name: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ii. Basis for designation: _____________________________________________________________________________________
iii. Designating agency and date: ______________________________________________________________________________
white tailed deer various bird species raccoon
gray squirrel eastern cottontail various insects
woodchuck various rodents
✔
✔
The USFWS IPaC review indicated that the northern long- eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) may occur within the boundary of the proposed projectand/or may be affected by the proposed project. No species were identified by NYS.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
EEAF Mapper Summary Report Monday, February 13, 2017 12:49 PM
Disclaimer: The EAF Mapper is a screening tool intended to assist project sponsors and reviewing agencies in preparing an environmental assessment form (EAF). Not all questions asked in the EAF are answered by the EAF Mapper. Additional information on any EAF question can be obtained by consulting the EAF Workbooks. Although the EAF Mapper provides the most up-to-date digital data available to DEC, you may also need to contact local or other data sources in order to obtain data not provided by the Mapper. Digital data is not a substitute for agency determinations.
B.i.i [Coastal or Waterfront Area] Yes
B.i.ii [Local Waterfront Revitalization Area] No
C.2.b. [Special Planning District] Yes - Digital mapping data are not available for all Special Planning Districts. Refer to EAF Workbook.
C.2.b. [Special Planning District - Name] NYS Heritage Areas:Concord Grape Belt Region
E.1.h [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Potential Contamination History]
Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Listed]
Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
E.1.h.i [DEC Spills or Remediation Site - Environmental Site Remediation Database]
Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
E.1.h.iii [Within 2,000' of DEC Remediation Site]
No
E.2.g [Unique Geologic Features] No
E.2.h.i [Surface Water Features] No
E.2.h.ii [Surface Water Features] Yes
E.2.h.iii [Surface Water Features] Yes - Digital mapping information on local and federal wetlands and waterbodies is known to be incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
E.2.h.v [Impaired Water Bodies] No
E.2.i. [Floodway] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
E.2.j. [100 Year Floodplain] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
E.2.k. [500 Year Floodplain] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
E.2.l. [Aquifers] No
E.2.n. [Natural Communities] No
1Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report
E.2.o. [Endangered or Threatened Species] No
E.2.p. [Rare Plants or Animals] No
E.3.a. [Agricultural District] No
E.3.c. [National Natural Landmark] No
E.3.d [Critical Environmental Area] No
E.3.e. [National Register of Historic Places] Digital mapping data are not available or are incomplete. Refer to EAF Workbook.
E.3.f. [Archeological Sites] Yes
E.3.i. [Designated River Corridor] No
2Full Environmental Assessment Form - EAF Mapper Summary Report
Page 1 of 10
Full Environmental Assessment FormPart 2 - Identification of Potential Project Impacts
Part 2 is to be completed by the lead agency. Part 2 is designed to help the lead agency inventory all potential resources that could be affected by a proposed project or action. We recognize that the lead agency=s reviewer(s) will not necessarily be environmental professionals. So, the questions are designed to walk a reviewer through the assessment process by providing a series of questions that can be answered using the information found in Part 1. To further assist the lead agency in completing Part 2, the form identifies the most relevant questions in Part 1 that will provide the information needed to answer the Part 2 question. When Part 2 is completed, the lead agency will have identified the relevant environmental areas that may be impacted by the proposed activity.
If the lead agency is a state agency and the action is in any Coastal Area, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment.
Tips for completing Part 2: Review all of the information provided in Part 1.Review any application, maps, supporting materials and the Full EAF Workbook.Answer each of the 18 questions in Part 2.If you answer “Yes” to a numbered question, please complete all the questions that follow in that section.If you answer “No” to a numbered question, move on to the next numbered question.Check appropriate column to indicate the anticipated size of the impact.Proposed projects that would exceed a numeric threshold contained in a question should result in the reviewing agencychecking the box “Moderate to large impact may occur.”The reviewer is not expected to be an expert in environmental analysis.If you are not sure or undecided about the size of an impact, it may help to review the sub-questions for the general
question and consult the workbook.When answering a question consider all components of the proposed activity, that is, the Awhole [email protected] the possibility for long-term and cumulative impacts as well as direct impacts.Answer the question in a reasonable manner considering the scale and context of the project.
1. Impact on LandProposed action may involve construction on, or physical alteration of, NO YES the land surface of the proposed site. (See Part 1. D.1)If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 2.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action may involve construction on land where depth to water table isless than 3 feet.
E2d
b. The proposed action may involve construction on slopes of 15% or greater. E2f
c. The proposed action may involve construction on land where bedrock is exposed, orgenerally within 5 feet of existing ground surface.
E2a
d. The proposed action may involve the excavation and removal of more than 1,000 tonsof natural material.
D2a
e. The proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one yearor in multiple phases.
D1e
f. The proposed action may result in increased erosion, whether from physicaldisturbance or vegetation removal (including from treatment by herbicides).
D2e, D2q
g. The proposed action is, or may be, located within a Coastal Erosion hazard area. B1i
h. Other impacts: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Athenex Manufacturing Facility
April 10, 2017
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Page 2 of 10
2. Impact on Geological FeaturesThe proposed action may result in the modification or destruction of, or inhibit access to, any unique or unusual land forms on the site (e.g., cliffs, dunes, NO YES minerals, fossils, caves). (See Part 1. E.2.g) If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, move on to Section 3.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. Identify the specific land form(s) attached: ________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
E2g
b. The proposed action may affect or is adjacent to a geological feature listed as a registered National Natural Landmark. Specific feature: _____________________________________________________
E3c
c. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________
3. Impacts on Surface WaterThe proposed action may affect one or more wetlands or other surface water NO YES bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, ponds or lakes). (See Part 1. D.2, E.2.h) If “Yes”, answer questions a - l. If “No”, move on to Section 4.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action may create a new water body. D2b, D1h
b. The proposed action may result in an increase or decrease of over 10% or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water.
D2b
c. The proposed action may involve dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from a wetland or water body.
D2a
d. The proposed action may involve construction within or adjoining a freshwater or tidal wetland, or in the bed or banks of any other water body.
E2h
e. The proposed action may create turbidity in a waterbody, either from upland erosion, runoff or by disturbing bottom sediments.
D2a, D2h
f. The proposed action may include construction of one or more intake(s) for withdrawal of water from surface water.
D2c
g. The proposed action may include construction of one or more outfall(s) for discharge of wastewater to surface water(s).
D2d
h. The proposed action may cause soil erosion, or otherwise create a source of stormwater discharge that may lead to siltation or other degradation of receiving water bodies.
D2e
i. The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed action.
E2h
j. The proposed action may involve the application of pesticides or herbicides in or around any water body.
D2q, E2h
k. The proposed action may require the construction of new, or expansion of existing, wastewater treatment facilities.
D1a, D2d
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Page 3 of 10
l. Other impacts: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Impact on groundwaterThe proposed action may result in new or additional use of ground water, or NO YES may have the potential to introduce contaminants to ground water or an aquifer. (See Part 1. D.2.a, D.2.c, D.2.d, D.2.p, D.2.q, D.2.t) If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 5.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action may require new water supply wells, or create additional demandon supplies from existing water supply wells.
D2c
b. Water supply demand from the proposed action may exceed safe and sustainablewithdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer.Cite Source: ________________________________________________________
D2c
c. The proposed action may allow or result in residential uses in areas without water andsewer services.
D1a, D2c
d. The proposed action may include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater. D2d, E2l
e. The proposed action may result in the construction of water supply wells in locationswhere groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated.
D2c, E1f, E1g, E1h
f. The proposed action may require the bulk storage of petroleum or chemical productsover ground water or an aquifer.
D2p, E2l
g. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources.
E2h, D2q, E2l, D2c
h. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Impact on FloodingThe proposed action may result in development on lands subject to flooding. NO YES (See Part 1. E.2)If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, move on to Section 6.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action may result in development in a designated floodway. E2i
b. The proposed action may result in development within a 100 year floodplain. E2j
c. The proposed action may result in development within a 500 year floodplain. E2k
d. The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainagepatterns.
D2b, D2e
e. The proposed action may change flood water flows that contribute to flooding. D2b, E2i, E2j, E2k
f. If there is a dam located on the site of the proposed action, dam E1e
✔Impacts limited to moderate (<one acre) effect to federal jurisdictional wetlands.Would be addressed in Nationwide Wetland Permit and SPDES permit.
✔
✔
Page 4 of 10
g. Other impacts: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Impacts on AirThe proposed action may include a state regulated air emission source. NO YES (See Part 1. D.2.f., D,2,h, D.2.g) If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, move on to Section 7.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. If the proposed action requires federal or state air emission permits, the action mayalso emit one or more greenhouse gases at or above the following levels:
i. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide (CO2)ii. More than 3.5 tons/year of nitrous oxide (N2 )iii. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon equivalent of perfluorocarbons (PFCs)iv. More than .045 tons/year of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)v. More than 1000 tons/year of carbon dioxide equivalent of
hydrochlorofl urocarbons (HFCs) emissionsvi. 43 tons/year or more of methane
D2g D2g D2gD2g D2g
D2h
b. The proposed action may generate 10 tons/year or more of any one designatedhazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons/year or more of any combination of such hazardousair pollutants.
D2g
c. The proposed action may require a state air registration, or may produce an emissionsrate of total contaminants that may exceed 5 lbs. per hour, or may include a heatsource capable of producing more than 10 million BTU=s per hour.
D2f, D2g
d. The proposed action may reach 50% of any of the thresholds in “a” through “c”, above.
D
e. The proposed action may result in the combustion or thermal treatment of more than 1ton of refuse per hour.
D2s
f. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. Impact on Plants and AnimalsThe proposed action may result in a loss of flora or fauna. (See Part 1. E.2. m.-q.) NO YES If “Yes”, answer questions a - j. If “No”, move on to Section 8.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action may cause reduction in population or loss of individuals of anythreatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the Federalgovernment, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site.
E2o
b. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used byany rare, threatened or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federalgovernment.
E2o
c. The proposed action may cause reduction in population, or loss of individuals, of anyspecies of special concern or conservation need, as listed by New York State or theFederal government, that use the site, or are found on, over, or near the site.
E2p
d. The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used byany species of special concern and conservation need, as listed by New York State orthe Federal government.
E2p
✔
✔✔✔✔✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔Project would be classified as "minor source" and would be subject to permitconditions from NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Page 5 of 10
e. The proposed action may diminish the capacity of a registered National Natural Landmark to support the biological community it was established to protect.
E3c
f. The proposed action may result in the removal of, or ground disturbance in, any portion of a designated significant natural community.
Source: ____________________________________________________________
E2n
g. The proposed action may substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or over-wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site.
E2m
h. The proposed action requires the conversion of more than 10 acres of forest, grassland or any other regionally or locally important habitat.
Habitat type & information source: ______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
E1b
i. Proposed action (commercial, industrial or recreational projects, only) involves use of herbicides or pesticides.
D2q
j. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
8. Impact on Agricultural Resources The proposed action may impact agricultural resources. (See Part 1. E.3.a. and b.) NO YES If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, move on to Section 9.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action may impact soil classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System.
E2c, E3b
b. The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc).
E1a, Elb
c. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil profile of active agricultural land.
E3b
d. The proposed action may irreversibly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, either more than 2.5 acres if located in an Agricultural District, or more than 10 acres if not within an Agricultural District.
E1b, E3a
e. The proposed action may disrupt or prevent installation of an agricultural land management system.
El a, E1b
f. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly, in increased development potential or pressure on farmland.
C2c, C3, D2c, D2d
g. The proposed project is not consistent with the adopted municipal Farmland Protection Plan.
C2c
h. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔Potential effects to habitat of northern long eared bat, a federal threatenedspecies, which would be limited through timing of tree clearing.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Page 6 of 10
9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources The land use of the proposed action are obviously different from, or are in NO YES sharp contrast to, current land use patterns between the proposed project and a scenic or aesthetic resource. (Part 1. E.1.a, E.1.b, E.3.h.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, go to Section 10.Relevant
Part I Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. Proposed action may be visible from any officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resource.
E3h
b. The proposed action may result in the obstruction, elimination or significant screening of one or more officially designated scenic views.
E3h, C2b
c. The proposed action may be visible from publicly accessible vantage points: i. Seasonally (e.g., screened by summer foliage, but visible during other seasons) ii. Year round
E3h
d. The situation or activity in which viewers are engaged while viewing the proposed action is: i. Routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work ii. Recreational or tourism based activities
E3h
E2q,
E1c
e. The proposed action may cause a diminishment of the public enjoyment and appreciation of the designated aesthetic resource.
E3h
f. There are similar projects visible within the following distance of the proposed project:
0-1/2 mile ½ -3 mile 3-5 mile 5+ mile
D1a, E1a, D1f, D1g
g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources The proposed action may occur in or adjacent to a historic or archaeological NO YES resource. (Part 1. E.3.e, f. and g.)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 11.Relevant
Part I Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any buildings, archaeological site or district which is listed on or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on the State or National Register of Historic Places.
E3e
b. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) archaeological site inventory.
E3f
c. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an archaeological site not included on the NY SHPO inventory. Source: ____________________________________________________________
E3g
✔
✔
✔
✔✔
✔✔
✔
✔
✔Project site is located on a National Scenic Byway (Great Lakes Seaway Trail),but would not aversely affect its views, use and/or enjoyment.
✔
✔
✔
✔
Page 7 of 10
d. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
e. If any of the above (a-d) are answered “Yes”, continue with the following questionsto help support conclusions in Part 3:
i. The proposed action may result in the destruction or alteration of all or partof the site or property.
ii. The proposed action may result in the alteration of the property’s setting orintegrity.
iii. The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements whichare out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting.
E3e, E3g, E3f
E3e, E3f, E3g, E1a, E1bE3e, E3f, E3g, E3h, C2, C3
11. Impact on Open Space and RecreationThe proposed action may result in a loss of recreational opportunities or a NO YES reduction of an open space resource as designated in any adoptedmunicipal open space plan.(See Part 1. C.2.c, E.1.c., E.2.q.)If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 12.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action may result in an impairment of natural functions, or “ecosystemservices”, provided by an undeveloped area, including but not limited to stormwaterstorage, nutrient cycling, wildlife habitat.
D2e, E1b E2h,E2m, E2o, E2n, E2p
b. The proposed action may result in the loss of a current or future recreational resource. C2a, E1c, C2c, E2q
c. The proposed action may eliminate open space or recreational resource in an areawith few such resources.
C2a, C2c E1c, E2q
d. The proposed action may result in loss of an area now used informally by thecommunity as an open space resource.
C2c, E1c
e. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
12. Impact on Critical Environmental AreasThe proposed action may be located within or adjacent to a critical NO YES environmental area (CEA). (See Part 1. E.3.d)If “Yes”, answer questions a - c. If “No”, go to Section 13.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource orcharacteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA.
E3d
b. The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource orcharacteristic which was the basis for designation of the CEA.
E3d
c. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Page 8 of 10
13. Impact on TransportationThe proposed action may result in a change to existing transportation systems. NO YES (See Part 1. D.2.j)If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, go to Section 14.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. Projected traffic increase may exceed capacity of existing road network. D2j
b. The proposed action may result in the construction of paved parking area for 500 ormore vehicles.
D2j
c. The proposed action will degrade existing transit access. D2j
d. The proposed action will degrade existing pedestrian or bicycle accommodations. D2j
. The proposed action may alter the present pattern of movement of people or goods. D2j
. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
14. Impact on EnergyThe proposed action may cause an increase in the use of any form of energy. NO YES (See Part 1. D.2.k)If “Yes”, answer questions a - e. If “No”, go to Section 15.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action will require a new, or an upgrade to an existing, substation. D2k
b. The proposed action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmissionor supply system to serve more than 50 single or two-family residences or to serve acommercial or industrial use.
D1f, D1q, D2k
c. The proposed action may utilize more than 2,500 MWhrs per year of electricity. D2k
d. The proposed action may involve heating and/or cooling of more than 100,000 squarefeet of building area when completed.
D1g
e. Other Impacts: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and LightThe proposed action may result in an increase in noise, odors, or outdoor lighting. NO YES (See Part 1. D.2.m., n., and o.)If “Yes”, answer questions a - f. If “No”, go to Section 16.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action may produce sound above noise levels established by localregulation.
D2m
b. The proposed action may result in blasting within 1,500 feet of any residence,hospital, school, licensed day care center, or nursing home.
D2m, E1d
c. The proposed action may result in routine odors for more than one hour per day. D2o
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔) Projected Level of Service "F" for NB movements at unsignalized Roberts Rd/Lake Shore Blvd intersection. Could be reasonably addressed in future.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Project would two new 25 MWh feeds from an existing National Grid substation.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Page 9 of 10
d. The proposed action may result in light shining onto adjoining properties. D2n
e. The proposed action may result in lighting creating sky-glow brighter than existingarea conditions.
D2n, E1a
f. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
16. Impact on Human HealthThe proposed action may have an impact on human health from exposure NO YES to new or existing sources of contaminants. (See Part 1.D.2.q., E.1. d. f. g. and h.)If “Yes”, answer questions a - m. If “No”, go to Section 17.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No,or small
impact may cccur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action is located within 1500 feet of a school, hospital, licensed daycare center, group home, nursing home or retirement community.
E1d
b. The site of the proposed action is currently undergoing remediation. E1g, E1h
c. There is a completed emergency spill remediation, or a completed environmental siteremediation on, or adjacent to, the site of the proposed action.
E1g, E1h
d. The site of the action is subject to an institutional control limiting the use of theproperty (e.g. easement deed restriction)
E1g, E1h
e. The proposed action may affect institutional control measures that were put in placeto ensure that the site remains protective of the environment and human health.
E1g, E1h
f. The proposed action has adequate control measures in place to ensure that futuregeneration, treatment and/or disposal of hazardous wastes will be protective of theenvironment and human health.
D2t
g. The proposed action involves construction or modification of a solid wastemanagement facility.
D2q, E1f
h. The proposed action may result in the unearthing of solid or hazardous waste. D2q, E1f
i. The proposed action may result in an increase in the rate of disposal, or processing, ofsolid waste.
D2r, D2s
j. The proposed action may result in excavation or other disturbance within 2000 feet ofa site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.
E1f, E1g E1h
k. The proposed action may result in the migration of explosive gases from a landfillsite to adjacent off site structures.
E1f, E1g
l. The proposed action may result in the release of contaminated leachate from theproject site.
D2s, E1f, D2r
m. Other impacts: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
✔
✔
✔Impacts limited to increase in site light levels from parking/security lighting. Thiswould be shielded from trespass onto adjoining properties.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
Limited to handling of minor amounts of hazardous materials as part of themanufacturing process and short/long-term solid waste generated.
✔
Page 10 of 10
17. Consistency with Community Plans The proposed action is not consistent with adopted land use plans. NO YES (See Part 1. C.1, C.2. and C.3.) If “Yes”, answer questions a - h. If “No”, go to Section 18.
Relevant Part I
Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action’s land use components may be different from, or in sharp contrast to, current surrounding land use pattern(s).
C2, C3, D1a E1a, E1b
b. The proposed action will cause the permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located to grow by more than 5%.
C2
c. The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans or zoning regulations. C2, C2, C3
d. The proposed action is inconsistent with any County plans, or other regional land use plans.
C2, C2
e. The proposed action may cause a change in the density of development that is not supported by existing infrastructure or is distant from existing infrastructure.
C3, D1c, D1d, D1f, D1d, Elb
f. The proposed action is located in an area characterized by low density development that will require new or expanded public infrastructure.
C4, D2c, D2d D2j
g. The proposed action may induce secondary development impacts (e.g., residential or commercial development not included in the proposed action)
C2a
h. Other: _____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
18. Consistency with Community Character The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing community character. NO YES (See Part 1. C.2, C.3, D.2, E.3)
If “Yes”, answer questions a - g. If “No”, proceed to Part 3.Relevant
Part I Question(s)
No, or small
impact may occur
Moderate to large
impact may occur
a. The proposed action may replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures, or areas of historic importance to the community.
E3e, E3f, E3g
b. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire)
C4
c. The proposed action may displace affordable or low-income housing in an area where there is a shortage of such housing.
C2, C3, D1f D1g, E1a
d. The proposed action may interfere with the use or enjoyment of officially recognized or designated public resources.
C2, E3
e. The proposed action is inconsistent with the predominant architectural scale and character.
C2, C3
f. Proposed action is inconsistent with the character of the existing natural landscape. C2, C3 E1a, E1b E2g, E2h
g. Other impacts: ______________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________
✔
✔
PRINT FULL FORM
Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 3 - Evaluation of the Magnitude and Importance of Project Impacts
andDetermination of Significance
Part 3 provides the reasons in support of the determination of significance. The lead agency must complete Part 3 for every question in Part 2 where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or where there is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverse environmental impact.
Based on the analysis in Part 3, the lead agency must decide whether to require an environmental impact statement to further assessthe proposed action or whether available information is sufficient for the lead agency to conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. By completing the certification on the next page, the lead agency can complete its determination of significance.
Reasons Supporting This Determination: To complete this section:
Identify the impact based on the Part 2 responses and describe its magnitude. Magnitude considers factors such as severity,size or extent of an impact. Assess the importance of the impact. Importance relates to the geographic scope, duration, probability of the impactoccurring, number of people affected by the impact and any additional environmental consequences if the impact were to occur.The assessment should take into consideration any design element or project changes.Repeat this process for each Part 2 question where the impact has been identified as potentially moderate to large or wherethere is a need to explain why a particular element of the proposed action will not, or may, result in a significant adverseenvironmental impact.Provide the reason(s) why the impact may, or will not, result in a significant adverse environmental impactFor Conditional Negative Declarations identify the specific condition(s) imposed that will modify the proposed action so thatno significant adverse environmental impacts will result.Attach additional sheets, as needed.
Determination of Significance - Type 1 and Unlisted Actions
SEQR Status: Type 1 Unlisted
Identify portions of EAF completed for this Project: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
✔
✔✔ ✔
See attached sheets.
Athenex Manufacturing Facility
April 10, 2017
Project: Athenex Manufacturing Facility Date: Apri l 10, 2017
FEAF Part 3 Page 1a of 2
Attachment to Part 3 of the FEAF (Page 1 of 2): Reasons Support this Determination
(Note: Discussions Below Provided for Every Impact Item in the FEAF Part 2 that was Checked Off as “Yes”)
Item 1: Impact on Land
While the Project would involve construction and physical alternation of a 33.5-acre site, it would not result in significant adverse impacts on land resources. A preliminary Geotechnical Engineering evaluation completed for the Project did not encounter any soil or subsurface conditions that would significantly impact construction of the facility or site improvements.
To limit any potential effects to land or soil erosion during construction, Athenex would employ best practices associated with the Project’s required State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“SPDES”) General Construction Permit, which would include implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) involving measures such as temporary silt fences, check dams and geotextile fabric on steeper slopes to prevent erosion and siltation.
Item 3: Impact on Surface Water
Overall, the Project would not result in any significant impacts to surface water resources or water quality and would only have minor to moderate effects to federal wetlands. There are no streams or other surface waters located on the Project site. A site wetland study identified nine wetlands totaling 3.64 acres on the Project site, consisting of scrub shrub, emergent marsh/scrub shrub, hardwood swamp, and emergent marsh. Additionally, a ditch was identified on the site. Review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) led to issuance of a November 12, 2015 jurisdictional determination. Review of this determination led to a projection that the Project would result in less than 0.1 acre of impact to federally jurisdictional wetlands, while some additional impacts would result to isolated wetlands that are not federally jurisdictional. Given these anticipated effects, the Project would likely be permitted under a Nationwide Permit (“NWP”) in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (which would not require mitigation), as well as comply with a blanket Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”).
During operation of the facility, while details would finalized as part of site plan review process by the Town of Dunkirk, it is anticipated that all stormwater would be directed into a stormwater retention area located on the west side of the property, prior to being discharged into the existing drainage ditch on the Project site. No stormwater would be directed to federally jurisdictional wetlands.
Negative effects during the construction period would be regulated through a required SPDES General Construction Permit and would involve implementation of measures such as the use of
Project: Athenex Manufacturing Facility Date: Apri l 10, 2017
FEAF Part 3 Page 1b of 2
silt fences, staked straw bales, silt dikes and stone check dams, drainage swales, and temporary settling basins, and other measures to prevent water quality impacts.
Item 6: Impact on Air
The Project would not have significant impacts on air quality. New air emission sources would be primarily be from natural-gas-fired boilers and diesel-powered emergency generators, while production equipment and processes involve the use of solvents (volatile organic compounds) and could also generate particulate matter that can escape during production, but both would be minimized by capture and reuse systems. While the facility is anticipated to emit carbon dioxide at a level higher than a threshold in the SEQRA FEAF (1,000 tons/year), more detailed emissions projections indicate that the Project would not be classified as a “major source” of air pollution and would not emit air pollutants above any State or Federal regulatory standard. The facility would obtain a NYSDEC permit containing compliance methods to be followed to ensure all applicable Federal and State Air requirements are met.
During the construction phase, minor air quality impacts are anticipated, but these would be limited to short-term increases in fugitive dust, particulates, and localized pollutant emissions from construction vehicles and equipment. These impacts are not considered significant and would be limited through the implementation of best practices as part of the construction process, which would include taking measures such as ensuring that all construction equipment is properly maintained and outfitted with emission reducing exhaust equipment, as well as periodic wetting of disturbed surfaces to control dust emissions.
Item 8: Impact on Agricultural Resources
The Project would not have any significant impacts on agricultural resources. While secondary sources indicate that the Project site contains some prime agricultural soils, it is not located within a New York State agricultural district, is within an area planned for further industrial development, is not currently used for agricultural purposes, and is not surrounded or abutted by any agricultural uses that could be affected by the proposed facility.
Item 9: Impact on Aesthetic Resources
The proposed Athenex facility would not significantly impair the aesthetic character of the Project site or its surroundings. The building and the majority of site improvements would be situated on the southern portion of the site, adjoining other industrial uses. The building and site design (while likely utilitarian) would employ modern design principles that would portray an orderly, attractive facility. Site improvements, such as lighting and landscaping would be installed to support this image and would also visually transition (and where necessary, buffer) the proposed use from adjoining properties. Finally, while the Project would be located along the Great Lakes Seaway Trail (a National Scenic Byway), it would not adversely affect views or enjoyment of trail, given its anticipated building location/orientation, setback from the
Project: Athenex Manufacturing Facility Date: Apri l 10, 2017
FEAF Part 3 Page 1c of 2
highway, site design, and landscape treatments.
Item 10: Impact on Historic and Archaeological Resources
Based upon investigations conducted on the property, the Project would not have any significant impacts on historic and archeological resources eligible for inclusion on the State or National Registers of Historic Places. This finding was made in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) of the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, in accordance with Section 14.09 of the NYS Historic Preservation Act, and documented in a SHPO letter dated April 3, 2017.
Item 13: Impact on Transportation
A full Traffic Impact Study was conducted to evaluate the potential impacts associated with the proposed Project on the adjacent roadway network. The study included turning movement counts, a sight distance analysis, and accident analysis evaluated for the 2019 estimated time of completion (“ETC”) and full buildout/fit-out in 2020. This analysis shows that all movements and nearby intersections (including at the proposed Site Access Road) would operate at an acceptable Level of Service (“LOS”) for all conditions, with the exception of the northbound approaches to an unsignalized intersection at Roberts Road and Lake Shore Drive (i.e., stop-sign-controlled only on northbound/southbound approaches to Lake Shore Drive). The northbound approaches to this intersection are projected to operate at LOS “E” or “F” in the morning/evening peak hours during the 2020 No-Build scenario (i.e., the future conditions if the Project is not built), and in 2019 and 2020 “Build” scenarios (i.e., if the Project is built). Based on preliminary assessments, it is considered reasonable that certain operational improvements at this intersection could improve the LOS for the northbound approach to acceptable levels, such as providing all-way stop sign controls or to install full signalization. Similarly, demand-based changes such as slightly adjusting shift change times at the proposed Athenex facility could potentially address these projected traffic issues. However, it is considered premature to make such changes now until the Athenex facility is fully operational to verify whether these traffic conditions—in some cases based on more conservative estimates—actually come to represent actual conditions. Therefore, it is recommended that the Lake Shore Drive/Roberts Road intersection continue to be monitored to determine if future conditions necessitate operational improvements or possibly other types of demand-based measures.
Regarding anticipated sight distance at the proposed Site Access Road, an analysis was performed using the guidelines in the Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”), A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2011. The available sight distances for the proposed Site Access Road would exceed the recommended minimum distances for a vehicle exiting the site making a right turn; making a left turn when looking to the right; and for a vehicle entering the site via a left turn movement. Additionally, the stopping sight distance is exceeded for both directions of travel. For a vehicle exiting the site and making a left turn, the sight distance looking to the left (to the west) on Lake Shore
Project: Athenex Manufacturing Facility Date: Apri l 10, 2017
FEAF Part 3 Page 1d of 2
Drive is slightly less is less than the recommended value for the 40 mph posted speed limit. Using NYS Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”) standards to determine the need for a warning sign, the projected condition would fall within the “yellow” area, indicating that while the sight distance would be less than desirable, it is not critically limited, and an intersection warning sign may be used but it not required. As such, no measures or improvements are necessary to accommodate sight distance. It is anticipated that this issue would continue to be evaluated during the Town of Dunkirk site plan review process and the NYSDOT access permit process.
Finally, the accident analyses did not reveal any pattern of accidents around the Project site that would necessitate any safety-related improvements to be made to accommodate anticipated traffic from this Project.
Item 13: Impact on Energy & Infrastructure
While the Project would require new improvements and extensions of service, it would not result in any significant adverse impacts to overall energy use and utilities. To support electrical needs of the Project, National Grid would provide two new 115kV overhead pole-mounted feeds from an existing National Grid substation with sufficient capacity located south of the Project site. In addition, an emergency standby electrical system would be installed, consisting of two outdoor diesel generators with paralleling capabilities and an uninterrupted power supply (“UPS”) system to power critical operations during outages. Gas service would be provided by National Fuel from an existing line on Route 5 with sufficient capacity. Water would be provided by the City of Dunkirk, via an extension of a 12-inch-diameter water main with sufficient capacity, located approximately 1,000 feet west of the Project site at Stegelske Street; a new underground main that would be extended from this line along the north side of Lake Shore Drive to the Project site. Sewage treatment would also be provided by the City of Dunkirk, via the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant, which has sufficient capacity. A new sewer line would be extended from an existing 8-inch-diameter sewer line along Stegelske Street. Conventional sanitary wastewater from the facility (e.g., restrooms) would be discharged directly into the City’s sanitary sewer system, while manufacturing process-related wastewater (i.e., “grey water”) would be collected and pre-treated in an on-site facility to stabilize the temperature and pH prior to discharging to the system.
Item 15: Impact of Noise, Odor, and Light
While some changes would occur on site, the Project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to noise, odor, or light emissions. New sources of sound would be limited to the facility’s air handling equipment on the roof and periodic entering/exiting worker vehicle and delivery truck movements, which would not be out of character with manufacturing uses surrounding the Project site. While the Project would produce no new sources of odor, as part of the site improvements, new light fixtures would be positioned throughout the facility’s planned parking lot, but would be designed in such a manner to minimize light trespass and
Project: Athenex Manufacturing Facility Date: Apri l 10, 2017
FEAF Part 3 Page 1e of 2
glare onto adjoin properties.
During the construction phase, short-term/temporary noise effects are anticipated and would be limited through the implementation of best management practices as part of the construction process, such as limiting construction to normal working hours (7 AM to 6 PM) and properly maintaining construction equipment to minimize the potential for noise.
Item 16: Impact on Human Health
The Project is not anticipated to have any significant human health effects, either related to past uses and potential past releases on the Project site or through waste streams anticipated to be generated by the facility. A Phase I ESA and a limited Phase II ESA indicated records of a hand shovel manufacturing facility, Skelton Shovel Co. Inc., which was adjacent to the western side of the Project site. Soil borings and groundwater sampling to assess potential on-site contamination from this past use did not yield any contamination beyond de minimis conditions and no further action was recommended. In addition, the Project site contains two residential structures that may be razed; surveys to identify asbestos-containing materials and/or other hazardous materials will be required to be conducted. If they yield the presence of contamination, these substances would be handled, managed, and disposed of in compliance with applicable State and Federal regulations.
With regard to operations of the facility, the manufacturing processes at Athenex would involve the use/storage of some hazardous substances, including ethanol, hydrochloric acid, and sodium hydroxide. A regenerative thermal oxidizer would be used for process fume destruction of ethanol and the facility’s wastewater (grey water) treatment capabilities would utilize hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide to balance pH process wastewater before it is discharged to the public sewer system. No wastes from the use of these materials are anticipated.
In addition, the proposed Project would generate solid waste during construction and operation, but given the nature of the Project, it is not anticipated to generate any extraordinary amounts that couldn’t be handled through existing permitted landfill facilities in the region.
SEQR Evaluation of Impacts
Athenex Manufacturing Facility Dunkirk, New York
CHA Project Number: 32615.3000.31000
Prepared for: Athenex
1001 Main Street, Suite 600 Buffalo, NY, 14203
Prepared by:
III Winners Circle Albany, NY, 12205
Phone: (518) 453-4500 Fax: (518) 453-4522
April 18, 2017
\\cha-llp.com\proj\Projects\ANY\K4\32615\Permitting\SEQR\Part 2\Evaluation of Impacts Cover and TOC.doc
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................................1
2.0 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ..............................................................................................2
2.1 Impact on Land ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Impact on Geological Features ........................................................................................................ 3
2.3 Impact on Surface Water ................................................................................................................. 3
2.4 Impact on Groundwater ................................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Impact on Flooding ........................................................................................................................... 6
2.6 Impact on Air .................................................................................................................................... 7
2.7 Impact on Plants and Animals ....................................................................................................... 10
2.8 Impact on Agricultural Resources ................................................................................................. 12
2.9 Impact on Aesthetic Resources ...................................................................................................... 12
2.10 Impact on Historical and Archeological Resources ................................................................... 13
2.11 Impact on Open Space and Recreation ....................................................................................... 14
2.12 Impact on Critical Environmental Areas ................................................................................... 14
2.13 Impact on Transportation ............................................................................................................ 14
2.14 Impact on Energy Use & Utility Infrastructure ......................................................................... 16
2.15 Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light ............................................................................................... 18
2.16 Impact on Human Health ............................................................................................................. 19
2.17 Consistency with Community Plans ............................................................................................ 22
2.18 Consistency with Community Character .................................................................................... 24
3.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................26
iii
LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Site Location Map Appendix B Concept Plan Appendix C Site Due Diligence Report Book
1. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 2. Phase II Limited Environmental Site Assessment 3. Phase 1A Cultural Resource Screening 4. Phase 1B Cultural Resource Investigation 5. Geotechnical Report 6. Boundary Mapping Survey 7. Wetland Delineation Report and Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix D NRCS Soil Survey Appendix E NYS Coastal Assessment Form Appendix F FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map Appendix G NYSDEC and IPaC Results Appendix H Traffic Impact Study Appendix I Town of Dunkirk Zoning Letter Appendix J Community Service Correspondence
iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials CO Carbon Monoxide CUB Central Utilities Building DBH Diameter at Breast Height DOS Department of State EDI Earth Dimensions, Inc. EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment ETC Estimated Time of Completion GHG Greenhouse Gases GPM Gallons Per Minute HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants HCM Highway Capacity Manual IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers LOS Level of Service LWRP Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NNL National Natural Landmark NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOx Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWP Nationwide Permit NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation NYS TOGS New York State Technical and Operational Guidance Series O3 Ground Level Ozone Pb Lead PID Photoionization Detector psi Pounds Per Square Inch PTE Potential to Emit REC Recognized Environmental Condition SEQR State Environmental Quality Review SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SVOC Semi- Volatile Organic Carbons USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish & Wildlife Service VOC Volatile Organic Carbons
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Athenex is an innovative global pharmaceutical company focused on the development of next
generation therapies for cancer diseases and other supportive therapies. The proposed project
involves a new pharmaceutical manufacturing facility to be built on a 33.5 acre site at 3799 Lake
Shore Drive E (NYS Route 5) in the Town of Dunkirk. The project site is bounded by Lake
Shore Drive E to the north, vacant land to the east, railroad to the south, and industrial buildings
to the west. Refer to Appendix A for further details. The project site is primarily undeveloped
brush, scrub, and wooded lands, but the northernmost portions of the site contains three existing
residential structures that front along Lake Shore Drive E.
The project includes clearing and grading of land in preparation for the construction of a two
story, 40 foot high structure with approximately 320,000 square foot of useable space that would
include central utilities, manufacturing, warehouse, laboratories and office spaces (Appendix B).
Several parking areas on the property would be provided for employee parking. The project
would be developed in two phases beginning in 2017 and the proposed facility would ultimately
employ approximately 400 persons operating three shifts on a 7 day 24-hour basis. Phase 1 is
anticipated to commence in October 2017 and would include construction. Phase 2 is anticipated
to be completed by December 2020 and includes internal fit out only (making the interior spaces
suitable for occupation).
When fully operational, the facility would allow Athenex to deliver innovative drugs that can
have a life-changing impact on cancer patients. Its business includes medical technology
innovation centers and a unique manufacturing supply chain across both China and North
America. Through this connected innovation and manufacturing supply chain presence, Athenex
can identity, develop and deliver proprietary medical technology across continents and multiple
regulatory environments.
2
2.0 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS
To supplement Part 1 of the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) Full Environmental
Assessment Form, below is an evaluation of impacts of the proposed pharmaceutical
manufacturing facility. Technical studies and correspondence that support conclusions have been
provided in the appendices.
2.1 Impact on Land
Overall, the project would not have significant impacts on land resources. A Preliminary
Geotechnical Engineering Report was completed by CHA in September 2015 (Appendix C),
to explore the subsurface conditions of the project site and provide preliminary geotechnical
recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed foundations. The
investigation did not encounter any conditions that would significantly impact construction.
Additional borings/subsurface investigations are recommended to provide final engineering
design for the building and site features.
Weathered bedrock was encountered at the ground surface in borings B-2 and B-3 and below
the silt in B-1. Shale bedrock was encountered in all of the borings at depths ranging from
6.1 to 8.7 feet below the ground surface.
Refer to the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report for recommendations pertaining
to:
Shallow Spread Footings
Slab on Grade Floors
Pavements
Groundwater and Control of Water
Permeability of Site Soils
Site and Subgrade Preparation
Engineered Fill
Seismic Site Classification and Design Parameters
Review of the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) Web Soil Survey for Chautauqua County (Appendix D), indicates that the depth to
3
water table ranges from 0.5 to 1.5 feet. However, the preliminary geotechnical investigation
only encountered groundwater in one of the borings and was at a depth of approximately 6
feet. The soils on-site have a high clay content and can result in perched water tables. The
project would employ good drainage techniques to ensure the building foundation, roads,
parking areas, and other site features are not impacted by perched groundwater.
While there would be potential for soil erosion during vegetation removal and construction,
erosion and sedimentation of all exposed soils during construction would be minimized by
compliance with the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General
Construction Permit that would be issued for the project, and through implementation of
standards and best practices associated the project’s Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). This would involve such measures as temporary silt fences, check dams and
geotextile fabric on steeper slopes. These measures are to be employed until the impacted
areas are stabilized and vegetative coverage is adequate to minimize erosion. Permanent
improvements such as closed drainage, swales, and basins may also be evaluated.
2.2 Impact on Geological Features
Overall, the project would not have significant impacts on geological features. The New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) EAF Mapper
Application indicates there are no unique geologic features on the project site. Additionally,
based on review of the National Park Service (NPS) list of National Natural Landmarks
(NNL’s), there are no NNL’s within Chautauqua County (NPS 2017). Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to geological features.
2.3 Impact on Surface Water
Overall, the project would not result in significant impacts to surface water resources or
water quality and would only have minor impacts to federal jurisdictional wetlands, as noted
in the following sections.
Surface Waters
The project would result in no direct impacts to surface waters. There are no streams or other
surface waters located on the project site.
4
Wetlands
Earth Dimensions, Inc. (EDI) completed a wetland delineation of the project site on August 5
and 6 2015 and completed a wetland delineation report dated August 18, 2015 (Appendix C).
EDI identified nine wetlands totaling 3.64 acres on the site. The wetland community types
were identified as scrub shrub, emergent marsh/scrub shrub, hardwood swamp, and emergent
marsh. Additionally, a ditch was identified on the site.
The wetland delineation report was submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) on August 25, 2015, to request wetland boundary confirmation and jurisdictional
determination. As a result of this request, a jurisdictional determination letter was received
from the USACE dated November 12, 2015 (Appendix C).
This letter indicates that Wetland 3 (emergent marsh/scrub shrub), Wetland 5 (hardwood
swamp) and Wetland 7 (scrub shrub) are federally jurisdictional. Impacts to these wetlands
would require a permit from the USACE. The letter also indicates that Wetland 1 (scrub
shrub), Wetland 2 (scrub shrub), Wetland 4 (scrub shrub), Wetland 6 (emergent marsh),
Wetland 8 (emergent marsh/scrub shrub) and Wetland 9 (emergent marsh) are considered
isolated and are not federally jurisdictional. Impacts to the isolated wetlands do not require a
permit from the USACE.
No significant impacts to wetlands are anticipated from the construction of the project. The
site development would result in less than 0.1 acre of impact to federally jurisdictional
wetlands, while some additional impacts would result to isolated wetlands that are not
federally jurisdictional. A Joint Application for Permit for Pre-Construction Notification
would be prepared for the impacts to the wetlands determined to be federally jurisdictional.
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and USACE regulations, when anticipated
impacts would be less than 0.5 acres, the project may be permitted under a Nationwide
Permit (NWP), in this case, NWP No. 39- Commercial and Institutional Developments. The
Joint Application would serve as Pre-Construction Notification as required for this NWP.
Impacts greater than 0.5 acres would require a Section 404 Individual Permit, but that is not
anticipated for this project. Since, the anticipated wetland impacts would be less than 0.1
acre, USACE typically does not require mitigation.
5
Water Quality
With regard to overall water quality, it is anticipated that the project would comply with the
blanket Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the NYSDEC.
In addition, no significant water quality effects are anticipated during construction, given that
appropriate measures would be implemented in accordance with permitting requirements.
Non-point sources of water pollution are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the NYSDEC. Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), projects involving one (1) acre or more of disturbance are required to
provide water quality treatment for construction related runoff in accordance with established
guidelines. States are offered the opportunity to administer this program, provided the
regulations they promulgate are the same as, or more stringent than the federal regulations.
New York has adopted this program and requires that all projects disturbing one (1) or more
acres of land comply with the SPDES General Construction Permit. Therefore, this project
would be required to comply with the SPDES General Construction Permit. This would
involve implementation of measures such as silt fence, staked straw bales, silt dikes and
stone check dams, drainage swales, and temporary settling basins, among other measures that
can be employed to address specific concerns.
Stormwater
No significant stormwater runoff or associated water quality impacts are anticipated from the
construction and operation of the project. Stormwater management would be designed in
accordance with State and Federal regulations. As previously noted, a SWPPP would be
prepared in preparation for site grading and construction as well as all other required reports
and notifications. These measures would be reviewed in conjunction with both the USACE
wetlands permitting, and further as part of the design/development of site drainage
improvements, the site-specific details of which would ultimately need to be approved by the
Town of Dunkirk Planning Board as part of the public site plan review process.
It is anticipated that approximately 31.5 acres of land would be disturbed, and once the
project is complete, approximately 13 out of 33.5 acres would be impervious surfaces such as
buildings, paved drives and parking areas. Approximately 2 acres of wetlands would remain
in an “as-is” condition. No stormwater discharge would be directed toward the identified
jurisdictional wetlands on the property. All stormwater would be directed into a stormwater
retention area located on the west side of the property prior to being discharged into an
existing drainage ditch located on the same side near the retention area.
6
2.4 Impact on Groundwater
Overall, there would be no significant impacts upon groundwater resources as a result of
implementation of the project. According to the Phase II Limited Subsurface Investigation,
(Appendix C) there are no drinking water wells within a mile radius of the project site.
Additionally, no wells are proposed. Further, the EAF Mapper Application indicated that the
project site is not located over a primary, principal or sole source aquifer.
The Town of Dunkirk sources its potable water supply from City of Dunkirk-owned public
water facilities. The supply source is Lake Erie. Flow tests were conducted in October of
2015 by the City of Dunkirk Water Authority, the existing supply has the capacity to serve
the proposed project, however the residual pressure of 13 pounds per second (psi) when
flowing 1300 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) indicated that water storage and additional pumps
would be needed to adequately service the facility. An extension of the water line
approximately 1,000 feet west to Stegelske Street is proposed as part of the project. Refer to
Section 2.14 for further details regarding water supply.
As presented in the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report (Appendix C),
groundwater was observed at a depth of 6.3 feet below the ground surface in boring B-3.
Groundwater was not observed in the other borings, however it was noted that there are
seasonal factors that could cause variations in the depth of groundwater. Additionally, the
presence of wet areas on the project site indicates the possibility of perched water table in
those locations.
The project would not result in new or additional use of groundwater. In turn, all
chemical/petroleum storage facilities associated with the project would comply with all
regulatory requirements, thus would reasonably ameliorate the potential for any significant
contaminant discharges to groundwater in the future.
2.5 Impact on Flooding
The project would not result in impacts related to flooding. Based on review of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (Community Panel 361108
0005 C), the project site is not within a floodplain (Appendix F).
7
2.6 Impact on Air
Overall, the project would not have significant impacts on air. The project is not a major
source of air pollution and would not emit air pollutants above any regulatory standard. The
facility would obtain a permit containing compliance methods to be followed to ensure all
applicable Federal and State Air requirements are met.
Regulatory Context
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 authorized the EPA to establish standards, known
as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which are considered harmful to
the public and the environment. The EPA has established NAAQS for the following six
“criteria air pollutants” in order to protect the health and welfare of the general public. These
pollutants are listed below:
Ground Level Ozone (O3)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Particulates (PM-10 and PM 2.5)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
Lead (Pb)
In addition to the criteria air pollutants, the EPA and NYSDEC also regulate Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAP), Greenhouse Gases (GHG) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC).
Ground level ozone is not directly emitted from a stationary source, but rather is formed in
the atmosphere from the photochemical reaction of sunlight and VOCs and Nitrogen Oxides
(NOx). Compliance with ozone NAAQS is determined through regulating those precursors.
Emissions of ozone itself are not predicted.
As reported in the EPA Green Book (EPA 2017), Chautauqua County is currently classified
as a Marginal Non-attainment area for 8-hr Ozone (2008). This status primarily affects how a
facility would be permitted and in some cases would necessitate the installation of additional
control technologies or operating limitations.
8
Projected Emissions Summary
The facility would have sterile processing lines, tableting lines, and liquid capsule lines
located on two stories to allow for gravity feeding of either sterile liquids or dry powders.
The sterile formulation area would consist of isolators for dispensing into vessels or
formulation tanks. The tableting lines would have dispensing rooms that support loading and
containment and then milling and blending operations ending in docking stations to presses
or encapsulators below.
Air emissions from the facility would primarily be from the boilers and emergency
generators. Boilers firing natural gas would be used to create high pressure steam for use in
the production facility. Backup power would be available from diesel powered generators.
Air emissions from production equipment and processes consist almost entirely of solvents
(volatile organic compounds) and particulate matter that escape from:
Milling and sieving
blending and mixing
compression (tableting), and
coating.
Emissions of solvents would be minimized by capture and reuse systems. Air emissions of
particulate matter from production processes are minimized using technologies such as
equipment isolators, clean rooms, air-locks and split butterfly containment valves.
A negligible amount of a hydrochloric acid air emissions, a listed NYSDEC hazardous air
pollutant, would result from the pH neutralization of wastewater prior to discharge to the
local treatment facility.
Predicted emissions from these proposed sources were estimated using preliminary process
data, chemical usage, and fuel consumption. The potential to emit (PTE) is a term used to
predict the maximum amount of emissions from a source that operates non-stop, without add-
on controls and at its maximum design capacity. The PTE is used to determine whether a
source is major or not. If a facility’s actual emissions are less than PTE, the facility can
reduce the PTE by accepting a federally enforceable permit condition. This is frequently
done with facilities who want to be exempted from certain regulations or type of operating
permit.
9
A summary of the predicted stationary source emissions is found in the Table 1, compared
against “major source thresholds”. These are limits set by the EPA to determine which
sources require a Title V Operating Permit. Based on its predicted emissions presented in the
table, the Athenex facility would not require a Title V major source permit. Nevertheless,
sources not considered major (or exempt) must still obtain a state operating permit. In New
York State, there are four types of non-major sources requiring air operating permits:
Natural Area Source, requiring an Air State Facility Permit
Synthetic Area Source, requiring an Air State Facility Permit containing federally
enforceable caps
Natural Minor Source, requiring an Air Registration
Synthetic Minor Source, requiring a “cap-by-rule” Air Registration
Table 1
Predicted Annual Stationary Source Emissions
Athenex Manufacturing Facility
Dunkirk, NY
Pollutant PTE
(tons/year)
Permitting Thresholds
(tons/year)
Combustion
Sources
Process
Sources
Total Major
Source
Minor Source
(cap-by rule)
Carbon Monoxide 53 0 53 100 50
Volatile Organic Compounds 4 13 17 50 25
Nitrogen Oxides 77 77 100 50
Particulate Matter 5 2 7 100 50
Sulfur Dioxides 16 0 16 100 50
Hazardous Air Pollutants 0.02 0.3 0.32 10 (single
HAP) / 25
(total HAP)
5 (single HAP)
/ 12.5 (total
HAP)
Greenhouse Gases (as CO2 and
equivalents)1/
75,630 0 75,630 100,000 N/A
1/ In June 2014 the Supreme Court held that EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for
purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD or
Title V permit.
10
An air permit is based on any of the regulated pollutants exceeding a threshold. A source
that does not exceed any of the major source thresholds, but does exceed at least one of the
minor source thresholds, would be subject to area source permitting.
Evaluation of Impacts to Air Quality
Operational Impacts. Long-term operations of the proposed project would not result in any
significant impacts to air quality. In evaluating the Athenex predicted emissions, the facility
would be classified as a Natural Area Source requiring a NYSDEC Air State Facility Permit.
However, since actual emissions are likely to result in emissions less than minor source
thresholds, the facility may opt to apply for a “cap-by-rule” registration. In this scenario, the
facility would need to develop enforceable operating limits and demonstrate actual emissions
are less than the minor source threshold annually. Examples of such enforceable limits
include but are not limited to: fuel consumption limits, solvent usage limits, operating hour
limitations and/or installation of control technologies.
Construction Period Impacts. Minor air quality impacts are anticipated during the
construction period, but these would be limited to short-term increases in fugitive dust,
particulates, and localized pollutant emissions from construction vehicles and equipment.
These impacts are not considered significant and would be limited through the
implementation of best practices as part of the construction process. This would include
taking measures such as ensuring that all construction equipment is properly maintained and
outfitted with emission reducing exhaust equipment, as well as periodic wetting of disturbed
surfaces to control dust emissions.
2.7 Impact on Plants and Animals
Overall, the project would not have significant impacts on listed endangered, threatened,
special concern, and/or rare species. The NYSDEC Environmental Resource Mapper was
reviewed to see if any habitats of NYS-listed endangered, threatened, special concern, and/or
rare species of animals or plants, or significant natural communities, are mapped within the
project site. Based on this review, there are no records of such state-listed plant/animal
species, or significant natural communities, occurring at the project site or in its immediate
vicinity (Appendix G).
11
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation
(IPaC) website was also reviewed for occurrences of federally-listed threatened and
endangered species. The website indicated that the northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis), a threatened species, may occur or could potentially be affected by activities
at the project location (Appendix G). It should be noted that the range for this bat specie is
fairly extensive, including forested areas in all 62 counties of New York State, as well as in
multiple states in the Northeast and Central United States.
According to the USFWS, the required habitat for northern long-eared bats is as follows:
After hibernation ends in late March or early April, most northern long-eared bats migrate to
summer roosts. The active season is the period between emergence and hibernation from
April 1 – October 31. Suitable summer habitat consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded
habitats where they roost, forage, and travel, and may also include some adjacent and
interspersed non-forested habitats. This includes forests and woodlots containing potential
roosts, as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded
corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable
amounts of canopy closure. They roost in cavities, underneath bark, crevices, or hollows of
both live and dead trees and/or snags (typically ≥ 3inches diameter at breast height (DBH)).
They are known to use a wide variety of roost types, using tree species based on presence of
cavities and crevices or presence of peeling bark. They have also been occasionally found
roosting in structures like buildings, barns, sheds, houses, and bridges1.
It is not anticipated that significant impacts to the northern long-eared bat would occur as a
result of the project. Since the project would require authorization from the USACE,
Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation would be conducted between the USACE and
the USFWS to ensure any potential significant effects are properly reviewed/addressed prior
to permit issuance. A tree inventory to document the tree species/size of specimen that could
serve as northern long-eared bat habitat, as well as investigation into the proximity of
potential winter hibernacula and known occupied maternal roost trees would be undertaken
as part of this process.
Although tree removal could potentially affect bat habitat, USFWS has required that such
removals be conducted during the winter (between November 1 and March 31) when
1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Midwest Regional Office. 2016. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d) Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities Excerpted from Take Prohibitions. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Bloomington, Minnesota.
12
northern long-eared bats would be hibernating outside of the project area, thus avoiding a
significant impact.
Based upon anticipated aspects of the proposed project, it is likely that a Section 7
Endangered Species Act determination of “May Affect but is Not Likely to Adversely
Affect” regarding the northern long-eared bat would be made by the lead federal agency
(USACE) in consultation with USFWS.
2.8 Impact on Agricultural Resources
Overall, the project would not have significant impacts on agricultural resources. Secondary
sources indicate that the project site contains prime agricultural soils. According to the 2017
New York Agricultural Land Classification for Chautauqua County (US Department of
Agriculture, NRCS, 2017), the project site’s soil composition includes Niagara silt loam,
which is classified as Soil Group 4. The NRCS land classification system indicates that this
soil group is a prime farmland if properly drained (Appendix D).
Although the project site is mapped as containing prime farmland soils, the project is not
anticipated to have a significant impact on agricultural resources, given a number of
considerations. The project site is not located within a New York State agricultural district as
promulgated by the New York Agricultural Districts Law. In addition, the area
encompassing the project site and its environs have been used and are planned for further
development for industrial uses under the Town of Dunkirk Comprehensive Plan, and
further, are designated under the Dunkirk Zoning Ordinance within an industrial zoning
district (M-2). The project site is also primarily brush land and is not currently used for
agricultural purposes, nor is it surrounded by any agricultural uses. Thus, the project would
not involve the conversion of active farmland to non-agricultural uses or in any way impair
any surrounding agricultural uses.
2.9 Impact on Aesthetic Resources
Overall, the project would not have significant impacts on aesthetic resources. The visual
characteristics of the project site would change as a result of the development, but these
changes would not be adverse. It is anticipated that the completed project would be visible
year round for travelers along Lake Shore Drive E, which is the Great Lakes Seaway Trail,
and from nearby residences and industrial businesses. The site is on the south side of Lake
13
Shore Drive, and therefore, would not block views or in any way affect viewsheds to Lake
Erie to the north.
Overall, the Athenex facility would not significantly impair the aesthetic character of the
project site or it surroundings. The building and the majority of site improvements would be
situated on the southern portion of the project site, adjoining other industrial uses. Along the
street face of Lake Shore Drive E, the most noticeable built features would be a new access
driveway among adjoining residential properties. The building and site improvements would
be finished in the context of a typical modern industrial/advanced manufacturing use. The
building design, while likely utilitarian, would involve the use of modern design principles
that would portray an orderly, attractive facility. Site improvements, such as lighting and
landscaping would be installed to support this image and visually transition, and where
necessary, buffer the proposed use to adjoining properties. Unimproved natural portions of
the project site, including almost all federally jurisdictional wetlands, would be retained and
preserved. Site-specific components of the development that would shape the aesthetic
character of the project, such as the final building design and landscaping, would be further
developed and refined in conjunction with the public site plan review process to be
conducted by the Town of Dunkirk Planning Board.
2.10 Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources
Overall, the project would not have significant impacts on historic and archeological
resources. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of the New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation has indicated that the project site is within an
archeologically sensitive area and recommended a Phase 1 Cultural Resource Investigation.
This included Phase 1A documentary research and Phase1B field investigation completed by
Powers Archeology, LLC (Appendix C). The Phase 1A required the examination of
archeological, environmental, and historic literature pertinent to the project site. The Phase
1B included field investigation and data interpretation.
The field investigation involved the excavation of shovel tests. The shovel tests were
excavated by hand and measured one foot by one foot in diameter. Each test was excavated
to sterile subsoil or until evidence of disturbance was adequately documented to depths of at
least 50-cm. The shovel test units were plotted at 15-m/50-ft intervals. All excavated soils
were screened. No artifacts were recovered during the Phase 1B excavations. Thus, based on
14
the results of the investigation, Powers Archaeology recommended no additional
archeological investigations.
In accordance with Section 14.09 of the NYS Historic Preservation Act, the Phase 1 Cultural
Resources Investigation was submitted to the SHPO for review and consultation. In letters
dated October 19, 2015 and April 3, 2017, the SHPO indicated that the project would have
no impact on archeological and/or historic resources listed in or eligible for the New York
State and National Registers of Historic Places (Appendix C).
2.11 Impact on Open Space and Recreation
The project would not impact open space and recreation. The project site is not within or
adjacent to an area designated as open space.
2.12 Impact on Critical Environmental Areas
The project would not impact a critical environmental area. The project site is not within an
area designated by the NYSDEC as a Critical Environmental Area.
2.13 Impact on Transportation
CHA completed a Traffic Impact Study in March 2017 (Appendix H), to evaluate the traffic
impacts associated with the proposed development and the potential impact traffic has on the
adjacent roadway network. The study evaluated both Phase I (Estimated Time of Completion
(ETC) 2019) and full buildout (Phase I and Phase II (ETC 2020) of the project. The study
included turning movement counts, a sight distance analysis, and accident analysis. Turning
movement counts were collected at the Main Street & Lake Shore Drive and the Lake Shore
Drive & Roberts Road intersection during the weekday AM and PM peak periods and the
New York State Traffic Data Viewer was utilized to obtain existing and historical traffic
volumes associated with the project area.
Background conditions were developed by applying an annual 1% growth rate to the 2017
Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes for 2 years and 3 years, respectively to
obtain the 2019 Background and 2020 Background conditions. Additionally, the Town of
Dunkirk Supervisor and the City of Dunkirk Director of Planning and Development indicated
in February 2017, that there are no other approved site specific projects whose traffic
15
volumes should be included in the No-Build conditions of this project. Therefore, the 2019
No-Build conditions are the same as the 2019 Background conditions. The 2020 No-Build
conditions include the Phase I site generated traffic added to the 2020 Background
conditions.
Site generated trips were estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, 9th Edition. It is estimated that Phase I could generate 244 trips during
the AM peak hour and 230 trips during the PM peak hour, while Phase II could generate 39
trips during the AM peak hour and 41 trips during the PM peak hour.
Capacity analyses was completed using the methodologies outlined in the Highway Capacity
Manual 2010 (HCM 2010) published by the Transportation Research Board, and using
Synchro 8 software. The analysis was performed for the Existing (2017), No-Build (2019),
Build (2019), No-Build (2020 which includes the Phase I traffic), and Build (2020, which
includes Phase I and Phase II traffic). The analysis shows that all movements would operate
at acceptable Level of Service (LOS) for all conditions except the Roberts Road northbound
approach, which shows LOS F in the Build (2019), No-Build (2020) and Build (2020)
conditions. Operational improvements could improve the LOS to the Roberts Road
northbound approach. However, it is premature to provide signalization or all-way stop
control to the Lake Shore Drive & Roberts Road intersection since the analyses contained in
this Study is a conservative estimate of future (2 and 3 year projection) base and site
generated traffic conditions that may not come to represent actual conditions. Therefore, it is
recommended that the Lake Shore Drive & Roberts Road intersection be monitored to
determine if future conditions necessitate operational improvements to this intersection.
Also, based on the capacity analyses, it is concluded that the project would not have a
significant effect on traffic operations of the Lake Shore Drive & Main Street intersection or
the Lake Shore Drive & Proposed Site Access and as such, no improvements are necessary
nor recommended for either of these locations.
A sight distance analysis was performed for the proposed site access to Lake Shore Drive and
the available sight distances were compared to the guidelines in the Association of State
Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets, 2011. The available sight distances for the proposed site access
exceeds the recommended minimum distances for a vehicle exiting the site making a right
turn, making a left turn when looking to the right, and for a vehicle entering the site via a left
turn movement. Additionally, the stopping sight distance is exceeded for both directions of
16
travel. No measures or improvements are necessary to accommodate sight distance or
improve the location of the sight access.
Lastly, an accident analysis was performed for the two study intersections and the segment of
Lake Shore Drive in the vicinity of the proposed site access. The accident data did not reveal
a pattern of accidents at the Lake Shore Drive & Roberts Road intersection nor the segment
in the vicinity of the site access. While there was a spike in the number of accidents at the
Lake Shore Drive & Main Street intersection in 2014, there was a significant decrease in
number and type of accidents in 2015 and 2016. No safety related improvements are
necessary to accommodate the traffic from this project.
A Highway Work Permit and an Access Permit would be required from the New York State
Department of Transportation (NYSDOT).
2.14 Impact on Energy Use & Utility Infrastructure
Overall, while the project would require new improvements and extensions of service, it
would not result in any significant adverse impacts to overall energy use and utilities, as
evidenced in the following sections.
Electrical
To support electrical needs of the project, National Grid would provide two 115kV overhead
pole mounted feeds from their substation located south of the project site to a new 115kV
8000 kVA electrical substation located on the southeast corner of the property. The
substation would include two 115kV/4160V transformers each sized to service the facility
and be capable of providing approximately 25 million kWh annually. Medium voltage
underground duct banks would be installed with cabling from the substation into a Central
Utilities Building (CUB) that would be built as part of the Athenex complex, with associated
main breakers and switchgear inside.
Emergency Power
An Emergency standby electrical system would be installed, consisting of two outdoor diesel
generators with paralleling capabilities and a UPS system to power critical operations during
outages. The Emergency System would have two separate set-ups, including Auto Transfer
Switches, 480V panels, step down dry type transformers and 208/120V panels: one for the
Life Safety Loads and one for the Optional Standby Loads.
17
Gas
National Fuel currently has a buried 6” diameter gas main operating at 30 psi on the south
side of Lake Shore Drive. Gas service would be tied in near the new entrance drive and
brought to the CUB where pressure would be regulated as needed for distribution and use
inside the Athenex complex.
Water
The proposed project would create a new demand for water from City of Dunkirk, which as
previously noted, sources its supply from Lake Erie. Flow tests were conducted in October of
2015 by the Water Authority. The existing supply has the capacity to serve the proposed
project, however the residual pressure of 13 psi when flowing 1300 GPM indicated that
water storage and additional pumps would be needed to adequately service the facility. An
extension of the main water line currently located approximately 1,000 feet west at Stegelske
Street is proposed. Anticipated usage for Phase 1 after startup of the process would be
175,000 gallons per day. This would increase to 250,000 gallons per day in Phase 2
scheduled to be completed sometime in 2020.
A new 8” diameter underground main pipe line would be extended from the existing 12”
diameter pipe line along the north side of Lake Shore Drive and cross to the south side of the
road at the new facility entrance. Completion of wetland delineation and Archeological
Assessments and approvals with the appropriate authorities would be required prior to
commencement of this work along Lake Shore Drive.
Due to the size of the facility at 320,000 square feet with a 40 foot height, it is anticipated
that a fire water storage tank would be needed. The specific size and flows would be
determined as part of the local site plan approval and permitting process with the Town of
Dunkirk, but could be reasonably accommodated as part of the project..
Sewer
Sewage treatment would be provided by the City of Dunkirk Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The project would generate liquid waste in the form of sanitary and process wastewater.
Sanitary water from restrooms and non-hazardous sources would be sent directly into the
public sanitary system. Process related waste water (grey water) would be collected and pre-
treated to stabilize the temperature and pH prior to exiting the facility into the public sanitary
system.
18
An extension of the sewer line approximately 1,000 feet west to Stegelske Street is proposed
where the new line would be connected to an existing 8” diameter pipe. Anticipated liquid
waste after startup of the process would be 122,500 gallons per day for Phase 1. This would
increase to 175,000 gallons per day after startup of Phase 2 scheduled to be completed
sometime in 2020.
2.15 Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light
Overall, the project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to noise, odor,
or light emissions, as noted in the following sections.
Noise
The project is not anticipated to result in any long-term noise impacts. While the facility
would have air handling equipment on the roof and would produce worker vehicle and
delivery truck movements that would cause periodic increases in sound levels over current
conditions, overall these would not be considered significantly out of character with the
project site’s surroundings. The proposed complex’s basic manufacturing operations would
not include any processes that are significant noise generators and the complex would not
involve any external manufacturing operations that could serve as sources of noise.
During the construction phase of the project, it is anticipated that the use of construction
equipment and construction traffic would temporarily generate noise. These impacts are not
considered significant and although the Town of Dunkirk does not specifically regulate noise
emissions by ordinance, they would be limited/controlled through the implementation of best
management practices as part of the construction process. For example, construction
activities would be limited to normal working hours (7 AM to 7 PM) and equipment and
vehicles would be properly maintained and tuned to minimize the potential for noise.
Odor
The project would not produce any odors.
Light
As part of the site improvements, light fixtures would be positioned throughout the facility’s
planned parking lot. Based upon the conceptual site plan, the closest parking lot fixture to an
19
existing residence would be approximately 230 feet. The entrance drive would also be
equipped with lighting, which is in close proximity to an existing residence.
Overall though, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse impacts
related to lighting or glare. Lighting systems would be designed to provide adequate site
security, while minimizing light trespass and glare. The following guidelines would limit any
light trespass to adjoining properties:
Wallboxes rather than wallpack style lighting would be placed on the building.
All fixtures would be shielded to direct light downward. This includes lighting for
signs, the building, and parking areas. Shoebox style lighting would be used in most
instances.
Internal lit signs would have dark backgrounds.
Any spotlights would be aimed straight down rather than at a 45 degree angle to
provide more efficient lighting for the area in question while limiting light trespass
into adjacent areas.
Per the Town of Dunkirk regulations, lighting would be addressed through the public site
plan review process before the Town Planning Board. An illumination plan illustrating foot
candle levels, proposed fixtures and pole heights would be submitted for review and
approval. As part of this process, any necessary refinements would be made to the lighting
plan to address potential impacts prior to construction/installation.
2.16 Impact on Human Health
The project is not anticipated to have any significant human health effects, either related to
past uses and potential releases on the project site or through waste streams anticipated to be
generated by the facility. These are discussed in the following sections.
Recognized Environmental Conditions from Past and/or Nearby Uses
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed by CHA in August 2015
(Appendix C), to identify recognized environmental conditions associated with the project
site. The Phase I ESA includes a description of the project site, any structures occurring on
and in the vicinity of the project site; a discussion of current and historical usage of the
project site; and identification of the presence or absence of recognized environmental
20
conditions in connection with the project site, based upon the results of historical and
regulatory records reviews, interviews, and a site reconnaissance.
The project site was not identified in any of the regulatory databases searched as part of the
Phase I ESA. Several listed sites/facilities were identified within specified search distances of
the project site. The identified sites/facilities are not expected to have impacted the project
site because reported releases were restricted to the sites of origin. Sanborn coverage
indicates that a hand shovel manufacturing facility, Skelton Shovel Co. Inc., was adjacent to
the western side of the project site.
In summary, the assessment revealed evidence of the following current recognized
environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the presence of a building and roads on
the northwest corner of the project site and their apparent association with the shovel
manufacturing facility immediately adjacent to the west and southwest.
Given the RECs, CHA recommended a subsurface investigation to determine whether
operations associated with the former building on site or its apparent association with the
adjacent shovel manufacturing facility has impacted the project site.
As a result of the Phase I ESA identification of a REC, a Phase II Limited Subsurface
Investigation was completed by CHA in October 2015 (Appendix C). CHA proposed the
installation of soil borings and collection of groundwater samples to assess the potential for
contamination on the project site.
There were no detections of volatile organic carbons (VOC) or semi-volatile organic
compound (SVOC) parameters except for acetone, a common laboratory contaminant. This
parameter is not regulated by the NYSDEC CP51 guidance criteria. For the groundwater
sample, a total of nine parameters were detected, four of which exceeded the New York State
Technical and Operational Guidance Series (NYS TOGS) 1.1.1, Ambient Water Quality
Standards and Guidance Values and Groundwater Effluent Limitations. This guidance
criteria is primarily used for the regulation of Class GA waters, which are groundwaters used
as a source of drinking water. Given that there are no drinking water wells within a mile
radius of the subject site, and that the Town of Dunkirk gets its drinking water from Lake
Erie. The low levels of SVOC contamination are not considered to be of concern for the
future use of the project site.
21
While elevated photoionization detector (PID) levels and minimal laboratory detections were
observed, they are considered to be de minimus conditions and no further action was
recommended.
Handling/Storage of Hazardous Materials/Waste Associated with Operations
The proposed project involves the use and storage of hazardous substances. The hazardous
substances to be used at the facility include ethanol, hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide.
The ethanol is part of the pharmaceutical drug production process and the hydrochloric acid
and sodium hydroxide are for waste water pH balancing. A regenerative thermal oxidizer
would be used for process fume destruction of ethanol. The wastewater treatment facility
would utilize hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide to balance pH process waste water
before it is released to the City. These materials are considered to be raw materials that
would be used up in a process and no waste quantities of these materials are anticipated to be
generated.
In addition, CHA had the following additional opinions or recommendations for the project
site:
Mold was identified within the basements of two existing two-story residential
structures and throughout a single story storage building on the property.
Conduct an asbestos-containing material and lead paint survey in the buildings on the
project site prior to any renovation or demolition activities.
Should the survey identify asbestos-containing materials and/or other hazardous building
materials to be associated with any of the structures once renovation or demolition activities
commence, these materials would be required to be handled, managed, and disposed of in
compliance with applicable State and Federal regulations.
Solid Waste Management
The proposed project would require disposal of solid waste during construction and
operation. The amount to be generated for each would be quantified in conjunction with the
site plan approval process and final design of the facility. Nevertheless, given the nature of
the project, it is not anticipated to generate any extraordinary amounts of solid waste that
could not be handled through existing regional facilities. All solid waste would be taken to a
permitted landfill.
22
2.17 Consistency with Community Plans
The project would be either consistent or would not substantially impair any policy within
recognized local, county, and state plans and land use regulations. Individual discussions of
this consistency are presented in the following sections.
Local Comprehensive Plans and Zoning
The proposed project is consistent with local planning policies and is permitted by local
zoning.
The Town of Dunkirk Comprehensive Plan (Public Review Draft August 2015) indicates that
the purpose of the comprehensive planning initiative is to create a framework for productive
growth within the town for businesses and residents. The plan’s draft recommendations do
not propose any changes to the existing M-2 industrial zoning district or the uses therein.
According to the plan, this zoning encourages the development of “non-noxious” industry
that promotes jobs for the community. The proposed project meets this purpose and is suited
well to this area and the good highway access provided by Lake Shore Drive. Additionally,
the project is consistent with the draft goals for the community since it is consistent with
existing land uses and zoning, would provide economic opportunity for the town, and it
would take advantage of nearby utilities.
With regard to local zoning, the Town zoning map (Town of Dunkirk, 2002) shows the
project site in two zoning districts: R-1 Residential in the northern portion of the site along
NYS Route 5 and M-2 Industrial for the majority/balance of the site. The following has been
confirmed with the Town of Dunkirk Supervisor:
M-2- Industrial zone permits the use of pharmaceutical manufacturing.
Contiguous parcels in single ownership shall be used as one lot for the proposed use.
The M-2- Industrial zone prevails over the entire site.
No re-zoning would be required to permit the proposed project.
Refer to Appendix I for further details. The M-2- Industrial District provides for a range of
industrial uses and associated administration offices. This district is primarily for industrial
23
and heavy commercial uses that do not cause glare, dust, odor, emit smoke, are a fire hazard
or are a nuisance to neighboring properties. The district encourages the development of non-
noxious industry that provides town employment and expansion of the local tax base. Site
Plan Review would be required as per the zoning ordinance.
The Chautauqua County Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted by the Chautauqua County
Legislature in April 2011, identifies strategies and actions that are generally applicable to the
Town. Some of the strategies identified in the plan have direct application to the Town and
would advance regional priorities. The project would be consistent with an economic goal of
the plan because it would diversify the economy with a new business and would provide job
opportunities created in advanced manufacturing.
Other State/Regional Plans and Policies
Concord Grape Belt Heritage Area Management Plan. The purpose of the plan is to develop
a strategy that interprets, preserves and celebrates the natural resources, culture and grape
heritage of the region. In 2010, Chautauqua County submitted the final plan to the New York
State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation for formal recognition of the
Heritage Area. Since then the County has continued for implement many recommendations
of the plan.
This plan shows that the Town of Dunkirk is within the “Grapes of the Lower Plain”
character area. Specific recommendations of the plan primarily focus on the City of Dunkirk,
however, the town and its agricultural sector benefit from the agri-tourism initiatives,
increased public awareness and marketing. The project does not propose impact to
agriculture, it is not located adjacent to agricultural lands or other components of the grape
production industry, and it would not impact agri-tourism in the region. Therefore, the
project would in no way impair the policies of this plan.
Chautauqua County Greenway Plan. In 2012, Chautauqua County adopted the plan. The
purpose of the plan is to provide a blueprint for decisions made regarding trail and greenway
development that will enhance the quality of life for residents within the County. This plan
proposes to create beneficial environmental and economic impacts by taking advantage of the
rural character, natural environment, and open space. The plan identifies existing and
proposed greenways and trail systems in the town. The proposed project would in no way
impact an existing or proposed greenway or trail included in the plan.
24
NYS Coastal Zone Management. A portion of the project site is located within the New York
State-designated coastal zone (DOS 2017). State and federal agencies either undertaking,
permitting, or funding projects in the coastal zone are required to comply with the coastal
zone policies and undertake coastal zone consistency review. For projects permitted/funded
by State agencies, a NYS coastal zone consistency form must be submitted to the Department
of State (DOS), typically as part of the SEQR process, with certification that the project
would comply with the state coastal zone policies and any additional or specific requirements
of a Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP). The Town of Dunkirk does not have an
approved LWRP at this time; The County of Chautauqua is currently working on a County
Inter-municipal LWRP. The Northern Chautauqua LWRP is in draft format and is still being
developed. Therefore, project review for coastal zone consistency would be with the DOS
only. A coastal assessment form has been prepared and is provided in Appendix E.
For projects subject to federal permits, a federal coastal assessment form must be prepared
and submitted to DOS in conjunction with the submittal of a complete permit application to
the federal agency. For the Athenex project, a USACE Nationwide Permit would be required
for anticipated minor wetland impacts. Accordingly, coordination with DOS on federal
coastal zone consistency would begin concurrent with that wetland permitting process.
The project is not anticipated to have any significant effects on the advancement of coastal
zone policies. The main threshold triggering coastal zone review is the fact that the project
would result in the physical alteration of more than five acres of land located within the
coastal boundary. Regardless, as noted in other sections of this evaluation, the project is not
anticipated to have any significant impacts to resources in the coastal zone, including
fish/wildlife habitats, water quality, scenic/recreational resources, important agricultural
lands, major ports, or historic/archaeological resources.
2.18 Consistency with Community Character
Land Use Character
The project would be consistent with the industrial land use character of the project area.
There is a Nestle Purina Dog Food Processing facility directly to the south of the project site
and several storage warehouse properties directly to the west. Additionally, Berry Plastics
and other light industrial facilities are located within 1/2 mile to the east and south. The
project is consistent with the existing zoning and is also consistent with the goals of the
Town’s draft comprehensive plan as discussed in section 2.17.
25
Community Services
To determine if the proposed development could create additional demand on community
services, including police, fire and emergency medical services the Chautauqua County
Sheriff and the East Dunkirk Fire District were contacted (Appendix J).
Police protection would be provided by the Chautauqua County Sheriff. Sheriff Joseph
Gerace indicated in a letter dated March 14, 2017 (Appendix J) that the addition of the
facility is a positive development for the community. The Sheriff does anticipate that there
would be some challenges, but that those challenges should not have a significant impact on
current operations.
Fire protection would be provided by the East Dunkirk Fire District. Chief Paul Miller
indicated in a phone conversation with CHA on March 23, 2017, that they are a small
volunteer fire department that is adequately staffed. The department receives help from the
City of Dunkirk Fire Department when needed. He noted that their engines are old and would
need to be replaced soon, however, they are currently in good working order. He anticipates
that the types of calls they would receive from the new facility would be EMS and rescue
calls and he sees no problem covering those calls.
Formal review by public safety and other community service providers and any refinements
to the project to address concerns would occur as part of the local site plan review process by
the Town of Dunkirk.
26
3.0 REFERENCES
CHA Companies, Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report. September 2015.
CHA Companies, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. August 2015.
CHA Companies, Inc. Phase II Limited Subsurface Investigation. October 2015.
CHA Companies, Inc. Traffic Impact Study. March 2017.
Chautauqua County Department of Planning & Economic Development. Chautauqua 20/20
Comprehensive Plan. April 2011.
Department of State Office of Planning and Development. Coastal Boundary Map. Accessed
February 13, 2017. https://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/atlas/
Earth Dimensions, Inc. Wetland and Waterbody Delineation Report. August 2015
CHA Companies, Inc. RE: Site Data. Written Communication, June 9, 2015.
CHA Companies, Inc. RE: Dunkirk Flow Test. Written Communication, October 14, 2015.
CHA Companies, Inc. RE: Dunkirk Hyd. Flow Test on Stegelske Ave. 8” Main. Written
Communication, October 19, 2015.
MRB Group in association with Environmental Design & Research, D.P.C. Town of Dunkirk NY,
Comprehensive Plan-Public Review Draft. August 2015.
National Park Service. National Natural Landmarks by State. Accessed February 20, 2017.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nnlandmarks/state.htm?State=NY
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets. 2017 New York Agricultural Land
Classification- Chautauqua-January 1, 2017. Accessed February 2017.
https://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AP/agservices/soils/2017/Counties/Chautauqua.pdf
27
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. EAF Mapper. Accessed February
2017. http://www.dec.ny.gov/eafmapper/
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Environmental Resource Mapper.
Accessed February 13, 2017. http://www.dec.ny.gov/gis/erm/
Pashek Associates in cooperation with Chautauqua County Department of Planning & Economic
Development. Chautauqua County Greenway Plan. April 2012.
Peter J. Smith & Company, Inc. Lake Erie Concord Grape Belt Heritage Area Management
Plan. August 2010.
Powers Archeology, LLC. Phase I Cultural Resource Investigations. October 2015.
Rice, Richard. RE: Zoning. Written Communication, April 6, 2017.
Town of Dunkirk. Zoning Map, Town of Dunkirk East. Amended by Local Law 2 2002.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey.
Accessed February 13, 2017. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
US Department of Homeland Security. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Accessed March 2,
2017. http://msc.fema.gov/portal
US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and
Consultation. Accessed February 13, 2017. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
US Environmental Protection Agency. Current Nonattainment Counties for All Criteria
Pollutants. Accessed February 13, 2017.
https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html
