Hudson^ River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
-B-
Hudson River PCB
UPERFUND SITE
Technical Memorandum: Identification of
Preliminary Candidate Sites
B
Facility Siting Update Report 1
June 2003
Prepared for:
United States Army
Corps of Engineers
SERA
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Prepared by:
IUJ ecology and environment, inc.
pm International Specialists in the Environment
1515.HR03.08.02-B1133-GRA-5/29/03
-------
Executive Summary
The identification of Preliminary Candidate Sites (PCSs) represents the second
milestone in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) facility siting
process. This Facility Siting Update Report Technical Memorandum (technical
memorandum) provides the results of detailed evaluation and screening used to
identify the PCSs. The PCSs are those sites that are being recommended for fur-
ther consideration in the facility siting process.
In February 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is-
sued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
(Site). The ROD calls for targeted environmental dredging of approximately 2.65
million cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediment from the Upper Hudson River
(approximately 40 river miles) in two phases over a six-year period and for moni-
toring natural attenuation of the PCB contamination that remains in the river after
dredging.
The purpose of the facility siting process is to identify locations within the study
area that meet the requirements of a sediment processing/transfer facility. In order
to implement the cleanup of PCB-contaminated sediments, the EPA must identify
locations within and near the Upper Hudson River for one or more facilities that
can be used to transfer sediment from the edge of the river to a processing area,
dewater the sediment, treat the water from the dewatering process, and transfer
sediment (stabilized as needed) to a rail or barge for transport to a disposal facil-
ity. If a beneficial use of some of the dredged material is identified, then an ap-
propriate transportation method (i.e., rail, truck, or barge) will be determined
(USEPA 2002a). These specialized facilities are an important part of the cleanup
and will be selected and constructed to safely handle the dredged material.
After evaluation, 24 PCSs were identified. The PCSs have been evaluated against
the Group 1 facility siting criteria and selected property codes (see Figure ES-1
and Table ES-1). These sites are located throughout the facility siting study area,
as follows:
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
ExecutiveSummary. doc-06/03/03
1
-------
Executive Summary
River Section 1
River Section 2
River Section 3
4
1
7
12
Below River Section 3
The PCSs consist of 54 parcels, which are owned by 30 different owners. The
shared characteristics of these sites are that most are located within 0.25 mile of
the Hudson River shoreline, within 0.25 mile of a road, and within 500 feet of rail
and are of sufficient area to allow for the construction and operation of a facility
(approximately 10 acres or more). Some of the sites selected as PCSs were of-
fered to EPA for consideration by interested landowners. Descriptions of each of
the PCSs are provided in Section 4.
EPA's consideration of the PCSs will follow the process and criteria described in
the Hudson River PCBs Superfand Site Facility Siting Concept Document
(USEPA 2002). In addition, EPA will be conducting public forums and other
public outreach to discuss and exchange information regarding this technical
memorandum and upcoming steps in the facility siting process. These steps will
include conducting a more detailed engineering review of each PCS, combined
with ongoing public review in order to assess the suitability and impacts associ-
ated with each location.
Overview of Process
Database Development. A geographic information system (GIS) database spe-
cific to the Site was created through the acquisition and subsequent development
of various datasets, including aerial photography. GIS is a routine computer ap-
plication and data management tool that will assist in facilitating site evaluations
and ensuring engineering accuracy while coordinating large amounts of informa-
tion. GIS allows for careful and reliable analysis of data, while conducting
evaluations in a neutral manner. The Group 1 facility siting criteria (river, rail,
and road access; available space; proximity to dredge areas and utilities) and tax
parcel/property classification codes provided by Washington, Saratoga, Rensse-
laer, and Albany counties were incorporated into the GIS database and used to lo-
cate, evaluate, and filter potential locations for the PCSs identification process.
Analysis of Parcel Data and Group 1 Criteria within the Study Area. Before
the process of identifying PCSs could begin, a series of analyses were conducted
to filter the counties' parcel data to fit the study area and then to filter for specific
property codes and to characterize the study area relative to the Group 1 criteria to
determine how to use the information in the evaluation and screening process.
The analysis of the parcel data indicated that there were 2,410 parcels within the
study area that met the selected New York State Office of Real Property Services
(NYSORPS) classification codes of vacant land, commercial, industrial, public
services (i.e., power generation and transmission, waste disposal, pipelines, sew-
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Executive_Summary. do c -06/03/03
2
-------
Executive Summary
age treatment and water pollution control, etc.), or Hudson River Regulating Dis-
trict Land.
The characterization of the study area relative to the Group 1 criteria led to the
understanding that initial parcel evaluations could be started using the combina-
tion of the following characteristics: within 0.25 mile of shoreline, within 0.25
mile of road, and within 500 feet of rail.
First Pass Analysis of Parcels. Parcels were initially identified by matching the
selected property codes and the combination of the Group 1 criteria. These 475
parcels were then filtered to locate specific parcels and to determine the extent of
relative agreement with the shoreline, rail, and road criteria. Numerous parcels
were found to be small in area (i.e., generally <1.0 acre) and/or appeared to be in
locales that did not have similar property codes adjacent to the identified parcels.
The parcels matching these characteristics were eliminated from further consid-
eration, resulting in 151 parcels remaining after the "first pass" analysis was com-
pleted.
Second Pass and Additional Analyses: Identification of PCSs. The "second
pass" evaluation was the first step in moving beyond looking at parcels and the
start of focusing on identifying sites. Single parcel sites were identified first, due
to the relative ease of acquisition, and then multiple parcel sites were also re-
viewed for suitability.
The result of the evaluation was the initial identification of 29 PCSs. Additional
analyses were conducted upon determining that there was a relatively small num-
ber of initially identified PCSs within sections of the river where most of the ma-
terial to be dredged is located (River Sections 1 and 2). Two additional PCSs
were identified.
A number of other properties and areas were provided to EPA by interested land-
owners and were previously identified by EPA. These locations were also evalu-
ated. Three locations were added to the list of PCSs, bringing the total to 34.
A more detailed database review and a windshield survey identified a combination
of potentially problematic design characteristics among 10 of the sites. As a re-
sult, the 10 sites were removed from further consideration. Twenty-four PCSs are
currently being recommended for further consideration.
Next Steps in the Facility Siting Process. Public forums will be held at two lo-
cations in June 2003 within the study area to provide the public the opportunity to
become familiar with the PCS identification process and ask questions of EPA.
Fact sheets will also be prepared to summarize the process. Following public re-
view, the PCSs will be evaluated and screened against Group 1 and Group 2 crite-
ria to identify Final Candidate Sites (FCSs). As indicated in the ROD, potential
effects on properties near a sediment processing/transfer facility will be mini-
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Executive_Summary. do c -06/03/03
3
-------
Executive Summary
mized through careful siting and design. The Group 2 criteria include quality of
life concerns and avoiding and minimizing impacts to local communities and
other resources.
The public will have the opportunity to review the selected FCSs. Field investiga-
tions of each of the FCSs will follow the public review process. Group 3 criteria
will be developed and the FCSs will be evaluated in order to develop a list of
Recommended Site(s). The Recommended Site(s) list will be provided in the
Draft Facility Siting Report and released to the public for review and comment.
Upon finalizing the Facility Siting Report, a site, or sites, will be selected for the
Phase 1 dredging activities. At some later date, a site, or sites, may be selected for
Phase 2 dredging if additional sites are determined to be necessary. Site(s) se-
lected for Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging will be selected from the list of the Rec-
ommended Site(s).
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Executive_Summary. do c -06/03/03
4
-------
001515.HR03.08.02 - 05/20/03
L:\Buffalo\Hudson_River\Maps\Mxd\PCS_factsheets\Tech_Memo\Figure ES-1.mxd - GIS
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-1
PCSs River Sections
Location
Approx. River Mile
River Section 1
Energy Park (Champlain Canal)
Fort Edward, Washington
County
195.1
Longe (Champlain Canal)
Fort Edward, Washington
County
195.0
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils
Area
Moreau, Saratoga County
193.8
State of New York (A)
Moreau, Saratoga County
193.2
River Section 2
Georgia Pacific
Greenwich, Washington
County
183.2
River Section 3
Bruno
Schaghticoke, Rensselaer
County
166.5
Brickyard Associates
Schaghticoke, Rensselaer
County
166.0
Edison Paving
Schaghticoke, Rensselaer
County
164.0
NIMO - Mechanicville
Halfmoon, Saratoga County
164.0
NYS Canal Corporation
Halfmoon, Saratoga County
162.4
General Electric (C)
Waterford, Saratoga County
159.0
Green Island IDA
Green Island, Albany County
154.4
Below River Section 3
Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA
Troy, Rensselaer County
151.4
Callanan/Rensselaer ID A/City
of Troy/King Services
Troy, Rensselaer County
150.8
Town of North Greenbush
N. Greenbush, Rensselaer
County
148.7
Rensselaer Tech Park (A)
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
147.7
Rensselaer Tech Park (B)
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
147.3
State of New York/First Rens-
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
146.7
selaer Marine Management
Albany Rensselaer Port
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
144.3
District/BASF
Bray Energy
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
144.0
Bray Energy/Petrol/
Gorman/T ransmontaigne
Rensselaer and E. Greenbush,
Rensselaer County
144.0
Norwest
E. Greenbush, Rensselaer
County
143.5
OG Real Estate
Bethlehem, Albany County
142.8
P&M Brickyard
Coeymans, Albany County
134.1
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Executive_Summary. do c -06/03/03
7
-------
001515_HR03_08_02-B1133
Hudson River PCBs
Superfund Site
Technical Memorandum:
Identification of Preliminary
Candidate Sites
Facility Siting Update Report 1
June 2003
Prepared for:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region 2
and
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Kansas City District
©2003 Ecology and Environment, Inc.
-------
able of Contents
Section Page
1 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Background Information Supporting Facility Siting 1-1
1.2 Identification of Preliminary Candidate Sites 1-2
1.3 Purpose of the Technical Memorandum 1-5
2 Development of the Facility Siting Database 2-1
2.1 Digital Orthoimagery 2-2
2.2 Development of the GIS Component 2-2
2.3 Data Sources 2-3
2.4 Acquisition and Development of Siting Criteria Information 2-4
2.5 Facility Siting Database QA/QC 2-5
3 Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process 3-1
3.1 Facility Siting Process Using Group 1 Siting Criteria and Parcel Data 3-1
3.1.1 Incorporating and Refining Parcel Data 3-2
3.1.2 Shoreline (River Access) 3-4
3.1.3 Rail 3-5
3.1.4 Roads 3-6
3.1.5 Available Area 3-6
3.1.6 Proximity to Dredge Areas 3-9
3.1.7 Utilities 3-9
3.2 Application of Group 1 Facility Siting Criteria 3-10
3.2.1 "First Pass" Analysis 3-10
3.2.2 "Second Pass" Analysis 3-12
3.3 Additional Analyses 3-13
3.3.1 Expansion of the Rail Criterion 3-13
3.3.2 Incorporation of Additional Property Classification Codes 3-14
3.4 Other Sites 3-14
3.4.1 Interested Landowner Properties 3-15
3.4.2 Previously Identified Areas 3-15
3.4.3 CSX Transportation Identified Sites 3-16
3.5 Evaluation of PCSs and Identification of Those Recommended for
Further Consideration 3-16
02:001515 .HR03.08,02-B 1133
Master .doc-06/03/03
111
-------
Table of Contents (cont.)
Section Page
4 Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites 4-1
4.1 Overview of the PCSs 4-1
4.2 Site-specific Descriptions 4-2
5 Next Steps in the Facility Siting Process 5-1
6 References 6-1
Appendix
A Description of GIS Database Development for Group 1
Facility Siting Criteria and County Tax Parcel Mapping
and Property Classification Codes A-1
Master .doc-06/03/03
-------
t of Tables
Table Page
3-1 Relative (Approximate) Percentages of NYSORPS Property Classifications
Within Each of the Counties in the Hudson River PCBs Facility Siting Study
Area 3-4
3-2 Summary of the Number of Parcels Located Within 0.50 Mile of the Hudson
River Shoreline and Within Various Rail and Road Buffer Zones 3-11
3-3 Summary of the Numbers of Parcels Located Within 0.25 Mile of the Hudson
River Shoreline and Within Various Rail and Road Buffer Zones 3-11
3-4 Initially Identified Preliminary Candidate Sites (PCSs) and Those
Recommended for Further Consideration 3-17
02:001515 .HR03.08,02-B 1133
Master .doc-06/03/03
V
-------
t of Figures
Figure Page
1-1 Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Major River Sections, Upper Hudson
River 1-3
3-1 Land Uses (per NYSORPS Property Classifications) within the Hudson River
Facility Siting Study Area 3-3
3-2 Facility Siting Study Area 3-7
4-1 Preliminary Candidate Sites Recommended for Further Consideration 4-53
5-1 Next Steps in Facility Siting 5-2
Master .doc-06/03/03
-------
of Abbreviations and Acronyms
BTS
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
CADD
computer-assisted drafting and design
cy
cubic yards
DOQQs
orthophoto quarter-quads
ESRI
Environmental Systems Research Institute
FCS
final candidate site
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FGDC
Federal Geographic Data Committee
GIS
geographic information system
NAD
North American Datum
NPS
National Park Service
NRCS
Natural Resources and Conservation Service
NYS
New York State
NYSDEC
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYSDOH
New York State Department of Health
NYS DOS
New York State Department of State
NYSORPS
New York State Office of Real Property Services
PCBs
polychlorinated biphenyls
PCSs
preliminary candidate sites
QA/QC
quality assurance/quality control
RA
remedial action
RD
remedial design
ROD
Record of Decision
ROW
right-of-way
RR
railroad
02:001515 .HR03. OS ,02-B 1133
Master .doc-06/03/03
IX
-------
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (cont.)
RS
Responsiveness Summary
USD A
United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
United States Geological Survey
UTM
Universal Transverse Mercator
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Master .doc-06/03/03
X
-------
1
Introduction
This technical memorandum has been prepared as the first Facility Siting Update Re-
port, with the overall purpose of providing an update on the status of the facility sit-
ing process. This document announces those sites (i.e., Preliminary Candidate Sites
[PCSs]) that are being recommended for further consideration as potential sites for a
sediment processing/transfer facility. Identifying the PCSs is the first step in the
process of finding suitable locations for one or more facilities.
EPA will be providing additional facility siting update reports as the facility siting
process continues. The progress reports will provide the public with the opportunity
to review the steps that EPA has taken in facility siting since the issuance of previous
report(s). Specific discussion points will include evaluating and screening potential
sites, site features and conditions, and the relative suitability of sites to meet the re-
quirements of constructing and operating a sediment processing/transfer facility(ies).
1.1 Background Information Supporting Facility Siting
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site (Site) was
issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on February 1,
2002. The primary objective of the remedy selected for the Hudson River PCBs
Superfund Site is to protect public health and the environment from unacceptable
risks due to PCB-contaminated sediments in the Upper Hudson River. As stated in
the ROD, the remedial action (RA) includes dredging approximately 2.65 million
cubic yards (cy) of PCB-contaminated sediments from three specific reaches of the
Upper Hudson River, (i.e., River Sections 1, 2, and 3). River Sections 1, 2, and 3
extend from the former Fort Edward Dam to the Federal Dam at Troy (see Figure
1-1) (USEPA 2002).
The remedy for the Site is, in part, based upon the siting of one or more sediment
processing/transfer facilities. The design and construction of one or more sediment
processing/transfer facilities are therefore important components of the remedial de-
sign (RD) and RA. Each such facility will provide an area in which to transfer sedi-
ment from the edge of the river to a processing area, dewater the sediment, treat the
water from the dewatering process, and transfer sediment (stabilized as needed by
adding material to make it a proper consistency for transport) to rail or barge for
transport to a disposal facility. If a beneficial use for some of the dredged material is
identified, an appropriate transportation method (e.g., rail, truck, or barge) will be
determined (USEPA 2002a).
As set forth in the ROD and the Facility Siting Concept Document, EPA's selection
of the facilities will include public review throughout the facility siting process. EPA
02:001515 .HR03.08,02-B 1133 1-1
PCS revised Section l.doc-6/3/03
-------
1. Introduction
recognizes that certain PCSs are in the vicinity of potentially sensitive areas, includ-
ing residences. EPA plans to continue working with the potentially affected commu-
nities to assess and minimize impacts during the construction and operation of the
facility(ies). Public review will be used throughout the RD phase, particularly
through quality of life standards (for noise, light, and other impacts) and the commu-
nity involvement program to establish the project performance standards and engi-
neering controls (e.g., screening and noise control) that will minimize project im-
pacts. As indicated in the ROD, these facilities are to be temporary and will be re-
moved after completion of the active remedial operations. The parcels will then be
restored in a manner that takes into account the anticipated future land use of the par-
cels, such as redevelopment for commercial or recreational use.
The first step in the facility siting process involved the preparation and issuance of
the Hudson River PCBs Siiperfund Site Facility Siting Concept Document (Concept
Document) (USEPA 2002). This document, issued in early December 2002, pro-
vided an overview of the facility siting process. The Concept Document presented
the following:
¦ The purpose and objectives of facility siting;
¦ The established boundaries of the facility siting study area (study area);
¦ An overview of siting coordination and milestones;
¦ The facility siting criteria that will be used to evaluate potential locations for the
siting of a sediment processing/transfer facility; and
¦ A summary of how the siting criteria are going to be applied over the course of
the facility siting process.
Following issuance of the Concept Document, public availability sessions were held
at the Hudson River Field Office on December 11, 2002, and at Sage College of Al-
bany on December 12, 2002. These meetings provided the public with an opportu-
nity to become familiar with the process EPA is using to site a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility and to engage the EPA team with questions and comments.
1.2 Identification of Preliminary Candidate Sites
After the establishment of the facility siting process and determination of the siting
criteria, the second milestone of the process was identifying the PCSs. This step has
involved examining the entire study area, as presented in the Concept Document,
in order to locate potentially suitable sites for a sediment processing/transfer facil-
ity. In brief, this process has involved assessing parcels relative to their suitability
with the Group 1 criteria (i.e., river access, rail access, road access, available
space, proximity to dredge areas and utilities) and compatibility with existing land
uses (as determined by property classification codes). This assessment process
was critical to the development and identification of the PCSs.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section l.doc-6/3/03
1-2
-------
HtidsTmr River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133 - 04/24/2003 L:\Buffalo\Hudson_River\Maps\Mxd\PCS_fadsheets\Tech_Memo\FIGURE1-1 REGIONAL STUDY AREA.MXD -GIS
¦L V
\ai // Hudson Falls#.*. / (
Warren jj I New York —j-—
Om.''.' ¦ ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
| ^ ]/ J® Fort Edward PA ( ^
T \V\^; f I / ,v' • 6.3 RM
J }_?/ I / \ • Estimated 1.56 million cy of contaminated
A / M wmr sediment for removal
J © // y^sevoort £ -1\-# Washington
A j / % SECTION 2 Salem
X // T V ' 51 RM *
7 m J M • Estimated .58 million cy of.contaminated
r J / sediment for removal k
/ Schuylerville ^
^ O Saratoga Springs ^
ll * Estimated .51 million cy of contaminated
/ |£ sediment for removal ^ ^
l^i IL Clifton Park yj RGI1SSGl3Gr
\J-jf Interstate Highways
\\v fTj U.S. Highways
3BlWBtiskay^^^^ fcoMI ^ state Highways
V^// N, ' ji r ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ Upper Hudson River 1
\ ^VvSc Albany rn 1IF S8Ctl0n BreakS
\ \ Colonie \WatervlietjM^^™^ 0 1 2 4 6 8 10
SOURCE: ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, USEPA 2002a;
Note: cy = Cubic Yards
RM = River Miles
Figure 1-1: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
Major River Sections, Upper Hudson River
-------
1. Introduction
The identification of PCSs involved evaluating the entire study area and other
sites against the aforementioned Group 1 criteria and county parcel mapping. The
sources of sites included:
¦ Facility siting process sites - sites that were identified by EPA as initial PCSs
as a result of implementing the process presented in the Concept Document;
¦ Interested landowners - sites that were submitted to EPA by landowners that
own property within the vicinity of the Hudson River;
¦ Previously identified areas - areas that were preliminarily identified by TAMS
Consultants (now TAMS/Earth Tech, Inc.) for EPA in 1999 as having some
potential suitability for constructing and operating a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility; and
¦ CSX Transportation (CSX) - a list of sites provided by CSX (a rail transport
company) to EPA.
1.3 Purpose of the Technical Memorandum
The purpose of this technical memorandum is to provide a description of the
process that culminated in the identification of the PCSs and to provide an oppor-
tunity to review this process. This document presents the process as follows:
¦ Section 2 describes the sources of data, background information, and the pro-
cedures used to develop the facility siting database.
¦ Section 3 provides a chronology of the PCS identification process.
¦ Section 4 describes the PCSs that are being recommended for further consid-
eration. Location maps, aerial photographs, and a summary of relevant site
characteristics are presented for each site.
¦ Section 5 presents an overview of the next steps in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section l.doc-6/3/03
1-5
-------
2
Development of the
Facility Siting Database
Data acquisition and literature review were conducted as part of the facility siting
process in order to develop a facility siting database. The data considered during
the facility siting process represent a broad array of information, including but not
limited to information developed or summarized in previously issued EPA docu-
ments (e.g., the ROD, the Responsiveness Summary [RS]); environmental re-
source information; existing mapping; geologic features; a variety of infrastruc-
ture and settlement-related elements (e.g., municipal boundaries, utilities, land
use); and other information that characterizes the Upper Hudson River.
The database for the facility siting process was developed to provide the
foundation for an analysis of the geographic, engineering, and environmental
relationships of the Upper Hudson River area relevant to this project. For
instance, understanding issues such as river access, rail and road networks,
proximities to locks and dams, locations and proximities to dredge areas, property
classification codes, and locations of population centers are important to the
facility siting process and have been incorporated into the geographical
information system (GIS) database. This multi-layered database provides an
interactive composite of the study area, presenting those features that may be
determined to be either constraints or assets to the siting of a sediment
processing/transfer facility.
The database for the facility siting task of the Site project area includes a
comprehensive GIS component. GIS is a routine computer application and data
management tool that will assist in facilitating site evaluations and ensuring
engineering accuracy while coordinating large amounts of information. GIS is
being used for a number of purposes for the project beyond facility siting,
including tracking sediment sampling locations, which in turn will be used to
determine dredging cut lines and, ultimately, to position the dredges as they work.
The use of various datasets resulted from the efficient collection of a tremendous
amount of information, which allowed for a careful and reliable analysis. Using a
database in the facility siting process also ensures that all potential sites along the
Hudson River are initially evaluated in a neutral manner applying the facility
siting criteria presented in the Concept Document.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 2.doc-6/3/03
2-1
-------
2. Development of the Facility Siting Database
2.1 Digital Orthoimagery
New York State digital orthoimagery of the project area has served as a basis by
which to examine the various vector datasets that were obtained for the master
GIS database. Through the New York State Digital Orthoimagery Program, aerial
photographs were taken of Rensselaer County in spring 2000 and of Albany, Sara-
toga, and Washington Counties in spring 2001. Photographs were available in
either 1-foot pixel resolution for urbanized areas or 2-foot pixel resolution for ru-
ral areas. The 1-foot pixel resolution imagery was supplied in natural color, while
the 2-foot pixel imagery was available in either panchromatic (black and white) or
color infrared. All images were available in New York State Plane Coordinates -
Eastern Zone, units in feet, North American Datum (NAD) 83. The New York
State GIS Clearinghouse has a published horizontal accuracy of +4 feet for their
1-foot pixel resolution orthoimagery and +8 feet for their 2-foot pixel resolution
orthoimagery.
Initially, 606 images were downloaded from the New York State GIS Clearing-
house Web site. During the initial download, it was noted that some images were
not available for direct download due to the sensitive content of those images. A
formal request was made to the New York State Office for Technology in No-
vember 2002 to acquire these images. This request yielded an additional 69 im-
ages. Thus, a total of 675 images, covering the entire study area, were acquired.
Two raster catalogs were compiled in order to organize the imagery and facilitate
their use in the GIS software. One raster catalog consists of the images that were
downloaded directly from the New York State GIS Clearinghouse Web site and a
second raster catalog consists of the sensitive-content imagery. The sensitive-
content imagery was put in the second raster catalog to ensure adherence to guide-
lines set forth by the New York State Office for Public Security regarding the dis-
tribution of images with sensitive content.
2.2 Development of the GIS Component
GIS technology was used to organize, map, and analyze the tremendous amount of
geospatial data that was collected and developed for the study area. The GIS
component was developed with the Environmental Systems Research Institute
(ESRI) ArcGIS suite of software. The types of spatial data that were incorporated
included:
¦ Feature datasets: a collection of points, lines, label annotation, and areas
managed as feature tables (e.g., shoreline features, dredge areas, sample loca-
tion points);
¦ Raster datasets: individual or multi-tiled images or grids (e.g., high-
resolution aerial imagery, United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital
Elevation Models);
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 2.doc-6/3/03
2-2
-------
2. Development of the Facility Siting Database
¦ Tables: representing nongraphic objects (e.g., tax mapping and parcel owner-
ship information);
¦ Relationships: a procedure for selecting records from one table/feature and
locating records in a corresponding table/feature (e.g., relating tax parcel in-
formation to property classification codes); and
¦ Spatial relationships: relationships within feature datasets that are defined
by topology and network design (e.g., calculating distances to rail, river, and
road from specific parcels).
Each dataset was formatted according to the following procedure:
¦ The projection of each new dataset was determined and then converted to the
recommended Hudson River Project projection, which is defined as Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 18, units in meters, and Horizontal Datum
NAD 83.
¦ ArcCatalog was used to create Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)
metadata (i.e., information about data such as the last time a dataset was up-
dated, the organization responsible for collecting and updating data, contact
information, etc.). Each field was filled out with the appropriate information.
If the dataset was accompanied by metadata before the import, it was trans-
ferred over to the FGDC-compliant format.
¦ Each dataset was screened through a rigid quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) phase in which the data was assessed against property classification
codes, parcel information, and the Group 1 siting criteria. Results were
documented in the metadata file.
2.3 Data Sources
Various sources were reviewed for the development of this database, including
agency information, existing mapping, and reports prepared for previous Hudson
River studies.
Specifically, portions of the original GIS database from the Feasibility Study
(USEPA 2000), as well as other data sources, have been incorporated into this
system to provide spatial data. Existing GIS data collected to date include data-
sets from the following sources: the New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (NYSDEC), EPA Region 2, the New York State Department
of State (NYS DOS), the New York State Public Services Commission, the
USGS, the National Park Service (NPS), the New York State Department of
Health (NYSDOH), the United States Department of Agriculture (USD A), the
Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS), the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), ESRI, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), local counties
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 2.doc-6/3/03
2-3
-------
2. Development of the Facility Siting Database
(Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, and Washington), Deskmap Systems, TAMS/Earth
Tech, Inc. (formerly TAMS Consultants, Inc.), and the New York State GIS
Clearinghouse.
The Hudson River Facility Siting GIS database now contains more than 100
unique datasets. As discussed in the Concept Document, the site selection process
will involve the use of Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 siting criteria. The selec-
tion of PCSs primarily involved the use of the Group 1 Criteria, with the par-
cel/property classification code data as a core layer of information. The sources
used to represent the Group 1 criteria are described below:
¦ Roads: The original layer was based on the ESRI road layer database. Roads
were corrected to the 2001 Annual Lot of New York State-wide Digital Ortho-
imagery (New York State aerials).
¦ Rail: The original layer was based on the Deskmap Systems railroad data-
base. Rail lines were corrected to the 2001 Annual Lot of New York State-
wide Digital Orthoimagery (New York State aerials).
¦ Shoreline: The original layer was based on the EPA layer from the Feasibility
Study (USEPA 2000). Portions of the shoreline were corrected to the 2001
Annual Lot of New York State-wide Digital Orthoimagery (New York State
aerials).
¦ Utilities: The current layer is based on the NYS Public Service Commission
data layers for major electric and gas transmission lines.
¦ Dredging Area Locations: The original mapping was based on the EPA
layer of remediation areas and dredge areas to implement from the Feasibility
Study, which was later updated to include the Dredge Management Cell in-
formation from the "Preliminary Draft Engineering Performance Standards
Part 3: Dredging Productivity," prepared for USACE-Kansas City, by Mal-
colm Pirnie, Inc. and TAMS Consultants, Inc. for the Productivity Perform-
ance Standards (unpublished).
2.4 Acquisition and Development of Siting Criteria
Information
Numerous datasets were acquired and used in the PCS identification process. The
incorporation of these datasets required a number of steps to allow for the consis-
tency, integrity, and accuracy of the overall GIS database. Specifically, analyses
were performed on the datasets that are related to each of the Group 1 facility sit-
ing criteria in an effort to prepare for the use of such data in the screening and
evaluation processes involved in the PCS identification process.
Appendix A provides a detailed presentation of the acquisition, development, and
integration of the data specific to:
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 2.doc-6/3/03
2-4
-------
2. Development of the Facility Siting Database
¦ County tax parcel/property classification information;
¦ Shoreline delineation and mapping;
¦ Rail resources;
¦ Road infrastructure; and
¦ Dredge area delineation and mapping.
2.5 Facility Siting Database QA/QC
An important factor in managing the GIS database is to account for data handling
and tracking procedures. Routine uses of the GIS component include importing
datasets into GIS, exporting and exchanging information, appending new data to
existing datasets, and applying analytical procedures to datasets. These actions
have been, and will be, logged through ESRI software.
ESRI's ArcCatalog is used not only to create FGDC-compliant metadata but also
to enable the user to track process steps such as projections, merges, clips, or in-
tersections. All formal FGDC-compliant metadata files that were developed via
the import routine were stored in the same directory as each of the GIS datasets,
along with pertinent 'readme.txt' files or Web links. When new GIS data were
imported to the project GIS repository, standardized naming conventions were
used to ensure that the most current dataset was being used for the analyses and
map development tasks.
River access, rail, roads, and dredge areas were subjected to a detailed QA/QC
analysis that involved the following:
1. Each dataset was compared to the NYS aerials. Areas that needed to be ad-
justed, added, or deleted were documented or labeled.
2. Standard error deviations in datasets were identified and noted in the QA/QC
documentation.
3. Datasets were then passed through two tiers of critical evaluation-a GIS re-
view and a technical review. All issues were reconciled and documented.
4. Complete FGDC-compliant metadata were created for the final datasets.
5. All QA/QC adjustments were documented to provide information on attribute-
specific or location-specific changes that were made to each data layer and any
observations regarding issues that could affect the accuracy of the data.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 2.doc-6/3/03
2-5
-------
2. Development of the Facility Siting Database
The remaining Group 1 criterion (utilities) will be addressed on a site-by-site ba-
sis, as acquiring several detailed utility layers is not feasible for the entire study
area.
A qualitative field verification of existing resources and mapping of the PCSs was
conducted in March 2003 via a "windshield survey" of all sites that were readily
observable from public roads.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 2.doc-6/3/03
2-6
-------
3
Preliminary Candidate Site
Identification Process
Identifying the PCSs involved examining specific characteristics within the study
area to locate potentially suitable sites for one or more sediment process-
ing/transfer facilities. Once areas were initially identified, they were examined
more closely using the facility siting criteria in a filtering/screening process that
enabled PCSs to be identified and other areas to be removed from further consid-
eration.
3.1 Facility Siting Process Using Group 1 Siting Criteria
and Parcel Data
After incorporating information into the database, the GIS database was used to
quickly and efficiently review areas against the Group 1 criteria to ensure that 1)
an adequate number of candidate sites was identified and 2) that a methodology
was in place to efficiently reduce the number of potential sites to those demon-
strating greater degrees of suitability. GIS also was used to make sure that poten-
tially promising sites were not missed.
Using the GIS database described in Section 2, the process of identifying PCSs
involved the following steps:
¦ Incorporating and refining parcel data (see Section 3.1.1)
Filtering the parcel data to fit the study area;
Filtering the parcel data within the study area to select for specific property
codes;
¦ Characterizing the study area and analyzing and applying Group 1 criteria (ac-
cess to the shoreline, rail, and road and the available area; proximity to dredge
areas and utilities)
¦ Applying Group 1 criteria (see Section 3.2)
Conducting a "first pass" analysis and assessment of parcels;
Conducting a "second pass" analysis, resulting in the initial identification
of 29 PCSs;
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-1
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
¦ Completing additional analyses to validate the identification process, which
resulted in the addition of two sites to the initial list of PCSs (see Section 3.3)
expansion of the rail zone;
incorporation of additional property classification codes;
¦ Analysis of other sites (see Section 3.4)
¦ Identification of PCSs recommended for further investigation (see Section
4.0).
3.1.1 Incorporating and Refining Parcel Data
In addition to the Group 1 criteria, tax parcel data provided by Saratoga, Washing-
ton, Rensselaer, and Albany counties established the foundation for determining
the basic characteristics of parcels and became the core layer for analyzing the
relative suitability of parcels compared to the Group 1 criteria listed above.
Specifically, the tax parcel mapping and information provided the following de-
tails for all parcels within the study area: location, approximate property bounda-
ries, total area, property classification code (land use), and ownership information.
The parcel data, therefore, enabled locations to be identified based on factors that
otherwise would not have been available. For example, selecting a site solely on
the locations of river, rail, and road would not provide insight as to available area,
existing land uses of sites, the number of parcels that could be affected, or how
many landowners might be affected.
Study Area Characterization
The tax parcel and associated property code information were critical in determin-
ing the potential "universe" of parcels within the study area. The information
provided by the counties was initially modified to create an area that included
municipalities adjacent to the Hudson River throughout the study area. This area
included 153,178 parcels.
Analysis of Parcel Data for Use in the PCS Identification Process
A total of 29,794 parcels were found within the study area (0.5 mile inland from
the river shoreline), which comprises 36,674 acres. The GIS system was used to
identify parcels within the study area.
The relative percentage (in area) of the four counties within the study area is as
follows: Saratoga County, 37%; Washington County, 28%; Rensselaer County,
23%; and Albany County, 12%. All parcels were identified by property class and
classified by acreage. Next, the relative (approximate) percentages of total avail-
able acreage for each of the existing land uses (per property code) was calculated
for the entire study area. Figure 3-1 presents a summary of the land use informa-
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-2
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
tion within the study area and indicates what was available for consideration dur-
ing the PCS identification process.
As indicated in Figure 3-1, agricultural (22.4%) and residential (24.4%) property
codes account for approximately 47% of the total area within the study area, while
industrial (4.6%) and commercial uses (9.5%) account for approximately 14%.
Vacant lands comprised a relatively high 21.2% of the total. Table 3-1 presents
similar information for each of the counties.
Land Use in the Hudson River Study Area
(Classified by Acreage)
~ Agricultural (100):
n Residential (200):
~ Vacant (300):
~ Commercial (400):
¦ Recreation and Entertainment (500)
~ Community Services (600):
~ Industrial (700):
~ Public Services (800):
¦Wild, Forested, Etc... (900):
~ Unclassified:
Figure 3-1 Land Uses (per NYSORPS Property Classifications) within
the Hudson River Facility Siting Study Area
As indicated in the Concept Document and the ROD, the EPA intends to locate
the facility(ies) in industrial or commercial areas. Accordingly, using GIS, spe-
cific property classification codes were selected within the study area. As indi-
cated in Section 2, property classification codes from the categories of industrial;
commercial; vacant; public services (i.e., electric/gas power generation and
transmission; waste disposal; solid wastes; pipelines); and wild, forested, and con-
servation lands (i.e., one selected: Hudson River and Black River regulating dis-
trict land) were selected as those that may include suitable land uses for the siting
of one or more sediment processing/transfer facilities. The aerial photography
was reviewed to confirm that the parcels of the selected property codes exhibited
land uses that were industrial, commercial, vacant, etc. (See Table A-2). In this
manner, the parcel information was used to assist in determining the potential
availability of commercial and industrial locations. The parcel data also provided
a framework from which to initially assess the proximities of specific parcels to
the shoreline, rail, road, dredge areas, and utilities.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-3
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
Table 3-1 Relative (Approximate) Percentages of NYSORPS Property
Classifications Within Each of the Counties in the Hudson
River PCBs Facility Siting Study Area
Counties Within Study Area
Washington
Rensselaer
Saratoga
Albany
Total # of Parcels
3,024
11,731
6,545
8,494
Total Acreage
10,093
8,287
13,733
4,561
Property Code
Classifications
Property
Class*
Agricultural
100
47%
8%
20%
<1%
Residential
200
20%
26%
31%
14%
Vacant
300
14%
29%
25%
14%
Commercial
400
4%
16%
5%
21%
Industrial
700
4%
7%
4%
6%
Public Services
800
6%
6%
4%
10%
Wild, Forested, Conserva-
900
3%
<1%
7%
2%
tion Lands, and Public
Parks
Community Services
600
2%
5%
3%
10%
Recreation and Enter-
500
<1%
3%
1%
3%
tainment
Unclassified
<1%
<1%
<1%
20%
* NYS Office of Real Property Services
Further refinement of the parcel data to include only those property codes that
would be potentially suitable for facility siting reduced the number of parcels in
the study area to 2,410.
3.1.2 Shoreline (River Access)
Study Area Characterization
The character of the Hudson River shoreline varies throughout the study area,
ranging from steep bluffs in the Hudson Falls area to low-lying floodplain areas
containing wetlands in the lower portion above Federal Dam. Below Federal
Dam, in the Albany and Troy areas, much of the shoreline has been armored with
bulkheads and riprap to support port facilities and urbanized land uses near the
river.
Analysis and Use in the PCS Siting Process
Initial analysis of the shoreline (relative to the parcel mapping) was conducted by
simultaneously examining available parcels of the selected property codes within
0.25 mile and 0.50 mile of the shoreline. This examination demonstrated that in-
creasing the distance from the shoreline from 0.25 mile to 0.50 mile resulted in an
increase in the selection of parcels by approximately 20% - 25%. Ultimately, the
0.25 mile buffer was used because the number of parcels located within 0.25 mile
of the river was determined to be a good foundation for initiating the analyses.
Additionally, because dredged material will be transported to a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility by barge or pipeline, analyzing parcels closer to the river
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-4
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
(within 0.25 mile) was deemed more practical. Moreover, sites located closer to
the shoreline would minimize potential impacts to local communities by reducing
the distance of transport of material from the edge of the river to the active por-
tions of a facility.
3.1.3 Rail
Study Area Characterization
Rail access varies widely across the study area. Rail lines occur at various loca-
tions within the study area, but there are portions of the study area in which no rail
exists. Given EPA's determination in the ROD that processed sediments be trans-
ported by rail or barge, rail lines are a necessary component of the remedial ac-
tion.
There are approximately 42 miles of existing, active rail lines in the study area.
These existing rail corridors are present in three general areas. First, there are ex-
isting rail lines located in the northern half of River Section 1 (the former Fort
Edward Dam [River Mile] (RM) 195.8 to the Thompson Island Dam (RM 188.5)
[Figure 3-2]). These rail lines radiate out from the village of Fort Edward. From
the village of Fort Edward, rail runs northerly to the village of Hudson Falls, along
the east side of the Hudson River. Another rail line heads northeasterly from the
village of Fort Edward, parallel to the Champlain Canal. A third rail line heads on
a southerly and southwesterly course through the town of Moreau for approxi-
mately 2.5 miles and then extends beyond the study area.
The second general area where rail lines are accessible within the vicinity of the
study area is located at the southerly end of River Section 2 (Thompson Island
Dam to Northumberland Dam, near Schuylerville [Figure 3-2]). A single rail line
terminates on the east side of the Hudson River, just north of the confluence of the
Hudson River and the Batten Kill. The rail line heads in an easterly direction
along the northern side of the Batten Kill in the town of Greenwich.
The third, and largest, general area containing existing rail is from the midpoint of
River Section 3 (Northumberland Dam to the Federal Dam at Troy, Figure 3-2) to
the southernmost extent of the study area. In this area, rail runs in a southerly di-
rection along the west side of the Hudson River from the town of Stillwater to the
downstream end of the Port of Albany and beyond. On the east side of the Hud-
son River, in the town of Schaghticoke, an existing rail runs for approximately 2
miles within the 0.5-mile-wide study area, and another line runs generally south
from the city of Troy to the city of Rensselaer and beyond.
Analysis and Use in the PCS Siting Process
Analysis of the availability of parcels near the shoreline, rail lines, and roads indi-
cated that, given the lack of rail in some portions of the study area, rail access ap-
pears to be a prominent and limiting factor in siting a sediment treatment/
processing facility. Variable distances to rail (0.5 mile, 0.25 mile, 500 feet, 250
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-5
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
feet) were examined simultaneously to understand the relationship between prox-
imity to rail and the number of available parcels with the selected property codes.
The rail criterion had the greatest influence on the number of available parcels,
compared to shoreline and road access (see Section 3.2).
3.1.4 Roads
Study Area Characterization
Roads must be available or be able to be constructed to allow project personnel to
enter and leave a facility. Additionally, as noted in the ROD, if a beneficial use of
some portion of the dredged material is arranged, then appropriate transportation
(i.e., rail, truck, or barge) will be determined. Roads occur throughout the study area.
Major north-south running roads include: U.S. Route 4; State Route 32; County
Road 29; County Road 113; County Road 127; and Interstate Route 787, (Figure 3-
2). There are ten major east-west crossings of the river in the study area, including:
U.S. Route 4, State Route 29, State Route 67, State Route 470, State Route 7, State
Route 2, State Route 378, Interstate 90, and U.S. Routes 9 and 20 (Figure 3-2).
Analysis and Use in the PCS Siting Process
Analyses of the availability of parcels with respect to proximity to shoreline, rail, and
road indicated that roads are not a limiting resource within the study area. Review of
the parcel data showed that roads either bordered a majority of the parcels or there
was direct access by roads onto parcels. For those relatively few instances where a
major road did not bound parcels, smaller and/or property access roads typically in-
tersected the parcels.
3.1.5 Available Area
Study Area Characterization
Area is an important consideration for the siting of a treatment facility. Until design
of a sediment processing/transfer facility has progressed, it is difficult to determine
the area specifications that a facility might require. Therefore, for the purposes of
identifying PCSs and as provided for in the Feasibility Study, a 10-acre minimum
was used as a placeholder.
Parcels within the study area vary in size, from under an acre to more than 100 acres.
Generally, the smaller parcels were found to be in those areas that have been more
densely developed over time. Conversely, the larger parcels more commonly oc-
curred in areas where development was more scattered or contained land uses that
typically require larger areas (i.e., agricultural, gravel pits).
Analysis and Use in the PCS Siting Process
During the initial analysis of the parcel data (i.e., those parcels that met the prop-
erty classification code requirement) a minimum area requirement was not imme-
diately utilized. After examining single parcel sites, which can be acquired more
efficiently, multiple parcel options were reviewed. Consequently, available area
was determined by examining parcels individually and, where appropriate, as
groups whose combined area may be sufficient to site a facility. Thus, "parcels"
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-6
-------
ludsofTil;1
HudsanT> River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
02:001515. HR03.08.01 -11\18\2002 \BUFFALO\HUDSON RIV ER\M APS\MXD\P R EL IMIN A RY CONCEPT DOCUMENTVFIGURE 3-1 DETAILED STUDY AREA 120502. MXD-G IS
SOURCE ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002, ESRI 2002, USEPA 2002a
Note: RM = River Miles
Figure 3-2: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
Facility Siting Study Area, Upper Hudson River
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
and preliminary candidate "sites" are not equivalent terms (i.e., some PCSs are
composed of more than one parcel).
3.1.6 Proximity to Dredge Areas
Study Area Characterization
The dredging information developed in the ROD was used to provide the total
volume of contaminated sediments targeted for removal (2.65 million cubic
yards[cy]) as well as the mapping that presented proposed dredging locations
(USEPA 2002). A majority of the dredging volumes (approximately 80%) are
located in River Sections 1 and 2. The remainder of the material occurs in River
Section 3.
Analysis and Use in the PCS Siting Process
At this stage in the facility siting process, proximity to dredging areas was used to
generally characterize PCS locations relative to the locations and volumes of the
dredge areas rather than as a criterion for the identification of parcels.
3.1.7 Utilities
Study Area Characterization
This evaluation criterion incorporates a measure of the availability of electric, wa-
ter, gas, and communication services necessary to operate a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility. The study area was reviewed for the availability of utilities.
Industrial and commercial developments typically have access to utilities and
utilities usually are found along major roads and in the vicinity of major munici-
palities (i.e., villages and towns).
Analysis and Use in the PCS Siting Process
Due to the large geographic extent of the study area and the fact that utility infor-
mation is generally available through DigSafely (http:www.DigSafely.com) and
from public and private suppliers of exact site addresses, obtaining utility maps
specific to the entire study area was determined to be impracticable and unneces-
sary. However, access to utilities is likely to be greater within areas of higher
population density, areas near population centers, areas currently zoned commer-
cial/industrial, and areas proximate to roadways. Therefore, the potential presence
of or access to utilities was evaluated qualitatively after the PCSs were identified,
based on a review of available information. In general, the following approach
was used:
¦ Using aerial photography and parcel information, the likelihood of sites hav-
ing access to utilities was evaluated relative to municipal boundaries and/or
areas of higher population densities and to the presence of existing structures
on site.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-9
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
¦ The potential for electric and communication services (i.e., telephone and ca-
ble) was also evaluated based on the presence of overhead power lines on
nearby roads (if visible on aerial photographs) and the proximity of sites rela-
tive to residential, industrial, or commercial properties.
¦ The potential for water services was evaluated based on the presence of man-
holes or catch basins on nearby roads (which indicate such municipal services
are available); the proximity of sites relative to residential, industrial, or com-
mercial properties; and the presence of municipal water or sewer company
property (e.g., reservoirs) in the vicinity.
¦ Transmission lines/property information was readily available from the parcel
information provided by the counties.
3.2 Application of Group 1 Facility Siting Criteria
3.2.1 "First Pass" Analysis
During the first pass analysis the GIS database was used to locate sites and subse-
quently screen them to determine those that best met the land use (i.e., property
classification codes) and Group 1 criteria requirements.
Results: 475 parcels were initially identified as occurring within 0.25 mile of the
shoreline, 0.25 mile of road, and 500 feet of rail (Table 3-3). These parcels were
subsequently subjected to a secondary screening process to identify specific loca-
tions and to determine the relative agreement with the shoreline, rail, and road cri-
teria. During the review of parcels it was found that there were numerous parcels
that were small in area (i.e., generally <1.0 acre), and/or appeared to be somewhat
isolated from properties with similar property codes. The majority of these were
located in densely populated areas in the vicinity of Albany and Cohoes. These
latter parcels were eliminated from further consideration, which resulted in 151
parcels remaining after the first pass analysis was completed.
Supporting Information: The parcel layer provided the framework by which to
spatially examine suitable locations and their characteristics (i.e., acreage, owner-
ship, land use). Initially, the property classification codes were reviewed to de-
termine appropriate land uses for locating a sediment processing/transfer facility.
This resulted in the identification of 77 property classification codes (see Appen-
dix A and Table A-2). Once these codes had been identified, all of the existing
parcels that contained these codes were queried within the study area. This estab-
lished the potentially suitable parcels relative to the selected property codes.
Next, the selected Group 1 criteria (access to the river, rail lines, and roads) were
overlayed on top of the selected parcel information. The shoreline criterion was
examined with a 0.5-mile-wide buffer and 0.25-mile-wide buffer. The road and
rail criteria were examined using buffers of 250 feet, 500 feet, 0.25 mile, and 0.5
mile, for areas that were within 0.25 mile and 0.50 mile from the shoreline. The
"intersect" method was used to locate parcels where specific buffers for these cri-
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-10
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
teria intersected. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 list the numbers of available parcels within
each buffer zone for shoreline, rail, and road. From that analysis it was deter-
mined that an adequate number of parcels were located within the 0.25-mile
buffer. Similarly, the sites identified within areas more than 0.25 mile from
shoreline and within 0.50 mile from shoreline did not clearly pose any distinct ad-
vantages over those that were identified within 0.25 mile of shoreline. Given the
importance of locating a facility close to the river for barge loading and unloading,
the 0.25-mile buffer was used to identify parcels and, later, the PCSs.
Table 3-2 Summary of the Number of Parcels Located Within
0.50 Mile of the Hudson River Shoreline and Within
Various Rail and Road Buffer Zones
Rail Buffers
Road Buffers
0.5 Mile
0.25 Mile
500 feet
250 feet
0.5 mile (2,640 ft)
1,781
1,315
755
530
0.25 mile (1,320 ft)
1,686
1,245
728
511
500 ft
1,305
971
577
403
250 ft
1,028
774
485
336
Once the shoreline buffer was established, the rail and road buffers and selected
parcels were further examined to select the appropriate buffers. The resulting
numbers of parcels for each rail and road buffer within 0.25 mile of the shoreline
is presented in Table 3-3. The maximum number of parcels selected was 1,052,
which indicated that there were 1,052 parcels located within 0.25 mile of the Hud-
son River that had a road and a rail line within 0.5 mile of each of those parcels.
The least number of parcels identified was 251, which was associated with the
most restrictive criteria (250-foot road and rail buffers [see Table 3-3]).
Table 3-3 Summary of the Numbers of Parcels Located Within
0.25 Mile of the Hudson River Shoreline and Within
Various Rail and Road Buffer Zones
Rail Buffers
Road Buffers
0.5 Mile
0.25 Mile
500 feet
250 feet
0.5 mile (2,640 ft)
1,052
781
477
336
0.25 mile (1,320 ft)
1,045
776
475
334
500 ft
980
730
441
303
250 ft
810
605
372
251
All of the parcels within 0.25 mile of the shoreline were classified according to
the variable buffer zones and then examined spatially with GIS. Each of the buff-
ers for rail and road were examined to determine how parcels were selected when
the buffer was increased.
Road
It was apparent that increasing the road buffer from 0.25 mile to 0.5 mile did not
substantially increase the number of suitable parcels. Most parcels within 0.25
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-11
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
mile of the river had an access road or a main road adjacent to it. In addition, it
was noted that by using the 0.5-mile road buffer, parcels that were located across
the river from the road occasionally were selected. Because roads are abundant
and because road access is relatively easy to obtain and/or construct, the 0.25-mile
road buffer was selected.
Rail
The rail buffer was examined closely because it is critical that a site have some
reasonable proximity to rail. Applying the 250-foot rail buffer with the selected
shoreline and road buffer resulted in a relatively low number of parcels. After ex-
amining the 500-foot rail buffer (with 0.25 mile shoreline and 0.25 mile road), it
was apparent that the number of parcels (475 [see Table 3-3]) was a reasonable
starting point from which to begin the initial PCS identification process.
3.2.2 "Second Pass" Analysis
A second pass analysis was conducted to assess the relative suitability of the 151
parcels and to initiate the identification of PCSs. Up to this point in the PCS iden-
tification process, locations were identified and reviewed on a parcel basis only.
The second pass evaluation was the first step in identifying sites. As indicated in
Section 3.1.5, groups of parcels in some locations alone did not meet the 10-acre
minimum guideline but when combined with adjacent parcels demonstrated rela-
tive suitability with the shoreline, rail, and road criteria.
Results: The second pass analysis resulted in the identification of 29 PCSs.
Supporting Information: A number of parcels were eliminated through the par-
cel-by-parcel analysis. A majority of the parcels that were eliminated exhibited a
combination of the following characteristics:
¦ Active industrial areas - parcels containing currently active industrial proper-
ties, where it would be impractical to construct and operate a sediment proc-
essing/transfer facility and that may be difficult to acquire (e.g., General Elec-
tric [GE] active manufacturing properties, Irving Tissue, Scott Tissue, and
others). However, this factor did not eliminate sites in some instances where
there was adequate area on site that did not appear to be in active use.
¦ Small size - some parcels met the criteria but were 2 to 7 acres in size and ad-
jacent parcels did not have similar property classification codes surrounding
them.
¦ Proximity to dams and locks - if a site was small or located next to a dam, it
was not considered because of complications with establishing a bulkhead;
exceptions included areas that had adequate space to construct a bulkhead.
¦ Turbulent river conditions - aerial photography indicated that some parcels
were close to areas of water turbulence, suggesting a shallow river channel or
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-12
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
subsurface features (i.e., bedrock), and/or the parcel was downstream of a
dam.
¦ Potential complexity of obtaining river access - based upon numbers of par-
cels, land uses, and/or roads that would have to be crossed.
¦ Potential complexity of obtaining rail access - based upon numbers of parcels,
land uses, and/or roads/rail that would have to be crossed.
Some GE properties retained through this analysis appear to have potential access
to corridors that could be developed from the shoreline to the property. In addi-
tion, an active GE parcel that appeared to have inactive space also was selected.
3.3 Additional Analyses
Additional analyses were conducted to ensure that potentially suitable sites close
to the river had not been missed as a byproduct of the overall application of the
siting criteria and use of GIS. In addition, the need for additional analyses was
evidenced by the results of the first and second pass analyses: only five sites were
identified as initial PCSs within River Sections 1 and 2. As noted earlier, ap-
proximately 80% of the total volume of dredge material is located within the up-
per two river sections. The additional analyses provided assurance that the use of
GIS and the Group 1 criteria did not restrict the identification of potentially suit-
able sites.
Results: Two parcels were added to the PCS list, increasing the total number of
PCSs to 31.
Supporting Information: The additional analyses included:
¦ Expanding the rail criterion to 0.25 mile (1,320 feet) and 0.50 mile (2,640
feet) with the same property classification codes and shoreline buffers (0.25
mile) and road buffers (0.25 mile) (see Section 3.3.1); and
¦ Incorporating additional NYSORPS classification codes (see Section 3.3.2).
3.3.1 Expansion of the Rail Criterion
This analysis was conducted specifically to determine if, by varying the rail
buffer, additional locations within River Sections 1-3 that were relatively close to
the river could be identified. Specifically, the analysis was performed to verify
there were no parcels located along the river that were just beyond the previously
applied 500-foot rail buffer used in the first and second pass analyses.
Three-hundred thirty (330) parcels were identified as occurring within the desig-
nated buffers. All but two of these parcels were eliminated from further consid-
eration based upon the following factors. (A majority of the parcels exhibited a
combination of these factors.)
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-13
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
¦ Many parcels did not have direct river access.
¦ Some parcels were across the river from rail lines, which would require
unloading dredged material, processing and dewatering the material, re-
loading it back into barges, and then transporting the material across the river
to a transfer facility, which was deemed not feasible for this evaluation.
¦ Examination of the parcels using aerial photography indicated that many sites
appeared to be in active industrial or commercial use.
¦ Parcels were of smaller areas and were isolated from similar property
classification codes.
¦ Because of the complexity of access to river and rail relative to the sites al-
ready identified as PCSs, some parcels did not show any greater degree of
suitability with respect to the facility siting criteria.
¦ Parcels were located next to a dam or a lock.
3.3.2 Incorporation of Additional Property Classification Codes
NYSORPS classification codes were re-examined to identify additional codes that
may have some potential suitability for the siting of a sediment processing/transfer
facility. Twenty-eight property classification codes were added to the GIS data-
base. These codes were largely associated with communications, transportation,
special franchise, and other wild and forested land codes. The result of the analy-
sis was the identification of 27 additional, previously unidentified parcels, which
were predominantly linear, narrow utility and transportation corridors and right-
of-way properties. Due to the lack of sufficient size and/or suitable parcel dimen-
sions, no parcels were added to the PCS list.
3.4 Other Sites
A number of other possible sites were either provided to EPA or were previously
identified by EPA. These sites were also analyzed relative to the set of criteria
and property classification codes that had been established during the facility sit-
ing process (i.e., 0.25 mile shoreline; 500 feet rail; 0.25 mile road). These sites
included the following groups:
¦ Interested landowners - properties that were submitted to EPA by landowners.
Eight landowners submitted letters of interest to EPA, offering their properties
for sale and/or lease for the purpose of constructing and operating a sediment
processing/transfer facility.
¦ Previously identified areas - areas that were preliminarily identified by EPA
(per TAMS) in 1999 as having some potential suitability for constructing and
operating a sediment processing/transfer facility. In many cases, the list that
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-14
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
was produced included the identification of general areas rather than specific
sites. Thirteen areas were identified.
¦ CSX Transportation (CSX) - CSX is a rail transport company that carried out
a preliminary investigation and provided EPA a list of sites that showed prox-
imity to CSX rail lines and met some of the other Group 1 criteria. CSX iden-
tified sites by applying the river access and rail access criteria (defined buffer
zones were not used). There were nine sites identified by CSX, all of which
are below River Section 3.
Results: Three sites were added to the PCS list.
Supporting Information: See Sections 3.4.1, 3.4.2, and 3.4.3.
3.4.1 Interested Landowner Properties
As indicated above, EPA agreed to consider properties from interested landowners
for the potential siting of a sediment processing/transfer facility. To date, EPA
has received information from eight interested landowners. Each of the interested
landowner properties was evaluated. Three properties had been selected as PCSs
as part of the facility siting process. Two additional sites were maintained for fur-
ther investigation and were added to the PCSs. The remaining three sites were
eliminated from further consideration because they exhibited a combination of the
following characteristics:
¦ Incompatible property classification code (residential);
¦ Small size (less than 8 acres);
¦ Located beyond the extent of the width of the study area (i.e., >0.50 mile from
the shoreline);
¦ Potential complexity of gaining river access (i.e., crossing of residential
neighborhoods, roads, rail, etc.).
3.4.2 Previously Identified Areas
In 1999, EPA conducted a cursory examination of properties from the Fort Ed-
ward area down to the Port of Albany to preliminarily identify potential locations
for the siting of a sediment processing/transfer facility (TAMS Consultants, Inc.,
2001). Thirteen areas were identified. In many instances, due to the preliminary
scope of the study, large areas were identified rather than specific properties (i.e.,
the city of Troy, the Port of Albany, Thompson Island). In cross-referencing it
was found that six of the areas previously identified had also been selected as
PCSs. The remaining areas were assessed and were not included as PCSs for the
following reasons:
¦ Incompatible property classification codes (residential, state park);
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-15
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
¦ Potential complexity of gaining rail access, absence of direct and indirect rail
access; and
¦ Active industrial/commercial sites lacking available space for additional de-
velopment.
3.4.3 CSX Transportation Identified Sites
CSX conducted a cursory review of areas with the intent of locating potential sites
for a sediment processing/transfer facility. Without assigning specific proximity
limitations (i.e., 250 feet, 500 feet, etc.) on rail, CSX applied the rail and river ac-
cess criteria to the southern portion of the study area where CSX rail service is
available. This resulted in a list of nine potential sites. All of the sites are located
below River Section 3.
Through the application of the selected Group 1 criteria and property classifica-
tion codes, four of the CSX selected sites had been identified by the facility siting
process and identified as PCSs. One of the sites is also a property that had been
submitted by an interested landowner. The latter site and the remaining four sites
were analyzed using the matrix of siting criteria (0.25 mile shoreline, 500 feet rail,
0.25 mile road) and property classification codes. The interested landowner-CSX
location was retained for further investigation; the remaining four locations were
eliminated for the following reasons:
¦ Incompatible property classification codes and land use (agricultural);
¦ Active industrial/commercial sites lacking available space for additional de-
velopment;
¦ Potential complexity of gaining river access, absence of direct river access;
¦ Smaller size (less than 9 acres); and
¦ Potential complexity of gaining rail access beyond the 500-foot buffer.
3.5 Evaluation of PCSs and Identification of Those
Recommended for Further Consideration
The current facility siting process identified 29 PCSs using selected property clas-
sification codes (primarily industrial, commercial, and vacant) and by applying
specific proximity values (buffers) for shoreline (0.25 mile), rail (500 feet), and
road (0.25 mile) access. The expansion of the rail buffer led to the addition of two
sites, resulting in 31 PCSs. The subsequent analyses of the interested landowner
properties, previously identified areas, and CSX sites increased the total number
of PCSs to 34 (Table 3-4).
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-16
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
Table 3-4 Initially Identified Preliminary Candidate Sites (PCSs) and Those
Recommended for Further Consideration
Site
Approximate
River Mile
Interested
Landowner
Previously
Identified Area
CSX
PCSs for
Further
Considera-
tion
River Section 1
Energy Park (Champlain Canal)
195.1
X
X
Longe (Champlain Canal)
195.0
X
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area
193.8
X
X
State of New York (A)
193.2
X
River Section 2
Georgia Pacific
183.2
X
X
River Section 3
Bruno
166.5
X
Brickyard Associates
166.0
X
X
Edison Paving
164.0
X
X
NIMO - Mechanicville
164.0
X
NYS Canal Corporation
162.4
X
Tironi
162.0
General Electric (A)
159.8
Waterford IDA
159.5
X
General Electric (B)
159.0
General Electric (C)
159.0
X
General Electric (D)
158.1
Jersen-Casale
157.4
American Refuel
154.5
Green Island IDA
154.4
X
X
Below River Section 3
City of Troy/Troy Slag/Oldcastle
151.8
X
Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA
151.4
X
X
X
Callanan/Rensselaer ID A/City of Troy/
King Services
150.8
X
X
X
Town of North Greenbush
148.7
X
Rensselaer Tech Park (A)
147.7
X
Rensselaer Tech Park (B)
147.3
X
State of New York/First Rensselaer
Marine Management
146.7
X
Albany Rensselaer Port District/BASF
144.3
X
X
Albany Port District
144.2
X
Bray Energy
144.0
X
X
Bray Energy/Petrol/Gorman/
Transmontaigne
144.0
X
Norwest
143.5
X
X
X
ABC Operating Company
143.5
OG Real Estate
142.8
X
P & M Brickyard
134.1
X
X
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-17
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
A more detailed database review and a windshield survey were used to remove 10
sites from consideration. The following potentially problematic design character-
istics were common among the 10 sites.
¦ No direct river access;
¦ Gaining river access would involve additional negotiations for additional par-
cel acquisitions and/or river frontage leasing;
¦ Included currently active industrial/commercial sites without additional avail-
able space and/or the need to cross active areas to obtain river or rail access;
¦ Access to the river would involve crossing local roads, thus requiring addi-
tional road design and transfer of dredge material considerations;
¦ Access to the river would involve crossing multiple parcels, some of which
have been identified as having incompatible property classification codes;
¦ Access from the river to the site would involve crossing both road and rail;
and
¦ Road access design may be somewhat more complex due to proximity to ex-
isting industrial, commercial/retail, and residential areas.
Site-Specific Rationale for Removals
PCSs in River Section 3 Removed from Consideration.
¦ Tironi (RM 162.0, app.)
- No direct river access.
Additional design considerations involving crossing US Highway 4 (US4)
(i.e., designing for dredge material to go underneath the road via piping,
over the road, relocation of US4, or the construction of a bridge along
US4).
- Due to the closeness of the road to the river, there may be additional re-
quirements for in-river construction to assure the integrity and safety of
dredge material handling while also maintaining safe traffic conditions on
US4 through the immediate area.
Given available space and the composition of the site (one 11.1-acre parcel
close to the river, one 30.5-acre parcel inland), the active processing area
would have to be located within the inland parcel. This might require the
movement of dredge material from the edge of the river, across US4, and
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-18
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
then across the railroad right-of-way (ROW) before processing could oc-
cur.
Potential for additional design elements needed for visual screening due to
the fact that adjacent parcels are residential and the site parcel is relatively
narrow.
¦ GE-A(RM 159.8, app.)
- No direct river access.
Additional design considerations involving crossing US4 (i.e., designing
for dredge material to go underneath the road via piping, over the road, re-
location of US4, or the construction of a bridge along US4).
- Road access design may be somewhat complex because the site is located
in an area of industrial and commercial/retail businesses, which results in
steady traffic flow along this portion of US4. Road design issues would
also have to include maintaining levels of service and access to local par-
cels similar to current conditions.
- Potential complexity of design for obtaining river access - a number of
parcels would be crossed (after crossing US4), some of which are residen-
tial, others that are listed as commercial, community service, public ser-
vice, etc.
Gaining river access would involve additional considerations of design
and negotiations for additional parcel acquisitions and/or river frontage
leasing.
¦ Waterford IDA (RM 159.5, app.)
- No direct river access.
Additional design considerations involving crossing US4 (i.e., designing
for material to go underneath the road via piping, over the road, relocation
of US4, or the construction of a bridge along US4).
- Road access design would be somewhat complex because the site is lo-
cated in an area of industrial and commercial/retail businesses, which re-
sults in steady traffic flow along this portion of US4. The proximity to the
site of the intersection of US4 and Schoolhouse Lane and the potential ar-
eas for transferring dredge materials to the site across the road increases
the complexity of designing the transfer of dredged material and maintain-
ing local traffic circulation, access, and safety.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-19
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
Gaining river access would involve additional considerations of design
and negotiations for additional parcel acquisitions and/or river frontage
leasing.
¦ GE-B (RM 159.0, app.)
Active industrial-use site; the area that appeared inactive in the aerial pho-
tograph was found, upon closer examination, to contain a bermed land-
fill/buried disposal cell.
¦ GE-D(RM 158.1, app.)
- No direct river access.
- Location would require both the crossing of road and rail to access the site
from the river.
Additional design considerations would involve crossing US4 (i.e., design-
ing for material to go underneath the road via piping, over the road, reloca-
tion of US4, or the construction of a bridge along US4).
- Road access design would be somewhat complex because the site is lo-
cated in an area of industrial, commercial/retail businesses, and residences,
which results in steady traffic flow along this portion of US4.
Gaining river access would involve additional considerations of design
and negotiations for additional parcel acquisition and/or river frontage
leasing.
Complexity of design for obtaining river access - a number of parcels
would have to be crossed (after crossing US4), some of which are residen-
tial, others that are listed as commercial, community service, public ser-
vice, etc.
Closer examination indicated that a portion of the river frontage along the
river is used for seasonal and recreational uses, which would increase the
need for additional design elements (i.e., screening, subsurface piping,
etc.) across the recreational use parcel.
¦ Jersen-Casale (RM 157.4, app.)
- No direct river access.
- Location of the site would require both the crossing of road and rail to ac-
cess the site from the river.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-20
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
Additional design considerations would involve crossing US4 (i.e., design-
ing for material to go underneath the road via piping, over the road, reloca-
tion of US4, or the construction of a bridge along US4).
- Road access design may be somewhat complex because the site is located
in an area of industrial, commercial/retail businesses, and residences,
which results in steady traffic flow along this portion of US4.
- Due to the closeness of the road, there would likely be additional require-
ments for in-river construction to assure the integrity and safety of dredge
material handling while also maintaining safe traffic conditions on US4
through the immediate area.
Given available space and the composition of the site (one 1.5-acre parcel
close to the river, one 30.4-acre parcel inland), the active processing area
would likely have to be located within the inland parcel. This might re-
quire the movement of dredged material from the edge of the river, across
US4, and then across the railroad ROW before processing could occur.
- Potential for additional design elements needed for visual screening (river-
side parcel is narrow and adjacent parcels are residential).
Gaining river access would involve additional considerations of design
and negotiations for additional parcel acquisitions and/or river frontage
leasing.
¦ Am. Ref-Fuel (RM 154.5, app.)
Field examination of this site indicated that an office complex is currently
under construction across most of the site. Additionally, the railroad
tracks have been removed along the eastern property boundary.
PCSs Below River Section 3 Removed from Consideration.
¦ City of Troy-Troy Slag-Oldcastle (RM 151.8, app.)
Active industrial use.
- Due to active use, space does not appear to be available for the construc-
tion and operation of a facility without affecting current operations.
¦ Albany Port District Commission (RM 144.2, app.)
Active industrial use.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-21
-------
3. Preliminary Candidate Site Identification Process
Although the area is situated along the river, access to the river would re-
quire crossing active industrial areas to access the river.
- Road and rail access design would be somewhat complex, or restrictive, as
"meshing" with the existing operations of the port would have to be con-
sidered.
¦ ABC Operating Company (RM 143.5, app.)
- No direct river access.
- Most direct line of access to the river would involve crossing active Port
of Albany areas.
- Location of the site would require crossing of road, rail, and canal/creek to
access the site from the river.
Site is located adjacent to a small tributary (Normans Kill) to the Hudson
River. Direct shoreline access along the creek would likely increase com-
plexity of design and effort of construction due to extensive channel
dredging and widening and modification of the confluence with the Hud-
son River.
- Road access design may be somewhat complex because the site is located
close to the Port of Albany, which results in steady traffic flow, including
truck traffic, along this portion of US4.
Gaining river access may involve additional considerations of design and
negotiations for additional parcel acquisition and/or river frontage leasing.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 3.doc-6/3/03
3-22
-------
Description of the Preliminary
Candidate Sites
The PCSs being considered for further investigation have been evaluated against
the Group 1 siting criteria and with existing land uses in mind. As stated in the
ROD, potential adverse impacts to properties near the sediment process-
ing/transfer facilities will be minimized through careful siting and design of the
facilities. EPA intends to locate one or more facilities in industrial or commercial
areas. After remedial activities have been completed, the parcels will be restored
in a manner that takes into account anticipated future uses (e.g., redevelopment for
commercial or recreational use).
All of the PCSs are classified as having the selected property codes (see Table
A-2), and most sites are located in areas that have been previously developed for a
variety of commercial and industrial uses, including former dredge spoil disposal
areas (i.e., Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area and State of New York-A).
4.1 Overview of the PCSs
The 24 PCSs are located throughout the north-south range of the facility siting
study area, with half of the sites occurring to the south of River Section 3 (Figure
4-1). The following provides the numbers of draft PCSs within each of the river
sections (see Table 3-5).
The 24 sites consist of 54 parcels owned by 30 different owners. The overall
characteristics of the majority of these sites relative to the Group 1 siting criteria
are that most are located within 0.25 mile from the Hudson River shoreline, 500
feet of rail access, and 0.25 mile of road access and are of a sufficient area to sup-
port the construction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility (us-
ing the 10-acre minimum as the guide). Some of the properties submitted by in-
terested landowners that have been identified as PCSs do not match entirely with
these criteria but are being retained for further study because Group 1 criteria gen-
erally apply and because ease of acquisition may be a future consideration.
River Section 1
River Section 2
River Section 3
4
1
7
12
Below River Section 3
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-6/3/03
4-1
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
The remainder of this section focuses on the PCSs by providing brief text descrip-
tions of each site and site description sheets that include information regarding
site location, parcel size, number of parcels, current owner(s), location relative to
dredge areas within in each of the river sections, and other relevant information.
Figure 4-1, located at the end of the site sheets, provides an overview graphic of
all the PCS locations along the river and where they are in relation to each river
section and in relation to each other. Figure 4-1 can be folded out to allow the
reader to read site sheets and view the figure simultaneously.
Please note that the New York State aerial imaging of some of the PCSs is not
included on the description sheets. As requested by the New York State Office of
Public Security, the aerial photography can not be provided as they contain infor-
mation that has been deemed sensitive.
4.2 Site-specific Descriptions
Several similar terms (site, parcel, and tract) are used throughout this section. To
avoid confusing their usage, they are defined here as follows:
¦ Site: A defined area within the project study area that meets the siting process
and criteria presented in Section 3.
¦ Parcel: A subdivision of a site that consists of all the property with the same
ownership. A site may consist of one or more parcels, which may or may not
be contiguous.
¦ Tract: A parcel may consist of one or more tracts, which may or may not be
contiguous.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-6/3/03
4-2
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area Site
Description: The Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area is owned by James River II, Inc. and is lo-
cated in the town of Moreau. This site is approximately 31.6 acres in size and is located on the
west side of the river, approximately at river mile (RM) 193.8. This site was used as a dredge
spoils disposal area.
Road Access: Mill Site Road accesses the site from the south. The main road to the west, Rey-
nolds Road, is approximately 895 feet from Mill Site Road.
River Access: The site has approximately 2,000 feet of shoreline frontage on the Hudson River,
providing direct access to the river from the site.
Rail Access: Rail is present on site in the form of a short spur (1,340 feet long) that converges
with the main rail line west of the site. Rail lines also run along the western boundary line of the
site.
Surrounding Land Uses: Railroad right-of-way (RR ROW) is located north and west of the
site, beyond which are vacant industrial and residential properties. South of the site is the Rogers
Family Cemetery and the New Moreau Landfill. The Hudson River is to the east of the site.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in an area of lower population density, approximately 2.5 miles southeast of
South Glens Falls.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on West
River Road.
¦ Water Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence of existing and former structures on
site and presence nearby of a residential subdivision and the Tee Bird Country Club.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence of existing and former struc-
tures on site and presence nearby of a residential subdivision and the Tee Bird Country Club.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on
West River Road, the presence of existing and former structures on site, and the presence
nearby of a residential subdivision and the Tee Bird Country Club.
¦ Electric and Communication Transmission Lines/Property: Located within approxi-
mately 0.25 mile of the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-4
-------
OLD MOREAU
02:001515.HR03.08.02 -06/02/03 DREDGE SPOILS AREA
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSONRIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCSFACTSHEETS\TECHMEMO\MOREAU.MXD-GIS Wl Wlbw
Site Location: West River Road, Moreau. Saratoga County, NY
Acreage: 316
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
James River II, Inc.
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 15,921/1%
Downstream - 1,546,315/58%
Section 2:
Upstream - 0/0%
Downstream - 525,850/20%
Section 3:
Upstream - 0/0%
Downstream - 561,919/21%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 0
Downstream - 6
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 1.2 (Downstream)
Section 2 - 7.9 (Downstream)
Section 3 - 25.1 (Downstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): Y
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 2,000
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): Y
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Gansevoort
Watervliet
Hudson Falls
/
Fort Edward
Schuylerville
Section 3
Cohoes
Glens Falls
Stillwater
Mechanicville
[ Clifton Park
A—-T
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Longe Site
Description: The Longe site is approximately 28.1 acres in size and is located in the town of
Fort Edward, approximately 7,350 feet from the confluence of the Champlain Canal and the
Hudson River, on the north side of the canal. The site is owned by Thomas Longe and is adja-
cent to a site that has been submitted by an interested landowner.
Road Access: The site is located approximately 770 feet east of Towpath Road across the RR
ROW and approximately 350 feet west of the canal towpath/trail. The parcels that are crossed to
gain access to the site by road include vacant industrial, single-family residential, and Canal Cor-
poration property. There is an existing dirt road that could be improved to provide road access to
the site.
River Access: This site is located north of the Champlain Canal and therefore does not directly
front the Hudson River. Access to the Hudson River would be via the Champlain Canal, which
is located approximately 400 feet east of the eastern site property boundary.
Rail Access: The site is adjacent to a rail line for approximately 1,560 feet. The rail line is lo-
cated north-northwest of the site. There is no rail on site.
Surrounding Land Uses: The RR ROW is northwest of the property, beyond which are com-
mercial, industrial manufacturing/processing, and warehouse distribution facilities. East of the
site is vacant industrial land, west of the site is vacant agricultural land, and south of the site are
several single-family residences and a vacant residential area.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in the village of Fort Edward in an area of relatively low population density
but close to areas of higher population density.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines in nearby
residential subdivision.
¦ Water Service: High likelihood due to the presence of manholes in nearby residential sub-
division.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood because the site is located near the Village of
Fort Edward municipal limits.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines in
nearby residential subdivision and proximity to the Village of Fort Edward municipal limits.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-6
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON_RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS_FACTSHEETS\TECH_MEMO\LONGEMXD -GIS
LONGE
Site Location: Towpath Lane, Fort Edward, Washington County, NY
Acreage: 28 1
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
Thomas F. Longe
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream - 0/0%
Downstream - 1,562,236/59%
Section 2:
Upstream - 0/0%
Downstream - 525,850/20%
Section 3:
Upstream - 0/0%
Downstream - 561,919/21%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 0
Downstream - 7
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 2.4 (Downstream)
Section 2 - 9.2 (Downstream)
Section 3 - 26.3 (Downstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 370
River Frontage (ft): 0
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 350
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Hudson Falls
Glens Falls
Gansevoort )
4
I Schuylerville
Saratoga Springs
Section 3
Watervliet
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Energypark Site
Description: This site was submitted by an interested property owner; the site is located in the
town of Fort Edward, approximately 7,500 feet from the confluence of the Champlain Canal and
the Hudson River and north of the canal. This site is north of and adjacent to the Longe site.
Road Access: Towpath Road runs along the northern boundary of the site. The canal towpath is
180 feet from the southern boundary of the site.
Rail Access: A rail line runs along the northern and northwestern property line and a rail corri-
dor traverses the northern portion of the site. There is approximately 780 feet of adjacent rail
line.
River Access: The site is approximately 225 feet north of the Champlain Canal.
Surrounding Land Uses: The site is bordered by forested and vacant agricultural land to the
north, including a single rural residential property on the far northern end. To the south is vacant
industrial land and to the east is Canal Corporation property and the Champlain Canal. West of
the site is the RR ROW and a business property owned by Environmental Soil Management Re-
cycling.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located within the village of Fort Edward in an area of lower population density but
close to areas of higher population density.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines in nearby resi-
dential subdivision.
¦ Water Service: High likelihood due to the presence of manholes in nearby residential sub-
division.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood because the site is close to the village of Fort
Edward.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines in
nearby residential subdivision and proximity to the Village of Fort Edward municipal limits.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-8
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON_RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS_FACTSHEETS\TECH_MEMO\ENERGYPARK.MXD -GIS
ENERGYPARK
Site Location: Towpath Lane, Fort Edward, Washington County, NY
Acreage: 50 9
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
Energypark Associates
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream - 0/0%
Downstream - 1,562,236/59%
Section 2:
Upstream - 0/0%
Downstream - 525,850/20%
Section 3:
Upstream - 0/0%
Downstream - 561,919/21%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 0
Downstream - 7
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 2.5 (Downstream)
Section 2 - 9.3 (Downstream)
Section 3 - 26.4 (Downstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 220
River Frontage (ft): 0
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 200
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Stillwater
Mechanicville
Section 2
Schuylerville
Section 3
( Clifton Park
Gansevoort
//
/
Hudson Falls
Fort Edward
Section fr
Watervliet
Glens Falls
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
State of New York - A Site
Description: This site is owned by the State of New York and is located in the town of Moreau.
The site is approximately 13.8 acres and is located on the west side of the river approximately at
RM 193.2. This site was used as a dredge spoils disposal area.
Road Access: West River Road parallels the southwest corner of the site and there is 500 feet of
road frontage. A short access road off West River Road leads to the northwest corner of the site.
Rail Access: There is no direct rail access. A rail line is located 950 feet west of the site. Rail
access would involve crossing West River Road and active agricultural property.
River Access: The site has 1,340 feet of river frontage and is located 1,200 feet downstream of
Lock 7.
Surrounding Land Use: There are a variety of land uses around the site. The property to the
north is owned by NYSDEC and is classified as a marina; to the west and south are large agricul-
tural properties, each of which contains a smaller parcel of residential (single and two-family)
property; and immediately to the east is the Hudson River.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in an area of lower population density, approximately 3 miles southeast of
South Glens Falls.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on West
River Road.
¦ Water Service: Low likelihood due to the lack of developed property in the immediate vi-
cinity.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Low likelihood due to the lack of developed property in the immedi-
ate vicinity.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on
West River Road.
¦ Electric and Communication Transmission Lines/Property: Located proximal to the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-10
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON R!VER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMO\NYS-A.MXD -GIS
STATE OF NEW YORK - A
Site Location: West River Road, Moreau. Saratoga County, NY
Acreage: 13 8
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
State of New York
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Hudson River and Black River Regulating District Land
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream - 90,453/3%
Downstream - 1,471,783/56%
Section 2:
Upstream - 0/0%
Downstream - 525,850/20%
Section 3:
Upstream - 0/0%
Downstream - 561,919/21%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 0
Downstream - 6
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 0.5 (Downstream)
Section 2 - 7.3 (Downstream)
Section 3 - 24.5 (Downstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 950
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 1,340
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Gansevoort
//
/
Hudson Falls
/
Fort Edward
Schuylerville
Section 3
Glens Falls
Stillwater
Mechanicville
Watervliet
[ Clifton Park
A—-T
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Georgia-Pacific Site
Description: This site is owned by Georgia-Pacific and is located in the town of Greenwich. The
entire site is approximately 123 acres and is located on the east side of the river, approximately at
RM 183.2. The site is considered one parcel but comprises a number of tracts due to the presence of
roads and a backwater channel/slough that divide the property. The site is situated above and below
the Northumberland Dam, and there appears to be an embayment or bulkhead along the shoreline to
the north of the dam. A backwater channel, or slough, is present along the eastern edge of the river-
front tract.
Road Access: There is direct road access along County Road 113, and dirt roads are present within
the site.
Rail Access: A rail corridor runs onto the riverfront tract for 200 feet and south of the larger inland
tract for 670 feet. The at-grade crossing of County Road 113 appears to have been paved over.
River Access: There is direct river access, with river frontage extending approximately 1,295 feet
above the dam, as well as 185 feet of a dike and 350 feet of undeveloped land below the dam. Ap-
proximately 1,410 feet of shoreline below the dam is inaccessible because of rapids and pilings in
the channel. The presence of the dam would likely influence site design and how trans-loading ef-
forts would be conducted.
Surrounding Land Uses: The site is surrounded by rural residential and vacant agricultural land.
Two residential parcels exist between the Georgia-Pacific tracts, near the southern end of the site. In
addition, nine residential parcels are situated along County Road 113, between the riverfront tract
and the inland tract. A trailer park is located north of the site across County Road 113, and residen-
tial and vacant lands are located south of the site. The School of the Adirondacks is located east of
the southern portion of the site. East of the inland site is agricultural land.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density: The
site is located in an area of lower population density, approximately 4 miles west-northwest of the
village of Greenwich.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to proximity of school and residential area.
¦ Water Service: Low to moderate likelihood given that a school and residential areas are nearby
and there is only scattered development of property in the vicinity.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Low to moderate likelihood given that a school and residential area are
nearby. There is only scattered development of property in the vicinity.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to proximity of school and residential area.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Present within site boundaries.
02:001515 .HR03.08,02-B 1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-12
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON_RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS_FACTSHEETS\TECH_MEMO\GEORGIA_PACIFIC.MXD -GIS
GEORGIA PACIFIC
Site Location: County Road 113, Greenwich, Washington County, NY
Acreage: 122.7
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
Georgia Pacific Corp.
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream - 0/0%
Downstream - 561,919/21%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 1
Downstream - 5
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 9.4 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 2.6 (Upstream)
SectionS- 14.6 (Downstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): Y
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 1,830
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft):
0
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Bruno Site
Description: This site consists of one parcel and is approximately 71.5 acres in size. The site is
located in the town of Schaghticoke, on the east side of the Hudson River, approximately at RM
166.5. The site consists of one parcel comprising two tracts separated by a main road (Knicker-
bocker Road). The tract that fronts the river is approximately 26 acres, and the parcel to the east
(the inland parcel) is approximately 45 acres. A rail line is located between the two tracts.
Road Access: Knickerbocker Road runs between the two parcels, providing direct road access
to both tracts. An access road may exist on the inland tract.
Rail Access: There is direct rail access to/from the site. Rail bounds the eastern property line of
the inland tract. There is approximately 3,830 feet of rail line.
River Access: There is direct river access to the site; the length of available, undeveloped river
frontage is approximately 1,150 feet.
Surrounding Land Uses: A variety of land use types are present in the vicinity of this site: a
New York State Electric and Gas Corporation transmission line corridor and large, single-family
residential properties to the north; a rural, vacant lot adjacent to the tract along the river; and the
Mechanicville Golf Course, which is located adjacent to and south of the inland tract.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Settlement Density:
The site is located in an area of lower population density, approximately 4 miles west of the vil-
lage of Schaghticoke.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on Knicker-
bocker Road.
¦ Water Service: Low to moderate likelihood given the presence of residences and the
Mechanicville Golf Club nearby.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Low to moderate likelihood given the presence of residences and the
Mechanicville Golf Club nearby.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on
Knickerbocker Road.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Located adjacent to the site boundaries.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-14
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON_RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS_FACTSHEETS\TECH_MEMO\BRUNO.MXD -GIS
BRUNO
Site Location: 750 Knickerbocker Rd., Schaghticoke, Rensselaer Cnty., NY
Acreage: 71 5
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
John and Catherine Bruno et al.
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Other Rural Vacant Lands
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream- 282,694/11%
Downstream - 279,225/11%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 3
Downstream - 3
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 26.1 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 19.3 (Upstream)
Sections- 2.1 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 1,150
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Gansevoort
Watervliet
.//
Hudson Falls
/
Fort Edward
Schuylerville
Section 3
Cohoes
Glens Falls
Stillwater
Mechanicville
[ Clifton Park
A—-T
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Brickyard Associates Site
Description: This is a single parcel located in the town of Schaghticoke and was submitted by
an interested property owner. The site is approximately 254 acres and is located on the east side
of the river, approximately at RM 166.0.
Road Access: A road runs generally north-south through the site. Access to the site is via
Brickyard Road, which is 1,760 feet from the main road (Farm to Market Road).
Rail Access: There is direct rail access for approximately 1,650 feet on the western boundary of
the site.
River Access: This site is approximately 1,190 feet from the shoreline of the river. Both road
and rail would have to be crossed in order to obtain river access.
Surrounding Land Uses: There are a variety of land uses in vicinity of the site: large, single-
family residences to the north and west; a large, wooded, single-family residential property di-
rectly to the north; a camping facility directly to the east; vacant land and the Mechanicville Golf
Club to the west; and single-family residences and agricultural land to the south. An off-track
betting facility is located just north of the southwest corner of the property.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in an area of lower population density, approximately 3.5 miles west of the
village of Schaghticoke.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on Farm to Mar-
ket Road.
¦ Water Service: Low to moderate likelihood given the types of structures occurring on site
and distances to residences, commercial business, and the Mechanicville Golf Club nearby.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Low to moderate likelihood given the types of structures occurring on
site and distances to residences, commercial business, and the Mechanicville Golf Club
nearby.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on Farm
to Market Road.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Adjacent to and located within boundary of the
site.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-16
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMO\BRICKYARD.MXD -GIS
BRICKYARD ASSOCIATES
Site Location: 535 Brickyard Road, Schaghticoke, Rensselaer County, NY
Acreage: 253.6
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
William M. Larned & Sons, Inc.
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Other Storage, Warehouse and Distribution Facilities
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream- 282,694/11%
Downstream - 279,225/11%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 3
Downstream - 3
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 26.6 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 19.8 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 2.6 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 1,190
River Frontage (ft): 0
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): Y
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Glens Falls
Gansevoort
77
/ /
Hudson Falls
/
Fort Edward
Section 1
Mechanicville
I Clifton Park
o
Rensselaer
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Edison Paving Site
Description: This site was submitted by an interested property owner and is located in the town of
Schaghticoke, on the east side of the river approximately at RM 164. This relatively large site (181
acres) includes three parcels. It appears that one parcel has been used for the excavation and mining
of sand/soil/gravel materials. There are relatively large, open water areas within this parcel, which
were likely formed as borrow materials were excavated and water filled in over time from groundwa-
ter and/or direct precipitation and local runoff.
Road Access: Hudson River Road traverses the site near the shoreline, with only 6 acres of land
situated between the shoreline and the road. Therefore, accessing the river from the rest of the site
would involve crossing a major road. An on-site road runs from the river to the borrow areas, then to
the abandoned agricultural property. Allen Road can provide access to/from the site. Allen Road,
which can be accessed to the south, intersects Howland Avenue and then connects to a local major
roadway (Farm to Market Road).
Rail Access: Rails front the eastern boundary of the abandoned agricultural parcel. There is ap-
proximately 4,060 feet of frontage with rail, which would provide direct rail access to/from the site.
River Access: The active industrial parcel has direct river access, with river frontage of about 1,110
feet. The Lower Dam and Lock 2 are located approximately 1,300 feet downstream of the southern
property line.
Surrounding Land Uses: There are a number of different land use types in the vicinity of this site:
commercial distribution on two parcels to the south of the site; rural vacant land and crop fields to
the north and west of the inland parcel; a quarry to the south-southeast; vacant and abandoned agri-
cultural land to the east and south; residential property to the north and northeast (one parcel con-
tains no structures) and at the southeast corner of the inland parcel; and land classified as agricultural
to the east of the RR ROW.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density: The
site is located in an area of lower population density, approximately 4.5 miles west of the village of
Schaghticoke.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: Low likelihood due to lack of developed property in the vicinity.
¦ Water Service: Low likelihood due to lack of developed property in the vicinity.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Low likelihood due to lack of developed property in the vicinity.
¦ Communication Service: Low likelihood due to lack of developed property in the vicinity.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: A communications or other type of service tower may
be present on the site.
02:001515 .HR03.08,02-B 1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-18
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON_RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS_FACTSHEETS\TECH_MEMO\EDISON.MXD -GIS
EDISON PAVING
Site Location: River Road, Schaghticoke, Rensselaer County, NY
Acreage: 112.5
Number of Parcels: 2
Owner Name/Information:
Edison Paving Corp.
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Abandoned Agricultural Land; Sand and Gravel Mining and Quarrying
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream -
Downstream -
457,576/17%
104,343/4%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 4
Downstream - 2
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 28.6 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 21.8 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 4.7 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 645
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 1,110
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): Y
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Gansevoort
.//
Hudson Falls
./
Fort Edward
Schuylerville
Section 3
Glens Falls
Stillwater
Mechanicville
Watervliet
l Clifton Pa
A—-T
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Niagara Mohawk - Mechanicville Site
Description: This site consists of a single parcel of approximately 43 acres and is located in the
town of Halfmoon. The site is situated on the west side of the river, approximately at RM 164.
Road Access: Main Street and Mechanicville Road bound the site to the west, and there appear
to be site access roads on the upper and lower portions of the site.
Rail Access: A railroad spur to the American Tissue property is located 100 feet north of the
site.
River Access: There is approximately 1,100 feet of usable riverfront.
Surrounding Land Uses: This site is surrounded by industrial, commercial, and rural vacant
land, and several single-family residential properties are located to the west. The industrial areas
north of the site are an electrical substation and the American Tissue manufacturing/processing
facility.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in an area of lower population density, approximately 0.25 mile from the city
of Mechanicville.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on Hudson River
Road and Mechanicville Road.
¦ Water Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of car dealership, active in-
dustrial property (American Tissue Mills), and County of Saratoga Sewer District facility.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of car dealership, ac-
tive industrial property (American Tissue Mills), and County of Saratoga Sewer District facil-
ity.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on
Hudson River Road and Mechanicville Road.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Adjacent to the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-20
-------
NIAGARA MOHAWK -
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON_RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS_FACTSHEETS\TECH_MEMO\NIMO.MXD -GIS
MECHANICVILLE
Site Location: Hudson River Road, Halfmoon, Saratoga County, NY
Acreage: 42 6
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Electric Power Generation - Hydro
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream -
Downstream -
457,576/17%
104,343/4%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 4
Downstream - 2
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 28.6 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 21.8 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 4.7 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): Y
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 100
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 1,100
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Glens Falls
Gansevoort
77
/ jT **
Hudson Falls
/
Fort Edward
Section 1
Mechanicville
! Clifton
o
Rensselaer
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
New York State Canal Corporation Site
Description: This site is approximately 22 acres and is located in the town of Halfmoon, on the
west side of the river, approximately at RM 162.4.
Road Access: The site is bordered to the west by State Route 4, and several dirt paths appear to
be on the site.
Rail Access: Rail is not adjacent to the site. At the closest point, rail is located approximately
640 feet west of the site.
River Access: The site has 2,150 feet of river frontage. The shoreline is undeveloped except for
a small dock on the southern end.
Surrounding Land Use: To the west is an interested landowner site that has not been identified
as a PCS and to the east is the river. North of the site are several single-family residential proper-
ties, and to the south are several single-family residential and vacant residential properties.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in an area of lower population density, approximately 3.4 miles west-
northwest of the village of Greenwich.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on River
Road.
¦ Water Service: Low to moderate likelihood given the proximity of a school and residential
area and the general lack of developed property in the vicinity.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Low to moderate likelihood given the proximity of a school and
residential area and the general lack of developed property in the vicinity.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on
River Road.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Adjacent to the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-22
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON R!VER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMO\CANAL CORP.MXD-GIS
NYS CANAL CORPORATION
Site Location: Hudson River Road, Halfmoon, Saratoga County, NY
Acreage: 22 4
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
NYS Thruway Authority, NYS Canal Corp.
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Other Rural Vacant Lands
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream - 537,462/20%
Downstream - 24,457/1%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 5
Downstream - 1
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 30 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 23.2 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 6.1 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 640
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 2,150
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
GE Silicones - C Site
Description: This site comprises a single parcel owned by GE Silicones LLC. The site is ap-
proximately 49 acres and is located in the town of Waterford, on the west side of the Hudson
River (RM 159.0).
Road Access: There is direct road access via Mechanicville Road, and Cherry Street accesses
the site via Mechanicville Road.
Rail Access: There is no rail access. Rail access would require crossing Hudson River Road
and one of the Waterford IDA parcels or GE property. The distance to a rail line would be ap-
proximately 1,000 feet using the Waterford IDA property and 1,180 feet using the GE property.
River Access: There is direct river access along 920 feet of undeveloped frontage.
Surrounding Land Uses: To the north of the site is a wastewater treatment facility; to the south
and east is New York State Hudson River and Black River Regulating District property; to the
southwest is a single-family residential property; and west of the site is a Waterford IDA indus-
trial manufacturing property and a GE industrial property.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in an industrial area of lower population density, approximately 1 mile north
of the village of Waterford.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on Hudson River
Road and Mechanicville Road.
¦ Water Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence of a existing on-site structure and
nearby industrial and residential properties.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence of a existing on-site structure
and nearby industrial and residential properties.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on Hud-
son River Road and Mechanicville Road.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Adjacent to the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-24
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON_RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS_FACTSHEETS\TECH_MEMO\GE-C.MXD -GIS
GE - C
200
400
800
I Feet
Site Location: Hudson River Road, Waterford, Saratoga County, NY
Acreage: 49 1
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
GE Silicones LLC
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream - 561,919/21 %
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 6
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 34 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 27.2 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 10.1 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 1,180
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 920
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as directed
by the NYS Office for Public Security.
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Green Island IDA Site
Description: This site is approximately 44 acres and is located in the town of Green Island, on
the west side of the river at approximately by RM 154.4. The site comprises one parcel (three
tracts) and is owned by the Village of Green Island IDA. Some of the river frontage of the site is
located adjacent to the Federal Dam, but a majority of the property is upstream.
Road Access: Delaware Avenue provides direct access to the site. Tibbits Street runs along the
southern boundary of the site, and there are a number of local roads nearby. It appears that ac-
cess to the site parallels the existing railroad tracks.
Rail Access: The site contains direct rail access and an on-site branched spur. The rail line is
likely inactive, but tracks are present. There is approximately 2,590 feet of direct rail access on
the site.
River Access: The site has direct river access but is located adjacent to the Federal Dam and
across the river from the lock. There is approximately 1,450 feet of shoreline upstream of the
dam that could be developed; there is additional shoreline along the confluence with the Mohawk
River.
Surrounding Land Uses: This site is located on a peninsula and is relatively isolated from ad-
jacent sensitive land uses. To the north and the east of the site is the Hudson River; to the west is
the American Ref-fuel site, which is currently being developed for office space; and to the south
is a public park, which is owned by the village of Green Island.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in the village of Green Island, in an area of lower population density but in the
vicinity of areas of higher population density.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on Tibbits
Street.
¦ Water Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of industrial and residential
properties.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of industrial and
residential properties.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on Tib-
bits Street.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Proximal to the site.
02:001515 .HR03.08,02-B 1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-26
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON R!VER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMO\GREEN ISLAND IDA.MXD-GIS
GREEN ISLAND IDA
Site Location: Tibbits Avenue, Green Island, Albany County, NY
Acreage: 44.2
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
Village of Green Island IDA
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Manufacturing and Processing
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream - 561,919/21 %
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 6
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 38.2 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 31.4 (Upstream)
Sections- 14.3 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): Y
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 2,360
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): Y
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Gansevoort
Section 3
//
/
Hudson Falls
/
Fort Edward
Schuylerville
Glens Falls
Stillwater
Mechanicville
[ Clifton Park
A—-T
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA Site
Description: This site is located in the city of Troy, on the east side of the Hudson River. The
site comprises six parcels, totaling approximately 22.8 acres, and includes property owned by
Troy Slag (five parcels) and the Rensselaer County IDA (one parcel). Land use on the site in-
cludes active commercial and industrial properties and vacant land, and it is located in an area
that is predominantly industrial.
Road Access: Monroe Street runs adjacent to the north end of the site, and East Industrial Park-
way runs into the site from Main Street to the south.
Rail Access: The site contains approximately 2,200 feet of direct rail access along the eastern
boundary of the site. The rail line appears to be active.
River Access: The site has approximately 1,420 feet of undeveloped river frontage along the
western site boundary.
Surrounding Land Uses: Land use in the vicinity of the site is predominantly industrial and
commercial facilities. To the north and south of the site are commercial storage, warehouse, and
distribution facilities; to the east are industrial manufacturing/processing facilities and commer-
cial storage/warehouse facilities, beyond which are single- and multiple-family residential prop-
erties; and to the west is the river.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in an area classified as industrial, but it is also within an area of higher popula-
tion density in the city of Troy.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on Monroe
Street.
¦ Water Service: High likelihood due to the presence of manholes on Monroe Street and ex-
isting industrial facilities on site and on adjacent properties.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence of existing industrial facili-
ties on site and on adjacent properties.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on Mon-
roe Street.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Proximal to the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-28
-------
TROY SLAG/
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON R!VER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMOYTROY SLAG-REN IDA.MXD-GIS
RENSSELAER IDA
Site Location: Monroe Street / East Industrial Parkway, Troy,
Rensselaer County, NY
Acreage: 22 8
Number of Parcels: 6
Owner Name/Information:
Troy Slag Products, Inc.; Rensselaer County IDA
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Manufacturing and Processing; Storage, Warehouse and Distribution
Facilities; Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas; Other Storage
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream - 561,919/21 %
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 7
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 41.2 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 34.4 (Upstream)
Sections- 17.3 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 1,420
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): Y
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as directed
by the NYS Office for Public Security.
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
/.
Hudson Falls
/
Fort Edward
Gansevoort
4
Glens Falls
Section 3
Watervliet
Rensselaer
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Callanan/Rensselaer ID A/City of Troy/King Services Site
Description: This site is approximately 21 acres and is located in the city of Troy, on the east
side of the Hudson River (approximate RM 150.8). The site comprises five parcels and includes
property owned by Callanan Industries (one parcel), King Services, Inc. (one parcel), the Rensse-
laer County IDA (one parcel), and the City of Troy (two parcels). The site contains long stor-
age/warehouse-type buildings, a large storage silo, and various debris piles.
Road Access: Main Avenue runs along the northern boundary of the site, and two access roads
traverse the site.
Rail Access: There is 1,100 feet of direct rail access and one spur along the eastern boundary of
the site. The rail line appears to be active.
River Access: The site has approximately 1,120 feet of undeveloped river frontage along the
western site boundary.
Surrounding Land Uses: Land uses in the vicinity of the site include a mixture of residential,
commercial, and industrial uses. To the north of the site is an active Rensselaer County govern-
ment parcel, and to the south are manufacturing and processing facilities. Recreational facilities
(stadium, arenas, armories, field houses) are located near the northeast corner of the site.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in an area of higher population density in the city of Troy.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on Main Avenue.
¦ Water Service: High likelihood due to the presence of manholes on Burden Avenue.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence of industrial facilities on ad-
jacent properties.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on Main
Avenue.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Proximal to the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-30
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMO\CALLANAN.MXD -GIS
CALLANAN/RENSSELAER IDA/
CITY OF TROY/KING SEVICES
Site Location: Main Street, Troy, Rensselaer County, NY
Acreage: 21
Number of Parcels: 5
Owner Name/Information: Callanan Industries, Inc.;
Rensselaer County IDA; City of Troy; King Services, Inc.
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas; Other Storage, Warehouse
and Distribution Facilities; Manufacturing and Processing
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream - 561,919/21 %
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 7
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 41.9 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 35.1 (Upstream)
Section 3- 17.9 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (Y/N): Y
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 1,120
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): Y
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as directed
by the NYS Office for Public Security.
¦ Location of Site River Sections
Watervliet
Gansevoort
Section 3
Glens Falls
l,
' j
/
/
Hudson Falls
/
Fort Edward
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Town of North Greenbush Site
Description: This site is approximately 8.4 acres and is located in the town of North Green
Bush, on the east side of the Hudson River at approximately RM 148.7. This site comprises one
parcel (two tracts) and is owned by the town of North Greenbush.
Road Access: There is direct road access to the site, but the road may be unimproved. It appears
that a road would have to be constructed along or through a portion of the Rensselaer County
property and would then cross Niagara Mohawk property to access the site from the north.
Rail Access: There is approximately 370 feet of direct rail access via the Town of Greenbush
property along the eastern boundary of the site.
River Access: The site has approximately 400 feet of river frontage. The shoreline appears to
be covered with riprap.
Surrounding Land Uses: The site is in a relatively undeveloped area, but it is also classified as
industrial property by Rensselaer County. The site is abutted to the north by a Niagara Mohawk
transmission line corridor, which appears to contain a high-tension line that crosses the river.
Immediately north of the Niagara Mohawk property is a sewage treatment facility operated by
Rensselaer County. To the east of the site are undeveloped and forested properties, and to the
east and south is property owned by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in an area of lower population density, approximately 0.75 mile north-
northeast of the city of Rensselaer and 1 mile south-southeast of the city of Troy.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to the presence directly to the east of developed prop-
erty owned by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
¦ Water Service: High likelihood due to presence nearby of developed property owned by
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
¦ Natural Gas Service: High likelihood due to presence nearby of developed property owned
by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to presence nearby of developed property
owned by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Adjacent to the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-32
-------
TOWN OF
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON R!VER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMO\NORTH GREENBUSH.MXD -GIS
NORTH GREENBUSH
Site Location: River Road, North Greenbush, Rensselaer County, NY
Acreage: 8.4
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
Town of North Greenbush
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream - 561,919/21 %
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 7
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 43.9 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 37.1 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 20 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 50
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 400
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 1,350
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Gansevoort
.//
Hudson Falls
/
Fort Edward
Schuylerville
Section 3
Watervliet
Glens Falls
Stillwater
Mechanicville
[ Clifton Park
A—-T
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Rensselaer Technology Park - A Site
Description: This site is approximately 80 acres, with the majority of the property located in the
city of Rensselaer; a small area in the northern portion of the site is located in the town of North
Greenbush. This site is on the east side of the river at approximately RM 147.7. This site com-
prises a single parcel (three tracts) and is owned by Rensselaer Technology Park. The site con-
sists of vacant land located in a commercial area.
Road Access: There is no direct road access to the site except for an unimproved dirt road. The
road runs parallel to the rail line and may be a railroad maintenance road. Interstate 90 runs
along the south portion of the site, but there is no off-ramp at the site. Washington Avenue inter-
sects Interstate 90 east of the site.
Rail Access: A rail corridor runs parallel to the river through a portion of the site. The rail
frontage is approximately 2,380 feet in length.
River Access: The site has 2,335 feet of undeveloped river frontage.
Surrounding Land Use: To the north is a commercial office building; to the east is more than
20 acres of vacant residential property; to the southeast are a religious seminary, a public service
telephone communication property (land, buildings, and outside plant), and a RR ROW.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in the city of Rensselaer, in an area of lower population density but adjacent to
areas of higher population density.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on Washing-
ton Avenue.
¦ Water Service: High likelihood due to the presence of catch basins on Washington Avenue.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of residential proper-
ties.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on
Washington Avenue.
¦ Communication Transmission Lines/Property: Adjacent to the site.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Transmission lines are located on the southeastern
side of the adjacent rail corridor.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-34
-------
RENSSELAER
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON R!VER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMO\REN TECH PARK A.MXD-GIS
TECHNOLOGY PARK - A
Site Location: 24 River Front, Rensselaer, Rensselaer County, NY
Acreage: 79 8
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
Rensselaer Technology Park
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Vacant Land Located in Commercial Areas
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream - 561,919/21 %
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 7
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 44.9 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 38.1 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 20.9 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 2,335
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Gansevoort J
o
Sehuylerville
Watervliet
/ If-
Hudson Falls
/
Fort Edward
Glens Falls
Cohoes
Rensselaer
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Rensselaer Technology Park - B Site
Description: This site is approximately 13 acres and comprises a single parcel (two tracts)
owned by Rensselaer Technology Park. The property occurs on the east side of the river at ap-
proximately RM 147.3. The site is currently undeveloped, and there are no on-site structures.
The site is a narrow strip of land measuring 310 feet wide and 1,990 feet long.
Road Access: There is no direct road access to this site except for an unimproved road, which
connects to Forbes Road from the south. Interstate 90 runs along the northern portion of the site,
but there is no off-ramp at the site. Forbes Avenue is located approximately 640 feet southeast of
the site. A dirt road runs along the east side of the site.
River Access: The site has 1,990 feet of river frontage.
Rail Access: A rail line runs parallel to the east side of the site for approximately 2,050 feet.
Surrounding Land Uses: To the north and south of the site are vacant, undeveloped commer-
cial properties; to the east is the RR ROW beyond which are public service telephone communi-
cation facilities (land, buildings, and outside plant), a school (general, elementary, and secon-
dary), and apartments.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in the city of Rensselaer, in an area of lower population density but adjacent to
areas of higher population density.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on Washington
Avenue.
¦ Water Service: High likelihood due to presence of catch basins on Washington Avenue.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of residential proper-
ties and schools.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on
Washington Avenue.
¦ Communication Transmission Lines/Property: Adjacent to the site.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Transmission lines are located on the southeastern
side of the adjacent rail corridor.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-36
-------
RENSSELAER
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON R!VER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMO\REN TECH PARK B.MXD-GIS
TECHNOLOGY PARK - B
Site Location: 24 River Front, Rensselaer, Rensselaer County, NY
Acreage: 128
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
Rensselaer Technology Park
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Vacant Land Located in Commercial Areas
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream - 561,919/21 %
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 7
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 45.3 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 38.5 (Upstream)
Sections- 21.4 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 1,990
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Gansevoort J
o
/ If-
Hudson Falls
/
Fort Edward
Sehuylerville
Section 3
Watervliet
Glens Falls
Cohoes
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management Site
Description: This site is approximately 16.6 acres and comprises 17 parcels. Owners include
the State of New York, First Rensselaer Corporation, and Marine Management of the Hudson,
Inc. The site is located on the east side of the river at approximately RM 146.7 and is undevel-
oped. There are no structures on the property. Portions of several parcels were formerly under-
water.
Road Access: Tracy Street, a residential road, ends at the north edge of the site and provides the
only road access to the site. Forbes Avenue connects to Tracy Street from the north. The site is
separated from Broadway Avenue, which parallels the east side of site, by residences, residential
vacant land, and industrial manufacturing and processing facilities.
River Access: The site has approximately 1,400 feet of river frontage. There are no structures
directly along this portion of the shoreline.
Rail Access: There are 2,020 feet of direct access to rail. A rail line parallels the east side of the
site, and a railroad bridge crosses the river immediately south of the site. A railroad yard is lo-
cated south of the site.
Surrounding Land Uses: The site is in the midst of vacant commercial, industrial manufactur-
ing, and single- and multi-family residential properties. To the north is a single-family riverfront
house, beyond which is vacant commercial property; to the south are the RR ROW and a train
station; and to the east are the RR ROW, industrial manufacturing and processing facilities, va-
cant residential and commercial properties, and single- and multi-family residential properties.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in an area of higher population density in the city of Rensselaer.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on Tracy
Street.
¦ Water Service: High likelihood due to presence of manholes on Tracy Street and City of
Rensselaer Water Works property nearby.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of residential proper-
ties.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on
Tracy Street.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-38
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMO\FIRST RENSSELAER.MXD -GIS
STATE OF NEW YORK/FIRST RENSSELAER/
MARINE MANAGEMENT
Site Location: 2 -16 River Front, Rensselaer, Rensselaer County, NY
Acreage: 16.6
Number of Parcels: 17
Owner Name/Information: Marine Management of the Hudson, Inc.;
State of New York; First Rensselaer Corp.
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Vacant Land Located in Commercial Areas
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream - 561,919/21 %
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 7
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 45.9 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 39.1 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 22 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 1,400
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 120
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as directed
by the NYS Office for Public Security.
¦ Location of Site River Sections
Watervliet
Glens Falls
Gansevoort
r
77
Hudson Falls
/
Mechanicville
Cohoes
Section 3
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Albany/Rensselaer Port District Commission/BASF Site
Description: This site is located within the city of Rensselaer, on the east side of the river at ap-
proximately RM 144.3. The entire site is approximately 122 acres, with a smaller area within the
site that is approximately 34 acres that may be available for development. The site comprises
two parcels separated by a road. The owner of the riverfront portion is Albany/Rensselaer Port
District Commission. The inland portion is owned by BASF Wyandotte Corporation. A major-
ity of the site is developed and includes an office building, loading docks, and multiple buildings
on paved lots. A portion of the southeast end of the site remains undeveloped.
Road Access: Riverside Avenue runs through the south portion of the site and provides direct
access. River Road runs parallel to the east side of the site.
River Access: The site has excellent riverfront access. There is an approximately 1,070-foot-
long loading dock and an undeveloped mooring basin (approximately 1,280 feet long by ap-
proximately 420 feet wide) on the south end of the site.
Rail Access: A rail spur runs directly into the site, and two railroad lines run parallel to the east
side of the site. There is approximately 2,525 feet of direct rail access.
Surrounding Land Uses: The surrounding land use is predominantly commercial and industrial
properties, with multiple, single-family residential properties and a recreational property (a ball-
park) north of the industrial manufacturing buildings north of the site. There is also a commer-
cial strip consisting of trucking terminals; storage, warehouse, and distribution facilities; a large
retail food store; and miscellaneous services. East of the site is a garage building and a RR
ROW. Single-family homes and vacant residential properties are located east of the railroad.
South of the site are industrial buildings and possibly a junkyard and industrial fuel terminals.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in an area of higher population density in the city of Rensselaer.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on River
Road.
¦ Water Service: High likelihood due to the presence of catch basins on River Road.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence of existing on-site structures
and nearby industrial and residential properties.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on
River Road.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Proximal to the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-40
-------
Glens Falls
Gansevoort
Section 2
Schuylerville
Saratoga Springs
Section 3
Stillwater
Mechanicville
Clifton Park
Albany }
[j Rensselaer
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMO\BASF.MXD -GIS
ALBANY RENSSELAER PORT
DISTRICT COMMISSION/BASF
Site Location: 36 Riverside Ave., Rensselaer, Rensselaer County, NY
Acreage: 121.7
Number of Parcels: 2
Owner Name/Information:
BASF Wyandotte Corp.; Albany-Rensselaer Port District Commission
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Manufacturing and Processing; Piers, Wharves, Docks
and Related Facilities
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream - 561,919/21 %
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 7
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 48.3 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 41.5 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 24.4 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (Y/N): Y
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 2,350
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): Y
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as directed
by the NYS Office for Public Security.
/ --
k Hudson Falls
/
-Fort Edward
t Section 1
iCohoes /
/ \ /
r{ — — -
Watervliet imTroy J
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Bray Energy Site
Description: This site is approximately 19 acres and comprises one parcel. The site is located
in the City of Rensselaer, on the east side of the river at approximately RM 144.0. There is one
owner, Bray Terminals, Inc. The site is classified gasoline, fuel, oil, liquid petroleum storage
and/or distribution. The portion of the site closest to the river is developed and contains various
buildings and petroleum storage tanks. The easterly portion of the site is undeveloped with no
structures.
Road Access: There is direct access to Riverside Avenue, which bisects the property. An unim-
proved road also intersects the property.
River Access: There is direct river access to the site; the length of available river frontage is ap-
proximately 450 feet.
Rail Access: One thin linear parcel approximately 40 feet in width separates the site from direct
railroad access.
Surrounding Land Uses: The majority of the site is surrounded by industrial and commercial
properties, except for several vacant rural properties east of the site. To the north of the site are
fuel/liquid petroleum storage and/or distribution facilities and vacant industrial land; to the east
are vacant rural properties, vacant industrial land and storage, warehouse, and distribution facili-
ties; to the south are fuel/liquid petroleum storage and/or distribution facilities, and to the west is
the Hudson River.
Site location relative to municipal boundaries or areas of higher settlement densities: The
site is located in an area of higher population density in the town of East Greenbush.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on Riverside
Avenue.
¦ Water Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of industrial and residential
properties.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of industrial and resi-
dential properties.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on
Riverside Avenue.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Proximal to the site.
02:001515 .HR03.08,02-B 1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-42
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMO\BRAY ENERGY.MXD -GIS
BRAY ENERGY
Site Location: 49 Riverside Ave., Rensselaer, Rensselaer County, NY
Acreage: 18.7
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
Bray Terminals, Inc.
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Gasoline, Fuel, Oil, Liquid Petroleum Storage and/or Distribution
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
U pstream - 561,919/21 %
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 7
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 -48.6 (Upstream)
Section 2-41.8 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 24.7 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 450
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): Y
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as directed
by the NYS Office for Public Security.
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Cohoes
Gansevoort
77
Hudson Falls -
Fort Edward
Section 3
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Bray/Petroleum/Gorman/Trans Montaigne Site
Description: This site is approximately 29 acres and comprises five parcels. The site is located
in the city Rensselaer and town of East Greenbush, on the east side of the river (approximate RM
144.0). There are four owners: Bray Terminals, Inc., Petroleum Fuel and Terminals, Gorman
Terminals LLC, and Trans Montaigne Terminal. The Gorman Terminals parcel is vacant indus-
trial land. The site is undeveloped with no structures.
Road Access: Riverside Avenue runs approximately 770 feet west of the site, and there is an
unimproved road adjacent to the western border of the site. This road connects with Riverside
Avenue. River Road parallels the east edge of the site and is separated from the site by a rail
line.
River Access: There is no riverfront access. The site is approximately 1,600 feet from the river.
Rail Access: The railroad runs parallel to the east side of the site. There are 1,650 feet of direct
railroad access.
Surrounding Land Uses: The majority of the site is surrounded by industrial and commercial
properties, except for several residential properties east of the site. To the north of the site is an
industrial building and a junkyard; to the east are trucking terminals, auto sales facilities, residen-
tial houses and trailers, and abandoned agricultural land; to the south are vacant industrial proper-
ties with no structures; and to the west are fuel/liquid petroleum storage and/or distribution facili-
ties (tank farms all along western edge).
Site location relative to municipal boundaries or areas of higher settlement densities: The
site is located in an area of higher population density in the city of Rensselaer.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on Riverside
Avenue.
¦ Water Service: High likelihood due to the presence of catch basins on River Road.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of industrial and
residential properties.
Communication Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on Riv-
erside Avenue.
Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Proximal to the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-44
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMO\BRAY PETROLEUM.MXD-GIS
BRAY/PETROLEUM/GORMAN/
TRANSMONTAIGNE
Site Location: 49 - 58 Riverside Ave, Rensselaer & East Greenbush,
Rensselaer County, NY
Acreage: 29.2
Number of Parcels: 5
Owner Name/Information: Transmontaigne Terminal;
Petroleum Fuel & Terminal; Gorman Terminals; Bray Terminal
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas; Gasoline, Fuel, Oil,
Liquid Petroleum Storage and/or Distribution
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream - 561,919/21 %
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 7
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 48.6 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 41.8 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 24.7 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 980
River Frontage (ft): 0
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): Y
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 460
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as directed
by the NYS Office for Public Security.
¦ Location of Site River Sections
Watervliet
Gansevoort
I
J f
/
/
Hudson Falls
/
Glens Falls
Section 3
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
Norwest Site
Description: This site is approximately 30 acres and comprises one parcel. The site is located
in the town of East Greenbush, on the east side of the river approximately at RM 143.5. There is
one owner, Norwest Corporate. The site is classified vacant land located in industrial areas. The
site is undeveloped with no structures.
Road Access: There is direct access to Riverside Avenue, which runs along the easterly side of
the property.
River Access: There is direct river access to the site; the length of available river frontage is ap-
proximately 970 feet.
Rail Access: Rail is not adjacent to the site. At the closest point, rail is located approximately
860 feet east of the site.
Surrounding Land Uses: The majority of the site is surrounded by industrial and commercial
properties. To the north of the site is an industrial building and a junkyard; to the east are truck-
ing terminals, auto sales facilities, residential houses and trailers, and abandoned agricultural
land; to the south are fuel/liquid petroleum storage and/or distribution facilities (tank farms all
along western edge), and to the west is the Hudson River.
Site location relative to municipal boundaries or areas of higher settlement densities: The
site is located in an area of higher population density in the city of Rensselaer.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on Riverside
Avenue.
¦ Water Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of industrial and commer-
cial properties.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of industrial and com-
mercial properties.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on
Riverside Avenue.
¦ Electric Transmission Lines/Property: Proximal to the site.
02:001515 .HR03.08,02-B 1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-46
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON_RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS_FACTSHEETS\TECH_MEMO\NORWEST.MXD -GIS
NORWEST
Site Location: Riverside Avenue Extension, East Greenbush,
Rensselaer County, NY
Acreage: 30.0
Number of Parcels: 2
Owner Name/Information:
Norwest Corporate
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream- 561,919/21%
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 7
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 49.1 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 42.3 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 25.2 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 850
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 970
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as directed
by the NYS Office for Public Security.
¦ Location of Site River Sections
Glens Falls
Gansevoort
77:
Hudson Falls
/
Fort Edward
Section 1
Mechanicville
Section 3
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
OG Real Estate Developers Site
Description: This site is approximately 94 acres and comprises two parcels. The site is located
on the west side of the river at approximately RM 142.8. One of the parcels is owned by OG
Real Estate Developers and the other is owned by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. Both
parcels are vacant industrial land. The land is barren with some shrub vegetation and exposed
surfaces.
Road Access: River Road and Old River Road parallel the western edge of the site but site ac-
cess is limited as it is separated from the local roads by railroad tracks and parcels that parallel
the roads. There is a small area in the southwest corner of the site that is adjacent to River Road.
Rail Access: The railroad directly borders the entire western edge of the site. There are ap-
proximately 3,370 feet of direct access.
River Access: There are approximately 2,500 feet of riverfront access.
Surrounding Land Uses: Most of the site is surrounded by industrial property. To the north is
Normans Kill (Island Creek), beyond which is vacant industrial property, other commercial stor-
age and warehouse property, and industrial manufacturing and processing property; to the south
are an industrial complex, barren land, a settling basin, and a large building with smoke stacks
and large tanks; and to the west are several small parcels, including a single-family residence,
vacant residential property, other commercial and storage property, warehouse property, an elec-
tric transmission and distribution property, and a RR ROW.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density:
The site is located in an area of lower population density, approximately 1.5 miles south of the
city of Albany.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
¦ Electric Service: High likelihood due to the presence of overhead power lines on River
Road.
¦ Water Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of industrial properties.
¦ Natural Gas Service: Moderate likelihood due to the presence nearby of industrial proper-
ties.
¦ Communication Service: High likelihood due to presence of overhead power lines on River
Road.
¦ Electrical Transmission Lines/Property: Proximal to the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-48
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON_RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS_FACTSHEETS\TECH_MEMO\OG.MXD -GIS
OG REAL ESTATE
Site Location: River Road, Bethlehem, Albany County, NY
Acreage: 93.6
Number of Parcels: 2
Owner Name/Information:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; OG Real Estate Developers
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream - 561,919/21 %
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 7
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 49.8 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 43 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 25.8 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): Y
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 0
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 2,500
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): N
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as directed
by the NYS Office for Public Security.
¦ Location of Site
River Sections
Hudson Falls
/
Fort Edward
Gansevoort
4
Glens Falls
Section 3
Watervliet
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
4. Description of the Preliminary Candidate Sites
P&M Brickyard LLC Site
Description: The site comprises one parcel owned by P & M Brick, LLC. Total acreage of the site is 371 acres, of which
approximately 116 acres are available for construction. The site is located on the west side of the river (approximately
RM 134.1) and is currently an industrial brick manufacturing facility and clay mine. A large portion of the area is devel-
oped with buildings, a clay quarry, and other facilities used for manufacturing bricks. The rest of the site is undeveloped
land.
Road Access: There is a site access road off State Route 144, which intersects the site. The access road is approximately
21,120 feet (~4 miles) from Exit 22 of Interstate 87.
Rail Access: There is no direct rail to the site. There is a CSX track lease for loading/unloading cars approximately
10,560 feet (~2 miles) north of the site.
River Access: The site has approximately 3,500 feet of frontage along the river. There is a wooden bulkhead along the
shoreline, but it is in poor condition and appears to be vegetated. The site formerly had a channel running into the site
from the river; this channel has been filled in.
Surrounding Land Uses: Surrounding land uses include an industrial cement company to the north, vacant industrial
and commercial property to the west, and the Ravena-Coeymans Yacht Club to the south.
Site Location Relative to Municipal Boundaries or Areas of Higher Population Density: The site is located in an area
of lower population density, approximately 0.5 mile east of the village of Ravena.
Presence of Utility Services/Infrastructure:
(The following detailed information regarding this site was obtained from "GE/PCB Proposed Site, P&M Brick LLC,
Route 144, Coeymans, New York, 12045, Albany County").
¦ Electric Service:
- Supplied by Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation
- Line size servicing the site: 15 kV
- Distance to closest substation to service site: 3 miles
- Distance to next closest substation to service site: 10 miles
¦ Water Service:
- Supplied by Village of Ravena
- Size of line: 8 inches
- Pressure at site: approximately 60 psi
- System capacity: 1.4 million gallons per day (MGD)
- Average/peak utilization of water system: 0.75/1.3 MGD
- Excess capacity of water system: 0.4 MGD
- Wastewater/Sewer Service:
- Supplied by Coeymans/Ravena Water Pollution Control facility
- Distance to closest sewer line to service site: 0.13 mile
- Size of sewer line: 8 inches
- Sewer expected to be extended as part of NYSDOT bridge replacement project
¦ Natural Gas Service:
- Supplied by Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation
- Distance to closest gas line to service site: on site
- Line size servicing site: 4 inches
¦ Communication Service:
- Supplied by State Telephone
- Service: direct buried
- Line: copper twisted pair
02:001515 .HR03.08,02-B 1133
PCS revised Section 4.doc-06/03/03
4-50
-------
02:001515.HR03.08.02 - 06/02/03
L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON R!VER\MAPS\MXD\PCS FACTSHEETS\TECH MEMO\PANDM BRICKYARD.MXD-GIS
P & M BRICKYARD
Site Location: River Road, Coeymans, Albany County, NY
Acreage: 116
Number of Parcels: 1
Owner Name/Information:
P & M Brick, LLC
Property Type/Land Use Code:
Other Mining and Quarrying
Dredge Areas (Volume CY/Relative Percentage) by Section
Section 1:
Upstream- 1,562,236/59%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 2:
Upstream - 525,850/20%
Downstream - 0/0%
Section 3:
Upstream- 561,919/21%
Downstream - 0/0%
Number of Locks/Dams from Site:
Upstream - 7
Downstream - 0
Distance to Center of River Section (miles):
Section 1 - 58.5 (Upstream)
Section 2 - 51.7 (Upstream)
Section 3 - 34.6 (Upstream)
Presence of Rail On Site (YIN): N
Edge of Property to Rail (ft): 5000
Edge of Property to River (ft): 0
River Frontage (ft): 3370
Presence of Road On Site (Y/N): Y
Edge of Property to Road (ft): 0
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as directed
by the NYS Office for Public Security,
¦ Location of Site River Sections
' Schuylerville
. Saratoga Springs
Stillwater
Meehanicville
j Clifton Park
77:
Hudson Falls
7
Fort Edward
Section \
Waterv/liet
Glens Falls
Gansevoort
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002; ESRI 2002, NYSDOT 1999.
-------
,nn
Glens Falls ^-200
Old Moreau Dredge^Spoils Area •
State of ,New York - A •
Hudson Falls -
EnergyPark jjjj
Longe
Section 1
190
;i85 Section 2
Georgia Pacific
'Greenwich
180
E
/Washington
County
Saratoga
County
Section 3
Stillwater
Oj
~ 170
Mechanicville 11651
SNiagara"Mohawk - Mechanicville •
It Clifton Park
NYS Canal Corp.
¦ Bruno
¦ Brickyard Associates^
iValley Falls
^Edison Paving
160
GE-C •
El
Cohoes]
Green Island IDA ¦
Watervlietl
El
Rensselaer
County
Albany
County
OG Real Estate h
LEGEND
| Preliminary Candidate Sites
0 Approximate River Mile
¦ ¦¦ River Sections
—I— Primary Railroads
(jpi Interstate Highways
(7) U.S. Highways
[32] State Highways
iTroy/
• Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA
• Callanan/Rensselaer IDA/City of Troy/King Services
•/Town of North Greenbush
Rensselaer Tech. Park - A
J Rensselaer Tech. Park - B
TTgl 7s State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management
¦f Rensselaer
¦ Albany Rensselaer Port District Commission/BASF
Bray Energy
¦ Bray/Petroleum/Gorman/T ransmontaigne
•- Norwest
4140
71355
1 & M Brickyard
Ravena
L
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 4-1
Preliminary Candidate Sites
Recommended For Further Consideration
0 2 4 8 12
0 -2
1 °
-------
5 Next Steps in the Facility Siting
Process
The issuance of this Facility Siting Update Report (No. 1) marks an important step
within the process of facility siting by summarizing the steps involved in the iden-
tification of the PCSs and making this information available to the public. Public
forums will be held in June 2003 to provide interested citizens with the opportu-
nity to familiarize themselves with the process of identifying PCSs and to ask
EPA questions. It is important to note that while potential sites are now being
identified for the construction and operation of one or more sediment process-
ing/transfer facilities, additional evaluations will occur before sites are selected.
The following figure (Figure 5-1) summarizes the next steps in the facility siting
process. After public review of the identification of the PCSs, both Group 1 and
Group 2 siting criteria will be applied. Group 2 siting criteria, as presented in the
Concept Document, include quality of life concerns and avoiding and minimizing
impacts to local communities and other resources. Group 2 criteria are therefore
intended to identify sensitive resources near a potential site; cultural resources;
existing and historic land uses; documented rare or unique ecological communi-
ties; threatened and endangered species; floodplains and floodways; and wetlands.
Group 2 siting criteria also include considering the geology and/or surface features
of potential sites, the ease of purchasing land, and land ownership.
Once Group 2 criteria have been applied and additional sites have been filtered
from further consideration, a list of Final Candidate Sites (FCSs) will be released
for public review. Following that, Group 3 criteria will be developed from site-
specific investigations and applied to develop a list of Recommended Site(s),
which will be provided in the Draft Facility Siting Report released for final public
review and comment.
Upon finalizing the Facility Siting Report, a site, or sites, will be selected for the
Phase 1 dredging activities. At some later date a site, or sites, may be selected for
Phase 2 dredging if additional sites are determined to be necessary. Site(s) se-
lected for Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging will be selected from the list of the Rec-
ommended Sites.
02:001515 HR03 08JJ2-B1133 5-1
Section 5.doc-6/3/03
-------
5. Next Steps in the Facility Siting Process
Figure 5-1 Next Steps in Facility Siting
02:001515_HR03_08_02-B 1133
Section 5.doc-6/3/03
5-2
-------
References
TAMS Consultants, Inc., January 2001, Memorandum on Sediment Transfer and
Processing Sites, New York, New York.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2000, Hudson River
PCBs Reassessment RI/FS Phase 3 Report: Feasibility Study (FS).
, 2002, Hudson River PCBs Saperfand Site Facility Siting Concept
Document.
, 2002a, Record of Decision. Hudson River PCBs Site, New York,
New York.
02:001515 HR03 08JJ2-B1133 6-1
Section 6.doc-6/3/03
-------
Description of GIS Database
Development for Group 1 Facility Siting
Criteria and County Tax Parcel Mapping
and Property Classification Codes
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Appendix_A. doc-6/3/03
A-l
-------
A. Description of GIS Database Development for Group 1 Facility Siting Criteria and
County Tax Parcel Mapping and Property Classification Codes
A.1 County Tax Parcel/Property Classification Information
Tax parcel information in electronic format was received from each county in the
study area (Rensselaer, Washington, Saratoga, and Albany). The electronic for-
mat consisted of ArcGIS files (shapefiles) or computer-assisted drafting and de-
sign (CADD) files converted to ArcGIS format. The shapefiles were projected to
UTM Zone 18, NAD 83 (units in meters) to maintain consistency with all other
datasets. The parcel information was from 2001 or 2002, depending upon which
year it was last updated. Rensselaer County and Saratoga County data were last
updated in 2002; Washington County and Albany County data were last updated
in 2001.
The tax parcel data provided a number of different characteristics (attributes) of
various parcels (i.e., area, perimeter, owner). Because the counties maintained
different types of data in their parcel databases and used different naming conven-
tions for their database fields, it was determined that key attribute data would be
included in a merged parcel dataset. The individual municipal shapefiles for each
county were merged together, and attribute table field names were changed (see
Table A-l).
Table A-1 The Parcel_ene Database Field Names and Associated Field Names for
Each County
Rensselaer
Washington
Parcel ene Field
County Field
County Field
Saratoga County
Albany County
Name
Name
Name
Field Name
Field Name
Area
Area
Area
-
-
Perimeter
Perimeter
Perimeter
-
-
Swiscode
-
Swiscode
(calculated)
Swis
Sbl
(concatenation)
Sbl
(calculated)
Pin Sbl
Swis sbl
-
Swis sbl
Parcel key
(concatenation)
Owner 1
Owner 1
(concatenation)
Own name 1
Owner 1
Owner 2
Owner 2
Ownersecon
Own name 2
Owner2
Street
Street
(concatenation)
Street
Address 1
City state
City state
(concatenation)
City state
City state
Zip
(concatenation)
Ownerzipco
(concatenation)
(concatenation)
Printkey
Taxmapid
Parprintke
Print key
Print key
Parcelno
Parcelnu
Parlocstno
Addrss num
Loc num
Parcelloc
Parcelloc
Parlocstna
Addrss nam
Loc name
Propclass
Crpropclas
Asspropcla
New prop
Prop class
Landav
Cryrland
Asslandav
Cu land av
-
Totav
Cryrtotal
Astute
Cu total a
-
Descl
Desclinel
Assdescl
Narrat 1
-
Desc2
Descline2
Assdesc2
Narrat 2
-
Desc3
Descline3
Assdesc3
Narrat 3
-
Gis acres
(calculated)
(calculated)
(calculated)
(calculated)
* (concatenation) indicates that several fields are being combined to attribute the data field
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Appendix_A. doc-6/3/03
A-3
-------
A. Description of GIS Database Development for Group 1 Facility Siting Criteria and
County Tax Parcel Mapping and Property Classification Codes
Parcels within the counties are assigned specific property classification codes.
These property classification codes are based on the New York State Office of
Real Property Services (NYSORPS) system, which developed the uniform classi-
fication system for use in assessment administration in New York State. The
property classification codes indicate the land use classification for a given parcel.
There are approximately 296 property code classifications provided by
NYSORPS.
In order to satisfy the intention of EPA to site a sediment processing/transfer facil-
ity within areas that are currently coded as industrial or commercial, specific
property classification codes were selected as being suitable for the sediment
processing/transfer facility (see Table A-2). These codes were selected in order to
focus the siting efforts in industrial, commercial, and vacant land areas and to
therefore minimize the potential for impacts to residential and community-
oriented land uses.
Table A-2 NYSORPS Classification Codes Selected for Use in the Preliminary
Candidate Site Selection Process
Description
Vacant Land (NYSORPS Class 300)
Rural (Subclass 320)
Other Rural Vacant Lands (Subclass 323)
Vacant Land Located in Commercial Areas (Subclass 330)
Commercial Vacant Land with Minor Improvements (Subclass 331)
Vacant Land Located in Industrial Areas (Subclass 340)
Industrial Vacant Land with Minor Improvements (Subclass 341)
Urban Renewal or Slum Clearance (Subclass 350)
Public Utility Vacant Land (Subclass 380)
Commercial (NYSORPS Class 400)
Storage, Warehouse, and Distribution Facilities (Subclass 440)
Gasoline, Fuel, Oil, Liquid Petroleum Storage and/or Distribution (Subclass 441)
Bottled Gas, Natural Gas Facilities (Subclass 442)
Grain and Feed Elevators, Mixers, Sales Outlets (Subclass 443)
Lumber Yards, Sawmills (Subclass 444)
Coal Yards, Bins (Subclass 445)
Cold Storage Facilities (Subclass 446)
Trucking Terminals (Subclass 447)
Piers, Wharves, Docks and Related Facilities (Subclass 448)
Other Storage, Warehouse, and Distribution Facilities (Subclass 449)
Junkyards (Subclass 475)
Industrial (NYSORPS 700)
Manufacturing and Processing (Subclass 710)
Mining and Quarrying (Subclass 720)
Sand and Gravel (Subclass 721)
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Appendix_A. doc-6/3/03
A-4
-------
A. Description of GIS Database Development for Group 1 Facility Siting Criteria and
County Tax Parcel Mapping and Property Classification Codes
Table A-2 NYSORPS Classification Codes Selected for Use in the Preliminary
Candidate Site Selection Process
Description
Limestone (Subclass 722)
Trap Rock (Subclass 723)
Salt (Subclass 724)
Iron and Titanium (Subclass 725)
Talc (Subclass 726)
Lead and Zinc (Subclass 727)
Gypsum (Subclass 728)
Other (Subclass 729)
Wells (Subclass 730)
Oil - Natural Flow (for production) (Subclass 731)
Oil - Forced Flow (for production) (Subclass 732)
Gas (for production) (Subclass 733)
Junk (Subclass 734)
Water used for Oil Production (Subclass 735)
Gas or Oil Storage Wells (Subclass 736)
Industrial Product Pipelines (Subclass 740)
Gas (Subclass 741)
Brine (Subclass 743)
Petroleum Products (Subclass 744)
Other Industrial Product Pipelines (Subclass 749)
Public Services (NYSORPS 800)
Electric Power Generation - Hydro (Old Property Class) (Subclass 811)
Electric Power Generation - Coal Burning Plant (Old Property Class) (Subclass 812)
Electric Power Generation - Oil Burning Plant (Old Property Class) (Subclass 813)
Electric Power Generation - Nuclear Plant (Old Property Class) (Subclass 814)
Electric Power Generation - Gas Burning Plant (Old Property Class) (Subclass 815)
Electric Transmission and Distribution (Old Property Class) (Subclass 817)
Gas Transmission and Distribution (Old Property Class) (Subclass 818)
Flood Control (Subclass 821)
Water Treatment Facilities (Subclass 823)
Waste Disposal (Subclass 850)
Solid Wastes (Subclass 851)
Landfills and Dumps (Subclass 852)
Sewage Treatment and Water Pollution Control (Subclass 853)
Special Franchise Property (Subclass 860)
Electric and Gas (Subclass 861)
Water (Subclass 862)
Pipelines (Subclass 868)
Electric and Gas (Subclass 870)
Electric and Gas Facilities (Subclass 871)
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Appendix_A. doc-6/3/03
A-5
-------
A. Description of GIS Database Development for Group 1 Facility Siting Criteria and
County Tax Parcel Mapping and Property Classification Codes
Table A-2 NYSORPS Classification Codes Selected for Use in the Preliminary
Candidate Site Selection Process
Description
Electric Substation (Subclass 872)
Electric Power Generation Facility - Hydro (Subclass 874)
Electric Power Generation Facility - Fossil Fuel (Subclass 875)
Electric Power Generation Facility - Nuclear (Subclass 876)
Electric Power Generation Facility - Other Fuel (Subclass 877)
Electric and Gas Transmission Facilities (Subclass 880)
Electric Transmission Improvement (Subclass 882)
Gas Transmission Improvement (Subclass 883)
Electric Distribution - Outside Plant Property (Subclass 884)
Gas Distribution - Outside Plant Property (Subclass 885)
Wild, Forested, Conservation Lands, and Public Parks (NYSORPS Class 900)
Hudson River and Black River Regulating District Land (Subclass 950)
As presented in Table A-2, the primary property codes selected for use in the
analysis included vacant; industrial; commercial; public services; and wild, for-
ested, conservation lands, and public parks. A total of 77 sub-property codes were
selected for use in identifying potential locations for PCSs.
A.1.1 Rensselaer County
Rensselaer County provided Arc View shapefiles for the towns of Schodack, East
Greenbush, North Greenbush, and Schaghticoke, the cities of Rensselaer and
Troy, and the village of Castleton-on-Hudson. The projection of these shapefiles
was New York State Plane Coordinates - Eastern Zone, NAD 83 (units in feet). It
should be noted that a small portion of the Town of Brunswick (approximately
350 feet in width) falls within 1 mile of the Hudson River but data were not re-
ceived from Rensselaer County. The shapefiles that were received were already
joined to NYSORPS data. The shapefiles were projected to UTM Zone 18, NAD
83 (units in meters) to maintain consistency with all other datasets. The individ-
ual municipal shapefiles were then merged together, and attribute table field
names were changed, as indicated in Table A-l.
A.1.2 Washington County
Washington County provided Arc View shapefiles for all municipalities within the
county. The projection of these shapefiles was New York State Plane Coordi-
nates - Eastern Zone, NAD 27 (units in feet). The shapefiles were not joined to
NYSORPS data. The real property data for all the municipalities were provided
in a Microsoft Access database. The Access database contained a separate table
for each municipality. Although shapefiles for all municipalities in Washington
County were provided, for the purposes of developing the database for facility sit-
ing, the towns of Easton, Greenwich, Fort Edward, Argyle, and Kingsbury (i.e.,
municipalities within 2 miles of the Hudson River in the project area) were in-
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Appendix_A. doc-6/3/03
A-6
-------
A. Description of GIS Database Development for Group 1 Facility Siting Criteria and
County Tax Parcel Mapping and Property Classification Codes
eluded in the merged parcel dataset. The shapefiles provided by Washington
County were joined to their respective real property data tables using the common
data field Swis sbl. The joined files were then exported to create a single shape-
file that contained all the attribute data. The shapefiles were projected to UTM
Zone 18, NAD 83 (units in meters) to maintain consistency with all other datasets.
The individual municipal shapefiles were then merged together and attribute table
field names were changed as indicated in Table A-l.
A.1.3 Saratoga County
Saratoga County Arc View provided shapefiles for all municipalities within the
county. The projection of these shapefiles was New York State Plane Coordi-
nates - Eastern Zone, NAD 27 (units in feet). The shapefiles were not joined to
NYSORPS data. The real property data for all the municipalities was provided in
a separate .dbf file with each shapefile. Although shapefiles for all municipalities
in Saratoga County were provided, for the purposes of developing the database for
facility siting, the towns of Halfmoon, Moreau, Northumberland, Saratoga, Still-
water, Waterford, and the city of Mechanicville (i.e., municipalities within 2 miles
of the Hudson River in the project area) were included in the merged parcel data-
set. The shapefiles provided by Saratoga County were joined to their respective
real property data tables using the common data field Parcel key. The joined files
were then exported to create a single shapefile that contained all the attribute data.
The shapefiles were projected to UTM Zone 18, NAD 83 (units in meters) to
maintain consistency with all other datasets. The individual municipal shapefiles
were then merged together and attribute table field names were changed as indi-
cated in Table A-l.
A.1.4 Albany County
Albany County Arc View provided shapefiles for all municipalities within the
county. The projection of these shapefiles was New York State Plane Coordinates
- Eastern Zone, NAD 27 (units in feet). The shapefiles were not joined to
NYSORPS data, and that data was not included in the initial delivery. A shapefile
containing point features with real property attributes was received on February 4,
2003. In order to migrate attribute data from the point file to the parcel file, a spa-
tial join was performed. Parcel polygons that contained only a single point feature
were considered a match and the attribute data was copied to the parcel. A second
join was conducted on the remaining unmatched parcels using the Pin sbl field.
Although shapefiles for all municipalities in Albany County were provided for the
purposes of developing the database for facility siting, the towns of Colonie,
Green Island, Bethlehem, the village of Menands, and the cities of Cohoes, Wa-
tervliet, and Albany (i.e., municipalities within 2 miles of the Hudson River in the
project area) were included in the merged parcel dataset. The individual munici-
pal shapefiles were then merged together and attribute table field names were
changed as indicated in Table A-l.
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Appendix_A. doc-6/3/03
A-7
-------
A. Description of GIS Database Development for Group 1 Facility Siting Criteria and
County Tax Parcel Mapping and Property Classification Codes
A.2 Shoreline
The Shoreline ene dataset is primarily based on the TAMS dataset hydro poly,
from the original Feasibility Study (USEPA 2000). This dataset was copied and
renamed Shoreline ene after it had been through the QA/QC process. The entire
TAMS Hudson River dataset was checked against the high-resolution digital or-
thophoto quarter-quads (DOQQs) (NYS 2001 aerial photos) to determine how the
TAMS shoreline compared to the shoreline in the aerials and to make corrections
to the Shoreline ene layer. In areas where Shoreline ene varied from the aerial
photographs, adjustments were made to match the shoreline evident in the aerial
photography. It should be noted that, due to the angle at which the aerial photo-
graphs were taken, it is difficult to precisely determine shoreline in areas that are
forested along the river. The height of the trees and the angle at which the aerial
photographs were taken block a clear view of shoreline in the forested areas. Ex-
pected error is approximately + 20 feet.
The Shoreline ene layer used for the siting analysis did not include island features
within the study area. Islands were generally not considered in the siting analysis
because of the lack of rail lines and the presence of residential land uses on many
of the larger islands. For mapping purposes, the islands were corrected to the ae-
rials, where appropriate, and a new layer was created with shoreline and corrected
islands polygons.
The original study area identified in the Concept Document did not include Hud-
son River tributaries because of the relatively narrow channels and shallow depths
associated with most of the tributaries. However, the first two miles of the
Champlain Canal were included in the siting process because a landowner had
expressed interest in selling his property for the purposes of the construction and
operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility.
A.3 Rail
The Rail ene dataset was developed from a railroad centerline file that was pur-
chased from DeskMap Systems. It is described as an accurate and comprehensive
route system for the 50 United States and the District of Columbia. DeskMap
Systems developed the railroad database for analysis, viewing, and mapping of
railroad systems with associated information about the rail line that aids in the
many types of transportation applications involving rail (e.g., market analysis,
fleet management, planning, consultation, and emergency response). DeskMap
Systems maintains that the US Railroad database has been developed through ex-
tensive industry research and is continually being updated to reflect all the rail
currently in operation. The database consists of a graphical layer of data that
represents all major and short line railroad companies. Topology was built within
each state, and the rail lines were "edge matched" to provide the most accurate
data available within and between states. Each rail line is linked to a database that
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Appendix_A. doc-6/3/03
A-8
-------
A. Description of GIS Database Development for Group 1 Facility Siting Criteria and
County Tax Parcel Mapping and Property Classification Codes
contains information about the ownership and usage of the rail lines. The rail in-
formation purchased from DeskMap Systems was last updated in January 2002.
All rail segments within 0.5 mile of the Hudson River were reviewed, using high
resolution orthoimagery acquired from the New York State GIS Clearinghouse, to
determine how the DeskMap Systems data compared with the aerial imagery. The
positional accuracy of the DeskMap Systems data was variable, with the discrep-
ancy ranging from less than 5 feet to more than 200 feet. This discrepancy was
expected due to the advertised scale of the data (1:100,000 feet). In addition, the
DeskMap data layer contained major active rail lines, but it did not contain rail
spurs, sidings, or rail yards.
All rail lines within 0.5 mile of the Upper Hudson River, from the village of Fort
Edward to the southerly end of the Port of Albany, were spatially adjusted. A new
data field entitled "Adjusted" was added to the attribute table of the dataset. All
rail segments that were rectified with the high-resolution orthoimagery were given
a value of "1" in the "Adjusted" field. The Rail ene dataset thus can be queried
for this value to determine which rail segments were adjusted and which were not.
A new data field entitled "Added" was added to the attribute table of the dataset.
All rail segments that were added to the dataset were given a value of "1" in the
"Added" field. Rail yards were identified by delineating the outermost main rail
lines in a group (i.e., if four lines were in a rail yard, only the two outermost rail
lines were delineated).
A.4 Roads
The Streets ene dataset is a street centerline file extracted from the StreetMap
USA dataset, which represents interstate highways, major roads, and local streets
within the United States. A spatial query was executed on the StreetMap USA
data to determine all street centerline segments located in Albany, Rensselaer,
Saratoga, and Washington Counties. This subset of data was copied and renamed
Streets ene to indicate that it has been through the E & E QA/QC process. All
street centerline segments within 0.5 mile of the Hudson River were reviewed us-
ing the high-resolution orthoimagery acquired from the New York State GIS
Clearinghouse to determine how the StreetMap USA street centerline segments
compared to the aerial imagery.
The Streets ene layer was corrected to the high-resolution aerial imagery. Major
roads within 0.5 mile of the Hudson River, from the village of Fort Edward to the
southern end of the Port of Albany, were spatially adjusted. Initially, major roads
were defined as Interstate Highways, State Routes, County Roads, East-West
roads that crossed the Hudson River, and uninterrupted North-South roads within
the 0.5-mile-wide buffer. After the initial pass, minor (i.e., smaller) roads were
also included in the rectification process. Typically, these included minor roads
that were immediately adjacent to the river and minor roads in primarily industrial
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Appendix_A. doc-6/3/03
A-9
-------
A. Description of GIS Database Development for Group 1 Facility Siting Criteria and
County Tax Parcel Mapping and Property Classification Codes
areas. In high-density population areas, roads that were adjacent to the river or
adjacent to industrial areas were adjusted. Not all street centerline segments were
adjusted in noticeably residential neighborhoods in high-density population areas.
The rectification process of the streets dataset did not include unpaved roads. The
New York State GIS Clearinghouse has a published horizontal accuracy of +4 feet
for their 1-foot pixel resolution orthoimagery and +8 feet for their 2-foot pixel
resolution orthoimagery. It is estimated that the Streets ene data layer has a hori-
zontal accuracy of+10 feet.
A.5 Proximity to Dredging Areas
The dredging location database was created from the original Preferred channel
(channel dredging areas to implement), Preferred alt channel (remediation ar-
eas), and Hot (hot spot areas) layers completed by TAMS during the Feasibility
Study (USEPA 2000). In addition to these layers, the Dredge Management Cell
layer and associated dredging volume estimates from the "Concept Document for
the Productivity Performance Standards" were used to develop the proposed
dredging locations and associated dredging volumes (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., in
draft form).
02:001515.HR03.08.02-B1133
Appendix_A. doc-6/3/03
A-10
------- |