[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6481482,"mediaKeyId","5447069-f8ed29abfe42c23a746f8acdb74fe644","parentId",5447069,"title","Army Corps, Waterkeeper pitch creek restoration at Cheektowaga Town Park with roughly $3.9 million price tag","audioSeconds",2314,"startMs",542000,"endMs",2856000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5447069-f8ed29abfe42c23a746f8acdb74fe644&start=542&end=2856","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5447069-f8ed29abfe42c23a746f8acdb74fe644/thumbnail_542000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6481482/Cheektowaga/Erie-County/New-York/Army-Corps-Waterkeeper-pitch-creek-restoration-at-Cheektowaga-Town-Park-with-roughly-39-million-price-tag","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6481482-d49e9883286dd5eb3693078aed988476/orig.mp4?Expires=1771087999&Signature=UviVMVMmp3BqBTOyzvVcdm513Iwj0XieDfcZ38SqN504eMxEMmdQrWaeRRUtZJdCN6P3SJ1U2LIVSVkBXNSteqreDiCNWVCyf-q027SwyDF9zjTgkq8VRspx1QHWKcYQr0b~Rg4Kah2DQGbfByUc7-mEUcGfccSZoG6O~6B8jPMDemZ02Rlj2YzDKTtir85d9gVUrXrPEJMrrWHZvNr9gRgrKPC5YC0oazGC1vA0rW-AbciTstcTfHse8MZJUWQaLecFsr9JXAzIpJUITjYHeBffnQRA4KSq06RRVOzbyGYvds~r~rO0gdIX0083cv4K3b2g1J~u~rYtR9XrHwwC4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Cheektowaga, NY","date","2025-07-23T02:32:31.477Z","article","The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper presented a feasibility study July 22 recommending restoration measures for Skajakwita Creek in Cheektowaga Town Park that the agencies say would improve wetland, riparian and in-stream habitat while preserving flood-risk reduction benefits of an earlier Corps flood control project.

The study is being done under Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act (project modifications for environmental improvements). Doug Grama, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Buffalo District project manager, told the town board the feasibility phase began in 2020. The Corps’ recommended “best-buy” is work on about 5.32 acres in the town park on the Cheektowaga side of the creek; the Corps and Waterkeeper said they would not propose disturbance on the privately owned side adjacent to the park.

Why it matters: the 1980s Corps flood‑risk‑management channelization reduced local flooding but altered sediment and hydrology and damaged riparian and aquatic habitat. The Corps’ Section 1135 authority allows project modifications to offset those environmental impacts. Corps staff emphasized that any restoration would maintain the original flood‑risk benefits.

What the preferred alternative would do: presenters described a “floodplain bench” and gentler bank slopes on the town side, native plantings in a meadow‑like bench (a minimum six‑foot width in the concept), and reconnection to upstream riparian areas. The town‑park alternative ranked well in the Corps’ acceptability, effectiveness and efficiency criteria, presenters said. Corps staff said proposed operations and maintenance would reduce routine mowing to an annual dormant‑season cut in the restored bench areas and that invasive‑species treatment would be required initially and (based on current estimates) could decline to minimal cost after about five years.

Cost, cost share and timeline: the total project estimate presented was about $3.9 million, with the Corps’ typical Section 1135 cost share of 75% federal and 25% non‑federal. Presenters estimated the non‑federal share “just under $1 million.” The Corps said no non‑federal cash is required in the feasibility phase; money would be needed in a later project partnership agreement before design and construction. The Corps said it expects to finish the feasibility phase after federal internal reviews and a second public comment period; future steps would include the partnership agreement, design and construction.

Funding and local obligations: Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper’s deputy executive director Carrie Gallo said Waterkeeper has been leading local outreach and that local matching funds could come from state grants or private foundations; Waterkeeper staff also said the organization would help pursue grants so the town would not necessarily need to provide the full match from local taxpayers. Army Corps staff said some in‑kind local contributions (for example, surveying or engineering services) can be credited toward the non‑federal share in later phases, but a minimum cash contribution is typically required in the design/implementation phase (the Corps’ representative said there is a minimum cash cost‑share requirement and that he would confirm exact percent). Presenters also said a small recreational cost share (trail realignment to connect to restored areas) would be shared 50/50 in the estimate shown.

Permits, constraints and coordination: presenters said New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has been involved and that the Corps has worked to avoid increasing operations and maintenance burdens on the town. Corps staff said utilities and power lines near some alternative sites pose constraints; those constraints helped push the team toward the town‑park alternative because it had fewer major conflicts. The presenters said any work would require DEC permits and other reviews and would not reduce the flood‑risk functions of the existing Corps project.

Community concerns and follow‑up: board members and residents raised questions about mosquitoes, trash and the potential for the restored benches to collect floatable debris. Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper staff described three local cleanup/maintenance options they can help provide: an annual spring cleanup, a volunteer “solo sweep” program and a Restore Corps fee‑for‑service adaptive‑management program (the last is a paid service Waterkeeper offers to manage ongoing maintenance if the town wants that assistance). Corps staff said the project will include an environmental assessment and construction specifications that require spill prevention and other contractor controls; the Corps also said monitoring and adaptive management could continue for up to 10 years after construction completion.

Next steps: the Corps and W aterkeeper said they will complete draft report materials and appendices, publish the feasibility report for a 30‑day public review and hold another public meeting to open the comment period (presenters mentioned a planned public comment phase this fall and additional outreach in November). The Corps said the feasibility phase must clear internal federal reviews before moving to the project partnership agreement stage.

Speakers and affiliations: the presentation team included Doug Grama (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, project manager), Rebecca Cash and Jen Branchow (planners/biologists on the Corps team) and Carrie Gallo (deputy executive director, Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper). Town participants who asked questions included Supervisor Brian Nowak and several town board members. The town highway superintendent spoke in support of the alternative shown for the park, saying it could reduce mowing burden in parts of the park.

What the board will see next: Corps staff asked that the town board stay engaged through the next public comment period and said the Corps will return with finalized draft documents and a public‑review schedule. Waterkeeper staff said they will continue local outreach and help the town seek non‑federal match funds.

Ending: The Corps and Waterkeeper asked the board to expect a formal 30‑day public review and another public meeting this fall; project staff said they will return to the board to present the final feasibility report and to seek the town’s participation in any future partnership agreement.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Town Board Meeting 7.22.25","oneSentenceSummary","The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper presented a Section 1135 feasibility study July 22 proposing ecological restoration of about 5.32 acres of Skajakwita Creek inside Cheektowaga Town Park to improve wetlands and stream habitat while preserving the Corps’ flood‑risk benefits.","taxTitle","Cheektowaga, Erie County, New York","taxId",56246,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6481480,"Residents press town board to finish Pleasant Parkway and speed-up delayed infrastructure bids",404,3058000,3462000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5447069-f8ed29abfe42c23a746f8acdb74fe644&start=3058&end=3462","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5447069-f8ed29abfe42c23a746f8acdb74fe644/thumbnail_3058000.jpg","/articles/6481480/Cheektowaga/Erie-County/New-York/Residents-press-town-board-to-finish-Pleasant-Parkway-and-speed-up-delayed-infrastructure-bids","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6481480-1fbe20d55258f8d0cdc3dc10314c3d4a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771087999&Signature=iGxq-XOIPeoHB3K25eQ5d2hprKGbgr6B8PZEBCtEgtEU1ufHBFAADedhgvZizldNWj8GAn0jE4VpV1Nrw8kP6-sw5Q7nCiqGr3HR3D9k6XJTNsrcRsemqXDdDgYp63ywYm9ZHwVcrmsL~oxLGzp67BuO4Y8vT3iD6c9UvUPyNOQamwQq992jiqgirDWCDPetYZM2dECsqHnNSK7OHMB9LkWnVcHlfi~bg9S677qk~AFXbcjMzuhiRYDdbNcsDjgttRHeRWutyT9lHuVbMB6~Ay3y2q~ZdodRmmHMqi2TWGL534K2cARmT75DxbOwJuGBRLoyYAj28iYyLzCshBniew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several residents used the public‑comment period July 22 to press the Cheektowaga Town Board for faster progress on a long‑promised reconstruction of Pleasant Parkway and on other delayed drainage and paving projects.

Background and residents’ claims: speakers said Pleasant Parkway was placed on the town’s capital list in 2024 and that work began with utility and surface preparations last fall, leaving a “patchwork” of asphalt, potholes and temporary plates. Two residents who identified themselves as longtime Pleasant Parkway homeowners said last year's funding and early‑season work did not continue and urged the board to proceed this construction season rather than delaying until after the November election.

Public concerns: speakers asked whether the full scope of the originally described project (sidewalks, curbs, easements and tree work) remains funded and whether the town plans to advertise and award bids in time for contractors to complete work before winter conditions. One resident noted safety concerns, saying “I have to go basically two miles an hour … so that I don't break a rim” and that the street condition creates a risk to children and cars.

Town board and staff response: Council members and staff said funds for multiple projects were discussed in early 2025 and that a combination of budget timing and administrative steps delayed some bid publications. Board members said the town will prioritize completing projects that have active funding sources; they also agreed to hold a capital projects planning session after Labor Day to finalize priorities and timing for 2026 and to make sure projects are bid early in the year going forward.

Related items on the agenda: board members and the highway superintendent discussed several bid notices and drainage projects on the evening’s agenda (Ivanhoe, Seal/Trudy/Jane drives, Beal Drive and others). Some notices to bidders were approved; others were debated, postponed or defeated in roll‑call votes. Multiple board members urged greater clarity about which projects are intended for 2025 versus 2026 and asked staff to attach the detailed street lists and engineering scope (the 2‑84 template or equivalent) to resolutions authorizing work.

Highway department remarks: the highway superintendent told the board that crews are being trained and that some drainage and receiver work has been handled in‑house, but that full‑depth reconstruction and larger trench work often require contractor crews or specialized shoring equipment. The superintendent said some projects can be staged (trench, temporary road restore, then full paving next season) to avoid leaving streets in unusable condition over winter.

What happens next: board members agreed to hold a capital planning session in the fall, asked staff to include clear scope and schedule detail in bid documents and to coordinate notice‑to‑bidders schedules so award and construction timing can meet the board’s priorities. Several board members urged staff to return with a clear 2‑84 agreement (or equivalent summary) tying authorized funds to specific streets before the board finalizes approvals.

Ending: Residents who spoke said they will continue to monitor the schedule and urged the board not to push the work past the current construction season if the town has the funding to proceed.

Speakers (selected): Lisonbee Williams (Pleasant Parkway resident), Janice Irish (Pleasant Parkway resident), Lewis Irish (Pleasant Parkway resident), Dan Collender (resident commenting on town debt), multiple town board members and the highway superintendent.","Multiple residents at the July 22 meeting urged the Cheektowaga Town Board to proceed quickly with a long‑promised reconstruction of Pleasant Parkway and other delayed infrastructure projects, arguing bids were issued late and work risked being pushed into next year.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Army Corps, Waterkeeper pitch creek restoration at Cheektowaga Town Park with roughly $3.9 million price tag

Residents press town board to finish Pleasant Parkway and speed-up delayed infrastructure bids