April 2004
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
ecology and environment, inc.
International Specialists in the Environment
United States Army
Corps of Engineers
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
001515_HR03_08_03-B1362
HudsofTj
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Hudson River PCBs Superfund
Site
Draft Facility Siting Report
Public Review Copy
April 2004
Prepared for:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 2
and
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
KANSAS CITY DISTRICT
Prepared by:
eh ecology and
&j environment, inc.
|[ International Specialists in the Environment
Under contract with:
United States Army
Corps of Engineers
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
able of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Overview of Facility Siting 1-1
1.1.1 Purpose of Facility Siting 1-1
1.1.2 Facility Siting Milestones 1-2
1.1.3 Facility Siting Report 1-6
1.2 Interrelationship of Facility Siting with Project Activities 1-9
1.2.1 Facility Siting and Remedial Design 1-9
1.2.2 Facility Siting and Engineering Performance Standards 1-10
1.2.3 Facility Siting and Quality of Life Performance Standards 1-11
1.2.4 Facility Siting and Water-based Evaluation 1-12
1.3 Facility Siting and Public Coordination 1-14
1.4 Sediment Processing/Transfer Facility Description 1-15
1.4.1 Status of Design 1-16
1.4.2 Description of Key Facility Features and Activities 1-16
2 Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the
PCS Identification Process 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Evaluation of the PCSs 2-4
2.2.1 Site Visits 2-6
2.2.2 Development of Data 2-6
2.2.3 Evaluation of PCSs Using Group 1 and 2 Criteria 2-9
2.2.3.1 Energy Park 2-9
2.2.3.2 Longe 2-13
2.2.3.3 Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area 2-17
2.2.3.4 State of New York A 2-21
2.2.3.5 Georgia Pacific 2-25
2.2.3.6 Bruno 2-30
2.2.3.7 Brickyard Associates 2-34
2.2.3.8 Edison Paving 2-38
2.2.3.9 Niagara Mohawk - Mechanicville 2-42
2.2.3.10 New York State Canal Corporation 2-46
2.2.3.11 GE-C 2-50
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 111
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Table of Contents (cont.)
Section Page
2.2.3.12 Green Island IDA 2-54
2.2.3.13 Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA 2-58
2.2.3.14 Callanan/Rensselaer ID A/City of Troy/King Services 2-62
2.2.3.15 Town of North Greenbush 2-66
2.2.3.16 Rensselaer Technology Park - A 2-70
2.2.3.17 Rensselaer Technology Park - B 2-74
2.2.3.18 State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine
Management 2-78
2.2.3.19 Albany Rensselaer Port District Commission/BASF 2-83
2.2.3.20 Bray Energy 2-87
2.2.3.21 Bray/Petrol eum/Gorman/Transmontaigne 2-91
2.2.3.22 Norwest 2-95
2.2.3.23 OG Real Estate 2-99
2.2.3.24 P&MBrickyard 2-103
2.2.4 Coordination with the RD Team 2-107
2.2.5 Modification of PCSs 2-107
2.2.6 Identification of the Final Candidate Sites 2-108
2.3 Characteristics of the FCSs Relative to Group 1 and 2 Criteria 2-110
2.4 Characteristics of Eliminated Preliminary Candidate Sites Relative to
Group 1 and 2 Criteria 2-111
3 Evaluation of the FCSs 3-1
3.1 Site-Specific Field Investigations of the FCSs 3-4
3.1.1 Phase I ESAs 3-5
3.1.2 Phase II ESAs 3-5
3.1.3 Geotechnical Assessments 3-5
3.1.4 Utilities Assessments 3-6
3.1.5 Survey of Terrestrial Archaeological and Architectural
Resources 3-6
3.1.6 Wetland Assessments 3-9
3.1.7 Floodplain Assessment 3-9
3.1.8 Initial Coastal Management Area Assessment 3-10
3.1.9 Baseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species
Assessments 3-10
3.2 Findings of the Site-Specific Field Investigations 3-11
3.2.1 Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC 3-11
3.2.1.1 Phase IESA 3-11
3.2.1.2 Phase II ESA 3-12
3.2.1.3 Geotechnical Assessment 3-15
3.2.1.4 Utility Assessment 3-16
3.2.1.5 Archaeological and Architectural Assessments 3-17
3.2.1.6 Wetland Assessment 3-17
3.2.1.7 Floodplain Assessment 3-21
3.2.1.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment 3-23
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 i"V
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Table of Contents (cont.)
Section Page
3.2.1.9 B aseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered
Species Assessment 3-23
3.2.2 Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC 3-25
3.2.2.1 Phase IESA 3-25
3.2.2.2 Phase II ESA 3-27
3.2.2.3 Geotechnical Assessment 3-29
3.2.2.4 Utility Assessment 3-30
3.2.2.5 Archaeological and Architectural Assessments 3-30
3.2.2.6 Wetland Assessment 3-32
3.2.2.7 Floodplain Assessment 3-33
3.2.2.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment 3-37
3.2.2.9 Baseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered
Species Assessment 3-37
3.2.3 Georgia Pacific/NYSCC 3-39
3.2.3.1 Phase I ESA 3-39
3.2.3.2 Phase II ESA 3-41
3.2.3.3 Geotechnical Assessment 3-44
3.2.3.4 Utility Assessment 3-45
3.2.3.5 Archaeological and Architectural Investigations 3-46
3.2.3.6 Wetland Assessment 3-48
3.2.3.7 Floodplain Assessment 3-51
3.2.3.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment 3-53
3.2.3.9 B aseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered
Species Assessment 3-53
3.2.4 Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo 3-56
3.2.4.1 Phase I ESA 3-56
3.2.4.2 Phase II ESA 3-59
3.2.4.3 Geotechnical Assessment 3-61
3.2.4.4 Utility Assessment 3-62
3.2.4.5 Archaeological and Architectural Investigations 3-62
3.2.4.6 Wetland Assessment 3-65
3.2.4.7 Floodplain Assessment 3-68
3.2.4.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment 3-70
3.2.4.9 Baseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered
Species Assessment 3-70
3.2.5 NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle 3-72
3.2.5.1 Phase I ESA 3-72
3.2.5.2 Phase II ESA 3-74
3.2.5.3 Geotechnical Assessment 3-76
3.2.5.4 Utility Assessment 3-77
3.2.5.5 Archaeological and Architectural Investigations 3-78
3.2.5.6 Wetland Assessment 3-80
3.2.5.7 Floodplain Assessment 3-82
3.2.5.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment 3-84
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Table of Contents (cont.)
Section Page
3.2.5.9 B aseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered
Species Assessment 3-85
3.2.6 State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management 3-87
3.2.6.1 Phase IESA 3-87
3.2.6.2 Phase II ESA 3-89
3.2.6.3 Geotechnical Assessment 3-91
3.2.6.4 Utility Assessment 3-92
3.2.6.5 Archaeological and Architectural Investigations 3-92
3.2.6.6 Wetland Assessment 3-93
3.2.6.7 Floodplain Assessment 3-96
3.2.6.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment 3-98
3.2.6.9 B aseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered
Species Assessment 3-99
3.2.7 OG Real Estate 3-101
3.2.7.1 Phase I ESA 3-101
3.2.7.2 Phase II ESA 3-103
3.2.7.3 Geotechnical Assessment 3-105
3.2.7.4 Utility Assessment 3-106
3.2.7.5 Archaeological and Architectural Investigations 3-107
3.2.7.6 Wetland Assessment 3-107
3.2.7.7 Floodplain Assessment 3-109
3.2.7.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment 3-111
3.2.7.9 B aseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered
Species Assessment 3-113
3.3 Identification of the Group 3 Criteria 3-116
3.3.1 Further Examination of the Group 1 and Group 2 Criteria 3-116
3.3.2 Design-Related Information Provided by the RD Team 3-118
3.3.3 Additional Factors Identified as Group 3 Criteria 3-119
3.4 Evaluation of FCSs using Group 3 Criteria 3-120
3.4.1 Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC 3-121
3.4.1.1 Benefits 3-121
3.4.1.2 Potential Limitations 3-121
3.4.1.3 Additional Design Considerations 3-122
3.4.2 Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC 3-122
3.4.2.1 Benefits 3-122
3.4.2.2 Potential Limitations 3-123
3.4.2.3 Additional Design Considerations 3-123
3.4.3 Georgia Pacific/NYSCC 3-124
3.4.3.1 Benefits 3-124
3.4.3.2 Potential Limitations 3-124
3.4.3.3 Additional Design Considerations 3-124
3.4.4 Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo 3-125
3.4.4.1 Benefits 3-125
3.4.4.2 Potential Limitations 3-125
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 VI
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Table of Contents (cont.)
Section Page
3.4.4.3 Additional Design Considerations 3-126
3.4.5 NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle 3-127
3.4.5.1 Benefits 3-127
3.4.5.2 Potential Limitations 3-127
3.4.5.3 Additional Design Considerations 3-127
3.4.6 State of New York / First Rensselaer / Marine Management 3-128
3.4.6.1 Benefits 3-128
3.4.6.2 Potential Limitations 3-128
3.4.6.3 Additional Design Considerations 3-129
3.4.7 OG Real Estate 3-129
3.4.7.1 Benefits 3-129
3.4.7.2 Potential Limitations 3-130
3.4.7.3 Additional Design Considerations 3-130
3.5 Additional Studies 3-131
3.5.1 Environmental Justice 3-131
3.5.1.1 Demographic Analysis 3-132
3.5.1.2 Environmental Burden Analysis 3-133
3.5.1.3 Facility Design Activities 3-138
3.5.2 Characterization of Roadways and Traffic 3-138
3.5.2.1 Georgia Pacific/NYSCC 3-139
3.5.2.2 Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo 3-141
3.5.2.3 NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle 3-143
3.5.3 Summary 3-145
4 Identification of Suitable Sites 4-1
4.1 Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC 4-2
4.2 Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC 4-4
4.3 Georgia Pacific/NYSCC 4-4
4.4 Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo 4-5
4.5 New York State Canal Corporation/Allco/Leyerle 4-6
4.6 State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management 4-7
4.7 OG Real Estate 4-8
4.8 Suitable Sites 4-9
5 Recommended Sites 5-1
5.1 Site Characteristics and Information Supporting the Identification of the
Recommended Sites 5-2
5.2 Recommended Sites 5-5
6 Next Steps in the Facility Siting Process 6-1
6.1 Modification in Site Selection Process 6-1
6.2 Key Design Factors Supporting Site Selection 6-2
6.3 Community Involvement 6-3
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 VU
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Table of Contents (cont.)
Section Page
7 References 7-1
Appendix
A Description of GIS Database Development for County
Tax Parcel Mapping and Property Classification Codes A-1
B Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data B-1
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Table Page
ES-1 Suitable Sites 1
ES-2 Preliminary Candidate Sites 7
ES-3 Final Candidate Sites 9
1-1 Preliminary Candidate Sites 1-5
1-2 Final Candidate Sites 1-6
2.1-1 Preliminary Candidate Sites 2-3
2.2.3.1-1 Energy Park Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-9
2.2.3.1-2 Energy Park Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-9
2.2.3.2-1 Longe Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-13
2.2.3.2-2 Longe Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-13
2.2.3.3-1 Old Moreau Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-17
2.2.3.3-2 Old Moreau Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-17
2.2.3.4-1 State of New York - A Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-21
2.2.3.4-2 State of New York - A Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-21
2.2.3.5-1 Georgia Pacific Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-25
2.2.3.5-2 Georgia Pacific Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-27
2.2.3.6-1 Bruno Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-30
2.2.3.6-2 Bruno Comparison with Group 2 2-30
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 ix
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
List of Tables (cont.)
Table Page
2.2.3.7-1 Brickyard Associates Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-34
2.2.3.7-2 Brickyard Associates Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-34
2.2.3.8-1 Edison Paving Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-38
2.2.3.8-2 Edison Paving Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-38
2.2.3.9-1 Niagara Mohawk - Mechanicville Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-42
2.2.3.9-2 Niagara Mohawk - Mechanicville Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-42
2.2.3.10-1 New York State Canal Corporation Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-46
2.2.3.10-2 New York State Canal Corporation Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-46
2.2.3.11-1 GE - C Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-50
2.2.3.11-2 GE - C Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-50
2.2.3.12-1 Green Island IDA Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-54
2.2.3.12-2 Green Island IDA Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-54
2.2.3.13-1 Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-58
2.2.3.13-2 Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-58
2.2.3.14-1 Callanan/Rensselaer ID A/City of Troy /King Services Comparison with
Group 1 Criteria 2-62
2.2.3.14-2 Callanan/Rensselaer ID A/City of Troy /King Services Comparison with
Group 2 Criteria 2-62
2.2.3.15-1 Town of North Greenbush Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-66
2.2.3.15-2 Town of North Greenbush Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-66
2.2.3.16-1 Rensselaer Technology Park - A Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-70
2.2.3.16-2 Rensselaer Technology Park - A Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-70
2.2.3.17-1 Rensselaer Technology Park - B Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-74
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 X
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
List of Tables (cont.)
Table Page
2.2.3.17-2 Rensselaer Technology Park - B Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-74
2.2.3.18-1 State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management Comparison with
Group 1 Criteria 2-78
2.2.3.18-2 State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management Comparison with
Group 2 Criteria 2-78
2.2.3.19-1 Albany Rensselaer Port District Commission/BASF Comparison with
Group 1 Criteria 2-83
2.2.3.19-2 Albany Rensselaer Port District Commission/BASF Comparison with
Group 2 Criteria 2-83
2.2.3.20-1 Bray Energy Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-87
2.2.3.20-2 Bray Energy Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-87
2.2.3.21-1 Bray/Petroleum/Gorman/Transmontaigne Comparison with Group 1 Criteria.... 2-91
2.2.3.21-2 Bray/Petroleum/Gorman/Transmontaigne Comparison with Group 2 Criteria.... 2-91
2.2.3.22-1 Norwest Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-95
2.2.3.22-2 Norwest Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-95
2.2.3.23-1 OGReal Estate Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-99
2.2.3.23-2 OG Real Estate Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-99
2.2.3.24-1 P&M Brickyard Comparison with Group 1 Criteria 2-103
2.2.3.24-2 P&M Brickyard Comparison with Group 2 Criteria 2-103
3-1 Final Candidate Sites 3-1
3.2.1-1 Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC Wetland Delineation Summary 3-19
3.2.2-1 Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC Wetland Delineation Summary 3-33
3.2.3-1 Georgia Pacific/NYSCC Wetland Delineation Summary 3-49
3.2.4-1 Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo Wetland Delineation Summary 3-66
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 xi
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
List of Tables (cont.)
Table Page
3.2.5-1 NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle Wetland Delineation Summary 3-82
3.2.7-1 OGReal Estate Wetland Summary 3-109
3.3-1 Group 3 Criteria 3-120
3.5-1 Percentage of Minority Population within a 1-Mile and 10-Mile Radius of
Each FCS Compared to the Reference Area 3-133
3.5-2 Percentage of Low-Income Population within a 1-Mile and 10-Mile Radius
of Each FCS Compared to the Reference Area 3-133
3.5-3 Comparison of TRI Air Emissions Indicator Within a 1-Mile and 10-Mile
Radius of Each FCS 3-135
3.5-4 Comparison of Air Toxics Indicator Within a 1-Mile and 10-Mile Radius of
Each FCS 3-136
3.5-5 Comparison of Facility Density Indicator and Facilities Per Square Mile
Within a 1-Mile and 10-Mile Radius of Each FCS 3-137
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
t
ist of Fiau res
Figure Page
ES-1 Suitable Sites 2
ES-2 Preliminary Candidate Sites 8
ES-3 Final Candidate Sites 10
ES-4 Recommended Sites 17
1-1 Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Facility Siting Study Area, Upper Hudson
River 1-3
1-2 Preliminary Candidate Sites 1-7
1-3 Final Candidate Sites 1-8
2-1 Process of Identifying the PCSs 2-2
2-2 Preliminary Candidate Sites 2-5
2.2.3.1 Energy Park PCS 2-11
2.2.3.2 Longe PCS 2-15
2.2.3.3 Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area PCS 2-19
2.2.3.4 State of New York - A PCS 2-23
2.2.3.5 Georgia Pacific PCS 2-26
2.2.3.6 Bruno PCS 2-32
2.2.3.7 Brickyard Associates PCS 2-36
2.2.3.8 Edison Paving PCS 2-40
2.2.3.9 Niagara Mohawk - Mechanicville PCS 2-44
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 xiH
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
List of Figures (cont.)
Figure Page
2.2.3.10 New York State Canal Corporation PCS 2-48
2.2.3.11 GE-CPCS 2-52
2.2.3.12 Green Island IDA PCS 2-56
2.2.3.13 Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA PCS 2-60
2.2.3.14 Callanan/Rensselaer ID A/City of Troy/King Services PCS 2-64
2.2.3.15 Town of North Greenbush PCS 2-68
2.2.3.16 Rensselaer Technology Park - A PCS 2-72
2.2.3.17 Rensselaer Technology Park - B PCS 2-76
2.2.3.18 State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management PCS 2-80
2.2.3.19 Albany Rensselaer Port District Commission/BASF PCS 2-85
2.2.3.20 Bray Energy PCS 2-89
2.2.3.21 Bray/Petrol eum/Gorman/Transmontaigne PCS 2-93
2.2.3.22 Norwest PCS 2-97
2.2.3.23 OG Real Estate PCS 2-101
2.2.3.24 P&M Brickyard PCS 2-105
2-3 Process of Identifying FCSs from 24 PCSs 2-108
2-4 Final Candidate Sites 2-109
3-1 Process of Identifying Suitable Sites from 7 FCSs 3-2
3-2 Suitable Sites 3-3
3.2.1-1 Key Site Features, Energy Park/Longe/New York State Canal Corporation 3-13
3.2.1-2 Sample Locations, Energy Park/Longe/New York State Canal Corporation 3-14
3.2.1-3 Field Sampling Areas, Phase IB Cultural Resources Investigation, Energy
Park/Longe/New York State Canal Corporation 3-18
3.2.1-4 Wetland Locations, Energy Park/Longe/New York State Canal Corporation 3-20
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 xi"V
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
List of Figures (cont.)
Figure Page
3.2.1-5 FEMA Floodplain Mapping, Energy Park/Longe/New York State Canal Cor-
poration 3-22
3.2.1-6 Site Ecological Communities, Energy Park/Longe/New York State Canal Cor-
poration 3-24
3.2.2-1 Key Site Features, Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/New York State Canal
Corporation 3-26
3.2.2-2 Sample Locations, Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/New York State Canal
Corporation 3-28
3.2.2-3 Field Sampling Areas, Phase IB Cultural Resources Investigation, Old
Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/New York State Canal Corporation 3-31
3.2.2-4 Wetland Locations, Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/New York State Canal
Corporation 3-34
3.2.2-5 FEMA Floodplain Mapping, Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/New York State
Canal Corporation 3-35
3.2.2-6 Site Ecological Communities, Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/New York
State Canal Corporation 3-38
3.2.3-1 Key Site Features, Georgia Pacific/New York State Canal Corporation 3-40
3.2.3-2 Sample Locations, Georgia Pacific/New York State Canal Corporation 3-43
3.2.3-3 Field Sampling Areas, Phase IB Cultural Resources Investigation, Georgia
Pacific/New York State Canal Corporation 3-47
3.2.3-4 Wetland Locations, Georgia Pacific/New York State Canal Corporation 3-50
3.2.3-5 FEMA Floodplain Mapping, Georgia Pacific/New York State Canal Corpora-
tion 3-52
3.2.3-6 Site Ecological Communities, Georgia Pacific/New York State Canal Corpo-
ration 3-55
3.2.4-1 Key Site Features, Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo 3-57
3.2.4-2 Sample Locations, Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo 3-60
3.2.4-3 Field Sampling Areas, Phase IB Cultural Resources Investigation,
Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo 3-64
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 XV
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
List of Figures (cont.)
Figure Page
3.2.4-4 Wetland Locations, Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo 3-67
3.2.4-5 FEMA Floodplain Mapping, Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo 3-69
3.2.4-6 Site Ecological Communities, Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo 3-71
3.2.5-1 Key Site Features, New York State Canal Corporation/Allco/Leyerle 3-73
3.2.5-2 Sample Locations, New York State Canal Corporation/Allco/Leyerle 3-75
3.2.5-3 Field Sampling Areas, Phase IB Cultural Resources Investigation, New York
State Canal Corporation/Allco/Leyerle 3-79
3.2.5-4 Wetland Locations, New York State Canal Corporation/Allco/Leyerle 3-81
3.2.5-5 FEMA Floodplain Mapping, New York State Canal Corpora-
tion/Allco/Leyerle 3-83
3.2.5-6 Site Ecological Communities, New York State Canal Corpora-
tion/Allco/Leyerle 3-86
3.2.6-1 Key Site Features, State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management 3-88
3.2.6-2 Sample Locations, State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management 3-90
3.2.6-3 Field Sampling Areas, Phase IB Cultural Resources Investigation, State of
New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management 3-94
3.2.6-4 Wetland Locations, State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management 3-95
3.2.6-5 FEMA Floodplain Mapping, State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine
Management 3-97
3.2.6-6 Site Ecological Communities, State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine
Management 3-100
3.2.7-1 Key Site Features, OGReal Estate 3-102
3.2.7-2 Sample Locations, OGReal Estate 3-104
3.2.7-3 Field Sampling Areas, Phase IB Cultural Resources Investigation, OG Real
Estate 3-108
3.2.7-4 Wetland Locations, OG Real Estate 3-110
3.2.7-5 FEMA Floodplain Mapping, OG Real Estate 3-112
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 XVi
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
List of Figures (cont.)
Figure Page
3.2.7-6 Site Ecological Communities, OG Real Estate 3-114
3.5.2-1 Traffic Count Information, Georgia Pacific/New York State Canal Corpora-
tion 3-140
3.5.2-2 Traffic Count Information, Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo 3-142
3.5.2-3 Traffic Count Information, New York State Canal Corporation/Alco/Leyerle 3-144
4-1 Energy Park / Longe / New York State Canal Corporation Suitable Site 4-3
5-1 Recommended Sites 5-7
6-1 Summary of Next Steps Within the Facility Siting Process 6-3
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
IS
st of Abbreviations and Acronyms
AADT average annual daily traffic
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
APE area of potential effect
AST aboveground storage tank
BGS below ground surface
BHT backhoe trench
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Infor-
mation System
CMA coastal management areas
CMP Coastal Management Program
COC Community of Concern
CPR Canadian Pacific Railway
CWA Clean Water Act
CZM coastal zone management
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DPT direct push technology
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
EIS environmental impact statement
EJ environmental justice
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 xix
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (cont.)
EPA
(U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
ESA
Environmental Site Assessment
FCS
Final Candidate Site
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FS
Feasibility Study
FWS
(U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service
GIS
geographic information system
GPS
global positioning system
GRS
Guilford Rail System
HRFO
Hudson River Field Office
ID
inner diameter
LWRP
Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
NGVD
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NHP
(New York) Natural Heritage Program
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Services
NO A A
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPL
National Priority List
NRCS
National Resource Conservation Service
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
NWI
National Wetlands Inventory
NYSCC
New York State Canal Corporation
NYSDEC
New York State Department of Conservation
NYSDOT
New York State Department of Transportation
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 XX
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms (cont.)
NYSEG New York State Electric and Gas
NYSORPS New York State Office of Real Property Services
OD outer diameter
OPRHP Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCS Preliminary Candidate Site
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
RA Remedial Action
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
RD Remedial Design
ROD Record of Decision
RS River Section
SPT standard penetration test
STARR Survey of Terrestrial Archaeological and Architectural Resources
SVOC semivolatile organic compound
TAGM (NYSDEC) Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
US ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VOC volatile organic compound
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 XXI
Front, doc-04/26/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Executive Summary
Identification of the Recommended Sites represents the next-to-last milestone in
the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) facility siting proc-
ess. EPA had identified 24 Preliminary Candidate Sites (PCSs) in June 2003 and
after detailed evaluations reduced this list to seven Final Candidate Sites (FCSs)
in September 2003. Following further detailed evaluations, five of the seven
FCSs have been identified in this document as Suitable Sites, which are defined
as those sites that exhibit characteristics that satisfy the minimum requirements
for designing, constructing, and operating a sediment processing/transfer facility
to the standards established by the project. The Suitable Sites are listed in Table
ES-1 and presented in Figure ES-1.
Table ES-1 Suitable Sites
Approximate
River Sections/Site Name
Location
River Mile
Above River Section 1
Energy Park/Longe/New York
State Canal Corporation
(NYSCC)
Fort Edward, Washington
County
195.1
River Section 1
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils
Area/NYSCC
Moreau,
Saratoga County
193.8
River Section 3
Bruno/Brickyard Associ-
ates/Alonzo
Schaghticoke, Rensselaer
County
166.5
NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle
Halfmoon,
Saratoga County
162.4
Below River Section 3
OG Real Estate
Bethlehem,
Albany County
142.8
EPA and the Remedial Design (RD) Team have determined through the evaluations
conducted to date that three of the five Suitable Sites appear to exhibit those charac-
teristics that would be best suited for optimizing the success of the dredging pro-
gram. The sites selected as the Recommended Sites are Energy Park/Longe/
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362
EXEC SUM.doc-4/23/04
-------
001515.HR03.08.03 - 04/15/04
L:\Buffalo\Hudson_River\Maps\Mxd\FCS_factsheets\SS_Overview.mxd - GIS
2
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
Executive Summary
New York Canal Corporation (NYSCC), Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo,
and OG Real Estate. These sites are proposed to be carried forward into the de-
sign process. If unforeseeable issues arise during intermediate design that indi-
cate that a Recommended Site, or sites, should not continue forward in intermedi-
ate design, there is a possibility that another Suitable Site, or sites, could be
brought forward at that time. This situation is considered remote and EPA in-
tends to select the sites for the sediment processing facility(ies) from the Recom-
mended Sites.
This Draft Facility Siting Report provides an overview of the facility siting proc-
ess. The report summarizes the earlier phases of the facility siting process (for
which separate reports have been issued) and documents the phases subsequent to
the identification of the PCSs. This report also summarizes the community in-
volvement process related to facility siting, the rationale used to screen and evalu-
ate the PCSs and FCSs, the identification of the Suitable Sites, and the sites pro-
posed for selection as the Recommended Sites. The remaining milestone in the
facility siting process is to select sites from this list of Recommended Sites for the
location of the sediment processing/transfer and rail yard facilities to support
Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging.
After release and public review of this report, EPA's intent had been to select a
site, or sites, for the Phase 1 dredging (i.e., the first year of dredging) in spring
2004. Site selection for Phase 2 dredging (i.e., the remainder of the dredging pro-
gram) was to occur in summer 2004. However, some of the detailed information
that would support the selection of sites has not yet been developed. In order to
ensure that site(s) selected provide the greatest benefit to the project, the an-
nouncement of final selections for Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging will occur in late
fall 2004. It is possible that site(s) selected for Phase 1 dredging would also sup-
port Phase 2 activities.
Background
In February 2002, the EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Hudson
River PCBs Superfund Site. The ROD calls for the targeted environmental dredg-
ing 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.
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 or-
der to implement the cleanup, EPA identified locations for facilities that can be
used to transfer sediment from the edge of the river to a processing area, process
(i.e., dewater) the sediment, treat the water from the dewatering process, and
transfer sediment (stabilized as needed) to a rail or barge for transport to an off-
site disposal facility. These sediment processing/ transfer facilities are an impor-
tant part of the cleanup and will be selected and constructed to safely handle the
dredged material.
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362
EXEC SUM.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
Executive Summary
Overview of the Facility Siting Process
The Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Facility Siting Concept Document
(USEPA December 2002) identified the major milestones in the facility siting
process:
¦ Defining Critical Siting Criteria (Engineering, Additional Considerations,
and Site-Specific Information). These criteria were defined in the Concept
Document as Group 1 - Engineering Criteria, Group 2 - Additional Consid-
erations, and Group 3 - Site-Specific Information. Group 1 and 2 criteria are
summarized in Table 6-1 of the Concept Document. Group 3 criteria are
summarized in Table 3.3-1 of this document.
Group 1 siting criteria (i.e., engineering) are sufficient space for facility con-
struction and operations; river, road, and rail access; availability of utilities;
and proximity to the areas that will be dredged.
Group 2 siting criteria (i.e., additional considerations) are the presence of sen-
sitive or cultural resources; existing and historic land uses; the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities or threatened and endangered species;
ease of acquisition; wetlands, geology, or surface features; and mapped 100-
year floodplain or floodway data.
Group 3 siting criteria (i.e., site-specific information) are information devel-
oped from further examination of the Group 1 and 2 criteria; site-specific in-
formation derived from the field investigations at the FCSs; and design-
related information from the RD Team.
¦ Implementing Community Involvement Activities. These activities have
included public availability sessions in conjunction with the release of the
Concept Document in December 2002; public forums in conjunction with the
release of the list of PCSs in June 2003; public forums in conjunction with the
release of the list of FCSs in September 2003; and numerous meetings with
state, local, and interest groups to answer questions on the process. Public fo-
rums are planned in conjunction with the release of this document.
¦ Identifying Preliminary Candidate Sites. Twenty-four PCSs were identi-
fied in the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Technical Memorandum: Iden-
tification of Preliminary Candidate Sites Facility Siting Update Report in
June 2003. Fact sheets were developed and distributed and public forums
were held in Glens Falls and Albany, New York.
¦ Evaluating Preliminary Candidate Sites and Selecting Final Candidate
Sites. Screening and evaluating PCSs was presented at public forums in June
2003. The seven FCSs were identified to the public in the Sediment Process-
ing/Transfer Facility Siting Update Fact Sheet and presented at the public fo-
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362
EXEC SUM.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
Executive Summary
rums in Fort Edward and Troy, New York in September 2003. The process of
evaluating PCSs and selecting FCSs is presented in this report in Section 2.
¦ Conducting Site-specific Field Investigations at each of the Final Candi-
date Sites. Site-specific field investigations were performed in October and
November 2003. A complete summary of investigation activities is provided
in the April 2004 Facility Siting Data Summary Report. Following comple-
tion of the field investigations, site-specific information was used to develop
the Group 3 criteria. The scope and findings of the investigations are summa-
rized in this report in Section 3.
¦ Identifying Suitable Sites. Although not specified in the Concept Document,
this document identifies Suitable Sites as those FCSs suitable for the construc-
tion and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility (see Section 4).
¦ Recommended Site Selection. This report presents the further evaluation of
the Suitable Sites that resulted in the proposed selection of Recommended
Sites to be carried forward through the intermediate design process. The Rec-
ommended Sites and associated evaluation information are provided in Sec-
tion 5 of this report.
¦ Selecting Final Sites for the RD/Remedial Action (RA) Process. The re-
maining milestone in the facility siting process is to identify site(s) selected
from the list of Recommended Sites for locating sediment processing/transfer
and rail yard facilities to support Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging.
The facility-siting process has included coordinating and communicating with
various groups over the course of the process, including the public, state and
federal agencies, and the RD Team.
PCS Identification and Evaluation
PCS Identification. In December 2002 the EPA's Hudson River PCBs Super-
fund Site Facility Siting Concept Document (USEPA 2002) was issued to the pub-
lic and public availability sessions were held. The Concept Document laid out the
facility siting process and defined the process to be used to identify the PCSs.
That process included:
¦ Definition of the Facility Siting Study Area. The study area has been de-
fined as the area of the Hudson River from Hudson Falls south to the down-
stream end of the Port of Albany and extending one-half mile inland from the
edge of each shoreline.
¦ Database Development. A geographic information system (GIS) database
specific to the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site was created through the
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362
EXEC SUM.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
Executive Summary
acquisition and subsequent development of various datasets, including aerial
photography.
¦ Parcels Screening via New York State Office of Real Property Services
(NYSORPS) Property Classification Codes. In the ROD, EPA indicated
the focus of the siting efforts would be on industrial and/or commercial prop-
erties. Therefore, parcel data screening was based on NYSORPS classifica-
tion codes: vacant non-residential land, commercial, industrial, public ser-
vices (i.e., power generation and transmission, waste disposal, pipelines, sew-
age treatment, and water pollution control, etc.), or Hudson River Regulating
District Land.
¦ Evaluation Against Group 1 Criteria. The Group 1 (i.e., engineering) crite-
ria are sufficient space for facility construction and operations; river, road,
and rail access; availability of utilities; and proximity to the areas that will be
dredged.
The EPA held public forums in June 2003 in order to provide the public with an
update on the facility siting process, provide the results of the initial evaluation
process, and present the PCSs. This process and the results of the evaluation are
described in the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Technical Memorandum:
Identification of Preliminary Candidate Sites (i.e., the PCS Tech Memo) (USEPA
2003).
Ultimately, the evaluation/screening process identified 24 PCSs, which were lo-
cated throughout the facility siting study area, half of them occurring south of
River Section 3 (see Table ES-2 and Figure ES-2).
PCS Evaluation. The evaluation of the 24 PCSs involved a phased approach that
included:
¦ Site visits at most of the PCSs.
¦ Development and evaluation of data (i.e., numbers of residential parcels
within 1 mile, acreage of wetlands, presence/absence of floodplains, etc.) as-
sociated with Group 1 and Group 2 criteria.
¦ Interaction with the RD Team to discuss features, conditions, and findings on
each of the sites and discussions based upon preliminary evaluation of rail fa-
cility issues.
¦ Modification of some of the PCSs. An important step in the PCS process in-
cluded the modification of some of the PCSs by combining separate, adjacent
PCSs and/or adding new parcels to create a larger single site.
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362
EXEC SUM.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
Executive Summary
Table ES-2 Preliminary Candidate Sites
River Sections/Site Name
Location (Town and County)
Approximate
River Mile
Above River Section 1
Energy Park (Champlain Canal)
Fort Edward, Washington County
195.1
Longe (Champlain Canal)
Fort Edward, Washington County
195.0
River Section 1
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
165.5
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
162.5
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 (A)
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
147.3
State of New York/First Rensselaer Marine
Management
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
146.7
Albany Rensselaer Port District/BASF
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
144.3
Bray Energy
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
144.0
Bray Energy/Petrol/Gorman/ Transmon-
taigne
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_03-B 1362
EXEC SUM.doc-4/23/04
-------
001515.HR03.08.02 - 04/15/04
L:\Buffalo\Hudson_River\Maps\Mxd\PCS_factsheets\Tech_Memo\Figure ES-1.mxd - GIS
8
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
Executive Summary
The evaluation/screening process identified seven FCSs. Portions of five of the
FCSs include parcels that have been presented to EPA by interested landowners.
Further evaluation and receipt of information provided by the RD Team regarding
rail access issues indicated that the addition of property adjacent to some of the
sites would enhance the suitability of those sites; six parcels were added to five
FCSs. As a result of the examination and evaluation of the PCSs, the following
sites were selected as FCSs (see Table ES-3 and Figure ES-3).
Table ES-3 Final Candidate Sites
River Sections/Site Name
Location (Town and County)
Approximate
River Mile
Above River Section 1
Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC
Fort Edward, Washington
County
195.1
River Section 1
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC
Moreau, Saratoga County
193.8
River Section 2
Georgia Pacific/NYSCC
Greenwich, Washington County
183.2
River Section 3
Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo
Schaghticoke, Rensselaer
County
166.5
NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle
Halfmoon, Saratoga County
162.4
Below River Section 3
State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
146.7
Management
OG Real Estate
Bethlehem, Albany County
142.8
It is important to note that benefits, potential limitations, and design considera-
tions are associated with each FCS. Those benefits, potential limitations, and de-
sign considerations were evaluated relative to suitability for the construction and
operation of a sediment processing/transfer and rail yard facilities that would
meet the needs of the project.
Evaluation of FCSs
The evaluation of the FCSs involved examining each of the sites and considering
information provided by the RD Team. Discussions with the RD Team were held
at various points in the FCS evaluation process to incorporate preliminary design
information. The following general steps were completed to evaluate the FCSs:
¦ Site-specific field investigations were conducted. These field efforts included
Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), Phase II ESAs, geotechnical
assessments, utilities assessments, surveys of terrestrial archaeological and ar-
chitectural resources, wetland assessments, floodplain assessments, initial
coastal management area assessments, and baseline habitat and threatened and
endangered species assessments. The investigations further characterized the
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362
EXEC SUM.doc-4/23/04
-------
001515.HR03.08.03 - 04/15/04
L:\Buffalo\Hudson_River\Maps\Mxd\FCS_factsheets\FCS_Overview.mxd - GIS
10
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
Executive Summary
environmental/physical conditions, identified potential environmental consid-
erations, and assisted in the development of the Group 3 criteria.
¦ Group 3 criteria were developed using the information collected during the
field investigations and meetings with the RD Team. The RD Team provided
further information on FCS characteristics that might impose limitations on
the design of river access/barge transportation and offloading and rail access.
¦ The FCSs were characterized with respect to Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3
criteria to identify which FCSs were suitable for the operation of sediment
processing and transfer facilities (including a rail yard).
¦ Additional studies, including an Environmental Justice evaluation and review
of available traffic information, were conducted. The information evaluated
indicates minimal to low human health risks and no further investigation is
warranted.
The screening and evaluating of FCSs included a more detailed review of existing
resources, features, and conditions within (and in the vicinity of) each of the
FCSs. This phase of the facility siting process also involved communication with
the RD Team, which provided preliminary design information and identified po-
tential design issues.
Summary of Suitable Sites
Benefits, potential limitations, and additional design considerations have been
identified for each of the seven FCSs. The overall suitability of these FCSs for
sediment processing/transfer facility and rail yard facility construction and opera-
tion has been the basis of the evaluation performed to date. While there are con-
siderations associated with each site, the evaluation of the FCSs suggested that
some of the sites exhibited the characteristics necessary to be considered Suitable
Sites.
In addition, design considerations identified by the RD Team indicate that al-
though the evaluation had previously centered on sites with useable acreage to
construct both a sediment processing/transfer facility (5 acres for mechanically
dredged materials and 15 acres for hydraulically dredged materials) and rail yard
facility (15 to 25 acres), the evaluation should also consider the use of sites for
sediment processing/transfer only in conjunction with barging to another site for
rail load-out. This would be an important consideration for sites that have the
benefit of proximity, which can be a critical factor associated with transport by
pipeline for hydraulically dredged sediment, but that may have potential limita-
tions or design considerations that might prevent the development of a rail yard
facility on-site. This potential site-use scenario allowed some FCSs with poten-
tially limited usable acreage to be considered suitable for meeting overall project
objectives.
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 1 1
EXEC SUM.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
Executive Summary
The following summarizes the suitability of each FCS and indicates whether the
site has been identified as a Suitable Site. Additional detail regarding the FCSs
and Suitable Sites is presented in Sections 3 and 4.
Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC. The benefits outweigh the potential limitations
and additional design considerations at the site. Benefits are closeness to 59% of
the dredge areas in River Section 1; classification of Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC
as vacant industrial land; sufficient useable acreage to construct and operate
sediment processing/transfer and rail yard facilities; direct access to an active Ca-
nadian Pacific rail line and an existing off-site rail yard; suitable area and flat to-
pography to optimize the layout of the sediment processing/transfer and rail yard
facilities; and being owned by an interested landowner. Therefore, the site was
identified as a Suitable Site.
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC. While the potential limitation of
useable acreage could cause this site to be used only as a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility with off-site rail storage or barging of processed material to
another rail load-out site, there are enough benefits that outweigh the potential
limitations and additional design considerations. Benefits are proximity to dredge
areas with adequate river frontage in River Section 1; classification of the Old
Moreau Dredge Spoil Area/NYSCC site as vacant industrial land; marginally suf-
ficient acreage to construct and operate sediment processing/transfer and rail yard
facilities (it is anticipated that a rail facility would require off-site support for
staging and combining rail cars at the Fort Edward Rail Yard to meet project
goals); and direct access to an active Canadian Pacific rail line and an existing rail
yard. Therefore, the site was identified as a Suitable Site.
Georgia Pacific/NYSCC. While there are benefits associated with this site, the
potential limitations and additional design considerations adversely affect site
suitability. Benefits are location in River Section 2 where approximately 22% of
the dredge material is located; classification of the Georgia Pacific/NYSCC site
as vacant industrial land; existing bulkhead on-site that appears to provide suffi-
cient depth for barge offloading and loading operations; the property is owned by
an interested landowner; and the useable acreage is sufficient to construct and op-
erate the sediment processing/transfer facility. Limitations are lack of useable
acreage on-site for the anticipated rail yard footprint requirements (15 to 25
acres); there are areas containing hilly topography; a landfill is on the eastern par-
cel; the nearby rail line may not be able to handle the types of loads that this pro-
ject will produce; up to 20 miles of railroad may have to be rehabilitated and the
site is located 32 miles from a major rail carrier; the likely location of the sedi-
ment processing/transfer facility may overlie a potential historic archaeological
site, requiring further investigation; extensive fill material and other subsurface
conditions present geotechnical concerns; and movement of material or personnel
across County Road 113 may be a design consideration. Therefore, as the poten-
tial limitations and additional design considerations outweigh the benefits at the
Georgia Pacific FCS, it has not been proposed as a Suitable Site.
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 12
EXEC SUM.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
Executive Summary
Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo. The benefits outweigh the potential limi-
tations and additional design considerations at the site. Benefits are location di-
rectly on the Hudson River with adequate river frontage location and in River
Section 3, where approximately 19% of the dredge material occurs; classification
of the Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo site as rural vacant, and storage, ware-
house, and distribution property; useable acreage sufficient to construct and oper-
ate sediment processing/transfer and rail yard facilities; and direct access to the
active Guilford Rail System rail line, which has access to two rail companies
(Norfolk Southern Railway Company [NS] and CSX Transportation [CSX]) thus
providing additional transportation flexibility to and from the site. Therefore, the
site was identified as a Suitable Site.
New York State Canal Corporation/Allco/Leyerle. The benefits outweigh the
potential limitations and additional design considerations at the site. Benefits are
location directly on the Hudson River with adequate river frontage and in River
Section 3, where approximately 19% of the dredging will occur; classification of
the New York State Canal Corporation/Allco/Leyerle site as other rural vacant
lands and as commercial vacant land with minor improvements; useable acreage
on the western portion of the site sufficient to construct and operate sediment
processing/transfer and rail yard facilities; and direct access to Canadian Pacific
rail that could provide transportation services to and from the site. Therefore, the
site was identified as a Suitable Site.
State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management. The potential con-
flict with the City of Rensselaer Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
(LWRP) and associated plans to develop the site for recreation are considered to
be site limitations. This site is located below River Section 3, not close to the
dredge areas. The useable acreage for construction of the sediment process-
ing/transfer facility is marginal. Therefore, the potential limitations and addi-
tional design considerations outweigh the benefits at the site and it was not identi-
fied as a Suitable Site.
OG Real Estate. The benefits outweigh the potential limitations and additional
design considerations at the site. Benefits are location directly on the Hudson
River with adequate river frontage; property classification is vacant industrial
property; useable acreage is sufficient to construct and operate sediment process-
ing/transfer and rail yard facilities; direct access to two active rail lines serviced
by CSX and CP Rail at the Port of Albany just north of the site provides addi-
tional transportation flexibility to and from the site; and the site is south of the
Federal Dam at Troy where the navigational channel is deeper. Therefore, the
site was identified as a Suitable Site.
Recommended Sites
Recommended Sites were selected to:
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 13
EXEC SUM.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
Executive Summary
¦ Provide a group of Suitable Sites to the RD Team for detailed engineering de-
sign analyses that would provide necessary flexibility to design a successful
dredging program; and
¦ Communicate to the public the results of the facility siting process by putting
forward sites that exhibit greater benefits with fewer, or potentially more
manageable, potential limitations and/or additional design considerations rela-
tive to other Suitable Sites.
For the purposes of evaluating the Suitable Sites and selecting Recommended
Sites, it was assumed that each site would carry out the following functions of a
sediment processing/transfer facility: dewater the sediments, treat the removed
water, and load the dewatered sediments at an on-site rail yard for transport and
disposal.
Key design and logistical considerations were examined and described for each of
the Suitable Sites. It was this process that supported the selection of the Recom-
mended Sites. The major decision factors used to select the Recommended Sites
are summarized below.
¦ Useable Acreage. The areas within a site not restricted by potential limita-
tions (i.e., steep topography, environmental conditions, cultural resources,
wetlands, etc.) have been determined to be useable acreage. The Energy
Park/Longe/NYSCC, Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo, and the OG Real
Estate sites contain larger areas of useable acreage that would accommodate
the construction of waterfront areas, a processing facility, and a rail yard facil-
ity. In contrast, the Old Moreau/NYSCC site and the eastern portion of the
NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle site contain variable topography that restricts useable
acreage.
Sites will be evaluated in terms of efficiently supporting waterfront, process-
ing, and rail yard facilities. The potential for "barge in-barge out" (i.e., barg-
ing material to a site, processing, and transferring processed material to an-
other rail load out location) will be examined during the intermediate design.
¦ Rail Yard Suitability. Rail yard suitability is a function of useable acreage
but also involves access to an active rail line, frontages along active rail lines,
the condition and location of existing rail lines, available space for acceptable
track configurations for rail car loading and, optimal layout between the rail
yard and the processing facility.
The Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC, Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo,
NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle, and OGReal Estate sites all have long, relatively
level rail frontages (the latter three being more than 3,000 feet in length). In
contrast, the Old Moreau/NYSCC site contains much shorter (approximately
1,350 foot) rail frontage that is characterized by hilly and uneven topography
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 14
EXEC SUM.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
Executive Summary
and environmental conditions that could affect useable space and therefore in-
crease the complexity of staging, loading, and transferring of rail cars. The
evaluation conducted thus far indicates that the Old Moreau/NYSCC site
would rely upon the Fort Edward Rail Yard for additional space and rail car
staging.
While the NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle contains approximately 3,050 feet of rail
frontage, a series of wetlands perpendicular to the rail line create an additional
consideration for design of an on-site rail yard.
¦ Waterfront Suitability. Waterfront suitability consists of shoreline of ade-
quate space, length, and relatively level topography for the construction of
waterfront facilities and structures. Additional factors for waterfront suitabil-
ity include existing river channel depths and the potential need for periodic
navigational dredging. With the exception of the OG Real Estate site, which
has a long river frontage that parallels a deeper navigational channel that can
be accessed by larger freight ships, each of the other Suitable Sites have issues
relative to waterfront suitability. While these sites have adequate frontage,
the Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC site will require designing berthing and turn-
ing basin facilities along the Champlain Canal; the Old Moreau/NYSCC site
may require construction of an in-river channel and is expected to require ex-
tensive navigational dredging; and the Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo
and NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle sites are located along shallow areas of the river
and will require extensive dredging in order to obtain shoreline access and
will likely require periodic navigational dredging.
¦ Environmental Conditions. Environmental conditions refer to the results of
the Phase II sampling and include issues of potential contamination, types and
locations of contamination, the need for future sampling, and potential limita-
tions on useable acreage. The known environmental conditions on the Old
Moreau/NYSCC site (surface and subsurface PCB contamination) are consid-
ered a potential restriction on useable acreage. In contrast, the other sites do
not appear to have significant environmental concerns.
¦ Road Access. Establishing road access has been identified as an additional
design consideration for each of the Suitable Sites. Road access issues asso-
ciated with the Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC site include nearby residential ar-
eas, crossing an active rail line, and the potential relocation of the Lock 8 ac-
cess road. The Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo and
NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle sites contain public roads through portions of the
properties, requiring additional design considerations for establishing an effi-
cient way to transfer materials, equipment, and employees such that disruption
of local traffic is minimized. Local roadways are already in place in the vicin-
ity of the Old Moreau/NYSCC site. Road access to the OG Real Estate site is
limited.
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 15
EXEC SUM.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
Executive Summary
¦ Proximity to Dredge Areas. Proximity to dredge areas has been considered
a critical factor from the outset of the facility siting process. Sites that are
closer to larger percentages of the dredge material increase efficiencies of
transfer of dredge materials and provide the potential to use hydraulic dredg-
ing or both hydraulic and mechanical dredging. These factors influence
dredging production rates. River Section 1 contains the majority of the mate-
rial to be dredged (approximately 59%). Absent other evaluation criteria, lo-
cating a facility close to the largest volume of material to be dredged would be
advantageous to the design of a successful dredging program. No Suitable
Sites were identified in River Section 2, where approximately 22% of dredge
material is located. However, it is assumed that dredge material can be trans-
ported north or south of River Section 2 to a selected site. Both the
Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo and NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle sites are lo-
cated in River Section 3, where approximately 19% of the dredge material oc-
curs. OG Real Estate is the only Suitable Site located below River Section 3.
It is assumed that mechanically dredged material, once loaded on barges, can
be transferred downriver to locations in and below River Section 3.
¦ Other Site Considerations. Other site factors were also examined to support
the selection of Recommended Sites, including wetlands, cultural resources,
access to borrow material, geology and surface features, floodplains, etc. Al-
though evaluated, these additional considerations were not determined to be
key decision factors but will likely influence design.
EPA's three Recommended Sites (see Figure ES-4) are:
¦ Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC;
¦ Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo; and
¦ OG Real Estate.
Conclusion
EPA had identified 24 PCSs in June 2003 and after detailed evaluations reduced
this list to seven FCSs in September 2003. Five of the FCSs were identified as
Suitable Sites. The location and characteristics of the sites are discussed in
greater detail within the body of this report. The Suitable Sites were examined in
terms of key design and logistical considerations, resulting in the selection of
three Recommended Sites. The Recommended Sites are proposed for further, de-
tailed evaluation during the Phase 1 intermediate design and will be assessed
against additional key project design evaluations (e.g., sediment transportation
logistics, material handling, determination of dredging methods, etc.). The final
selection of sites for the sediment processing/transfer and rail yard facilities will
be determined in coordination with the RD Team. It is expected that the site(s) to
be used for Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be selected in late fall 2004.
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 16
EXEC SUM.doc-4/23/04
-------
001515.H R03.08.03 - 04/15/04
L:\Buffalo\Hudson_River\Maps\Mxd\FCS_factsheets\RS_Overview.mxd - GIS
17
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Introduction
1.1 Overview of Facility Siting
The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site was
issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Febru-
ary 1, 2002. As stated in the ROD, the remedial action (RA) includes dredging
approximately 2.65 million cubic yards 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 (USEPA 2002).
In conjunction with the development of EPA's Hudson River PCBs Site Phase 3
Report: Feasibility Study (FS) (USEPA December 2000), EPA conducted a pre-
liminary evaluation to determine the engineering characteristics necessary to site
a sediment processing/transfer facility or landfill (TAMS Consultants, Inc. De-
cember 1997). In the ROD, EPA determined that it was not feasible to dispose of
Hudson River sediments in an "on-site" (i.e., near the river) landfill. EPA also
determined that it would be necessary for dredged sediments to be dewatered and
stabilized (as needed) at facilities near the river before the sediments would be
transported to licensed off-site (outside the Upper Hudson River Valley) disposal
facilities.
Consequently, the siting of one or more sediment processing/transfer facilities is
linked to the implementation of the remedy. Important components of the reme-
dial design (RD) and the RA, therefore, are the design and construction of one or
more sediment processing/transfer facilities. A facility would be used to transfer
sediment from the edge of the river to a processing area, dewater/stabilize the
sediment, treat the water from the dewatering process, and transfer sediment to a
rail or barge for transport to a disposal facility. If a beneficial use of some of the
dredged material is identified, then an appropriate transportation method (i.e., rail,
truck, or barge) will be determined (USEPA 2002).
1.1.1 Purpose of Facility Siting
The purpose of facility siting is to identify locations within the defined boundaries
of the facility siting study area (Figure 1-1) that: 1) are suitable for the design,
construction, and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility, and 2) will
facilitate the successful completion of the RA.
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362
Sl.doc-4/23/04
1-1
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
1. Introduction
1.1.2 Facility Siting Milestones
In December 2002 the EPA's Facility Siting Concept Document (i.e., Concept
Document) (USEPA December 2002) was issued to the public. The release of the
report and the initiation of public involvement specific to facility siting repre-
sented the beginning of the facility siting process. The Concept Document:
¦ Defined the geographic boundaries of the facility siting study area (study
area);
¦ Identified the key steps driving the facility siting process (i.e., developing cri-
teria that can be used in the decision-making process; establishing a procedure
for identifying, screening, recommending, and selecting potential facility lo-
cations; and identifying locations that meet the requirements of siting a sedi-
ment processing/transfer facility);
¦ Presented the criteria that were to be used to assist in the identification,
screening, evaluation, and selection of suitable sites; and
¦ Identified the expected chronology of the siting process from identifying Pre-
liminary Candidate Sites (PCSs) to selecting site(s) for remedial design.
In June 2003, EPA held public forums to update communities on the status of the
facility siting process and released the Technical Memorandum: Identification of
Preliminary Candidate Sites (the Tech Memo) (USEPA 2003). This document
presented the results of the detailed evaluation and screening process used to
identify the PCSs. The selection of the PCSs involved the following steps: Geo-
graphic Information System (GlS)-based database development; screening of the
study area using tax parcel data and selected New York State Office of Real
Property Services (NYSORPS) property classification codes; and filtering of par-
cels using the Group 1 criteria (i.e., engineering). The application of the siting
criteria and the subsequent screening of parcels involved eliminating parcels
within the study area that did not meet the initial requirements of property classi-
fication (an indication of land use) and the selected proximities for river, rail, and
road access. The filtering process involved a series of analyses and evaluations
that ultimately identified 24 PCSs (see Table 1-1 and Figure 1-2).
Following the identification of the 24 PCSs, further screening of sites involved a
combination of site visits and interviews with people knowledgeable about the
sites, re-evaluation of the Group 1 criteria, analysis of each site relative to the
Group 2 criteria, and coordination with the RD Team. Site screening focused on
site conditions and features and agreement with the Group 1 and Group 2 criteria
(i.e., additional considerations). The culmination of that process was the identifi-
cation of seven Final Candidate Sites (FCSs) (see Table 1-2 and Figure 1-3).
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 1-2
Sl.doc-4/23/04
-------
HudscmT* River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
02:001515.HR03.08.03 - 04/15/2004 L:\BUFFALO\HUDSON_RIVER\MAPS\MXD\PCS_FACTSHEETS\TECH_MEMO\FIGURE 3-2 DETAILED STUDY AREA.MXD - GIS
A V\ / ONTARIO / ) J
4 V \m. /A ^ *> >
S? A V) Hudson Falls Vg NY u i
r*yf Warren GiensFaMsiy/0 —^—'
J S I J / /fflHudsot i '-alls Dam j /
^ CvT Mr> p"* ^ J
J f^Fort Edward J
^ ^ J Edward DamfffcjJ^ tfJ ) nj
\\ J Lock 7 (RM,193.7) M S
^ Jl SECTION1 q
® J/ T190 rf rJ\M u- * B
r-i 7 / J (^Thompson Island Dam (RM 188.5) KvVaShingtOll
I ifir /Gansevoort f~ ~ \
JJ / HU ^2] Salem Mr
J/ JJ J [so] Fort Miller Dam% \Lock 6 (RM 186.2) ( V //
f\ J SECTION 2
1 // / ^Northumberland Dam (RM 183.4) tTi ] \
I i Schuylerville g ^ j)
I \ j/l t / ~-0 \ Lock5J Jrj§- i
j o Saratoga Springs^^ Mile iso Greenwich \
J JJ ' |§]
Saratoga j / B H /
/ U \ / I In I Cambridge*^
^ cl Ballston Spa jjj **^3^ ^
/[ ^ SECTION 3
/ Ik ®/^^^LocAf 4 / Stillwater Dam , r Jr-V,
/ v{ Lock 3 fjffl* 1 (RM 168.2), JSf
IjSjj] |0 Clifton Park ^lJ(7?/w?63.5j / )N
f \| \ Mile 160 V
. 0 \\ /-TX hLlocKJ (R/Wf59.4j r°*SS\
^W^^jP^yuna II fcolSffpf E
Albany Tuffs
\ j^! I / / © Interstate Highways
V n llln ^ ®
^ ^ Highways
^v^5s* J \\ I43I ^—-—~^\ — — — Section Breaks
\ ^^^^sbwaLs?556 \
'X ^ ^ ^ iff Facility Siting Study Area
\ lljjf' \(f^\ Remediation Areas
\. I \ ^ Dam & Lock Locations (River Miles)
^jj J \ jl —'—'—' ^r'mar^ ^a''roac's
SOURCE ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2002, ESRI 2002, USEPA 2002a
Note: RM = River Miles
Figure 1-1: Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
Facility Siting Study Area, Upper Hudson River
-------
ecology and en*'ironmcnt, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
1. Introduction
Table 1-1 Preliminary Candidate Sites
PCSs River Sections
Location (Town and County)
Approximate
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
165.5
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
162.5
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 (A)
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
147.3
State of New York/First Rensselaer Marine
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
146.7
Management
Albany Rensselaer Port District/BASF
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
144.3
Bray Energy
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
144.0
Bray Energy/Petrol/Gorman/
Transmontaigne
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 08JJ3-B1362 1 -5
Sl.doc-4/23/04
-------
ecology and en*'ironmcnt, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
1. Introduction
Table 1-2 Final Candidate Sites
FCSs River Sections
Location (Town and County)
Approximate
River Mile
River Section 1
Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC
Fort Edward, Washington
County
195.1
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils
Area/NYSCC
Moreau, Saratoga County
193.8
River Section 2
Georgia Pacific/NYSCC
Greenwich, Washington County
183.2
River Section 3
Bruno/Brickyard Associ-
ates/Alonzo
Schaghticoke, Rensselaer
County
166.5
NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle
Halfmoon, Saratoga County
162.4
Below River Section 3
State of New York/First
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
146.7
Rensselaer/Marine Manage-
ment
OG Real Estate
Bethlehem, Albany County
142.8
EPA presented that process and the results of the analyses in public meetings and
developed fact sheets for public review in September 2003.
1.1.3 Facility Siting Report
The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the analyses that were
conducted on the PCSs, the selection of the FCSs, the results of site-specific in-
vestigations of each FCS, the development and evaluation of Group 3 criteria, the
identification of sites considered suitable for the design, construction, and opera-
tion of a sediment processing/transfer facility, and those Suitable Sites that were
selected as the Recommended Sites. The selection of locations for Phase 1 and
Phase 2 sediment processing/transfer facilities will result from further design
evaluations of the Recommended Sites.
This report presents the following:
¦ Section 1 provides background information on the facility siting process along
with other components of the project related to facility siting (i.e., remedial
design, engineering performance standards, quality of life performance stan-
dards, and evaluation of water-based facilities).
¦ Section 2 presents an overview of the PCS identification and evaluation proc-
ess, including the application and use of the facility siting criteria.
¦ Section 3 describes the identification and evaluation of the FCSs, including
the development and application of Group 3 criteria.
02:001515 HR03 08 03-B1362
1-6
-------
001515.HR03.08.02 - 04/15/04
L:\Buffalo\Hudson_River\Maps\Mxd\PCS_factsheets\Tech_Memo\Figure ES-1.mxd - GIS
1-7
-------
001515.HR03.08.03 - 04/15/04
L:\Buffalo\Hudson_River\Maps\Mxd\FCS_factsheets\FCS_Overview.mxd - GIS
1-8
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
1. Introduction
¦ Section 4 summarizes the results of the evaluation of the FCSs and identifies
the Suitable Sites.
¦ Section 5 presents a summary of the analysis that led to selecting the Recom-
mended Sites.
¦ Section 6 provides an overview of the next steps in the facility siting process.
1.2 Interrelationship of Facility Siting with Project
Activities
The facility siting process and the remedial design of the dredging program are
interdependent. It is important that the selected sediment processing/transfer fa-
cility(ies) enhance the opportunity for designing a project that will meet the engi-
neering and quality of life performance standards and, inherent in meeting those
standards, will be protective of human health and the environment.
Therefore, selecting the best location for a sediment processing/transfer facility is
critical to the successful design of this project. Once EPA identifies Recom-
mended Sites, the RD Team can move forward with designing the site-specific
aspects of the processing facility operations. Additionally, once the geographic
location of the site is known, the designers can move further along in their evalua-
tions to determine the methods for dredging, material handling, and transportation
logistics.
Facility siting (the subject of this report) is one of several key aspects of the pro-
ject affecting the remedial design. Two other important aspects of the project that
are closely related to facility siting are the Engineering Performance Standards
and the Quality of Life Performance Standards. The interrelationship of these
components to facility siting and the remedial design are further described below.
In some cases these interrelationships are complex, and some examples are given
to provide the reader with a general understanding of how these important rela-
tionships relate to the successful completion of the remedial design.
There are two options for location of a processing facility, land-based (the pri-
mary focus of the document) and water-based. A water-based facility evaluation
was completed as part of the facility siting process. The results of the water-
based evaluation and its interrelationship to land-based facility siting are also de-
scribed below.
1.2.1 Facility Siting and Remedial Design
The primary objective of the RD is to develop plans and specifications in accor-
dance with the requirements of the engineering and quality of life performance
standards, consistent with the ROD, while ensuring that the remedy is imple-
mented in a safe and efficient manner. The RD is divided into three phases: pre-
liminary, intermediate, and final. Currently, preliminary design is complete, and
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 1-9
Sl.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
1. Introduction
intermediate design is in progress. The goal of the preliminary design phase was
to determine applicable process options that would be suitable for each major task
in the RA and to determine the most important process variables for the various
components of the RA.
Optimization of the remedial design (as it relates to facility siting) is a complex
activity. In general, it can be described as providing a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility site(s) that allows the project to be completed in a safe, practi-
cal, effective and efficient manner, while meeting the performance standards.
EPA has performed the facility siting process considering design interrelation-
ships and the need to optimize the design. The following are a few examples in-
dicating some of the interrelationships that will allow for design optimization.
¦ The geographic location of the facility relative to adequate transportation sys-
tems is important to efficiently move processed sediment out of the project
area for disposal, a requirement of the ROD.
¦ The facility size and useable space for operations (such as the rail yard) are
important so that adequate space is available to allow for design of an effi-
cient rail yard. Having a larger area on-site is an important aspect in the de-
sign of rail switching and rail car movement (i.e., staging, loading, and trans-
fer of rail cars onto and off-of the site).
¦ The ability to use hydraulic dredging is directly dependent upon the distance
from the dredge area to the processing location such that a hydraulic pipeline
can be constructed. Since there is a practical limit to the distance hydrauli-
cally dredged material can be transported by pipeline, once the facility is iden-
tified, the designers can determine if hydraulic dredging is an option for
dredge areas. In an effort to allow design optimization, facilities will be se-
lected as close as practicable to the greatest volumes of sediment to be re-
moved.
Intermediate design will use the results of existing and ongoing studies to evalu-
ate and select appropriate processes necessary to complete the RA. Final design
will provide detailed design specifications that will be ready for contracting vari-
ous components of the RA.
In addition to the relationship between facility siting and design, there are also
interrelationships between facility siting and the project performance standards.
1.2.2 Facility Siting and Engineering Performance Standards
EPA has required Engineering Performance Standards to ensure that the cleanup
meets the health and the environmental protection objectives set forth in the
ROD. These standards will be used to measure the progress of the dredging as
well as its effect on the river system.
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 1-10
Sl.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
1. Introduction
The three engineering performance standards are dredging resuspension, dredging
residuals, and dredging productivity. The dredging resuspension standard is de-
signed to limit the concentration of PCBs in river water such that water supply
intakes downstream of the dredging operation are protected and to limit down-
stream transport of PCB-contaminated dredged material. The dredging residuals
standard is designed to detect and manage small amounts of contaminated sedi-
ment that remain in the dredged area after the initial remedial dredging. The
dredging productivity standard is designed to monitor and maintain the progress
of the dredging to meet the schedule stated in the ROD. Each performance stan-
dard will have action levels that will guide appropriate responses, such as preven-
tive actions or engineering improvements, as necessary, as a means of avoiding
exceedances of the standards.
The selected facility must satisfy certain design criteria to allow for the attainment
of the Engineering Performance Standards. Potential sites that exhibit greater
benefits with fewer, or potentially more manageable, potential limitations and/or
additional design considerations will increase the likelihood of the continued at-
tainment of the Engineering Performance Standards. For example, the facility
must have the characteristics that allow for design of an efficient rail yard, water-
front, transfer area, etc. to provide efficient processing and transfer capabilities
critical to meeting the engineering productivity performance standard.
1.2.3 Facility Siting and Quality of Life Performance Standards
As indicated in the ROD, potential impacts to properties near a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility will be minimized through careful siting, as discussed in this
report, and as part of the design of the facility. One of the components of the de-
sign is the Quality of Life Performance Standards, which will serve as specific
requirements under which the remedial activities are to be implemented. The re-
quirements will be established to minimize quality of life impacts and ensure pro-
tection of human health and the environment during the course of the RA.
The Quality of Life Performance Standards include standards for air quality, odor,
noise, lighting, and navigation. The standards will be performance-based, mean-
ing that standards will describe specific parameters by which tasks are to be com-
pleted. These parameters could include requirements such as when the task shall
be done and what impacts shall be prevented while it is in progress. The per-
formance-based approach has the advantage of allowing innovation and optimiza-
tion during the course of the RA and will provide the RD Team with the flexibil-
ity to complete the remedy in a safe and efficient manner.
The facility siting process and the quality of life performance standards both take
into account potential impacts to communities. The facility siting process also
takes into account considerations of quality of life concerns (i.e., proximity to
sensitive resources). The considerations were also utilized to screen and select
sites to minimize any potential adverse impacts to local communities in the vicin-
ity of potential site locations.
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 1-1 1
Sl.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
1. Introduction
In the ROD, EPA indicated that the siting process would focus on industrial
and/or commercial properties. One of the initial steps in the process was to
screen out residential and agricultural parcels in order to minimize the potential
for quality of life issues in local communities. Some local communities are con-
cerned about the potential impacts of a sediment processing/transfer facility on
their overall quality of life and human health. Some members of the public have
also expressed concern that they may be affected by the proximity of a sediment
processing/transfer facility to their homes. Therefore, Group 2 criteria included
an evaluation of the proximity of the site to sensitive resources (i.e., residential,
educational, parks/playgrounds, hospitals, and other recreational and health facili-
ties). These criteria were developed to identify potential quality of life issues
within the vicinities of the PCSs, FCS, Suitable Sites, and Recommended Sites,
and to consider those issues relative to the other facility siting criteria for each
site. Once the facilities are sited, the quality of life performance standards (i.e.,
air quality, odor, noise, etc.) will be monitored at the selected facility sites to
minimize potential adverse impacts to the local communities.
1.2.4 Facility Siting and Water-based Evaluation
A water-based facility evaluation was completed as part of the facility siting proc-
ess. The objective of this water-based facility evaluation was to assess the feasi-
bility of processing dredged materials on the water such that the use of land-based
facilities would be significantly reduced or eliminated. The water-based facility
evaluation included:
¦ The development and evaluation of a conceptual and viable range of ap-
proaches for water-based processing;
¦ Evaluation of the benefits, disadvantages, and limitations of a water-based
facility approach; and
¦ Discussion of the potential effects on the land-based siting process.
Three approaches were developed that represent a range of applicable pretreat-
ment technologies that may be used during the cleanup. The range of approaches
is primarily associated with the technology utilized, with Approach 1 using high
technology (mechanical dewatering) and Approach 3 relying on low technology
(primarily on passive dewatering).
The following is a brief description of each approach.
Approach 1: Water-Based Sediment Processing Primarily Using Physical
Separation and Mechanical Dewatering - combines physical separation and
mechanical dewatering processes with limited solidification/ stabilization to no
solidification/stabilization. Mechanical dewatering generally requires the small-
est equipment footprint because it uses mechanized equipment to remove water
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 1-12
Sl.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
1. Introduction
from sediment. In general, this approach can be described as processing that re-
moves water such that the volume of solid waste requiring transport and disposal
is minimized. This method is acceptable for both mechanically and hydraulically
dredged sediment.
Approach 2: Water-Based Sediment Processing Using Physical Separation,
Mechanical Dewatering, and Solidification/Stabilization - combines physical
separation with less mechanical dewatering than Approach 1, followed by solidi-
fication/stabilization (such as the addition of Portland cement). In general, this
approach can be described as processing that removes free water in the sediment
(to the extent practicable) using low technology methods such as sand filters, fol-
lowed by the addition of stabilizer. This approach is similar to those used in other
land-based dredging projects (e.g., the Alcoa, Inc. East Smelter Plant [formerly
the Reynolds Metals Company] site on the St. Lawrence River), but could be
accomplished at a water-based facility. This method is acceptable for mechanical
dredging and would be acceptable for hydraulic dredging only on a limited basis.
Approach 3: Water-Based Sediment Processing Primarily Using Physical
Separation and Solidification - includes physical separation and minimal to no
mechanical dewatering followed by stabilization (such as the addition of Portland
cement). In general, this approach can be described as processing in a way that
would remove free water in the sediment (to the extent practicable) using lower
technology methods such as allowing the water to run off sediment on a con-
veyor. This approach primarily uses stabilizer to prepare the sediments for dis-
posal (i.e., reduce the amount of free water). This method is acceptable for me-
chanical dredging only.
The three approaches that were developed to assess the feasibility of processing
dredged materials on the water were compared with each other and with land-
based facilities using the following six evaluation criteria:
¦ Applicability to site conditions and dredging project objectives;
¦ Effectiveness;
¦ Implementability;
¦ Potential impacts on the ability to satisfy the performance standards;
¦ Impact on the remedial action schedule; and
¦ Relative cost impacts.
Once each approach was evaluated individually, the overall concept of a water-
based approach was further considered in terms of the key benefits, disadvan-
tages, and limitations. Those key benefits, disadvantages, and limitations form
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 1-13
Sl.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
1. Introduction
the basis of the conclusions. See the Water-Based Facilities Evaluation Report
(April 2004) for additional details.
The findings of the water-based feasibility evaluation indicate that the benefits of
water-based processing do not outweigh the disadvantages to the degree that
would warrant full-scale use with existing known technologies. However, there
may be a few circumstances (as described in the conclusions of the Water-Based
Facilities Evaluation Report) where limited water-based processing would be ap-
plicable and could be considered further by the RD Team during remedial design.
It should be noted that, regardless of the ability to use water-based processing, a
land-based facility(ies) will be needed.
1.3 Facility Siting and Public Coordination
As provided in the Concept Document, an integral component of the facility siting
process is coordination between various stakeholders and EPA's facility siting
team. Interaction has occurred at specific milestones during the facility siting
process. Regular communication has taken place between EPA and the public,
state and federal agencies, and the RD Team.
EPA made a commitment to conduct the facility siting process involving commu-
nities and allowing for public input. This has included holding public meetings at
key milestones within the process and providing the public with information
about sites identified as potential locations for a sediment processing/transfer fa-
cility as well as sites that were considered and then eliminated from further study.
Public involvement efforts to date have included hosting several public sessions,
designed to provide information and promote discussion, and issuing fact sheets
and documents for public review. These efforts have been supported by staff at
the Hudson River Field Office (HRFO) in Fort Edward, at EPA's Region 2 of-
fices in New York City, and by the EPA facility siting team.
The first major public outreach effort for facility siting was in December 2002
and included hosting public availability sessions in Fort Edward and Albany, New
York, issuing a fact sheet, and preparing the Concept Document for public re-
view. The main purpose of the public meeting was to introduce the functions of a
sediment processing/transfer facility, identify the facility siting study area, intro-
duce the criteria that would be used to identify potential facility locations, and
describe how the selection process would be conducted.
In June 2003, EPA hosted a second series of public sessions and issued a fact
sheet and technical memorandum detailing the process of identifying the PCSs
using the criteria and process that were introduced in December 2002. The public
sessions were once again held in the Fort Edward and Albany, New York areas.
Most recently, in September 2003, EPA hosted public forums in Fort Edward and
Troy, New York, and issued a fact sheet that identified the FCSs. Presentations to
and discussions with the public involved the evaluation and screening process that
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 1-14
Sl.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
1. Introduction
led to the elimination of some PCSs and the selection of the FCSs.
Since December 2002, EPA also has been asked to attend community meetings to
further discuss the siting process and to provide details as to how and why sites
were selected. Community meetings have been held in places such as Bethlehem,
Greenwich, Halfmoon, Schuylerville, and Stillwater. EPA, HRFO, and Region 2
staff have also held numerous meetings with other local officials, organizations,
and agencies that may be affected by the facility siting process.
In continuing EPA's commitment to inform the public along the way, this docu-
ment has been prepared for public comment. Public forums will be held in order
to present the process of evaluating the FCSs, the identification of Suitable Sites,
and the selection of Recommended Sites.
These public forums will provide interested citizens with the opportunity to fully
review the facility siting process and to ask EPA questions. EPA will open a for-
mal 60-day comment period on the Draft Facility Siting Report.
Following the public forums and comment period, EPA will develop responses to
public comments, seek additional input from the RD Team, revise the document
as needed, and issue the Facility Siting Report. Following that, EPA will select
and announce the Phase 1 and Phase 2 sediment processing/transfer facility selec-
tion^).
1.4 Sediment Processing/Transfer Facility Description
As prescribed by the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site February 2002 ROD,
the selected remedial action for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site includes
dredging PCB-contaminated sediments from the Upper Hudson River portion of
the site. These sediments will be processed for off-site transportation and dis-
posal and/or beneficial use. Dredged sediments are to be transported via barge or
pipeline to processing/transfer facilities for dewatering and stabilization (as
needed). As indicated in the ROD, although the facilities were expected to be
land-based, an evaluation of water-based facilities was required during the reme-
dial design process. Water-based facilities were evaluated separately and the re-
sults of that evaluation are in Section 1.2.4. This section provides a description of
a land-based facility.
Land-based facilities will be used to process and stabilize dredged PCB-
contaminated sediment for off-site shipment. The main activity associated with
processing is the removal of water from the sediment (dewatering). The terms
dewatering facility and sediment processing/transfer facility have been used in-
terchangeably on this project and refer to the same facility.
For mechanical dredging the facility is expected to include transfer operations
from barges to the facilities for processing. For hydraulic dredging a pipeline will
transfer the dredged sediment to staging chambers before processing. Once the
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 1-15
Sl.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
1. Introduction
sediment has been processed and is stabilized, it will be transferred back to a
barge or to rail for transportation to approved disposal facilities. If the sediments
are approved for beneficial use, they may be transported by barge, rail, or truck.
1.4.1 Status of Design
The description of operations/activities at the facilities is based primarily on in-
formation provided in the FS as well as in the Preliminary Design Report (Gen-
eral Electric Co. April 2004) and from various meetings and discussions between
the EPA Team and the RD Team. It should be noted that since the RD is in the
early stages of Phase 1 intermediate design, the details regarding the approaches
to transferring, processing, stabilizing, and transporting sediment have not yet
been completely developed. In addition, the dredging method (mechanical or hy-
draulic) will not be determined until later in the design process. Thus, the facility
description below is based on available information and an anticipated set of as-
sumptions that may change slightly as design progresses.
1.4.2 Description of Key Facility Features and Activities
The following are key site features and activities associated with the facilities.
¦ The RD Team has indicated that the processing operations will require a foot-
print of about 5 acres (for mechanically dredged material) to 15 acres (for hy-
draulically dredged material). If transportation is by rail, an additional 15 to
25 acres for an on-site rail yard will be needed. The acreage/footprint needed
for a rail yard can vary significantly, depending on the linear distance avail-
able that is parallel to existing rail (i.e., length of rail frontage parallel to a site
property line).
¦ It is likely that the facility will operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to
meet the engineering performance standard for dredging productivity.
¦ As described in the Preliminary Design Report, the rate of processing must be
equal to or exceed the rate of dredging to be considered effective.
¦ Sediments will be unloaded from barges along the river at a bulkhead area. A
berthing area may be needed to stage barges out of the navigation channel
during unloading at some sites. Other areas for on-river activities will be
needed for support vessels.
¦ Unprocessed sediment will be staged and mixed.
¦ Sediment solids will be separated using equipment such as screens and hydro-
cyclones.
¦ Sediment will be dewatered using methods such as gravity separation, filter
press, and/or centrifuge.
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 1-16
Sl.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
1. Introduction
¦ Sediments will be stabilized/solidified with additives such as Portland cement
and/or lime.
¦ Dewatered/processed sediment will be staged before loading.
¦ Water removed from the sediment will be treated using technologies such as
clarification, multimedia filtration, oxidation, and granular activated carbon.
This treated water will need to comply with state and federal discharge regula-
tions before being discharged back to the river.
¦ Chemicals and materials needed to support operations (such as stabilizing ma-
terial) will likely be trucked into the site, where they will be unloaded and
staged.
¦ Stabilized sediment will be loaded for transport to approved disposal facili-
ties. The disposal facilities will be outside the project area.
¦ A rail yard is expected to be located on-site and will include rail spurs and rail
car staging areas.
¦ River backfill material will be transferred and staged. A separate facility or
facilities may be used for backfill staging and operations.
¦ Support facilities and equipment storage are expected to include office areas,
vehicle parking lots, restrooms, laboratories for testing sediments, etc. Hous-
ing for equipment (i.e., heavy machinery, processing and transfer equipment)
will be needed on-site. Space for winter storage of vessels and associated on-
river equipment may also be needed.
Other properties that may be needed to implement the remedy may include access
points to the river, areas for the hydraulic pipeline, areas for hydraulic booster
pumps, backfill staging areas, and additional rail car operation areas. Once the
design has been completed, the need for additional access easements may also be
determined necessary to provide acceptable ingress and egress for facility access
roads, for accessing rail, and for constructing a rail yard of acceptable dimensions
for rail car loading and circulation. These other properties are not part of the fa-
cility siting process and are expected to be acquired by the RD/RA Team.
The type and size of facility structures, buildings, equipment, staging areas, and
other facility components will vary based on factors such as the method of dredg-
ing, the rate of processing required for the facility, and the type of sediment to be
processed. Even though these will be determined in more detail during design,
sufficient information was available to the facility siting team to conceptualize a
facility and complete the facility siting evaluations.
02:001515HR03 08 03-B 1362 1-17
Sl.doc-4/23/04
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Overview and Application of
Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS
Identification Process
2.1 Introduction
In December 2002 the EPA's Concept Document was issued to the public and
public availability sessions were held. The Concept Document laid out the facil-
ity siting process and defined the process to be used in the identification of the
PCSs (see Figure 2-1). That process included:
¦ Definition of the Facility Siting Study Area. The study area has been de-
fined as the area of the Hudson River from Hudson Falls south to the down-
stream end of the Port of Albany and extending one-half mile inland from the
edge of each shoreline.
¦ Database Development. A geographic information system (GIS) database
specific to the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site was created through the
acquisition and subsequent development of various datasets, including aerial
photography.
¦ Parcels Screening via New York State Office of Real Property Services
(NYSORPS) Property Classification Codes. In the ROD, EPA indicated
the focus of their siting efforts would be on industrial and/or commercial
properties. Therefore, parcel data were screened by selecting for NYSORPS
classification codes of vacant land, commercial, industrial, public services
(i.e., power generation and transmission, waste disposal, pipelines, sewage
treatment, and water pollution control, etc.), or Hudson River Regulating Dis-
trict Land. Parcels classified as residential or agricultural were screened out
at the beginning of the facility siting process.
¦ Evaluation Against Group 1 Criteria. The Group 1 criteria are river access
(shoreline), rail access, road access, available area, proximity to dredge areas,
and utilities.
The EPA held public forums in June 2003 in order to provide the public with an
update on the facility siting process, provide the results of the initial evaluation
process, and present the PCSs. This process and the results of the evaluation are
described in the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Technical Memorandum:
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-1
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Identification of Preliminary Candidate Sites, e.g., the PCS Tech Memo (USEPA
2003).
Process of Identifying PCSs
inition of Facility Siting Study Area
Development of GIS Database
Parcels Screening Via NYS ORPS
Property Classification Codes
Evaluation Against Group 1 Criteria
24 PCSs Identified
Figure 2-1 Process of Identifying the PCSs
Tax parcel mapping provided by Washington, Saratoga, Rensselaer, and Albany
counties provided the following details for parcels within the facility siting study
area: approximate location, approximate property boundaries, approximate total
area, property classification code (land use), and ownership information.
The project-specific property classification codes (i.e., NYSORPS) within the
study area were screened. This screening helped to 1) eliminate residential and
agri cultural parcels from the very beginning of the siting process and 2) ini tiate
selection of locations having land uses suitable for the siting of one or more sedi-
ment processing/transfer facilities. This process reduced the number of poten-
tially suitable parcels from 29,794 (the total number of parcels in the study area)
to 2,410 (see Section 3.1.1 in the PCS Tech Memo).
The remaining 2,410 parcels were then compared with respect to proximity to
river access, rail access, and road access to identify parcels that might be suitable
for a sediment processing/transfer facility (see Sections 3.1.2 through 3.1.7 and
3.2 in the PCS Tech Memo). This resulted in identifying 151 parcels.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-2
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Ultimately, the evaluation/screening process identified 24 PCSs, which are lo-
cated throughout the north-south range of the facility siting study area, with half
of the sites south of River Section 3 (see Table 2.1-1 and Figure 2-2).
Table 2.1-1 Preliminary Candidate Sites
PCSs River Sections
Location (Town and County)
Approximate
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
165.5
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
162.5
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 (A)
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
147.3
State of New York/First Rensselaer Marine
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
146.7
Management
Albany Rensselaer Port District/BASF
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
144.3
Bray Energy
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
144.0
Bray Energy/Petrol/Gorman/
Transmontaigne
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
In the process of initially identifying the PCSs, it was determined that each gener-
ally met the Group 1 criteria (proximity to rail, proximity to river, proximity to
road, available space, proximity to dredge areas, and available utilities). The
chart below identifies the number of PCSs within each of the river sections.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-3
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Location
# of PCSs
Above River Section 1
2
River Section 1
2
River Section 2
1
River Section 3
7
Below River Section 3
12
The PCSs consisted of 54 parcels owned by 30 different owners. The majority of
sites share similar Group 1 criteria characteristics in that they are located within
0.25 mile from the Hudson River shoreline and most are located within 500 feet
of rail access and within 0.25 mile of road access and are large enough to support
the construction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility (using a
10-acre minimum as the guide). However, some of the properties submitted by
interested landowners and identified as PCSs did not match entirely with these
criteria but were retained for further study because they matched the intent of the
Group 1 criteria closely and because ease of acquisition and location to rail were
identified as potential future considerations. In addition, EPA was continuing to
evaluate these 24 PCSs with the intent of identifying a smaller group of Final
Candidate Sites (FCSs) and felt these properties submitted by interested landown-
ers would be eliminated, if unsuitable, at the stage where FCSs were identified.
The PCS Tech Memo provides brief descriptions of each PCS and includes site
location, parcel size, number of parcels, current owner(s), location relative to
dredge areas within each of the river sections, and other relevant information.
2.2 Evaluation of the PCSs
The evaluation of the 24 PCSs involved a phased approach that included:
¦ Site visits at most of the PCSs;
¦ Development and evaluation of data (i.e., numbers of residential parcels
within 1 mile, acreage of wetlands, presence/absence of floodplains, etc.) as-
sociated with the Group 1 and Group 2 criteria;
¦ Interaction with the RD Team to discuss features, conditions, and findings on
each of the sites and discussions based upon preliminary evaluation of rail fa-
cility issues; and
¦ Modification of some of the PCSs by combining separate PCSs and/or adding
new parcels to create a single site.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-4
-------
001515.HR03.08.02 - 02/16/04
L:\Buffalo\Hudson_River\Maps\Mxd\PCS_factsheets\Tech_Memo\Figure ES-1.mxd - GIS
Glens Falls
Hudson Falls
'HudsoirFalls Dam
Energy Park| [So]
Longe
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area|
J Fort Edward
Lock 7
Section 1
Gansevoort
Thompson Island Dam
Section 2
[Georgia Pacific|
Northumberland Dam
Schuylerville
Greenwich
Saratoga Springs
Washington
County
Saratoga
County
Section 3
Stillwater
¦ock 4 /Stillwater Dam
Bruno
Brickyard Associates!
Mechanicville
Edison Pavingl
[Niagara Mohawk - Mechanicville|-
|l46] Clifton PaTk
New York State Canal Corporation
Green Island IDA
Rensselaer
County
Federal Dam
Watervliet
Colonie
|Callanan / Rensselaer IDA / City of Troy / King Servicesl
Town of North Greenbush
|Rensselaer Technology Park - A|
Albany
|Rensselaer Technology Park - B|
|state of New York / First Rensselaer / Marine Management!
Albany Rensselaer Port District Commission / BASF|
Albany
County
Bray / Petroleum / Gorman / Transmontaigne|
Norwest
Ravena
HudsonV River
LEGEND
9 Approximate River Mile
¦ ¦¦ River Sections
H— Primary Railroads
~ Preliminary Candidate Sites
Interstate Highways
[T) U.S. Highways
[32] State Highways
Figure 2-2
Preliminary Candidate Sites
0 2 4 8 12
~ Miles
P & M Brickyard
2-5
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.1 Site Visits
After the June 2003 public forums, site visits were conducted at the PCSs. Prior
to that, information about each of the PCSs had been obtained through the collec-
tion of various existing datasets, which were subsequently integrated into the GIS
facility siting database (see Section 2 of the PCS Tech Memo), and some informa-
tion was gained from a windshield survey of each of the sites. Up to that point in
time, the facility siting process had primarily involved a "desktop" analysis using
GIS to screen out locations that did not meet the NYSORPS property classifica-
tion codes and the Group 1 criteria. The site visits provided direct observations of
site conditions and site features.
Site activities included interviews with site managers/people knowledgeable
about the sites (i.e., property owners, property representatives) and field observa-
tions of existing site activities, structures, disposal areas, potential wetland areas,
shoreline conditions, road access, on-site roads, site topography, on-site or nearby
rail, available utilities, etc. These site visits enhanced knowledge of the sites by
combining mapped and existing data sources with on-site observations and pro-
vided a foundation for a listing of potential limitations or potential design issues
associated with sites.
Exceptions
Site visits were not conducted at the Green Island IDA PCS because Green Island
IDA informed EPA that there are plans for development of the site. Representa-
tives of the Green Island IDA communicated their approved development plans
for the site early in the PCS evaluation process. Based on review of the plans for
site development (see Section 2.2.3.12), this site was eliminated from further con-
sideration and a site visit was determined to be unwarranted. In addition, site ac-
cess was not granted to the City of Troy property of the Callanan\Rensselaer
IDA\City of Troy\King Services PCS.
2.2.2 Development of Data
During the evaluation of the PCSs and the characterization of site resources and
conditions, the type and extent of information and site-specific knowledge used
was more detailed than that used during the initial screening process. As outlined
in the Concept Document (USEPA December 2002), Group 2 criteria and associ-
ated information were included in the evaluation of the PCSs as an additional
layer of consideration while analyzing the potential suitability of sites for the de-
sign, construction, and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility.
Having previously (in the PCS identification stage) searched for sites having the
appropriate property classification and those that simultaneously met the river,
rail, and road access proximity criteria, GIS was used to examine individual site
characteristics more closely. Specific activities included calculating areas of pre-
viously mapped wetland and floodplain locations, locating mapped prehistoric
and historic resources, identifying property classifications of surrounding parcels,
and determining numbers of residential parcels, educational facility parcels, rec-
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-6
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
reational parcels, hospitals, and other medical care facilities within 0.5 and 1 mile
of the PCSs.
The development of quantitative information using GIS, along with information
gained from the site visits, helped in assessing the suitability of siting facilities at
each PCS location. This information provided details that helped characterize
each site relative to the Group 2 criteria and additional details developed by the
RD Team relative to the Group 1 criteria. Specifically, the following datasets that
were developed during the identification of the PCSs were examined in more de-
tail during the PCS evaluation process.
¦ Tax parcel data were used to determine the effect on sensitive resources
(schools, hospitals, recreational areas, etc.).
¦ Shoreline data were combined with available contour information (and other
datasets) and used to describe sites, e.g., the challenges associated with ob-
taining river access, where access was challenged by extreme topography.
¦ Rail data were used to evaluate PCSs that had rail frontage along property
lines in order to determine potential rail design issues (i.e., relative ease of de-
signing access to rail and designing on-site rail transfer facilities).
¦ Available area among adjacent parcels was examined in some cases in order
to see if there was enough area to site a facility. In some instances this be-
came a limiting factor because an identified site did not have enough area and
adjacent parcels of land did not match the selected NYSORPS property classi-
fications.
¦ Ortho-corrected aerial photography (New York State 2001; BBL 2002) was
used to gain a greater understanding of spatial relationships relating to river,
rail, and road access issues.
In addition to the above datasets, an additional dataset was incorporated into the
analysis to assist in the review of Group 2 criteria. Environmental Data Re-
sources, Inc. (EDR) was used to search existing environmental hazard databases
(i.e., the National Priority List (NPL), the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Information System (RCRIS), Leaking Storage Tank Incident Reports, Inactive
Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites, etc.) to assist in performing environmental site
assessments for each PCS. The result of EDR's search included a report (EDR
2003) and the development of a database file containing, among other data, lati-
tude and longitude coordinates. The latitude and longitude coordinates enabled
the data to be plotted in the GIS software. Once the point locations were plotted,
they were then exported into the facility siting GIS database.
Approximate PCS center points were used as the basis for analyzing surrounding
land use information. The same tax parcel database that had been assembled for
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-7
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
use in the PCS selection process was used for this purpose. Half-mile and one-
mile radii circles were developed. The circles were then used to identify all of the
tax parcels that were contained in them, counting each parcel once. Finally, the
data were summarized to get a count of how many parcels of each NYSORPS
property classification code were encountered. The data were summarized for
various categories of sensitive resources such as agricultural land, residential
properties, schools, parks, religious institutions, etc. This analysis enabled the
project team to identify areas that contain higher concentrations of people and lo-
cations of public or private services.
It is important to note that one-mile and half-mile radii searches were conducted
on each PCS in order to be consistent across the sites. There was an option of
conducting searches from the parcel boundary outward, but that was discounted
because the subsequent analysis (i.e., the count of sensitive resources within the
vicinity of a given site) could (potentially) unfairly compare larger sites to smaller
sites (i.e., if analysis were conducted from the site boundary outward, a larger
area would be searched for larger sites). It was decided that the use of radial
searches from the approximate center point of each PCS would treat each PCS
consistently and objectively.
GIS was also used to examine other Group 2 criteria such as Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain mapping, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping, and New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) wetland mapping. GIS
data were acquired from the source agencies and analyzed. Each dataset was
evaluated to determine the extent of wetlands and floodplains within the site
boundaries of the PCSs. The respective data were then summarized based on key
fields identified by the source agency (i.e., locations of mapped 100-year and 500-
year floodplains, wetlands, wetland classifications, etc.).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-8
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3 Evaluation of PCSs Using Group 1 and 2 Criteria
2.2.3.1 Energy Park
Energy Park is located in the Town of Fort Edward in Washington County (see
Figure 2.2.3.1). The site is approximately 220 feet from the Champlain Canal,
adjacent to rail, near an existing road, and is classified by NYSORPS as vacant
industrial property. The site is located close to River Section (RS) 1 and is close
to a large percentage (based on volume estimates) of the dredged material.
Table 2.2.3.1-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Energy Park PCS. Table 2.2.3.1-2 provides a comparison of the Group 2 cri-
teria and the findings at the Energy Park PCS.
Table 2.2.3.1-1 Energy Park Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-Specific Information
Available Area
50.9 acres
River Access
Indirect access to the Champlain Canal (i.e.,
requires use of adjacent New York State Canal
Corp. property). Hudson River is accessed
through Lock 7, 1.4 miles from the site.
Rail Access
Direct rail access
Road Access
Indirect access to Tow Path Road to ESMI of
New York facility
Proximity to Dredge Areas1
The site is near the Champlain Canal, 1.4 miles
from RS 1, where approximately 59% of the
material to be dredged is located.
Utilities
No utilities on-site. Electric and telephone on
the west side of the railroad.
Table 2.2.3.1-2 Energy Park Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-Specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
Abutting = 1
0.5 mile =18
1 mile = 573
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 2
Closest = 2,920 feet (west)
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 0
Other Recreational
1 mile = 1 (golf course 500 feet to southeast on
eastern side of the Champlain Canal)
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
1 Proximity to Dredge Area calculations throughout this report are based on volumes of sedi-
ment removed, which are presented in Table 13-1 in the ROD.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-9
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.1-2 Energy Park Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-Specific Information
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 2
Closest = 4,030 feet
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, records search at
Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Pres-
ervation [OPRHP], and aerial photo and soil
mapping review). The site exhibited a low po-
tential for archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
This site was previously used as a sand mine.
The sand pits have been recently filled with
thermally treated nonhazardous waste soils
from the ESMI of New York facility located
adjacent to the site.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and New York Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) indicated no documented occurrences or
information relating to the presence of rare or
unique ecological communities on this site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to listed species
to this site.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One interested property owner (ESMI of New
York)
Wetlands
Approximately 11.9 acres (approximately 23%
of the total site area) of NWI wetlands.
Geology/Surface Features
No limiting bedrock or surface features identi-
fied on maps
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
No mapped FEMA floodplains
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during the evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ Available space appears to be sufficient to contain both the processing and
transfer components of the facility, with the potential for additional area
available as a buffer between on-site facility operations and surrounding ar-
eas.
¦ The site lies within approximately 220 feet of the Champlain Canal and has
approximately 1,600 feet of frontage to New York State Canal Corporation
(NYSCC) property.
¦ The site has direct access to an active rail line (Canadian Pacific Railway
[CPR]), with a total frontage of approximately 780 feet; there is an active rail
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-10
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
—i h Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudson1 River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.1
Energy Park PCS
500
250
500
Feet
2-11
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
yard to the northwest of the site that may provide for additional capacity close
to the site.
¦ The site is close to a high percentage of material to be dredged.
¦ The landowner approached EPA at the outset of the facility siting process as
an interested landowner.
¦ Preliminary review of the information of record indicated that the Energy Park
parcel exhibited a low potential for archaeological resources.
¦ Initial coordination with the USFWS and NYSDEC indicates that there are no
known threatened and endangered species issues associated with the site.
¦ No FEMA-mapped floodplains are on-site.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during the evaluation of the Group 1 and 2 criteria are
as follows:
¦ Design implications relating to the development of barge and transloading fa-
cilities within and adjacent to the canal.
¦ Design implications relating to the need for a turning basin or berthing area
for barge traffic.
¦ Potential navigation issues associated with presence of routine canal traffic.
Site is located approximately 1.4 miles above Lock 7.
¦ One residential parcel abuts the southeastern edge of the site.
¦ A relatively high percentage of the site (23%) is mapped by NWI as being
wetland.
Site Recommendation
After evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and Group 2 criteria, this site was se-
lected as a FCS and was retained for further consideration in the facility siting
process.
This PCS was later combined with the Longe PCS and adjacent NYSCC property
was added to form the Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC FCS (see Sections 2.2.4 and
2.2.5).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-12
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.2 Longe
The property is located in the Village of Fort Edward in Washington County (see
Figure 2.2.3.2). This property is approximately 370 feet from the Champlain Ca-
nal, adjacent to rail, close to an existing road, and is classified by NYSORPS as
vacant industrial property. The site is located above River Section 1 and is close
to a large percentage (based on volume estimates) of the dredged material.
Table 2.2.3.2-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Longe PCS. Table 2.2.3.2-2 provides a comparison of the Group 2 criteria
and the findings at the Longe PCS.
Table 2.2.3.2-1 Longe Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-Specific Information
Available Area
28.1 acres
River Access
Indirect access to the Champlain Canal (i.e.,
requires use of adjacent New York State Canal
Corp. property). Hudson River is accessed
through Lock 7, 1.4 miles from the site.
Rail Access
Direct rail access
Road Access
No access to roads
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is near the Champlain Canal, 1.4 miles
from RS 1, where approximately 59% of the
material to be dredged is located.
Utilities
No utilities on-site. Electric and telephone on
the west side of the railroad.
Table 2.2.3.2-2 Longe Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-Specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
Abutting = 3
0.5 mile = 73
1 mile = 893
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 2
Closest = 1,795 feet (west)
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 1
Closest = 3,900 feet
Other Recreational
1 mile = 2 (golf course 610 feet to southeast on
eastern side of the Champlain Canal)
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 2
Closest = 3,900 feet
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-13
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.2-2 Longe Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-Specific Information
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, records search at
OPRHP, and aerial photo and soil mapping re-
view). The site exhibited a low potential for
archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
This site was previously used as a topsoil mine.
The pits have been recently filled with ther-
mally treated nonhazardous waste soils from the
ESMI of New York facility located adjacent to
the site.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating listed species to
this site.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One interested property owner (ESMI of New
York)
Wetlands
Previous mapping indicated no NWI or
NYSDEC wetlands on-site.
Geology/Surface Features
No limiting bedrock or surface features identi-
fied on maps
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
No mapped FEMA floodplains
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during the evaluation of the Group 1 and 2 criteria are as
follows:
¦ Available space appears to be sufficient to contain both the processing and
transfer components of the facility, with the potential for additional area avail-
able as a buffer between the operational locations of the facility and surround-
ing areas.
¦ The site has direct access to an active CPR rail line, with a total frontage of
approximately 1,570 feet; there is an active rail yard to the northwest of the
site that may provide additional capacity close to the site.
¦ The site is close to a high percentage of material to be dredged.
¦ The property owner approached EPA at the outset of the facility siting process
as an interested landowner.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-14
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
—i h Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudson1 River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.2
Longe PCS
2-15
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ No previously mapped wetlands are on-site.
¦ No FEMA-mapped floodplains are on-site.
¦ Preliminary review of the information of record indicated that the site exhib-
ited low potential for archaeological resources.
¦ Initial coordination with FWS and NYSDEC indicates that there are no known
threatened and endangered species issues associated with the site.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during the evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as
follows:
¦ Lack of direct access to the Champlain Canal.
¦ Design implications relating to the development of barge and transloading fa-
cilities within and adjacent to the canal.
¦ Design implications relating to the need for a turning basin or berthing area
for barge traffic.
¦ Potential navigation issues associated with presence of routine barge traffic
and other canal traffic.
¦ Site is located approximately 1.4 miles above Lock 7.
¦ Three residential parcels abut the southeastern edge of the site.
Site Recommendation
After evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and Group 2 criteria, this site was se-
lected as a FCS and was retained for further consideration in the facility siting
process.
This PCS was later combined with the Energy Park PCS and adjacent NYSCC
property was added to form the Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC FCS (see Sections
2.2.4 and 2.2.5).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-16
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.3 Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area
The Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area is located in the Town of Moreau in Sara-
toga County near the northern end of River Section 1 (see Figure 2.2.3.3). The
site is adjacent to the river, contains an abandoned rail spur, and is adjacent to an
active rail line along the western property boundary. Access to West River Road
is available and there is a site access road. The site is of sufficient size and is clas-
sified as vacant industrial property. The Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area is lo-
cated in the northern portion of River Section 1 and is close to a large percentage
of the volume of material to be dredged.
Table 2.2.3.3-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area PCS. Table 2.2.3.3-2 provides a comparison
of the Group 2 criteria and the findings at the Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area
PCS.
Table 2.2.3.3-1 Old Moreau Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-Specific Information
Available Area
31.6 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
Direct rail access
Road Access
Direct access to West River Road
Proximity to Dredge Areas
Located in RS 1 where approximately 59% of
the material to be dredged is located.
Utilities
Electric on-site
Table 2.2.3.3-2 Old Moreau Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-Specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
Abutting = 0 (but two within 150 feet)
0.5 mile = 124
1 mile = 821
Educational Facilities
0.5 mile = 1
1 mile =2
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 1
Other Recreational
0.5 mile = 4
1 mile = 5
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-17
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.3-2 Old Moreau Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-Specific Information
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, aerial photo and soil map review).
Property exhibited moderate potential for ar-
chaeological resources. Rogers Island, located
across the river to the east is listed on the Na-
tional Register of Historic Places.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
This site is currently undeveloped. It is the lo-
cation of a former NE Pulp Recycling Corpora-
tion facility and a PCB dredge spoil landfill.
The facility contained two large warehouses
(250 feet by 400 feet and 110 feet by 150 feet)
with a rail spur through the center of the larger
warehouse and a pump station at the river.
Only the concrete foundations and pads remain.
The rail spur was disconnected from the
mainline and removed.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information indicating listed species
on this site.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One interested property owner
Wetlands
1.0 acre (approximately 3% of the total site
area)
Geology/Surface Features
Potential design concern from steeply sloping
areas
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 10.8 acres (approximately 34%
of the site) are within the 100-year and 500-
year floodplains. (The 500-year floodplain
does not extend beyond the limits of the 100-
year floodplain.)
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during the evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are:
¦ Available space appears to be adequate to site the facility.
¦ Direct access to river, with a total frontage of 2,000 feet.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-18
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
—1 * Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudson1 River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.3
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area PCS
250 0
2-19
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Direct access to an active rail line, with a total frontage of 1,650 feet; there is
an abandoned rail spur on-site that would require repair but could potentially
be used.
¦ Close to a high percentage of material to be dredged.
¦ The property owner is interested in providing the site to EPA for the project.
¦ Initial coordination with FWS and NYSDEC indicates that there are no known
threatened and endangered species issues associated with the site.
¦ Relatively low percentage (3%) of the site is mapped by NWI as being wet-
land.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during the evaluation of the Group 1 and 2 criteria are:
¦ Given the past industrial use, there is some potential for environmental con-
cerns relating to contamination issues.
¦ The site had been used as a PCB-contaminated dredge spoils area; there are
issues of site contamination.
¦ Design implications related to designing efficient river access, given the non-
navigable portion of the river frontage.
¦ Two residential parcels occur within 150 feet of the site property boundary.
¦ Potential for disturbance to Rogers Island (located across the river to the east),
which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Site Recommendation
In evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria, this site was selected as a
FCS and was retained for further consideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-20
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.4 State of New York - A
The State of New York - A site is located in the Town of Moreau, Saratoga
County (see Figure 2.2.3.4). This site did not meet the road and rail access re-
quirements that were preliminarily identified in the Group 1 criteria (0.25 mile of
the shoreline, 0.25 mile of road, and 500 feet of rail (see Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3
of the PCS Tech Memo). However, it was one of two parcels that met the prox-
imity to shoreline and proximity to road criterion, with the appropriate property
classification.
Given the knowledge that rail is a limiting factor in the facility siting study area,
the rail-to-parcel criterion was expanded to determine whether there were suitable
near-river parcels that would meet the Group 1 criteria. When the decision was
made to examine the effects of expanding the rail criterion from 500 feet to one-
quarter mile to assure that no near-river parcels were overlooked, the site was se-
lected.
Table 2.2.3.4-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the State of New York - A PCS. Table 2.2.3.4-2 provides a comparison of the
Group 2 criteria and the findings at the State of New York - A PCS.
Table 2.2.3.4-1 State of New York - A Comparison with Group 1
Criteria
Criteria
Site-Specific Information
Available Area
13.8 acres
River Access
Direct access to the river
Rail Access
No direct rail access (need to cross additional
properties and West River Road). Active CPR
rail is approximately 950 feet to the west of the
site.
Road Access
Direct access to West River Road.
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located in RS 1 where approximately
59% of the material to be dredged is located.
Utilities
Electric and telephone services are available
along West River Road.
Table 2.2.3.4-2 State of New York - A Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-Specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
0.5 mile = 28
1 mile = 290
Closest = 275 feet (SW)
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 1
Closest = 3,420 feet (NE)
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-21
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.4-2 State of New York - A Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-Specific Information
Other Recreational
Abutting = 1 (NYSDEC Marina)
1 mile = 4
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, aerial photo and soil map review).
Property exhibited moderate potential for ar-
chaeological resources. Rogers Island, located
upstream of the site, is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
The site is a Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA)-permitted temporary PCB-containing
sediment storage facility. Previous site use was
likely agricultural.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
FWS and the NHP indicated no documented
occurrences or information relating listed spe-
cies to this site.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One property owner
Wetlands
No NWI or NYSDEC wetlands
Geology/Surface Features
No limiting bedrock or surface features identi-
fied on maps
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 13.7 acres (approximately 99%
of the site) are within the 500-year floodplain,
approximately 13.2 acres of which (approxi-
mately 96% of the site) are within the 100-year
floodplain. A review of the 100-year flood ele-
vation indicates that fill may have been brought
onto this site after the floodplain mapping was
completed.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of the Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ Direct river access, with approximately 1,340 feet of river frontage.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-22
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
—i h Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudson1 River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.4
State of New York - A PCS
250 0
2-23
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Direct road access to West River Road.
¦ Proximity to dredge areas; located in River Section 1 where approximately
59% of the material is located.
¦ No previously mapped wetlands on-site.
¦ No threatened and endangered species issues identified.
¦ Low potential for archaeological resources.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ Available space may be inadequate for the development of a processing and a
rail transfer facility.
¦ Rail access is off-site, approximately 950 feet to the west, and would require
crossing additional properties for the purpose of gaining rail access; would
also require crossing West River Road.
¦ Environmental concerns related to the landfills on-site and the potential for
environmental contamination.
¦ Potential geotechnical issues regarding the siting of a facility on a site that is
almost entirely composed of landfill.
¦ Because of previous landfill activities, site topography is sloped or mounded,
which may require site grading; presence of landfills and potential environ-
mental concerns indicates that grading should be limited.
¦ A relatively high percentage of the site (99%) is mapped by FEMA as being
in the 100-year floodplain, However, floodplain mapping from FEMA does
not appear to account for the landfill. The FEMA 100-year floodplain eleva-
tion is approximately 130 feet, while the 5-foot contour data for the site indi-
cates that portions of the two landfills are at elevations greater than 130 feet.
Site Recommendation
During field studies it was learned that this site is almost entirely composed of
two capped landfills, leaving inadequate space to site the facility, and there were
concerns about whether a facility could be constructed over capped landfills. Af-
ter evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria, this site was not selected as a
FCS and was not retained for further consideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-24
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.5 Georgia Pacific
This site is located at the southern end of River Section 2 in the Town of Green-
wich in Washington County (see Figure 2.2.3.5). The site contains land adjacent
to the Hudson River. The remnants of an abandoned rail spur lead to off-site rail;
the site is adjacent to an existing road and is classified by NYSORPS as vacant
industrial property.
There are approximately 10 miles between the southernmost PCS in River Section
1 and the Georgia Pacific site. The site was the only property in River Section 2
selected via the facility siting process. This is largely due to land use/land classi-
fication issues as there are only a few commercial, industrial, or vacant indus-
trial/commercial land classifications of any size close to the river in River Section
2. Land use is predominantly agricultural on both sides of the river, with residen-
tial land use classifications also occurring. Additionally, rail is largely absent in
any reasonable proximity to the river in River Section 2. There is no near-river
rail on the east side of the river in River Section 2 other than the rail line present
at this site.
The site is composed of a riverside parcel and another parcel to the east of Wash-
ington County Route 113 (CR 113). The site is located next to Northumberland
Dam, with property including areas both above and below the dam.
Table 2.2.3.5-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Georgia Pacific PCS. Table 2.2.3.5-2 provides a comparison of the Group 2
criteria and the findings at the Georgia Pacific PCS.
Table 2.2.3.5-1 Georgia Pacific Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria Site-Specific Information
Available Area
122.7 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
Direct access to an abandoned rail spur and line
Road Access
CR 113 bisects the site
Proximity to Dredge Areas
Only site in RS 2, where approximately 22% of
the material to be dredged is located; the site is
relatively close to RS 1, where approximately
59% of the material to be removed is located.
Utilities
No utilities on-site. Electrical service extends
along Route 113.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-25
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
-- * ~
LEGEND
—i h Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudsonl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.5
Georgia Pacific PCS
500 250
500
1,000
1,500
Feet
2-26
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.5-2 Georgia Pacific Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-Specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
Abutting =10
0.5 mile = 56
1 mile =110
Educational Facilities
Abutting = 1
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 0
Other Recreational
1 mile = 0
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property was considered to exhibit high poten-
tial for archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
Former paper mill operation purchased by
Georgia Pacific approximately 20 years ago.
Georgia Pacific reportedly did not operate the
mill, but it did perform the site closure.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
FWS and NHP showed no documented occur-
rences or information indicating listed species
on this site.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One interested property owner
Wetlands
Approximately 3.2 acres (approximately 2.6 %
of the total site area) of NWI wetlands.
Geology/Surface Features
Bedrock along river bank may limit dredging to
allow barge access.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 18.8 acres (approximately 15%
of the site) are within the 500-year floodplain,
approximately 13.8 acres of which (approxi-
mately 11% of the site) are within the 100-year
floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during the evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-27
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Large areas are available both along the riverside parcels (approximately 40.8
acres) and within the eastern parcels (approximately 81.9 acres). The site ap-
pears adequate for the construction and operation of the processing/transfer
facility.
¦ Direct access to the river is available, with a total frontage of 1,830 feet.
¦ There is an existing bulkhead along the northern end of the shoreline.
¦ Direct access to a rail line (inactive near the site) is available, with a total
frontage of 1,450 feet; there is an abandoned rail spur on-site that would re-
quire repair but might be able to be used.
¦ The site is close to dredge material areas; this is the only site identified in
River Section 2, where approximately 22% of the dredge material is located.
¦ Georgia Pacific is interested in providing the site to EPA for the project.
¦ A relatively low percentage (2.6%) of the site is mapped by NWI as being
wetland.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ Given the past use of the eastern parcel as a landfill, environmental issues
could be a concern.
¦ Access from the river to the site is limited to the northern shoreline area above
the dam.
¦ Rail access, while present on-site and off-site, is not currently active and will
require further analysis to determine the feasibility of using the existing rail
for this project.
¦ Navigation, safety, and operational issues are related to the useable river
frontage; the navigation channel is toward the eastern shore, which may create
design and operational complexity with respect to barge unloading areas and a
transloading facility.
¦ Property of the School of the Adirondacks is located adjacent and to the south
of the Georgia Pacific property.
¦ Ten residential parcels abut the Georgia Pacific property line; two additional
residential parcels are surrounded by site property.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-28
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Preliminary review of the information of record indicated that the Georgia Pa-
cific property exhibited a high potential for archaeological resources.
Georgia Pacific - Site Evaluation and Recommendation
After evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 Criteria, this site was selected as a
FCS and was retained for further consideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-29
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.6 Bruno
The Bruno property is located in the Town of Schaghticoke in Rensselaer County
(see Figure 2.2.3.6). The property is located approximately 45 feet from the Hud-
son River, contains frontage to an active rail line, is adjacent to an existing road,
and is classified by NYSORPS as rural vacant property. The site is located in the
middle of River Section 3. It was originally believed that the Bruno parcel had
direct access to the Hudson River. However, field reconnaissance activities re-
sulted in the acquisition of an updated survey map that showed that another prop-
erty (Alonzo) abutted the river.
Table 2.2.3.6-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Bruno PCS. Table 2.2.3.6-2 provides a comparison of the Group 2 criteria
and the findings at the Bruno PCS.
Table 2.2.3.6-1 Bruno Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
66.6 acres
River Access
No river access
Rail Access
Direct access to active rail
Road Access
Direct access to Knickerbocker Road
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located in RS 3 where approximately
19% of the material to be dredged is located;
the remaining dredge locations are all upstream
of the site.
Utilities
No utilities on-site
Table 2.2.3.6-2 Bruno Comparison with Group 2
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
Abutting = 0
0.5 mile = 19
1 mile = 710
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 3
Closest = 3,135 feet (SW)
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 1
Closest = 4,050 feet (west)
Other Recreational
Abutting = 1
0.5 mile = 1
1 mile = 8
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-30
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.6-2 Bruno Comparison with Group 2
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property was considered to exhibit high poten-
tial for archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
The property was reportedly farmed until sev-
eral years ago. It is currently not used for any
specific purpose.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
FWS and NHP indicated that the stretch of the
river in the vicinity of the Bruno property is a
wintering area for the bald eagle.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One property owner
Wetlands
Approximately 4.9 acres (approximately 7% of
the total site area) of NWI wetlands.
Geology/Surface Features
Very little of this site is level; most of the site
exhibits a significant topographic grade and
may be an issue in facility design and develop-
ment.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 1.8 acres (approximately 2.7%
of the site) are within the 500-year floodplain,
of which 0.1 acre (<1% of the site) is located
within the 100-year floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ A large area of space is available, allowing ample room for the construction
and operation of a facility. The large size of the site also allows greater poten-
tial for a buffer between on-site operations and off-site locations.
¦ Direct access to an active rail line, with a total frontage of approximately
3,800 feet.
¦ Direct access to road, with a long length of road frontage allowing a variety of
access options.
¦ Proximity to dredge material areas; located in River Section 3 where ap-
proximately 19% of the dredge material occurs.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-31
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
a.
CN
O 2
LEGEND
Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudson} River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.6
Bruno PCS
500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet
2-32
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Relatively lower number of residential parcels within 0.5 miles of the site.
¦ A small percentage of property is located within the 100-year and 500-year
floodplain.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ There are areas of steep topography toward the eastern boundary of the Bruno
property and a relatively steep rise between the western property boundary
and Knickerbocker Road.
¦ There are potential navigation and operational issues associated with the
clearance of the rail bridge to the north of the site; manipulation of the water
levels within the stretch of the river for power generation also creates poten-
tial concerns for river traffic crossing under the bridge.
¦ Preliminary review of information of record indicated that the site exhibited
high potential for archaeological resources.
¦ The stretch of the river in the vicinity of the site is identified as a wintering
area for the bald eagle.
Site Recommendation
After evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria, this site was selected as a
FCS and was retained for further consideration in the facility siting process.
This PCS was later combined with the Brickyard Associates PCS and the adjacent
Alonzo property was added to form the Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo FCS
(see Sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-33
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.7 Brickyard Associates
The Brickyard Associates site is approximately 1,200 feet from the Hudson River,
adjacent to rail, adjacent to an existing road, and is classified by NYSORPS as
storage, warehouse, and distribution property (see Figure 2.2.3.7). This site was
originally identified in the PCS Tech Memo and was brought to the attention of
EPA by an interested landowner.
Table 2.2.3.7-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Brickyard Associates PCS. Table 2.2.3.7-2 provides a comparison of the
Group 2 criteria and the findings at the Brickyard Associates PCS.
Table 2.2.3.7-1 Brickyard Associates Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
253.5 acres
River Access
No river access
Rail Access
Direct access to an abandoned rail spur that is
connected to active rail
Road Access
Direct access to Rte 67
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located in RS 3 where approximately
19% of the material to be dredged is located;
the remaining dredge locations are all upstream
of the site.
Utilities
Electrical and telephone services are available
on-site. A privately owned water supply line
crosses the southern portion of the site and
serves an adjacent property. The Brickyard As-
sociates owner reported that this water source
could be made available for future site use.
Table 2.2.3.7-2 Brickyard Associates Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
Abutting =10
1 mile = 346
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 0
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 0
Other Recreational
Abutting = 1
0.5 mile = 3
1 mile = 6
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-34
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.7-2 Brickyard Associates Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property was considered to exhibit high poten-
tial for archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
Former brick manufacturing facility. The own-
ers reportedly currently hold a mining permit.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
FWS and NHP indicated that the stretch of the
river in the vicinity of the Brickyard Associates
is a wintering area for the bald eagle.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One interested owner
Wetlands
Approximately 5.6 acres (approximately 2% of
the total site area) of NWI wetlands.
Geology/Surface Features
Site exhibits variable topography; most of the
site exhibits a significant topographic grade and
may be an issue in facility design and site de-
velopment.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
According to FEMA mapping, the site does not
include areas within the 100-year or 500-year
floodplains.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ A large area is available for the construction and operation of the processing
and transfer components of the facility. The size of the site also may allow a
greater buffer between on-site operations and surrounding properties.
¦ Direct access to the active rail line (Guilford Rail System) is available, with a
total frontage of 3,900 feet; an abandoned rail spur is on the Brickyard Asso-
ciates property and level ground allows easier development of a rail transfer
facility.
¦ The site is close to dredge material areas; it is located in River Section 3
where approximately 19% of the dredge material occurs.
¦ Brickyard Associates was originally identified in the PCS Tech Memo as an
interested landowner.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-35
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
—i h Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudsonl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.7
Brickyard Associates PCS
500 250 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
2-36
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ No FEMA-mapped floodplains are on-site.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ A potential for environmental concerns, given the past use of the Brickyard
Associates property (brick manufacturing).
¦ Areas of steep topography along some of the western boundary of the Brick-
yard Associates property.
¦ Ten residential parcels abut the Brickyard Associates, situated at the extreme
northerly and southerly portions of the site.
¦ Preliminary review of the information of record indicated that the Brickyard
Associates property exhibited a high potential for archaeological resources.
Site Recommendation
After evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria, this site was selected as a
FCS and was retained for further consideration in the facility siting process.
This PCS was later combined with the Bruno PCS and the adjacent Alonzo prop-
erty was added to form the Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo FCS (see Sec-
tions 2.2.4 and 2.2.5).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-37
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.8 Edison Paving
The Edison Paving PCS is located in the Town of Schaghticoke, Rensselaer
County (see Figure 2.2.3.8). This site was one of eight submitted by landowners
who were interested in offering their property for the construction and operation
of a sediment processing/transfer facility. The site has direct access to the Hud-
son River, is approximately 645 feet from rail, is adjacent to an existing road, and
is classified by NYSORPS as industrial property (sand and gravel mining and
quarrying). Although the site is more than 500 feet from rail, Edison Paving
owns the adjacent parcel that abuts an existing rail line. The site is located in the
lower half of River Section 3.
Table 2.2.3.8-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Edison Paving PCS. Table 2.2.3.8-2 provides a comparison of the Group 2
criteria and the findings at the Edison Paving PCS.
Table 2.2.3.8-1 Edison Paving Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
112.5 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
No direct rail access (gaining access to rail
would require crossing additional parcels to the
north/northeast; the active Guilford Rail System
rail line is approximately 645 feet from site).
Road Access
Direct access to Hudson River Road.
Proximity to Dredge Areas
Site is located in RS 3 where approximately
19% of the material to be dredged is located.
Utilities
There are no on-site utilities.
Table 2.2.3.8-2 Edison Paving Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
Abutting = 1
0.5 mile =17
1 mile =186
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 0
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 1
Closest = 2,915 feet (NW)
Other Recreational
1 mile = 3
Closest = 2,700 feet
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-38
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.8-2 Edison Paving Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property was considered to exhibit high poten-
tial for archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
The site consists of two parcels, with a majority
of the site an unfenced sand and gravel quarry.
Areas not quarried are covered by brush and
forest. One pit remains from the scale house
operation.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and the NHP indicated there were no
documented occurrences or information relating
to listed species to this site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
FWS and NHP indicated that the stretch of the
river in the vicinity of the Edison Paving site is
a wintering area for the bald eagle.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One interested property owner.
Wetlands
Approximately 13.0 acres (approximately 12%
of the total site area) are NWI wetlands and ap-
proximately 9.5 acres (approximately 8% of the
total site area) are NYSDEC wetlands.
Geology/Surface Features
Steep topographic gradients may be potential
design concerns.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
No portion of the property is within either the
100-year or 500-year floodplains.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ Available space appears to be sufficient to accommodate a processing/transfer
facility, with the potential for additional area available as a buffer between fa-
cility operations and surrounding areas.
¦ Direct river access, with approximately 1,110 feet of river frontage.
¦ Direct road access to Hudson River Road.
¦ Proximity to dredge areas; located in River Section 3 where approximately
19% of the material is located.
¦ Ease of acquisition appears favorable because the site is being offered by an
interested landowner.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-39
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
—i h Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudson1 River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.8
Edison Paving PCS
2-40
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ No threatened and endangered species issues identified.
¦ The site is not mapped as occurring within the 100-year floodplain.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ Rail access is off-site, approximately 645 feet to the north/northeast; potential
engineering issues are associated with making the connection to rail due to
grade differential from the site to the existing rail line.
¦ The area of river that parallels the shoreline of the site is non-navigable and
shallow; this area is also mapped as a state wetland by NYSDEC.
¦ Development would require dredging the entire area along the property river
frontage; a large portion of this is identified as a NYSDEC wetland.
¦ River-to-level land would require transferring material up a steep slope and
across a road.
¦ The presence of Quack Island may also present some navigation issues for
incoming and outgoing barges.
¦ Large portions of the site are open water and most of the remaining area has
been mined for sand and gravel, thus rendering some of the site unuseable or
needing extensive grading and filling.
¦ Exhibited a high potential for archaeological resources.
¦ A NYSDEC-mapped wetland is on-site.
Site Recommendation
The initial assessment of this site indicated that there were benefits associated
with many of the Group 1 criteria. The site was also being offered to EPA by an
interested landowner. Field observations noted that accessing the river would in-
volve potential design considerations due to the steep topography on the riverside
parcel—the site is steeply sloped along the river, rising approximately 85 feet of
elevation in 95 horizontal feet. It was also noted that Hudson River travels
around Quack Island in front of the site and that the navigational channel in this
portion of the river is on the opposite side of that island. The portion of the river
directly in front of the site is shallow and identified as a NYSDEC wetland. It
was also recognized that there would be design challenges associated with mov-
ing dredge material up the steep slope and over Hudson River Road. After evalu-
ating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria, this site was not selected as a FCS
and was not retained for further consideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-41
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.9 Niagara Mohawk - Mechanicville
The site is located in the Town of Halfmoon, Saratoga County (see Figure
2.2.3.9). It has direct access to the Hudson River, is within approximately 100
feet of a rail spur, is adjacent to an existing road, and is classified by NYSORPS
as electric power generation - hydro. Although the site appeared to be actively
used as a hydroelectric power generation plant, the 20-acre portion located in the
northerly part of the property was considered as potential area for the facility.
The site is located in the lower half of River Section 3.
Table 2.2.3.9-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Niagara Mohawk - Mechanicville PCS. Table 2.2.3.9-2 provides a compari-
son of the Group 2 criteria and the findings at the Niagara Mohawk - Mechanic-
ville PCS.
Table 2.2.3.9-1 Niagara Mohawk - Mechanicville Comparison with
Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
42.6 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
No direct access to rail (abandoned rail spur
occurs approximately 100 feet to the north of
the site).
Road Access
Direct access to Mechanicville Road (U.S.
Highway 4/State Route 32).
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located in RS 3 where approximately
19% of the material to be dredged is located.
Utilities
Electric and natural gas services are available
on the southern parcel. A high-volume natural
gas pipeline traverses the northern parcel.
Table 2.2.3.9-2 Niagara Mohawk - Mechanicville Comparison with Group
2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
0.5 mile = 23
1 mile = 123
Closest = 9 within 120 feet
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 0
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 1
Closest = 2,300 feet (north)
Other Recreational
0.5 mile = 2
1 mile = 1
Closest =115 feet (west)
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-42
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.9-2 Niagara Mohawk - Mechanicville Comparison with Group
2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property was considered to exhibit high poten-
tial for archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
The majority of the southern parcel is paved,
has an electrical substation, parking areas, and a
hydroelectric generation plant, which has been
in operation since the early 1900s. No known
use before 1900.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
FWS and NHP indicated that the stretch of the
river in the vicinity of the Niagara Mohawk -
Mechanicville site is a wintering area for the
bald eagle.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One property owner.
Wetlands
Approximately 12.5 acres (approximately 29%
of the total site area) are NWI wetlands; ap-
proximately 12.6 acres (approximately 30% of
the total site area) are NYSDEC wetlands.
Geology/Surface Features
No limiting bedrock or surface features identi-
fied on maps
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 33.6 acres (approximately 79%
of site) are within the 500-year floodplain, of
which approximately 30.7 acres (approximately
72% of the site) are within the 100-year flood-
plain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during the evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria areas fol-
lows:
¦ Direct river access, with approximately 1,100 feet of river frontage.
¦ Direct road access to U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-43
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
—i h Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudson1 River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.9
Niagara Mohawk - Mechanicville PCS
500 250 0
500
1,000
^3 Feet
2-44
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Rail access to an abandoned rail spur located just off-site to the north with
eventual connection to the CPR rail line.
¦ Site is in River Section 3 where approximately 19% of the dredge material is
located.
¦ Relatively low number of residential parcels within a mile of the site (as com-
pared with other PCSs).
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during the evaluation of the Group 1 and 2 criteria are
as follows:
¦ Available space was limited to approximately 20 acres, much of which would
be difficult to develop given the wetland issues involving designing for facil-
ity layout.
¦ Most of the area defined as having a potential for development is mapped as
wetland, and a NYSDEC-mapped wetland is on-site.
¦ Most of the area defined as having a potential for development is mapped as
occurring within the 100-year and 500-year floodplain.
¦ The existing Niagara Mohawk facility is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places.
¦ A high potential for archaeological resources.
Site Recommendation
Due to the limited developable space (i.e., 20 acres), this site would pose potential
design considerations and would limit the useability of the property. In addition,
wetlands and archaeological resources may further limit useable area. After
evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria, this site was not selected as a
FCS and was not retained for further consideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-45
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.10 New York State Canal Corporation
The New York State Canal Corporation parcel is located in the Town of Half-
moon in Saratoga County (see Figure 2.2.3.10). This site was not initially identi-
fied as a PCS during the First Pass and Second Pass analyses, as described in the
PCS Tech Memo (USEPA 2003). However, it was identified as a PCS by ex-
panding the rail criteria from 500 feet to one-quarter mile to assure that no suit-
able parcels near the river had been overlooked (see Section 3.3 of the PCS Tech
Memo).
The NYSCC parcel is adjacent to the Hudson River, approximately 640 feet from
rail, adjacent to an existing road (U.S. Highway 4/NYS Route 32), and is classi-
fied by NYSORPS as rural vacant property. The site is located in the middle sec-
tion of River Section 3.
Table 2.2.3.10-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the New York State Canal Corporation PCS. Table 2.2.3.10-2 provides a com-
parison of the Group 2 criteria and the findings at the New York State Canal Cor-
poration PCS.
Table 2.2.3.10-1 New York State Canal Corporation Comparison
with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
22.4 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
No direct access to rail (access to rail will re-
quire crossing U.S. Route 4).
Road Access
There is direct road access to U.S. Route 4
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located in RS 3 where approximately
19% of the material to be dredged is located;
the remaining dredge locations are all upstream
of the site.
Utilities
Electric and gas services are available
Table 2.2.3.10-2 New York State Canal Corporation Comparison with
Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
Abutting = 3
0.5 mile = 52
1 mile = 130
Closest = on-site
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 0
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 0
Other Recreational
0.5 mile = 0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-46
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.10-2 New York State Canal Corporation Comparison with
Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property was considered to exhibit high poten-
tial for archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
Reportedly used as a dredge spoils disposal area
in the early 1900s, but it has not been used
since that time for any commercial or industrial
purposes.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated that there were no
documented occurrences or information relating
to the presence of rare or unique ecological
communities on this site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
FWS and NHP indicated that the stretch of the
river in the vicinity of the site is a wintering
area for the bald eagle.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One property owner
Wetlands
Approximately 2.0 acres (approximately 9% of
the total site area) are NWI wetlands.
Geology/Surface Features
An abrupt topographic rise occurs 40 feet to 75
feet inland along most of the middle part of the
parcel.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 14.4 acres (approximately 64%
of the site) are within the 500-year floodplain,
of which approximately 11.9 acres (approxi-
mately 53% of the site) are within the 100-year
floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ Area of available space appears to be adequate for the construction and opera-
tion of the processing and transfer components of the facility.
¦ Direct access to river, with a total frontage of 2,150 feet.
¦ Direct access to U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-47
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
—i h Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudson1 River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.10
New York State Canal Corporation PCS
2-48
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Proximity to dredge material areas; located in River Section 3 where ap-
proximately 19% of the dredge material occurs.
¦ The NYSCC property is public land.
¦ A relatively small percentage of the site is mapped wetlands.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ The site was historically used for disposal of dredge spoil; potential for envi-
ronmental concerns.
¦ The site does not have direct rail access.
¦ Portions of the shoreline are steeply sloped.
¦ Design complexities and potential interference/safety issues are associated
with material crossing U.S. Highway 4/NYS Route 32.
¦ Three residential parcels abut the NYSCC property; NYSCC leases a portion
of the property as a residence and use of the site may displace the tenants.
¦ Preliminary review of information of record indicated that the NYSCC prop-
erty exhibited high potential for archaeological resources.
¦ The stretch of the river in the vicinity of the site is identified as a wintering
area for the bald eagle.
Site Recommendation
The benefits of the site lie with the relatively good agreement with Group 1 crite-
ria, which are fundamental to successful implementation of the project. The site
exhibits direct river access, direct road access, and is located in River Section 3
where approximately 19% of the material to be dredged is located. Additionally,
a relatively small area of previously mapped wetland occurs on-site. A prominent
disadvantage stems from the fact that in order to gain direct rail access, additional
properties would have to be used. In order to make the connection to the CPR
line would require the crossing of U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32. After evaluat-
ing this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria, this site was selected as a FCS and was
retained for further consideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-49
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.11 GE-C
The site is located in the Town of Waterford in Saratoga County (see Figure
2.2.3.11). It has direct access to the Hudson River, is within approximately 1,180
feet of rail, is adjacent to an existing road, and is classified by NYSORPS as va-
cant land located in industrial areas. Although the site is more than 500 feet from
rail, GE Silicones does own adjacent parcels that abut the existing rail line. The
site is located near the southern end of River Section 3.
Table 2.2.3.11-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the GE - C PCS. Table 2.2.3.11-2 provides a comparison of the Group 2 criteria
and the findings at the GE - C PCS.
Table 2.2.3.11-1 GE-C Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
49.1 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
No direct access to rail (active rail line occurs
to the west of the site approximately 1,180 feet
from the site; rail access would require crossing
U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32).
Road Access
Direct access to U.S. Highway 4/State Route
32.
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located in RS 3 where approximately
19% of the material to be dredged is located.
Utilities
A subsurface electrical service line traverses
much of the northern end of the site. Natural
gas, sewer, and water service, along with addi-
tional electrical service, are expected to be
available lines along U.S. Highway 4/State
Route 32.
Table 2.2.3.11-2 GE-C Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
Abutting = 1
0.5 mile = 40
1 mile = 414
Closest = 4 within 150 feet
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 1
Closest = 3,755 feet (west)
Parks/Playgrounds
0.5 mile = 0
Other Recreational
0.5 mile = 1
1 mile = 2
Closest = 650 feet (east)
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-50
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.11-2 GE - C Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property was considered to exhibit high poten-
tial for archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
Currently, GE-Silicones operates a groundwater
recovery system on the northern part. Previous
site use was agricultural until approximately the
1970s.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
FWS and NHP indicated that the stretch of the
river in the vicinity of the GE-C site is a winter-
ing area for the bald eagle. Additionally, FWS
indicated the potential presence of the hand-
some sedge, which is a federal and state species
of concern.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One property owner.
Wetlands
Approximately 5.1 acres (approximately 10%
of the total site area) are NWI wetlands; ap-
proximately 6.4 acres (approximately 13% of
the total site area) are NYSDEC wetlands.
Geology/Surface Features
No limiting bedrock or surface features identi-
fied on maps.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 49.1 acres (100% of the site) are
within the 500-year floodplain, of which ap-
proximately 48.3 acres (approximately 98% of
the site) are within the 100-year floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ Adequate space is available for construction of a sediment processing/transfer
facility (see below).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-51
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
a.
CN
O 2
LEGEND
Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security..
Hudson} River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.11
GE-C PCS
2-52
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Direct river access.
¦ Direct road access.
¦ Because GE owns the parcel, ease of acquisition appears favorable.
¦ The site is in River Section 3 where approximately 19% of the dredge material
is located.
¦ A relatively low number of residential parcels are within a mile of the site (as
compared with other PCSs).
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ No direct rail access; although GE owns property that would be needed to ob-
tain rail access, much of that area is used for existing operations at the GE
Silicones Plant, which would likely reduce the amount of available space for
constructing access to rail.
¦ Potential design complexities and safety issues are associated with crossing
U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32 close to the GE plant and other industrial,
manufacturing, and commercial businesses.
¦ The potential expansion of GE's wastewater treatment plant may limit the
available space needed for the construction and operation of a facility.
¦ A majority of the site is located in the 100-year and 500-year floodplain; GE
staff indicated during the site reconnaissance activities that approximately
one-third of the site floods annually.
¦ Preliminary assessment indicated that the site exhibited high potential for ar-
chaeological resources.
¦ The site contains wetlands mapped by both NWI and NYSDEC.
Site Recommendation
The need to cross U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32 for rail access, site flooding is-
sues, and potential plant expansion plans were some of the primary considera-
tions. A portion of the site is planned for the future expansion of the existing
wastewater treatment plant. After evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 crite-
ria, this site was not selected as a FCS and was not retained for further considera-
tion in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-53
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.12 Green Island IDA
The Green Island IDA site is located in the Town of Green Island, Albany County
(see Figure 2.2.3.12). This site was selected as a PCS because it exhibited general
agreement with the Group 1 criteria. It has direct access to the Hudson River, is
adjacent to rail, is adjacent to an existing road, and is classified by NYSORPS as
manufacturing and processing property. The site is located in River Section 3.
Table 2.2.3.12-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Green Island IDA PCS. Table 2.2.3.12-2 provides a comparison of the Group
2 criteria and the findings at the Green Island IDA PCS.
Table 2.2.3.12-1 Green Island IDA Comparison with Group 1
Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
44.2 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
Direct access to abandoned rail right-of-way
Road Access
Direct access to Delaware Avenue.
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located in RS 3 where approximately
19% of the material to be dredged is located.
Utilities
Electrical service, currently serving nearby
buildings, is available. Telephone service also
is expected to be available.
Table 2.2.3.12-2 Green Island IDA Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
0.5 mile = 521
1 mile = 2,469
Closest = 60 feet with 4 others at 200 feet
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 8
Closest = 450 feet (south)
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 5
Closest = 2,415 feet (east)
Other Recreational
0.5 mile = 6
1 mile = 21
Closest = 450 feet (north)
Hospitals
1 mile = 1
Closest = 3,650 feet (SE)
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-54
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.12-2 Green Island IDA Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property was considered to exhibit high poten-
tial for archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
A site visit was not conducted on this site be-
cause the Green Island IDA indicated that they
have plans for developing the site.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
FWS and NHP indicated the potential presence
of the handsome sedge, a federal and state spe-
cies of concern, in the vicinity of Green Island
IDA.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One property owner.
Wetlands
Approximately 18.0 acres are NWI wetlands,
approximately 41% of the total site area.
Geology/Surface Features
No bedrock limitations or surface features iden-
tified on maps
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 44 acres (approximately 100%
of the site) are within the 100-year floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ Adequate space available for construction of a sediment processing/transfer
facility.
¦ Direct river access.
¦ Direct road access.
¦ Site is in River Section 3 where approximately 19% of the dredge material is
located.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-55
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
—i h Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudsonl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.12
Green Island IDA PCS
500 250
500
1,000
1,500
^3 Feet
2-56
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Although rail was mapped as being present, the rail along the western bound-
ary has been removed, presumably to allow access to current development
within the parcel to the west of the site. Additionally, the rail line running to
the south of the site travels through an urban neighborhood with many at-
grade crossings.
¦ Compared to all of the PCSs, this site had the second highest number of resi-
dential parcels around it.
¦ A high number of educational facilities are within 1 mile.
¦ Approximately 41% of the site is mapped as wetland.
¦ The entire site is mapped as occurring within the 100-year floodplain.
¦ A high potential for archaeological resources.
Site Recommendation
The Village of Green Island provided EPA with their plans for site development.
Considering these existing plans and after evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and
2 criteria, this site was not selected as a FCS and was not retained for further con-
sideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-57
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.13 Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA
The Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA site is located in the City of Troy in Rensselaer
County (see Figure 2.2.3.13). It has direct access to the Hudson River, is adjacent
to rail, and is adjacent to an existing road. The site comprises six parcels and is
located below River Section 3. The Rensselaer IDA parcel included in this site
was identified in a study performed by CSX Transportation.
Table 2.2.3.13-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA PCS. Table 2.2.3.13-2 provides a comparison of
the Group 2 criteria and the findings at the Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA PCS.
Table 2.2.3.13-1 Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA Comparison with Group
1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
22.8 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
Direct access to rail
Road Access
Access to Monroe Street and East Industrial
Parkway.
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located below RS 3.
Utilities
Electrical, sewer, water, telephone, and natural
gas services are present on-site.
Table 2.2.3.13-2 Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA Comparison with Group 2
Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
0.5 mile = 888
1 mile = 3,354
Closest = 36 within 210 feet
Educational Facilities
0.5 mile = 3
1 mile = 9
Closest = 80 feet (east)
Parks/Playgrounds
0.5 mile = 4
1 mile = 10
Closest = 1,240 feet (west)
Other Recreational
0.5 mile = 4
1 mile = 10
Closest = 240 feet (SE)
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-58
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.13-2 Troy Slag/Rensselaer IDA Comparison with Group 2
Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property considered to exhibit low potential for
archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
¦ Troy Slag - Five parcels containing large
slag and gravel piles mined by the Troy
Slag Company. The property was originally
used by the Burden Iron Works, and Repub-
lic Steel subsequently used this site for slag
storage.
¦ Rensselaer IDA - The eastern half of the
site is partially wooded, with piles of slag,
concrete, and asphalt covering areas of the
parcel. An asphalt plant occupies the south-
central part of this site.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
NOAA Fisheries indicated that the river in the
vicinity of the site is a known spawning area for
the shortnose sturgeon, a federally listed endan-
gered species.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
Two property owners.
Wetlands
No NWI or NYSDEC wetlands
Geology/Surface Features
Extensive mounding of slag, concrete, and brick
debris along the southern parcel's western bor-
der results in a steep embankment; topographic
elevation drops more than 50 feet to the river.
The steep embankment also extends part way
into the northern half of the site.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 18.4 acres (approximately 81%
of the site) are within the 500-year floodplain,
of which approximately 17.8 acres (approxi-
mately 78% of the site) are within the 100-year
floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-59
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
a.
CN
O 2
LEGEND
Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
Hudson} River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.13
Troy Slag / Rensselaer IDA PCS
2-60
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Direct river access.
¦ Rail located adjacent to site.
¦ Direct road access.
¦ Previous mapping indicates no wetlands on-site.
¦ Low potential for archaeological resources.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ Compared to all of the PCSs, this site had the highest number of residential
parcels around it.
¦ A high number of educational facilities are within 1 mile.
¦ The majority of the site is mapped as being within the 100-year and 500-year
floodplain.
¦ Because of past and existing land uses there were concerns regarding envi-
ronmental contamination.
¦ According to the mapping, site elevation is approximately 35 to 40 feet above
the river.
Site Recommendation
Compared to the other PCSs, this site had the highest number of residential par-
cels within a mile. Additionally, the Troy Slag Company operates an asphalt
plant that occupies a large portion of the site and would prefer to continue opera-
tions there. Proximity to dredged material is poor because the site is below River
Section 3. Existing environmental contamination on-site also is a concern. After
evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria, this site was not selected as a
FCS and was not retained for further consideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-61
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.14 Callanan/Rensselaer IDA/City of Troy/King Services
The Callanan/Rensselaer IDA/City of Troy/King Services site is located in the
City of Troy in Rensselaer County (see Figure 2.2.3.14). It has direct access to
the Hudson River, is adjacent to rail, is adjacent to an existing road, and is ap-
proximately 21.0 acres. The site is composed of five parcels and is located below
River Section 3. The Callanan and King Services parcels included in this site
were identified in a study performed by CSX Transportation.
Table 2.2.3.14-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Callanan/Rensselaer IDA/City of Troy/King Services PCS. Table 2.2.3.14-2
provides a comparison of the Group 2 criteria and the findings at the Callanan/
Rensselaer IDA/City of Troy /King Services PCS.
Table 2.2.3.14-1 Callanan/Rensselaer IDA/City of Troy/King
Services Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
21.0 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
Direct access to rail
Road Access
Access to Main Avenue. Unpaved roads are
on-site.
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located below RS 3.
Utilities
Electrical service is available on the northern
end of the site, and natural gas service is avail-
able in the southern end of the site. County
sewer and water services are available at adja-
cent properties to the east and south, indicating
availability to this site. Also, the City of
Menands' 20-inch water supply line traverses
subsurface across much of the Callanan parcel.
Table 2.2.3.14-2 Callanan/Rensselaer IDA/City of Troy/King Services Comparison with
Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
0.5 mile = 503
1 mile = 2,196
Closest = 9 within 200 feet
Educational Facilities
0.5 mile = 1
1 mile = 6
Closest = 1,225 feet (NE)
Parks/Playgrounds
0.5 mile = 2
1 mile = 7
Closest = 1,050 feet
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-62
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.14-2 Callanan/Rensselaer IDA/City of Troy/King Services Comparison with
Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Other Recreational
0.5 mile = 2
1 mile = 4
Closest = 80 feet
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment (TAMS Phase
IA mapping, OPRHP records search, and aerial photo and
soil map review). Property considered to exhibit moderate
potential for archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
¦ Callanan - Republic Steel owned a steel-making opera-
tion on land now owned by Callanan.
¦ Troy IDA - Republic Steel owned a steel-making opera-
tion on land now owned by Troy IDA.
¦ King Fuel - The site currently operates a large soil bio-
remediation facility at the western end of the King Fuel
parcel. The property was previously owned by Niagara
Mohawk, which ran a manufactured gas plant on the
property.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occurrences or in-
formation relating to the presence of rare or unique ecologi-
cal communities on this site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
NOAA Fisheries indicated that the river in the vicinity of the
site is a known spawning area for the shortnose sturgeon, a
federally listed endangered species.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
Four property owners.
Wetlands
No NWI and NYSDEC wetlands
Geology/Surface Features
No bedrock limitations or surface features are identified on
maps.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 20.4 acres (approximately 97% of the site)
are within the 500-year floodplain, of which approximately
18 acres (approximately 86% of the site) are within the 100-
year floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ Direct river access.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-63
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Cj Q.
CN TO
O 2
2-64
/
Menands
Rensselaer IDA
Callanan
City of Troy
King Services
LEGEND
Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
Hudson} River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.14
Callanan I Rensselaer IDA / City of Troy / King Services PCS
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Rail located adjacent the site.
¦ Direct road access.
¦ Previous mapping indicated no wetlands are on-site.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ Compared to all of the PCSs, this site had the third highest number of residen-
tial parcels around it.
¦ A high number of educational facilities is within 1 mile.
¦ The majority of the site is mapped as being within the 100-year and 500-year
floodplain.
¦ Because of past and existing land uses there were concerns regarding envi-
ronmental contamination.
¦ There is an existing master plan (per City of Troy representatives) for river-
front development.
¦ One property owner is considering using the property for an active truck facil-
ity.
Site Recommendation
Of all the PCSs, this site had the third highest number of residential parcels
around it. Existing environmental contamination on the site also is a concern.
Proximity to dredged material is poor because the site is below River Section 3.
There are potential development plans for several of the parcels that comprise the
site. It was also learned that the City of Troy was in the process of ratifying a
master plan for riverfront development, which could affect the nature of the use of
the property. Discussions with representatives from Callanan indicated that they
were considering re-locating a trucking facility to their parcel. After evaluating
this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria, this site was not selected as a FCS and was
not retained for further consideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-65
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.15 Town of North Greenbush
The Town of North Greenbush site is located in the Town of North Greenbush in
Rensselaer County (see Figure 2.2.3.15). It has direct access to the Hudson River,
is adjacent to rail, is approximately 0.25 mile from an existing road, and is classi-
fied by NYSORPS as vacant industrial property. Although the site did not meet
the minimum 10-acre site criterion, it was retained in the early phase of facility
siting to provide time to investigate whether additional adjacent properties would
be available. The site is located below River Section 3.
Table 2.2.3.15-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Town of North Greenbush PCS. Table 2.2.3.15-2 provides a comparison of
the Group 2 criteria and the findings at the Town of North Greenbush PCS.
Table 2.2.3.15-1 Town of North Greenbush Comparison with Group
1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
8.4 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
Direct access to rail
Road Access
There is no existing paved-road access. How-
ever, there are unpaved roads or trails on-site.
The closest road is approximately 1,350 feet to
the north. Accessing this road would require
crossing Rensselaer County and Niagara Mo-
hawk property.
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located below RS 3.
Utilities
Not evaluated because the site had too many
disadvantages to be further considered.
Table 2.2.3.15-2 Town of North Greenbush Comparison with Group 2
Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
1 mile = 36
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 2
Closest = 4,195 feet (NW)
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 0
Other Recreational
1 mile = 0
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-66
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.15-2 Town of North Greenbush Comparison with Group 2
Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property considered to exhibit moderate poten-
tial for archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
A site visit was not conducted on this site be-
cause the town of North Greenbush has plans
for developing the site.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
NOAA Fisheries indicated that the river in the
vicinity of the site is a known spawning area for
the shortnose sturgeon, a federally listed endan-
gered species.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One property owner.
Wetlands
Approximately 2.3 acres (approximately 27%
of the total site are) are mapped as NWI wet-
lands; 4.0 acres (approximately 48% of the total
site are) are mapped as NYSDEC wetlands.
Geology/Surface Features
No bedrock limitations or surface features are
identified on maps that would indicate con-
straints on design and development.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 8.0 acres (approximately 95%
of the site) are within the 500-year floodplain,
of which approximately 7.6 acres (approxi-
mately 91% of the site) are within the 100-year
floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ Direct river access.
¦ Rail located adjacent to the site.
¦ Compared with all of the PCSs, this site exhibited the lowest number of resi-
dential parcels within 1 mile.
¦ The site is relatively isolated with very few sensitive resources around it.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-67
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
—i h Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudsonl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.15
Town of North Greenbush PCS
250 0
2-68
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ The available area does not appear to be sufficient to adequately house a
sediment processing/transfer facility and options to expand the site to include
adjacent parcels appear minimal.
¦ There is no direct road access; developing access from the north would re-
quire crossing two other properties.
¦ The majority of the site is mapped as occurring within the 100-year and 500-
year floodplain.
¦ There is an existing plan to convert the site to a park.
¦ A NYSDEC-mapped wetland is on-site.
Site Recommendation
The Town of North Greenbush plans to develop the site into a park and ap-
proached EPA in the early stages of the PCS evaluation process to discuss their
plans. Other limitations included lack of available space, increased complexity
associated with obtaining direct road access, and relatively short rail frontage.
In examining the potential to expand the site it was discovered that Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute (RPI) owns the parcel to the south. RPI has a functioning
master plan that reduces the probability that it could be used for a sediment proc-
essing/transfer facility. Without additional property the site would likely not ac-
commodate the facility. After evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria,
this site was not selected as a FCS and was not retained for further consideration
in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-69
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.16 Rensselaer Technology Park-A
The Rensselaer Technology Park - A site is located in the City of Rensselaer in
Rensselaer County (see Figure 2.2.3.16). It has direct access to the Hudson River,
is adjacent to rail, and is classified by NYSORPS as vacant industrial property.
The site is located below River Section 3. The eastern portion of the property, on
the eastern side of the rail line, is steeply sloped and most likely could not be used
for the facility, given the steep ridgeline that occurs along the river in that area.
Table 2.2.3.16-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Rensselaer Technology Park -A PCS. Table 2.2.3.16-2 provides a comparison
of the Group 2 criteria and the findings at the Rensselaer Technology Park - A
PCS.
Table 2.2.3.16-1 Rensselaer Technology Park-A Comparison with
Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
79.8 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
Direct access to rail
Road Access
No existing paved road access.
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located below RS 3.
Utilities
Utility services are not present on-site.
Table 2.2.3.16-2 Rensselaer Technology Park-A Comparison with
Group 2 Criteria
Criteria Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
0.5 mile = 13
1 mile = 959
Educational Facilities
0.5 mile = 1
1 mile = 3
Closest = 500 feet (south)
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 1
Closest = 2,420 feet (south)
Other Recreational
1 mile = 1
Closest = 2,420 feet (south)
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 1
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil maps review).
Property considered to exhibit high potential for
archaeological resources.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-70
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.16-2 Rensselaer Technology Park-A Comparison with
Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
Currently inactive. Gravel quarrying activities
were conducted in the 1960s on this parcel.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
Coordination with NOAA Fisheries indicated
that the river in the vicinity of the site is a
known spawning area for the shortnose stur-
geon, a federally listed endangered species.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One property owner.
Wetlands
Approximately 1.5 acres (approximately 2% of
the total site area) are mapped as NWI wet-
lands.
Geology/Surface Features
No bedrock limitations or surface features are
identified on maps.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 31.5 acres (approximately 39%
of the site) are within the 500-year floodplain,
of which approximately 30.7 acres (approxi-
mately 38% of the site) are within the 100-year
floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ Adequate space is available for construction of a sediment processing/transfer
facility.
¦ Direct river access; total river frontage is approximately 2,335 feet.
¦ The CSX Transportation rail line is active and occurs along the eastern bound-
ary of the site.
¦ Relatively low numbers of residential parcels (compared with the other PCSs)
within 0.5 miles.
¦ Previous mapping indicates a relatively small area of wetlands relative to the
total area of the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-71
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Menands
Albany
Rensselaer
jRensselaerj
tTechnoloqy
IRensselaer^
Technpjogy^
HRark^SB
LEGEND
Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudson*! River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.16
Rensselaer Technology Park - A PCS
2-72
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ The active history of the RPI Master Plan and the current state of implementa-
tion renders this property unsuitable for the development of a sediment proc-
essing/transfer facility.
¦ There is no direct road access; developing access would require constructing a
road from Washington Avenue to the eastern parcel of the property or creating
access from RPI property to the south.
¦ The site exhibited a high potential for archaeological resources.
Site Recommendation
RPI's Master Plan for the Technology Park property, first developed in
1979/1980, is still being implemented. After evaluating this PCS using Group 1
and 2 criteria, this site was not selected as a FCS and was not retained for further
consideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-73
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.17 Rensselaer Technology Park - B
The Rensselaer Technology Park - B site is located in the City of Rensselaer in
Rensselaer County (see Figure 2.2.3.17). It has direct access to the Hudson River,
is adjacent to rail, is adjacent to an existing road, and is classified by NYSORPS
as vacant industrial property. The site is located below River Section 3.
Table 2.2.3.17-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Rensselaer Technology Park - B PCS. Table 2.2.3.17-2 provides a compari-
son of the Group 2 criteria and the findings at the Rensselaer Technology Park - B
PCS.
Table 2.2.3.17-1 Rensselaer Technology Park - B Comparison with
Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
12.8 acres
River Access
Property has direct river access
Rail Access
Direct access to rail
Road Access
There is no direct road access to this site except
for an unimproved road, which connects to
Forbes Road from the south.
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located below RS 3.
Utilities
Utility services are not present on the site. A
Niagara Mohawk overhead power transmission
line traverses the southern end of the parcel.
Table 2.2.3.17-2 Rensselaer Technology Park - B Comparison with Group
2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
0.5 mile = 429
1 mile = 1,303
Closest = 390 feet (SE)
Educational Facilities
0.5 mile = 2
1 mile = 5
Closest = 240 feet (SE)
Parks/Playgrounds
0.5 mile = 1
1 mile = 2
Closest = 2,000 feet (south)
Other Recreational
0.5 mile = 1
1 mile = 2
Closest = 1,430 feet (south)
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 3
Closest = 3,190 feet (SW)
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-74
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.17-2 Rensselaer Technology Park - B Comparison with Group
2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil maps review).
Property considered to exhibit high potential for
archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
Currently inactive. Hudson River dredge spoil
disposal activities were previously conducted
on this parcel.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
NOAA Fisheries indicated the river in the
vicinity of the site is a known spawning area for
the shortnose sturgeon, a federally listed endan-
gered species.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One property owner.
Wetlands
Approximately 5.7 acres (approximately 45%
of the total site area) are NWI wetlands.
Geology/Surface Features
No bedrock limitations or surface features are
identified on maps.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 12.1 acres (approximately 95%
of the site) are within the 500-year floodplain,
of which approximately 11.6 acres (approxi-
mately 91% of the site) are within the 100-year
floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ Adequate space is available for construction of a sediment processing/transfer
facility.
¦ Direct river access; total river frontage is approximately 1,990 feet.
¦ The CSX Transportation rail line is active and occurs along the eastern bound-
ary of the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-75
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
—i h Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Hudsonl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.17
Rensselaer Technology Park - B PCS
250 0
2-76
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ The active RPI Master Plan and the current state of implementation renders
this property unsuitable for the development of a sediment processing/transfer
facility.
¦ There is no direct road access; developing access would require making the
connection from an unimproved road to Forbes Road from the south.
¦ A relatively high number of residential parcels (compared with the other
PCSs) is within 0.5 miles.
¦ A relatively high number of educational facility parcels (compared with the
other PCSs) is within 1 mile.
¦ The site exhibited a high potential for archaeological resources.
¦ The majority of the site is mapped as occurring with the 100-year floodplain.
¦ A relatively high percentage of the total site area is mapped as wetland.
Site Recommendation
RPI's Master Plan for the Technology Park property, first developed in
1979/1980, is still being implemented. After evaluating this PCS using Group 1
and 2 criteria, this site was not selected as a FCS and was not retained for further
consideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-77
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.18 State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management
The State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management site is located in the
City of Rensselaer in Rensselaer County (see Figure 2.2.3.18). The site com-
prises 17 parcels and is adjacent to the Hudson River, approximately 120 feet
from an existing road. It is classified by NYSORPS as vacant industrial property.
Table 2.2.3.18-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management PCS. Table
2.2.3.18-2 provides a comparison of the Group 2 criteria and the findings at the
State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management PCS.
Table 2.2.3.18-1 State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine
Management Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
Total acreage is 16.6 acres (NYS, 7.4 acres;
First Rensselaer, 6.5 acres; Marine Manage-
ment 2.7 acres)
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
Direct access to active rail
Road Access
Access to Tracy Street on opposite side of rail
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located below RS 3; all materials to
be dredged are located upstream of this site.
Utilities
An overhead electrical transmission line and
sewer main bisect the site. Electrical service is
also available adjacent to the site.
Table 2.2.3.18-2 State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine
Management Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
Abutting = 1
0.5 mile = 727
1 mile = 1,767
Educational Facilities
0.5 mile = 2
1 mile = 10
Closest = 1,005 feet (east)
Parks/Playgrounds
0.5 mile = 1
1 mile =17
Closest = 1,290 feet (SE)
Other Recreational
0.5 mile = 1
1 mile = 7
Closest = 1,055 feet (east)
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-78
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.18-2 State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine
Management Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Other Health Facilities
0.5 mile = 2
1 mile = 5
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil maps review).
Property considered to exhibit high potential for
archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
Currently, the site is undeveloped, and there are
no buildings on the site. Much of the site con-
sists of made land. The made land consists of
dredgings of gravel, sand, and mud from the
Hudson River, material from building excava-
tions, railroad-associated cinders, and trash
placed before 1950.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated that there were no
documented occurrences or information relating
to the presence of rare or unique ecological
communities on this site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
NOAA Fisheries indicated the river in the
vicinity of the site is a known spawning area for
the shortnose sturgeon, a federally listed endan-
gered species.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
There are three property owners. The City of
Rensselaer is currently examining the potential
of the site to be used for recreational purposes.
The city also has a local waterfront revitaliza-
tion plan that includes this area. The develop-
ment of the site for facility purposes may be in
conflict with the existing plan.
Wetlands
No wetlands are mapped as being on-site.
Geology/Surface Features
A very steep incline of more than 20 vertical
feet flanks the northwestern end of the site.
This may require consideration during design
and development efforts.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 15.9 acres (approximately 96%
of the site) are within the 500-year floodplain,
of which approximately 13.3 acres (approxi-
mately 80% of the site) are within the 100-year
floodplain.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-79
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
a.
CN
O 2
LEGEND
Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
Hudson} River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.18
State of New York I First Rensselaer I Marine Management PCS
2-80
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ This site is somewhat smaller in total area, but initial analysis indicated that
available space should be adequate for the construction and operation of a
sediment processing/transfer facility.
¦ Direct access to river is available, with a total frontage of 1,400 feet.
¦ Direct access to the active CSX rail line is available, with a total frontage of
approximately 2,020 feet.
¦ The site is close (approximately 120 feet) to local roads.
¦ Site topography is relatively level.
¦ Previous NWI mapping indicated no wetlands are on-site.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ A portion of the site is allegedly the former City of Rensselaer landfill; site
reconnaissance activities indicated domestic dumping throughout most of the
site, which could result in environmental concerns.
¦ There are more than 700 residential parcels within 0.5 mile of the site and ap-
proximately 1,772 within 1 mile; approximately 50% of those are likely to
contain multi-family dwellings.
¦ Preliminary review of the information of record indicated that the site exhib-
ited a high potential for archaeological resources.
¦ The City of Rensselaer is currently investigating the site for potential devel-
opment.
¦ The majority of the site is mapped as being within the 100-year and 500-year
floodplain.
¦ Ten educational parcels are located within 1 mile of the site, with the closest
being St. Joseph's School, which is located approximately 1,005 feet easterly.
¦ There are 24 parks/playgrounds/other recreational areas within 1 mile of the
site.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-81
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ The stretch of the river in the vicinity of the site is identified as a known
spawning area for the shortnose sturgeon, a federally listed endangered spe-
cies.
Site Recommendation
The benefits of the site lie with the relatively good agreement with Group 1 crite-
ria, which are fundamental to the successful implementation of the project. After
evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria, this site was selected as a FCS
and was retained for further consideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-82
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.19 Albany Rensselaer Port District Commission/BASF
The Albany Rensselaer Port District Commission/BASF site is located in the City
of Rensselaer in Rensselaer County (see Figure 2.2.3.19). It has direct access to
the Hudson River, is adjacent to rail and an existing road, and is classified by
NYSORPS as either manufacturing and processing or vacant industrial property.
Table 2.2.3.19-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Albany Rensselaer Port District Commission/BASF PCS. Table 2.2.3.19-2
provides a comparison of the Group 2 criteria and the findings at the Albany
Rensselaer Port District Commission/BASF PCS.
Table 2.2.3.19-1 Albany Rensselaer Port District Commission/BASF
Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
121.7 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
Direct rail access
Road Access
Riverside Avenue runs through the south por-
tion of the site and provides direct access.
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located below RS 3.
Utilities
Electric, natural gas, telephone, and water ser-
vices exist on the site.
Table 2.2.3.19-2 Albany Rensselaer Port District Commission/BASF Comparison with
Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
0.5 mile = 90
1 mile = 1,207
Closest = 3 within 150 feet
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 5
Closest = 920 feet (north)
Parks/Playgrounds
0.5 mile = 1
1 mile = 8
Closest = 90 feet (north)
Other Recreational
1 mile = 3
Closest = 1,840 feet (north)
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 4
Closest = 2,315 feet (east)
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment (TAMS Phase
IA mapping, OPRHP records search, and aerial photo and
soil map review). Property considered to exhibit low poten-
tial for archaeological resources.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-83
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.19-2 Albany Rensselaer Port District Commission/BASF Comparison with
Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
¦ BASF - The BASF parcel is the location of a former dye-
stuffs plant. This site is currently undergoing closure and
environmental remediation for VOC and heavy metal
contamination. The owner stated that Besicorp is cur-
rently in the process of finalizing a purchasing contract
for converting the property into a newspaper recycling
facility.
¦ Albany Rensselaer District Port - Currently, this site is
partially used by El Paso/Merchant Energy North Amer-
ica for the conversion of gas to electricity and steam, by
Rensselaer Iron and Steel for scrap steel recycling, and by
the Albany Port for special event overflow parking and
storage of the USS Slater between November and April.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occurrences or in-
formation relating to the presence of rare or unique ecologi-
cal communities on this site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
NOAA Fisheries indicated the river in the vicinity of the site
is a known spawning area for the shortnose sturgeon, a feder-
ally listed endangered species.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
Two property owners.
Wetlands
Approximately 12.4 acres (approximately 10% of the total
site area) are NWI wetlands
Geology/Surface Features
Extensive debris piles on the BASF parcel and a steep topog-
raphic slope to the river at the Albany Rensselaer Port Dis-
trict parcel may pose design considerations.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 120.9 acres (approximately 99% of the site)
are within the 500-year floodplain, of which approximately
109.2 acres (approximately 90% of the site) are within the
100-year floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ Direct river access with a mooring basin and loading dock.
¦ Direct road access.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-84
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
Hudson} River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.19
Albany Rensselaer Port District Commission / BASF PCS
500 250
500
1,000
1,500
Feet
2-85
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Direct rail access to an active rail line; rail spurs are on-site.
¦ Low potential for archaeological resources.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ Site is currently in active operation; a portion of the site is going to be devel-
oped as a newspaper recycling facility.
¦ Due to active operations and re-development plans, available space would not
be sufficient to construct a sediment processing/transfer facility.
¦ Extensive dumping and filling may result in environmental concerns.
¦ The steep slope to the river from the site may pose challenges for the design
of river-to-land access.
¦ The majority of the total site area is mapped as occurring within the 100-year
and 500-year floodplain.
Site Recommendation
The majority of the site is in active industrial use or has development plans. Ad-
ditionally, there are environmental concerns about portions of the site that are not
currently being used. After evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria, this
site was not selected as a FCS and was not retained for further consideration in
the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-86
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.20 Bray Energy
The Bray Energy site is located in the City of Rensselaer in Rensselaer County
(see Figure 2.2.3.20). It has direct access to the Hudson River, is within 500 feet
of rail, is adjacent to an existing road, and is classified by NYSORPS as gasoline,
fuel, oil, liquid petroleum storage and/or distribution property. This site was
identified in a study performed by CSX Transportation. The owner of the prop-
erty was identified as an interested landowner in the PCS Tech Memo (USEPA
2003).
Table 2.2.3.20-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Bray Energy PCS. Table 2.2.3.20-2 provides a comparison of the Group 2
criteria and the findings at the Bray Energy PCS.
Table 2.2.3.20-1 Bray Energy Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria Site-specific Information
Available Area
18.7 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
Indirect rail access (approximately 40 feet east
of the site)
Road Access
Direct access to Riverside Avenue, which bi-
sects the property.
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located below RS 3.
Utilities
Electric, water, and telephone services are
available on-site.
Table 2.2.3.20-2 Bray Energy Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
0.5 mile = 87
1 mile = 676
Closest = 2 at 375 feet (east)
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 2
Closest = 4,080 feet (east)
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 1
Closest = 4,600 feet (north)
Other Recreational
1 mile = 1
Closest = 3,225 feet (east)
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 2
Closest = 2,690 (NE)
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property considered to exhibit moderate poten-
tial for archaeological resources.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-87
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.20-2 Bray Energy Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
Bray acquired the site from City Services
Group (CITGO) in 1968. The western and cen-
tral parcels have been used for fuel storage op-
erations since the 1920s. That parcel was re-
portedly used to contain dredge spoils from
prior dredging operations.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
NOAA Fisheries indicated the river in the vi-
cinity of the site is a known spawning area for
the shortnose sturgeon, a federally listed endan-
gered species.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One property owner.
Wetlands
Approximately 2.0 acres (approximately 11%
of the total site area) are NWI wetlands.
Geology/Surface Features
No bedrock limitations or surface features iden-
tified on maps.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 18.7 acres (approximately 100%
of the site) are within the 500-year floodplain,
of which approximately 16.1 acres (approxi-
mately 86% of the site) are within the 100-year
floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ Direct river access.
¦ Existing loading dock/terminal on-site.
¦ Abandoned rail spur on-site.
¦ Interested landowner.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ The site is located below River Section 3.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-88
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
Railroad
Hudson1 River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Approximate Site Boundary
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
500
250
Figure 2.2.3.20
Bray Energy PCS
0 500
1,000
2-89
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Fuel storage tanks would need to be decommissioned in order to create suffi-
cient space to construct and operate a sediment processing/transfer facility.
¦ There is a potential for environmental concerns.
¦ Truck-traffic road crosses river parcel and middle parcel on a regular basis.
¦ The entire site is in the mapped 100-year floodplain.
Site Recommendation
Overall site configuration presents some design and operational efficiency chal-
lenges, given that one parcel is bisected by two road rights-of-way. One of these
roads is Riverside Avenue, which maintains a steady volume of truck traffic on a
daily basis. Existing site infrastructure would also require decommissioning bulk
fuel storage tanks. Given the site's land use history there is some potential for
environmental concerns. After evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria,
this site was not selected as a FCS and was not retained for further consideration
in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-90
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.21 Bray/Petroleum/Gorman/Transmontaigne
The Bray/Petrol eum/Gorman/Transmontaigne site is located in the City of Rens-
selaer in Rensselaer County (see Figure 2.2.3.21). The site is composed of six
parcels of land that are classified by NYSORPS as gasoline, fuel, oil, liquid petro-
leum storage and/or distribution or vacant land located in industrial areas. The
owner of the Bray parcel approached EPA as an interested landowner.
Table 2.2.3.21-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Bray/Petrol eum/Gorman/Transmontaigne PCS. Table 2.2.3.21-2 provides a
comparison of the Group 2 criteria and the findings at the Bray/Petrol eum/Gor-
man/Transmontaigne PCS.
Table 2.2.3.21-1 Bray/Petroleum/Gorman/Transmontaigne Comparison
with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
29.2 acres
River Access
No direct river access
Rail Access
No direct rail access (rail access is approxi-
mately 40 feet east of the eastern property line).
Road Access
Unpaved road connects to Riverside Avenue
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located below RS 3.
Utilities
Subsurface gas service and overhead power
rights-of-way traverse the western side of the
site.
Table 2.2.3.21-2 Bray/Petroleum/Gorman/Transmontaigne Comparison
with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
0.5 mile = 291
1 mile = 786
Closest = 3 at 375 feet
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 1
Closest = 4,070 feet (east)
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 0
Other Recreational
1 mile = 1
Closest = 3,225 feet (east)
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 1
Closest = 2,690 feet (NE)
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-91
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.21-2 Bray/Petroleum/Gorman/Transmontaigne Comparison
with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property was considered to exhibit high poten-
tial for archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
Currently, the site consists of four mostly
wooded parcels. The site was used as a Hudson
River dredge spoils repository from dredging
done in the 1940s or 1950s. Transmontaigne
currently monitors site groundwater through a
quarterly monitoring program.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
NOAA Fisheries indicated the river in the vi-
cinity of the site is a known spawning area for
the shortnose sturgeon, a federally listed endan-
gered species.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
Four property owners.
Wetlands
Approximately 20.1 acres (approximately 69%
of the total site area) are NWI wetlands.
Geology/Surface Features
No bedrock limitations or surface features iden-
tified on maps.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 29.2 acres (approximately 100%
of the site) are within the 500-year floodplain,
of which approximately 24.1 acres (approxi-
mately 83% of the site) are within the 100-year
floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ Rail access is within 40 feet of the site; total rail frontage is approximately
1,650 feet.
¦ Existing roads are nearby. Access to the site could be created through the
Bray Energy property to the west or the Polsinello Fuels, Inc. property di-
rectly to the north.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-92
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Rensselaer
Albany
Bray Energy
Petroleum Fuel
Gorman Terminals
Transmontaigne Terminal
LEGEND
Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
Hudson} River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.21
Bray / Petroleum / Gorman / Transmontaigne PCS
2-93
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Bray/Petroleum/Gorman/Transmontaigne - Summary of Site
Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ The site is below River Section 3.
¦ No riverfront access, which increases the potential for increased complexity
of design associated with transferring dredge material from the edge of the
river, across additional parcels, to the processing and transfer portions of the
facility.
¦ Previous NWI mapping shows wetlands across most of the site (approxi-
mately 69%).
¦ A majority of the site (83%) is mapped as within the 100-year floodplain.
¦ High potential for archaeological resources.
¦ Relatively higher number of residential parcels (291) within 0.5 miles.
Site Recommendation
The site does not have direct river access and therefore transferring the dredged
material from the shoreline to the processing and rail transfer portion of the site
would be complex. Obtaining rail access would be complicated given the infra-
structure (bulk fuel storage tanks) on these parcels between the site and the river.
After evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria, this site was not selected
as a FCS and was not retained for further consideration in the facility siting proc-
ess.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-94
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.22 Norwest
The Norwest site is in East Greenbush, Rensselaer County (see Figure 2.2.3.22).
It has direct access to the Hudson River, is approximately 850 feet from rail, is
adjacent to an existing road, and is classified by NYSORPS as vacant land located
in industrial areas. Although the site did not meet the Group 1 rail criteria (loca-
tion within 500 feet of rail) it was considered as a PCS because it was one of eight
sites submitted to EPA by landowners who were interested in offering their prop-
erty. Additionally, this site was identified in a study performed by CSX Trans-
portation.
Table 2.2.3.22-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the Norwest PCS. Table 2.2.3.22-2 provides a comparison of the Group 2 criteria
and the findings at the Norwest PCS.
Table 2.2.3.22-1 Norwest Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria Site-specific Information
Available Area
30.0 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
No direct rail access (at the closest point, rail is
located approximately 850 feet east of the site).
Road Access
Direct access to Riverside Avenue.
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located below RS 3.
Utilities
Natural gas, electric, telephone, and water util-
ity services are reportedly available along
American Oil Road on the east side of the prop-
erty.
Table 2.2.3.22-2 Norwest Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
0.5 mile =17
1 mile = 478
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 0
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 0
Other Recreational
1 mile = 0
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property was considered to exhibit low poten-
tial for archaeological resources.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-95
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.22-2 Norwest Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
Norwest has owned this entire site for approxi-
mately three years; it was acquired from Sun
Oil Company, which acquired it from American
Oil Company several decades ago.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
NOAA Fisheries indicated the river in the vi-
cinity of the site is a known spawning area for
the shortnose sturgeon, a federally listed endan-
gered species.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One property owner.
Wetlands
Approximately 1.0 acre (approximately 3% of
the total site area) is NWI wetland.
Geology/Surface Features
No bedrock limitations or surface features are
identified on maps.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
The entire 30.0-acre site is within the 100-year
floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ Direct river access.
¦ Interested landowner.
¦ Relatively isolated.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ The site is below River Section 3.
¦ Rail access is approximately 850 feet east of the site.
¦ Requires additional property to access rail.
¦ Vessel turning basin appears shallow and may need to be dredged for access.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-96
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
Hudson} River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.22
Norwest PCS
2-97
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Available space is limited and site configuration may pose limitations for de-
velopment as a sediment processing/transfer facility.
¦ Environmental concerns.
¦ Entire site is mapped as occurring within the 100-year floodplain.
Site Recommendation
Design issues, particularly as they relate to the configuration of the site, may pose
limitations due to the limited space. After evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and
2 criteria, this site was not selected as a FCS and was not retained for further con-
sideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-98
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.23 OG Real Estate
The OG Real Estate site is located in the Town of Bethlehem in Albany County,
below River Section 3 (see Figure 2.2.3.23). This site is relatively large, is adja-
cent to the Hudson River, adjacent to rail, has good access to River Road and Old
River Road along the western property boundary, and is classified by NYSORPS
as vacant industrial property.
Table 2.2.3.23-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the OG Real Estate PCS. Table 2.2.3.23-2 provides a comparison of the Group 2
criteria and the findings at the OG Real Estate PCS.
Table 2.2.3.23-1 OG Real Estate Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
93.6 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
Direct access to rail
Road Access
Indirect access to River Road and Old River
Road
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located below RS 3; all materials to
be dredged are located upstream of this site.
Utilities
A high-voltage overhead power line and two
high-pressure natural gas pipelines traverse the
site.
Table 2.2.3.23-2 OG Real Estate Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
0.5 mile = 46
1 mile = 225
Closest = 6 within 130 feet
Educational Facilities
1 mile = 1
Closest = 4,255 feet
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 0
Other Recreational
1 mile = 1; closest = 1,340 feet
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property considered to exhibit a high potential
for archaeological resources.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-99
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.23-2 OG Real Estate Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
The site is currently vacant and is located in an
industrial area on the west side of the Hudson
River. The site is reportedly the former coal
ash-dumping site of the former Niagara Mo-
hawk power plant that is adjacent to the south-
ern side of the site.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
NOAA Fisheries indicated the river in the vi-
cinity of the site is a known spawning area for
the shortnose sturgeon, a federally listed endan-
gered species.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
There are 2 property owners. There are some
existing plans for the site, including the devel-
opment of Beacon Harbor. However, the land-
owner has maintained interest in providing the
property to EPA.
Wetlands
Approximately 56.8 acres (approximately 61%
of the total site area) are NWI wetlands; ap-
proximately 72.9 acres (approximately 78% of
the total site area) are NYSDEC wetlands.
Geology/Surface Features
No bedrock limitations or surface features are
identified on maps.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 90 acres (96% of the site) are
within the 500-year floodplain, of which ap-
proximately 88.6 acres (approximately 95% of
the site) are within the 100-year floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ The available space should be adequate for the construction and operation of
the processing/transfer facility; the total area may allow a buffer between on-
site operations and off-site locations.
¦ Direct access to river is available, with a total frontage of 2,500 feet.
¦ Direct access to the active CSX rail line is available, with a total frontage of
3,370 feet.
¦ Direct access to River Road and Old River Road is available.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-100
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
2-101
LEGEND
Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
HudsonX, River
PCBsSUPERFUNDSITE
Figure 2.2.3.23
OG Real Estate PCS
500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ The topography is relatively level across the entire site.
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ The site is located approximately 50 miles downstream from the midpoint of
River Section 1.
¦ Preliminary review of the information of record indicated that the site exhib-
ited a high potential for archaeological resources.
¦ Approximately 95% of the total site area is mapped as occurring within the
100-year floodplain.
¦ The stretch of the river in the vicinity of the site is identified as a known
spawning area for the shortnose sturgeon, a federally listed endangered spe-
cies.
¦ Previous mapping by NWI and NYSDEC indicates approximately 56.8 acres
and 72.9 acres of wetland, respectively.
Site Recommendation
It was learned after the site had been identified that there were plans to develop
the site. The proposal is referred to as the Beacon Harbor Project. However, the
landowner has maintained an interest in providing the land to EPA. After evalu-
ating this PCS using Group 1 and 2 criteria, this site was selected as a FCS and
was retained for further consideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-102
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.3.24 P&M Brickyard
The P&M Brickyard site is located in Coeymans, Albany County (see Figure
2.2.3.24). The site was selected as a PCS primarily because it was submitted to
EPA by an interested landowner. The site has direct access to the Hudson River,
is adjacent to an existing road, is classified by NYSORPS as other mining and
quarrying property, and is approximately 116 acres. However, the closest rail line
is approximately 5,000 feet (0.95 mile) from the property. The site is located ap-
proximately 7.4 miles south of the southern extent of the study area identified in
the Concept Document (USEPA 2002).
Table 2.2.3.24-1 provides a comparison of the Group 1 criteria and the findings at
the P&M Brickyard PCS. Table 2.2.3.24-2 provides a comparison of the Group 2
criteria and the findings at the P&M Brickyard PCS.
Table 2.2.3.24-1 P&M Brickyard Comparison with Group 1 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Available Area
116.0 acres
River Access
Direct river access
Rail Access
No direct rail access (there is a CSX track lease
for loading/unloading cars approximately 2
miles north of the site).
Road Access
There is a site access road off State Route 144.
Proximity to Dredge Areas
The site is located below RS 3.
Utilities
Electrical, water, and natural gas services exist
on-site.
Table 2.2.3.24-2 P&M Brickyard Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Identification/Proximity to
Sensitive Resources
Residential Properties
0.5 mile =11
1 mile = 276
Closest =100 feet (south)
Educational Facilities
0.5 mile = 1
1 mile = 5
Closest = 605 feet (SW)
Parks/Playgrounds
1 mile = 1
Closest = 2,020 feet (SW)
Other Recreational
0.5 mile = 1
1 mile = 3
Closest = 410 feet (south)
Hospitals
1 mile = 0
Other Health Facilities
1 mile = 0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-103
-------
I# ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Table 2.2.3.24-2 P&M Brickyard Comparison with Group 2 Criteria
Criteria
Site-specific Information
Cultural Resources
Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment
(TAMS Phase IA mapping, OPRHP records
search, and aerial photo and soil map review).
Property considered to exhibit low potential for
archaeological resources.
Existing and Historic
(Previous Land Uses)
Brick was manufactured on the site since the
mid-1800s.
Documented Rare/Unique
Ecological Communities
FWS and NHP indicated no documented occur-
rences or information relating to the presence of
rare or unique ecological communities on this
site.
Threatened/Endangered
Species Issues
NOAA Fisheries indicated the river in the vi-
cinity of the site is a known spawning area for
the shortnose sturgeon, a federally listed endan-
gered species.
Ease of Purchasing/Land
Ownership
One property owner.
Wetlands
NWI wetland mapping was not available for
this site. No NYSDEC wetlands were previ-
ously mapped on this site.
Geology/Surface Features
Extensive berming near the site's northeast cor-
ner creates a steep and potentially unstable
slope. The site has extreme topographic relief
in some areas.
Mapped 100-Year Flood-
plains and Floodway
Approximately 36.1 acres (approximately 31%
of the site) are within the 500-year floodplain,
of which approximately 34 acres (approxi-
mately 29% of the site) are within the 100-year
floodplain.
Summary of Site Benefits
The benefits identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as follows:
¦ Direct river access.
¦ Level space available.
¦ Interested landowner.
¦ Relatively isolated.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-104
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
2-105
LEGEND
Railroad
Approximate Site Boundary
HiutsofTl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 2.2.3.24
P & M Brickyard PCS
500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
Summary of Site Limitations
The limitations identified during evaluation of Group 1 and 2 criteria are as fol-
lows:
¦ The site is below River Section 3, approximately 10 river miles south of the
Port of Albany and 55 miles south of River Section 1.
¦ Rail access is approximately 1 mile west of the site.
¦ Potential environmental concerns as a result of past land use history and prac-
tices.
¦ Preliminary assessment indicated a low potential for archaeological resources.
Site Recommendation
There is no direct access to rail from this site. Construction of a railroad spur
would require obtaining a right-of-way agreement to travel across neighboring
properties. The railroad spur would also have to cross Coeymans Creek and State
Route 144. This site is located below River Section 3 and is approximately 55
miles south of River Section 1. After evaluating this PCS using Group 1 and 2
criteria, this site was not selected as a FCS and was not retained for further con-
sideration in the facility siting process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-106
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
2.2.4 Coordination with the RD Team
Given the time frame of the project and the volume of dredge material to be proc-
essed, a viable site must be able to process material and transfer (by rail or barge)
that material in an efficient manner. Information was received from the RD Team
regarding the potential rail facility requirements. During the preliminary design
phase of the project, the RD Team took a closer look at designing a transfer-by-
rail facility that could accommodate the project's dredging productivity goals.
This led to a preliminary evaluation of logistics fundamental to designing a rail
transfer facility: types of rail cars, rail yard needs, on-site transfer and loading
equipment, coordination of rail car staging and circulation of incoming and outgo-
ing rail cars, rail infrastructure throughout the Upper Hudson River Valley, total
area needs, relationships between area and length of rail frontage, rail line owner-
ship, etc. The evaluation took into consideration each of the PCSs relative to the
potential for siting a rail transfer facility on-site.
Coordination with the RD Team during the PCS evaluation process determined
that, due to the size and orientation requirements for rail on a sediment process-
ing/transfer site, areas larger than the original 10-acre assumption would be
needed to house both a sediment processing/transfer facility and a rail transfer
area. Additionally, it was recognized that long stretches of rail frontage would
enhance the feasibility and operational efficiency of a rail yard facility. This in-
formation had a direct effect on the evaluation of PCSs. Those sites that were
smaller in area (relative to other parcels) and/or of configurations that could pro-
hibit the design and operation of an efficient rail transfer facility were eliminated
from further consideration (typically in consideration of additional limitations
posed by the sites relative to the Group 1 and Group 2 criteria), or adjacent PCSs
were combined or additional parcels were added to existing PCSs to meet the size
requirements.
2.2.5 Modification of PCSs
As a result of coordinating with the RD Team on these rail design considerations
and information regarding river access, which had been gathered during site vis-
its, some of the PCSs were combined and other properties were added to enhance
the suitability of sites. These included:
¦ Combining the Energy Park and Longe PCSs with the New York State Canal
Corporation (NYSCC) parcel;
¦ Adding NYSCC property to the south of the Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area
PCS;
¦ Combining the Bruno and Brickyard Associates PCSs and adding the Alonzo
property;
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-107
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
m Acknowledging NYSCC ownership of a small area along the river of the
Georgia Pacific PCS; and
¦ Adding the Allco and Leyerle properties to the NYSCC PCS,
2.2.6 Identification of the Final Candidate Sites
A number of variables were examined in order to narrow the list of potential
sediment processing/transfer facility locations from the PCSs to the FCSs. Sites
were compared against Group 1 and Group 2 criteria, and benefits and limitations
were identified for each site. Group 2 criteria were used by EPA to avoid and re-
duce potential environmental and community impacts where possible while still
meeting the objective of locating sites that could be used for the successful re-
moval of PCB-contaminated materials from the river and the processing and
transfer of dredged materials. As a result of the examination and evaluation of the
PCSs, the following sites were selected as FCSs (see Figures 2-3 and 2-4).
Process of Identifying FCSs
from 24 PCSs
Site Visits
Evaluation Against Group 1 and
Group 2 Criteria
Modification of Some PCSs
Addition of Properties
Coordination with RD Team
7 FCSs Identified
Figure 2-3 Process of Identifying FCSs
from 24 PCSs
Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-108
-------
001515.H R03.08.04 - 12/16/03
L:\Buffalo\Hudson_River\Maps\Mxd\FCS_factsheets\FCS_Overview.mxd - GIS
2-109
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Georgia Pacific/NYSCC
¦ Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo
¦ NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle
¦ State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management
¦ OG Real Estate.
2.3 Characteristics of the FCSs Relative to Group 1 and 2
Criteria
As described in Section 2.2.5, in order to better accommodate river and rail access
considerations, a number of the PCSs were combined and new parcels were
added. Six new properties adjacent to five of the PCSs were identified in this
process.
The seven FCSs comprise 32 parcels owned by 12 separate owners. Portions of
five of the FCSs include parcels that have been offered to EPA by interested land-
owners.
In general, there are a number of characteristics that are shared by the FCSs.
Group 1 and Group 2 criteria were used to identify benefits and potential limita-
tions of each of the FCSs and, in doing so, provided a basis for the evaluation of
the sites. It is important to note that all sites have some potential issues and chal-
lenges or relative complexities associated with them. Sites that exhibited the
greatest degree of agreement with the design-based (Group 1) criteria while hav-
ing the potential for minimizing impacts to local resources and communities
(Group 2 criteria) were identified as FCSs. A summary list of characteristics that
contributed to the selection of these sites is provided below.
¦ Sites appear to have sufficient available space to contain a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility.
¦ Many of the sites contain enough acreage to potentially provide additional
buffer zones between on-site activities and off-site areas.
¦ All sites have direct access to the Hudson River or the canal system, with five
of the sites containing more than 2,000 feet of river frontage, with the assump-
tion that the greater the length of frontage, the more flexibility when consider-
ing development options for river access.
¦ All sites have direct access to rail via either on-site rail spurs that connect to
rail lines or active rail lines adjacent to the site property boundaries.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-110
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Many sites are relatively close to a larger percentage of the dredge locations.
¦ All sites have either direct access to local roads or are close to local roads and
would not require the purchase of additional properties to construct access
roads.
¦ Portions of five of the seven FCSs have been offered to EPA by interested
landowners, presumably making some aspects of acquisition more favorable.
In addition, portions of five of the sites are also owned by the State of New
York.
¦ Many of the sites, compared with the entire list of the PCSs, are in lower den-
sity residential areas.
¦ According to the EDR database search and the site visits, most sites indicated
lower potential for environmental concerns.
¦ According to previous mapping, three of the sites contained relatively smaller
areas identified as wetlands.
2.4 Characteristics of Eliminated Preliminary Candidate
Sites Relative to Group 1 and 2 Criteria
As described in Section 2.2, the screening and evaluation of the PCSs involved
evaluating field information and comparing each of the sites with Group 1 and
Group 2 criteria. As a result, 15 PCSs were eliminated from further considera-
tion. With the exception of sites considered too small and those confirmed to ei-
ther be active facilities or to have existing and functioning development plans,
none of the issues listed below, by themselves, eliminated sites. Rather, sites
were eliminated from further consideration for exhibiting a combination of limita-
tions.
These sites are listed below:
¦ State of New York - A (Moreau, Saratoga County)
¦ Edison Paving (Schaghticoke, Rensselaer County)
¦ Niagara Mohawk-Mechanicville (Halfmoon, Saratoga County)
¦ General Electric C (Waterford, Saratoga County)
¦ Green Island IDA (Green Island, Albany County)
¦ Troy Slag\Rensselaer IDA (Troy, Rensselaer County)
¦ Callanan\Rensselaer IDA\City of Troy\King Services (Troy, Rensselaer
County)
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-111
-------
(1
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Town of North Greenbush (North Greenbush, Rensselaer County)
¦ Rensselaer Tech Park - A (City of Rensselaer, Rensselaer County)
¦ Rensselaer Tech Park - B (City of Rensselaer, Rensselaer County)
¦ Albany Rensselaer Port District\BASF (City of Rensselaer, Rensselaer
County)
¦ Bray Energy (City of Rensselaer, Rensselaer County)
¦ Bray Energy\Petrol\Gorman\Transmontaigne (City of Rensselaer and East
Greenbush, Rensselaer County)
¦ Norwest (East Greenbush, Rensselaer County)
¦ P&M Brickyard (Coeymans, Albany County)
In general, various factors led to the elimination of the above-listed sites. A
summary list of the factors that contributed to the elimination of the PCSs is pro-
vided below.
¦ Site area appeared insufficient for the siting of a facility.
¦ Development occurred or was occurring on-site, or development plans were
confirmed that could interfere with the feasibility of constructing and operat-
ing a facility.
¦ Historic or current land uses increased the potential for environmental con-
cerns.
¦ Access to the river would require a relatively more complex design because of
steep shoreline slopes.
¦ Characteristics of sites would introduce potential design limitations associated
with rail access (e.g., rail was located some distance off-site; accessing rail
would mean crossing additional properties or a road; or grade differential
conditions existed between the site and rail).
¦ The density of residences within 0.5 and 1.0 miles was higher.
¦ The number of educational facilities within 0.5 and 1.0 miles was higher.
¦ Site topography was an issue (e.g., topography varied across a site; level areas
were relatively small).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-112
-------
0 DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
2. Overview and Application of Facility Siting Criteria in the PCS Identification Process
¦ Proximity to dams and locks raised potential navigation concerns.
¦ Relatively large areas of previously mapped (NWI and NYSDEC) wetlands
were noted.
¦ The sites provided reduced proximity to dredge areas and exhibited other
limitations.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S2.doc-4/23/2004
2-113
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Evaluation of the FCSs
Shortly after the public forums were held in September 2003, the facility siting
team continued screening potential sites by initiating the evaluation of the seven
FCSs (see Table 3-1).
Table 3-1 Final Candidate Sites
FCSs River Sections
Location (Town and County)
Approximate
River Mile
River Section 1
Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC
Fort Edward, Washington
County
195.1
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils
Area/NYSCC
Moreau, Saratoga County
193.8
River Section 2
Georgia Pacific/NYSCC
Greenwich, Washington County
183.2
River Section 3
Bruno/Brickyard Associ-
ate s/Alonzo
Schaghticoke, Rensselaer County
166.5
NY SCC/All co/Ley erl e
Halfmoon, Saratoga County
162.4
Below River Section 3
State of New York/First
Rensselaer, Rensselaer County
146.7
Rensselaer/Marine Manage-
ment
OG Real Estate
Bethlehem, Albany County
142.8
Screening and evaluating the sites defined in more detail the existing resources,
features, and conditions within (and in the near vicinity of) each of the FCSs. The
objective of this phase was to determine which sites were suitable for the con-
struction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility. Sites considered
suitable have been identified as the Suitable Sites (see Figures 3-1 and 3-2).
During preliminary design, the RD Team provided further information on FCS
conditions and/or locations that imposed potential limitations on the design of
river access/barge transportation and offloading and rail access. Continued coor-
dination with the RD Team and their study of transportation logistics also led to
an understanding that suitable sites could be established that functioned as both a
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-1
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
processing and rail transfer facility or as a processing facility where dredged mate-
rial could be transported to the site (via barge or pipeline) and the processed mate-
rial could then be transported to a remote rail transfer facility or shipped to ap-
proved disposal locations.
Process of Identifying
Suitable Sites
from 7 FCSs
Site-Specific Field Investigations/
Additional Studies
Coordination with RD Team
Development of Group 3 Criteria
Evaluation Against Group 1,
2, and 3 Criteria
5 Suitable
Sites Identified
Figure 3-1 Process of Identifying Suitable Sites
from 7 FCSs
The evaluation of the FCSs involved examining each of the sites and incorporat-
ing information provided by the RD Team. Discussions with the RD Team were
held at various points in the FCS evaluation process to incorporate preliminary
design information. The following evaluations and variables were examined to
facilitate the FCS evaluation process:
¦ Results of the site-specific field investigations were evaluated.
Group 3 criteria were developed using the information gained during the field
investigations and the information provided by the RD Team.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-2
-------
001515.HR03.08.03 - 04/15/04
L:\Buffalo\Hudson_River\Maps\Mxd\FCS_factsheets\SS_Overview.mxd - GIS
3-3
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
¦ The FCSs were characterized with respect to Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3
criteria to identify which FCSs were suitable for the operation of a sediment
processing/transfer facility.
¦ Additional studies, including an environmental justice evaluation and review
of available traffic information, were conducted.
3.1 Site-Specific Field Investigations of the FCSs
All field investigations were performed in accordance with the Hudson River
PCBs Superfund Site Facility Siting Work Plans (E & E August 2003) and the
September 2003 Site-specific Field Investigations Addenda to that plan. Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) were performed in June, July, and Au-
gust 2003, and Phase II ESAs were performed in September and October 2003. A
complete summary of investigation activities is provided in the April 2004 Facil-
ity Siting Data Summary Report (USEPA April 2004a).
Site-specific field investigations were conducted within the property boundaries of
each FCS in order to gather information about various environmental and physical
features of each of the FCSs. The field studies involved a series of intrusive and
non-intrusive sampling efforts that included soil sampling, surface water sam-
pling, groundwater sampling, Phase IA and Phase IB cultural resource investiga-
tions, determination and delineation of wetlands, and other investigations.
Site-specific FCS field investigations were carried out to:
¦ Further characterize the environmental and physical conditions and identify
and characterize environmental conditions;
¦ Provide additional information for the identification and development of the
Group 3 siting criteria; and
¦ Assist in the evaluation and screening of the FCSs to facilitate selection of the
Suitable Sites.
Because access was not approved by the property owners, intrusive field studies
were not completed on the Bruno property (two parcels) and the State of New
York property (three parcels). Upon learning that access for intrusive studies
would not be forthcoming within the time frame of the field investigations, sam-
ple locations on the Brickyard Associates, Alonzo, First Rensselaer, and Marine
Management properties were adjusted to obtain sample results close to the Bruno
and State of New York properties. The following investigations were carried out
within the boundaries of each of the FCSs (except as noted).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/22/04
3-4
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.1.1 Phase I ESAs
ESAs were performed to identify known current and historic environmental con-
ditions at the sites. These investigations included record searches, site reconnais-
sance visits, and interviews with those knowledgeable about the properties. The
information obtained was used to develop a description of each FCS relative to
historic and current land uses; to identify existing structures and any potential ar-
eas of environmental concern; to provide a general geological description and ob-
servations regarding site topography and surface features; and to identify known
or potential environmental concerns. The information obtained from each FCS
was the basis for the Phase IIESA work scopes.
3.1.2 Phase II ESAs
The Phase II ESAs and baseline sampling were designed to locate, identify, and
quantify specific on-site environmental conditions within selected locations that
could be present as a result of historic and/or current land uses. Based upon the
environmental conditions identified during the Phase I ESAs, intrusive site as-
sessments included multimedia sampling (e.g., surface and subsurface soil sam-
pling, groundwater sampling, and surface water sampling). In general, surface
and subsurface soil samples were collected in areas of fill/surficial dumping, adja-
cent to rail lines and spurs, and in other general areas of the sites where construc-
tion operations are expected. Surface water and sediment samples were collected
along flow pathways such as creeks and streams or drainage ditches. Upgradient
and downgradient groundwater samples were collected to provide an indication of
overall groundwater quality and the direction of groundwater flow.
State and federal standards, criteria, and guidances were used for preliminary
screening during review of the analytical sample results for surface soil, subsur-
face soil, surface water, sediment, and groundwater. These criteria were used only
for comparison.
Metal concentrations cannot be directly compared to the criteria without addi-
tional evaluation (including evaluation of background levels) because metals oc-
cur naturally in the environment. Additionally, turbidity in surface water and
groundwater samples can cause interference with metals analysis. These factors
were considered in the evaluation of the detected compounds.
3.1.3 Geotechnical Assessments
Geotechnical assessments were performed to identify subsurface conditions that
could potentially limit development of the FCSs. Geotechnical sampling was not
performed at the Old Moreau/NYSCC and OG Real Estate sites because previous
site studies provided sufficient information. The assessments involved recording
observations of site soils, depth to bedrock, depth to groundwater, subsurface to-
pography, etc. Field activities included taking soil borings to determine subsur-
face conditions at the site and laboratory geotechnical testing (e.g., moisture con-
tent, grain size analysis). This information was used to develop geotechnical
Group 3 evaluation criteria (i.e., suitability of soils) for the FCSs, which were in
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-5
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
turn used to determine whether the geology of the site is suitable for construction
of a sediment processing/transfer facility.
3.1.4 Utilities Assessments
Preliminary utility assessments were performed to identify utilities at each FCS.
The assessments included making observations of site surface utilities such as
overhead power or telephone lines, electrical transformers, manholes, sewer out-
falls, and water hydrants; contacting Dig Safely New York (Dig Safe) for clear-
ances before subsurface/intrusive work activities, including direct communication
with various utility operators, as needed; and reviewing available maps from own-
ers and other sources. Field observations also involved looking for on-site and
nearby off-site utilities.
It is anticipated that further utility assessments will be needed for those sites iden-
tified as Recommended Sites (see Section 5) during the intermediate design and
may include contacting local municipal offices for information and opening man-
holes to determine flow paths and dye testing.
3.1.5 Survey of Terrestrial Archaeological and Architectural
Resources
Legislative Requirements
The 1966 National Historic Preservation Act (Public Law 89-665, as amended by
Public Law 96-515; 16 USC 470 et seq.) provides for the establishment of the Na-
tional Register of Historic Places (NRHP) to include historic properties such as
districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American
history, architecture, archaeology, and culture. Section 106 of the Act requires
that federal agencies with jurisdiction over a proposed federal project take into
account the effect of the undertaking on cultural resources that are listed or that
are eligible for listing on the NRHP and afford the State Historic Preservation Of-
fices and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity
to comment with regard to the undertaking. The NRHP eligibility criteria have
been defined by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Evaluation (36 CFR
60).
The guidelines governing the conduct of cultural resource investigations in New
York State are contained in the Standards for Cultural Resources Investigations
and the Curation of the Archaeological Collections in New York State (1994)
formulated by the New York Archaeological Council and approved by the New
York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP).
These guidelines provide the appropriate sequence of cultural resource manage-
ment procedures for identification and evaluation of historic properties; mitigation
of adverse effects on these properties; resource documentation; and curation of
archaeological collections. These guidelines also specify the appropriate content
of archaeological reports. Because the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site is a
federally mandated project, the historic properties within the area of potential ef-
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-6
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
feet (APE) are the subject of these statutes, and any potential effects on them re-
quire state and federal review process.
The Survey of Terrestrial Archaeological and Architectural Resources (STAAR)
Work Plan was developed specifically to support the facility siting process. The
purpose of the work plan is to integrate cultural resources as a relevant considera-
tion in the facility siting selection process and to establish compliance with exist-
ing federal and state laws and regulations that affect management and protection
of archaeological and historical properties.
The work plan was designed to carry out a phased process of screening and evalu-
ating candidate sites on the basis of currently available information and additional
data collection, in accordance with the OPRHP guidelines and consistent with the
requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA.
Phase IA Study
In 2001 the EPA, in consultation with the OPRHP, established the preliminary
APE for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site remediation. This area included
the 50-mile-long stretch of the upper Hudson River valley traversing the riverfront
portions of Washington, Saratoga, and Rensselaer Counties and extending from
the south edge of the city of Glens Falls to the southern edge of the Port of Albany
in the city of Albany. The APE includes a 2,000-foot-wide strip of land along
both shores of the Hudson River.
On behalf of the EPA, TAMS Consultants, Inc. conducted a preliminary Stage IA
cultural resources investigation of the APE. This investigation did not focus on
specific potential locations for siting a sediment processing/transfer facility.
Rather, it consisted of near-river, region-specific documentary archival research to
establish an overall historic and prehistoric context for the upper Hudson River
valley and a cultural resource site file search at OPRHP. This Stage LA research is
documented in the Responsiveness Summary: Hudson River PCBs Site Record of
Decision, Book 3 of 3, Appendix C (USEPA 2002). The geographic area in-
volved in this previous effort included locations that eventually were selected as
FCSs: Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYS Canal Corporation; Georgia Pa-
cific/NYS Canal Corporation; Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo; NYS Canal
Corporation/Allco/Leyerle; and State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Man-
agement.
Additional site visits in summer and fall of 2003 at the OPRHP determined the
presence or absence of recorded cultural properties on the other two FCSs (Energy
Park/Longe/NYS Canal Corporation and OGReal Estate).
Site-specific Phase LA documentary background research and sensitivity assess-
ments were accomplished for each of the FCSs. The purpose of the Phase LA site-
specific research was to develop awareness of cultural resource considerations in
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-7
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
the process of evaluating the FCSs and to develop methodologies for field investi-
gation (Phase IB survey).
The Phase IA investigation included a literature review, focusing on geology,
soils, and drainage; paleo-environmental reconstructions; cultural history; prehis-
toric, historic, and modern land uses; ground disturbances; and other relevant is-
sues. A special emphasis was placed on examination of historical maps. Modern
maps, soil surveys, and aerial photographs were also used.
Data was gathered from standard reference sources as well as information col-
lected at local data repositories such as historical societies, historical associations,
libraries, and archives. Interviews were conducted with town and county histori-
ans, archaeologists, and other knowledgeable individuals.
Lastly, all FCSs were subjected to an archaeological site reconnaissance and a pre-
liminary architectural survey. Information obtained during the Phase IA study
was used to develop site-specific methodologies for the Phase IB Survey.
Phase IB Survey
Consistent with OPRHP guidelines, Phase IB consisted of surface inspection, sub-
surface shovel testing in all sensitive areas of the FCSs, backhoe testing, and pho-
tographic documentation of cultural remains and surface conditions. Shovel test-
ing was conducted at 15-meter intervals, as specified by the OPRHP guidelines.
Judgmental shovel testing, soil probing, and photo-documentation were conducted
in areas of ground disturbance. These areas were identified on maps and excluded
from systematic testing. Excavated soils were screened through 0.25-inch hard-
ware mesh and replaced to natural contour after screening and recording.
Locations of archaeological sites, features within sites, and archaeological struc-
tures (e.g., building foundations) were mapped using a global positioning system
(GPS) unit. The archaeological reconnaissance indicated that the FCSs potentially
contained locations with alluvial soils and deeply buried prehistoric sites that
could not be investigated by means of shovel tests. Geomorphology was assessed
by observing soil conditions in deep trenches. These trenches were excavated us-
ing a backhoe. Trench walls also were examined for signs of geomorphological
features and archaeological remains.
Archaeological resources discovered during the Phase IB survey have been evalu-
ated for significance. Archaeological sites with demonstrably low integrity and
small artifact content have been determined to be ineligible for NRHP listing and,
pending concurrence from OPRHP, will not require additional investigations.
FCSs at which potentially significant archaeological resources were discovered
during the Phase IB survey will warrant additional investigations.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-8
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.1.6 Wetland Assessments
Wetland assessments were performed to document the existing characteristics of
the "waters of the United States" (referred to in this document as wetlands) within
the property boundaries of the FCSs. Wetlands are defined in the federal regula-
tions (33 CFR 328.3(b)) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes,
bogs and similar areas." The assessments included data-gathering, base map
preparation, field delineations, and site documentation. These investigations were
completed to maintain procedural compliance with Sections 404/401 of the Clean
Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, Executive Order 11990 Pro-
tection of Wetlands, and the Policy on Floodplains and Wetlands Assessments for
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CER-
CLA) Actions.
Wetland determinations and delineations followed the routine approach noted in
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual
(Environmental Laboratory 1987). In addition to field determinations, data and
mapping reviewed included NWI maps; NYSDEC state wetlands maps; United
States Geological Service (USGS) 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle
maps; National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) county hydric soils lists,
county soil surveys, certified wetland determinations; FEMA floodplain mapping;
USACE and/or USGS river stage and gauge data; and ortho-corrected aerial pho-
tography of the Upper Hudson River. Determination and delineation activities did
not include determining boundaries or configurations of wetlands occurring
within the river channel (below the ordinary high mark along the shoreline).
3.1.7 Floodplain Assessment
The purpose of the floodplain assessments was to determine the presence, extent,
and locations of floodplains at each of the FCSs, based upon existing information.
Floodplains are areas next to water bodies that become inundated during flood
flows. Floodplains typically occur in lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining
inland and coastal waters or other flood-prone areas such as offshore islands.
Floodplains include, at a minimum, areas subject to a 1% or greater chance of
flooding in any given year, the 100-year floodplain. The critical action floodplain
is defined as the 500-year floodplain (i.e., areas with a 0.2% chance of experienc-
ing flooding) (USEPA 1985). The floodplain assessment examined the FEMA-
mapped 100-year and 500-year floodplains within the boundaries of each FCS.
Investigations were completed to maintain compliance with Executive Order
11988, Floodplains Management, and the Policy on Floodplains and Wetlands
Assessments for CERCLA Actions. Once the sites are selected for Phase 1 and
Phase 2 dredging, EPA will perform the final floodplain assessment using the
500-year floodplain, which is considered the critical action floodplain and is used
per CERCLA actions (USEPA 1985).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-9
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The floodplain assessment for the FCSs used ortho-corrected data. For some sites
(e.g., OG Real Estate), site boundaries were corrected based on existing site sur-
vey information. In addition, FEMA data was rectified to the corrected shorelines
for all of the sites. Thus, there may be minor discrepancies between PCS and FCS
site area calculations.
3.1.8 Initial Coastal Management Area Assessment
Coastal management areas (CMAs) are statutory boundaries defined by New York
State in which the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) applies. In
general, the Great Lakes and areas that are influenced by tidal waters are included
in the state Coastal Management Zone (CMZ), including the Hudson River. The
Hudson River below Federal Dam is included in the state CMA.
According to the ROD, "If a sediment processing/transfer facility for the selected
remedy is to be located south of the Federal Dam, coastal zone consistency will
need to be evaluated for that facility" (USEPA 2002). A coastal zone consistency
review is needed for any federal project within the state-defined CMA. The New
York State Division of Coastal Resources reviews projects and activities of fed-
eral agencies for consistency with the policies of the New York State Coastal
Management Program (CMP) and approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Pro-
grams (LWRPs).
The consistency provisions of the federal CZMA of 1972 require federal agency
activities to be consistent with the state's federally approved Coastal Management
Program and approved LWRP. This requirement applies to all federal activities
and federally authorized activities within and outside the state's coastal area that
affect the zone.
The initial CZMA assessments were performed to maintain procedural compli-
ance with the Coastal Management Program Policies of New York State. These
assessments involved a review of the New York State CMA boundaries relative to
the boundaries of the FCSs. EPA will prepare an additional phase of its coastal
zone consistency determination, covering potential indirect and accumulative im-
pacts from the operation of sediment processing/transfer facilities, once the Phase
1 and Phase 2 dredging facility locations are selected.
3.1.9 Baseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species
Assessments
The Hudson River provides diverse habitats for many species, including species
listed as threatened, endangered, rare, or of special concern. Given the awareness
of regional habitat availability and the occurrence and distribution of aquatic and
terrestrial species, baseline habitat assessments were conducted on each of the
FCSs to characterize each FCS relative to habitat availability; to provide baseline
descriptions of habitat structure, diversity, and condition; to develop an under-
standing of potential wildlife use and values within each of the FCSs; to identify
habitats that could potentially support use by listed species; and to determine any
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-10
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
potential limitations on site development and/or appropriate concepts for site de-
velopment based upon avoiding/minimizing impacts to sensitive habitats.
The habitat assessment process was initiated by reviewing available databases,
maps, and reports to determine the distribution of fish and wildlife habitats within
the FCSs. Aerial photography was used to determine cover types and probable
types of habitat. Maps and information sources reviewed included NWI mapping;
NYSDEC State Wetlands mapping; USGS 7.5-minute series topographic quad-
rangle maps; NRCS county hydric soils lists and county soil surveys; FEMA
floodplain mapping; USACE and/or USGS river stage and gauge data and flood
duration information; New York State spring 2002 ortho-corrected aerial photog-
raphy of the Upper Hudson River (BBL 2002); and Ecological Communities of
New York State (Edinger et al. 2002), which was used in defining the habitat com-
munity types within the FCSs.
Under the Endangered Species Act, the initial step in determining whether endan-
gered or threatened species are present involved communicating with the appro-
priate agencies about the known presence of the species of concern in the project
area. The USFWS regulates federally listed species that inhabit freshwater or ter-
restrial environments (e.g., the bald eagle). The National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries regulates federally listed species that
inhabit marine environments (e.g., shortnose sturgeon). The New York State
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) was also contacted to determine the documented
occurrence of state-listed threatened or endangered species at the site.
The study and evaluation of each of the FCSs included determining the availabil-
ity of suitable habitats and the potential use of such habitats by protected species.
These assessments were performed to maintain procedural compliance with the
Endangered Species Act of 1972.
The baseline habitat assessment involved review of existing information and field
surveys of existing habitats on each FCS. This data was then combined with the
known distribution of the state and federally threatened and endangered species to
determine if suitable habitat was present at individual FCS locations.
3.2 Findings of the Site-Specific Field Investigations
The sections below summarize the results of the site-specific field investigations
by FCS. A complete summary of investigation activities is provided in the April
2004 Facility Siting Data Summary Report.
3.2.1 Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC
3.2.1.1 Phase I ESA
The Energy Park parcel has been used as a topsoil mine and for stockpiling bulk
material (gravel and wood chips). The pits resulting from the mining activities
have been filled with thermally treated non-hazardous soil from the ESMI facility,
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-11
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
which is adjacent to the sites. The Washington County soil survey does indicate
that the site soil types are dredge material. However, NYSCC provided historic
subsurface data that may be useful to the RD Team with further clarification from
NYSCC regarding locations. Key site features are presented on Figure 3.2.1-1.
Land use within a 1-mile radius of the site includes light industrial, residential,
farmland, and the Champlain Canal.
The Energy Park property is classified as vacant industrial and is temporarily
leased to a farmer that uses the land as a cornfield for livestock feed. The former
topsoil mine areas are being reclaimed by filling in low areas and creating an or-
ganic soil zone by applying manure. The plan for the Longe and Energy Park
properties is to develop a commercial/light industry park in coordination with the
Town of Fort Edward's Master Plan (per communication with landowner).
The topography across the property and surrounding area is relatively flat. The
eastern edge of the property is wooded (approximately 225 to 375 feet wide) and
abuts the NYSCC parcel. An active Canadian Pacific Railway rail line/rail yard is
adjacent to the west side of the property. The Champlain Canal (which is ap-
proximately 100 to 150 feet wide) is located approximately 225 to 450 feet south-
east of the Energy Park property and is separated from the property by NYSCC
property.
The Longe property borders the west side of Energy Park and is classified as va-
cant industrial. It is the location of a former topsoil mining operation. The prop-
erty is currently privately owned and leased to a farmer that uses part of the land
for growing corn for livestock feed. Topography is relatively flat. The eastern
edge of the property is wooded (approximately 30 to 150 feet wide). An active
rail line/rail yard is adjacent to the west side of the property. The Champlain Ca-
nal is located approximately 350 feet east of the site.
The NYSCC property is paralleled by the Champlain Canal to the east. The prop-
erty contains two creeks (approximately 25 to 40 feet wide) that run north-south,
parallel to one another, and flow to the Champlain Canal. One of the creeks
drains the old Champlain Canal, which is located about 1,000 feet northeast of the
parcel. The easternmost creek is an overflow from Lock 8; it turns southeast and
empties into the canal. This parcel is predominantly forested, with maintained
grassed areas. Examination of aerial photographs indicated a borrow pit in the
northern portion of the property.
3.2.1.2 Phase MESA
The environmental investigations at this site included collecting nine surface soil
samples, three surface water/sediment samples, seven subsurface soil samples,
and five groundwater samples from newly installed temporary monitoring wells;
geotechnical soil testing at five locations; and the installation of one stream gauge
for hydrologic monitoring purposes (see Figure 3.2.1-2).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-12
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Grade-Level
Railroad Crossing
Quarnd
Fill Areas
Longe
Underground Fiber Optic
LTne Located Along
Railroad Right-of-way J
LEGEND
Approximate Site Boundary
Tax Parcel Boundary
Active Railroad
HudsotTi River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.1-1
Key Site Features
Energy Park / Longe / New York State Canal Corporation
500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet
3-13
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
EPL-SS01C.
EPL-SW/SE01
EPL-GP07
EPL-GT03
EPL-GT04
EPL-SS0.1B
EPL-GT02
Energy Park*
EPL-GP06
EPL-SW/SE02 «JJj
EPL-GP01
EPL-GT01
"%¦
EPL-SS01A
EPL-SG01
Longe
EPL-GT05
[EPL-GP04
EPL-SW/SE03
LEGEND
© Geoprobe Soil Boring
Geoprobe Soil Boring & Temporary Well
Geoprobe & Geotechnical Boring
'tr Geotechnical Boring
O Surface Soil
~ Soil Sample Adjacent to Railroad
A Surface Water / Sediment
A Stream Gauge
Railroad
Potential Site Boundary
Hudsonl River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.1-2
Sample Locations
Energy Park I Longe I New York State Canal Corporation
3-14
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Parameters that exceeded screening criteria were one polycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbon (PAH) — (benzo(a)pyrene) in surface soil EPL-SS01 (composite surface
soil collected adjacent to the rail line) and various metals in several sample media.
PAHs are typically associated with incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons and
are common in urban and industrial areas. Based on site observations, the most
probable source of hydrocarbon combustion occurring along the rail corridor is
railroad engine diesel fuel emissions. Thus, the presence of this class of com-
pound may not be attributable to disposal activities. The presence of metals above
screening levels is discussed below. Phase IIESA sample locations are presented
on Figure 3.2.1-2.
Most metals are naturally occurring in soil/sediment and surface water/
groundwater. Therefore, many of the exceedances may not be of concern. The
metals that exceeded the NYSDEC Technical and Administrative Guidance
Memorandum (TAGM) guidance values in surface soil samples were mostly be-
low eastern U.S. background levels. Of the metals that exceeded eastern U.S.
background levels, only vanadium was noticeably higher (i.e., twice the eastern
U.S. background level in one sample). The sample with elevated vanadium is
from the wooded area of the site. Since most of the site contains thermally treated
soils as fill material, the wooded area likely is more representative of site back-
ground conditions. Therefore, it appears that the vanadium level is more repre-
sentative of local background conditions than of site contamination, and metals in
the surface soils collected from the site are not expected to be of concern. The
same general occurrence of contaminants holds true for the subsurface soils. The
metals exceeding criteria in surface water, sediment, and groundwater (iron, man-
ganese, and sodium) are naturally occurring metals often detected above criteria
and are therefore not expected to be of concern.
In conclusion, the environmental conditions detected at this site are indicative of
typical industrial sites and do not appear to represent significant environmental
conditions that would greatly affect the use of the site as a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility. However, additional characterization may be warranted due
to the nature of the fill materials at the site.
3.2.1.3 Geotechnical Assessment
The subsurface data collected during the Phase II ESA indicates that site soils
generally consist of silty sands underlain by sand with trace amounts of gravel
starting at a depth of 10 feet below ground surface (BGS). Silt content decreased
with depth starting at approximately 12 feet BGS, while the coarser fraction of
unstratified sands correspondingly increases with depth. Site standard penetration
test (SPT) n-values (the sum of the blows recorded over the second and third 6-
inch SPT intervals) generally ranged from 4 to 11 in granular soils, indicating a
soil density of loose to moderately dense. One exception is the 8.5- to 9.5-foot
interval in the northwest area, where moderately dense sands yielded an n-value of
24. Clay was encountered along the west-central portion of the site at depths of
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-15
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
approximately 18 and 21 feet BGS. Recorded SPT n-values indicate its consis-
tency was very soft.
Auger refusal and/or weathered shale in the split spoon sampler (possible bed-
rock) were encountered at depths of approximately 23 to 25 feet BGS in the cen-
tral and southwestern portions of the site. Adjacent to the west bank of the
Champlain Canal, a thin (less than 1-foot thick) peat layer located at a depth of
approximately 14 feet BGS overlies a clay layer that extends to a depth greater
than 26 feet BGS.
Farming of treated soils on much of this site has resulted in minimally consoli-
dated soils containing mixtures of organic matter, silt, and very fine-grained sand.
In the northern and eastern parts of the site, SPT n-values of 2 were recorded in at
least one interval in the uppermost 10 feet of each geotechnical boring location.
Based on these SPT n-values, the density of these granular soils is classified as
very loose.
Malcolm Pirnie (1985) reports site soil borings installed by NYSDEC indicate
that bedrock lies between 59 and 82 feet below grade in the central part of the site.
A wet layer of peat was encountered from 6 to 9 feet BGS and is underlain by a
wet clay that extends to the top of bedrock. Borings installed along the western
side of the site indicated that an approximately 4-foot thick layer of fine silt and
sand lies at the surface. Coarse sandy gravel underlies this medium sand down to
a depth of 21 feet BGS, where clay is present. Clay was also found at the site's
north end; it reportedly extends from 17 BGS feet down to 40 feet BGS.
The geotechnical conditions detected at this site do not appear to represent signifi-
cant geotechnical limitations that would affect the construction and operation of a
sediment processing/transfer facility. It is expected that subsurface conditions in
areas where fill is present could be addressed during design.
3.2.1.4 Utility Assessment
Utilities identified at the Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC include one telecommunica-
tions line located in the railroad right-of-way that parallels the western site border
of the site. It is operated by Level 3 Communications, Inc. Other utilities (elec-
tric, gas, water, etc.) are located on the west side of the rail line.
The utility assessment findings do not appear to indicate significant limitations
that would affect the construction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer
facility. However, it is expected that utilities will be evaluated further during de-
sign.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-16
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.2.1.5 Archaeological and Architectural Assessments
Preliminary Archaeological Assessment
Based on the background research performed during the PCS evaluation phase,
the Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC site was considered to have a low potential for
archaeological resources. The Phase IB Survey confirmed the preliminary as-
sessment.
Archaeological Investigation
A Phase IB Survey was conducted at the Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC site October
6 through October 13, 2003 (see Figure 3.2.1-3). A total of 271 shovel test pits
(STPs) were excavated at this 103.9-acre site. No cultural resources and/or ar-
chaeological sites were found.
Geomorphological Investigation
Fieldwork was conducted on October 13, 15, and 16, 2003. Six backhoe trenches
(BHTs) totaling 54.5 meters in length were excavated. Two backhoe trenches
(BHT 2 and BHT 6) revealed the presence of relict stream channels. Such a geo-
morphic setting is known to have been attractive to Native American groups and
has a potential to contain prehistoric sites.
Architectural Assessment
Fieldwork was conducted during July 2003 and on October 16, 2003. No struc-
tures are located within any of the three properties that comprise this site. A small
working farm is situated immediately south of the site. Structures associated with
this farm, which include a residence and several agricultural outbuildings, appear
to be less than 50 years old. Structures located across the canal are shielded by
vegetation. There are no architectural or viewshed concerns associated with this
site.
No further archaeological surveys or architectural investigations are recommended
for this FCS. An additional small-scale geomorphologic investigation is recom-
mended where the relict streams were located. The archaeological and architec-
tural assessment findings do not appear to represent potential significant limita-
tions that would affect the construction and operation of a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility.
3.2.1.6 Wetland Assessment
Wetland determinations and delineations of the Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC site
took place September 17 and September 18, 2003. Determination and delineation
activities were limited to those areas previously identified as potential wetlands
through data review and previous site reconnaissance efforts.
Review of NWI wetland mapping indicated the presence of approximately 28.4
acres of wetland on this site. Approximately 11.9 acres were mapped on the En-
ergy Park parcel, 4.3 on the Longe parcel, and an additional 12.2 acres on the
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-17
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
Potential Site Boundary
Archaeological Testing Method
Backhoe Test
Shovel Test
Backhoe & Shovel Test
©
Backhoe Trench Locations
Hudsonl River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.1-3
Field Sampling Areas
Phase I B Cultural Resources Investigation
Energy Park / Longe / New York State Canal Corporation
500 250
500
1,000
Feet
3-18
-------
ecology arid environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
NYSCC parcel. Although NWI wetland maps identify the Champlain Canal as a
lacustrine wetland, sample plots and determinations did not extend into the canal.
Review of NYSDEC wetland mapping indicated no NYSDEC wetlands have been
previously identified on these parcels.
The Washington County Soil Survey was reviewed to determine the soil types
mapped on this site (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1974). The mapped soil
types within the site boundaries are Claverack loamy fine sand, orthents and
psamments, and Wallington silt loam, sandy substratum. Recent mining and fill-
ing activities likely have modified the preexisting soil type on the Longe property.
The soil type mapped within the forested wetland on Energy Park is Wallington
silt loam, sandy substratum. In the spring and during wet periods, the water table
within this soil type is typically perched on a low permeability sublayer. Field
observations noted high shale content on the surface layer along the western por-
tion of the site.
Results of the Wetland Assessment
Field determination procedures resulted in the delineation of one wetland area
covering approximately 8.42 acres on the Energy Park parcel (see Table 3.2.1-1
and Figure 3.2.1-4). The discrepancy between field-delineated acreage and acre-
age indicated by NWI mapping may have been caused by alterations to the land-
scape from logging and filling activities on these parcels. However, NWI map-
ping primarily uses remote sensing techniques (i.e., photo interpretation) without
field confirmation and therefore does not necessarily represent an accurate de-
scription of on-site conditions. Rather, the mapping is a basis for further investi-
gation.
Table 3.2.1-1 Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC
Wetland Delineation Summary
Community Type
Acreage
Emergent
1.40
Forested
7.02
Total Acreage
8.42
All three parcels have been disturbed as a result of fill placement or material
stockpiling. The Energy Park and Longe parcels were previously used as a topsoil
mine. The sand pits were recently filled with thermally treated nonhazardous
soils.
A drainage channel that appears to be manmade separates the Energy Park and
NYSCC parcels. Trees and debris have dammed portions of the channel, reducing
the flow and allowing the formation of an emergent fringe in many areas along the
banks of the channel.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-19
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
B5Qiej
PEMI/SSICd
lREM1/SS.1Cdl
Irf.oi.c]
RFQ.1 /SS/ICd
PFQI/SSIEd .
EP/L/NYSCC-5
EP/L/NYSCC-6
EnergyJPark
EP/L/NYSCC-4
[ER/lI/NYSCC-7
EP/L/NYSCCil
EP/L/NYSCC-3
RF.01.C]
EP/L/NYSCC-8
Longe
EP/L/NYSCC-2
IRF.Q1 cl
[REM1E1
RF.Q.1 Etljy. jRF.O.1 /SS.1 E
LEGEND
a NYS DEC Mapping
National Wetland Inventory Mapping
Delineated Wetlands
I I Emergent
Forested
o Observation Plots
M Direction of Drainage Flow
Hudsonl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2,1-4
Wetland Locations
Energy Park / Longe / New York State Canal Corporation
500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet
3-20
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Predominant species within site wetlands include green ash (Fraxinuspennsyl-
vanica), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoids), spotted jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis), New England aster {Aster novae-angliae), giant goldenrod (Solidago
gigantean), wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus), j oe-pye weed (Eupatorium macula-
turn), soft rush (,Juncus effuses), and shallow sedge (Carex lurida). Species found
along the stream channel include rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), arrow-leaf
tearthumb (.Polygonum sagittatum), broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia), Carex
spp., and sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis).
The wetland assessment findings do not appear to represent potential significant
limitations that would greatly affect the use of the site as a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility. However, avoidance/mitigation of wetlands will need to be
considered in the design of the facility.
3.2.1.7 Floodplain Assessment
An initial floodplain assessment was conducted on the Energy Park/Longe/
NYSCC site in order to determine the presence, extent, and orientation of FEMA-
mapped floodplains within site boundaries. Flood magnitudes and historic river
stages from gauging stations as close as available to the site were also examined
to obtain an initial sense of the characteristics of on-site flooding.
Figure 3.2.1-5 shows the Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC site is not located within the
100-year and 500-year floodplains and the closest 100-year floodplain is approxi-
mately 0.65 mile away from the site. The site is located along the Champlain Ca-
nal, approximately 1.4 miles northeast of the Hudson River, in the Town of Fort
Edward.
The closest USGS gauge station is in Fort Edward, 0.4 mile upstream from the
bridge over State Highway 197. The gauge station is approximately 1.1 miles up-
stream of the Champlain Canal/Hudson River boundary. Flood magnitudes were
calculated using statistical methods from 26 years of modern flow data at the Fort
Edward gauge station, after the Fort Edward dam was removed. Historic water
level data (1916 to 2000) is also available from NYSCC Lock 7, which is located
approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the site boundary.
Given the location, the distance to the canal, site topographic characteristics, and
the fact that the site is outside the 100-year floodplain, the site is not likely to ex-
perience major flooding. Based on the NYSCC water-level data on the down-
stream side of Lock 7, there is also no evidence that flooding occurs on a smaller
scale at this site, with the exception of localized soil saturation and inundation
within the identified wetland area. Only one of the peak annual water levels be-
tween 1916 and 2000 was above the ground elevation at this site.
The floodplain assessment findings do not appear to represent potential significant
limitations that would affect the use of the site as a sediment processing/transfer
facility.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-21
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
Potential Site Boundary
Tax Parcels
FEMA Floodplain
VZA 100 Year Floodplain
500 Year Floodplain
HudsotTi River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2,1-5
FEMA Floodplain Mapping
Energy Park / Longe / New York State Canal Corporation
500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet
3-22
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.2.1.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment
The Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC site is not located in the state-designated coastal
zone. Therefore, no direct impacts are expected as a result of the potential use of
this site. EPA will prepare an additional phase of its coastal zone consistency as-
sessment and subsequent coastal zone consistency determination, covering poten-
tial indirect and cumulative impacts from the operation of sediment process-
ing/transfer facilities, once the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging facility locations are
selected.
3.2.1.9 Baseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species
Assessment
Site Habitat Description
Disturbance from historic and current land uses have greatly influenced the avail-
ability, extent, and diversity of on-site habitats. The site was formerly used as a
topsoil mine. Over the past several years treated non-hazardous soils from a soil
treatment facility adjacent to the site have been placed on-site. Over the past two
growing seasons, corn has been planted over most of the site for the purposes of
soil reclamation and livestock feed. This is a temporary situation. The site also
appears to be disturbed from logging on portions of the site. The ultimate goal is
to develop this site as commercial/light industrial property. The majority of the
site consists of cropland and successional northern hardwood community types.
The vegetation within the non-agricultural areas are represented by early succes-
sional (less than 20 years) to mid-successional (20 to 60 years) communities.
Using Ecological Communities of New York State (Edinger et al. 2002) as a
framework for habitat identification, twelve community types were found on this
104-acre site (see Figure 3.2.1-6). No sensitive or rare habitats were among them.
Cropland temporarily covers approximately 61% of the site. Other communities
include successional northern hardwoods, mowed lawn, wetlands, dredge spoils
with successional species, and successional shrubland. Some locations contain
larger, older trees (diameter at breast height [dbh] of 12 to 27 inches) that are iso-
lated inside early to middle-aged stands.
Aquatic communities occur on the site, including ditch/marsh headwater stream
and canal. Wetland communities are described in Section 3.2.1.6.
The majority of the riverfront (Champlain Canal) property (NYSCC parcel) com-
prises mowed lawn and successional northern hardwoods. The shoreline commu-
nity is characteristic of the channelized portions of the Champlain Canal, with
boulder-lined riprap along the entire waterfront boundary. A portion of the shore-
line contains an outfall from the upstream portion of Lock 8. This outfall origi-
nates from an open water area and canal that drains from the east. The
ditch/marsh headwater stream community type separates the cropland community
from the Champlain Canal and adjacent habitats. This stream community appears
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-23
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Ecological Communities
| Paved Road
1 j Unpaved Road
Wetland
I 1 Successional Northern Hardwoods (SNH)
[ 1 Dredge Spoils / SNH
~ Successional Shrubland
Ditch / Marsh Headwater Stream
| Canal
I u Construction / Road Maintenance Spoils
Cropland
I I Mowed Pathway
~ Mowed Roadside
Hudson* River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.1-6
Site Ecological Communities
Energy Park / Longe / New York State Canal Corporation
3-24
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
to have been channelized at one time and is heavily silted in with the emergent
vegetation that is abundant in many locations.
Common vegetation species and community structure have an influence on wild-
life occurrence on-site. The cropland provides food for ungulates (i.e., whitetail
deer) and a variety of avian species. Forested and wetland communities occur
next to cropland areas. These communities provide cover, nesting, and additional
feeding areas for wildlife species. Additional incidental wildlife observations in-
cluded coyote, white-footed mouse, bullfrog, green frog, raccoon, turkey vulture,
mallards, American crow, and other common songbirds.
Endangered Species Act Issues
Correspondence with the USFWS and NYSDEC indicates no listed-species issues
are associated with this site. Wintering bald eagles may migrate through the area
but are not known to use the site. A biological assessment will be prepared to ex-
amine the potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of a
sediment processing/transfer facility for each of the Suitable Sites.
The baseline habitat and endangered species assessments findings do not appear to
represent potential significant limitations that would affect the construction and
operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility.
3.2.2 Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC
3.2.2.1 Phase I ESA
This site is currently undeveloped with no formal roads on-site. The site topogra-
phy is relatively flat except in the landfill areas and along the waterfront where
there is an approximate 10-foot drop-off in some areas. The waterfront is unde-
veloped and consists of a sand beach approximately 5 to 10 feet wide. Surficial
trash, bulk plastic, and other debris (car parts, etc.) were noted along the bank and
on the ground in the wooded area in the southwestern portion of the site. There is
approximately 2,000 feet of waterfront along the Hudson River. Key site features
are presented on Figure 3.2.2-1. Land use within 1 mile of the property is primar-
ily residential and agricultural, with some industrial use.
The site is the location of a PCB dredge spoils landfill and the former NE Pulp
Recycling Corporation facility. The facility contained two large warehouses (250
feet by 400 feet and 110 feet by 150 feet) with a rail spur through the center of the
larger warehouse, a pump station at the river, and a former electric substation.
The concrete foundations, a two-story steel structure surrounded by chain-link
fence posts, buried plastic debris (eroding along the shoreline), and a 100-foot by
200-foot chain-link fenced area containing the remains of several stone buildings
and dug wells remain. An outfall, a valve, and piping were also observed on the
west bank of Hudson River, opposite the southern tip of Rogers Island.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-25
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
QflHsM)
Eomoflag
mm
Q^mOSD
Underground Fiber Optic,
Line Located Along ^:
Railroad Right-of-Wayjt
fjinrmr?
Qinrf^figfiTn
= SsOsqe&sbs
EK^PiMSSa
LEGEND
Approximate Site Boundary
Tax Parcel Boundary
H 1- Active Railroad
Abandoned Railroad (Buried)
Hudsonl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.2-1
Key Site Features
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area /
New York State Canal Corporation
3-26
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Rogers Island is east of the site across the Hudson River, between the Towns of
Fort Edward and Moreau. Rogers Island is an area of historic significance. The
navigation channel within the Hudson River is on the east side of Rogers Island.
Thus, water depths in the river adjacent to the site are only approximately 5 to 6
feet.
Three previous investigations were identified as having been conducted on this
site. The first was conducted by Weston Environmental Consultants-Designers in
1977 (Weston 1978). The analytical results for soil and surface water samples
indicated the presence of PCBs at concentrations as high as 32 parts per million
(ppm). The analytical results for groundwater samples indicated PCB concentra-
tions as high as 90 parts per billion (ppb). A second environmental investigation
was conducted by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. in 1992. Soil samples exhibited PCB con-
centrations as high as 170 ppm. The results of the field investigation were used to
estimate the limits of PCB contamination, the volume of material for possible re-
moval and the corresponding quantity of PCBs, and the costs for contaminated
soil removal, relocation, and restoration of the property. The third environmental
investigation was conducted by NYSDEC in 2002. Ninety-two surface soil sam-
ples, including three aqueous-phase samples, were collected from the parcel. The
PCB concentrations ranged as high as 5.7 ppm in soil.
3.2.2.2 Phase II ESA
The environmental investigations at this site included collecting three surface soil
samples, four surface water samples, seven sediment samples, five subsurface soil
samples, five groundwater samples from newly installed temporary monitoring
wells, and the installation of one stream gauge for hydrologic monitoring purposes
(see Figure 3.2.2-2). Geotechnical soil testing was not performed at this site due
to sufficient available existing information.
Parameters that exceeded screening criteria were PAHs in surface soil OM-SS04
(the composite sample adjacent to the rail spur); bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in
surface water sample OM-SW07 (at an outfall in the Hudson River); pesticides
and PCBs in sediments along the Hudson River floodplain; PCBs in groundwater
(OM-GP04); and various metals in all sample media. In addition to these com-
pounds, various other compounds were detected above screening levels: SVOCs
(PAHs) and pesticides in the floodplain sediments, and one SVOC (caprolactam)
in two of the five groundwater samples. PAHs are typically associated with in-
complete combustion of hydrocarbons and are common in urban and industrial
areas. Therefore the presence of these compounds is not likely attributable to dis-
posal activities. Although low concentrations of phthalates are considered a sam-
pling artifact associated with the use of protective gloves in the field and labora-
tory, the concentration above screening levels detected in surface water OM-
SW07 is anticipated to be the result of the presence of bulk plastic wastes ob-
served in the bank of the Hudson River at this location. Due to the historical dis-
posal nature of the site (i.e., the site contains two PCB-contaminated dredge spoil
landfills), the presence of pesticides and PCBs in the floodplain sediments is not
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-27
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY 8 ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
OM-SS01
[QMtGROI
rOMjGP.02
OM-GP03
M^idjMoremiM OM-SW/SE01
[Dredge Spoils J^il
OIW-SE03
A OM-SW/SE02,.1
... A OM?SVWSE05]
OM-SS04A.D
LOM^SEO.4;
A OM,SE06a
r h Qm!sS02|
(OM-GP04
LOM-SS03]
OM-GP05
-v mtt
u N ewaY^kTStateM
Sana I [Corp or at 10 nl
LEGEND
Geoprobe Soil Boring
Geoprobe Soil Boring & Temporary Well
Geoprobe & Geotechnical Boring
Geotechnical Boring
O Surface Soil
~ Soil Sample Adjacent to Railroad
A Surface Water / Sediment
A Stream Gauge
Railroad
Potential Site Boundary
Hudsonl River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.2-2
Sample Locations
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area I
New York State Canal Corporation
OM-SGOt
,'OM-SW/SEC7
3-28
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
unexpected. The drainage ways sampled receive direct runoff from the landfills
via overland flow and drainage channels. As stated above, surface soils from the
Old Moreau landfill contain up to 170 ppm PCBs (Malcolm Pirnie 1992). Al-
though PCB levels as high as 90 ppb were detected in groundwater samples from
the site (Weston 1978), PCBs detected in the groundwater from the temporary
well sampled during this investigation are likely the result of high turbidity in the
sample (PCBs typically bind to soil particles more readily than dissolving in wa-
ter). The presence of metal concentrations above screening levels is discussed
below.
Most metals are naturally occurring in soil/sediment and surface water/ground-
water. Therefore, many of the exceedances are not of concern. The metals that
exceeded the NYSDEC TAGM guidance values in surface soil samples were typi-
cally below eastern U.S. background levels. Of the metals that exceeded eastern
U.S. background levels, magnesium levels were twice the background level in
most of the surface soil samples, and zinc in OM-SS03 (at the reported electrical
power substation) was 23 times higher than the eastern U.S. background level.
The elevated zinc level could be due to the weathering of the galvanized steel
structure at this location. Therefore, the metals in the surface soils collected from
the site do not appear to be of concern. The same general principles hold true for
the subsurface soils. The metals detected above the screening criteria in surface
water and groundwater (aluminum, iron, magnesium, manganese, and sodium) are
common, naturally occurring metals often detected above criteria and therefore are
not of concern. Of the metals in the sediments found to be above screening levels,
most were detected only slightly above the lowest-level effect, with the exception
of cadmium, chromium, lead, and zinc, which were detected above the severe-
level effect. The occurrence of these metals may have resulted from the presence
of dredge spoils landfills and numerous dumping areas on-site.
The dredge spoil landfills and numerous dumping areas on-site appear to have
contaminated the surface water with phthalates, and the sediments on the flood-
plain with pesticides, PCBs, and metals could be a potential issue in the construc-
tion and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility.
3.2.2.3 Geotechnical Assessment
As discussed with the RD Team, existing information regarding geotechnical sub-
surface conditions is available so specific geotechnical information for this site
was not needed. However, a certain degree of information was obtained from in-
vestigative activities completed for environmental sampling. Five locations—
OM-GPOl through OM-GP05—were selected in the northern and eastern parts of
the site (see Figure 3.2.2-2). At each location, a continuous vertical soil profile
was completed from ground surface to a depth of approximately 25 feet below
grade in 4-foot increments using direct-push technology (DPT).
DPT soil data indicates variable subsurface conditions. In the far northeastern
corner, site soils consist of clays containing layers of silts and sands. Further to
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-29
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
the south, an approximately 5-foot layer of crushed concrete, stone, and silt over-
lie clay containing silt and sand seams, where occasional gravel was encountered.
Two feet of crushed concrete and silt located along the northwest side overlie clay
containing sand and silt seams. Gravelly silty sands and gravelly sands underlain
by sandy clays and clay silts underlie the south-central part of the site to a depth of
25 feet.
Site studies by Malcolm Pirnie (1992) indicate the western part of the site con-
tains clay and silt soils, while sandy and silty soils dominate the eastern part of the
site. They also report that their site soil investigation findings show silty sands
and clayey soils on-site. Dredge spoils were also present.
The presence of the dredge spoils landfill is a potential limitation to the design
and construction of a sediment processing/transfer facility. However, it is ex-
pected that subsurface conditions in areas where fill is present will be addressed
during design.
3.2.2.4 Utility Assessment
Utilities identified at the Old Moreau/NYSCC site included a telecommunications
line (Level 3 Communications, Inc.) located in the railroad right-of-way that par-
allels the western site border. Overhead electrical power lines are located along
West River Road, along the Old Moreau/NYSCC property line and extending
across the Hudson River, and north-south across the NYSCC property.
The utility assessment findings do not appear to represent significant limitations
that would affect the construction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer
facility. However, further evaluation of the capacity of existing utilities is war-
ranted.
3.2.2.5 Archaeological and Architectural Assessments
Preliminary Archaeological Assessment
Based on the background research performed during the PCS evaluation phase,
the Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC site was considered to have a mod-
erate potential for archaeological resources. The Phase IB Survey modified the
preliminary assessment.
Archaeological Investigation
A Phase 1 Survey was conducted on the Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC
site during July 2003 and fieldwork was conducted October 29 and 30, 2003 (see
Figure 3.2.2-3). Twenty STPs were excavated in this 41.2-acre FCS. Shovel test-
ing focused around the historic ruins of the former Jones/Rogers Estate, which
reportedly dates back to the mid- to late 1700s. This property is potentially eligi-
ble for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. However, no cultural
resources (i.e., artifacts, midden deposits) were found during shovel testing. The
historic site appears to be confined within a chain-link fence established around
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-30
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
Potential Site Boundary
Archaeological Testing Method
Backhoe Test
Shovel Test
Backhoe & Shovel Test
Backhoe Trench Locations
HudsorTl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.2-3
Field Sampling Areas
Phase I B Cultural Resources Investigation
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area /
New York State Canal Corporation
3-31
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
the structural ruins. With the exception of the area within the chain link fence,
archaeological field investigations are complete.
Geomorphological Investigation
Three backhoe trenches with a total length of approximately 30 meters were exca-
vated at this site October 21 through October 23, 2003. No cultural materials or
features were noted in the trenches. The areas that were deep-tested are part of the
low-lying floodplain and are expected to be constantly wet. It is doubtful that they
would contain prehistoric remains.
Architectural Assessment
Fieldwork was conducted during July 2003 and October 13, 15, and 17, 2003.
The Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area property contains no structures older than 50
years of age.
The NYSCC property contains remains of a manor house and servants quarters
associated with David Jones, fiance of Jane McCrea, who was allegedly massa-
cred by Native Americans allied with the British in 1777. The property was later
purchased by Colonel Thomas Rogers, a prominent officer during the American
Revolution, and became known as the Rogers Estate. This property, including the
Rogers family cemetery located immediately to the west of the site, is potentially
eligible for listing in the NRHP.
The existence of the historic manor may impose a potential limitation on the con-
struction and operation of a sediment transfer/processing facility.
If avoidance is not feasible, a Phase II evaluation is recommended to determine
the NRHP eligibility of this property. The area within the chain link fence, in the
immediate vicinity of the Jones/Rogers house, warrants an archaeological investi-
gation. If determined eligible, Phase HI mitigation measures should be formulated
and followed in consultation with OPRHP. No further deep testing is recom-
mended as no evidence was found to suggest deeply buried archaeological sites.
Depending on the final design of the proposed facility, additional viewshed stud-
ies may be necessary to evaluate the effect on the manor house and the nearby, but
off-site, historical cemetery.
3.2.2.6 Wetland Assessment
Wetland determinations and delineations of the Old Moreau Dredge Spoils
Area/NYSCC site occurred on September 18, 2003. Determination and delinea-
tion activities were limited to those areas previously identified as potential wet-
lands through data review and previous site reconnaissance efforts.
Review of NWI mapping indicated 1 acre of wetland on the Old Moreau parcel.
No wetlands were previously mapped by NWI on the NYSCC parcel. Although
NWI wetland maps identify the river as a riverine wetland, sample plots and de-
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-32
-------
ecology arid environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
terminations did not extend into the river. NYSDEC wetland mapping did not
identify wetlands on this site.
The mapped soil types include Limerick-Saco complex, Udipsamments, and Hud-
son silt loam. The Limerick soils appear on the Saratoga County hydric soils list
and the Udipsamments are identified as having the potential for hydric inclusions.
Results of the Wetland Assessment
Field determinations resulted in the delineation of three wetland areas, encom-
passing approximately 1.03 acres (see Table 3.2.2-1 and Figure 3.2.2-4), located
within the floodplain area adjacent to the river on the Old Moreau parcel. No wet-
lands were identified on the NYSCC parcel during the survey. The riverbank is
relatively steep and high within the NYSCC parcel. Additionally, previous dump-
ing/landfilling activities have occurred on the site, which appear to have raised the
ground elevation above pre-disturbance levels. Field delineation results were
similar in acreage to the NWI mapping.
Table 3.2.2-1 Old Moreau Dredge Spoils
Area/NYSCC
Wetland Delineation Summary
Community Type
Acreage
Forested
0.94
Emergent
0.09
Total Acreage
1.03
Predominant species within the wetland areas include red maple (Acer rubrum),
slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), ostrich fern {Mat-
teuccia struthiopteris), false nettle {Boehmeria cylindrica), broad-leaf cattail (Ty-
phci latifolia), common reed (Phrcigmites australis), wool grass (Scirpus cyperi-
mis), reed canary grass (Phalaris arimdinacea), boneset (Eupatorium perfolia-
tam), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occi-
dentalis). The wetland assessment findings do not appear to represent potential
significant limitations that would greatly affect the use of the site as a sediment
processing/transfer facility. However, avoidance/mitigation of wetlands will need
to be considered in the design of the facility.
3.2.2.7 Floodplain Assessment
An initial floodplain assessment was conducted on the Old Moreau Dredge Spoils
Area/NYSCC site in order to determine the presence, extent, and orientation of
FEMA-mapped floodplains within site boundaries. Flood magnitudes and historic
river stages from gauging stations as close as available to the site also were exam-
ined to obtain an initial sense of the characteristics of on-site flooding.
Figure 3.2.2-5 shows that portions of the Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/
NYSCC site are located within the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. The site is
located on the west side of the Hudson River, opposite Rogers Island, in the Town
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-33
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
gffill?fc!Tgrpn
pfqic
[RF.Q~1.Cj
OM/NYSCC-1
REOTA*
OM/NYSC;C-2
OM/NYSCC-3^0M/NYSCCj4
RF.01.Cj
RF.OIC]
[REOi.Cj
3UBHJ
PUBFx
lRF.O.1 E>
RUBFx.
RFOIE'
RUSGxj
IgEOIEl
LEGEND
CXI NYS DEC Mapping
National Wetland Inventory Mapping
Delineated Wetlands
Emergent
Forested
o Observation Plots
M Direction of Drainage Flow
Hudsonl River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.2-4
Wetland Locations
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area /
New York State Canal Corporation
3-34
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
Potential Site Boundary
FEMA Floodplain
VZA 100 Year Floodplain
500 Year Floodplain
Hudson! River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.2-5
FEMA Floodplain Mapping
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area /
New York State Canal Corporation
500
250
500
Feet
3-35
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
of Moreau. Within the site, the floodplain is oriented in a narrow strip that paral-
lels the river and is located entirely along the eastern edge of the parcel. Ap-
proximately 18% (7.6 acres) of the total area of the site is within the 100-year
floodplain and 8.9 acres (22% of the total area of the site) are in the 500-year
floodplain.
The closest gauge station is in Fort Edward, approximately 0.6 miles upstream of
the site boundary. Because of the relative proximity of the site to the gauge sta-
tion, values of the 100-year flood at the gauge station will be similar to the site.
Flood magnitudes were calculated using statistical methods from the 26 years of
flow data at the gauge station after the Fort Edward dam was removed. Based on
this data, no 100-year flood has occurred in the 26 years of modern data. In that
time, there have been two flow events greater than 10-year floods (May 3, 1983
and January 10,1998).
Historic water-level data (1916 to 2000) also is available from NYSCC's Lock 7.
Lock 7 is close to the site, directly opposite the southern boundary on the eastern
side of the Hudson River. Based on the NYSCC data, the 100-year flood eleva-
tion may have been reached within site boundaries once between 1916 and 2000.
The elevations of the site were reviewed using contour information and aerial
photography to determine an approximation of how a 100-year flood would affect
the site. It was determined that, in the event of a 100-year flood, the area along
the river would be under approximately 12 feet of water.
Given the proximity to the Hudson River, the area of the site that is located within
the 100-year floodplain, and site topographic characteristics, the site appears to be
subject to flooding events. While the probability of a 12-foot inundation event
(100-year flood) is remote, NYSCC water-level data on the downstream side of
Lock 7 provide evidence that flooding on a smaller scale likely occurs almost an-
nually at this site. Based on calculations of an average stage level using the
maximum river stage at Lock 7 for the available time period (1916 to 2000), the
site shoreline boundary would have been under approximately 12 feet of water
during the maximum high water level on April 3, 1922 and under an average of
5.6 feet of water during the maximum flow recorded for each year. Limited flood-
ing was observed on October 28, 2003 in the northern extent of the floodplain ad-
jacent to the river.
The floodplain assessment findings do not appear to represent potential significant
limitations that would greatly affect the construction and operation of a sediment
processing/transfer facility. During facility design the presence and location of
the 100-year floodplain would be considered.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-36
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.2.2.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment
The Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC site is not located in the state-
designated coastal zone. Therefore, no direct impacts are expected as a result of
the potential use of this site. EPA will prepare an additional phase of its coastal
zone consistency assessment and subsequent coastal zone consistency determina-
tion, covering potential indirect and cumulative impacts from the operation of
sediment processing/transfer facilities, once the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging fa-
cility locations are selected.
3.2.2.9 Baseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species
Assessment
Site Habitat Description
The site is a former industrial/commercial facility located in a rural setting. The
disturbance from these industrial/commercial activities has greatly influenced the
availability, extent, and diversity of on-site habitats. The buildings have been re-
moved and the rail line has been buried. The demolition of the old buildings has
resulted in the creation of a park-like setting on portions of the site. The concrete
foundations of the main buildings are still present but have had holes drilled in
them for site drainage, and grasses are planted along the sides of the foundation.
A portion of the site contains the remnants of a concrete building foundation (ru-
ral structure exterior community type), and another portion of the site contains a
dredge spoils area (i.e., landfill). The majority of habitats on-site are composed of
relatively early successional (less than 20 years) to mid-successional (20 to 60
years) vegetation communities, with several areas of late successional (greater
than 60 years) along the forested shoreline.
Using Ecological Communities of New York State (Edinger et al. 2002) as a
framework for habitat identification, fourteen community types have been mapped
as occurring on this 41-acre site (see Figure 3.2.2-6). No sensitive or rare habitats
were among them. A mixed dredge spoils/successional northern hard-
woods/successional old field community type covers 29% of the site. Other
communities include pine northern hardwood, successional old field, successional
northern hardwood, successional shrubland, maple-basswood rich mesic forest,
and mowed pathway communities.
Aquatic communities occurring on-site include a backwater slough and an inter-
mittent stream. The backwater slough is a shallow bay, which is connected to the
Hudson River. Emergent vegetation (i.e., cattail) and open water are present in
this community. The intermittent stream ends at the apparent base of the dredge
spoils area. The stream is ephemeral and no water was observed during the field
visits. Wetland communities present on the site are discussed in Section 3.2.2.6.
The northern shoreline community is characteristic of a forested floodplain with
portions of shallow sand and gravel beach interspersed among areas of heavy
vegetation. The southern end of the site has a steep bank with a rock riprap toe
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-37
-------
(oTKirflmgrm
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Ecological Communities
I 1 Unpaved Road
23 Wetland I
] Successional Northern Hardwoods (SNH) I
] Successional Old Field (SOF) I
1 I Successional Shrubland
_i Intermittent Stream
W I Ditch
Backwater Slough
| Dredge Spoils/SNH / SOF
I Junkyard
] Pine-Northern Hardwood Forest
Maple-Basswood Rich Mesic Forest
I 1 Railroad
I I Rural Structure Exterior
I I Mowed Pathway
Hudson! River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.2-6
Site Ecological Communities
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area /
New York State Canal Corporation
500
250
500
Feet
New York State
Carial Corporation
3-38
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
layer. Most of the shoreline is shallow with a predominantly sand substrate.
Some large woody debris structure is present along the shoreline.
Common vegetation species and community structure have an influence on wild-
life occurrences on the site. The availability of forested, shrubland, and old field
communities provides a diverse habitat for wildlife species. Incidental wildlife
observations included whitetail deer, beaver, gray squirrel, red fox, raccoon, wood
frog, green frog, tree frog, turkey vulture, red-tailed hawk, mallards, and various
songbirds.
Endangered Species Act Issues
Correspondence with the USFWS and NYSDEC indicates that no threatened or
endangered species issues are associated with this site. Wintering bald eagles may
migrate through the area but are not known to use the site. A biological assess-
ment will be prepared to examine the potential impacts associated with the con-
struction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility for each of the
Suitable Sites.
The baseline habitat and endangered species assessments findings do not appear to
represent potential significant limitations that would affect the construction and
operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility.
3.2.3 Georgia Pacific/NYSCC
3.2.3.1 Phase I ESA
The Georgia Pacific/NYSCC site is the location of a former paper mill operation
that was purchased by Georgia Pacific approximately 20 years ago. The former
mill structures have been removed. According to a Georgia Pacific representative,
the site landfill and land farm areas are currently closed. However, these closure
reports were not provided and this information could not be verified. Key site fea-
tures are presented on Figure 3.2.3-1. This site is not currently developed. The
only portion of the site currently used is the bulkhead along the river, which is be-
ing used by NYSCC. A canal formerly used for hydroelectric power generation
was identified along the eastern edge of the riverside tract. This canal is currently
blocked off from the river, and remnants of the power facility foundation are still
present. A rail corridor runs onto the riverfront tract for 200 feet and south of the
larger inland tract for 670 feet. The rail spurs are inactive and need refurbishing.
In addition to the waterfront property, a large portion of the parcel is located on
the site east of County Road 113. This tract contains a landfill in the western por-
tion and native wooded upland, with streams in the eastern portion. A creek runs
along the western boundary of the former landfill and ultimately discharges to the
Hudson River.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-39
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
.QD'OOf&£!D@a|
Drums Noted
__ Mounded
Fill Area
Georgia Pacific
Landfill
\ Borr.ow Area /
Mliandfilltel
t -New jiYiork^Sti
.Caha I feci rpora
Bulkhead
Drums Noted
In This Area
Former
Land
Farm
Area
Northumberland
BDamll
Former Power
Generating Canal
Drums Noted
llnYrHisTArea
LEGEND
Approximate Site Boundary
Tax Parcel Boundary
Abandoned Railroad
HudsotTi River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.3-1
Key Site Features
Georgia Pacific / New York State Canal Corporation
500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet
3-40
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The site is surrounded by rural residential and vacant land. The site topography is
relatively flat along the waterfront and hilly on the east side of County Road 113.
Portions of the waterfront are open grassy areas, surrounded by wooded areas.
Most of the area on the east side of County Road 113 is wooded except for the
open areas containing the landfill. There is direct river access, with river frontage
extending approximately 1,295 feet above the Northumberland Dam, as well as
185 feet of dike and 350 feet of undeveloped land below the dam. Approximately
1,410 feet of shoreline below the dam is not navigable because of the dam and
shallow water. The water adjacent to the existing bulkhead is approximately 10
feet deep. Rock outcrops were observed in the upland section of the eastern par-
cel and along the shoreline adjacent to the bulkhead.
Although surficial environmental concerns were not identified at this site, several
55-gallon drums were found throughout the site: eleven drums were observed in
the northwestern portion of the site along with several empty 1-gallon roofing tar
cans. Approximately nine drums were found in the northeast portion of the river-
front parcel; two drums were found in the central portion of the riverfront parcel,
and several drums were found along the waterfront below the dam and in the
southeast corner of the riverfront parcel. In most cases the drums appeared to be
empty. However, one drum in the northwest corner of the site contained a black
grease-like substance. The drums in the northwest corner of the site were subse-
quently removed by Basile Environmental Solutions (under contract to Georgia
Pacific) in October 2003.
In 1999, Apex Environmental, Inc. performed an investigation in reference to
NYSDEC Spill No. 93-07610 (Apex 1999). The investigation focused on the
southwest riverfront portion of the site between the former power canal and the
Hudson River. Three bedrock wells were installed at the north part of this river-
front area, and one well was installed at the south end. A review of the well drill-
ing logs indicated that overburden thickness in this area ranges between 13 and 22
feet below ground surface (BGS). The overburden was described as primarily
sand and silt, with small amounts of fine gravel followed by inorganic clays over-
lying the shale bedrock. During well installation, water in the overburden was
encountered between 10 and 15 feet BGS. Soil and groundwater samples were
collected from the four wells. At a later time, two soil borings were installed, and
subsurface soil samples were collected from the depth intervals that exhibited the
highest monitoring equipment readings during the previous well installations.
The report concluded that no contamination was detected at concentrations above
the cleanup standards established in NYSDEC's Spill Technology and Remedia-
tion Series. Based on the results of this investigation, NYSDEC closed NYS Spill
No. 93-07610 in December 1999, and the four wells were decommissioned in
September 2000.
3.2.3.2 Phase II ESA
The environmental investigations at this site included collecting eleven surface
soil samples, four surface water samples, five sediment samples, eight subsurface
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-41
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
soil samples, eight groundwater samples from newly installed temporary monitor-
ing wells, geotechnical soil testing at three locations, and the installation of one
stream gauge for hydrologic monitoring purposes (see Figure 3.2.3-2).
The only parameters that exceeded screening criteria included one volatile organic
compound (VOC) (acetone) in subsurface soil (GPS-GP01) in the northern drum
disposal area; 4-nitrophenol in one surface soil (GPS-SS07) near the site entrance;
PAHs in several of the surface soils and one subsurface soil sample (GPS-GP05)
in a slag-fill area; PCBs in surface water from the former power canal; and vari-
ous metals in all sampled media. In addition to these compounds, concentrations
of various other compounds without screening criteria were detected above
screening levels: one VOC (methyl acetate) in the former power canal sediments
(GPS-SE04 and -SE05); SVOCs in surface and subsurface soils, sediment, and
groundwater; pesticides in several surface soil samples; and one herbicide in the
surface soil composite along the rail spur (GPS-SS10). The acetone detection was
in the subsurface soil sample near the drum disposal areas. Although low concen-
trations of acetone are typically considered laboratory artifacts, the level of ace-
tone in the subsurface soil sample (520 |lg/kg [J]) is much higher then typical arti-
fact levels (5 to 10 |ig/kg). However, there is no direct evidence linking the ace-
tone to the empty drums. PAHs are typically associated with incomplete combus-
tion of hydrocarbons and are common in urban and industrial areas. The site con-
tained numerous areas of fill material and, in some instances, slag. Therefore, the
presence of these compounds is probably not attributable to any specific disposal
activities but to the fill itself. The presence of PCBs in the former power canal
surface water is not unexpected due to its historic connection with the Hudson
River. The PCBs detected in the surface water could be the result of suspended
sediment in the sample. PCBs were detected in the sediment at levels below
sediment screening criteria. The presence of metals above screening levels is dis-
cussed below.
Most metals are naturally occurring in soil/sediment and surface water/ground-
water. Therefore, many of the exceedances are not of concern. In general, the
levels of metals in GPS-SS01 (drum disposal area), -SS05 (slag-fill area), -SS08
(paper-waste/slag-fill area), and -SS09 (former mill area) were noticeably higher
then overall site background levels. Also, of the metals that exceeded the
NYSDEC TAGM guidance values, most of these exceedances were within two to
three times the eastern U.S. background levels, except for cadmium levels in
GPS-SS08 and zinc levels in GPS-SS01, -SS05, -SS08, and -SS11, which were
much higher than overall site levels. Therefore, it appears that levels of cadmium
and zinc are from the various fill materials and are not representative of back-
ground conditions. The levels of the metals exceeding criteria in the subsurface
soils are similar to the overall surface soil levels. Thus, there does not appear to
be significant impact on the subsurface soils tested. The metals exceeding criteria
in surface water (iron and mercury) and groundwater (iron, magnesium,
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-42
-------
SOURCE: ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
GPS-SS01
GPS-SS111
¦ i I H GPS-GP06
[GRSlGROjl ' r: M t j
GPS-SS06
SS09D^ GPS-GT01 « <
teRSjSS02Q^- GPS-GP02
Georgia Pacific
GPS-SW/SE03
GPS-SW/SE02
J N ew yLo7klSt3tej|
iCanal'Corporatio
Bulkhead
GPS-SS10C
GPS-SW/SE04
;GRS-GP07
GPS-SS10B
GPS-GT02
GPS-GP08
GPS-GP03^ GPS-SS03 DGP,S-SS10A
GPS-SW/SE05
GPS-GP04,-
gGRsfs'S()4
GPS-GT03
[GRSlSGOl
LEGEND
¦ Geoprobe Soil Boring
Geoprobe Soil Boring & Temporary Well
Geoprobe & Geotechnical Boring
Geotechnical Boring
O Surface Soil
~ Soil Sample Adjacent to Railroad
A Surface Water / Sediment
A Stream Gauge
Railroads
Potential Site Boundary
Hudsonl River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.3-2
Sample Locations
Georgia Pacific / New York State Canal Corporation
500 250 0 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
3-43
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
manganese, and sodium) are very common, naturally occurring metals (with the
exception of mercury) often detected above criteria and are therefore not of con-
cern. The levels of mercury slightly exceeded criteria in the surface water sam-
ples from the former power canal, which may be due to the high turbidity of the
samples. The sediment from one of the former power canal samples contained
lead above the severe-effect level.
The fill materials scattered throughout the site and the surface water and sediment
within the former power canal contained elevated levels of contaminants expected
to be present at this former industrial site (i.e., PAHs, pesticides, and metals). The
source of the acetone in the subsurface soil near the drum disposal area is incon-
clusive because acetone was not detected in the surface soils adjacent to the
drums.
The environmental conditions at this site are typical of industrial sites and do not
appear to represent significant environmental limitations that would affect the
construction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility. However,
due to the varying nature of the fill materials and the presence of a landfill, land
farm, and drums, additional characterization may be needed.
3.2.3.3 Geotechnical Assessment
Subsurface soil investigation locations were selected to provide general coverage
of the site. Additionally, locations were selected based on the possible presence
of fill in areas that may be used to construct the sediment processing/transfer facil-
ity. Figure 3.2.3-2 shows the locations of three geotechnical boreholes, GPS-
GT01 through GPS-GT03, installed during this study. At each boring location a
continuous vertical profile was developed from ground surface to a depth of ap-
proximately 26 feet BGS in 2-foot increments. In addition to the geotechnical
borings, subsurface geology was also investigated at eight other locations (GPS-
GP01 through GPS-GP08) during subsurface environmental soil investigations.
These soil investigation activities were conducted using DPT; a 4-foot soil collec-
tion interval was used to collect a continuous soil profile from the ground surface
to approximately 25 feet BGS.
The geotechnical and DPT subsurface soil data indicated that site overburden soils
vary considerably across the site. Site SPT n-values ranged from 0 to 15, indicat-
ing that the density of granular soils is loose to moderately dense, and the consis-
tency of cohesive soils are soft to very soft.
The site soil investigation indicated that a fill area containing ash, cinders, and
wood fragments exists at the northwest site corner, adjacent to the Hudson River.
Fill thickness varies from 5.5 feet near the northwest site corner to 8 feet thick far-
ther to the south. Clay and silts, underlain by sands and silty sands, underlie the
northern part of the fill area. This clay consistency is soft to very soft, based on
SPT n-values of 3 or less. Very fine to coarse sands and gravels underlie the fill
area farther to the south. Sandy silts and silty sands are found inland, off the fill
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-44
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
area. Beneath the northern landfill area, alternating silty sand, clayey silt, and silty
clay overlie clay. In the middle of the northern end of the site, weathered shale
was identified at split spoon refusal at a depth of 21 feet BGS.
A cinder/concrete fill area located in the central part of the site extends to a depth
of approximately 3.5 feet BGS and is underlain by silts and very fine sands and
silty sands. An ash-rich fill extending to a depth of approximately 9 feet BGS lies
in the western portion of the site; silt and sandy gravel underlie this ash fill. The
density of this granular matrix is classified as loose, based on SPT n-values of 5
and 6. Further inland, a sand/silt mixture extends to a depth of approximately 14
feet BGS. Auger refusal was encountered just below this depth in the borehole.
South of the former railroad spur, silt and gravel are underlain by sands, sandy
gravels, and silty gravels to a depth of 22 feet BGS along the Hudson River.
Shale was identified at split-spoon refusal at a depth of approximately 18 feet
BGS further inland. Near County Route 113, a 2.5 foot-thick fill layer was found
overlying a thin clay layer. Fill thickness increases to 14 feet at the southernmost
part of the site, next to the Hudson River. The fill was underlain by silts and
sands, which extend to a depth of at least 25 feet at the southwestern site tip.
These granular soils are moderately dense, based on SPT n-values of 7 to 15 re-
corded during drilling near the western part of the abandoned railroad spur.
Site investigation data published by Apex Environmental (2000) indicated bed-
rock was encountered at a depth of about 22 feet BGS at the southwestern corner
of the site, adjacent to the Hudson River. At the northern end, they indicated bed-
rock at depths of 13 to 16 feet.
The geotechnical conditions detected at this site do not appear to represent signifi-
cant potential geotechnical limitations that would affect the construction and op-
eration of a sediment processing/transfer facility. However, due to the presence of
fill materials and piling foundations, an extensive roadway sub-base may be war-
ranted.
3.2.3.4 Utility Assessment
No major utilities were identified on the Georgia Pacific site. Overhead electrical
power lines are located along County Route 113, which is next to the site.
The utility assessment findings do not appear to represent significant limitations
that would affect the construction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer
facility. However, it is expected that utilities will be further evaluated during de-
sign.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-45
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.2.3.5 Archaeological and Architectural Investigations
Preliminary Archaeological Assessment
Based on the background research performed during the PCS evaluation phase,
the Georgia Pacific/NYSCC site was considered to have a high potential for ar-
chaeological resources. The Phase IB Survey confirmed the preliminary assess-
ment.
Archaeological Investigation
The fieldwork was conducted on the Georgia Pacific/NYSCC site between Octo-
ber 11 and October 28, 2003 (see Figure 3.2.3-3). Field investigation efforts fo-
cused on the areas within the site that were expected to be used. The RD Team
had identified an area to be excluded from the investigation on the east side of
County Route 113 where the area is highly wooded and steeply sloped. During
initial archaeological investigations and the excavation of the shovel test pits, the
field crew encountered a possible textile membrane just below the surface on the
parcel east of County Route 113 that had been used as a landfill. Based on the
presence of the landfill and uncertainty associated with the limits of the landfill,
field investigations within that area were terminated. It is not likely that further
archaeological investigation will be recommended east of County Route 113 be-
cause of the presence of the landfill and excluded area.
No prehistoric sites were found at this site. It does contain, however, a large in-
dustrial archaeological site dating to the late nineteenth or early twentieth century
consisting of the remains of former paper mills, a hydroelectric power plant, a
sluiceway with two bridges, worker quarters, a docking facility, a parking lot, an
old roadbed, and an inter-urban railway. This complex appears to be functionally
related to a dam spanning the Hudson River. These structures occupy the west
central and southwestern portion of the FCS. These archaeological resources po-
tentially constitute a historic district eligible for NRHP listing.
Geomorphological Investigation
This investigation was conducted on October 14, 16, and 20, 2003. Four backhoe
trenches were excavated totaling 25 meters in length. Three trenches did not yield
cultural features or artifacts. One trench revealed train tracks at a depth of 30 cen-
timeters.
Architectural Assessment
Fieldwork was conducted during July 2003 and on October 14, 2003. Structures
more than 50 years of age within the site include a relict hydroelectric power canal
running through the western portion of the property, a docking and loading facil-
ity, and the remains of a stone bridge and sluiceway. Ruins associated with sev-
eral early to mid-twentieth century paper mills, including a brick and stone wall
and cut stone foundation located at the northern end of the sluiceway, are found
within the western portion of the project area. These resources are described in
the archaeological section above.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-46
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
Potential Site Boundary
Potential Excluded Area
Archaeological Testing Method
Backhoe Test
Shovel Test
Backhoe & Shovel Test
©
Backhoe Trench Locations
1 Limited Shovel Testing in Area of Former Landfill
HudsotTl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.3-3
Field Sampling Areas1
Phase I B Cultural Resources Investigation
Georgia Pacific / NYS Canal Corporation
500 250 0
500
1,000
1,500
Feet
3-47
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The proposed facility may have a visual effect on several potentially eligible pre-
1950 structures across the river. These include residences and an intact nine-
teenth-century farm complex consisting of a farmhouse and numerous outbuild-
ings. Also within the viewshed from the site is the Route 4 Bridge, a potentially
NRHP-eligible steel-truss bridge.
If this site were to be selected for Phase 1 or Phase 2 dredging and avoidance is
not feasible, extensive cultural resource investigations will be required. These
may include:
¦ Phase II evaluation of historic ruins to assess NRHP eligibility.
¦ Phase HI mitigation (if determined eligible).
¦ NRHP eligibility evaluation of historic Hudson River landscape and the nine-
teenth-century farm complex.
¦ NRHP eligibility evaluation of the steel-truss bridge.
¦ Backhoe testing west of County Route 113 to investigate the historic industrial
complex.
It is not likely that further archaeological investigation will be recommended east
of County Route 113 because of the presence of the landfill and the excluded area.
Cultural resources may impose limitations on construction and operation of a
sediment processing/transfer facility. However, avoidance of these resources
through the facility design is recommended.
3.2.3.6 Wetland Assessment
Wetland determinations and delineations of the Georgia Pacific/NYSCC site took
place on September 19 and October 8, 2003. Determination and delineation ac-
tivities were limited to those areas previously identified through data review and
previous site reconnaissance efforts as potential wetlands.
Review of NWI wetland mapping indicated the site contains approximately 3.2
acres of wetlands. Although NWI wetland maps identify the river along the
shoreline of the site as a lacustrine wetland, sample plots and determinations did
not extend into the river. NYSDEC wetland mapping indicated that no NYSDEC
wetlands were previously identified on the site.
The Washington County Soil Survey was reviewed to determine the soil types
mapped on this site (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1974). The mapped soil
types within the site boundaries are Hudson silt loam, Hudson soil steep and very
steep, Rhinebeck silt loam, fluvaquents, and Madalin silty clay loam.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-48
-------
ecology arid environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The Georgia Pacific/NYSCC site can be divided into eastern (or inland) and west-
ern (or riverside) parcels. A canal formerly used for hydroelectric power genera-
tion was identified along the eastern edge of the riverside tracts. Though retaining
water, presumably from runoff, this canal is currently blocked off from the river.
Results of the Wetland Assessment
Field determination procedures resulted in the delineation of three wetland areas
encompassing approximately 6.54 acres (see Table 3.2.3-1 and Figure 3.2.3-4).
Topographic variability, position within the landscape, proximity to the river, and
prior disturbance (i.e., filling, dumping) activities are the predominant factors in-
fluencing the extent of wetland boundaries on-site. The results of the field inves-
tigations represent an increase in the overall acreage of wetlands compared to the
NWI mapping. However, NWI mapping primarily uses remote sensing tech-
niques (i.e., photo interpretation) without field confirmation and therefore does
not necessarily represent an accurate description of on-site conditions. Rather, the
mapping is a basis for further investigation.
Table 3.2.3-1 Georgia Pacific/NYSCC
Wetland Delineation Summary
Community Type
Acreage
Forested/Emergent/Scrub-Shrub/Unconsolidated Bottom
3.37
Forested
2.08
Emergent/ Unconsolidated Bottom
1.09
Total Acreage
6.54
Predominant species within the wetland area include green ash (Frcixinus pennsyl-
vcinicci), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), northern cottonwood (Populus del-
toides), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), spotted jewelweed {Impatiens capen-
sis), marshpepper smartweed (Polygonum hydropiper), false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica), Carex spp., arrow-leaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatam), broad-leaf
cattail (Typha latifolia), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), woolgrass
(Scirpus cyperinus), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), Osmimda spp., Solidago
spp., buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalss), purple loosestrife (.Lythrum sali-
caria).
Field observations indicated the presence of aquatic bed wetland areas within the
river channel to the west and north of the forested wetland. However, delineation
procedures did not involve mapping and boundary identification of wetlands
within the river channel.
02:001515. HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-49
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
IP.UBF.hl
PFQI'A
[RFOl'Chj
TOBHx
WmS^Sr
wSSK^^a
[GPmxsscaW/M
GP/NYSCC.-8
GP/NYSCC-2;
GP/NYSCC-1
Georgia-Pacific
GP/NYSCC-3
¦ IViir ¦¦
¦ gSSI/UBFh^jgBBM
i ¦ pGP/NYSCC-4
GP/NYSCC-5 " ' >XoGP/NYSCC-6
vNew YorkTstateli
iCanal'Gorporatioffl
Bulkhead
[GP/NYSCC-9,
RF.OICh"
[R3.UBH!
s m
PEOIAd
IR ROTA hi
RROl'Chl
LEGEND
NYS DEC Mapping
National Wetland Inventory Mapping
Delineated Wetlands
Emergent
1 | Open Water / Emergent / Scrub-Shrub
Forested
II Open Water / Emergent
o Observation Plots
-M Direction of Drainage Flow
Hudson! River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.3-4
Wetland Locations
Georgia Pacific / New York State Canal Corporation
3-50
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The wetland assessment findings do not appear to represent potential significant
limitations that would affect the construction and operation of a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility. Avoidance and minimization of impact, where practicable,
should be practiced during the design process.
3.2.3.7 Floodplain Assessment
An initial floodplain assessment was conducted on the Georgia Pacific/NYSCC
site in order to determine the presence, extent, and orientation of FEMA-mapped
floodplains within site boundaries. Flood magnitudes and historic river stages
from gauging stations as close as available to the site were examined to obtain an
initial sense of the characteristics of on-site flooding.
Figure 3.2.3-5 shows that portions of the Georgia Pacific/NYSCC site are located
within the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. The site is located on the east side
of the Hudson River in the Town of Greenwich and comprises several non-
contiguous land parcels. The FEMA mapping indicates that the floodplain is lo-
cated in several distinct locations within the riverside parcels, rather than a broad
continuous floodplain. Approximately 11.3% (13.8 acres) of the total area of the
site is within the 100-year floodplain and approximately 19 acres (15% of the total
site area) are within the 500-year floodplain.
Areas within the 100-year floodplain include locations directly adjacent to the
river and downstream of the Northumberland Dam (formerly the Thomson Dam);
an area to the north end of the site near Thomson Road; a narrow, low-lying strip
of land (i.e., the relict hydropower sluiceway associated with the former paper
mill operations); and land adjacent to a tributary on the southeast corner of the
site.
The closest upstream gauge station is in Fort Edward, approximately 11 miles up-
stream of the site; the Stillwater gauge station is approximately 14 miles down-
stream of the site. Flood magnitudes were calculated using statistical methods
from the 26 years of flow data at the Fort Edward and Stillwater gauge stations
after the Fort Edward dam was removed. While two 10-year floods have occurred
at each station during the 26-year recorded history, no 100-year floods have oc-
curred.
Historic water-level data (1916 to 2000) are also available from NYSCC Lock 5.
Lock 5 is less than 1 mile downstream of the site and is separated from the main
channel of the Hudson River as a bypass of the Northumberland Dam. Lock 5
water-level data is likely to be comparable to water-level data for the northern
portion of the site because of similar water-stage characteristics. Lock 5 water-
level data is not comparable to water-level data for the southern portion of the site
because the water levels are different due to the fall in elevation below Northum-
berland Dam. No 100-year flood events were recorded at NYSCC Lock 5 from
1916 to 2000.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-51
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
Potential Site Boundary
Tax Parcels
FEMA Floodplain
100 Year Floodplain
ESI 500 Year Floodplain
HudsmTi River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.3-5
FEMA Floodplain Mapping
Georgia Pacific I New York State Canal Corporation
500 250 0
500
1,000 1,500
Feet
3-52
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The elevations of the site were reviewed using contour information and aerial
photography to determine an approximation of how a 100-year flood would affect
the site. It was determined that, in the event of a 100-year flood, the area in the
northern portion of the site would be under approximately 8 feet of water.
While the probability of an 8-foot inundation event (100-year flood) is remote, the
NYSCC water level data on the upstream side of Lock 5 provide evidence that
flooding on a smaller scale likely occurs almost annually at this site. Based on
calculations of an average stage level using the maximum river stage at Lock 5 for
the available time period (1916 to 2000), the northern shoreline boundary would
have been under approximately 6 feet of water during the maximum high water
level on December 16, 1918 and under an average of 3.7 feet of water during each
year's maximum flow. Site observations suggested that flooding does occur with
some regularity within the forested area at the northern extreme of the site bound-
ary.
The floodplain assessment findings do not appear to represent potential significant
limitations that would greatly affect the use of the site for a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility.
3.2.3.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment
The Georgia Pacific/NYSCC site is not located in the state-designated coastal
zone. Therefore no direct impacts are expected as a result of the potential use of
this site. EPA will prepare an additional phase of its coastal zone consistency as-
sessment and subsequent coastal zone consistency determination, covering poten-
tial indirect and cumulative impacts from the operation of sediment process-
ing/transfer facilities, once the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging facility locations are
selected.
3.2.3.9 Baseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species
Assessment
Site Habitat Description
The site is situated on the east side of the river, encompassing areas both above
and below the Northumberland Dam. This site was formerly a paper mill site and
has been disturbed by past industrial uses, including the construction of a landfill
(eastern parcel) and the use of certain areas for land farming. These disturbances
have greatly influenced the availability, extent, and diversity of on-site habitats.
The former paper mill facilities have been removed, except for some concrete
foundations. The site contains a bulkhead on the northern end, which is still occa-
sionally used by NYSCC. Habitats largely comprise mid-successional (20 to 60
years) vegetation communities across the site. Several areas of late successional
communities (greater than 60 years) are along the northern shoreline, and early
successional communities are in some of the areas that formerly were developed
for industrial purposes.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-53
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Using Ecological Communities of New York State (Edinger et al. 2002) as a
framework for habitat identification, nineteen community types were found on
this 71-acre site (see Figure 3.2.3-6). No sensitive or rare habitats were among
them. The dominant community type on this site is a successional northern hard-
wood community that accounts for 46% of the site. Other communities include
successional old field, successional shrubland, Appalachian oak-hickory forest,
small pine/spruce plantations, and Appalachian oak pine. In addition, a portion
along the southern end has remnant concrete foundations of exterior rural struc-
tures and a remnant canal traverses the waterfront parcels.
Aquatic communities on-site include backwater slough and canal. The large wet-
land complex within the eastern portion of the site may exhibit aquatic community
functions due to the relative permanence of water within the complex. (Wetland
communities are discussed in Section 3.2.3.6 above.) The backwater slough is a
shallow bay, which is connected to the Hudson River. The canal exhibited char-
acteristics of an emergent wetland and was covered with duckweed at the time of
the field visit.
The northern Hudson River shoreline portion of the site is characterized by a shal-
low, sand/gravel substrate-dominated shoreline with shallow water depths extend-
ing out past 10 yards. Mussel shells and live mussels were observed along the
northern shoreline, above the dam. Mature trees extend to the shoreline and some
root systems protrude out into the river. The bulkhead portions of the shoreline
are either deep (greater than 6 feet) off the shoreline or have exposed bedrock ex-
tending to a silty, mucky substrate. The areas in the vicinity of the bulkheads are
actively influenced by man and contain mowed lawn and unpaved road.
The site also contains a subterranean community type in the terrestrial cultural
subsystem. The mine/artificial community is located at the south edge of the site
at the base of the brick retaining wall. The artificial cave appears to be a remnant
of a former hydropower plant outfall to the Hudson River. The base of the artifi-
cial cave is at the level of the Hudson River. The cave dimensions are approxi-
mately 18 feet in width and more than 200 feet in length. No signs of bat use
were apparent. The cave walls and ceilings have numerous small compartments
and ledges for roosting areas, but daylight extends into more than half of the cave,
which may prohibit use by bats. Several pigeons were observed roosting in the
cave.
Common vegetation species and the community structure of the site influence
wildlife occurrences. The availability of forested, shrubland, and old field com-
munities provides a diverse habitat for wildlife species. Incidental wildlife obser-
vations included whitetail deer, raccoon, eastern gray squirrel, tree frog, green
frog, eastern phoebe, song sparrow, mallard, gray catbird, yellow warbler, pigeon,
blue jay, sand piper, green heron, and great blue heron.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-54
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
*"*4s tl
»j| 1
i'
«, P
,
-V A,
1 ¦¦
iV'.t,
¦B 'r
j1,
1 M
1
' ' •
Ecological Communities
1^1 Paved Road
I I Unpaved Road
Wetland
I I Successional Northern Hardwoods
I I Successional Old Field (SOF)
I I Successional Shrubland (SS)
I ISNH/SS
I ISOF/SS
I I Appalachian Oak-Hickory Forest
I I Appalachian Oak-Pine Forest
I I Pine/ Spruce Plantation
I I Backwater Slough
I I Ditch
(SNH) ~~ Canal
I I Landfill
I I Rural Structure Exterior
I I Mine / Artificial Cave Community
I I Mowed Roadside / Pathway
I I Mowed Roadside
Potential Excluded Area
SH^Mf
HudsotFl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.3-6
Site Ecological Communities
Georgia Pacific /
New York State Canal Corporation
500 250
500
1,000
Feet
3-55
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Endangered Species Act Issues
Correspondence with the USFWS and NYSDEC indicate no threatened or endan-
gered species issues are associated with this site. Wintering bald eagles may mi-
grate through the area but are not known to use the site. A biological assessment
will be prepared to examine the potential impacts associated with the construction
and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility for each of the Suitable
Sites.
The baseline habitat and endangered species assessments findings do not appear to
represent potential significant limitations that would affect the construction and
operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility.
3.2.4 Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo
3.2.4.1 Phase I ESA
The Bruno property was reportedly farmed until several years ago. It is currently
not used. The Alonzo property appears to have historically been undeveloped.
The Brickyard Associates parcel is a former brick manufacturing facility. Accord-
ing to a conversation with the site representative during the site inspection on
June 25, 2003, the owners reportedly currently hold a mining permit. Key fea-
tures are presented on Figure 3.2.4-1.
The Bruno parcel is owned by a private citizen and consists of three mostly
wooded areas characterized by a relatively moderate west-to-east incline through-
out, no river frontage, and an abutting railroad right-of-way. It is not currently
developed. One area is west of Knickerbocker Road, and the other two are east of
Knickerbocker Road. No structures were observed. Two dirt roads lead into the
central portion of the property; the western and eastern portions do not contain
roads. While the westernmost parcel contains scrub vegetation and grassland, for-
estland with minor scrub vegetation dominates the central and eastern parts. Sur-
rounding property uses include a golf course (the Mechanicville Golf Club, Inc.)
to the southwest and residential property to the north along Knickerbocker Road.
Land use along the west side of the Hudson River is primarily commercial and
industrial, with residential use dominating further inland to the west. A former
clay mining and brick manufacturing operation is located to the east; that site now
houses a construction company. A campground is located farther to the northeast.
Land use within 1 mile includes minor agricultural, some small businesses, and
extensive woodlands. Within 1 mile west of the river, land use is primarily resi-
dential with some industrial and commercial uses and open space to the far west.
According to the property representative, a depression on the southern side of the
central parcel has historically been used for occasional surface dumping of solid
household wastes. Several other small dumping areas were observed on the cen-
tral parcel hill slope, including small piles of waste concrete located in an area
devoid of trees near the south-central part of the northern parcel. In addition, an-
other surficial dumping area covers approximately 100 square feet near the north-
western corner of the westernmost area. Other than the surficial dumping, the
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-56
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
©roSSM)
Knickerbocker Road
Railroad Overpass-
Bruno,
Surficial
Dumping Area
(Albnzffl
Bruno
Bruno
Brickyardj Associates
Surficiai
Dumping Area
Pond
Remains of
Warehouse
Office
ConstructiorjnEquipment
Warehouse
OldlRaHroad Bridge —'
Underground Fiber Opti
MUine^Located Alongjl
¦Railroad Riqht-of=Waw
ISurficiallDumpinql
IW-'I—'LIM. II * 11
of Brick Fragments
LEGEND
Approximate Site Boundary
Tax Parcel Boundary
Active Railroad
Abandoned Railroad
HudsotTi River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.4-1
Key Site Features
Bruno / Brickyard Associates / Alonzo
500 250 0
3-57
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
property representative stated he is not aware of any other fill being brought to the
site. Reportedly, no hazardous materials are stored on-site.
The Brickyard Associates parcel is a mostly wooded parcel characterized by ex-
treme topographic relief, no river frontage, an abandoned railroad siding, and ex-
tensive railroad right-of-way frontage. A partially paved access road leads into
the former brick manufacturing site from a residential area, with light commercial
use dispersed along Route 67. There are two buildings on the property: one brick
building is intact and serves as an office building for HMA Contracting Corpora-
tion (a construction company); the other building is partially intact and is used for
equipment storage and repair. Additional structures include the former end of the
sheet metal storage building, the former brick kiln (destroyed in a 1957 fire), two
small (15 feet by 6 feet) demolished buildings, and two leased double-walled,
transportable aboveground storage tanks (ASTs). A number of small borrow pits
scattered across the property are still periodically used. Each pit is less than 1 acre
in size and they total about 3 acres. According to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the mining permit (C.T. Male Associates, P.C. 1989) almost
no topsoil exists across the parcel, and the soils to a large extent reflect glacio-
lacustrine sediments. Surficial soils consist of clay-rich soil throughout most of
the site, with sand and silt deposits. A thin layer (6-inch maximum) of silty or-
ganic loam covers some areas. An existing railroad bridge with a dirt road under-
pass is near the southwest corner, near the midpoint of the western site boundary.
The elevation difference between the site and the waterfront is approximately 80
feet. There are woodlands to the west and north boundaries of the property. In
addition, there is a railroad along one part of the western side, residential property
at the northwest and southwest corners, open space to the southeast and east, and a
campground to the east. Light commercial uses, a golf course, and some indus-
trial land uses are within 1 mile of the site.
The Alonzo property is currently undeveloped. The property consists of a mixture
of wooded and open areas paralleling the Hudson River. The topography is very
gently sloping, toward the Hudson River to the west. No structures are located on
the parcel. The site is bordered on the northwest by the Hudson River and on the
southeast by the Bruno parcel.
According to the Bruno site representative, no previous site assessments have
been conducted on the Bruno portion of the site. Two Phase I investigations were
previously conducted on the Brickyard Associates property. The reports from
these investigations have been requested, but not yet received, from the Resources
Manager of William M. Larned & Sons, Inc. No groundwater monitoring wells
are located on-site. In addition, the C.T. Male Associates, P.C. Draft EIS for the
Brickyard Associates site in 1989 covers the impacts for mining shale, clay, sand,
and gravel and the preparation of the site for construction of a brick manufactur-
ing facility. A Supplemental Addendum to this document was produced in 1990
to address NYSDEC's concerns about noise, traffic, and stormwater impacts.
C.T. Male also prepared an application for a mining permit for Spaulding Brick
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-58
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Co. in 1989. There were no records available indicating an environmental inves-
tigation had been conducted at the Alonzo property.
3.2.4.2 Phase II ESA
The environmental investigations at this site included collecting ten surface soil
samples, three surface water/sediment samples, four subsurface soil samples, four
groundwater samples from newly installed temporary monitoring wells, and geo-
technical soil testing at two locations (see Figure 3.2.4-2). A stream gauge was
not installed at this site because an existing gauge was located on the upstream
side of Lock 3 near the southern end of the site.
The only parameters that exceeded screening criteria were PAHs in surface soil
samples BBA-SS05 (former coal storage area) and BBA-SS12 (composite adja-
cent to rail spur) and in one groundwater sample (BBA-GP01); bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate in one groundwater sample (BBA-GP02); and various metals in the
sampled media. In addition to these compounds, levels of various other com-
pounds were detected above screening levels: one VOC (isopropylbenzene) in
surface soil samples BBA-SS02 (adjacent to the fuel ASTs) and BBA-SS11
(composite adjacent to rail line); several semi-volatile organic compounds
(SVOCs) (benzaldehyde, caprolactam, and carbazole) in surface soil samples
BBA-SS01 (adjacent to a scrap metal area), BBA-SS05 (former coal storage area),
BBA-SS10 (undisturbed wooded area), and BBA-SS12 (composite adjacent to rail
spur); and one PAH (benzo[g,h,i]perylene) in upstream sediment sample BBA-
SE01. PAHs are typically associated with incomplete combustion of hydrocar-
bons and are common in urban and industrial areas. Therefore, the presence of
these compounds is not likely attributable to disposal activities. The PAHs de-
tected in the groundwater could be due to interference from high turbidity of the
sample. The isopropylbenzene is likely attributable to minor spills of fuel next to
the ASTs. Due to the limited contamination detected at this location, the presence
of these compounds is not anticipated to indicate the presence of significant con-
tamination. The remaining SVOCs are typical of industrial sites and are not an-
ticipated to represent specific disposal practices. The presence of metals above
screening levels is discussed below.
Most metals are naturally occurring in soil/sediment and surface water/ground-
water. Therefore, many of the exceedances are not of concern. In general, the
levels of arsenic, cadmium, iron, magnesium, and zinc were noticeably higher
then overall site levels in BBA-SS04 (demolished building area), and arsenic,
iron, and zinc were slightly higher in BBA-SS01 (scrap metal area). Also, of the
metals that exceeded the NYSDEC TAGM guidance values, most of these ex-
ceedances were within three times the eastern U.S. background levels, except for
cadmium and zinc levels in BBA-SS04, which were five and 10 times higher than
eastern U.S. background, respectively. Due to the limited number of samples col-
lected, it is difficult to determine whether the presence of metals above screening
levels are due to site activities or whether they are naturally occurring in the clay-
rich soils (which typically exhibit high metals content). The metals exceeding
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-59
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
3-60
'Alonzo]
B B AtG R0.3/.G J.Ojl
'Bruno]
Bruno!
|B ri c k ya rd fAssoc iate s
bba-gpoi^4L
BBA-SS04O BBA-C
< —PBB,
BBA-SS12ATf ,1
BBA-SW/SE02
BBA-SW/SE01
LEGEND
-$>- Geoprobe Soil Boring
Geoprobe Soil Boring & Temporary Well
Geoprobe & Geotechnical Boring
Geotechnical Boring
O Surface Soil
~ Soil Sample Adjacent to Railroad
A Surface Water / Sediment
A Stream Gauge
Railroads
Potential Site Boundary
Hudson") River
PC Bs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.4-2
Sample Locations
Bruno I Brickyard Associates / Alonzo
500 250 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
criteria in the subsurface soils are at the same levels as the overall surface soil lev-
els at the site. Thus, there does not appear to be significant impact from site ac-
tivities on the subsurface soils. The metals exceeding criteria in surface water
(iron) and groundwater (iron and manganese) are common, naturally occurring
metals typically detected above criteria and therefore do not appear to be of con-
cern. The sediments contained arsenic, copper, iron, and manganese slightly
above the screening criteria.
The environmental conditions detected at this site are indicative of typical indus-
trial sites and do not appear to represent significant environmental conditions that
would affect the construction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer fa-
cility. However, due to the presence of various areas of dumping, additional as-
sessments may be warranted.
3.2.4.3 Geotechnical Assessment
Subsurface soil investigation locations were selected to provide general coverage
of the site. Additionally, locations were selected based on the possible location of
facility operations. Geotechnical investigations were not conducted on two par-
cels at Bruno due to limitations on permission to conduct intrusive activities. One
borehole, BBA-GT01, was installed at the southwest corner of the Alonzo prop-
erty. The remaining subsurface exploration locations are positioned near the cur-
rent operations buildings. Figure 3.2.4-2 shows the locations of borings BBA-
GT01 and BBA-GT02.
At each geotechnical boring location, a continuous vertical soil profile was col-
lected from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 26 feet BGS in 2-foot
increments. A 2-inch outer diameter (OD) by 24-inch long split-spoon sampler
was advanced through 4.25-inch inner diameter (ID) hollow stem augers to collect
the samples.
In addition to the geotechnical borings, subsurface geology was also recorded at
two environmental boring locations, BBA-GP01 and BBA-GP02. A 4-foot soil
collection interval was used by the DPT system to collect a continuous soil profile
from the surface to approximately 25 feet BGS.
Along the Hudson River shore, at the southwest corner of the site, silty sands con-
taining a trace of gravel are present to a depth of 6 feet BGS. This soil has a loose
density, based on recorded SPT n-values of 5 to 8. These deposits are underlain
by approximately 9 feet of sand and silt, also of loose density, based on SPT n-
values. Very fine-grained sand was encountered above refusal (anticipated shale
bedrock). Refusal was encountered at a depth of about 18 feet BGS.
The collective subsurface soil data from around the site buildings indicated over-
burden soils consist of clay and silty clay layers interbedded with silt and sand
layers. Density of the silt and sand layers is classified as loose, based on SPT n-
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-61
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
values of 2 to 3. Clay in the 10- to 12-foot BGS interval is stiff, based on SPT n-
values of 12. Weathered shale was noted at split spoon refusal.
C.T. Male Associates, P.C. (1989) reports the site surficial geology as consisting
primarily of sand, silt, and clay that reflect a glacial lake depositional setting.
They note that almost no topsoil exists on-site. They also report the soil series
classification of each soil group found on-site.
The geotechnical conditions detected at this site do not appear to represent signifi-
cant potential geotechnical limitations that would affect the construction and op-
eration of a sediment processing/transfer facility. However, soil types would
likely necessitate deeper foundations and an extensive roadway sub-base.
3.2.4.4 Utility Assessment
Utilities identified at the Bruno/Brickyard/Alonzo site include the following:
¦ A high-voltage overhead electric power line right-of-way traverses the north
end of the Brickyard Associates parcel. The power line right-of-way also
abuts the northern end of the western Bruno parcel.
¦ Electric service enters the Brickyard Associates site buildings via overhead
power lines located south of the site buildings.
¦ Level 3 Communications, Inc. operates a fiber optic cable within the railroad
right-of-way located between the eastern Bruno parcel and the Brickyard As-
sociates parcel. The fiber optic cable runs north-south.
A privately owned 6-inch water supply line traverses the southern portion of the
Brickyard Associates parcel and serves an adjacent property.
The utility assessment findings do not appear to represent significant potential
limitations that would affect the construction and operation of a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility. However, it is expected that utilities will be further evaluated
during design.
3.2.4.5 Archaeological and Architectural Investigations
Preliminary Archaeological Assessment
Based on the background research performed during the PCS evaluation phase,
the Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo site was considered to have a high poten-
tial for archaeological resources. The Phase IB Survey confirmed the preliminary
assessment.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/22/04
3-62
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Archaeological Investigation
Phase I fieldwork was conducted on portions of the Bruno/Brickyard Associ-
ates/Alonzo site between October 31 and November 1 and November 3 to
November 5, 2003 (see Figure 3.2.4-3). A total of 56 shovel tests were excavated.
No surveys were conducted on the 72-acre Bruno Property due to lack of access
for intrusive field activities. The survey of the Alonzo property is complete and
no further archaeological investigations are recommended.
The RD Team had identified an area to be excluded from the investigation of ap-
proximately 197 acres of the Brickyard Associates property. Within the remain-
ing area of the Brickyard Associates property (approximately 60 acres), Phase I
fieldwork was conducted on approximately 20 acres. The remaining acreage will
require additional Phase IB investigations.
Three prehistoric sites were found during the Phase IB survey on the Brickyard
Associates property. Artifacts found include prehistoric ceramics, lithic debitage,
and fire-cracked rocks. One of these sites appears to be potentially significant.
Geomorphological Investigation
Geomorphological fieldwork was conducted on October 17, 2003. Two trenches
were excavated. Neither trench held any signs of early human habitation or geo-
morphic features of interest.
Architectural Assessment
Fieldwork was conducted during July 2003. No standing structures are present
within the Bruno property. The site is located in the viewshed of a number of ar-
chitectural resources, including:
¦ National Register-listed Champlain Canal Lock No. 3,
¦ A series of concrete piers, apparently part of a former docking facility,
¦ An unidentified steel truss bridge,
¦ Numerous industrial and residential buildings, many of which exceed 50 years
of age across the river, and
¦ A stone railroad trestle.
If the facility is constructed within the southern portion of the site, it may create a
visual impact on this historic landscape.
The Alonzo property contains no buildings. It is situated within the viewshed of a
number of the architectural resources noted above.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/22/04
3-63
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
Potential Site Boundary
Archaeological Testing Method
Backhoe Test
Shovel Test
Backhoe & Shovel Test
Backhoe Trench Locations
1 Bruno Property Not Surveyed
Hudson* River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.4-3
Field Sampling Areas1
Phase I B Cultural Resources Investigation
Bruno / Brickyard Associates I Alonzo
500 250 0
500
1,000
1,500
Feet
3-64
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The Brickyard Associates property contains three standing structures:
¦ One corrugated metal warehouse (ca. 1950; of no particular merit).
¦ One 2-story rectangular brick office building with Victorian influences (ca.
1880).
¦ One metal water tower associated with the brick manufacturing facility (ca.
1920s).
A recreational campground with few permanent structures (less than 50 years old)
is next to the eastern boundary of the Brickyard Associates property. Its presence
therefore presents no viewshed concerns.
In conclusion, the limitations that are posed by cultural resource issues have not
been fully evaluated because the site requires additional studies. One archaeo-
logical site on the Brickyard property appears to be potentially significant and will
require a Phase II evaluation. The Phase IB survey of the Brickyard property re-
quires completion (approximately 40 acres). The office building and the tower at
the Brickyard property require either avoidance or an NRHP eligibility evaluation.
Additional investigations are recommended to determine the NRHP-eligibility of
structures within the viewsheds associated with Bruno and Alonzo property. Fur-
ther deep testing is not recommended.
3.2.4.6 Wetland Assessment
Wetland determinations and delineations of the Bruno/Brickyard/Alonzo site took
place October 14 through October 16 and on October 29, 2003. Determination
and delineation activities were limited to those areas previously identified through
data review and previous site reconnaissance efforts as potential wetlands.
Review of NWI wetland mapping showed the site has 13 wetland areas covering
approximately 16.75 acres. Of these, 4.9 acres of NWI wetlands were mapped
within the Alonzo property, 6.29 acres on the Bruno property, and 5.56 acres on
the Brickyard Associates property. Although NWI wetland maps identify the
shoreline along the river as lacustrine wetlands, sample plots and determinations
along the shoreline did not extend into the river. Review of NYSDEC wetland
mapping did not indicate the presence of any NYSDEC-identified wetlands on
these properties.
The Rensselaer County Soil Survey was reviewed to determine the soil types
mapped on this site (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1988). The mapped soil
types within the site boundaries are Hoosic gravelly sandy loam, Hudson silt loam
hilly/steep, Limerick silt loam, Madalin silt loam, Nassau-Manlius complex undu-
lating, Nassau-Rock outcrop rolling/hilly, Rhinebeck silt loam, Raynham silt
loam, Windsor loamy sand, Udorthents, and gravel pits. The Limerick, Madalin,
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-65
-------
ecology arid environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
and Raynham soils all appear on the Rensselaer County hydric soils list. They are
deep, somewhat to very poorly drained soils and indicate locations where wet-
lands are more likely to occur. Rhinebeck silt loam and gravel pits both are types
with the potential for hydric soil inclusion (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1988).
Results of the Wetland Assessment
During the field delineation and determination approximately 11.93 acres of wet-
land were delineated within the Bruno/Brickyard/Alonzo site (see Table 3.2.4-1
and Figure 3.2.4-4). Alterations in the landscape on these two sites have occurred
in the past as a result of logging, mining, and storage of excess material from the
brick manufacturing facility. These changes to the landscape and topography may
have caused the discrepancy between NWI mapping and the field results. How-
ever, NWI mapping primarily uses remote sensing techniques (i.e., photo interpre-
tation) without field confirmation and therefore does not necessarily represent an
accurate description of on-site conditions. Rather, the mapping is a basis for fur-
ther investigation.
Table 3.2.4-1 Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo
Wetland Delineation Summary
Community Type
Acreage
Emergent/ Unconsolidated Bottom
2.46
Emergent
0.09
Forested
2.72
Emergent/ Scrub-Shrub
2.43
Scrub-Shrub
0.83
Forested/Emergent
1.64
F orested/Emergent/Scrub- Shrub
1.62
Forested/Scrub-Shrub
0.14
Total Acreage
11.93
Predominant species within the wetlands include green ash (Frcixinuspennsyl-
vcinicci), swamp white oak (Ouercus bicolor), red maple (Acer rubrum), silver
maple (Acer saccharinum), red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolinifera), brook-side
alder (Alnus serrulata), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentals s), spicebush (Liti-
de r a benzoin), winterberry (Ilex verticillata), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis),
false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), arrow-leaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagit-
tatum), broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia), reed canary grass (Phalciris arandina-
cea), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), common reed (Phrcigmites australis), Carex
spp., Solidago spp., purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), joe-pye weed (Eupato-
rium maculatum), arrow-leaf tearthumb (Polygonum saggitatum), smooth scour-
ing rush (Eqiiisetum laevigatum), and soft rush (Juncus effuses).
02:001515. HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-66
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY 8 ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
B/B/A-.16
B/B/A-15
B/B/A-13b
B/B/Aj13
b;b/a-14;
B/B/A-13C
[REMlChl
IBrurio
B/B/A-7
[REM1ChiPFQ1Chi
IREM1 ,
- H . I pgoi£hjflFi U
PUB/SSIFx'
Bruno'
B/B/A~12
° B/B/A-10
Brurio
b O B/B/A-5
PFO.1 B
B/B/A-lil
RR01E
B/B/A-6
'Briekyard Associates
iB/B/A-3
PF01B
PF01C
'tPKO.IC
San!*?2 GqB/B/W
PFG.1 E!
RECTI E}.: •.
¦IB/B/A^
[REM1E
'PUBHh^,
[PUB/EMI Fx
PUBFx
PEQ1E
PFOIE
_
saw
LEGEND
NYS DEC Mapping
National Wetland Inventory Mapping
Delineated Wetlands
Emergent
Emergent/ Scrub-Shrub
Forested
I Forested / Emergent
Forested / Scrub-Shrub
Scrub-Shrub
H Open Water / Emergent
o Observation Plots
Hudsonl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.4-4
Wetland Locations
Bruno / Brickyard Associates / Alonzo
500 250 0
3-67
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Field observations indicated the presence of aquatic bed wetland areas within the
river channel to the west of the Alonzo property. These areas have been noted.
However, delineation procedures did not involve mapping and boundary identifi-
cation of wetlands within the river channel.
While the wetland assessment findings do not appear to represent potential sig-
nificant limitations on the use of the site as a sediment processing/transfer facility,
the facility design would avoid and minimize, where practicable, impacts on wet-
lands.
3.2.4.7 Floodplain Assessment
An initial floodplain assessment was conducted on the Bruno/Brickyard Associ-
ates/Alonzo site in order to determine the presence, extent, and orientation of
FEMA-mapped floodplains within site boundaries. Flood magnitudes and historic
river stages from gauging stations as close as available to the site were examined
to obtain an initial sense of the characteristics of on-site flooding.
Figure 3.2.4-5 shows that portions of the site are located within the 100-year and
500-year floodplains. The site is located on the east side of the Hudson River in
the Town of Schaghticoke. The floodplain is restricted to land adjacent to the
Hudson River and is oriented parallel to the river along the western edge of the
site. The 500-year floodplain extends approximately 100 feet beyond the 100-year
floodplain boundary. Approximately 3.67% (12.8 acres) of the site is within the
100-year floodplain and approximately 17.3% (5% of the total site area) is within
the 500-year floodplain.
The closest gauge station with historic flow data is in Stillwater, approximately 2
miles upstream of the site. The Waterford gauge station is approximately 6 miles
downstream. Flood magnitudes were calculated from 26 years of flow data at
Stillwater gauge station and based on 21 years of flow data at Waterford gauge
station. While two 10-year floods occurred at the upstream station (March 15,
1977 and May 4, 1983) and one 10-year flood occurred at the downstream station
(May 30, 1984) within the recorded history, no 100-year floods occurred at either
station.
Historic water-level data (1916 to 2000) are also available from NYSCC Lock 3.
Lock 3 is approximately 0.1 mile from the site. No 100-year flood events were
recorded at NYSCC Lock 3 from 1916 to 2000.
The elevations of the site were reviewed using contour information and aerial
photography to determine an approximation of how a 100-year flood would affect
the site. It was determined that in the event of a 100-year flood the area along the
river would be under 13 feet of water.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-68
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
Potential Site Boundary
Tax Parcels
FEMA Floodplain
VZA 100 Year Floodplain
500 Year Floodplain
HudsotTi River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.4-5
FEMA Floodplain Mapping
Bruno / Brickyard Associates / Alonzo
500 250 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Feet
3-69
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
While the probability of a 13-foot inundation event (100-year flood) is remote,
NYSCC water-level data on the upstream side of Lock 3 provide evidence that
flooding on a smaller scale occurs almost annually at this site. Based on calcula-
tions of an average stage level using the maximum river stage at Lock 3 for the
available time period (1916 to 2000), the site shoreline boundary would have been
under approximately 8 feet of water during the maximum high water level on
January 1, 1949 and under an average of 2.7 feet of water during each year's
maximum flow. Field observations have also indicated that portions of the
Alonzo property are subject to flooding.
The floodplain assessment findings do not appear to represent potential significant
limitations that would greatly affect the use of the site as a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility. However, due to the varying nature of the fill materials, addi-
tional characterization may be needed.
3.2.4.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment
The Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo site is not located in the state-designated
coastal zone. Therefore, no direct impacts are expected as a result of the potential
use of this site. EPA will prepare an additional phase of its coastal zone consis-
tency assessment and subsequent coastal zone consistency determination, cover-
ing potential indirect and cumulative impacts from the operation of sediment
processing/transfer facilities, once the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging facility loca-
tions are selected.
3.2.4.9 Baseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species
Assessment
Site Habitat Description
The site is situated on the east side of the river and is located on the upstream side
of Lock and Dam 3 in Mechanicville. This site comprises several parcels that
have been used for agriculture, mining, and brick manufacturing. The only re-
maining structures on the site are located on the Brickyard Associates parcel,
where an active construction company has an administration building and garage.
These disturbances have influenced the availability, extent, and diversity of on-
site habitats across the three parcels. The majority of habitats on-site are early
(less than 20 years) to mid-successional (20 to 60 years) vegetation communities,
with several areas of late successional (greater than 60 years) along the shoreline
and within the inland portions.
Using Ecological Communities of New York State (Edinger et al. 2002) as a
framework for habitat identification, 15 community types were found on this 152-
acre site (see Figure 3.2.4-6). No sensitive or rare habitats were among them.
The dominant community type on this site is a mixture of successional northern
hardwoods and Appalachian oak hickory forest. Other communities include suc-
cessional southern hardwoods, successional old field, northern rich mesophytic
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-70
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Ecological Communities 11 B Appalachian Oak-Hickory Forest (AOF)
I 1 Unpaved Road I ISNH / AOF
tm Wetland ^RMF/AOF
I. I Successional Northern Hardwoods (SNH) IB .1 Marsh Headwater Stream
I I Successional Old Field Gravel Pit
[ ] Successional Shrubland ~~ Rural Structure Exterior
I I Successional Southern Hardwoods Mowed Pathway
li I Rich Mesophytic Forest (RMF) I I Mowed Roadside
Potential Excluded Area
Hudson^ River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.4-6
Site Ecological Communities
Bruno I Brickyard Associates I Alonzo
500 250 0
500 1,000
1,500 2,000
Feet
3-71
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
forest, southern rich mesophytic forest, successional shrubland communities, and
mixes of the communities above.
Aquatic communities on the site include a pond-wetland complex and marsh
headwater stream. A number of wetlands were mapped as occurring on-site (see
Section 3.2.4.6). The stream appeared to be perennial and is a low gradient riffle/
pool/run stream with a moderately incised channel.
The Hudson River shoreline is shallow along the extent of the Alonzo property,
which is characterized by a predominantly sand and/or muck substrate. Emergent
vegetation occurs within portions of the shoreline. A number of large black wil-
lows are located within and adjacent to the shoreline area.
Common vegetation species and the community structure of the site have an in-
fluence on wildlife occurrences. The availability of forested, shrubland, and old
field communities provides a diverse habitat for wildlife species. Incidental wild-
life observations included whitetail deer, eastern gray squirrel, tree frog, green
frog, mallard, great blue heron, and a variety of songbirds.
Endangered Species Act Issues
Bald eagles were identified as a listed species that could occur on the site. Ac-
cording to NYSDEC, there is no documented nesting activity in this area of the
river. Coordination and consultation with NYSDEC and the USFWS, occurring
as part of the facility siting process and for determining the details of a biological
assessment document for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site project, revealed
that the portion of the river in the vicinity of the site is a known wintering area for
the bald eagle. A biological assessment will be prepared to address any potential
impacts to the bald eagle as a result of the construction and operation of a sedi-
ment processing/transfer facility at this site. The biological assessment will in-
clude a literature review and any pertinent studies that are related to the habitat
near this site as well as life history information on the bald eagle.
In conclusion, the baseline habitat and endangered species assessments findings
do not appear to represent any potential significant limitations that would affect
the construction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility. How-
ever, a biological assessment will be prepared to determine the potential effects of
a facility on the bald eagle.
3.2.5 NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle
3.2.5.1 Phase I ESA
The three parcels of this site are mostly undeveloped. Key features are presented
on Figure 3.2.5-1. The site owner indicated that the Allco property was reportedly
used for logging, the NYSCC parcel was reportedly used for dredge spoils dis-
posal in the early 1900s, and there is no apparent previous use of the Leyerle par-
cel. The land within 1 mile is mostly residential, with extensive forestland. There
is also some light commercial land use along Route 4. The eastern side of the
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-72
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
lkzaE^5i6n@iaiEflnE$y
©•StSaBlMKi
Leverle
Surficial
Dumping Area
Allco
Tree Stump
Burial Area
EStatel
'Canal
Man-Made
Pond i
Allco j
Industrial
" fc" Park " >
Residences
Boat Dock
©niMifi
BmssSigassQ
LEGEND
Approximate Site Boundary
Tax Parcel Boundary
Active Railroad
HudsotTi River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.5-1
Key Site Features
New York State Canal Corporation / Allco / Leyerle
500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet
3-73
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Hudson River is predominantly open space, with some residential properties
nearer the river.
The NYSCC property is a mostly wooded parcel characterized by generally flat
topographic conditions on its western half and a pair of berms and slopes on its
eastern half, leading down to the Hudson River. Gentle topographic elevation dif-
ferences characterize most of the river edge, although an abrupt topographic rise
occurs 40 to 75 feet inland along the middle part of the parcel. There is extensive
river frontage but no rail access. Access is available by motor vehicle via a road
leading to Routes 4 and 32. NYSCC currently leases the southernmost portion of
this property for residential use; a house trailer and a small wooden cottage were
observed in that area. Remains of a former cabin are located in the middle of the
parcel. A concrete-block-lined well or septic system is located southwest of this
cottage. Several surficial dumping areas were noted along the base of a 6- to 10-
foot escarpment east of the access road. In addition, two unlabeled 55-gallon
drums were observed near the northeast corner of the property, north of this es-
carpment. Tar was noted on top of one drum. The contents of the drums are un-
known.
The Allco property is located west of Route 4 and is mostly undeveloped. A
small adjacent parcel is a business park consisting of an auto repair shop, a self-
storage facility, a building for lease, and a steel fabricating facility. Topography is
relatively flat; maximum elevation differences on the site are 15 to 20 feet. The
eastern and northern edges of the property are wooded, and the central portion re-
mains open. A creek enters the property from the west (near the northwest cor-
ner), turns north and exits the property, then re-enters the property near the north-
east corner and flows along the eastern border to a manmade pond, and then flows
off-site to the south. Exposed soil was noted to contain large cobbles and gravel.
The railroad is approximately 6 to 10 feet above grade. Gas, electric, and water
services are located near the southern boundary, and water service is also avail-
able along the eastern border. The area to the south is light industrial, and the area
to the east (on the east side of Route 4) includes undeveloped NYSCC property
and residential property.
The Leyerle parcel is currently undeveloped. While the Leyerle parcel has exten-
sive railroad frontage, there is no frontage on to Routes 4 and 32.
No previous site investigations were conducted on either the NYSCC or Allco
properties.
3.2.5.2 Phase II ESA
The environmental investigations at this site included collecting eleven surface
soil samples, six surface water/sediment samples, five subsurface soil samples,
two groundwater samples from newly installed temporary monitoring wells, geo-
technical soil testing at three locations, and the installation of one stream gauge
for hydrologic monitoring purposes (see Figure 3.2.5-2).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-74
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
G3327%0fi
.NCC-SS10
NCC-GP04
NCCrSS11A
Leyerle
NCC-SW/SE01
NCC-SS11B'
NCC-SW/SE04
NCC-SS09
NCC-SW/SE03
NCC-SS06
NCC-SW/SE02 NCC-GP05/
GT02
O NCC-SS05
NCC-GP03
Fa I Icq,
O NCC-SS04
NCC-SS08
ONQC-SS03
NCCJ3T01
NCCrSSHC
NCC-GP02
NCC-SW/SE05
NCC-GJ03]
< 'tmms ¦
j'Karieil I j^k
¦ |prpoTation^^^^
NGC-<3P01 + 9
Q NC.CzSS.0i1
NCC-SW/SE06
LEGEND
o
~
A
A
-I—
Geo probe Soil Boring
Geoprobe Soil Boring & Temporary Well
Geoprobe & Geotechnical Boring
Geotechnical Boring
Surface Soil
Soil Sample Adjacent to Railroad
Surface Water / Sediment
Stream Gauge
Railroads
Potential Site Boundary
Hudson1 River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.5-2
Sample Locations
New York State Canal Corporation / Allco I Leyerle
far. liVw
3-75
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The only parameters that exceeded screening criteria were PAHs in surface soil at
NCC-SS06 (surficial dumping area) and various metals in all sample media. In
addition to these compounds, levels of other compounds were detected above
screening levels: SVOCs, including carbazole in surface soil NCC-SS06 and di-
n-octylphthalate in sediment NCC-SS01 (on the Allco parcel) and pesticides in
surface soil NCC-SS01 (open field) and sediments NCC-SE01, -SE02, and -SE03
(Allco and Leyerle parcels). PAHs and other SVOCs are typically associated with
the fill materials (roofing, glass, cans, metal, auto parts, tires, etc.) noted in the
surficial dumping areas.
Most metals are naturally occurring in soil/sediment and surface water/ground-
water. Therefore, many of the exceedances may be attributable to naturally occur-
ring levels. In general, the levels of chromium in NCC-SS01 (general site area),
copper, nickel, and zinc in NCC-SS06 (surficial dumping area), magnesium in
NCC-SS03 and -SS09 (surficial dumping areas), and zinc inNCC-SS07 (drum
area) were noticeably higher than overall site levels. Also, of the metals that ex-
ceeded the NYSDEC TAGM guidance values, most were only slightly above the
eastern U.S. background levels, except for zinc in NCC-SS06 and -SS07, which
was 6 times and 3 times higher than eastern U.S. background levels, respectively.
Therefore, it appears that localized areas of metals above screening levels at the
site are from the surficial dumping activities. The metals exceeding criteria in the
subsurface soils are at the same relative levels as most of the site surface soils, and
so site activities on the subsurface soils do not appear to have had significant im-
pact. The metals exceeding criteria in surface water (iron) and groundwater (an-
timony, magnesium, manganese, and sodium) are naturally occurring metals (ex-
cept for antimony), which are often detected above criteria and are therefore not of
concern. Antimony was detected in NCC-GP03 (near the surficial dumping ar-
eas). The sediments contained arsenic, copper, iron, lead, manganese, and nickel
slightly above the low-level effect criteria, except for manganese in NCC-SS04
near Route 4, which was greater than the severe-level effect.
The environmental conditions detected at this site are indicative of typical domes-
tic and light industrial historic site use and do not appear to represent significant
environmental conditions that would affect the construction and operation of a
sediment processing/transfer facility. However, due to the varying nature of the
fill materials and dumping on the NYSCC parcel, additional assessments may be
warranted.
3.2.5.3 Geotechnical Assessment
Subsurface soil investigation locations were selected to provide general coverage
of the site. Additionally, locations were selected based on the possible presence
of fill in areas that may be used to construct the sediment processing/transfer facil-
ity. Figure 3.2.5-2 shows the locations of three geotechnical boreholes, NCC-
GT01 through NCC-GT03, installed during this study. At each geotechnical bor-
ing location, a continuous vertical soil profile was developed from the ground sur-
face to a depth of approximately 26 feet BGS in 2-foot increments. A 2-inch OD
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-76
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
by 24-inch long split spoon-sampler was advanced through 4.25-inch ID hollow
stem augers to collect the samples.
In addition to the geotechnical borings, subsurface geology was investigated at
two other locations (NCC-GP01 and NCC-GP02) during environmental sampling.
Using DPT, a 4-foot soil collection interval was used to collect a continuous soil
profile from the ground surface to approximately 25 feet BGS. Note that subsur-
face geology at another location, NCC-GP02, was completed to collect environ-
mental samples using a drill rig instead of DPT due to the rocky nature of the sur-
face soil. Similarly, geotechnical borehole location NCC-GT02 also served as
environmental sample location NCC-GP05 because the rocky soil prevented the
use of DPT in this area.
The site subsurface geotechnical data indicated extensive variation in site soils
between the NYSCC parcel and the Allco parcel. The NYSCC parcel contains a
10- to 16-foot thick layer of dredge spoils consisting of weathered shale frag-
ments, silt, and sand. Density of these granular soils is loose, based on SPT n-
values ranging from 7 to 10. A cobble at the 14- to 16-foot depth interval resulted
in an isolated SPT n-value of 64, which is not representative of the general soil
conditions. These dredge spoils are underlain by a gravel/clay/silt layer that
grades to clayey silt with increasing depth. A thin (less than 0.5 foot) layer of peat
overlies a gravel/silt/sand layer at the northern end and silty sand with gravel at
the southern end. Density of the silty sand is moderately dense to dense, based on
SPT n-values. Weathered shale was collected in the DPT sampler from a depth of
23 feet BGS at the northern end of the parcel.
Underlying a thin (less than 0.5 foot) topsoil layer, a gravelly silty sand comprises
the Allco parcel's overburden soils to a depth of approximately 2 feet BGS. A 0-
to 3-foot thick clay/gravel/silt bed overlies weathered shale. Split-spoon samples
indicate weathered shale varies in thickness from approximately 0.5 feet to 5.5
feet thick. Auger refusal and/or split-spoon refusal was encountered between ap-
proximately 6 and 11 feet BGS. Based on SPT n-values, the density of granular
overburden soils other than the weathered shale is loose nearest the surface and
increases with depth.
The geotechnical conditions detected at this site do not appear to represent signifi-
cant potential geotechnical limitations that would affect the construction and op-
eration of a sediment processing/transfer facility. However, due to the nature of
the fill on the NYSCC parcel, piling foundations and extensive roadway sub-bases
may be warranted.
3.2.5.4 Utility Assessment
Utilities identified at the NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle site include the following:
¦ Overhead residential electric service is located near the southern end of the
NYSCC parcel. This service enters the parcel along the driveway leading
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-77
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
from Route 4 to the two residential dwellings located at the southeastern cor-
ner of the parcel.
¦ Subsurface residential natural gas service is located near the southern end of
the NYSCC parcel. This service enters the parcel along the driveway leading
from Route 4 to the two residential dwellings located at the parcel's southeast-
ern corner.
¦ Overhead electrical lines are also located along the eastern side of Route 4 ad-
jacent to the site.
¦ Electrical, gas, and water services were noted at the Allco property buildings.
The utility assessment findings do not appear to represent significant potential
limitations that would affect the construction and operation of a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility. However, utilities will be further evaluated during design.
3.2.5.5 Archaeological and Architectural Investigations
Preliminary Archaeological Assessment
Based on the background research performed during the PCS evaluation, the
NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle site was considered to have a high potential for archaeo-
logical resources. The Phase IB Survey modified the preliminary assessment.
Archaeological Investigation
Phase IB fieldwork was conducted on the NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle site between
November 6 and November 13, 2003 (see Figure 3.2.5-3). More than 250 shovel
tests were excavated. The archaeological survey of the NYSCC property is com-
plete, and no cultural resources were found. Approximately half of the fieldwork
for the Allco and Leyerle properties is complete.
Geomorphological Investigation
Fieldwork was conducted October 23 and 24, 2003. Four backhoe trenches total-
ing 40 meters in length were excavated. One trench contained an old pipe, just
below the topsoil. A second contained a buried A-horizon (paleosol) with a pos-
sible old stream channel. A third trench uncovered large quantities of slag mate-
rial with the same characteristics as the second trench, but no features were un-
covered.
Architectural Assessment
Fieldwork was conducted during July 2003. This site contains a number of struc-
tures, including one residence that is more than 50 years old, a modern trailer, a
small dock on the riverbank, and three structures (two metal and one wood), all of
which are in a ruinous condition and have no integrity.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-78
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Leyerle
Allco1
*>Jew>York
''t State' 5;
^ Kanall -
Corporation
LEGEND
Potential Site Boundary
Archaeological Testing Method
Backhoe Test
Shovel Test (not completed)
Backhoe & Shovel Test
Backhoe Trench Locations
Hudson! River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.5-3
Field Sampling Areas
Phase I B Cultural Resources Investigation
New York State Canal Corporation / Allco / Leyerle
3-79
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Based upon current knowledge, cultural resource issues do not pose significant
limitations at this site. A residence in the southern portion of the NYSCC prop-
erty will require additional investigation to determine NRHP eligibility. An archi-
tectural assessment is needed for the Allco and Leyerle properties.
Phase IB field investigations for the unstudied portions of the Allco and Leyerle
properties need to be completed. Preliminary results indicate that additional deep
testing will be required on the NYSCC property.
3.2.5.6 Wetland Assessment
Wetland determinations and delineations of the NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle site took
place October 7 through October 10, 2003. Determination and delineation activi-
ties were limited to those areas previously identified through data review and ar-
eas identified as potential wetlands during the site visit.
NYSDEC wetland mapping did not indicate the presence of state-delineated wet-
lands on this site. Review of NWI wetland mapping indicated the site contained
approximately 26.95 acres of wetland. NWI wetland maps identify the shoreline
along the river as a lacustrine wetland. However, sample plots and determinations
did not extend into the river.
The mapped soil types within the site boundaries are Madalin mucky silty clay
loam, Bernardston-Manlius-Nassau complex rolling/undulating, and Manlius-
Nassau complex undulating/ rocky (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2003). The
Madalin soil is poorly drained and appears on the Saratoga County hydric soils
list.
Results of the Wetland Assessment
Field investigations resulted in the determination of 14 wetland areas encompass-
ing 8.61 acres of the site (see Table 3.2.5-1 and Figure 3.2.5-4). The delineated
wetland acreage represents a reduction in the 26.9 acres indicated on the NWI
mapping. A large portion of this discrepancy may be attributed to the alterations
to the Allco site as a result of recent logging. Much of this site was identified on
the NWI maps as wetland. Other areas appear to have been impacted by logging
and earth-moving activities as well. However, NWI mapping primarily uses re-
mote sensing techniques (i.e., photo interpretation) without field confirmation and
therefore does not necessarily represent an accurate description of on-site condi-
tions. Rather, the mapping is a basis for further investigation.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-80
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
REM1/SS1Chi
PSS1/EM1E
NYSCC/AL/L-15
R£M1/SSieh]
NYSCC/AL/L-14;
jSlYSCC/AL/ll-16p
NYSCC/A'i-/iKl7 ,
RF.Q1C
(P.EM^
!L rajbr,
NYSCC/AL/L-1
I^^^^cInVscc/aul-i 2
¦Vrfos
PEM1/SS1E
RUBRh
PFOIE
V NYSCC/AL/lgl,1
O* NYSCC/AL/L-1 Q
Ti M
,PEM1F
NYSCC/AL/L-18
»CC«1
PFOiC © NYSCC/AL/L-2
NYSCC/AL/L-9
•Allco
NYSCC/AL/Lj7«
RFQ1C
NYSCC/AL/L-3
Rmvc^c/al/|__5 ^ nyscc/aL/l-8
FUBH)p|YSCC/AL/L-6
¦ - - M ' di £
» ' m • ^NewYorkf J
& 5111 feorpo rat io h JR
NYSCC/AL/L-4
7
p.emibJJ
PF01C
RFOIChj
RUBF
PFQ1C
PUBF
PEiVVWV1
PFOICh
[rrqicS
RSSjI
RSS1F.
1
LEGEND
NYS DEC Mapping
National Wetland Inventory Mapping
Delineated Wetlands
Emergent
Forested
1 Forested / Emergent
I I Forested / Scrub-Shrub
¦ Open Water / Emergent
I I Open Water / Forested
o Observation Plots
M—Direction of Drainage Flow
HudsorTl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.5-4
Wetland Locations
New York State Canal Corporation / Allco / Leyerle
3-81
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Table 3.2.5-1 NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle
Wetland Delineation Summai
Community Type
Acreage
Forested/Unconsolidated Bottom
0.03
Forested
1.25
Emergent
1.54
Emergent/Unconsolidated Bottom
0.66
F orested/Emergent
0.63
F ore sted/ S crub - S hrub
4.51
Total Acreage
8.61
A creek flows along the eastern border of the Allco property to a manmade pond
and then flows off-site to the south. The pond dam has not been regularly main-
tained, resulting in shallow water levels and emergent plant growth.
Predominant species within the wetlands include green ash (Fraxinuspennsyl-
vanica), swamp white oak (Quercus bicolor), red maple (Acer rubrum), silver
maple (Acer saccharinum), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Cornus spp.,
buttonbush (iCephalanthus occidentalis), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), winterberry
{Ilex verticillata), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibi/is), spotted jewelweed (Impa-
tiens capensis), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), arrow-leaf tearthumb (Poly-
gonum sagittatum), broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia), reed canary grass
(Phalaris arundinacea), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), Carex spp., rice cutgrass
(Leersia oryzoides), and Solidago spp.
The wetland assessment findings do not appear to represent potential significant
limitations that would greatly affect the construction and operation of a sediment
processing/transfer facility. However, a facility design consideration will be to
avoid or minimize impacts on wetlands.
3.2.5.7 Floodplain Assessment
An initial floodplain assessment was conducted on the NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle site
in order to determine the presence, extent, and orientation of FEMA-mapped
floodplains within site boundaries. Flood magnitudes and historic river stages
from gauging stations as close as available to the site were examined to obtain an
initial sense of the characteristics of on-site flooding.
Figure 3.2.5-5 shows that portions of the site are located within the 100-year and
500-year floodplains. The site is located on the west side of the Hudson River in
the Town of Halfmoon. The areas included within the 100-year floodplain are
adjacent to the Hudson River within the NYSCC parcel and to the west of Route 4
within the Allco parcel. Approximately 16.2% (12.0 acres) is mapped as occur-
ring within the 100-year floodplain and approximately 20.5 acres (approximately
28% of the total site area) are located in the 500-year floodplain.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-82
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Leyerle
iNew»York
' State ,s
>".Cahaj'
.Corporation
V' »
LEGEND
Potential Site Boundary
Tax Parcels
FEMA Floodplain
100 Year Floodplain
500 Year Floodplain
VH
EI
Hudsonl River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.5-5
FEMA Floodplain Mapping
New York State Canal Corporation I Allco / Leyerle
500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet
3-83
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The closest gauge station with historic flow data is in Waterford, approximately 2
miles downstream of the site. The Stillwater gauge station is approximately 5
miles upstream.
Flood magnitudes were calculated from 26 years of flow data at the Stillwater
gauge station and from 21 years of flow data at the Waterford gauge station. No
100-year flood has occurred at either the Waterford or Stillwater gauge station in
the 26 years of modern data. In that time, there have been two flow events greater
than 10-year floods (March 15,1977 and May 4, 1983) at the Stillwater gauge sta-
tion and one flow event greater than 10-year floods (May 30,1984) at the Water-
ford gauge station.
Historic water-level data (1916 to 2000) are also available from NYSCC Lock 2.
Lock 2 is located approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the site. Based on NYSCC
data, the 100-year flood elevation for this site was reached twice (on November
10, 1927 and January 2, 1949) between 1916 and 2000.
The elevations of the site were reviewed using contour information and aerial
photography to determine an approximation of how a 100-year flood would affect
the site. It was determined that, in the event of a 100-year flood, the area along
the river would be under approximately 12 feet of water.
While the probability of a 12-foot inundation event (100-year flood) is remote, the
NYSCC water-level data on the downstream side of Lock 2 provide evidence that
flooding on a smaller scale likely occurs almost annually at this site. Based on
calculations of an average stage level using the maximum river stage at Lock 2 for
the available time period (1916 to 2000), portions of the shoreline boundary
would have been under approximately 16 feet of water during the maximum high
water level on January 2, 1949 and under an average of 3.7 feet of water during
each year's maximum flow.
In conclusion, the floodplain assessment findings do not appear to represent any
potential significant limitations that would affect the construction and operation of
a sediment processing/transfer facility.
3.2.5.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment
The NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle site is not located in the state-designated coastal zone.
Therefore, no direct impacts are expected as a result of the potential use of this
site. EPA will prepare an additional phase of its coastal zone consistency assess-
ment and subsequent coastal zone consistency determination, covering potential
indirect and cumulative impacts from the operation of sediment process-
ing/transfer facilities, once the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging facility locations are
selected.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-84
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.2.5.9 Baseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species
Assessment
Site Habitat Description
Disturbance from historic and current land uses has influenced the availability,
extent, and diversity of on-site habitats. The site is situated on the west side of the
river and Routes 4 and 32 bisect a portion of the site, delineating the boundary
between the NYSCC and Allco parcels. The NYSCC (waterfront) parcel is pri-
marily undeveloped, with both forested and open field areas. The waterfront was
used as a dredge spoils disposal area in the early 1900s. Currently two residential
dwellings are near the southern end of the parcel.
The inland parcels (west of Routes 4 and 32) contain forested and recent clear-cut
areas, and an area near the southern end of the Allco parcel is being developed for
commercial purposes. Because of the historic and current uses of the site, a large
portion of the site (42%) is disturbed or developed. Despite this condition, the
Allco and Leyerle (inland) parcels contain relatively large areas of contiguous for-
est. The majority of habitats on-site are composed of mid- (20 to 60 years) to late
successional (greater than 60 years) vegetation communities. Early successional
(less than 20 years) species dominate the disturbed areas.
Using Ecological Communities of New York State (Edinger et al. 2002) as a
framework for habitat identification, eleven community types have been mapped
as occurring on the 74-acre site (see Figure 3.2.5-6); no sensitive or rare habitats
were among them. The dominant community is the Appalachian oak hickory for-
est community, which comprises approximately 35% of the site. Other communi-
ties include successional northern hardwood, brushy cleared land, successional old
field, successional shrubland, and beech maple forest communities.
Aquatic communities on the site include the marsh headwater stream community
type. The stream is connected to several of the wetland communities found on the
site. (Wetland communities on this site are discussed in Section 3.2.5.6 above.)
The stream is low gradient and the substrate is dominated by sand and silt.
The northern portion of the Hudson River shoreline is shallow (1 to 1.5 feet ex-
tending 30 feet from shoreline), with the substrate dominated by gravel and cob-
bles, with sand more abundant on the southern end. The majority of the northern
riparian area contains mature trees extending to the shoreline, with several small
pockets of shale beaches. Large woody debris (i.e., fallen, rooted trees) is abun-
dant along the northern portion of the shoreline and absent from the southern end.
Common vegetation species and the community structure of the site have an in-
fluence on wildlife occurrences. The availability of forested, shrubland, and old
field communities provides a diverse habitat for wildlife species. Incidental wild-
life observations included whitetail deer, raccoon, turkey vulture, and a variety of
common songbirds.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-85
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Ecological Communities
I- ! Unpaved Road
RE Wetland
I ] Successional Northern Hardwoods (SNH)
I I Successional Old Field
I I Successional Shrubland
1' .1 Appalachian Oak-Hickory Forest (AOF)
D~H SNH/AOF
I I Beech-Maple Mesic Forest
[' j Brushy Cleared Land
Marsh Headwater Stream
I I Rural Structure Exterior
HH Construction / Road Maintenance Spoils
liiii
Hudson\River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.5-6
Site Ecological Communities
New York State Canal Corporation / Allco / Leyerle
500 250
500 1,000
Feet
3-86
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Endangered Species Act Issues
Bald eagles were identified as a listed species that could potentially occur on the
site. However, there is no known nesting activity in this area of the river. Coor-
dination and consultation with NYSDEC and the USFWS, which have occurred
as part of the facility siting process and for determining the details of a biological
assessment for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site project, revealed that the
portion of the river in the vicinity of the site is a wintering area for the bald eagle.
A biological assessment will address any potential impacts to the bald eagle as a
result of the construction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility.
The biological assessment will include a literature review and any pertinent stud-
ies that are related to the habitat near this site as well as life history information on
the bald eagle.
The baseline habitat and endangered species assessments findings do not appear to
represent potential significant limitations that would affect the construction and
operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility. However, a biological as-
sessment will be prepared to determine the potential effects of a facility on the
bald eagle.
3.2.6 State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management
3.2.6.1 Phase I ESA
This site consists predominantly of made land. The made land consists of dredg-
ings of gravel, sand, and mud from the Hudson River, material from building ex-
cavations, railroad-associated cinders, and trash. The made land was used to fill
in low areas, marshes, and bottomlands. In most places, the made land covers the
original land to a depth of several feet (City of Rensselaer 1987). By 1950, ac-
cording to the USGS topographic map, the western portion of the project had been
completely filled. Currently, the site is undeveloped and there are no buildings on
the site. However, there are concrete foundations located near the midpoint of the
eastern side of the site. Key site features are presented on Figure 3.2.6-1.
The site is bordered by a single-family riverfront residence and vacant commercial
properties to the north; the railroad right-of-way and a train station to the south;
the railroad right-of-way, industrial facilities, residential and commercial proper-
ties to the east; and the Hudson River to the west. A school and a cemetery are
located within 1 mile to the northeast, and a park is located within 0.5 mile to the
southeast. The site is mostly wooded and has a variable topography. The south-
western part of the site exhibits a gentle grade to a sandy or gravelly beachfront
along the Hudson River. A very steep incline of more than 25 vertical feet flanks
the northwestern end of the site. A gray ash pile (with an average height of 6 feet
above grade and a width of 15 feet) flanks most of the eastern site border south of
a sewage pumping station. Mounding with municipal-type trash at surface and in
depressions was observed in the northern portion of the site. Several piles of sur-
face debris consisting of glass, concrete blocks, roofing shingles, and tires were
noted throughout the remainder of the site. Three empty 55-gallon drums were
noted in the central portion of the site. The contents of these drums are unknown.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-87
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Marine Management
of the Hudson, Inc.
Surficial _
Dumping Area
.Rensselaer County
Sewage Pump Station
Surficial
Dumping Area
Surficial
Dumping Area
sTelephone
PolejPile
ft Berm
f jij (Possibly Ash)
Surficial
Dumping Area
/
«—
LEGEND
Approximate Site Boundary
Tax Parcel Boundary
Active Railroad
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
HudsotTi River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.6-1
Key Site Features
State of New York / First Rensselaer / Marine Management
3-88
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
In addition, a stacked pile of approximately 50 to 100 wooden telephone-type
poles is located in the east-central part of the site. A 24-inch-diameter sewer line
traverses the south-central portion of the site, then turns northeast to the pump sta-
tion. While rail lines do not traverse the site, there are approximately 2,000 feet
of direct rail access. A single active rail line borders the eastern side of the site,
and a railroad bridge crosses the river immediately south of the site. A railroad
yard is located south of the site. River access is provided by approximately 1,400
feet of river frontage. No dock facilities are located on the site.
According to the current owners of the Marine Management parcel, no previous
environmental site assessments have been conducted on the site.
3.2.6.2 Phase II ESA
The environmental investigations at this site included collecting seven surface soil
samples, three subsurface soil samples, three groundwater samples from newly
installed temporary monitoring wells, geotechnical soil testing at two locations,
and the installation of one stream gauge for hydrologic monitoring purposes (see
Figure 3.2.6-2).
The only parameters that exceeded screening criteria were SVOCs, including
4-nitrophenol in surface soil MM-SS01, PAHs in surface soils, and various metals
in the sampled media. In addition to these compounds, the following compounds
were detected above screening levels: SVOCs, including acetophenone in surface
soil MM-SS05 (surficial dumping area); carbazole in surface soils MM-SS01
(surficial dumping area), -SS07 (ash pile), and -SS08 (adjacent to rail line); and
caprolactum in groundwater from MM-GP01 and -GP04. The PAHs and other
SVOCs are typical for areas of fill and domestic/light industrial dumping areas.
Most metals are naturally occurring in soil/sediment and surface water/ground-
water. Therefore, many of the exceedances are expected to be associated with
naturally occurring concentrations or associated with imported fill materials. In
general, the levels of metals in MM-SS02 (copper, lead, and zinc), MM-SS05
(barium, cadmium, lead, and zinc), MM-SS08 (arsenic and zinc), and MM-SS09
(barium, cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc) are noticeably higher than estimated
overall site background levels. Also, of the metals that exceeded the NYSDEC
TAGM guidance values, most were only slightly above the eastern U.S. back-
ground levels. However, barium was detected up to 11 times higher than eastern
U.S. background, cadmium 25 times higher, copper 20 times higher, lead 17 times
higher, and zinc 150 times higher than the eastern U.S. background levels. There-
fore, it appears that there are localized areas of metals above screening levels at
the site associated with surficial dumping and landfill activities. The metals ex-
ceeding criteria in the subsurface soils are at the same relative levels as most of
the site surface soils, with levels of lead and zinc approximately 3 times and 13
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-89
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY 8 ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
MM-SG01
Marine Management
of the Hudson, Inc.
MM-GP01
MM-GTQ1
MM-GT02
MM-GP04^
MM-GT03
O
MM-SS05
MM-SS08A ~
LEGEND
© Geoprobe Soil Boring
£> Geoprobe Soil Boring & Temporary Well
© Geoprobe & Geotechnical Boring
-4> Geotechnical Boring
O Surface Soil
~ Soil Sample Adjacent to Railroad
A Surface Water / Sediment
A Stream Gauge
Railroads
Potential Site Boundary
Hudson! River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.6-2
Sample Locations
State of New York / First Rensselaer / Marine Management
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security
3-90
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
times higher, respectively, than eastern U.S. background levels. The metals ex-
ceeding criteria in groundwater (aluminum, iron, and manganese) are naturally
occurring and are therefore not anticipated to be representative of site-wide condi-
tions.
The environmental conditions at this site are typical for areas containing fill mate-
rials (domestic and light industrial). Since the site is made land, and the subsur-
face soils contain elevated levels of PAHs and metals, there may be some envi-
ronmental conditions of concern at this site.
3.2.6.3 Geotechnical Assessment
Subsurface soil investigation locations were selected to provide general coverage
of the site. Additionally, locations were selected based on the possible presence
of fill in areas that may be used to construct the sediment processing/transfer facil-
ity. Figure 3.2.6-2 shows the locations of three geotechnical boreholes, MM-
GT01 through MM-GT03, installed during this study. At each geotechnical bor-
ing location a continuous vertical soil profile was developed from the ground sur-
face to a depth of approximately 26 feet BGS in 2-foot increments. A 2-inch OD
by 24-inch long split-spoon sampler was advanced through 4.25-inch inner diame-
ter ID hollow stem augers to collect the samples.
In addition to the geotechnical borings, subsurface geology was also recorded at
three other locations, MM-GP01, MM-GP02, and MM-GP04, during subsurface
investigation activities completed for environmental sampling. Using DPT, a
4-foot soil collection interval was used to collect a continuous soil profile from
the ground surface to approximately 25 feet BGS.
The subsurface data indicates that the northern end of the property contains fill
consisting of silt, sand, metal, glass, brick, and cinders that extends to a depth of
approximately 18.5 feet BGS. This fill is underlain by sand, grading to a sand and
silt mixture containing gravel to a depth of approximately 25 feet BGS. Farther
inland, a thinner (approximately 2-foot thick) fill layer lies at the surface in the
northeast part of the site, south of the sewage treatment pump station.
Very loose silty sands and sand layers, classified per SPT n-value records, and of-
ten containing gravel, underlie the fill to a depth of approximately 17 feet BGS,
where a thin peat layer (less than 0.5 feet) lies. Clay underlies the peat layer to a
depth of at least 26 BGS. The consistency of this clay increases from very soft to
medium, based on SPT n-values increasing from 1 to 6 with depth.
The central portion of the site consists of an approximately 3.5-foot thick layer of
sand containing brick fragments, which is underlain by sand containing gravel to a
depth of 25 feet. Farther inland, the fill layer is absent. The density of soil in the
central part of the site is generally loose, based on SPT n-values.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-91
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The southeastern corner of the site also contains fill ranging in thickness from ap-
proximately 2 to 6 feet. A sandy clay lens containing gravel and about 1 foot
thick lies at a depth of approximately 6 feet BGS under the thicker fill zone; it is
underlain by layers of gravelly sands, clayey silts with sands, silts, and sands to a
depth of 25 feet. The thinner fill zone farther to the west is underlain by nearly
4.5 feet of clayey silt, under which layers of gravelly sand, silty sand, and
gravel/sand/silt mixtures extend to a depth of 17 feet BGS. SPT n-values indicate
densities in these granular soils are generally loose to very loose. Clay underlies
the southern end of the site, starting at a depth of approximately 17 feet BGS; its
consistency is classified as medium to soft, based on SPT n-values.
The geotechnical conditions identified at this site do not appear to represent sig-
nificant potential geotechnical limitations that would affect the construction and
operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility. However, due to the exten-
sive nature of the fill materials, pilings and extensive sub-base roadways are likely
to be necessary.
3.2.6.4 Utility Assessment
Utilities identified at the State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management
site include the following:
¦ A sewer pipeline extends from the southern end of the site to the Rensselaer
County sewage pump station (located in the northeastern part of the site).
This sewer line then bends approximately 45 degrees and extends toward the
pump station; a manhole is located at this bend. Approximately 50 feet south
of the pump station the line turns north and enters the facility.
¦ A 24-inch discharge pipeline extends from the pump station to the Hudson
River where the outfall is located.
¦ An overhead electrical power line right-of-way is located in the central part of
the site and runs north-south.
The utility assessment findings do not appear to represent significant potential
limitations that would affect the construction and operation of a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility. However, it is expected that utilities will be further evaluated
during design.
3.2.6.5 Archaeological and Architectural Investigations
Preliminary Archaeological Assessment
Based on the background research performed during the PCS evaluation phase,
the State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management site was considered
to have a high potential for archaeological resources. The Phase IB Survey dis-
proved the preliminary assessment.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-92
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Archaeological Investigation
Phase IB fieldwork was conducted on the State of New York/First Rensse-
laer/Marine Management site on November 14, 2003 (see Figure 3.2.6-3). The
vast majority of the site is fill and made land. The survey discovered one historic
foundation made from poured concrete. It has sectioned rooms, is surrounded by
fill, and does not appear to be a significant historical or architectural resource.
The Phase I field investigation is complete for this site.
Geomorphological Investigation
Fieldwork was conducted October 25, 2003. Most of the site contains a modern
landfill. One 10-meter long trench was excavated in the northern half of the site.
It did not produce any features, artifacts, or paleosols. No evidence was found of
the original shoreline indicated on historic maps.
Architectural Assessment
Fieldwork was conducted during July 2003. No structures are currently within
this FCS other than the concrete ruins previously mentioned. The NRHP-listed
Casparus Pruyn house and office is located approximately 300 feet to the north of
the site. Numerous NRHP-listed structures are located across the river in down-
town Albany, but the site will most likely be shielded from view by elevated
roadways and other structures. A potentially historic railroad bridge crosses the
river immediately south of the APE.
Given the current information, cultural resource issues do not constitute limita-
tions at this site. Further archaeological investigation is not recommended due to
disturbance and property history. Additional architectural studies are recom-
mended to address the viewshed of the Casparus Pruyn house and office and the
NRHP-eligibility of the potentially historic railroad bridge.
3.2.6.6 Wetland Assessment
Wetland determinations on the State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Man-
agement site took place on October 13, 2003. Determination activities were lim-
ited to those areas previously identified through data review and areas identified
as potential wetlands during site visits (see Figure 3.2.6-4).
Review of NWI wetland mapping indicated the presence of a NWI-identified riv-
erine wetland complex along the shoreline of the site. No further wetlands were
identified on any of the parcels. Although NWI wetland maps identify entire river
systems as riverine or lacustrine wetlands, sample plots and determinations along
the shoreline were limited to areas that exhibited wetland characteristics and oc-
curred above the ordinary high water mark. No NYSDEC wetlands were identi-
fied on the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-93
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT. INC. 2003;
Marine Management
'of the Hudson, Inc.
LEGEND
Backhoe Trench Locations
©
Archaeological Testing Method
Q Backhoe Test
El Shovel Test
rai Backhoe & Shovel Test
Potential Site Boundary
Hiidsonl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.6-3
Field Sampling Areas
Phase I B Cultural Resources Investigation
State of New York I First Rensselaer / Marine Management
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security
3-94
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
[X] NYS DEC Wetlands
Q US Fish and Wildlife Wetlands
HudsonT* River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.6-4
Wetland Locations
State of New York / First Rensselaer / Marine Management
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
500
250
500
Feet
3-95
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The Rensselaer County Soil Survey was reviewed to determine the soil types
mapped on this site (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1988). The mapped soil type
within this site is udorthents, deep and excessively drained soils formed in recent
fill deposits occurring on till and floodplains. Soils observed on-site had a large
sand content and may have been spoils piles from river dredging activities. Site
soils have been disturbed due to the extensive filling and dumping of trash and
building materials.
Results of the Wetland Assessment
Field observations of site vegetation, soils, and hydrologic characteristics indi-
cated that there are no areas on this site that meet the three-parameter approach
outlined in the US ACE Wetland Delineation Manual. Therefore, no wetlands
were identified as occurring on-site. Mounding with municipal-type trash at the
surface and in depressions was observed in the northern portion of the site. Sev-
eral piles of surface debris consisting of glass, concrete blocks, roofing shingles,
and tires were noted throughout the remainder of the site.
Species identified on the site include Norway maple (Acer platanoides), silver
maple (Acer saccharinum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), tree of heaven
(Ailanthus altissimo), American bitter-sweet (Celastrus scandens), glossy buck-
thorn (Rhamnus frangula), Carolina buckthorn (Rhamnus caroliniana), eastern
cottonwood (Populus deltoides), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), red mulberry
(Morus rubra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and spotted jewelweed (Im-
patiens capensis).
3.2.6.7 Floodplain Assessment
An initial floodplain assessment was conducted on the State of New York/First
Rensselaer/Marine Management site in order to determine the presence, extent,
and orientation of FEMA-mapped floodplains within site boundaries. Flood mag-
nitudes and historic river stages from gauging stations as close as available to the
site were examined to obtain an initial sense of the characteristics of on-site flood-
ing.
Figure 3.2.6-5 shows that portions of the site are located within the 100-year and
500-year floodplains. The site is located on the east side of the Hudson River in
the City of Rensselaer. The site is located almost entirely within the 100-year
floodplain, with the exception of a narrow strip of land along the eastern bound-
ary. This latter area is mapped as occurring within the 500-year floodplain. The
entire width (-575 feet) of the northern portion of the site is within the 100-year
floodplain. Approximately 89.8% (14.9 acres) of the total area is within the 100-
year floodplain and approximately 16.6 acres (100% of the total site area) is
within the 500-year floodplain.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-96
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
Potential Site Boundary
Tax Parcels
FEMA Floodplain
EZ2 100 Year Floodplain
ESI 500 Year Floodplain
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
HudsotTi River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.6-5
FEMA Floodplain Mapping
State of New York / First Rensselaer / Marine Management
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The closest gauge station with historic flow data is the Troy gauge station (per the
National Weather Service station TRYN6, which is also the same as the USGS
station 01358000 on Green Island), approximately 7 miles upstream of the site
location. Flood magnitudes were calculated from 57 years of flow data at the
Troy/Green Island gauge station.
No 100-year flood has occurred in the 57 years of modern data at the Troy/Green
Island gauge station. In that time, there have been five flow events greater than a
10-year flood, including three that were also greater than a 20-year flood (Decem-
ber 31, 1948; March 14, 1977; and January 20, 1996).
The elevations of the site were reviewed using contour information and aerial
photography to determine an approximation of how a 100-year flood would affect
the site. It was determined that, in the event of a 100-year flood, the river frontage
would be under approximately 20 feet of water.
While the probability of a 20-foot inundation event (100-year flood) is remote,
there is the possibility of flooding on a smaller scale. The Flood Insurance Study
shows the 10-year flood profile in the vicinity of the site to be 15 feet National
Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The study indicates that flooding may occur
during any season. However, the majority of major floods have occurred during
the months of February, March, April, and May. Through the time of the report
(1979), the five worst floods on the Hudson River that caused damage in the City
of Rensselaer were identified as February 1900 (80-year flood), March 1902 (50-
year flood), March 1913 (120-year flood), March 1936 (33-year flood), and Janu-
ary 1949 (30-year flood).
The facility design will have to consider the presence and extent of the 100-year
floodplain across the site.
3.2.6.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment
The State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management site is located
within the state-defined Hudson River Coastal Management Area. In addition, the
City of Rensselaer has an approved LWRP (City of Rensselaer 1987). The state
CMP provides for policies and procedures on development and other activities
within the state-defined coastal zone. The Rensselaer LWRP provides additional
purposes and objectives of the city's planned uses for the Rensselaer coastal zone.
If the State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management site were selected
as a site for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging, the siting of a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility at this location would be consistent with state CMP develop-
ment policies to revitalize underutilized waterfront areas for commercial and in-
dustrial uses (Policy 1) and to facilitate the siting of water-dependent uses and fa-
cilities on or adjacent to coastal waters (Policy 2). It is anticipated that the layout,
construction, and operation of the facility at the site would not have an adverse
effect on other relevant policies of the state CMP.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-98
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
EPA will prepare an additional phase of its coastal zone consistency determina-
tion, covering potential indirect and cumulative impacts from the operation of
sediment processing/transfer facilities, once the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging fa-
cility locations are selected.
However, locating the sediment processing/transfer facility at this site may not be
consistent with the Rensselaer LWRP. The area encompassing the site is cur-
rently zoned as commercial/industrial, but the Rensselaer LWRP states that "resi-
dential and associated open space use here would be more consistent with the
City's stated efforts to concentrate commercial/industrial development to the west
and south of the Conrail tracks, with residential neighborhood stabilization and
revitalization encouraged elsewhere in the City" (City of Rensselaer 1987). Con-
sequently, the use of this site for a sediment processing/transfer facility may not
be consistent with the approved Rensselaer LWRP. Further analysis would have
to be conducted to determine the consistency issue.
3.2.6.9 Baseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species
Assessment
Site Habitat Description
Historic and current land uses have influenced the availability, extent, and diver-
sity of on-site habitats. The site is situated on the east side of the river within the
Rensselaer City limits. It appears to have been used historically and is actively
used for surficial dumping. In addition, the shoreline appears to be occasionally
used for angling. There are no facilities on the site except for a remnant concrete
foundation adjacent to the railroad right-of-way. The majority of the habitats on-
site are composed of early successional (less than 20 years) to mid-successional
(20 to 60 years) vegetation communities. It was noted that a number of trees in
the Appalachian oak hickory forest are late successional in age (greater than 60
years).
Using Ecological Communities of New York State (Edinger et al. 2002) as a
framework for habitat identification, five community types are found on this
17-acre site (see Figure 3.2.6-6); no sensitive or rare habitats are among them.
The dominant community type is a successional northern hardwood community
that accounts for approximately 84% of the site. Other communities include Ap-
palachian oak hickory forest, successional old field, and mowed pathways along a
partially maintained power line right-of-way,
Common vegetation species and the community structure of the site have an in-
fluence on wildlife occurrence on-site. Given the small size of the site (16 acres)
and the proximity of the site to urban development (i.e., the City of Rensselaer),
the site's use by wildlife species is limited. Wildlife observed included gray
squirrel, raccoon, and common songbirds.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-99
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Marine Management
of the Hudson,'Inc.
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security
Ecological Communities
Unpaved Road
| Successional Northern Hardwoods
i Appalachian Oak-Hickory Forest
I | Mowed Pathway / Successional Old Field
¦ Landfill / Dump
Hudson* River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.6-6
Site Ecological Communities
State of New York / First Rensselaer I Marine Management
3-100
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Endangered Species Act Issues
Shortnose sturgeon is identified as a federally listed and state-listed species that
could potentially seasonally occur near the site. Shortnose sturgeon habitat ex-
tends from the mouth of the Hudson River in New York City to the Federal Dam
at Troy (upstream from the site). Coordination and consultation with NYSDEC
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as part of the facility siting
process and for developing the details of a biological assessment document for the
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site project, revealed that the portion of the river
in the vicinity of the site is a known spawning area for shortnose sturgeon.
A biological assessment will be prepared to examine any potential impacts to
shortnose sturgeon as a result of the construction and operation of a sediment
processing/transfer facility at this site. The biological assessment will include a
literature review and any pertinent studies that are related to the habitat near this
site as well as life history information on the shortnose sturgeon.
In conclusion, the baseline habitat and endangered species assessments findings
do not appear to represent any potential significant limitations that would affect
the construction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility.
3.2.7 OG Real Estate
3.2.7.1 Phase I ESA
The site is currently vacant and is located in an industrial area on the west side of
the Hudson River. It is generally characterized by little topographic relief, exten-
sive river frontage, and the presence of an abandoned rail line. River Road and
Old River Road parallel the western edge of the site, but site access is limited as
the site is separated from local roads by railroad tracks and parcels that parallel the
roads. A small area in the southwest corner of the site is adjacent to River Road.
Within 1 mile to the west is a combination of commercial and residential land
uses and Interstate Route 87. An unpaved, overgrown access road traverses the
eastern side of the site. To the south of the site is a gas-powered electrical genera-
tion plant owned by PSEG Power, LLC. The site is vegetated by forbs and in-
cludes tree stands throughout. Forested areas occur along the river and within the
western one-third of the site. Weathered shale outcrops in the southwestern por-
tion of the site and forms a ridge that extends northward, adjacent to an active rail
line that extends parallel to the site's western border. Key site features are pre-
sented on Figure 3.2.7-1. The site is reportedly the former coal ash (bottom
ash/fly ash) fill site of the former Niagara Mohawk power plant that is adjacent to
the southern side of the site. Normans Kill was re-routed past a marina to the
north in 1952, leaving a ditch behind and an island between the ditch and the old
shoreline. Niagara Mohawk filled in this ditch with ash from 1952 till 1970,
eliminating the island. Riprap and wood piling shore stabilization were observed
along the river edge.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/22/04
3-101
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Port of
Albany
Railroad
¦^Bridge
Normans Kill
Ditch
Two High-Pressure Natural Gas
Transmission Pipeline Located
Along Electric Power Line
Right-of-Way
Abandoned
Rail Cars
Former Location of
Norma in siKiitW
LEGEND
Approximate Site Boundary
Tax Parcel Boundary
Active Railroad
Abandoned Railroad
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
HudsotTi River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.7-1
Key Site Features
OG Real Estate
3-102
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Various site investigations have been performed. In 1979 Recra Research, Inc.
and Wehran Engineering, P.C. conducted a hydrogeologic investigation, including
a water quality assessment for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. In 1982,
Empire Soils Investigations, Inc. performed a preliminary geotechnical engineer-
ing evaluation of the proposed on-site ash disposal area for the Albany Steam
Generating Station for Niagara Mohawk. In the mid-1990s, Law Engineering and
Environmental Services performed additional site investigations (Law Environ-
mental Consultants, Inc. 1996; 1997). These reports describe a late-1997 ground-
water quality assessment and a late-1991 wetland delineation. The Law
Engineering report presents groundwater elevation information, hydraulic conduc-
tivity results, and maps of the extent of the bottom ash/fly ash. They report the
tidal fluctuation of the Hudson River at 3.37 feet with a fluctuation of up to 2.38
feet in nearby groundwater monitoring wells. They also report that the studies
conducted between 1979 and 1988 show that the quality of the groundwater is
generally good and that New York State Groundwater Quality Standards are gen-
erally only exceeded for iron and manganese. Soil analyses reported by Law indi-
cate that there are localized variations in metals concentrations and that at one lo-
cation the New York State guidance value for benzene and toluene was exceeded.
Several groundwater monitoring wells installed during the abovementioned inves-
tigations remain on-site. In addition, Wilson Environmental Technologies, Inc.
performed wetland delineation at the site in 2000.
3.2.7.2 Phase II ESA
The environmental investigations at this site included collecting eight surface soil
samples, two surface water samples, four sediment samples, three subsurface soil
samples, three groundwater samples from newly installed temporary monitoring
wells, and the installation of one stream gauge for hydrologic monitoring purposes
(see Figure 3.2.7-2). Geotechnical soil testing was not performed at this site
because available existing information was sufficient.
The only parameters that exceeded screening criteria were PAHs in surface soils
OG-SSOl (ash), OG-SS05 (drum area), and OG-SS07 and -SS08 (adjacent to rail
spurs) and sediments (OG-SE02 and -SE03) from the creek in the northwest por-
tion of the site; one pesticide (beta-BHC) in the sediment from the creek (OG-
SE03); and various metals in all sample media. In addition to these compounds,
the following compounds were detected above screening levels: one SVOC (car-
bazole) and two herbicides (dichlorprop and 2,4-DB) in surface soils adjacent to
the rail spurs. Most of these compounds are typical for sites containing ash, rail
lines, and light industrial dumping. The presence of metals above screening levels
is discussed below. Phase II ESA sample locations are presented on Figure
3.2.7-2.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-103
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT. INC 2003;
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security
OG.-SW03
uw-ssut
t?a c ofv
No 3
LEGEND
Geoprobe Soil Boring
-fy- Geoprobe Soil Boring & Temporary Well
-$>- Geoprobe & Geotechnical Boring
Geotechnical Boring
O Surface Soil
~ Soil Sample Adjacent to Railroad
A Surface Water / Sediment
A Stream Gauge
—I—I- Railroads
Potential Site Boundary
Hudsonl River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.7-2
Sample Locations
OG Real Estate
3-104
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
In general, metals in OG-SS02, OG-SS03, OB-SS04, and OG-SS06 (arsenic and
nickel and vanadium in OG-SS06) and OG-SS08 (copper and nickel) are noticea-
bly higher than overall site levels. Also, of the metals that exceeded the NYSDEC
TAGM guidance values, most were only slightly above the eastern U.S. back-
ground levels. However, copper, vanadium, and nickel were detected up to 13
times, 30 times, and 90 times higher, respectively, than eastern U.S. background
levels. Therefore, it appears that higher levels of metals occur adjacent to the rail
lines and throughout the site from the ash. The metals exceeding criteria in the
subsurface soils are generally below eastern U.S. background, except for arsenic,
which was four times higher than eastern U.S. background in OG-GPOl (collected
from 2.5 to 4 feet BGS, as opposed to the other samples, which were collected at
greater than 14 feet BGS). This is likely due to the presence of fly ash. Of the
metals exceeding criteria in surface water (iron) and groundwater (arsenic, iron,
and manganese, and sodium), most are naturally occurring metals (all except arse-
nic). The concentration of arsenic above screening levels in the groundwater is
likely attributable to the ash. The sediment contained arsenic, copper, iron, lead,
mercury, and silver above low-effect levels and nickel above severe-effect levels.
This is also likely attributable to the presence of ash across the site.
The levels of contaminants detected in the sampled media from this site are typi-
cally associated with ash and light industrial disposal areas. It appears the ash fill
has impacted surface and subsurface soils, sediment, and groundwater at the site
and may pose potential limitations to the construction and operation of a sediment
processing/transfer facility. However, it is expected that subsurface conditions in
areas where fill is present could be addressed during design.
3.2.7.3 Geotechnical Assessment
Geotechnical samples were not collected at this site because such data were avail-
able from other studies. However, subsurface geology was investigated at three
locations (OG-GPOl - OG-GP03) during soil investigations for environmental
sampling. Using DPT, a 4-foot soil collection interval was used to collect a con-
tinuous soil profile from the ground surface to approximately 25 feet BGS.
Soil strata were similar across the site. East of the power line right-of-way, layers
of silt and very fine sand underlie the site topsoil to a depth of approximately 24
feet, where a layer of gravel with intermixed sand and clay extends to a depth of at
least 56 feet. Similar silts and very fine sands are also present at the northern end
of the site to a depth of at least 25 feet and at the southern end of the site to a
depth of approximately 16.5 feet. The southern silt and sand layers are underlain
by approximately 3 feet of clay, beneath which lies sand to a depth of at least 25
feet.
Previous investigations show that in the area west of the railroad spur that bisects
the property (in a north-south direction) fly ash fill is present in an elliptical shape,
with depths ranging from ground surface at the outer ends to 18.5 feet in the cen-
ter. East of the railroad spur, Law reports ash thickness in approximately the
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-105
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
southern two-thirds of the site as varying in thickness from the ground surface at
the perimeter to 27.5 feet in the center. In the January 1997 report, Law also pro-
vides geologic cross section data that shows ash paralleling the Hudson River
shoreline, west of the railroad, with combinations of silt, clay, and fine sand. Ash
was not encountered in the northern end of the site. A sand and gravel fill over-
lies a silt and clay layer, which in turn is underlain by a much thicker bed of silty
fine sand and gravel. Silty fine sand underlies the entire site. Law's east-west
cross section of the site shows two distinct ash deposits separated by the railroad
spur, which sits atop a silty fine sand and a silty clay layer. This cross section also
shows silty fine sand underlies the entire site. Law's cross section of the site's
southern end indicates silt and clay underlie the entire end. Adjacent to the Hud-
son River, a silty fine sand lies between the ash deposit and the silt and clay. Fur-
ther inland, a silty clay and fine sand deposit lies between the ash and the underly-
ing silt and clay. Wooden pilings and riprap were noted along most of the river
bank, presumably for erosion control.
Recra Research, Inc. and Wehran Engineering, P.C. (1979) indicated that the ash
was placed as a slurry and is soft, exhibiting engineering characteristics similar to
soft silt. However, they also report that it has a lower density and different sur-
face characteristics that cause it to be somewhat more pervious to water and
somewhat more compressible than a similar depth of natural silts.
A preliminary geotechnical engineering evaluation for the site was prepared by
Empire Soils (1982). In addition to subsurface geologic boring data to depths of
nearly 100 feet, recorded on soil boring logs, it also provides geotechnical evalua-
tion such as slope stability analysis, settlement analysis, and a clay deposit charac-
terization. It also provides compression test data and permeability test data.
The geotechnical conditions (shallow groundwater and thick deposits of ash) may
pose geotechnical limitations that would affect the construction and operation of a
sediment processing/transfer facility. However, it is expected that subsurface
conditions in areas where fill is present could be addressed during design.
3.2.7.4 Utility Assessment
Utilities identified at the OG Real Estate site include the following:
¦ A high-voltage overhead Niagara Mohawk electrical power transmission line
right-of-way runs north-south through the center of the site.
¦ Two high-pressure natural gas transmission pipelines (Dominion Gas and Ni-
agara Mohawk Gas) are located within the Niagara Mohawk electrical power
line corridor.
¦ The Town of Bethlehem reports that they operate subsurface sewer and water
service lines located on the west side of Route 144. Route 144 is located west
and south of the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-106
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The utility assessment findings do not appear to represent significant limitations
that would affect the construction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer
facility. However, it is expected that utilities will be further evaluated during de-
sign.
3.2.7.5 Archaeological and Architectural Investigations
Preliminary Archaeological Assessment
Based on the background research performed during PCS evaluation, the OG Real
Estate property was considered to have a high potential for archaeological re-
sources. The Phase IB Survey and the previous investigations conducted on the
site disproved the preliminary assessment.
Archaeological Investigations
Phase I investigations were previously completed by Dr. Edward V. Curtin (Cur-
tin September 2003) for the OG Real Estate property. Additional investigations
were not recommended. These recommendations have been accepted by the
OPRHP.
A small portion of this site was not previously included in Dr. Curtin's investiga-
tion. It was surveyed on November 15, 2003 (see Figure 3.2.7-3). This area was a
high hill overlooking the Hudson River. It appeared that the southern two-thirds
of this hill had been blasted or excavated away. A foundation and mortared brick
cistern were found in this area, but shovel testing near these features found no
other cultural resources.
The Phase I field investigation is complete for this FCS.
Geomorphological Investigations
This site required no deep testing.
Architectural Assessment
There are no architectural concerns at this site.
In conclusion, this site offers no cultural resources limitations. No further investi-
gations are recommended.
3.2.7.6 Wetland Assessment
Wetland determinations/delineations were not conducted on the OGReal Estate
property as part of the field site-specific field investigations of the FCSs. A Sec-
tion 404 Wetland Delineation Report, prepared by Wilson Environmental Tech-
nologies, Inc (2000) and recently approved by the US ACE, mapped wetlands that
were observed during habitat assessment fieldwork on October 15, 2003. Appli-
cable wetland data (e.g., soil surveys, NWI mapping, etc.) were reviewed before-
hand to provide background information.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-107
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT. INC. 2003;
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security
Beacoft
No 3
LEGEND
Backhoe Trench Locations
Archaeological Testing Method
czi Backhoe Test
Shovel Test
Backhoe & Shovel Test
Potential Site Boundary
1 Most of This Site Was Previously
Surveyed By Dr. Edward Curtin
Hudsonl River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.7-3
Field Sampling Areas1
Phase I B Cultural Resources Investigation
OG Real Estate
3-108
-------
ecology arid environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Review of NWI mapping indicated the site contained approximately 57.63 acres
of wetlands. NYSDEC wetland mapping identified one wetland encompassing
73.14 acres of the site. This wetland was identified as freshwater wetland D-6.
However, the Wilson Environmental Technologies, Inc. report contains a letter
from NYSDEC indicating that wetland D-6 was mapped in error and was in the
process of being removed from their wetland mapping database.
Results of the Wetland Assessment
The result of the Wilson Inc. delineation and the subsequent USACE site visit was
the identification of three wetlands, totaling 0.92 acres (see Table 3.2.7-1 and Fig-
ure 3.2.7-4). The substantial change in wetland acreage, in part, is the result of
recognizing that the years of previous fly ash disposal have disturbed site soils to
the point that they are not considered to be wetland soils. Two wetlands in the
southeastern portion of the site were located along the shoreline approximately 15
feet below the prevailing elevation of the site in the area. Although not fully iden-
tified in the Wilson Inc. report, these areas are believed to be riparian emergent
wetlands subject to frequent inundation, based on river stage. The third wetland
(Wetland C) is located near the shoreline in the northeastern corner of the site.
This wetland is a forested floodplain area, likely subject to seasonal inundation.
Table 3.2.7-1 OG Real Estate Wetland Summary
Wetland ID
Community Type
Acreage
Wetland A
Riverine Emergent
0.16
Wetland B
Riverine Emergent
0.55
Wetland C
Forested
0.21
Total Acreage
0.92
The dominant species in site wetlands is common three-square (Scirpus cimeri-
ccinus). Other species include quaking aspen (Populus deltoides), narrowleaf cat-
tail (Typhci angustifolia), three-square bulrush (Scirpuspungens), common buck-
thorn (Rhamnus catharatica), Asiatic bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), and
purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicarici).
In conclusion, the wetland assessment findings do not appear to represent any po-
tential significant limitations that would affect the construction and operation of a
sediment processing/transfer facility. Facility design will involve avoiding and
minimizing impacts on wetlands, when practicable.
3.2.7.7 Floodplain Assessment
An initial floodplain assessment was conducted on the OG Real Estate site in or-
der to determine the presence, extent, and orientation of FEMA-mapped flood-
plains within site boundaries. Flood magnitudes and historic river stages from
gauging stations as close as available to the site were examined to obtain an initial
sense of the characteristics of on-site flooding.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-109
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
C3I NYS DEC Wetlands
fZ2 US Fish and Wildlife Wetlands
~ Previous Wetland Delineation
Hudson^ River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.7-4
Wetland Locations
OG Real Estate
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
500 250
500
1,000
^3 Feet
3-110
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Figure 3.2.7-5 shows that a majority of the OG Real Estate site occurs within the
100-year and 500-year floodplains. The site is located on the west side of the
Hudson River in the Town of Bethlehem. The site is mapped as occurring almost
entirely within the 100-year floodplain, except for a portion in the southwest cor-
ner and a narrow strip of land along the western site boundary. Approximately
92.5% (87.8 acres) of the site is within the 100-year floodplain.
The closest gauge station with historic flow data is the Troy gauge (per the Na-
tional Weather Service station TRYN6, which is also the same as USGS station
01358000 on Green Island). The Troy/Green Island gauge station is approxi-
mately 10 miles upstream of the OG Real Estate site.
Flood magnitudes were calculated from 57 years of flow data at the Troy/Green
Island gauge station. This data indicates that no 100-year flood has occurred in
the 57 years of modern data. In that time, there have been five flow events greater
than a 10-year flood, including three that were also greater than a 20-year flood
(December 12, 1931; March 14, 1977; and January 20, 1996).
The elevations of the site were reviewed using contour information and aerial
photography to determine an approximation of how a 100-year flood would affect
the site. It was determined that, in the event of a 100-year flood, the river frontage
would be under approximately 19 feet of water.
While the probability of a 19-foot inundation event (100-year flood) is remote,
there is the possibility of flooding on a smaller scale. The Flood Insurance Study
shows the 10-year flood profile in the vicinity of the site to be 13 feet NGVD.
The study indicates that flooding may occur during any season. However, the ma-
jority of major floods have occurred during February, March, April, and May.
Through the time of the report (1983), the five worst floods on the Hudson River
that caused damage in the City of Rensselaer were identified as February 1900
(80-year flood), March 1902 (50-year flood), March 1913 (120-year flood), March
1936 (35-year flood), and January 1949 (30-year flood).
In conclusion, the floodplain assessment findings appear to represent a potential
limitation that would affect the construction and operation of a sediment process-
ing/transfer facility. The facility design will have to consider the presence and
extent of the 100-year floodplain across the site.
3.2.7.8 Coastal Management Area Assessment
The OG Real Estate site is located within the state-defined Hudson River Coastal
Management Area. In addition, the City of Albany has an approved LWRP (City
of Albany 1991). The state CMP provides for policies and procedures on devel-
opment and other activities within the state-defined coastal zone. The Albany
LWRP provides additional purposes and objectives of the city's planned uses for
the Albany coastal zone.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-111
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
3-112
LEGEND
Potential Site Boundary
Tax Parcels
FEMA Floodplain
VZ1 100 Year Floodplain
500 Year Floodplain
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
HudsorTi River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.7-5
FEMA Floodplain Mapping
OG Real Estate
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
If the OG Real Estate site were selected as a site for the Phase 1 and Phase 2
dredging, the siting of a sediment processing/transfer facility at this location
would be consistent with the state CMP development policies to revitalize under-
utilized waterfront areas for commercial and industrial uses (Policy 1) and to fa-
cilitate the siting of water-dependent uses and facilities on or adjacent to coastal
waters (Policy 2). It is anticipated that the layout, construction, and operation of
the facility at the OG Real Estate site would not have adverse effects on other
relevant policies of the state CMP.
EPA will prepare an additional phase of its coastal zone consistency determina-
tion, covering potential indirect and cumulative impacts from the operation of
sediment processing/transfer facilities, once the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging fa-
cility locations are selected.
The OG Real Estate site is located in the Town of Bethlehem, outside the Albany
City limits. The Albany LWRP southern boundary is the centerline of Normans
Kill, just north of the OG Real Estate site boundary. Thus, the OG Real Estate
site is not within the area defined as including the City of Albany LWRP. In addi-
tion, the existing location of industrial facilities north (Port of Albany) and south
(Niagara Mohawk power plant) of the OG Real Estate would likely preclude any
negative impacts associated with further development of water-dependent indus-
trial uses in this area. Consequently, if the OG Real Estate site were selected as a
Recommended Site, consistency with the state CMP could be attained.
3.2.7.9 Baseline Habitat and Threatened and Endangered Species
Assessment
Site Habitat Description
Historic and current land uses have greatly influenced the availability, extent, and
diversity of on-site habitats. The site is situated on the west side of the river, just
south of the confluence of Normans Kill with the Hudson River and the Port of
Albany. This site was formerly used for dumping ash from the Niagara Mohawk
power plant that is adjacent to the south end of the site. Normans Kill historically
traversed the site but was rerouted past a former marina to the north, leaving an
island between the ditch and the old shoreline. Niagara Mohawk then filled in the
ditch with ash, eliminating the island. Currently, there are no active uses of the
site. Given the historic and current site uses, the majority of the site is disturbed
and consists of successional northern hardwoods and successional old field com-
munity types. The majority of the habitats on-site are composed of early succes-
sional (less than 20 years) to mid-successional (20 to 60 years) vegetation com-
munities. Some bottomland-forested areas near the shoreline are late successional
in age (greater than 60 years); cottonwoods are the dominant mature trees.
Using Ecological Communities of New York State (Edinger et al. 2002) as a
framework for habitat identification, nine community types are found on this 95-
acre site (see Figure 3.2.7-6). No sensitive or rare habitats were among them.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-113
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Due to the presence of "sensitive content,"
certain data/imagery is unavailable as
directed by the NYS Office for Public Security.
OG Real Estate
Ecological Communities
1 Unpaved Road
Wetland
I I Successional Northern Hardwoods
I I Successional Old Field / Mowed Pathway
~ Successional Shrubland
~ Successional Old Field
~ Marsh Headwater Stream
~ Railroad
B Landfill / Dump
Hudson! River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.2.7-6
Site Ecological Communities
OG Real Estate
3-114
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The dominant community type is a successional northern hardwood community
that accounts for approximately 49% of the site. Other communities include suc-
cessional old field, successional old field/mowed pathway, and successional
shrubland communities.
There is one marsh headwater stream that traverses the northeast corner of the
site. This stream is a low gradient, meandering channel, with dense vegetation
(mainly Phragmites australis) along the streambank. Wetland communities oc-
curring on-site are discussed in Section 3.2.7.6.
The site shoreline exhibits the characteristics of a tidally influenced river shore.
The Hudson River below Federal Dam is exposed to daily tidal fluctuations. Most
of the shoreline is shallow with a sand/gravel substrate. At low tides, shallow
sandy flats are exposed. The southern end of the site has a 10- to 15-foot eleva-
tion change between the top of the bank and the shoreline. This grade gradually
decreases heading north along the shoreline to an approximate 2- to 3-foot eleva-
tion change between the top of bank and the shoreline. Normans Kill, which is
adjacent to the northern end, has relatively high (greater than 15 feet above water
level), steep banks that appear to inhibit the flow of water from the creek to the
site.
Common vegetation species and the community structure have an influence on
wildlife occurrence on-site. Given the overall size of the site (91 acres), a variety
of animal species use the site, including whitetail deer, waterfowl, and migrating
passerines. The combination of forest and field habitats provides edge habitat and
a range of food and cover types for a variety of species. Incidental wildlife obser-
vations included whitetail deer, gray squirrel, mallards, turkey vulture, and a vari-
ety of common songbirds.
Endangered Species Act Issues
Shortnose sturgeon is identified as a federally listed and state-listed species that
could potentially seasonally occur near the OG Real Estate site. Shortnose stur-
geon habitat extends from the mouth of the Hudson River in New York City to the
Federal Dam at Troy (upstream from the site). Coordination and consultation
with NYSDEC and NMFS, which have occurred as part of the facility siting proc-
ess and for developing the details of a biological assessment for the Hudson River
PCBs Superfund Site project, revealed that the portion of the river in the vicinity
of the OG Real Estate site is a known spawning area for shortnose sturgeon. Bald
eagles were also identified as a listed species that could potentially occur on the
site. Coordination and consultation with NYSDEC and the USFWS, which have
occurred as part of the facility siting process and for determining the details of a
biological assessment for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site project, re-
vealed that a pair of non-breeding bald eagles may be establishing a nest down-
river and south of the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-115
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
A biological assessment will be prepared to examine any potential impacts to
shortnose sturgeon and the bald eagle as a result of the construction and operation
of the sediment processing/transfer facility. The biological assessment will in-
clude a literature review and any pertinent studies that are related to the habitat
near this site as well as life history information on the shortnose sturgeon and the
bald eagle.
In conclusion, the baseline habitat and endangered species assessments findings
do not appear to represent any potential significant limitations that would affect
the construction and operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility.
3.3 Identification of the Group 3 Criteria
Group 3 criteria were developed from:
¦ Further evaluation of Group 1 and Group 2 criteria,
¦ Design-related information provided by the RD Team, and
¦ Field studies on each of the FCSs (with the exception of the Bruno and State
of New York properties, where permission for intrusive sampling was not
granted; see Section 3.1), which provided site-specific information that was
used to further identify and evaluate site conditions, resources, and features
(see Section 3.2).
3.3.1 Further Examination of the Group 1 and Group 2 Criteria
The following is a list of the Group 1 and Group 2 criteria that were applied in a
more detailed manner and/or applied using a different approach to create Group 3
criteria.
¦ Available Area was previously evaluated as a Group 1 criterion, and it was
assumed that an area of 10 acres would be necessary to support site opera-
tions. Preliminary design information from the RD Team has identified the
following acreage requirements: a sediment processing/transfer facility to sup-
port hydraulic dredging has been estimated at 15 acres (5 acres for mechanical
dredging) and 15 to 25 acres for the rail yard and facilities, depending on site
configuration.
Additional information gathered during the field investigations, the advance-
ment of the design through the preliminary stage, and discussions with the RD
Team have resulted in available space being evaluated in terms of "usable
acreage." Usage acreage is a Group 3 criterion and refers to the area within a
site that does not pose potential limitations to design. For instance, site topog-
raphy in portions of some sites may adversely affect suitability for the devel-
opment of waterfront or rail yard facilities. Other criteria limiting useable
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-116
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
acreage are evaluated separately (i.e., locations of wetlands and floodplains,
environmental conditions, cultural resources, etc.).
¦ River Access was previously evaluated as a Group 1 criterion in the earlier
phase of site evaluations. It was assumed that access was not constrained by
in-river conditions or characteristics of shoreline and near-shoreline areas
within the FCSs. Additional information gathered during the field investiga-
tions (both on land and in-river), the advancement of the design through the
preliminary stage, and discussions with the RD Team have resulted in river
access being evaluated in terms of "waterfront suitability." Waterfront suit-
ability is a Group 3 criterion and takes into consideration whether the shore-
line is adequate for construction of waterfront facilities and structures and
river channel depths adjacent to the FCSs and the potential need for periodic
navigational dredging. These considerations, in addition to proximity to
dredge areas, will form the basis for evaluation of river access.
¦ Rail Access was evaluated as a Group 1 criterion, and in the earlier phase of
evaluation it was assumed that access was not constrained by conditions or
characteristics of the identified rail or within the FCS properties. Additional
information gathered during the field investigations, the advancement of the
design through the preliminary stage, and discussions with the RD Team have
resulted in rail access being evaluated in terms of "rail yard suitability." Rail
yard suitability is a Group 3 criterion and takes into consideration whether the
on-site area is adequate to support both the processing operations and a rail
yard facility, whether site conditions affect potential rail yard locations, and
whether adequate rail exists to service a rail yard facility. These considera-
tions will form the basis for evaluation of rail access.
¦ Road Access was used as a Group 1 criterion and it was assumed that access
was needed for project personnel to enter and exit sites. Additional informa-
tion has expanded the definition of road access to also include site access
characteristics. Three of the FCSs have public roads crossing through portions
of the properties. At these sites, rail is separated from the riverside parcels by
roads that material may have to be transferred over, under, or across. Public
roads and on-site roads were observed during field investigations (vicinity re-
connaissance) to evaluate potential road access and use as it relates to con-
struction and operation of a sediment processing facility and rail yard.
¦ Utilities were used as a Group 1 criterion and were visually identified during
site-specific investigations. During the on-site field studies and in consulta-
tion with the RD Team, utilities have been further evaluated based on avail-
ability and capacity.
¦ Sensitive Resources were used as a Group 2 criterion. Identifying and deter-
mining proximity to sensitive resources was further developed by creating 0.5
mile and 1 mile radii around each FCS. Properties within each radius were
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-117
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
identified and counted based upon property classifications (i.e., residential
parcels, educational facility parcels, etc.). In addition, the 2000 census infor-
mation was used to obtain estimates of population in those areas (see Appen-
dix B).
¦ Cultural Resources were used as a Group 2 criterion. Phase IA and Phase IB
cultural resource investigations provided site-specific information regarding
the presence of prehistoric and historic properties, potential additional phases
of study that may be required, and/or the possibility that space would be fur-
ther limited by mitigation through avoidance of these resources.
¦ Threatened and Endangered Species were used as a Group 2 criterion.
Continuing coordination with the FWS, NMFS, and NYSDEC provided fur-
ther detail regarding potential Endangered Species Act issues at each FCS.
Some FCSs and nearby areas have been identified as occurring within known
wintering bald eagle areas and/or spawning areas for the shortnose sturgeon.
EPA is conducting a biological assessment to examine these issues.
¦ Wetlands were used as a Group 2 criterion. During PCS evaluation, wetlands
were identified using existing mapping resources and preliminary observations
made during the initial site visits. Field wetland determinations and delinea-
tions were conducted on the FCSs using the USACE Routine Approach, as
presented in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. These field observations
were used to map the locations and the extent of areas identified as wetlands
and to adjust wetland locations and boundaries.
¦ Geology and/or Surface Features were used as a Group 2 criterion. Site-
specific geotechnical and surface characteristics investigations were conducted
at FCSs where existing information was not sufficient to assess those condi-
tions.
¦ Floodplains were used as a Group 2 criterion. A floodplain assessment of
each FCS included a review of FEMA mapping and flood insurance studies
(where available) and a preliminary comparison of site shoreline elevations to
gauge station data and NYSCC river stage data. These assessments provided
an estimate of the extent of 100-year and 500-year floodplains, the likelihood
of 100-year flood events having occurred on the sites, and a rough estimate of
the extent of annual high water elevations. Once the sites are selected for
Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging, EPA will perform the final floodplain assess-
ment using the 500-year floodplain, which is considered the critical action
floodplain and is used per CERCLA actions (USEPA 1985).
3.3.2 Design-Related Information Provided by the RD Team
Preliminary design documents have been developed by the RD Team that are be-
ing reviewed by the EPA team. Meetings were also held to discuss design consid-
erations in the evaluation of the FCSs. As presented in Section 3.3.1, preliminary
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-118
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
design considerations such as land and rail yard requirements relative to site selec-
tion were considered during the evaluation of the FCSs to assist in determining
the suitability of sites. Additional preliminary design considerations identified
that can also contribute to site suitability include the following:
¦ Access to Borrow Material. Potential availability of on-site material and
compatibility for use in the project could be a factor.
¦ Safety. Due to the location of the dredging to existing structures (i.e., dams,
locks, roads), safety issues will need to be addressed.
3.3.3 Additional Factors Identified as Group 3 Criteria
The on-site field investigations of the FCSs also provided additional information
that could influence design and site layout for a given location. These factors in-
clude:
¦ Environmental Conditions. Phase IIESA sampling on the FCSs provided
information regarding site environmental conditions/potential contamination,
types and locations of contamination, the need for future sampling, the poten-
tial effect of contamination on site design, and potential limitations on avail-
able space.
¦ Dredge Material Transfer Issues. If used, hydraulically dredged materials
will be piped from their origin to a sediment processing/transfer facility. Sites
closer to larger percentages of material provide potential advantages for trans-
portation and productivity factors. Moving hydraulic or mechanically dredged
sediment material from the waterfront across the site also is considered under
this criteria.
¦ Navigation Issues. Physical features such as water depth in the navigation
channel, presence of bedrock outcrops/boulders along shorelines, river chan-
nel location/widths, bridge heights, and locations of locks/dams were assessed
with respect to various design considerations. These considerations include
movement and transport of barges, logistics of offloading facilities, and the
potential for modifications to the river/canal to allow vessels to pass safely
and efficiently as well as allowing movement to and from the site.
¦ Coastal Management Issues. An initial CMA assessment identified the
FCSs that are within the New York State-defined Hudson River CMA. Poten-
tial CMA consistency issues and existing LWRPs were reviewed. Although
assessments have not been completed, there may be limitations on site devel-
opment for FCSs within the CMA and/or those that have existing LWRPs.
Table 3.3-1 provides the Group 3 criteria as identified by further examination of
the Group 1 and Group 2 criteria, design-related information from the RD Team,
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-119
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
and additional factors determined from the site-specific field investigations. The
FCS evaluation process included examining the identified Group 3 criteria.
Table 3.3-1 Group 3 Criteria
Useable Acreage
Waterfront Suitability
Rail Yard Suitability
Road Access
Utilities
Sensitive Resources
Cultural Resources
Threatened and Endangered Species
Wetlands
Geology and/or Surface Features
Floodplains
Access to Borrow Material
Safety
Environmental Conditions
Dredge Material Transfer Issues
Navigation Issues
Coastal Management Issues
3.4 Evaluation of FCSs using Group 3 Criteria
FCSs were evaluated using Group 3 criteria in terms of benefits, potential limita-
tions, and additional design considerations. This is the third phase of the facility
siting evaluation process (the application of Group 3 criteria) and it has formed
the basis of the conclusions regarding EPA's identification of Suitable Sites. It is
EPA's intent to identify a number of Suitable Sites and to determine which sites
will be evaluated more thoroughly in the intermediate phase of the RD for the se-
lection of sites for Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging.
Based on the Group 3 criteria, the following sections provide site-by-site summa-
ries of benefits, potential limitations, and additional design considerations relative
to each of the FCSs, resulting in the identification of the Suitable Sites (see
Section 4). These benefits, potential limitations, and additional design considera-
tions are mentioned in the general order of topics presented in this report. If some
criteria (i.e., Group 1 or Group 2 criteria) are not mentioned in the text below,
Group 3 criteria were not developed from these criteria (i.e., existing and historic
land uses and land ownership) or those factors were discussed previously in the
report as part of the Group 1 and 2 criteria evaluation. Engineering and profes-
sional judgment have been applied to the factors described below and their rela-
tive importance to the project.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-120
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.4.1 Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC
3.4.1.1 Benefits
Based upon the evaluation of Group 3 criteria, benefits of this site include the fol-
lowing:
¦ Floodplains. As determined by the floodplain assessment, this site is not
likely to experience major flooding because it is outside the 100-year flood
plain.
¦ Dredged Material Transfer Issues. The proximity of this site to the dredge
areas in River Section 1 suggests that the site could receive either hydrauli-
cally or mechanically dredged material, or both. Sediments could be barged to
the site, and the NYSCC has indicated that necessary bulkhead construction
on its property is feasible. Sediments could also be transferred to the site by
pipeline, if the material is dredged hydraulically, avoiding the need to navigate
Lock 7. The pipeline could be constructed along the canal on NYSCC prop-
erty.
¦ Useable Acreage. The site is relatively flat and the length and width are ade-
quate for operation of both a sediment processing/transfer and rail yard facili-
ties. In addition, the majority of the site is open space (i.e., not wooded),
which will minimize the areas cleared and grubbed. Other useable area con-
siderations are noted below under Section 3.4.1.3, Wetlands.
¦ Rail Yard Suitability. This is feasible; approximately 25 acres and a rela-
tively long rail frontage would be needed. Site layout will allow for optimal
configuration and rail car movement using rail loops. However, there will be
long transfer distances from the waterfront processing facility to the rail yard
facility.
¦ Access to Borrow Material. Borrow material is located on-site and may pro-
vide backfill for dredged areas and/or other project-related construction needs.
¦ Utilities. Based on RD Team review, these appear to be readily available.
3.4.1.2 Potential Limitations
¦ Waterfront Suitability. The site is located on the Champlain Canal, not on
the Hudson River, but is close to a large percentage of the material to be
dredged. The canal is about 150 feet wide in the vicinity of the site. Although
the site contains adequate frontage along the canal, the site is not currently
suitable for project-related waterfront needs. However, a berthing area and
turning basin could be designed and developed. Movement of mechanically
dredged sediments in and out of the facility by water will require barging
through Lock 7.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-121
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.4.1.3 Additional Design Considerations
¦ Environmental Conditions. The site is actively being filled and graded with
thermally treated non-hazardous soils. These soils were generally character-
ized during the site-specific field investigation and no significant contamina-
tion was found. However, because of the potential variability of on-site fill
material as well as the ongoing filling operations, further characterization of
fill soils may be needed before facility construction. In addition, soils exca-
vated during berthing area construction will be characterized to determine the
suitability of the material for backfill or for removal for off-site disposal.
¦ Wetlands. Based on information provided by the RD Team, the design and
construction of a berthing area and turning basin may be affected by the loca-
tion and extent of the on-site wetland areas.
¦ Road Access. Road access to the site as it now exists is through residential
areas or through the ESMI facility and over the Canadian Pacific rail. Poten-
tial impacts to residential areas and the challenges associated with a rail cross-
ing will have to be addressed during design. The Lock 8 access road may
need re-routing around the berthing/waterfront facility. These potential limita-
tions are typical for construction projects.
¦ Geology and/or Surface Features. Subsurface conditions at the waterfront
may include poor foundation-bearing material.
3.4.2 Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC
3.4.2.1 Benefits
¦ Useable Acreage. Hilly topography limits the useable acreage. The site is
adequate for operation of both sediment processing and rail yard (transfer) fa-
cilities but is suitable only for a smaller rail facility, which would require sup-
port from off-site (i.e., Fort Edward Rail Yard). Factors such as variable to-
pography and site configuration near rail will be addressed during design. The
site could be used for a sediment processing facility with barging to another
rail load-out facility. Other considerations of usable acreage are noted under
Environmental Conditions, Rail Yard Suitability, and Cultural Resources.
¦ Waterfront Suitability. The site is located directly on the Hudson River with
adequate river frontage in River Section 1, where a majority of the dredging
will occur. Other waterfront suitability factors are discussed below.
¦ Dredged Material Transfer Issues. During hydraulic dredging operations
sediments could potentially be transferred to the site by pipeline. Much of the
sediment in the upper part of the river may be dredged hydraulically and
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-122
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
transported by pipeline, and the pipeline would be constructed along the river
and used to transport hydraulically dredged sediment to the site.
3.4.2.2 Potential Limitations
¦ Environmental Conditions. On-site dredge spoils disposal and historic
filling/dumping have resulted in surface and subsurface soil, surface water,
sediment, and possible groundwater contamination at the site. While the pres-
ence of this contamination does not eliminate the use of the site as a trans-
fer/processing facility, a variety of possible limitations result. Comparing
baseline environmental conditions to post-site use conditions will be difficult
to assess because the site is currently contaminated. Additional site charac-
terization may be needed once the RD Team has developed the facility foot-
print location. This could also affect the useable acreage identified above.
¦ Waterfront Suitability. Current water depths adjacent to shoreline would
require extensive navigational dredging. This portion of the Hudson River is
highly depositional and periodic navigational dredging may be required. Use
of this site may require designing and constructing an in-river channel. The
difference in elevation from the river to land would require grading and terrac-
ing to allow transfer of dredged material.
¦ Geology and/or Surface Features. Dredge spoils and fill material through-
out the site would present geotechnical concerns about support of foundations
and may require terracing. Roadways would require an extensive subbase.
3.4.2.3 Additional Design Considerations
¦ Cultural Resources. Archaeologically significant areas are located on-site
and a historic cemetery is located just off-site on an adjacent parcel. The RD
team should address these areas through avoidance during design.
¦ Rail Yard Suitability. While site topography somewhat limits construction,
the RD Team has identified approximately 15 acres that are adequate for con-
struction. However, the suitability of this area for rail yard construction is un-
certain and additional storage/staging facilities at the Fort Edward Rail Yard
may be necessary. It also may be necessary to barge processed material to an-
other transfer facility downstream of the site.
¦ Wetlands/Floodplains. Development may be required on small wetland ar-
eas and in the 100-year floodplain.
¦ Utilities. Power is nearby, but the supply may be limited. It is questionable
whether adequate water and sewer are available.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-123
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.4.3 Georgia Pacific/NYSCC
3.4.3.1 Benefits
¦ Waterfront Suitability. The site is located directly on the Hudson River with
adequate river frontage in River Section 2, relatively close to a majority of the
material to be dredged. It is adequate for constructing project-related loading
and unloading facilities. The existing bulkhead on-site was noted during site-
specific field investigations to have a water depth of about 10 feet. Assuming
the facility bulkhead area would be in the same general area, depth for barges
appears to be sufficient.
3.4.3.2 Potential Limitations
¦ Useable Acreage. Hilly topography limits the useable area within the site.
Other considerations about usable acreage are noted under Rail Yard Suitabil-
ity, Cultural Resources, and Geology and/or Surface Features.
¦ Rail Yard Suitability. Information from the RD Team indicates that the Bat-
ten Kill railroad (the only rail line with access to the site) may not be able to
handle the loads associated with rail cars filled with processed sediments. Up
to 20 miles of railroad may have to be rehabilitated. In addition, the site does
not meet the rail yard footprint requirements due to lack of the available space
on-site, challenges associated with site topography, and the location of a land-
fill on the eastern parcel. In addition, the site is located 32 miles from a major
rail carrier.
¦ Cultural Resources. The site has potentially significant archaeological fea-
tures that are associated with historic operations (paper mill) at the site. These
features will require further characterization before construction of an on-site
facility. However, these features may be avoided or, if avoidance is not possi-
ble, could be addressed with further investigation, characterization, and miti-
gation.
¦ Geology and/or Surface Features. Extensive fill material and other subsur-
face conditions would possibly require piling foundations. Roadways would
require an extensive subbase.
3.4.3.3 Additional Design Considerations
¦ Environmental Conditions. The site contains fill material in various areas:
a land-farm soil area, several areas where drums were observed, a former hy-
droelectric power canal that has been determined (during site-specific studies)
to be contaminated with PCBs, and a landfill area in the inland (eastern) par-
cel. Further characterization of the site may be needed before facility design
because of the potential variability of the on-site fill material, previous land-
farming activities, and the presence of drums and the landfill. In particular,
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-124
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
further characterization of soils may be needed before grading or excavation
during facility construction.
¦ Safety. The accessible shoreline area from the river is located upstream and
near the Northumberland Dam. This factor, along with the proximity of the
dam to the navigation channel, poses safety issues for vessel movement to and
from the site. However, these issues would be addressed during design.
¦ Road Access. County Road 113 separates the inland (eastern) and shoreline
(western) parcels of the site. The presence of this road between parcels on-site
and the need to cross the road to get to the parts of the site would be addressed
during design if both sides of the road are used in the operations.
¦ Floodplains. Part of a likely sediment processing/transfer facility may be in
the 100-year floodplain.
¦ Utilities. Electric power is nearby, but it is questionable whether capacity is
adequate and whether other utilities are available.
3.4.4 Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo
3.4.4.1 Benefits
¦ Useable Acreage. The eastern portion of the site is hilly and unusable, but
useable area is sufficient for both a sediment processing facility and for rail
yard construction.
¦ Rail Yard Suitability. This is feasible, using approximately 23 acres on the
Bruno parcel and approximately 20 acres on the Brickyard Associates prop-
erty. The site has direct access to the Guilford Rail System (GRS).
¦ Waterfront Suitability. The site is located directly on the Hudson River with
adequate frontage for development of waterfront structures.
¦ Access to Borrow Material. Borrow material is located on-site and may pro-
vide backfill for dredged areas and/or other project-related construction needs.
3.4.4.2 Potential Limitations
¦ Navigation Issues. Since the shoreline of the site is near Lock 3, vessel con-
gestion may be a concern. In addition, the train bridge located upstream and
near the site has a low vertical clearance, and proper clearance and depth of
the navigation channel depends on the water level adjustment made at the Up-
per Mechanicville Dam controlled by the local New York State Electric and
Gas (NYSEG) Corporation. These factors could limit transportation by water
from the site.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-125
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.4.4.3 Additional Design Considerations
¦ Environmental Conditions. The Bruno and Alonzo parcels contain dumping
areas, and the Brickyard Associates parcel contains vast areas of fill material
(predominantly brick) and other debris. The Bruno parcel was not character-
ized during site-specific investigations because permission to access the site
had not been obtained. Because of the potential variability of the on-site fill
material and surficial dumping, further characterization of the site (including
the Bruno parcel) may be needed before facility construction.
¦ Waterfront Suitability. The river is shallow where bulkhead transfer opera-
tions may be located. A significant amount of initial navigational dredging
would be required and periodic dredging may be needed to bring the barges to
the shoreline; this would be considered during design.
¦ Dredge Material Transfer Issues. The elevation difference between river-
side and the anticipated location of the sediment processing/transfer facility
may be a design consideration. In addition, the on-site rail line would have to
be crossed to bring the sediments from riverside to the processing area, ex-
pected to be upslope to the east. These issues would be addressed during de-
sign.
¦ Threatened and Endangered Species. The presence of possible wintering
bald eagle habitat could limit the area available for construction of bulk-
head/barge offloading transfer facilities and would be addressed during design.
A biological assessment is being prepared by EPA to address this concern.
¦ Road Access. Knickerbocker Road separates the shoreline parcel from the
inland parcels of the site. Given the location of on-site rail, material would
need to be transferred over or under the road to access rail and/or the expected
processing area. This will be addressed during design.
¦ Utilities. Electric and phone are available at the site, but adequate capacity
and the availability of other utilities is questionable.
¦ Geology and/or Surface Features. Soil types will require deeper founda-
tions. Roadways would require extensive subbase.
¦ Floodplains. Part of a likely sediment processing/transfer facility may be in
the 100-year floodplain.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-126
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.4.5 NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle
3.4.5.1 Benefits
¦ Useable Acreage. Usable acreage is affected by site topographic conditions.
The eastern portion has unacceptable topographic gradients, but a sufficient
useable area is available for both a sediment processing facility and a rail yard.
¦ Rail Yard Suitability. A rail yard is feasible on the western portion of site
and would need approximately 25 acres. The area is flat and existing rail line
is in good working condition. Service to and from site is available.
¦ Waterfront Suitability. This site is located directly on the Hudson River
with adequate frontage for development of waterfront structures.
3.4.5.2 Potential Limitations
¦ Road Access. U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32 separate the shoreline parcel
(NYSCC) from the inland parcels of the site. The presence of this relatively
high-traffic-volume road between on-site parcels is considered a potential site
limitation because an extensive conveyor system either over or under the road
would be needed. It is expected that this could be addressed during design.
3.4.5.3 Additional Design Considerations
¦ Waterfront Suitability. Current water depth adjacent to the shoreline may
require significant initial navigational dredging and possibly periodic naviga-
tional dredging.
¦ Environmental Conditions. The NYSCC property contains fill material,
possibly from the Hudson River, and areas of surficial dumping, including 55-
gallon drums in the northern portion of the site. Further characterization of
the fill may be needed before facility construction because of the potential
variability of the on-site fill material and surficial dumping.
¦ Dredge Material Transfer Issues. Portions of the shoreline have steep
slopes. Topographic relief from the shoreline to potential processing areas on
the southern half of the parcel approach 20 feet in some cases. Site grading
would likely be required to accommodate transferring dredged material from
barges to the site and will be addressed during design.
¦ Wetlands. Wetlands have been identified on-site, perpendicular to the rail
line. Rail and rail yard access design will have to minimize impacts to those
areas.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-127
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
¦ Threatened and Endangered Species. The Hudson River in the vicinity of
this site has been identified as a known wintering area for the bald eagle. The
potential for affecting the bald eagle habitat will be considered in the biologi-
cal assessment being prepared by EPA. The design would have to minimize
the potential impact on bald eagle habitat.
¦ Utilities. Electric and natural gas services are available on the southern por-
tion of site, but adequate capacity and availability of other utilities is question-
able.
¦ Floodplains. Part of a sediment processing/transfer facility might be in the
100-year floodplain.
3.4.6 State of New York / First Rensselaer / Marine Management
3.4.6.1 Benefits
¦ Waterfront Suitability. The site is located directly on the Hudson River with
adequate frontage for development of waterfront structures.
¦ Navigation Issues. The site is south of the Federal Dam at Troy, where the
navigational channel is deeper.
3.4.6.2 Potential Limitations
¦ Sensitive Resources. A review of census information revealed a relatively
high population density within 0.5 mile and 1 mile of the site.
¦ Coastal Management Issues. The City of Rensselaer has an approved
LWRP, which governs development in the vicinity of this site. The use of the
site for a sediment processing/transfer facility may not be consistent with the
approved Rensselaer LWRP. The potential conflict with the City of Rensse-
laer LWRP and current plans to develop the site for recreation are considered
to be a significant site limitation.
¦ Useable Acreage. The 17-acre site is insufficient for the operation of
sediment processing facility and a rail yard facility due to steep slopes in the
southwest portion of the site.
¦ Rail Yard Suitability. The site is not large enough for the development of a
rail yard, and insufficient space is available to move trains to and from the site
and switch trains, once cars are at the site.
¦ Floodplains. The floodplain assessment revealed that the site is almost en-
tirely in the 100-year floodplain. The flood insurance study revealed that the
10-year flood elevation is 15 feet and would encompass approximately 70% of
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-128
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
the site. In the past 57 years, there have been five flow events greater than a
10-year flood, as indicated by information collected at the closest gauge sta-
tion in Troy, NY.
3.4.6.3 Additional Design Considerations
¦ Environmental Conditions. Before 1950 the site comprised marshes and
bottomlands. It is now considered land consisting of river dredge material,
construction and demolition material, railroad cinders, and possible refuse ma-
terial. Further characterization of the fill may be needed before facility con-
struction because of the potential variability of the on-site fill material, poten-
tial ongoing surficial dumping, and limited intrusive investigations due to the
lack of access to the State of New York parcel.
¦ Geology and/or Surface Features. The extent, types, and depth (up to 18
feet) of the fill material that is widely dispersed throughout the site could re-
quire piling foundations. Roadways would require an extensive subbase.
¦ Threatened and Endangered Species. The Hudson River in the vicinity of
this site has been identified as a known spawning area for the shortnose stur-
geon. The potential for affecting the shortnose sturgeon and other habitat will
be considered in the biological assessment being prepared by EPA. Steps
would have to be taken to minimize the impact on habitat of the shortnose
sturgeon.
¦ Road Access. The site, as it now exists, does not have direct access to a pub-
lic road. Access to the northern portion of the site could be via Tracy Street.
It should be noted that this section of Tracy Street is residential. Accessing
Tracy Street from the site would also require crossing the active CSX Trans-
portation rail line. Design issues regarding road access and rail crossing will
be addressed during design.
3.4.7 OG Real Estate
3.4.7.1 Benefits
¦ Waterfront Suitability. The site is located directly on the Hudson River with
adequate frontage for development of waterfront structures.
¦ Useable Acreage. There are suitable, relatively flat areas available for both
the sediment processing facility and rail yard. The site could also be used as a
rail load-out site for processed sediments barged from other sites.
¦ Rail Yard Suitability. A rail yard is feasible and would need approximately
18 acres. The existing adjacent rail line is in good working condition. Service
to and from the site is available.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-129
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
¦ Navigation. The site is south of the Federal Dam at Troy where the naviga-
tional channel is deeper.
3.4.7.2 Potential Limitations
¦ Floodplains. The floodplain assessment revealed that the site is almost en-
tirely in the 100-year floodplain. The flood insurance study revealed that the
10-year flood elevation is 13 feet and would encompass approximately 33% of
the site. In the past 57 years, there have been five flow events greater than a
10-year flood, as indicated by information collected at the closest gauge sta-
tion in Troy, NY.
3.4.7.3 Additional Design Considerations
¦ Environmental Conditions. The majority of the site has been filled with ash
from the former Niagara Mohawk power plant, which was located immedi-
ately to the south of the site. The ash was encountered at depths as great as 18
to 28 feet BGS. The deeper areas were noted within the former channel of
Normans Kill, which once traversed the site and has since been rerouted. Due
to the potential variability of the on-site fill material, further characterization
of the site may be needed before facility construction.
¦ Geology and/or Surface Features. The distribution and depths of ash across
the majority of the site and shallow groundwater table (as little as 1 foot BGS),
suggest the potential for some geotechnical limitations and soil stability issues
requiring special foundations.
¦ Threatened and Endangered Species. The Hudson River in the vicinity of
this site has been identified as a known spawning area for the shortnose stur-
geon. The potential for affecting the shortnose sturgeon and other habitat will
be considered in the biological assessment, being prepared by EPA. The im-
pact on habitat of the shortnose sturgeon would have to be minimized.
¦ Road Access. A small portion of the site contains direct access to a public
road near the southern end of the site boundary. That portion is steeply sloped
and is not conducive to the construction of a site access road. Access to the
northern portion of the site from River Road (NYS Route 144) is possible.
However, access to River Road is gained by crossing private property and
likely would entail obtaining an ingress/egress easement. This issue regarding
road access will be addressed during design.
¦ Utilities. Electric, natural gas, water, and sewer services are available on or
near the site, but whether the capacity is adequate is questionable.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-130
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.5 Additional Studies
The areas where the FCSs are located were evaluated to determine whether the
construction and operation of a facility could result in disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-
income populations at any of the FCS locations. This evaluation was conducted
under EPA Region 2's Interim Policy on Environmental Justice (2000), consistent
with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.
In addition, three of the FCSs have public roads that separate parcels and/or prop-
erties within the sites. These include the Georgia Pacific/NYSCC site,
Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo, and NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle. Traffic count
information was obtained from the New York State Department of Transportation
(DOT) in order to get a sense of the volumes and types of traffic that use the re-
spective roads. The existing traffic environments at each of the FCSs will provide
an indication as to the design challenges and the potential for disruption to
through traffic.
3.5.1 Environmental Justice
The EPA Region 2 Interim Policy on Environmental Justice (EJ) provides a two-step
process for evaluating whether an EPA program or project could result in dispro-
portionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations or low-income populations when implemented. The two-step process
is described on EPA's homepage at http://www.epa.gov/Region2/communitv/ei/
overview.htm. The two-step process includes:
¦ A demographic analysis to assess whether the percentage of minority population
or low-income population within a community of concern (COC) is higher than
the percentage of minority population or low-income population within the estab-
lished reference area (e.g., New York State); and
¦ An analysis of the environmental burden to determine if the relative human health
or environmental effects are disproportionately high.
If any environmental justice concern were associated with EPA's implementation
of a program or project, EPA would be responsive to those communities and ensure
that they have access to information about the project or program as well as oppor-
tunities for involvement in the decision-making process.
This section summarizes the demographic and environmental burden analysis
conducted by EPA Region 2. The complete process is presented in Hudson River
PCBs Superfund Site: Dewatering Facility Location: A Comparative Environ-
mental Justice Analysis in Support of Project Site Locations (USEPA October 15,
2003).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B 1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-131
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.5.1.1 Demographic Analysis
The first step of the EJ process involves determining whether the area around an
FCS, (i.e., the COC) has a higher percentage of minority population or low-income
population than the percentage of minority population or low-income population
within the established reference area.
The minority population and low-income population are derived from the U.S. Cen-
sus Bureau's 2000 census of population and income. A "minority population" includes
individuals who are Hispanic, Asian American or Pacific Islander, African-American,
American Indian, and Alaskan Native. A "low-income population" includes individu-
als and families with a combined income below the poverty line. Whether an indi-
vidual or family is below the poverty line depends on thresholds that have been es-
tablished by the U.S. Census Bureau by family size and number of family members
under 18 years old and/or 65 years old or older.
EPA identified the COC as the area within a 1-mile radius and a 10-mile radius of
each of the FCS locations. The reference area for the percentage of the population that
is minority is either the total urban area or the total rural area, as defined by the U.S.
Census Bureau, for the State of New York, depending on the urban/rural classifica-
tion of the location of each FCS. The percentage of minority population within a
1-mile radius and a 10-mile radius of the FCSs in urban locations was compared
with the percentage of minority population within the total of urban areas in the State
of New York. Similarly, the percentage of the population that is minority within a
1-mile radius and a 10-mile radius of sites in locations defined as rural areas was
compared with the percentage of minority population within all of the rural areas
in the State of New York. The reference area for the percentage of the population
that is low-income is the State of New York.
As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, an area is "urban" if all the territory, popu-
lation, and housing units are within an urbanized area or within a place where
more than 2,500 persons are outside an urbanized area. An urbanized area con-
sists of a central place(s) and adjacent territory with a general population density
of at least 1,000 people per square mile of land area that together have a minimum
residential population of at least 50,000 people. The Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC,
Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC, Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo,
State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management, and OGC Real Estate
FCS locations are all considered urban areas. Areas that are not defined as "urban"
are defined as "rural." The Georgia Pacific/NYSCC and NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle
FCS locations are considered rural areas.
As shown in Table 3.5-1, the percentage of minority population within the COC for
each of the seven FCSs is less than the percentage of minorities within the reference
area, whether a 1-mile or a 10-mile radius was used to determine the COC.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/22/04
3-132
-------
ecology arid environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Table 3.5-1 Percentage of Minority Population within a 1-Mile and 10-Mile Radius of
Each FCS Compared to the Reference Area
State of New
Old Moreau
Bruno/
York/First
Energy
Dredge
Georgia
Brickyard
NYSCC/
Rensselaer/
Park/Longe/ Spoils Area/
Pacific/
Associates/
Allco /
Marine
OG Real
NYSCC
NYSCC
NYSCC
Alonzo
Leyerle
Management
Estate
% Minority population
1%
1%
1 %
<1%
<1 %
39%
16%
within the COC (1-mile
radius)
% Minority population
4%
4%
4%
6%
9%
18%
19%
within the COC
(10-mile radius)
% Minority population
52 %a
52 %a
35 %b
52 %a
35 %b
52 %a
52 %a
within the reference
area
a Urban.
b Rural.
As shown in Table 3.5-2, the percentage of low-income population within the
COC for each of the seven FCSs is less than the percentage of low-income popu-
lation within the reference area, whether a 1-mile or a 10-mile radius was used to
determine the COC.
Table 3.5-2 Percentage of Low-Income Population within a 1-Mile and 10-Mile Radius of
Each FCS Compared to the Reference Area
State of New
Old Moreau
Bruno/
York/First
Energy
Dredge
Georgia
Brickyard
NYSCC/
Rensselaer/
Park/Longe/
Spoils Area/
Pacific/
Associates/
Allco/
Marine
OG Real
NYSCC
NYSCC
NYSCC
Alonzo
Leyerle
Management
Estate
% Low-income popula-
9%
11%
5%
7%
5%
21 %
6%
tion within the COC (1-
mile radius)
% Low-income popula-
9%
9%
6%
6%
8%
11 %
11%
tion within the COC (10-
mile radius)
% Low-income popula-
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
tion within the reference
area
3.5.1.2 Environmental Burden Analysis
The second step of the EJ process involves an environmental burden analysis that
evaluates the relative human health or environmental effects associated with exist-
ing industrial, municipal, or commercial facilities within the COC compared to
the reference area. This comparison indicates whether relative risk rankings in the
COC are disproportionately high.
However, the indicators presented below are based on modeled data from a num-
ber of facilities in the COC and reference area. They provide a relative indicator
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-133
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
of the impacts of these emissions as opposed to an actual indicator of the impacts
of these emissions on human health or the environment.
As shown below, the analysis did not find any disproportionate risk in the COC
compared to the reference area for any of the FCS locations.
The indicators of environmental burden that were used for this analysis include:
¦ Region 2 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Air Emissions Indicator;
¦ Region 2 Air Toxics Indicator; and
¦ Region 2 Facility Density Indicator.
The indicators and the results of the site-specific analyses are briefly described
below.
Region 2 TRI Air Emissions Indicator
The TRI Air Emissions Indicator is a value that reflects the relative human health
risk associated with chemical releases within a defined geographical area or com-
munity. It is based on the TRI, a database of toxic chemical releases that are re-
ported annually by manufacturing companies and other facilities covered under the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). The indicator
value integrates the quantity and the toxicity of releases, exposure pathways, and loca-
tions of population areas into an indicator value for comparison purposes.
If the indicator value is higher than the threshold value (e.g., the median value for
the State of New York), the COC could experience a disproportionately high envi-
ronmental burden. Communities are ranked to provide a measure of the potential risk
compared to the rest of the state (the reference area). Ranking is established on a
scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest potential risk and 10 being the highest poten-
tial risk. If the indicator value is lower than the threshold value, the community is
ranked 0. The indicator values provide a "picture" of which COCs are at higher
potential risk when compared to the reference area.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 3.5-3.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/22/04
3-134
-------
ecology arid environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Table 3.5-3 Comparison of TRI Air Emissions Indicator Within a 1-Mile and 10-Mile
Radius of Each FCS
State of New
Old Moreau
Bruno/
York/First
Energy
Dredge
Georgia
Brickyard
NYSCC/
Rensselaer/
Park/Longe/
Spoils Area/
Pacific/
Associates/
Allco /
Marine
OG Real
NYSCC
NYSCC
NYSCC
Alonzo
Leyerle
Management
Estate
11 -Mile Radius - TRI Indicator
Site Indicator Value
1.53
1.65
1.54
4.26
6.68
3.21
3.28
Threshold Value
6.56
6.56
6.56
6.56
6.56
6.56
6.56
Risk Ranking
0
0
0
0
>0
0
0
110-Mile Radius - TRI Indicator
Site Indicator Value
1.88
1.87
1.63
6.65
6.87
4.61
3.58
Threshold Value
6.56
6.56
6.56
6.56
6.56
6.56
6.56
Risk Ranking
0
0
0
>0
>0
0
0
As shown above, the indicator values at all of the FCSs are lower or comparable
to those for the reference area (identified in the table as the threshold value), and
thus these areas do not pose a disproportionately high environmental burden. This
is further indicated by the risk ranking of zero for the 1-mile and 10-mile radius
COC. The zero ranking indicates the lowest potential risk using this methodol-
ogy. Although the COC within a 10-mile radius of the Bruno/Brickyard Associ-
ates/Alonzo FCS and the COC within a 1-mile radius and a 10-mile radius of the
NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle FCS represent a slightly higher human health risk than the
threshold value, the potential health risk is still extremely low.
Region 2 Air Toxics Indicator
The Region 2 Air Toxics Indicator is based on the results of the aggregated cancer
risk and non-cancer respiratory hazard index for a maximally exposed individual.
The information used in this analysis is derived from the 1996 National Scale As-
sessment for the National Air Toxics Assessment, conducted by EPA's Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards.
The Air Toxics Indicator is a unitless value that reflects the relative cancer risk
and non-cancer/respiratory hazard risk associated with ambient air concentrations
within a geographical area. It is based on an analysis of 33 air toxics that EPA has
identified as potentially posing the greatest threat to public health in urban areas.
The Air Toxics Indicator integrates ambient air concentrations and population ex-
posure into a unitless value for comparison purposes.
If the indicator value is higher than the threshold value, the COC could experience a
disproportionately high environmental burden. Communities are ranked to provide a
measure of the potential risk compared with the rest of the state. Ranking is estab-
lished on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest potential risk and 10 being the
highest potential risk. If the indicator value is lower than the threshold value, the
community is ranked zero.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 3.5-4.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/21/04
3-135
-------
ecology arid environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
Table 3.5-4 Comparison of Air Toxics Indicator Within a 1-Mile and 10-Mile Radius of
Each FCS
State of New
Old Moreau
Bruno/
York/First
Energy
Dredge
Georgia
Brickyard
NYSCC/
Rensselaer/
Park/Longe/
Spoils Area/
Pacific/
Associates/
Allco /
Marine
OG Real
NYSCC
NYSCC
NYSCC
Alonzo
Leyerle
Management
Estate
1-Mile Radius - Air Toxics Indicator/Cancer Risk
Site Indicator Value
27.00
28.33
28.00
36.00
32.00
44.50
40.00
Threshold Value
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
Cancer Risk Ranking
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1-Mile Radius - Air Toxics Indicator/Noncancer Health Risk
Site Indicator Value
1.69
2.29
2.06
3.34
2.79
4.20
3.79
Threshold Value
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
Noncancer Health
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Risk Ranking
110-Mile Radius - Air Toxics Indicator/Cancer Risk
Site Indicator Value
29.69
30.00
30.90
37.62
40.96
42.92
42.35
Threshold Value
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
Cancer Risk Ranking
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
110-Mile Radius - Air Toxics Indicator/Noncancer Health Risk
Site Indicator Value
2.29
2.38
2.65
3.56
3.92
4.23
4.22
Threshold Value
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
Noncancer Health
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Risk Ranking
Communities with indicator values lower than the threshold value are ranked
zero, indicating that the cancer risks and non-cancer hazard indices do not pose an
unacceptable risk or hazard. As shown above, the locations of all of the FCSs
represent a low cancer risk and non-cancer respiratory health risk based on the Air
Toxics Indicator.
Region 2 Facility Density Indicator
The Facility Density Indicator is an index that reflects 1) the number of facilities
within a geographic area that are regulated under one of EPA's programs, 2) the
population within the designated geographic area, and 3) the size of the geo-
graphic area. Facilities are drawn from several of EPA's databases, including the
TRI under EPCRA, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
(RCRIS) for facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), the Permit Compliance System for facilities that are permitted under
the Clean Water Act (CWA) for discharge to surface waters, the AIRS Facility
Subsystem Information Retrieval System for facilities that have stationary sources
of air emissions that are permitted under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information Sys-
tem (CERCLIS) for facilities that are under the Superfund Program. Each facility
has a unique identifier so that a facility that appears in one database is not double-
counted if it appears in another database. In addition, facilities that are listed as
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/22/04
3-136
-------
ecology arid environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
small quantity generators under RCRA are excluded so that the list of facilities is
weighted toward the number of major facilities within a COC.
To evaluate facility density, an indicator was developed for the COC. In addition,
a threshold value was developed for the State of New York that provides a com-
parison indicator. If the indicator value is higher than the threshold value, the
COC could experience a disproportionately high environmental burden. Commu-
nities are ranked to provide a measure of the potential risk compared to the rest of
the state. Ranking is established on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest po-
tential risk and 10 being the highest potential risk. If the indicator value is lower
than the threshold value, the community is ranked zero.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 3.5-5.
Table 3.5-5 Comparison of Facility Density Indicator and Facilities Per Square Mile Within
a 1-Mile and 10-Mile Radius of Each FCS
State of New
Old Moreau
Bruno/
York/First
Energy
Dredge
Georgia
Brickyard
NYSCC/
Rensselaer/
Park/Longe/
Spoils Area/
Pacific/
Associates/
Allco /
Marine
OG Real
NYSCC
NYSCC
NYSCC
Alonzo
Leyerle
Management
Estate
11 -Mile Radius - Facility Density Indicator
Site Indicator Value
128.35
168.70
38.38
16.15
17.61
952.51
259.18
Threshold Value
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
Ranking
4
6
0
0
0
9
7
Facilities per Square Mile
1.28
1.69
0.38
0.16
0.18
9.53
2.59
110-Mile Radius - Facility Density Indicator
Site Indicator Value
17.99
18.32
8.62
13.54
27.32
89.64
80.17
Threshold Value
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
Ranking
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
Facilities per Square Mile
0.18
0.18
0.09
0.14
0.27
0.90
0.80
As shown above, the Facility Density Indicator value for the area within a 1-mile radius
of the Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC FCS, the Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC
FCS, the State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management FCS, and the OG
Real Estate FCS is above the statewide threshold.
The Facility Density Indicator value is one component of the three indicators used
in the environmental burden analysis, which also includes the Region 2 TRI Air
Emissions Indicator and the Region 2 Air Toxics Indicator. As noted previously,
the analysis of the other two components for these FCSs (i.e., Energy
Park/Longe/NYSCC, Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC FCS, State of
New York/First Rensselaer/Marine Management, and OG Real Estate) had rank-
ings for the other two components (Tables 3.5-2 and 3.5-3) of zero. This indi-
cated the rankings were below the threshold. The combination of the information
from all three components, including the health rankings, indicate minimal to low
human health risks and no further investigation is warranted.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/23/04
3-137
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
The Facility Density Indicator within a 10-mile radius of each of the FCSs is below
the statewide threshold for all of the FCSs except for the State of New York/First
Rensselaer/Marine Management FCS and the OG Real Estate FCS. The findings
from this analysis for the two sites indicate a low risk based on the indicator
value. The previous evaluations of the other two components of the environ-
mental burden analysis indicated that the rankings were zero for health risks (Ta-
ble 3.5-3), and cancer and non-cancer risks (Table 3.5-4) had rankings of zero,
indicating both ranking values were below the threshold. The combination of the
information from all three components, including the health rankings, indicate
minimal to low human health risks and no further investigation is warranted.
3.5.1.3 Facility Design Activities
To address potential community concerns regarding the sediment process-
ing/transfer facilities and remediation, EPA has developed Quality of Life Per-
formance Standards that address noise, air, lighting, and navigation. The Quality
of Life document was made available for public comment and is available on
EPA's homepage at www.epa.gov/hudson. Further, a Community Health and
Safety Plan will also be developed during the RD phase of the project and will be
implemented during the remediation.
3.5.2 Characterization of Roadways and Traffic
Project-related traffic was evaluated previously (White Paper, Project-Related
Traffic), based on comments received from the public on the FS and ROD. At
that time, evaluations indicated that project-related traffic in the vicinity of the
dewatering site was not expected to be disruptive to local communities. The RD
Team will evaluate traffic in greater detail and complete the design to ensure that
roadways and entrances are appropriate and to minimize the potential for commu-
nity traffic impacts. Potential design issues may include determining the necessity
of appropriate signage and the appropriate roadway cross-sections to maintain
traffic flow conditions and traffic safety. EPA understands that there will be in-
creased traffic associated with facility construction and operation, but it is ex-
pected (based on existing evaluations) that those increases will be manageable,
will not unreasonably interfere with local traffic patterns, and will not create un-
safe situations for the community.
Public roads cross three of the FCSs. However, the location and design of the site
operations have not yet been determined and, therefore, the potential effects of
these operations on the continued use of the roadways has not been defined.
Consequently, a preliminary look at local traffic volumes and composition was
conducted at these three FCSs to further define how crossing of the roadways en-
tering facility operations may affect local traffic. The basic assumption in this
evaluation is that material would have to be transferred under, over, or across the
road in rail cars to the rail transfer facility. It is also likely that facility personnel
would cross the road during site operations. The FCSs and roadways are:
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/23/04
3-138
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
¦ Georgia Pacific/NYSCC - County Road 113, which separates the western or
riverside parcels of the FCS from the eastern, inland parcels.
¦ Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo - Knickerbocker Road, which splits the
Bruno property into separate parcels of the FCS; and
¦ NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle - U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32, which establishes
the border between the NYSCC and Allco properties.
Information was obtained regarding the roadway characteristics and traffic vol-
umes (where available) for each of these roads to determine baseline conditions
along the roads in the vicinity of the FCSs and to get an initial understanding of
the potential for disruptions if a sediment processing/transfer facility were located
at any of these FCSs. The potential for changes in existing traffic flow conditions
would be related to the need for materials to be transferred from parcels near the
river across the roads to the rail transfer component of a facility. The existing use
of these roadways may provide information on potential limitations or considera-
tions in designing crossings such that the estimated facility production levels
could be attained and the safety and flow of through traffic be ensured.
Traffic count information was provided by the New York State Department of
Transportation (NYSDOT) and evaluated for applicability to the three FCSs.
Traffic information included average annual daily traffic (AADT), traffic compo-
sition (passenger car, trucks, etc.), roadway classification, and apparent trends in
traffic volume.
3.5.2.1 Georgia Pacific/NYSCC
County Road 113 separates the inland and shoreline parcels of the Georgia Pacific
site. The road has two lanes and a mowed shoulder in some areas. Land use
along the road near the site is predominantly residential. However, the School of
the Adirondacks and the Hollingsworth and Vose manufacturing facility are lo-
cated along County Road 113 south of the site. Given the lack of direct major ar-
terial connections, it is expected that some amount of large truck traffic (i.e., trac-
tor-trailer) uses County Road 113 as a means of travel to and from this existing
manufacturing facility. The facility is located approximately 4,000 feet (0.75
mile) south of the Georgia Pacific/NYSCC site on the east side of County Road
113. The road is classified as a minor rural connector and traffic volumes appear
to be low.
NYSDOT data for County Road 113 indicated that traffic counts had been con-
ducted in 1998 approximately 450 feet south of U.S. Highway 4 (approximately
450 feet north of the Georgia Pacific/ NYSCC site). The calculated AADT was
1,224 vehicles (Figure 3.5.2-1). The counts were conducted over a five-day pe-
riod in October 1998 and showed that approximately 612 vehicles traveled that
section of road in each direction over the course of a single day. Traffic count
data for several sections of U.S. Highway 4 were also analyzed to compare the
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/23/04
3-139
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
1224s
¦"Georgia Pacific /
New York State
Canal Corporation'
Northumberland Dam
Battel
pmmP?-
Schuylerville
LEGEND
] Potential Site Boundary
—I—I- Railroads
2821
1224a
2002 Estimated AADT (NYSDOT)
1998 Measured AADT (NYSDOT)
AADT = Average Annual Daily Traffic
HudsonT* River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.5.2-1
Traffic Count Information
Georgia Pacific / New York State Canal Corporation
2,000 1,000 0
2,000 4,000
Feet
3-140
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
volume of traffic on this road relative to County Road 113. These included the
section just before the end of the U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32 overlap, from the
end of the U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32 overlap to the Washington County line
and from the Washington County line to Fort Edward. The AADT for U.S. High-
way 4 before and after the end of the U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32 overlap
indicated an overall decrease in traffic volume of approximately 1,000 vehicles,
from 3,886 to 2,821 (see Figure 3.5.2-1). The AADT for the section of U.S.
Highway 4 from the Washington County line to Fort Edward was estimated to be
2,720 vehicles in 2002. This section of road is designated as a minor rural arte-
rial.
Although specific traffic composition data was not available for County Road
113, the majority of traffic is expected to be personal automobiles and light
trucks. Observations during field visits suggest only limited, infrequent use by
large trucks or tractor-trailers. Given the small amount of traffic, relative to U.S.
Highway 4, any facility traffic is not expected to cause a major disruption of traf-
fic flow and safety. The RD Team has indicated this site may not be feasible for
operating a rail facility and without rail most operations would be on the western
or riverside parcel, minimizing traffic issues with County Road 113. However,
facility design will need to account for minimizing disruptions to through traffic
and maintaining high standards of traffic safety.
3.5.2.2 Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo
Knickerbocker Road separates the shoreline parcel from the inland parcels of the
site. The road is a two-lane road with little or no shoulder. The road is narrow
and does not appear to receive heavy traffic volume. It is expected that the pri-
mary source of traffic is local. The road forms a loop, connecting at its western
and eastern ends to Route 67. No major businesses are located on the road, with
land use being primarily residential and recreational. A golf course is located ad-
jacent to and south of the site, on both the eastern and western sides of Knicker-
bocker Road. An access road to Lock 3 and upper Mechanicville Dam is located
near the site, on the west side of the road. The access road is used by New York
State Electric & Gas.
No traffic count data was available for Knickerbocker Road. However, the data
for Route 67 was available for the section between the Saratoga County line and
Hudson River Road (west of Knickerbocker Road) and the section between Hud-
son River Road and the Route 40 overlap (east of Knickerbocker Road). Route 67
is classified as a minor urban arterial in the vicinity of Knickerbocker Road.
Based on the 2002 AADT estimates, the section of Route 67 in the vicinity of
Knickerbocker Road receives approximately 1,500 fewer vehicles (6,121 to
4,665) than the section immediately to the west (Figure 3.5.2-2). It is assumed
that this traffic is diverting south on Hudson River Road. Most of the traffic
along Route 67 in the vicinity of the site is composed of passenger cars and 2-
axle, 4-tire pickups, vans, and motor homes (including those hauling trailers).
Approximately 11% of the traffic is larger vehicles. The AADT for this section of
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/23/04
3-141
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Upper^Mechanicville
w Dam / Lock 3\jf
!| Bruno/
[Brickyard
Associates/
// Alonzo
Mechanicville
3195a
Hansen Rd
LEGEND
] Potential Site Boundary
Railroads
2002 Estimated AADT (NYSDOT)
2003 Measured AADT (NYSDOT)
AADT = Average Annual Daily Traffic
4665
HudsoifT* River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.5.2-2
Traffic Count Information
Bruno / Brickyard Associates / Alonzo
2,000 1,000 0 2,000 4,000
Feet
3-142
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
road in 2003 was 3,195. Peak traffic occurred during the hours of 8 a.m. (232 ve-
hicles) and 6 p.m. (291 vehicles). Traffic on this section of road doubled between
1995 and 1998 but has decreased from an estimated 4,665 in 2000 to a measured
3,195 in 2003.
Assuming that the majority of traffic on Knickerbocker Road is local in nature and
low in volume, it is expected that crossings could be designed and operated in
such a way as to minimize disruptions to local traffic. This will, in part, be de-
pendent upon the frequencies and durations of crossings required for a given pe-
riod of time. The RD Team has indicated that processed material would need to
be transported over or under this roadway and will evaluate this during design.
3.5.2.3 NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle
U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32 separates the shoreline parcel from the inland par-
cels on this site. In the vicinity of the site the road consists of two lanes with
shoulders on both sides. Traffic data from NYSDOT classifies the section of U.S.
Highway 4/State Route 32 between Brookwood Road and the Route 146 junction
as a rural principal arterial-expressway/other (Figure 3.5.2-3). The measured
AADT for this section in 2003 was 5,991. The majority of vehicle traffic along
this section includes passenger cars and 2-axle, 4-tire pickup trucks, vans, and
motor homes (including those hauling trailers). Approximately 8.9% of the traffic
was classified as larger than the 2-axle, 4-tire class. The largest vehicle noted was
a 6-axle tractor-trailer unit, of which six were counted. Peak hourly traffic counts
occurred at 8 a.m. (502 vehicles) and 6 p.m. (535 vehicles). Estimated AADT for
2002 indicated that approximately 1,400 more vehicles (from 6,891 to 8,275) used
the section of U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32 immediately to the south, between
the U.S. Highway 4 and State Route 32 overlap and Brookwood Road. This indi-
cates a reduction in traffic (traveling from south to north) before the point where
the road bisects the site. This may be due to the General Electric Silicones facility
south of the site, which is likely a destination point along the road in the vicinity
of the FCS. In general the AADT for the road section that crosses the site had
slightly increased between 1993 and 2002. However, data for 2003 indicated the
AADT had decreased by approximately 900 vehicles between the estimated value
for 2002 and the measured value in 2003. This decrease was from an estimated
AADT of 6,891 in 2002 to a measured AADT of 5,991 in 2003.
The relatively high traffic volumes on this road could pose a challenge to site de-
sign. During peak traffic flow hours (8 a.m. and 6 p.m.) and based upon peak traf-
fic volume measurements (not a number provided by NYSDOT), an average of
eight vehicles per minute may pass the site. The RD Team indicated the facility
operations will require an extensive covered conveyor, and processed sediment
would need to be transported either over or under U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32.
Facility design will need to minimize disruptions to through traffic and maintain
high standards of traffic safety.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/23/04
3-143
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
Hansen Rd
Lower Mechanicville
Dam / Lock 2
New York State
Canal Corporation /
Allco / Leyerle
Woods Rd
LEGEND
] Potential Site Boundary
Railroads
6891
5991s
2002 Estimated AADT (NYSDOT)
2003 Measured AADT (NYSDOT)
AADT = Average Annual Daily Traffic
HudsonT* River
PCBS SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 3.5.2-3
Traffic Count Information
New York State Canal Corporation / Allco / Leyerle
2,000 1,000 0
3-144
-------
0
. ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
3. Evaluation of FCSs
3.5.3 Summary
Three of the FCSs are crossed by public roads, which may create potential design
limitations or design considerations. It is expected that these will be addressed in
the design phase.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S3.doc-4/23/04
3-145
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Identification of Suitable Sites
Benefits, potential limitations, and additional design considerations were identi-
fied for each FCS based on the Group 1 (engineering criteria), Group 2 (other
considerations) and Group 3 (site-specific criteria) evaluations. The overall suit-
ability of the FCSs to have a sediment processing/transfer facility (including rail
yard facility) constructed and operated on-site has been the basis of the evaluation
performed. While there are many similar considerations associated with each site,
the magnitude of potential issues, as well as the differences among the FCSs, re-
sulted in an overall determination of suitability.
Suitable Sites are defined as those sites that exhibit characteristics that satisfy the
minimum requirements for designing, constructing, and operating a sediment
processing/transfer facility to the standards established by the project. Suitable
Sites meet enough of the needs of a facility that it is currently considered feasible
in the design process to address the identified potential limitations and additional
design considerations.
Although the PCS evaluation had centered on a site's total acreage, it became ap-
parent once areas were delineated as useable (during the FCS evaluation) that
adequate useable acreage was an important consideration. This approach was
supported by the RD Team. In particular, the RD Team provided input on the
acreage required for the processing facility (5 acres for mechanical processing
and 15 acres for hydraulic processing) and rail yard facility (15 to 25 acres). Ad-
ditionally, the RD Team concurred that some sites (based on the importance of
their location) could be used even though rail appeared to be a limitation. The
limitation of rail at those sites could be addressed in design by transporting sedi-
ment off-site by barge.
It is important to note that access easements may be needed to implement the
remedy (e.g., access points to the river, areas for the hydraulic pipeline, areas for
hydraulic booster pumps, backfill staging areas, and additional rail car operation
areas). During the design process, the need for additional access easements may
also be identified for acceptable facility access roads. These other easement is-
sues will be addressed by the RD Team.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S4.doc-4/23/04
4-1
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
4. Identification of Suitable Sites
The following is a summary of the suitability information on the FCSs and con-
clusions regarding the status of each as a Suitable Site.
4.1 Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC
This site has many suitable characteristics/benefits: the Energy Park and Longe
properties are classified as vacant industrial; the site is close to dredge areas in
River Section 1 (where approximately 59% of the dredging will occur); the use-
able acreage is sufficient to construct and operate sediment processing/transfer
and rail yard facilities; there is direct access to an active Canadian Pacific Rail
line and an existing off-site rail yard (Fort Edward Rail Yard) adjacent to the site
that may provide additional rail-car-storage space; the site has suitable area (ade-
quate length and width) and flat topography to optimize the layout of the sediment
processing/transfer facility and rail yard; and the site is owned by interested land-
owners. In addition, this site could support either hydraulic or mechanical dredg-
ing operations through construction of a waterfront facility and/or a pipeline
along the NYSCC property. As determined by the floodplain assessment, this site
is not likely to experience major flooding because it is outside the 100-year flood-
plain. The RD Team indicated that borrow material is located on-site and may
provide backfill for dredged areas and/or other project-related construction needs.
There are some potential limitations and additional design considerations at this
site. These include location on the Champlain Canal, 1.4 miles above Lock 7,
where the canal is about 150 feet wide (allowing one barge passage in one direc-
tion). In addition, there are issues associated with developing project-related wa-
terfront needs. However, a berthing area and turning basin could be designed and
developed. Movement of the dredged sediments in and out of the facility by
barge will require passing through Lock 7. Subsurface conditions at the water-
front also may include poor foundation-bearing material, and it may be necessary
to relocate the Lock 8 access road if waterfront facilities are constructed.
As indicated in previous sections, the proximity of this site to a large percentage
of the dredge material suggests that hydraulic and/or mechanical dredging could
be options. The RD Team will be evaluating the use of these dredging options
and the resulting effects on design, transportation efficiencies, and dredging pro-
ductivity. Depending upon the dredging design, the project may require access to
additional parcels along the Champlain Canal between the Energy
Park/Longe/NYSCC site and Lock 7 at the Hudson River. Access may be needed
for running a pipeline along the canal and for pumps and for monitoring and
maintenance activities, and the potential need to offload larger-sized debris.
Further examination and delineation of the site expanded the site boundaries in
the southwestern portion of the site, adding the NYSCC parcel that extends to
East Street. This increased the overall site area by approximately 2.3 acres for a
total of approximately 106.2 acres (see Figure 4-1).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S4.doc-4/23/04
4-2
-------
SOURCE; ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT, INC. 2003;
LEGEND
Approximate Site Boundary
Tax Parcel Boundary
—I 1- Railroad
Hudson1 River
PCBs SUPERFUND SITE
Figure 4-1
Energy Park / Longe / New York State Canal Corporation
Suitable Site
500 250 0 500 1,000
Feet
4-3
-------
0 DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
and tiivironiiunf. inc.
4. Identification of Suitable Sites
In conclusion, because the benefits outweigh the potential limitations and addi-
tional design considerations at the Energy Park/Longe /NYSCC FCS, it has been
proposed as a Suitable Site.
4.2 Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC
This site has several suitable characteristics/benefits: the Old Moreau Dredge
Spoils property is classified as vacant industrial; the site is directly on the Hudson
River and close to dredge areas in River Section 1 (where approximately 59% of
the dredging will occur); the site has adequate river frontage; useable acreage is
marginally sufficient to construct and operate sediment processing/transfer and
rail yard facilities; there is direct access to an active Canadian Pacific Rail line; an
existing off-site rail yard (Fort Edward Rail Yard) 1 mile north of the site may
provide additional rail-car-storage space; and the property is owned by an inter-
ested landowner. In addition, sediments from hydraulic dredging operations
could be transferred to the site by pipeline. Much of the sediment in the upper
part of the river may be dredged hydraulically and transported by pipeline, and
the pipeline would be constructed along the river and used to transport hydrauli-
cally dredged sediment to the site. As determined by the floodplain assessment,
this site is not likely to experience major flooding because a majority of the site is
outside the 100-year flood plain.
There are some potential limitations and additional design considerations at this
site: Dredge spoils disposal and historic uncontrolled filling/dumping on-site
have resulted in surface and subsurface soil, surface water, sediment, and possible
groundwater contamination at the site, resulting, in turn, in the need for possible
additional site characterization at the facility footprint location; this portion of the
Hudson River is highly depositional and extensive initial and annual navigational
dredging may be required to allow for vessel or barge movement; and dredge
spoils and fill material throughout the site would present geotechnical concerns
about support for foundations, possibly requiring terracing, and site roadways that
would require an extensive subbase. In addition, there may be issues with opti-
mizing the construction of both the sediment processing/transfer and rail yard fa-
cilities at this site (due in part to limited useable acreage), and the design may
have to consider either barging processed material to another rail load-out site or
staging rail cars at the nearby Fort Edward Rail Yard.
In conclusion, while the potential limitations could cause this site to be used only
as a sediment processing/transfer facility with off-site rail storage or barging of
processed material to another rail load-out site, there are enough benefits that
outweigh the potential limitations and additional design considerations at the Old
Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC FCS that it has been proposed as a Suitable
Site.
4.3 Georgia Pacific/NYSCC
This site has some suitable characteristics/benefits: the Georgia Pacific property
is classified as vacant industrial; the site is directly on the Hudson River with
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S4.doc-4/23/04
4-4
-------
0 DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
and tiivironiiunf. inc.
4. Identification of Suitable Sites
adequate river frontage; it is close to dredge areas in River Section 2 (where ap-
proximately 22% of the dredging will occur); existing bulkhead on-site was noted
during site-specific field investigations to have a water depth of about 10 feet, ap-
pearing to provide sufficient depth for barge offloading and loading operations;
the property is owned by an interested landowner; and the useable acreage is suf-
ficient to construct and operate only the sediment processing/transfer facility, but
not a rail yard facility.
There are some potential limitations and additional design considerations at this
site that affect suitability: the site does not meet the anticipated rail yard footprint
requirements (15 to 25 acres) due to lack of the available space on-site; there are
challenges associated with some areas on-site due to hilly topography; and there
is a landfill on the eastern parcel. In addition, concerns were expressed at a Pub-
lic Forum regarding a mobile home park to the north of the site. Information from
the RD Team indicates that the Batten Kill Railroad (the only rail line with access
to the site) may not be able to handle the loads associated with loaded rail cars; up
to 20 miles of railroad may have to be rehabilitated and the site is located 32
miles from a major rail carrier. Rail is further limited by the orientation of exist-
ing rail to the property and lack of useable acreage for a rail yard. The likely lo-
cation of the sediment processing/transfer facility may overlie a potential historic
archaeological site requiring further investigation; extensive fill material and
other subsurface conditions would possibly require piling foundations, and road-
ways would require an extensive subbase. The site is separated by County Road
113 and the movement of material or personnel may be a design consideration
relative to road use.
In conclusion, the issues relating to the development and operation of a rail yard
facility and the need to rehabilitate up to 20 miles of rail are considered to be site
limitations. Other considerations that limit the suitability of the site are the loca-
tion and potential extent of a historic archaeological area, geotechnical concerns,
the potential need to cross County Road 113, and the need for constructing a sub-
base for roadways. Therefore, as the potential limitations and additional design
considerations outweigh the benefits at the Georgia Pacific FCS, it has not been
proposed as a Suitable Site.
4.4 Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo
This site has many suitable characteristics/benefits: the Bruno and Alonzo prop-
erties are classified as rural vacant, and Brickyard Associates is classified as stor-
age, warehouse, and distribution property; the site is directly on the Hudson River
with adequate river frontage; it is in River Section 3 where approximately 19% of
the dredging will occur; the useable acreage is sufficient to construct and operate
sediment processing/transfer and rail yard facilities; and the site is directly served
by GRS, which would participate in joint line movements with other rail compa-
nies (NS and CSX), providing additional transportation flexibility to and from the
site.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S4.doc-4/23/04
4-5
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
4. Identification of Suitable Sites
There are some potential limitations and additional design considerations at this
site: the train bridge located upstream and near the site has a low vertical clear-
ance, and proper clearance and depth of the navigation channel depends on the
water level adjustment within the pool containing the site, made at the Upper Me-
chanicville Dam and controlled by New York State Electric and Gas Corporation.
Possible vessel congestion along the frontage of the site could occur due to its
proximity to Lock 3. These factors will have to be considered in the barging of
material to and from the site. In addition, further cultural resource studies need to
be completed. The area along the waterfront (the Alonzo parcel) is in the 100-
year floodplain. The elevation difference between the riverfront and the antici-
pated area of the processing facility is also a design consideration. Because the
site is separated by Knickerbocker Road, the movement of material or personnel
may be a design consideration relative to road use.
The Hudson River in the vicinity of this site has been identified as a known win-
tering area for the bald eagle. The potential for affecting the bald eagle habitat
will be considered in the biological assessment being prepared by EPA. The de-
sign would have to minimize the potential impact on bald eagle habitat.
In conclusion, since the benefits outweigh the potential limitations and additional
design considerations at the Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo FCS, it has been
proposed as a Suitable Site. In addition, this site offers the flexibility to be used
for a sediment processing/transfer facility, with barging to another rail load-out
facility, or it could be used solely as a rail load-out facility.
4.5 New York State Canal Corporation/Allco/Leyerle
This site has some suitable characteristics/benefits: it is directly on the Hudson
River with adequate river frontage; the NYSCC and Leyerle properties are classi-
fied as other rural vacant lands, and Allco is classified as commercial vacant land
with minor improvements; the site is in River Section 3 where approximately
19% of the dredging will occur; the useable acreage on the western portion of the
site is sufficient to construct and operate sediment processing/transfer and rail
yard facilities; and the site has direct access to Canadian Pacific Rail, which could
provide transportation services to and from the site.
There are some potential limitations and additional design considerations at this
site: U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32 separates the shoreline/eastern parcel
(NYSCC) from the inland/western parcels (Allco and Leyerle), requiring design
and construction of a conveyor system either over or under the road. Similar to
the Bruno/Brickyard/Alonzo site, using this site may involve a processing facility
with barging to a rail load-out facility at another location. That option may re-
duce the potential traffic issues associated with crossing U.S. Highway 4/State
Route 32. There are some shallow river areas close to the site that may require
extensive initial and potential annual navigational dredging. Other design consid-
erations for this site include shallow river conditions along the waterfront, rough
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S4.doc-4/23/04
4-6
-------
0 DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
and tiivironiiunf. inc.
4. Identification of Suitable Sites
topography along the eastern part of the site, and topographic differences between
the waterfront and the area anticipated to be used for the processing facility.
The Hudson River in the vicinity of this site has been identified as a known win-
tering area for the bald eagle. The potential for affecting the bald eagle habitat
will be considered in the biological assessment being prepared by EPA. The de-
sign would have to minimize the potential impact on bald eagle habitat.
In conclusion, because the benefits outweigh the potential limitations and addi-
tional design considerations at the New York State Canal Corpora-
tion/Allco/Leyerle FCS, it has been proposed as a Suitable Site.
4.6 State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine
Management
This site has few suitable characteristics/benefits: all of the properties are classi-
fied as vacant land located in commercial areas; the site is directly on the Hudson
River with adequate river frontage; the useable acreage is marginally sufficient to
construct and operate only the sediment processing/transfer facility, but not a rail
yard; and the site is south of the Federal Dam at Troy, where the navigational
channel is deeper.
There are many potential limitations and additional design considerations at this
site that affect suitability: it is not proximate to dredge areas because it is located
below River Section 3; the City of Rensselaer has an approved LWRP guiding the
development in the vicinity of this site, and the use of the site for a sediment
processing/transfer facility may not be consistent with the approved Rensselaer
LWRP. The site does not appear to meet the rail yard footprint requirements (15
to 25 acres) due to lack of the available space on-site; space available to move
trains to and from the site and switch trains once cars are at the site appears to be
limited; there are challenges associated with site topography due to steep slopes in
the southwest portion of the site; and the floodplain assessment revealed that the
site is almost entirely in the 100-year floodplain. There are some shallow river
areas close to the site that may require an extensive initial and potentially periodic
navigational dredging. Fill on-site poses potential additional foundation design
considerations.
The Hudson River in the vicinity of this site also has been identified as a known
spawning area for the shortnose sturgeon. The potential for affecting the short-
nose sturgeon habitat will be considered in the biological assessment being pre-
pared by EPA. The design would have to minimize the potential impact on short-
nose sturgeon habitat.
In conclusion, the potential conflict with the City of Rensselaer LWRP and asso-
ciated plans to develop the site for recreation are considered to be site limitations.
This site is located below River Section 3 and is not near the dredge areas. The
useable acreage for construction of the sediment processing/transfer facility is
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S4.doc-4/23/04
4-7
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
4. Identification of Suitable Sites
marginal. Therefore, as the potential limitations and additional design considera-
tions outweigh the benefits at the State of New York/First Rensselaer/Marine
Management FCS, it has not been proposed as a Suitable Site.
4.7 OG Real Estate
This site has many suitable characteristics/benefits: the OGReal Estate property
is classified as vacant land located in industrial areas; the site is directly on the
Hudson River with adequate river frontage; the useable acreage is sufficient to
construct and operate sediment processing/transfer and rail yard facilities; there is
direct access to two active rail lines serviced by CSX and Canadian Pacific Rail at
the Port of Albany just north of the site, providing additional transportation flexi-
bility to and from the site; and the site is south of the Federal Dam at Troy, where
the navigational channel is deeper.
There are some potential limitations and additional design considerations at this
site: the site is located below River Section 3 and is not near dredge areas; the
floodplain assessment revealed that the site is almost entirely in the 100-year
floodplain; the majority of the site has been filled with ash from the former Niag-
ara Mohawk power plant (located immediately to the south of the site) with
deeper areas of ash fill noted within the former channel of Normans Kill, which
once traversed the site and has since been rerouted. The presence of the on-site
ash fill is a foundation design consideration. Due to the potential variability of
the on-site fill material, further characterization of the site may be needed before
facility construction.
The Hudson River in the vicinity of this site has been identified as a known
spawning area for the shortnose sturgeon. The potential for affecting the short-
nose sturgeon habitat will be considered in the biological assessment being pre-
pared by EPA. The design would have to minimize the potential impact on short-
nose sturgeon habitat.
The property owner has recently requested that EPA remove the site from consid-
eration due to future development plans. It is EPA's understanding that these de-
velopment plans are at the very start of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
process. It is also EPA's understanding that the development plan still requires,
among other things, the need to secure funding, rezoning approval, construction
permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as traffic bridge and rail un-
derpass construction. Given the many site-specific conditions identified in this
report and the complexity of the project, the EIS and planning approval process,
and the need to secure project funding would be expected to require an extensive
time period. As a result of these factors, the start of construction may be up to ten
years in the future. In view of this, EPA will continue to consider the property for
the remainder of the siting selection process. Because development plans and
EPA's potential use of the site would necessitate the construction of docking fa-
cilities, resolution of floodplains impacts, and other shared improvements, the ad-
ditional time would also permit an evaluation of whether EPA's possible use of
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S4.doc-4/23/04
4-8
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
4. Identification of Suitable Sites
the site would present a significant benefit to the long-term development of the
property by resolving the complex construction obstacles.
In conclusion, as the benefits outweigh the potential limitations and additional
design considerations at the OG Real Estate FCS, it has been proposed as a Suit-
able Site.
4.8 Suitable Sites
The following five FCSs were determined through the facility siting evaluation
process to be suitable for use by the RD/RA Team as Recommended Sites:
1) Energy Park/Longe/New York State Canal Corporation
2) Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/New York State Canal Corporation
3) Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo
4) New York State Canal Corporation/Allco/Leyerle
5) OG Real Estate.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S4.doc-4/23/04
4-9
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
5
Recommended Sites
As previously noted, the facility siting process and the remedial design of the
dredging program are interdependent. It is important that the selected facility(ies)
enhance the opportunity for designing a project that will meet the engineering and
quality of life performance standards and, inherent in meeting those standards,
will be protective of human health and the environment. As a result, EPA has
been working closely with the GE design team to ensure that these interdepend-
ences are considered.
EPA and the GE RD Team evaluated the Suitable Sites to determine those sites
that had characteristics that appeared to be best suited for optimizing the success
of the dredging program. These Recommended Sites are being recommended for
further detailed evaluation during the next phase of the dredging design (i.e.,
Phase 1 intermediate design) and will be further assessed against additional key
project design information/evaluations (e.g., sediment transportation logistics,
material handling, determination of dredging methods, etc.) as this information is
developed during the intermediate design. It is EPA's intent to work collabora-
tively with the RD Team during site selection from the list of Recommended Sites
to support the Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging. If unforeseeable issues arise during
the intermediate design that indicate a Recommended Site, or Sites, should not
continue forward in intermediate design, there is a possibility that another Suit-
able Site could be brought forward as a Recommended Site. However, this sce-
nario is considered unlikely and EPA fully intends to select the dewatering sites
from the list of Recommended Sites.
While EPA has found all the Suitable Sites to be feasible for the construction and
operation of a sediment processing/transfer facility, Recommended Sites show
certain key characteristics. For purposes of this evaluation, it has been assumed
that the sites evaluated would each house a processing facility that would be con-
structed and would operate to dewater the sediments, treat the removed water, and
load the dewatered sediments at an on-site rail yard for transport and disposal.
During the design process it may be possible to consider the use of multiple proc-
essing sites with varying functions (i.e., a site that would function as a processing
and barge-out facility); however, the evaluation of Suitable Sites and selection of
Recommended Sites is being performed under the assumption that each site
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S5.doc-4/23/04
5-1
-------
(j DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
mdofey and environment. inc.
5. Recommended Sites
would perform all the functions of a sediment processing/transfer facility (as
listed above).
Recommended Sites have been identified:
¦ To provide a group of Suitable Sites to the RD Team for the detailed
engineering design analyses that would provide the necessary flexibility for
designing a successful dredging program, and
¦ To communicate to the public the results of the facility siting process by put-
ting forward sites that exhibit greater benefits with fewer, or potentially more
manageable, potential limitations and/or additional design considerations rela-
tive to the other Suitable Sites.
The following section describes the further refinement of the benefits, limitations,
and other design considerations that produced the list of Recommended Sites.
5.1 Site Characteristics and Information Supporting the
Identification of the Recommended Sites
The five Suitable Sites all demonstrate and, in some cases share, a number of
benefits while indicating generally lower complexity and fewer potential limita-
tions and additional design considerations. However, to arrive at the Recom-
mended Sites, engineering judgment was employed. These key site-specific deci-
sion factors are summarized below in order of importance for the successful de-
sign and operation of the facilities and the ultimate selection of the Recommended
Sites.
Key Design and Logistical Considerations
The following key design and logistical considerations are described on a site-by-
site basis and were the primary decision factors used to identify the Recom-
mended Sites.
¦ Useable Acreage. The area within each site that does not include potential
limitations to design is useable acreage. Criteria limiting useable acreage in-
clude hilly or steep topography, locations of wetlands and floodplains, envi-
ronmental conditions, and cultural resources. Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC,
Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo, and OG Real Estate contain large, rela-
tively level topographic areas of useable acreage that could allow the devel-
opment of waterfront offloading/berthing/bulkhead areas, a processing (dewa-
tering) facility, and a rail yard facility. However, the Old Moreau Dredge
Spoils Area/NYSCC site and the eastern portion of the NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle
site have hilly terrain but acceptable acreage. Although it is conceivable that
a site could be used only as a "barge in - barge out" facility, the additional
useable acreage for the construction and operation of both processing and rail
transfer on a single site affords greater efficiencies and enhanced capabilities
for meeting the production standards of the project.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S5.doc-4/23/04
5-2
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
and environment. inc.
5. Recommended Sites
¦ Rail Yard Suitability. The construction and operation of the rail yard facility
is a highly site-specific issue and is a function of the useable acreage, the con-
dition and location of existing rail lines, available acreage for various track
configurations, and the layout of the sediment processing/transfer facility.
Four of the Suitable Sites contain relatively large, level areas with adequate
frontages to active rail (Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC - approximately 2,350
feet; Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo - approximately 3,850 feet;
NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle - approximately 3,050 feet; and OG Real Estate - ap-
proximately 3,400 feet) that would allow for the design of acceptable configu-
rations for accessing the existing rail lines and for on-site rail yards. Having a
larger area on-site—with longer rail frontage—is an important aspect in the
design of rail switching and rail car movement (i.e., staging, loading, and
transfer of rail cars onto the site and off-site). In contrast, the areas that paral-
lel rail on the Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC site are characterized
by uneven topography, and the area/frontage near the rail is much shorter (rail
frontage is approximately 1,350 feet), indicating that using the rail transfer
option would be dependent on using the Fort Edward rail yard for additional
staging space. In order for access to be obtained between the Old Moreau
Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC site and the Fort Edward rail yard, a second set
of tracks would have to be constructed on the rail bridge that crosses the Hud-
son River and Rogers Island. There are also no identified potential limitations
or additional design considerations (i.e., wetlands, drainages, cultural re-
sources concerns, etc.) identified for the Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC,
Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo, and OG Real Estate sites in the vicinity
and along the rail frontages. However, at the NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle site there
are a series of wetlands that are perpendicular to the existing rail that, in ef-
fect, break up the contiguous length of rail frontage, creating an additional de-
sign consideration for optimal rail access and a rail yard but not a potential
limitation for constructing and operating rail access and the rail yard.
¦ Waterfront Suitability. Waterfront suitability takes into consideration
whether adequate shoreline exists for construction of the waterfront facilities
and structures and river channel depth and the potential for navigational
dredging. Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC as it presently exists presents some
design complexity for developing the waterfront. However, the area is suffi-
cient to design and construct suitable facilities. In addition, movement of ma-
terial by barge will require passing through Lock 7. Old Moreau Dredge
Spoils Area/NYSCC, while having adequate river frontage, will require ex-
tensive navigational dredging initially and, potentially, annually. This site
may require the design and construction of an in-river channel. Both the
Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo and NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle sites are lo-
cated directly on the river with adequate river frontage. However, each site
will require significant initial navigational dredging and potential annual re-
dredging. In contrast, OG Real Estate is located directly on the river with
adequate river frontage and with a deeper navigational channel, which can be
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362 5-3
S5.doc-4/23/04
-------
(j DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
mdofey and environment. inc.
5. Recommended Sites
accessed by larger freight ships. The RD Team has conducted some initial re-
search that suggests that use of these ships may be an additional option for
transferring processed material, increasing flexibility in designing cost-
efficient and effective alternatives for the transfer of processed material to the
final disposal location(s).
¦ Environmental Conditions. The environmental conditions, as defined in
Section 3.4, are additional design considerations that are normal precursors to
site development. Further environmental sampling may likely be conducted
to further characterize the conditions of any site selected. The known envi-
ronmental conditions on Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC are consid-
ered to be a potential limitation to the extent that development could be lim-
ited due to historic dredge spoils disposal and to the uncontrolled dumping
that has occurred. The site is known to have surface and sub-surface PCB
contamination. In contrast, the sampling that has occurred on the other four
sites (see Section 3.2) does not indicate significant environmental concerns.
¦ Road Access. There are additional design considerations associated with cre-
ating access to each of the Suitable Sites. Such issues are typical for construc-
tion projects and can be readily resolved by the RD Team to design a safe and
efficient system of access between the sites and access roads. Energy
Park/Longe/NYSCC may require access through a residential area, and chal-
lenges associated with crossing the railroad and the potential need to relocate
the Lock 8 access road is an additional design consideration associated with
this site. Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC has existing access roads
to the site already in place. Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo is bisected by
Knickerbocker Road, requiring the movement of materials over or under the
road to access the processing and/or rail facilities. In contrast, although there
are likely design solutions that could be developed, the potential need to cross
over, under, or across U.S. Highway 4/State Route 32, which has relatively
high volumes of traffic (AADT of 5991 [2003 data]), is a potential limitation
associated with the NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle site that the other sites do not have.
At OG Real Estate, the access is limited and may entail obtaining an in-
gress/egress easement.
¦ Proximity to Dredge Areas. Proximity to dredge areas is a critical factor
associated with siting a sediment processing/transfer facility and therefore
was identified as a Group 1 criterion at the outset of the facility siting process.
Having a sites or sites near a larger percentage of the material to be dredged is
clearly an advantage as it relates to time-efficient transfer of material from the
locations that are dredged to the site, or sites, where the material will be proc-
essed. Being near dredge areas may also offer the alternative of using hydrau-
lic dredging. The analysis of proximity to dredge areas at this stage of the fa-
cility siting process is associated with relative distance to the majority of the
dredge areas, whereas previous evaluations looked at the amount of material
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S5.doc-4/23/04
5-4
-------
(j DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
mdofey and environment. inc.
5. Recommended Sites
within each section of the river. The volume estimates used in this evaluation
were based on the estimates in the ROD.
- River Section 1. Based upon estimates of volume, River Section 1 con-
tains the majority of the sediment to be removed (approximately 59%).
Absent other evaluation criteria, locating a facility close to the layout vol-
ume of material to be dredged would be advantageous to the design of a
successful dredging program. Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC and Old
Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/NYSCC are Suitable Sites in River Section 1.
- River Section 2. Based upon estimates of volume, River Section 2 con-
tains approximately 22% of the sediment to be removed. There were no
Suitable Sites identified in this section of the river. Location of a facility
in River Section 2, while appealing for overall river coverage, is not nec-
essarily required. Dredge material could be transported north or south to a
selected site.
- River Section 3 and Below. Two Suitable Sites are located in River Sec-
tion 3, the Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo and NYSCC/Allco/Leyerle
sites. Approximately 19% of the material to be dredged is located within
River Section 3. OG Real Estate is the only Suitable Site below River
Section 3. Once material is on a barge (presuming mechanical dredging),
the transfer of the material downriver is feasible for any of the three Suit-
able Sites.
Other Site Considerations
It should be noted that other site considerations were also evaluated during the
process of recommending sites for development of intermediate design. These
considerations included wetlands, floodplains, access to borrow material, geology
and/or surface features, cultural resources, etc. Although these considerations
were evaluated, they were not determined to be key decision factors but could af-
fect facility layout and placement of equipment.
5.2 Recommended Sites
Based upon the evaluation of the Suitable Sites relative to key design and logisti-
cal considerations, EPA is recommending three sites for advancement in the facil-
ity siting process as those locations to be considered by the RD Team in the in-
termediate design.
The Recommended Sites are:
¦ Energy Park/Longe/NYSCC;
¦ Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo; and
¦ OG Real Estate (see Figure 5-1).
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S5.doc-4/23/04
5-5
-------
(j DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
mdofey and environment. inc.
5. Recommended Sites
These three sites have the necessary key characteristics for locating a sediment
processing/transfer facility. With the combination of key design and logistical
considerations and discussions held with the RD Team, it is expected that the
Recommended Sites are adequate for remedial design.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S5.doc-4/23/04
5-6
-------
001515.H R03.08.03 - 04/15/04
L:\Buffalo\Hudson_River\Maps\Mxd\FCS_factsheets\RS_Overview.mxd - GIS
5-7
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Next Steps in the Facility Siting
Process
This Draft Facility Siting Report is the third in a series of documents that define
and describe the approach and methodology implemented during the facility siting
process for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site. Previously the Concept
Document and the Tech Memo (Facility Siting Update Report 1) were released to
the public. In conjunction with the release of the documents, public availability
sessions and/or forums were held to discuss the process and content of the docu-
ments.
The purpose of this document is to report on the results of the analyses that were
conducted on the PCSs, the selection of the FCSs, a summary of site-specific in-
vestigations of each FCS, the development and evaluation of Group 3 criteria, the
identification of the sites considered suitable for the design, construction, and op-
eration of a sediment processing/transfer facility (see Section 4), and the selection
of Recommended Sites that will advance into the intermediate design process (see
Section 5). The selection of the locations for sediment processing/transfer facili-
ties for Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging will result from further evaluation of the
Recommended Sites.
6.1 Modification in Site Selection Process
It has been EPA's intent that after releasing the Facility Siting Report, that a site,
or sites, will be selected in spring 2004 for the location of sediment process-
ing/transfer facilities to support Phase 1 dredging activities. The site(s) that will
support Phase 2 dredging were to be selected in summer 2004. However, some of
the information that would allow EPA and the RD Team to make a decision on
the Select Sites that would make the project most successful, is not yet available.
In order to ensure that site(s) are not prematurely excluded and that the site(s) that
offers the greatest potential benefit to the project are selected, EPA has decided
that the announcements of final site selections should be deferred until late fall of
2004. This modification will allow additional key project design informa-
tion/evaluations (e.g., rail and barge transportation logistics, lockage analyses, de-
termination of dredging methods, etc.) to be factored into the decision-making
process.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-
S6.doc-4/23/04
1-B1362
6-1
-------
0 DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
. gcdtogv and environment, int*.
6. Next Steps in the Facility Siting Process
6.2 Key Design Factors Supporting Site Selection
Several important factors or major design considerations affect site selection. The
degree to which each piece of information influences the site selection process
varies.
¦ Design Optimization. Optimization occurs as design progresses from pre-
liminary into intermediate through final design. Much of this optimization
will occur over the next six months. EPA believes that key design optimiza-
tion information would benefit the site selection process. An example would
be a lockage analysis to optimize productivity.
¦ Evaluation of Identified Factors. Information regarding site benefits, poten-
tial limitations, and additional design considerations will be evaluated further
in terms of the design requirements/needs identified by the RD Team. For ex-
ample, as the design team continues to evaluate rail conditions/logistics and
where to use hydraulic dredging, additional benefits and/or limitations may be
discovered that may affect site selection.
¦ Comparative Analysis. Further information to be developed by the RD
Team will be compared with the following project considerations:
- Achieving engineering performance standards;
- Achieving quality of life performance standards;
- Minimizing impacts to communities near the sites; and
- Project cost.
The RD Team is continuing its studies on barge and rail issues. It is anticipated
that transportation by rail may require using more than one rail company and/or
some off-site rail yards. It is also expected that multiple modes of transportation
(rail, barging, and possibly cargo vessel shipping) could be needed to move mate-
rial from a facility to a disposal site. The ability to transport processed sediments
in a safe, efficient, and reliable manner will be key to the success of the project.
The results of these studies may indicate that logistical issues associated with
transportation by barge and/or rail (e.g., the quantity of processed sediment and
backfill that will be transported) may require selecting sites that are close to trans-
portation facilities or have key beneficial characteristics associated with those
modes of transportation. Issues associated with transportation by barge and rail
are complex but are being addressed during design by the RD Team. There will
also be further analyses to determine the effects that locking may impose on pro-
ductivity, cost, efficiency, and the decision whether to utilize hydraulic dredging.
EPA expects that, with input from the RD Team, site selection can be completed
in the late fall of 2004 for Phase 1 and Phase 2 dredging. There is also a possibil-
ity that the Phase 1 site(s) could be used to complete both phases of the project.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S6.doc-4/23/04
6-2
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
6. Next Steps in the Facility Siting Process
6.3 Community Involvement
EPA made a commitment to conduct the facility siting process involving commu-
nities and gathering public input. Figure 6-1 summarizes the next steps in the fa-
cility siting process. Public forums will be held in spring 2004 in order to present
the process of evaluating the FCSs, the identification of the Suitable Sites, and
those sites recommended to advance into the intermediate design phase. These
forums will provide interested citizens with the opportunity to fully review the
facility siting process and to ask EPA questions. EPA will open a formal 60-day
comment period on the Draft Facility Siting Report.
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B1362'i.ng6-1.CDR-4/20/04-GRA
SOURCE: Ecology and Environment. Inc.. 2004 © 2004 Ecology and Environment. Inc
Figure 6-1 Summary of Next Steps Within the Facility Siting Process
Following the public forums and comment period, EPA will develop responses to
public comments, seek additional input from the RD Team, revise the document
as needed, and issue the Facility Siting Report. Following that, EPA will select
and announce the Phase 1 and Phase 2 sediment processing/transfer facility selec-
tions).
With the three Recommended Sites identified, it is EPA's goal to continue a dia-
logue with communities during the final selection of the sediment process-
ing/transfer facilities, as well as during the design, construction, and operation of
the sites. EPA will work diligently with those communities by providing updates
through fact sheets and local town meetings. The goal of this outreach and in-
volvement is to find ways to minimize the impacts of the facility(ies) on people's
daily lives, and ensure that their questions are answered and their needs addressed
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S6.doc-4/23/04
6-3
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
7
References
Apex Environmental, Inc. 1999. Work Plan for the Installation and Groundwa-
ter Sampling of Four Bedrock Monitoring Wells, Georgia-Pacific Corpo-
ration Site, Thompson, New York; Clifton Park, New York.
. 2000. Bedrock Monitoring Well Decommissioning, Georgia-
Pacific Corporation Site, Thompson, New York; Clifton Park, New York.
Blasland, Bouck, and Lee, Inc. (BBL). 2002. Hudson River Color Orthophotos.
Photography Date: Spring 2002. Prepared by Chas. H. Sells, Inc.
City of Rensselaer. 1987. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. City
Adopted May 22, 1986, NYS approved March 13, 1987, and Federal Con-
currence June 10, 1987. Prepared by Planners East, Inc. Troy, NY.
Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wet-
lands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Washington, D. C.:
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program.
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Curtin, Edward, V. 2003. Additional Phase IB Archaeological Survey: The
Harbor of Beacon Point Proposed Development, Town of Bethlehem, Al-
bany County, New York Edward V. Curtin, Consulting Archaeologist,
Saratoga Springs, New York.
Ecology and Environment, Inc. August 2003. Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site
Facility Work Plans.
. September 2003. Addenda to the Hudson River PCBs Super-
fund Site Facility Siting Work Plans: Site-Specific Field Investigations of
the Final Candidate Sites.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S7.doc-4/23/04
7-1
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
7. References
Edinger, G. J., D. J. Evans, S. Gebauer, T. G. Howard, D. M. Hunt, and A. M.
Olivero. 2002. Draft - Ecological Communities of New York State. Sec-
ond Edition. A Revised and Expanded Edition of Carol Reschke 's Eco-
logical Communities of New York State. New York Natural Heritage Pro-
gram, NYSDEC: Albany, NY.
Empire Soils Investigations, Inc. 1982. Preliminary GeotechnicalEngineering
Evaluation, Proposed On-site Ash Disposal Area, Albany Steam Generat-
ing Station, Glenmont, New York.
Environmental Data Resources (EDR), Inc. 2003. The EDR Radius Map and Re-
ports with GeoCheck for all of the Preliminary Candidate Sites. South-
port, Connecticut: EDR.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, Mississippi: United States
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.
General Electric Co. April 2004. Preliminary Design Report, Hudson River PCBs
Superfund Site.
Law Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1996. Report of Additional Site Investiga-
tion, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Albany Generating Plant -
Glenmont, New York.
Law Environmental Consultants, Inc. January 1997. Supplement to Report of Ad-
ditional Site Investigation, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Albany
Generating Plant - Glenmont, New York.
Malcom Pirnie, Inc. 1985. Hudson River PCB Reclamation/Demonstration Pro-
ject, Evaluation of Alternative PCB Sites/Disposal Technologies, Albany,
NY.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1992. Dredge Spoils Sites Investigation, Special Area 13,
Buoy 212, OldMoreau, Rogers Island, Site 518, BUOY 204 Annex, Lock
4, Lock 1, Albany, NY.
New York State. 2001. Statewide Digital Orthoimagery Program, 2001 Annual
Lot. http://www.hvsgis.state.nv.us/orthoprogram.htm.
Recra Research, Inc. & Wehran Engineering, P. C. 1979. Hydrogeologic Investi-
gation: Water Quality Assessment, Executive Summary, Conclusions, and
Recommendations for Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of the Archaeo-
logical Collection in New York. 1994. New York Archaeological Council.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S7.doc-4/23/04
7-2
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
7. References
Tams Consultants, Inc. December 1997. Report: Hudson River PCBs Reassess-
ment RI/FS Landfill/Treatment Facility Siting Survey. Prepared for U. S.
EPA Region II and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City Dis-
trict.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1985. Policy on Floodplains
and Wetland Assessments for CERCLA Actions. Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response and Office of Waste Programs Enforcement.
Washington, D.C.
. December 2000. Hudson River PCBs Phase 3 Report: Fea-
sibility Study. New York, New York.
. 2000. Interim Environmental Justice Policy.
http ://www. epa.gov/region02/community/ej /
. December 2002. Hudson River PCBs SuperfundSite Facility
Siting Concept Document. New York, New York.
. February 2002. Record of Decision, Hudson River PCBs Site.
New York, New York.
. 2003. Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Technical Memo-
randum: Identification of Preliminary Candidate Sites. New York, New
York.
. September 2003. Addenda to the Hudson River PCBs Super-
fund Site Facility Siting Work Plans: Site-Specific Field Investigations of
the Final Candidate Sites.
. October 2003. Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site: Dewa-
tering Facility Location: A Comparative Environmental Justice Analysis
in Support of Project Site Locations. USEPA Region 2, New York, NY.
. April 2004a. Facility Siting Data Summary Report.
. April 2004b. Final Engineering Performance Standards,
Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site. Vols. 1-5.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1974. Soil Survey of Washington
County, New York. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in Cooperation with
Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S7.doc-4/23/04
7-3
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ttfosy ami tiivironiiunf. inc.
7. References
.1988. Soil Survey of Rensselaer County, New York. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) in Cooperation with Cornell University Agri-
cultural Experiment Station.
. 2003. Official Soil Series Descriptions.
http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi
Accessed November 2003.
Weston Environmental Consultants-Designers. November 1978. Migration of
PCBs from Landfill and Dredge Spoils Sites in the Hudson River Valley,
New York. - Final Report for the New York State DEC.
Wilson Environmental Technologies Inc. 2000. Wetland Delineation Report, Al-
bany Station, Town of Bethlehem. Prepared for NM Properties, Inc.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
S7.doc-4/23/04
7-4
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
Description of GIS Database
A Development for County Tax
Parcel Mapping and Property
Classification Codes
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B1362 A-l
MASTER, doc-3/8/2004
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
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
Parcelkey
(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
Propclass
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_03-B 1362 A-3
MASTER, doc-3/8/2004
-------
fe DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
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_03-B 1362 A-4
MASTER, doc-3/8/2004
-------
fe DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
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_03-B 1362 A-5
MASTER, doc-3/8/2004
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
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-
cluded in the merged parcel dataset. The shapefiles provided by Washington
02:001515_HR03_08_03-B 1362 A-6
MASTER, doc-3/8/2004
-------
W DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
. eorfogv and environment. inc.
A. Description of GIS Database Development for Group 1 Facility Siting Criteria and
County Tax Parcel Mapping and Property Classification Codes
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_03-B1362 A-7
MASTER, doc-3/8/2004
-------
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B Description of the Use of
U.S. Census Bureau Data
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
App endix_B. do c -4/23/2004
B-l
-------
W DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
. eorfogv and environment. inc.
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
B.1 U.S. Census Bureau Data Information
U.S. Census Bureau data was analyzed during the evaluation of Final Candidate
Sites (FCSs) for the purpose of determining the number of people that live in the
vicinity of the seven FCSs. The data used for the analysis was published by the
U.S. Census Bureau Geography Division in 2001 and was acquired from the Cor-
nell University Geospatial Information Repository (CUGIR
http://cugir.mannlib.cornell.edu/).
Geographic census data is available in various hierarchical levels (county, tract,
block group, and block). Census block information was used as the basis for the
analysis because it is the smallest hierarchical level. It should be noted that the
positional accuracy of the datasets used is generally "no better than the established
national map accuracy standards for 1:100,000 scale maps from the U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey (USGS)" and that the information derived from the analysis is simply
meant to characterize the sites. More information pertaining to the native census
datasets can be found by viewing the Census 2000 Technical Documentation at
http://cugir.mannlib.cornell.edu/metadata/census.isp.
In order to approximate the total population within the specified range, the follow-
ing steps were undertaken. A centroid (center of mass) was calculated for each
FCS using GIS software. One mile and 0.5 mile searches were conducted from
each FCS centroid to determine the proximal census blocks. The amount of each
census block falling within the search criteria (1 mile or 0.5 mile) was calculated
and divided by the total area of the census block to determine the percentage of
each census block falling within the search criteria. Finally, the total population
of the census block was multiplied by the percentage to approximate the popula-
tion within the search criteria.
The results of the census block analysis are provided below.
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
App endix_B. do c -4/23/2004
B-3
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-1 Census Block Data Within 0.5 Mile of Energy Park/Longe/New York State
Canal Corporation
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000
Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 0.5
Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 0.5
Mile
Prorated 2000
Census
Population
088000
1001
49
27,537,577
736,180
2.67%
1.31
088000
1003
227
18,053,677
2,031,061
11.25%
25.54
088000
1035
38
1,789,831
543,976
30.39%
11.55
088000
1036
45
2,431,405
1,560,645
64.19%
28.88
088000
1037
0
16,033,307
8,802,710
54.90%
0
088000
1038
0
28,432
28,432
100.00%
0
088000
1047
77
4,301,324
2,846,987
66.19%
50.97
088000
1048
0
133,146
133,146
100.00%
0
088000
1049
85
1,461,000
122,369
8.38%
7.12
088000
1050
10
11,366,007
2,048,135
18.02%
1.80
088000
1051
6
2,557,973
190,927
7.46%
0.45
088000
1069
30
35,663,271
2,835,376
7.95%
2.39
Total: 567
Total: 130
Table B-2 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of Energy Park/Longe/New York State
Canal Corporation
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000
Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 1 Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 1
Mile
Prorated
2000 Census
Population
088000
1001
49
27,537,577
4,786,942
17.38%
8.52
088000
1003
227
18,053,677
14,619,000
80.98%
183.81
088000
1004
12
119,846
119,846
100.00%
12.00
088000
1005
49
468,242
192,253
41.06%
20.12
088000
1014
4
1,715,328
735,501
42.88%
1.72
088000
1015
31
227,100
22,051
9.71%
3.01
088000
1016
133
1,791,148
1,566,096
87.44%
116.29
088000
1017
249
2,514,736
188,377
7.49%
18.65
088000
1018
53
548,859
548,859
100.00%
53.00
088000
1019
79
826,965
826,965
100.00%
79.00
088000
1020
9
173,740
173,740
100.00%
9.00
088000
1021
122
1,540,920
1,540,920
100.00%
122.00
088000
1022
9
231,494
231,494
100.00%
9.00
088000
1023
55
375,779
168,531
44.85%
24.67
088000
1024
23
228,457
39,543
17.31%
3.98
088000
1026
36
194,611
117,475
60.36%
21.73
088000
1027
49
231,016
231,016
100.00%
49.00
088000
1028
77
370,789
370,789
100.00%
77.00
088000
1029
49
215,490
215,490
100.00%
49.00
088000
1030
14
97,556
97,556
100.00%
14.00
088000
1031
64
293,218
125,269
42.72%
27.34
088000
1032
49
600,594
199,868
33.28%
16.31
088000
1034
10
1,651,639
1,575,349
95.38%
9.54
088000
1035
38
1,789,831
1,789,831
100.00%
38.00
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-4
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-2 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of Energy Park/Longe/New York State
Canal Corporation
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000
Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 1 Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 1
Mile
Prorated
2000 Census
Population
088000
1036
45
2,431,405
2,431,405
100.00%
45.00
088000
1037
0
16,033,307
15,058,973
93.92%
0
088000
1038
0
28,432
28,432
100.00%
0
088000
1039
5
87,353
87,353
100.00%
5.00
088000
1040
54
599,738
40,305
6.72%
3.63
088000
1042
27
82,510
82,510
100.00%
27.00
088000
1043
0
93,738
93,738
100.00%
0
088000
1044
19
89,218
89,218
100.00%
19.00
088000
1045
3
10,770
10,770
100.00%
3.00
088000
1046
11
105,787
105,787
100.00%
11.00
088000
1047
77
4,301,324
4,301,324
100.00%
77.00
088000
1048
0
133,146
133,146
100.00%
0
088000
1049
85
1,461,000
1,444,532
98.87%
84.04
088000
1050
10
11,366,007
11,003,091
96.81%
9.68
088000
1051
6
2,557,973
2,414,196
94.38%
5.66
088000
1052
109
1,942,626
831,092
42.78%
46.63
088000
1053
72
417,630
339,297
81.24%
58.50
088000
1054
89
792,186
792,186
100.00%
89.00
088000
1055
90
344,633
344,633
100.00%
90.00
088000
1056
45
119,257
116,773
97.92%
44.06
088000
1069
30
35,663,271
16,014,179
44.90%
13.47
088000
2024
129
506,625
215,318
42.50%
54.83
088000
2025
2
18,932
18,932
100.00%
2.00
088000
2026
20
63,107
63,107
100.00%
20.00
088000
2027
59
179,583
179,583
100.00%
59.00
088000
2028
0
194,107
194,107
100.00%
0
088000
2029
44
120,861
120,861
100.00%
44.00
088000
2030
74
344,648
308,383
89.48%
66.21
088000
2031
22
465,533
865
0.19%
0.04
088000
2032
37
265,023
15,095
5.70%
2.11
088000
3003
8
6,921,655
157,807
2.28%
0.18
Total: 2,662
Total: 1,847
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-5
-------
) DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-3 Census Block Data Within 0.5 Mile of Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/
New York State Canal Corporation
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000 Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 0.5 Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 0.5
Mile
Prorated
2000 Census
Population
060101
1000
0
1,985,907.18
1,985,907.18
100.00%
0
060101
1001
0
741,595.81
741,595.81
100.00%
0
060101
1002
4
550,123.38
550,123.38
100.00%
4.00
060101
1003
0
413,860.31
413,860.31
100.00%
0
060101
1004
26
52,545,183.71
916,083.30
1.74%
0.45
060101
1005
51
24,233,218.25
1,180,165.41
4.87%
2.48
060101
1033
35
14,478,226.24
1,403,485.27
9.69%
3.39
060101
1034
4
3,036,988.30
391,066.72
12.88%
0.52
060101
1035
0
1,998,593.70
1,973,652.05
98.75%
0
060101
1999
0
4,806,569.84
691,174.06
14.38%
0
060102
1024
24
1,068,413.44
211,372.01
19.78%
4.75
060102
1025
20
908,085.65
249,564.27
27.48%
5.50
060102
1026
53
2,421,499.95
1,550,317.14
64.02%
33.93
060102
1027
28
293,317.17
293,317.17
100.00%
28.00
060102
1028
30
428,992.64
12,655.66
2.95%
0.89
060102
1996
0
930,819.85
161,913.00
17.39%
0
088000
1058
40
212,654.76
113,335.25
53.30%
21.32
088000
1059
56
235,425.28
8,666.81
3.68%
2.06
088000
1060
19
78,347.26
78,347.26
100.00%
19.00
088000
1061
6
81,594.81
81,594.81
100.00%
6.00
088000
1062
62
1,887,400.04
1,744,937.18
92.45%
57.32
088000
1063
14
583,455.55
223,001.75
38.22%
5.35
088000
1064
0
26,799.08
26,799.08
100.00%
0
088000
1065
0
22,333.17
22,333.17
100.00%
0
088000
1066
0
385,194.12
385,194.12
100.00%
0
088000
1067
0
1,473,448.37
1,473,448.37
100.00%
0
088000
1997
0
417,488.89
417,488.95
100.00%
0
088000
1998
0
785,577.56
728,806.93
92.77%
0
088000
1999
0
404,641.75
404,641.75
100.00%
0
088000
2036
15
93,196.52
288.80
0.31%
0.05
088000
2037
8
398,607.13
383,309.93
96.16%
7.69
088000
2038
43
179,123.36
92,911.82
51.87%
22.30
088000
2039
9
298,030.41
137,606.57
46.17%
4.16
088000
2996
0
90,147.07
90,146.97
100.00%
0
088000
2997
0
54,851.01
16,181.90
29.50%
0
088000
2998
0
2,119,507.87
211,806.21
9.99%
0
088000
3004
109
5,849,986.18
362,983.11
6.20%
6.76
088000
3008
0
129,869.79
129,869.79
100.00%
0
088000
3009
0
45,988.93
45,988.93
100.00%
0
088000
3010
14
734,302.22
734,302.22
100.00%
14.00
088000
3011
9
3,310,826.94
781,116.91
23.59%
2.12
088000
3014
61
40,239,436.73
165,496.09
0.41%
0.25
088000
3015
0
55,675.68
55,486.06
99.66%
0
088000
3017
37
5,350,123.68
206,130.42
3.85%
1.43
088000
3999
0
31,325.18
31,325.18
100.00%
0
Total: 777
Total: 254
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362 B-6
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-4 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/
New York State Canal Corporation
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000 Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 1 Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 1
Mile
Prorated
2000 Census
Population
060101
1000
0
1,985,907.18
1,985,907.18
100.00%
0
060101
1001
0
741,595.81
741,595.81
100.00%
0
060101
1002
4
550,123.38
550,123.38
100.00%
4.00
060101
1003
0
413,860.31
413,860.31
100.00%
0
060101
1004
26
52,545,183.71
7,683,444.69
14.62%
3.80
060101
1005
51
24,233,218.25
6,518,168.94
26.90%
13.72
060101
1033
35
14,478,226.24
3,087,850.52
21.33%
7.46
060101
1034
4
3,036,988.30
1,979,198.30
65.17%
2.61
060101
1035
0
1,998,593.70
1,998,593.70
100.00%
0
060101
1999
0
4,806,569.84
1,463,458.69
30.45%
0
060102
1022
141
18,915,244.68
5,896,792.41
31.17%
43.96
060102
1024
24
1,068,413.44
734,760.26
68.77%
16.51
060102
1025
20
908,085.65
908,085.65
100.00%
20.00
060102
1026
53
2,421,499.95
2,421,499.95
100.00%
53.00
060102
1027
28
293,317.17
293,317.17
100.00%
28.00
060102
1028
30
428,992.64
428,992.64
100.00%
30.00
060102
1996
0
930,819.85
896,004.13
96.26%
0
088000
1021
122
1,540,919.99
127.83
0.01%
0.01
088000
1030
14
97,556.32
18,672.39
19.14%
2.68
088000
1031
64
293,218.09
131,878.95
44.98%
28.78
088000
1033
12
76,624.55
5,413.46
7.06%
0.85
088000
1034
10
1,651,638.82
1,129,920.52
68.41%
6.84
088000
1036
45
2,431,404.66
49,278.07
2.03%
0.91
088000
1042
27
82,510.14
64,656.31
78.36%
21.16
088000
1043
0
93,738.40
93,738.40
100.00%
0
088000
1044
19
89,217.99
89,217.99
100.00%
19.00
088000
1045
3
10,769.87
10,769.87
100.00%
3.00
088000
1046
11
105,786.54
105,786.54
100.00%
11.00
088000
1047
77
4,301,323.88
366,525.41
8.52%
6.56
088000
1049
85
1,461,000.40
664,362.50
45.47%
38.65
088000
1050
10
11,366,007.42
121,608.42
1.07%
0.11
088000
1051
6
2,557,972.71
1,372,722.43
53.66%
3.22
088000
1052
109
1,942,626.00
1,942,626.00
100.00%
109.00
088000
1053
72
417,630.05
417,630.05
100.00%
72.00
088000
1054
89
792,185.59
792,185.59
100.00%
89.00
088000
1055
90
344,632.50
344,632.50
100.00%
90.00
088000
1056
45
119,256.65
119,256.65
100.00%
45.00
088000
1057
19
155,328.47
155,328.47
100.00%
19.00
088000
1058
40
212,654.76
212,654.76
100.00%
40.00
088000
1059
56
235,425.28
235,425.28
100.00%
56.00
088000
1060
19
78,347.26
78,347.26
100.00%
19.00
088000
1061
6
81,594.81
81,594.81
100.00%
6.00
088000
1062
62
1,887,400.04
1,887,400.04
100.00%
62.00
088000
1063
14
583,455.55
583,455.55
100.00%
14.00
088000
1064
0
26,799.08
26,799.08
100.00%
0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-7
-------
) DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
ecology and environment, inc.
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-4 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/
New York State Canal Corporation
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000 Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 1 Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 1
Mile
Prorated
2000 Census
Population
088000
1065
0
22,333.17
22,333.17
100.00%
0
088000
1066
0
385,194.12
385,194.12
100.00%
0
088000
1067
0
1,473,448.37
1,473,448.37
100.00%
0
088000
1996
0
12,982.97
12,982.93
100.00%
0
088000
1997
0
417,488.89
417,488.95
100.00%
0
088000
1998
0
785,577.56
785,577.27
100.00%
0
088000
1999
0
404,641.75
404,641.75
100.00%
0
088000
2005
136
4,471,658.51
85,370.13
1.91%
2.60
088000
2009
82
912,644.62
585,715.43
64.18%
52.63
088000
2010
26
122,300.99
23,287.23
19.04%
4.95
088000
2011
20
469,326.57
353,340.02
75.29%
15.06
088000
2012
29
111,625.41
111,625.41
100.00%
29.00
088000
2013
103
254,425.84
254,425.84
100.00%
103.00
088000
2014
30
105,324.76
105,324.76
100.00%
30.00
088000
2015
46
105,325.30
105,325.30
100.00%
46.00
088000
2016
49
288,795.44
180,648.93
62.55%
30.65
088000
2017
38
182,505.33
182,505.33
100.00%
38.00
088000
2018
111
2,163,641.14
2,163,391.12
99.99%
110.99
088000
2019
5
46,116.48
46,116.48
100.00%
5.00
088000
2020
33
321,430.14
321,430.14
100.00%
33.00
088000
2021
19
75,725.58
75,725.58
100.00%
19.00
088000
2022
65
281,941.62
281,941.62
100.00%
65.00
088000
2023
4
48,535.11
48,535.11
100.00%
4.00
088000
2024
129
506,624.67
506,624.67
100.00%
129.00
088000
2025
2
18,932.11
18,932.11
100.00%
2.00
088000
2026
20
63,106.90
63,106.90
100.00%
20.00
088000
2027
59
179,583.49
179,583.49
100.00%
59.00
088000
2028
0
194,107.25
194,107.25
100.00%
0
088000
2029
44
120,860.92
120,860.92
100.00%
44.00
088000
2030
74
344,647.79
344,647.79
100.00%
74.00
088000
2031
22
465,532.69
465,532.69
100.00%
22.00
088000
2032
37
265,023.31
265,023.31
100.00%
37.00
088000
2033
70
143,046.01
143,046.01
100.00%
70.00
088000
2034
7
105,844.30
105,844.30
100.00%
7.00
088000
2035
24
222,045.79
222,045.79
100.00%
24.00
088000
2036
15
93,196.52
93,196.52
100.00%
15.00
088000
2037
8
398,607.13
398,607.13
100.00%
8.00
088000
2038
43
179,123.36
179,123.36
100.00%
43.00
088000
2039
9
298,030.41
298,030.41
100.00%
9.00
088000
2996
0
90,147.07
90,146.97
100.00%
0
088000
2997
0
54,851.01
54,851.01
100.00%
0
088000
2998
0
2,119,507.87
1,735,653.55
81.89%
0
088000
3002
31
25,046,009.57
343,890.54
1.37%
0.43
088000
3003
8
6,921,654.96
1,586,745.32
22.92%
1.83
088000
3004
109
5,849,986.18
5,849,986.18
100.00%
109.00
088000
3005
32
144,532.01
144,532.01
100.00%
32.00
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362 B-8
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-4 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of Old Moreau Dredge Spoils Area/
New York State Canal Corporation
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000 Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 1 Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 1
Mile
Prorated
2000 Census
Population
088000
3006
37
359,875.71
359,875.71
100.00%
37.00
088000
3007
11
202,774.47
202,774.47
100.00%
11.00
088000
3008
0
129,869.79
129,869.79
100.00%
0
088000
3009
0
45,988.93
45,988.93
100.00%
0
088000
3010
14
734,302.22
734,302.22
100.00%
14.00
088000
3011
9
3,310,826.94
3,310,826.94
100.00%
9.00
088000
3012
0
356,589.32
356,589.32
100.00%
0
088000
3013
5
666,873.27
533,120.85
79.94%
4.00
088000
3014
61
40,239,436.73
9,001,454.97
22.37%
13.65
088000
3015
0
55,675.68
55,675.68
100.00%
0
088000
3016
0
154,706.13
154,706.13
100.00%
0
088000
3017
37
5,350,123.68
1,090,588.80
20.38%
7.54
088000
3997
0
6,830,439.92
516,209.00
7.56%
0
088000
3998
0
61,793.28
61,793.14
100.00%
0
088000
3999
0
31,325.18
31,325.18
100.00%
0
Total: 3,255
Total: 2,378
Table B-5 Census Block Data Within 0.5 Mile of Georgia Pacific/New York State
Canal Corporation
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000 Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 0.5 Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 0.5
Mile
Prorated
2000 Census
Population
060800
2000
25
25,934,407.18
131,421.56
0.51%
0.13
060800
2035
65
21,813,306.77
2,529,189.66
11.59%
7.54
060800
2036
26
1,564,547.83
953,433.57
60.94%
15.84
060800
2037
14
3,982,330.19
207.67
0.01%
0.00
060800
2039
0
2,511,260.25
1,474,949.56
58.73%
0
060800
2998
0
2,372,524.44
1,693,551.80
71.38%
0
060800
2999
0
3,577,544.36
168,247.53
4.70%
0
089000
1058
12
5,568,899.46
160,070.50
2.87%
0.34
089000
1059
27
13,313,052.26
909,294.11
6.83%
1.84
089000
1060
13
24,644,612.55
999,691.01
4.06%
0.53
089000
1081
4
13,531,596.74
1,011,305.02
7.47%
0.30
089000
1082
82
22,757,955.44
6,834,160.07
30.03%
24.62
089000
1083
0
112,490.65
112,490.65
100.00%
0
089000
1084
6
85,498.99
85,498.99
100.00%
6.00
089000
1085
0
802,742.99
802,742.99
100.00%
0
089000
1086
2
737,229.73
67,708.59
9.18%
0.18
089000
1087
20
376,200.79
200,679.79
53.34%
10.67
089000
1088
41
425,366.71
271,091.19
63.73%
26.13
089000
1089
0
569,745.15
569,745.15
100.00%
0
089000
1090
17
1,016,018.56
881,686.32
86.78%
14.75
089000
1091
0
1,095,667.18
513,557.63
46.87%
0
089000
1992
0
3,702,550.60
243,297.65
6.57%
0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-9
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-5 Census Block Data Within 0.5 Mile of Georgia Pacific/New York State
Canal Corporation
Percentage
of Block
Prorated
Census
Census
2000 Census
Area of
Area of Block
Within 0.5
2000 Census
Tract
Block
Population
Census Block
Within 0.5 Mile
Mile
Population
089000
1993
0
1,416,329.92
1,265,839.68
89.37%
0
Total: 354
Total: 109
Table B-6 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of Georgia Pacific / New York State
Canal Corporation
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000 Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 1 Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 1
Mile
Prorated
2000 Census
Population
060800
2000
25
25,934,407.18
3,337,833.34
12.87%
3.22
060800
2033
53
28,992,241.44
220,149.63
0.76%
0.40
060800
2035
65
21,813,306.77
17,507,448.79
80.26%
52.17
060800
2036
26
1,564,547.83
1,564,547.83
100.00%
26.00
060800
2037
14
3,982,330.19
3,279,706.24
82.36%
11.53
060800
2039
0
2,511,260.25
2,511,260.25
100.00%
0
060800
2040
0
211,814.26
211,814.26
100.00%
0
060800
2998
0
2,372,524.44
2,372,524.33
100.00%
0
060800
2999
0
3,577,544.36
1,188,028.73
33.21%
0
060901
1000
0
401,926.71
401,926.71
100.00%
0
060901
1001
27
102,260.06
102,260.06
100.00%
27.00
060901
1002
13
323,523.42
323,523.42
100.00%
13.00
060901
1003
35
13,293,845.73
3,067,953.35
23.08%
8.08
060901
1013
9
318,299.87
73,209.63
23.00%
2.07
060901
1998
0
352,919.25
352,919.25
100.00%
0
060901
1999
0
589,823.55
351,208.88
59.54%
0
089000
1058
12
5,568,899.46
3,575,370.78
64.20%
7.70
089000
1059
27
13,313,052.26
7,178,588.20
53.92%
14.56
089000
1060
13
24,644,612.55
3,814,185.57
15.48%
2.01
089000
1081
4
13,531,596.74
5,569,018.94
41.16%
1.65
089000
1082
82
22,757,955.44
16,647,144.12
73.15%
59.98
089000
1083
0
112,490.65
112,490.65
100.00%
0
089000
1084
6
85,498.99
85,498.99
100.00%
6.00
089000
1085
0
802,742.99
802,742.99
100.00%
0
089000
1086
2
737,229.73
419,544.48
56.91%
1.14
089000
1087
20
376,200.79
376,200.79
100.00%
20.00
089000
1088
41
425,366.71
425,366.71
100.00%
41.00
089000
1089
0
569,745.15
569,745.15
100.00%
0
089000
1090
17
1,016,018.56
1,016,018.56
100.00%
17.00
089000
1091
0
1,095,667.18
1,095,667.18
100.00%
0
089000
1092
45
1,053,180.46
1,053,180.46
100.00%
45.00
089000
1093
25
4,878,316.82
1,496,453.47
30.68%
7.67
089000
1099
2
1,887,649.12
141,137.55
7.48%
0.15
089000
1100
2
2,448,801.16
2,316,559.56
94.60%
1.89
089000
1992
0
3,702,550.60
1,086,964.42
29.36%
0
089000
1993
0
1,416,329.92
1,416,330.38
100.00%
0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-10
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-6 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of Georgia Pacific / New York State
Canal Corporation
Percentage
of Block
Prorated
Census
Census
2000 Census
Area of
Area of Block
Within 1
2000 Census
Tract
Block
Population
Census Block
Within 1 Mile
Mile
Population
089000
1994
0
1,298,855.56
822,060.92
63.29%
0
089000
1995
0
1,173,602.49
100,931.67
8.60%
0
094000
1012
30
23,560,753.54
44,226.57
0.19%
0.06
094000
1013
17
6,788,519.43
171,534.54
2.53%
0.43
094000
1998
0
1,451,610.37
256,451.72
17.67%
0
094000
1999
0
2,526,776.66
59,811.71
2.37%
0
Total: 612
Total: 370
Table B-7 Census Block Data Within 0.5 Mile of Bruno / Brickyard Associates/
Alonzo
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000 Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 0.5
Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 0.5
Mile
Prorated 2000
Census
Population
051901
2036
0
405,825.55
56,238.63
13.86%
0
051901
3000
0
3,491,481.55
3,331,537.35
95.42%
0
051901
3001
22
774,867.53
672,434.22
86.78%
19.09
051901
3002
23
426,377.03
213.85
0.05%
0.01
051901
3003
14
162,376.84
115,386.46
71.06%
9.95
051901
3004
22
250,420.27
12,894.43
5.15%
1.13
051901
3999
0
2,779,262.47
1,879,672.15
67.63%
0
051901
9000
48
52,152,374.14
8,800,870.02
16.88%
8.10
051901
9001
10
1,576,749.95
1,397,925.07
88.66%
8.87
051901
9002
0
2,615,506.56
2,615,506.56
100.00%
0
051901
9003
0
3,179,738.25
2,723,959.09
85.67%
0
062000
1996
0
1,968,901.11
206,815.61
10.50%
0
062200
1999
0
701,350.29
65,912.82
9.40%
0
Total: 139
Total: 47
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-ll
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-8 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000 Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 1 Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 1
Mile
Prorated 2000
Census
Population
051901
2035
14
15,471,647.61
2,285,200.45
14.77%
2.07
051901
2036
0
405,825.55
405,825.55
100.00%
0
051901
2989
0
110,818.28
110,818.28
100.00%
0
051901
2990
0
3,028,109.33
1,753,295.25
57.90%
0
051901
3000
0
3,491,481.55
3,491,481.55
100.00%
0
051901
3001
22
774,867.53
774,867.53
100.00%
22.00
051901
3002
23
426,377.03
426,377.03
100.00%
23.00
051901
3003
14
162,376.84
162,376.84
100.00%
14.00
051901
3004
22
250,420.27
250,420.27
100.00%
22.00
051901
3005
17
184,748.91
184,748.91
100.00%
17.00
051901
3006
52
138,445.00
138,445.00
100.00%
52.00
051901
3007
38
205,143.94
205,143.94
100.00%
38.00
051901
3008
18
132,707.03
132,707.03
100.00%
18.00
051901
3009
26
143,555.45
143,555.45
100.00%
26.00
051901
3010
45
189,109.36
189,109.36
100.00%
45.00
051901
3011
21
171,550.36
171,550.36
100.00%
21.00
051901
3012
20
143,446.55
143,446.55
100.00%
20.00
051901
3013
10
80,722.83
80,722.83
100.00%
10.00
051901
3014
6
115,784.10
115,784.10
100.00%
6.00
051901
3015
15
114,592.87
114,592.87
100.00%
15.00
051901
3016
19
144,918.46
144,918.46
100.00%
19.00
051901
3017
10
144,897.90
144,897.90
100.00%
10.00
051901
3018
0
95,991.85
95,991.85
100.00%
0
051901
3019
20
77,120.87
77,120.87
100.00%
20.00
051901
3020
17
122,761.67
122,761.67
100.00%
17.00
051901
3021
10
92,221.05
92,221.05
100.00%
10.00
051901
3999
0
2,779,262.47
2,779,262.64
100.00%
0
051901
9000
48
52,152,374.14
32,966,757.01
63.21%
30.34
051901
9001
10
1,576,749.95
1,576,749.95
100.00%
10.00
051901
9002
0
2,615,506.56
2,615,506.56
100.00%
0
051901
9003
0
3,179,738.25
3,179,738.25
100.00%
0
051901
9004
67
17,592,004.58
3,066,584.22
17.43%
11.68
051901
9005
23
3,865,566.82
1,635,295.84
42.30%
9.73
051901
9006
0
23,829.00
23,829.00
100.00%
0
051901
9007
10
596,202.59
596,202.59
100.00%
10.00
051901
9008
3
319,127.02
319,127.02
100.00%
3.00
051901
9009
17
6,766,068.14
3,433,393.93
50.74%
8.63
051901
9010
30
388,460.41
388,460.41
100.00%
30.00
051901
9011
17
140,348.97
140,348.97
100.00%
17.00
051901
9012
81
7,487,624.24
157,170.06
2.10%
1.70
051901
9999
0
11,041,531.67
679,429.63
6.15%
0
062000
1085
198
11,543,513.36
1,250,463.00
10.83%
21.45
062000
1094
3
538,081.21
538,081.21
100.00%
3.00
062000
1095
67
4,324,487.81
2,903,478.48
67.14%
44.98
062000
1096
39
4,358,904.11
10,745.45
0.25%
0.10
062000
1097
83
2,296,516.46
145,346.29
6.33%
5.25
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-12
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-8 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000 Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 1 Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 1
Mile
Prorated 2000
Census
Population
062000
1102
1
1,175,931.70
383,571.06
32.62%
0.33
062000
1103
7
568,024.46
568,024.46
100.00%
7.00
062000
1104
10
374,353.27
374,353.27
100.00%
10.00
062000
1105
143
2,634,725.18
2,634,725.18
100.00%
143.00
062000
1106
53
133,613.12
133,613.12
100.00%
53.00
062000
1107
71
764,688.01
764,688.01
100.00%
71.00
062000
1108
27
221,433.53
221,433.53
100.00%
27.00
062000
1109
26
141,410.24
141,410.24
100.00%
26.00
062000
1110
34
238,730.72
238,730.72
100.00%
34.00
062000
1111
79
336,701.51
336,701.51
100.00%
79.00
062000
1112
59
497,499.21
497,499.21
100.00%
59.00
062000
1113
9
95,884.12
95,884.12
100.00%
9.00
062000
1114
7
40,571.23
40,571.23
100.00%
7.00
062000
1115
26
50,041.71
50,041.71
100.00%
26.00
062000
1116
9
130,270.79
130,270.79
100.00%
9.00
062000
1117
8
71,447.33
71,447.33
100.00%
8.00
062000
1118
0
1,061,227.35
270,855.23
25.52%
0
062000
1996
0
1,968,901.11
1,968,900.12
100.00%
0
062000
1997
0
2,455,429.39
990,266.61
40.33%
0
062200
1000
28
1,087,526.57
1,087,526.57
100.00%
28.00
062200
1001
4
329,054.74
329,054.74
100.00%
4.00
062200
1002
207
239,399.34
239,399.34
100.00%
207.00
062200
1003
0
84,621.33
84,621.33
100.00%
0
062200
1004
134
363,842.94
363,842.94
100.00%
134.00
062200
1005
94
321,530.40
192,446.22
59.85%
56.26
062200
1006
30
229,980.49
124,750.44
54.24%
16.27
062200
1007
33
124,194.75
124,194.75
100.00%
33.00
062200
1008
55
125,724.17
104,616.88
83.21%
45.77
062200
1009
48
109,426.05
1,016.12
0.93%
0.45
062200
1019
56
85,280.25
85,280.25
100.00%
56.00
062200
1020
86
215,780.94
215,780.94
100.00%
86.00
062200
1021
26
139,167.36
139,167.36
100.00%
26.00
062200
1022
79
129,259.34
129,259.34
100.00%
79.00
062200
1023
38
63,782.94
63,782.94
100.00%
38.00
062200
1024
58
245,249.31
245,249.31
100.00%
58.00
062200
1025
1
73,322.64
73,322.64
100.00%
1.00
062200
1999
0
701,350.29
701,349.74
100.00%
0
062200
2000
11
141,981.28
141,981.28
100.00%
11.00
062200
2001
55
400,910.63
200,812.52
50.09%
27.55
062200
2008
62
454,824.02
90,966.21
20.00%
12.40
062200
2009
93
324,776.47
19,460.33
5.99%
5.57
062200
2010
16
220,585.79
165,506.07
75.03%
12.00
062200
2011
9
38,062.69
6,206.95
16.31%
1.47
062200
2012
26
70,535.72
62,602.47
88.75%
23.08
062200
2013
80
154,691.73
31,927.94
20.64%
16.51
062200
2015
0
276,550.42
25,550.07
9.24%
0
062200
2016
3
27,656.99
27,656.99
100.00%
3.00
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-13
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-8 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of Bruno/Brickyard Associates/Alonzo
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000 Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 1 Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 1
Mile
Prorated 2000
Census
Population
062200
3000
91
188,239.76
188,239.76
100.00%
91.00
062200
3001
85
260,929.33
260,929.33
100.00%
85.00
062200
3002
18
167,229.72
167,229.72
100.00%
18.00
062200
3003
18
86,269.74
86,269.74
100.00%
18.00
062200
3004
29
117,537.27
117,537.27
100.00%
29.00
062200
3005
10
108,366.20
108,366.20
100.00%
10.00
062200
3006
67
61,094.51
61,094.51
100.00%
67.00
062200
3007
0
62,257.48
62,257.48
100.00%
0
062200
3008
0
151,875.71
151,875.71
100.00%
0
062200
3009
16
146,799.33
137,585.21
93.72%
15.00
062200
3010
219
1,450,020.20
11,190.67
0.77%
1.69
062200
3011
0
133,240.73
131,903.36
99.00%
0
062200
3012
32
131,433.78
43,164.02
32.84%
10.51
062200
3013
124
320,000.45
101,967.37
31.86%
39.51
062200
3999
0
1,427,610.75
472,574.27
33.10%
0
062404
2999
0
4,503,695.61
60,579.89
1.35%
0
Total: 3,745
Total: 2,568
Table B-9 Census Block Data Within 0.5 Mile of New York State Canal Corporation/
Allco/Leyerle
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000 Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 0.5 Mile
Percentage
of Block
Within 0.5
Mile
Prorated 2000
Census
Population
051901
9012
81
7,487,624.24
1,091,139.34
14.57%
11.80
051901
9013
53
35,695,027.24
529,377.89
1.48%
0.79
051901
9017
70
13,710,971.58
567,179.57
4.14%
2.90
051901
9999
0
11,041,531.67
1,500,217.25
13.59%
0
062404
2007
54
50,675,151.72
7,401,919.06
14.61%
7.89
062404
2014
28
24,843,241.11
135,747.66
0.55%
0.15
062404
2015
78
2,379,390.22
221,969.26
9.33%
7.28
062404
2016
45
8,078,439.70
5,090,571.29
63.01%
28.36
062404
2017
30
6,449,237.28
3,422,941.10
53.08%
15.92
062404
2018
3
148,436.17
148,436.17
100.00%
3.00
062404
2019
40
878,127.21
75,889.12
8.64%
3.46
062404
2998
0
5,808,238.35
1,693,867.49
29.16%
0
051901
9012
81
7,487,624.24
1,091,139.34
14.57%
11.80
051901
9013
53
35,695,027.24
529,377.89
1.48%
0.79
Total: 482
Total: 82
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-14
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-10 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of New York State Canal Corporation/
Allco/Leyerle
2000
Percentage of
Prorated
Census
Census
Census
Area of
Area of Block
Block Within
2000 Census
Tract
Block
Population
Census Block
Within 1 Mile
1 Mile
Population
051901
9004
67
17,592,004.58
861,916.22
4.90%
3.28
051901
9012
81
7,487,624.24
4,074,828.61
54.42%
44.08
051901
9013
53
35,695,027.24
9,873,062.95
27.66%
14.66
051901
9017
70
13,710,971.58
8,813,016.63
64.28%
44.99
051901
9018
2
10,912,907.99
2,056,671.18
18.85%
0.38
051901
9020
49
21,787,325.08
444,975.62
2.04%
1.00
051901
9021
2
2,862,294.20
65,967.15
2.30%
0.05
051901
9027
0
901,454.79
213,007.16
23.63%
0
051901
9999
0
11,041,531.67
4,467,116.54
40.46%
0
062404
2007
54
50,675,151.72
25,688,161.21
50.69%
27.37
062404
2014
28
24,843,241.11
9,769,119.45
39.32%
11.01
062404
2015
78
2,379,390.22
1,959,036.10
82.33%
64.22
062404
2016
45
8,078,439.70
7,614,918.73
94.26%
42.42
062404
2017
30
6,449,237.28
5,228,039.76
81.06%
24.32
062404
2018
3
148,436.17
148,436.17
100.00%
3.00
062404
2019
40
878,127.21
404,218.89
46.03%
18.41
062404
2998
0
5,808,238.35
3,950,805.07
68.02%
0
062404
2999
0
4,503,695.61
1,883,824.29
41.83%
0
Total: 602
Total: 299
Table B-11 Census Block Data Within 0.5 Mile of State of New York/First
Rensselaer/Marine Management
2000
Area of Block
Percentage of
Prorated
Census
Census
Census
Area of
Within 0.5
Block Within
2000 Census
Tract
Block
Population
Census Block
Mile
0.5 Mile
Population
000100
1030
0
3,089,597.62
727,066.94
23.53%
0
000100
1031
0
1,697,435.60
427,134.22
25.16%
0
000100
1032
0
25,980.95
25,980.95
100.00%
0
000100
1033
0
176,769.71
1,797.47
1.02%
0
000100
1039
0
348,474.83
29,541.91
8.48%
0
000100
1040
0
1,255,596.91
549,565.90
43.77%
0
000100
1998
0
1,504,532.95
864,753.54
57.48%
0
001100
1003
0
180,858.41
14,919.36
8.25%
0
001100
1004
0
136,753.69
105,566.22
77.19%
0
001100
1005
0
162,718.22
162,718.22
100.00%
0
001100
1006
0
88,223.57
88,223.57
100.00%
0
001100
1007
0
195,062.55
97,832.22
50.15%
0
001100
1012
0
139,198.50
27,346.51
19.65%
0
001100
1013
0
381,827.29
223,257.55
58.47%
0
001100
1014
0
52,942.06
52,942.06
100.00%
0
001100
1015
0
78,903.87
78,903.87
100.00%
0
001100
1016
0
49,014.47
49,014.47
100.00%
0
001100
1017
0
48,524.69
48,524.69
100.00%
0
001100
1018
0
50,482.02
50,482.02
100.00%
0
001100
1019
0
119,112.26
119,112.26
100.00%
0
001100
1020
0
23,524.39
23,524.39
100.00%
0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-15
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-11 Census Block Data Within 0.5 Mile of State of New York/First
Rensselaer/Marine Management
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000
Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 0.5
Mile
Percentage of
Block Within
0.5 Mile
Prorated
2000 Census
Population
001100
1021
0
144,100.25
144,100.25
100.00%
0
001100
1022
0
123,521.76
123,521.76
100.00%
0
001100
1023
0
149,240.21
149,240.21
100.00%
0
001100
1024
0
55,387.53
55,387.53
100.00%
0
001100
1025
0
44,171.53
44,171.53
100.00%
0
001100
1026
0
61,701.44
61,701.44
100.00%
0
001100
1027
0
98,524.08
98,524.08
100.00%
0
001100
1028
0
127,934.04
117,708.24
92.01%
0
001100
1029
0
430,846.52
205,575.58
47.71%
0
001100
1032
0
144,600.67
23,159.16
16.02%
0
001100
1033
0
162,251.73
157,589.63
97.13%
0
001100
1034
0
105,875.13
105,875.13
100.00%
0
001100
1035
0
77,450.87
77,450.87
100.00%
0
001100
1036
0
112,162.04
112,162.04
100.00%
0
001100
1037
0
45,174.94
45,174.94
100.00%
0
001100
1038
0
1,130,606.91
477,785.30
42.26%
0
001100
1039
0
547,951.88
163,077.19
29.76%
0
001100
1040
0
56,368.84
56,368.84
100.00%
0
001100
1041
0
93,620.81
32,984.84
35.23%
0
001100
1108
0
1,095,432.03
266,642.84
24.34%
0
001100
1998
0
1,257,081.89
680,905.43
54.17%
0
001100
1999
0
523,285.36
523,285.16
100.00%
0
051500
2000
0
2,817,733.05
1,385,609.14
49.17%
0
051500
2001
0
421,774.65
313,425.33
74.31%
0
051500
2999
0
1,910,401.50
943,529.76
49.39%
0
051600
1000
18
1,806,343.48
218,933.88
12.12%
2.18
051600
1002
74
192,120.87
42,202.70
21.97%
16.26
051600
1003
126
254,399.79
50,418.45
19.82%
24.97
051600
1004
40
205,852.95
205,852.95
100.00%
40.00
051600
1005
31
133,803.54
133,803.54
100.00%
31.00
051600
1006
0
60,289.26
60,289.26
100.00%
0
051600
1007
0
3,921.10
3,921.10
100.00%
0
051600
1008
33
87,762.56
87,762.56
100.00%
33.00
051600
1009
0
531,702.85
223,187.90
41.98%
0
051600
1010
0
896,298.30
356,325.51
39.76%
0
051600
1012
22
124,989.86
124,989.86
100.00%
22.00
051600
1013
45
127,435.93
127,435.93
100.00%
45.00
051600
1014
42
104,397.03
104,397.03
100.00%
42.00
051600
1015
31
60,877.06
60,877.06
100.00%
31.00
051600
1016
7
1,055,796.98
1,055,796.98
100.00%
7.00
051600
1017
108
411,939.19
411,939.19
100.00%
108.00
051600
1018
137
340,610.90
340,610.90
100.00%
137.00
051600
1019
91
249,981.28
249,981.28
100.00%
91.00
051600
1020
81
171,078.18
171,078.18
100.00%
81.00
051600
1021
74
157,835.55
157,835.55
100.00%
74.00
051600
1022
74
113,724.36
113,724.36
100.00%
74.00
051600
1023
125
1,002,190.87
710,185.09
70.86%
88.58
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-16
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-11 Census Block Data Within 0.5 Mile of State of New York/First
Rensselaer/Marine Management
2000
Area of Block
Percentage of
Prorated
Census
Census
Census
Area of
Within 0.5
Block Within
2000 Census
Tract
Block
Population
Census Block
Mile
0.5 Mile
Population
051600
1024
41
82,365.11
82,365.11
100.00%
41.00
051600
1025
45
99,512.43
99,512.43
100.00%
45.00
051600
1026
36
112,757.42
112,757.42
100.00%
36.00
051600
1027
39
93,638.21
93,638.21
100.00%
39.00
051600
1028
57
100,002.07
100,002.07
100.00%
57.00
051600
1029
50
125,492.84
125,492.84
100.00%
50.00
051600
1030
45
175,466.47
123,494.57
70.38%
31.67
051600
1033
84
144,619.57
106,834.52
73.87%
62.05
051600
1034
75
120,601.70
59,066.86
48.98%
36.73
051600
1035
47
99,510.68
99,510.68
100.00%
47.00
051600
1036
75
107,845.54
107,845.54
100.00%
75.00
051600
1037
75
105,386.28
105,386.28
100.00%
75.00
051600
1038
59
71,579.76
71,579.76
100.00%
59.00
051600
1039
54
82,360.03
70,666.17
85.80%
46.33
051600
1040
40
91,668.60
416.07
0.45%
0.18
051600
1041
27
117,650.05
25,314.98
21.52%
5.81
051600
1049
6
1,686,157.97
560,085.66
33.22%
1.99
051600
1050
0
46,089.66
15,237.45
33.06%
0
051600
1999
0
2,141,852.34
1,536,095.47
71.72%
0
051600
2000
54
167,204.31
167,204.31
100.00%
54.00
051600
2001
55
193,475.17
193,475.17
100.00%
55.00
051600
2002
21
71,071.00
71,071.00
100.00%
21.00
051600
2003
65
94,596.75
94,596.75
100.00%
65.00
051600
2004
129
187,729.27
187,729.27
100.00%
129.00
051600
2005
91
199,023.36
199,023.36
100.00%
91.00
051600
2006
44
59,802.09
59,802.09
100.00%
44.00
051600
2007
11
30,471.36
30,471.36
100.00%
11.00
051600
2008
53
117,633.51
117,633.51
100.00%
53.00
051600
2009
33
81,368.99
81,368.99
100.00%
33.00
051600
3000
106
1,851,827.95
92,238.69
4.98%
5.28
051600
3006
69
252,927.49
15,141.56
5.99%
4.13
051600
3008
59
114,703.18
6,077.53
5.30%
3.13
051600
3009
53
107,826.31
68,714.16
63.73%
33.78
051600
3010
53
123,518.28
121,567.16
98.42%
52.16
051600
3011
76
169,603.53
169,603.53
100.00%
76.00
051600
3012
37
77,442.26
77,442.26
100.00%
37.00
051600
3013
37
78,424.89
78,424.89
100.00%
37.00
051600
3014
27
81,858.19
56,872.68
69.48%
18.76
051600
3015
43
155,393.21
155,393.21
100.00%
43.00
051600
3016
80
166,649.44
166,649.44
100.00%
80.00
051600
3017
76
156,863.40
156,863.40
100.00%
76.00
051600
3018
54
667,287.74
667,287.74
100.00%
54.00
051600
3019
10
43,131.96
43,131.96
100.00%
10.00
051600
3020
0
171,086.91
161,194.69
94.22%
0
Total: 3,350
Total: 2,743
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-17
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-12 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of State of New York/First Rensselaer/
Marine Management
Area of
Percentage
Prorated
Census
Census
2000 Census
Census
Area of Block
of Block
2000 Census
Tract
Block
Population
Block
Within 1 Mile
Within 1 Mile
Population
000100
1000
0
2,322,429.22
607,676.69
26.17%
0
000100
1001
0
4,486,568.22
276,364.20
6.16%
0
000100
1022
109
836,335.04
301,774.94
36.08%
39.33
000100
1025
76
120,555.07
22,950.33
19.04%
14.47
000100
1026
79
83,803.17
74,207.04
88.55%
69.95
000100
1027
0
1,254,274.48
1,057,782.00
84.33%
0
000100
1028
0
71,054.57
663.40
0.93%
0
000100
1029
0
104,378.88
102,571.51
98.27%
0
000100
1030
0
3,089,597.62
3,085,709.72
99.87%
0
000100
1031
0
1,697,435.60
1,697,435.60
100.00%
0
000100
1032
0
25,980.95
25,980.95
100.00%
0
000100
1033
0
176,769.71
176,769.71
100.00%
0
000100
1034
0
208,981.52
208,981.52
100.00%
0
000100
1035
0
493,036.15
493,036.15
100.00%
0
000100
1036
27
496,827.37
496,827.37
100.00%
27.00
000100
1037
0
121,241.34
121,241.34
100.00%
0
000100
1038
0
246,001.42
246,001.42
100.00%
0
000100
1039
0
348,474.83
348,474.83
100.00%
0
000100
1040
0
1,255,596.91
1,255,596.91
100.00%
0
000100
1998
0
1,504,532.95
1,504,533.05
100.00%
0
000100
1999
0
1,028,745.27
300,403.99
29.20%
0
000200
1010
277
1,426,952.14
630,780.40
44.20%
122.45
000200
1012
1
82,330.87
46,231.13
56.15%
0.56
000200
1013
3
74,491.96
74,491.96
100.00%
3.00
000200
1014
89
1,462,938.69
1,334,903.08
91.25%
81.21
000200
1015
459
938,725.96
717,761.80
76.46%
350.96
000200
1018
237
441,351.08
289,682.79
65.64%
155.56
000200
1019
720
649,427.85
649,427.85
100.00%
720.00
000200
1020
0
160,265.83
160,265.83
100.00%
0
000200
1021
0
57,841.31
57,841.31
100.00%
0
000200
1022
0
210,803.66
210,803.66
100.00%
0
000200
1023
0
726,241.07
604,289.99
83.21%
0
000200
1024
0
1,851,567.36
1,298,703.76
70.14%
0
000200
2000
192
262,722.06
262,722.06
100.00%
192.00
000200
2001
17
319,035.07
319,035.07
100.00%
17.00
000200
2002
157
524,490.16
353,440.60
67.39%
105.80
000200
2005
99
452,050.66
247,081.20
54.66%
54.11
000200
2006
128
211,127.23
211,127.23
100.00%
128.00
000200
2007
0
57,946.27
57,946.27
100.00%
0
000200
3000
91
232,681.61
232,681.61
100.00%
91.00
000200
3001
9
101,092.19
101,092.19
100.00%
9.00
000200
3002
151
223,905.92
223,905.92
100.00%
151.00
000200
3003
189
404,916.72
207,523.60
51.25%
96.86
000200
3006
280
492,693.01
207,805.08
42.18%
118.10
000200
3007
173
183,812.74
183,812.74
100.00%
173.00
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-18
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-12 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of State of New York/First Rensselaer/
Marine Management
Area of
Percentage
Prorated
Census
Census
2000 Census
Census
Area of Block
of Block
2000 Census
Tract
Block
Population
Block
Within 1 Mile
Within 1 Mile
Population
000200
3008
84
118,662.45
118,662.45
100.00%
84.00
000200
3009
73
89,210.49
89,210.49
100.00%
73.00
000200
4000
5
56,754.22
56,754.22
100.00%
5.00
000200
4001
104
275,469.24
275,469.24
100.00%
104.00
000200
4002
55
221,144.17
221,144.17
100.00%
55.00
000200
4003
145
181,438.43
89,250.75
49.19%
71.33
000200
4007
94
192,625.30
48,085.40
24.96%
23.47
000200
4008
31
173,533.97
173,533.97
100.00%
31.00
000200
4009
39
95,580.48
95,580.48
100.00%
39.00
000200
4010
5
73,527.86
73,527.86
100.00%
5.00
000200
4011
19
135,773.00
135,773.00
100.00%
19.00
000200
4012
0
73,492.20
73,492.20
100.00%
0
000200
4013
0
51,931.13
51,931.13
100.00%
0
000200
4014
0
3,485.83
3,485.83
100.00%
0
001100
1000
0
93,242.16
93,242.16
100.00%
0
001100
1001
3
128,532.70
128,532.70
100.00%
3.00
001100
1002
0
105,375.94
105,375.94
100.00%
0
001100
1003
0
180,858.41
180,858.41
100.00%
0
001100
1004
0
136,753.69
136,753.69
100.00%
0
001100
1005
0
162,718.22
162,718.22
100.00%
0
001100
1006
0
88,223.57
88,223.57
100.00%
0
001100
1007
0
195,062.55
195,062.55
100.00%
0
001100
1008
1
189,678.06
189,678.06
100.00%
1.00
001100
1009
0
102,930.08
102,930.08
100.00%
0
001100
1010
4
138,693.21
138,693.21
100.00%
4.00
001100
1011
73
142,626.20
142,626.20
100.00%
73.00
001100
1012
0
139,198.50
139,198.50
100.00%
0
001100
1013
0
381,827.29
381,827.29
100.00%
0
001100
1014
0
52,942.06
52,942.06
100.00%
0
001100
1015
0
78,903.87
78,903.87
100.00%
0
001100
1016
0
49,014.47
49,014.47
100.00%
0
001100
1017
0
48,524.69
48,524.69
100.00%
0
001100
1018
0
50,482.02
50,482.02
100.00%
0
001100
1019
0
119,112.26
119,112.26
100.00%
0
001100
1020
0
23,524.39
23,524.39
100.00%
0
001100
1021
0
144,100.25
144,100.25
100.00%
0
001100
1022
0
123,521.76
123,521.76
100.00%
0
001100
1023
0
149,240.21
149,240.21
100.00%
0
001100
1024
0
55,387.53
55,387.53
100.00%
0
001100
1025
0
44,171.53
44,171.53
100.00%
0
001100
1026
0
61,701.44
61,701.44
100.00%
0
001100
1027
0
98,524.08
98,524.08
100.00%
0
001100
1028
0
127,934.04
127,934.04
100.00%
0
001100
1029
0
430,846.52
430,846.52
100.00%
0
001100
1030
55
210,755.17
210,755.17
100.00%
55.00
001100
1031
0
264,271.49
264,271.49
100.00%
0
001100
1032
0
144,600.67
144,600.67
100.00%
0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-19
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-12 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of State of New York/First Rensselaer/
Marine Management
Area of
Percentage
Prorated
Census
Census
2000 Census
Census
Area of Block
of Block
2000 Census
Tract
Block
Population
Block
Within 1 Mile
Within 1 Mile
Population
001100
1033
0
162,251.73
162,251.73
100.00%
0
001100
1034
0
105,875.13
105,875.13
100.00%
0
001100
1035
0
77,450.87
77,450.87
100.00%
0
001100
1036
0
112,162.04
112,162.04
100.00%
0
001100
1037
0
45,174.94
45,174.94
100.00%
0
001100
1038
0
1,130,606.91
1,130,606.91
100.00%
0
001100
1039
0
547,951.88
547,951.88
100.00%
0
001100
1040
0
56,368.84
56,368.84
100.00%
0
001100
1041
0
93,620.81
93,620.81
100.00%
0
001100
1042
0
81,864.94
81,864.94
100.00%
0
001100
1043
0
27,940.97
27,940.97
100.00%
0
001100
1044
0
103,031.85
103,031.85
100.00%
0
001100
1045
0
95,126.07
95,126.07
100.00%
0
001100
1046
0
58,334.39
58,334.39
100.00%
0
001100
1047
0
88,237.92
88,237.92
100.00%
0
001100
1048
3
338,727.35
338,727.35
100.00%
3.00
001100
1049
0
41,665.77
41,665.77
100.00%
0
001100
1050
0
102,498.96
102,498.96
100.00%
0
001100
1051
13
41,181.96
41,181.96
100.00%
13.00
001100
1052
78
191,600.53
191,600.53
100.00%
78.00
001100
1053
8
185,271.64
185,271.64
100.00%
8.00
001100
1054
0
397,605.63
343,467.17
86.38%
0
001100
1055
132
578,882.83
11,923.76
2.06%
2.72
001100
1056
0
25,496.65
25,434.71
99.76%
0
001100
1057
0
319,900.66
136,169.46
42.57%
0
001100
1060
0
611,539.80
250,849.48
41.02%
0
001100
1061
0
292,721.38
292,721.38
100.00%
0
001100
1062
8
152,461.28
152,461.28
100.00%
8.00
001100
1063
9
156,387.33
156,387.33
100.00%
9.00
001100
1064
0
21,145.49
21,145.49
100.00%
0
001100
1065
0
48,038.28
48,038.28
100.00%
0
001100
1066
1
45,091.27
45,091.27
100.00%
1.00
001100
1067
0
78,448.01
78,448.01
100.00%
0
001100
1068
0
64,392.36
64,392.36
100.00%
0
001100
1069
6
24,278.92
24,278.92
100.00%
6.00
001100
1070
0
235,600.59
235,600.59
100.00%
0
001100
1071
1
56,282.43
56,282.43
100.00%
1.00
001100
1072
0
11,714.94
11,714.94
100.00%
0
001100
1073
1
114,274.00
114,274.00
100.00%
1.00
001100
1074
185
172,120.13
172,120.13
100.00%
185.00
001100
1075
2
92,651.56
36,865.17
39.79%
0.80
001100
1076
0
2,127,113.39
10,029.33
0.47%
0
001100
1077
0
127,312.65
65,853.49
51.73%
0
001100
1078
0
55,828.01
55,828.01
100.00%
0
001100
1079
0
86,358.86
86,358.86
100.00%
0
001100
1080
0
122,602.05
122,602.05
100.00%
0
001100
1081
0
83,334.92
83,334.92
100.00%
0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-20
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-12 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of State of New York/First Rensselaer/
Marine Management
Area of
Percentage
Prorated
Census
Census
2000 Census
Census
Area of Block
of Block
2000 Census
Tract
Block
Population
Block
Within 1 Mile
Within 1 Mile
Population
001100
1082
0
121,952.24
121,952.24
100.00%
0
001100
1083
43
41,669.19
41,669.19
100.00%
43.00
001100
1084
0
8,895.05
8,895.05
100.00%
0
001100
1085
0
94,048.26
94,048.26
100.00%
0
001100
1086
0
11,964.18
11,964.18
100.00%
0
001100
1087
0
95,916.96
95,916.96
100.00%
0
001100
1088
0
100,462.81
100,462.81
100.00%
0
001100
1089
0
71,675.67
71,675.67
100.00%
0
001100
1090
0
73,037.73
73,037.73
100.00%
0
001100
1091
0
126,366.65
126,366.65
100.00%
0
001100
1092
0
60,739.55
60,739.55
100.00%
0
001100
1093
0
44,781.82
44,781.82
100.00%
0
001100
1094
0
251,580.01
82,527.15
32.80%
0
001100
1095
0
128,258.76
19,784.22
15.43%
0
001100
1096
400
550,518.29
4,358.29
0.79%
3.17
001100
1100
0
272,392.15
117,909.37
43.29%
0
001100
1101
0
199,621.13
199,621.13
100.00%
0
001100
1102
0
44,321.62
43,787.29
98.79%
0
001100
1103
76
51,547.31
51,547.31
100.00%
76.00
001100
1104
0
101,044.46
101,044.46
100.00%
0
001100
1105
2
62,197.35
62,197.35
100.00%
2.00
001100
1106
0
271,887.18
271,887.18
100.00%
0
001100
1107
0
26,715.70
26,715.70
100.00%
0
001100
1108
0
1,095,432.03
1,095,432.03
100.00%
0
001100
1109
0
63,733.71
63,733.71
100.00%
0
001100
1110
0
46,574.31
46,574.31
100.00%
0
001100
1111
0
29,411.37
29,411.37
100.00%
0
001100
1112
0
33,393.52
33,393.52
100.00%
0
001100
1113
0
310,818.07
310,818.07
100.00%
0
001100
1114
0
13,239.31
10,395.32
78.52%
0
001100
1115
0
56,376.79
56,376.79
100.00%
0
001100
1116
0
55,388.15
55,388.15
100.00%
0
001100
1117
0
126,439.96
126,439.96
100.00%
0
001100
1998
0
1,257,081.89
1,257,081.79
100.00%
0
001100
1999
0
523,285.36
523,285.16
100.00%
0
002500
1000
0
553,995.40
96,030.87
17.33%
0
002500
1001
0
146,135.01
72,199.30
49.41%
0
002500
1002
0
96,920.03
61,434.00
63.39%
0
002500
1999
0
1,232,964.06
129,335.37
10.49%
0
002500
2000
0
177,782.60
42,830.59
24.09%
0
002500
2002
0
33,333.32
20,652.18
61.96%
0
002500
2003
0
22,550.33
14.15
0.06%
0
051500
2000
0
2,817,733.05
2,817,733.05
100.00%
0
051500
2001
0
421,774.65
421,774.65
100.00%
0
051500
2002
0
213,426.62
213,426.62
100.00%
0
051500
2003
0
241,698.31
241,698.31
100.00%
0
051500
2004
127
236,777.59
236,777.59
100.00%
127.00
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-21
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-12 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of State of New York/First Rensselaer/
Marine Management
Area of
Percentage
Prorated
Census
Census
2000 Census
Census
Area of Block
of Block
2000 Census
Tract
Block
Population
Block
Within 1 Mile
Within 1 Mile
Population
051500
2005
48
175,100.07
175,100.07
100.00%
48.00
051500
2006
8
60,305.79
60,305.79
100.00%
8.00
051500
2007
236
4,065,201.51
2,169,235.35
53.36%
125.93
051500
2012
60
318,934.55
151,276.18
47.43%
28.46
051500
2013
30
94,130.81
94,130.81
100.00%
30.00
051500
2014
33
185,794.56
185,794.56
100.00%
33.00
051500
2015
7
95,015.56
95,015.56
100.00%
7.00
051500
2016
1
108,690.12
108,690.12
100.00%
1.00
051500
2017
18
112,220.85
35,884.34
31.98%
5.76
051500
2018
149
155,764.87
56,820.42
36.48%
54.35
051500
2019
93
174,533.50
174,533.50
100.00%
93.00
051500
2020
0
164,722.80
164,722.80
100.00%
0
051500
2021
0
161,948.24
161,948.24
100.00%
0
051500
2022
0
191,933.84
191,933.84
100.00%
0
051500
2023
0
77,590.29
77,590.29
100.00%
0
051500
2024
0
80,587.47
80,587.47
100.00%
0
051500
2025
17
722,527.56
722,527.56
100.00%
17.00
051500
2026
0
97,096.63
97,096.63
100.00%
0
051500
2027
0
369,172.60
255,265.19
69.15%
0
051500
2028
0
44,121.41
44,121.41
100.00%
0
051500
2029
50
103,457.05
102,550.26
99.12%
49.56
051500
2030
28
511,324.42
263,566.51
51.55%
14.43
051500
2031
0
371,161.23
90,382.59
24.35%
0
051500
2032
0
89,720.29
43,340.15
48.31%
0
051500
2036
16
120,038.33
4,348.42
3.62%
0.58
051500
2998
0
223,355.84
102,691.05
45.98%
0
051500
2999
0
1,910,401.50
1,910,401.43
100.00%
0
051600
1000
18
1,806,343.48
1,806,343.48
100.00%
18.00
051600
1001
44
125,475.83
125,475.83
100.00%
44.00
051600
1002
74
192,120.87
192,120.87
100.00%
74.00
051600
1003
126
254,399.79
254,399.79
100.00%
126.00
051600
1004
40
205,852.95
205,852.95
100.00%
40.00
051600
1005
31
133,803.54
133,803.54
100.00%
31.00
051600
1006
0
60,289.26
60,289.26
100.00%
0
051600
1007
0
3,921.10
3,921.10
100.00%
0
051600
1008
33
87,762.56
87,762.56
100.00%
33.00
051600
1009
0
531,702.85
531,702.85
100.00%
0
051600
1010
0
896,298.30
896,298.30
100.00%
0
051600
1011
0
88,144.28
88,144.28
100.00%
0
051600
1012
22
124,989.86
124,989.86
100.00%
22.00
051600
1013
45
127,435.93
127,435.93
100.00%
45.00
051600
1014
42
104,397.03
104,397.03
100.00%
42.00
051600
1015
31
60,877.06
60,877.06
100.00%
31.00
051600
1016
7
1,055,796.98
1,055,796.98
100.00%
7.00
051600
1017
108
411,939.19
411,939.19
100.00%
108.00
051600
1018
137
340,610.90
340,610.90
100.00%
137.00
051600
1019
91
249,981.28
249,981.28
100.00%
91.00
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-22
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-12 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of State of New York/First Rensselaer/
Marine Management
Area of
Percentage
Prorated
Census
Census
2000 Census
Census
Area of Block
of Block
2000 Census
Tract
Block
Population
Block
Within 1 Mile
Within 1 Mile
Population
051600
1020
81
171,078.18
171,078.18
100.00%
81.00
051600
1021
74
157,835.55
157,835.55
100.00%
74.00
051600
1022
74
113,724.36
113,724.36
100.00%
74.00
051600
1023
125
1,002,190.87
1,002,190.87
100.00%
125.00
051600
1024
41
82,365.11
82,365.11
100.00%
41.00
051600
1025
45
99,512.43
99,512.43
100.00%
45.00
051600
1026
36
112,757.42
112,757.42
100.00%
36.00
051600
1027
39
93,638.21
93,638.21
100.00%
39.00
051600
1028
57
100,002.07
100,002.07
100.00%
57.00
051600
1029
50
125,492.84
125,492.84
100.00%
50.00
051600
1030
45
175,466.47
175,466.47
100.00%
45.00
051600
1031
0
3,010.78
3,010.78
100.00%
0
051600
1032
74
138,244.93
138,244.93
100.00%
74.00
051600
1033
84
144,619.57
144,619.57
100.00%
84.00
051600
1034
75
120,601.70
120,601.70
100.00%
75.00
051600
1035
47
99,510.68
99,510.68
100.00%
47.00
051600
1036
75
107,845.54
107,845.54
100.00%
75.00
051600
1037
75
105,386.28
105,386.28
100.00%
75.00
051600
1038
59
71,579.76
71,579.76
100.00%
59.00
051600
1039
54
82,360.03
82,360.03
100.00%
54.00
051600
1040
40
91,668.60
91,668.60
100.00%
40.00
051600
1041
27
117,650.05
117,650.05
100.00%
27.00
051600
1042
59
137,131.40
137,131.40
100.00%
59.00
051600
1043
91
120,601.65
120,601.65
100.00%
91.00
051600
1044
37
106,445.87
106,445.87
100.00%
37.00
051600
1045
43
250,953.94
250,953.94
100.00%
43.00
051600
1046
6
61,385.81
61,385.81
100.00%
6.00
051600
1047
23
43,559.41
43,559.41
100.00%
23.00
051600
1048
74
732,992.93
732,992.93
100.00%
74.00
051600
1049
6
1,686,157.97
1,686,157.97
100.00%
6.00
051600
1050
0
46,089.66
46,089.66
100.00%
0
051600
1051
9
40,201.25
40,201.25
100.00%
9.00
051600
1052
16
68,624.91
68,624.91
100.00%
16.00
051600
1999
0
2,141,852.34
2,141,851.94
100.00%
0
051600
2000
54
167,204.31
167,204.31
100.00%
54.00
051600
2001
55
193,475.17
193,475.17
100.00%
55.00
051600
2002
21
71,071.00
71,071.00
100.00%
21.00
051600
2003
65
94,596.75
94,596.75
100.00%
65.00
051600
2004
129
187,729.27
187,729.27
100.00%
129.00
051600
2005
91
199,023.36
199,023.36
100.00%
91.00
051600
2006
44
59,802.09
59,802.09
100.00%
44.00
051600
2007
11
30,471.36
30,471.36
100.00%
11.00
051600
2008
53
117,633.51
117,633.51
100.00%
53.00
051600
2009
33
81,368.99
81,368.99
100.00%
33.00
051600
3000
106
1,851,827.95
1,851,827.95
100.00%
106.00
051600
3001
53
108,885.54
108,885.54
100.00%
53.00
051600
3002
43
91,786.51
91,786.51
100.00%
43.00
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-23
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-12 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of State of New York/First Rensselaer/
Marine Management
Area of
Percentage
Prorated
Census
Census
2000 Census
Census
Area of Block
of Block
2000 Census
Tract
Block
Population
Block
Within 1 Mile
Within 1 Mile
Population
051600
3003
0
5,239.84
5,239.84
100.00%
0
051600
3004
39
119,595.85
119,595.85
100.00%
39.00
051600
3005
76
204,888.49
204,888.49
100.00%
76.00
051600
3006
69
252,927.49
252,927.49
100.00%
69.00
051600
3007
29
90,185.17
90,185.17
100.00%
29.00
051600
3008
59
114,703.18
114,703.18
100.00%
59.00
051600
3009
53
107,826.31
107,826.31
100.00%
53.00
051600
3010
53
123,518.28
123,518.28
100.00%
53.00
051600
3011
76
169,603.53
169,603.53
100.00%
76.00
051600
3012
37
77,442.26
77,442.26
100.00%
37.00
051600
3013
37
78,424.89
78,424.89
100.00%
37.00
051600
3014
27
81,858.19
81,858.19
100.00%
27.00
051600
3015
43
155,393.21
155,393.21
100.00%
43.00
051600
3016
80
166,649.44
166,649.44
100.00%
80.00
051600
3017
76
156,863.40
156,863.40
100.00%
76.00
051600
3018
54
667,287.74
667,287.74
100.00%
54.00
051600
3019
10
43,131.96
43,131.96
100.00%
10.00
051600
3020
0
171,086.91
171,086.91
100.00%
0
051600
4009
185
8,492,628.41
1,776,189.29
20.91%
38.69
051600
4010
0
1,079,548.86
429,792.77
39.81%
0
051600
4011
0
538,336.73
212,724.39
39.52%
0
051600
4012
0
5,599.60
5,599.60
100.00%
0
051600
4013
44
643,092.53
311,415.86
48.42%
21.31
051600
4999
0
880,051.47
381,753.22
43.38%
0
052301
8020
0
525,582.07
13,092.90
2.49%
0
052301
8021
6
7,411,695.29
6,163,515.67
83.16%
4.99
052301
8022
0
5,395,594.85
219,253.39
4.06%
0
052301
8024
157
7,331,333.15
43,101.38
0.59%
0.92
052403
9001
497
13,429,338.59
2,800,925.17
20.86%
103.66
052403
9002
16
2,641,244.35
2,641,244.35
100.00%
16.00
Total: 11,213
Total: 8,701
Table B-13 Census Block Data Within 0.5 Mile of OG Real Estate
Area of Block
Percentage of
Prorated 2000
Census
Census
2000 Census
Area of
Within 0.5
Block Within
Census
Tract
Block
Population
Census Block
Mile
0.5 Mile
Population
014201
9010
355
26,373,834.05
3,983,608.94
15.10%
53.62
014201
9011
0
1,858,289.77
20,215.09
1.09%
0
014301
9000
2
3,301,357.99
2,429,534.01
73.59%
1.47
014301
9001
10
117,726.60
117,726.60
100.00%
10.00
014301
9002
9
350,305.87
350,305.87
100.00%
9.00
014301
9003
168
34,225,347.85
2,196,569.42
6.42%
10.78
014301
9027
126
22,507,932.84
3,461,059.52
15.38%
19.38
014301
9028
0
2,075,958.45
277,750.93
13.38%
0
014301
9048
0
32,373.28
32,373.28
100.00%
0
014301
9049
0
2,558,237.83
942,065.31
36.82%
0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-24
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-13 Census Block Data Within 0.5 Mile of OG Real Estate
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000 Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 0.5
Mile
Percentage of
Block Within
0.5 Mile
Prorated 2000
Census
Population
014301
9999
0
10,557,143.12
3,485,150.38
33.01%
0
052404
9016
0
3,274,306.76
123,227.23
3.76%
0
052404
9022
0
6,787,462.99
2,707,603.42
39.89%
0
052404
9998
0
20,268.44
7,405.85
36.54%
0
052404
9999
0
6,542,409.04
1,744,188.37
26.66%
0
Total: 670
Total: 104
Table B-14 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of OG Real Estate
Census
Tract
Census
Block
2000 Census
Population
Area of
Census Block
Area of Block
Within 1 Mile
Percentage of
Block Within
1 Mile
Prorated
2000 Census
Population
002600
9000
0
7,281,753.85
929,230.61
12.76%
0
002600
9019
0
559,413.01
172,184.12
30.78%
0
002600
9995
0
40,507.55
26,090.37
64.41%
0
002600
9999
0
4,865,165.75
658,193.60
13.53%
0
014201
9010
355
26,373,834.05
20,709,790.33
78.52%
278.76
014201
9011
0
1,858,289.77
1,583,414.94
85.21%
0
014201
9016
133
7,357,257.59
848,955.81
11.54%
15.35
014201
9018
0
40,408.02
13,854.28
34.29%
0
014201
9019
31
192,450.21
13,069.61
6.79%
2.11
014201
9020
87
681,720.63
681,720.63
100.00%
87.00
014301
9000
2
3,301,357.99
3,021,831.81
91.53%
1.83
014301
9001
10
117,726.60
117,726.60
100.00%
10.00
014301
9002
9
350,305.87
350,305.87
100.00%
9.00
014301
9003
168
34,225,347.85
11,521,271.69
33.66%
56.55
014301
9004
4
35,328.19
35,328.19
100.00%
4.00
014301
9005
44
305,650.46
305,650.46
100.00%
44.00
014301
9006
49
606,388.88
596,786.44
98.42%
48.22
014301
9007
2
13,737.71
13,737.71
100.00%
2.00
014301
9008
193
17,756,999.98
1,407.53
0.01%
0.02
014301
9027
126
22,507,932.84
8,168,577.79
36.29%
45.73
014301
9028
0
2,075,958.45
1,343,124.05
64.70%
0
014301
9048
0
32,373.28
32,373.28
100.00%
0
014301
9049
0
2,558,237.83
2,558,237.83
100.00%
0
014301
9999
0
10,557,143.12
5,618,755.84
53.22%
0
051500
4001
49
5,693,312.52
451,783.49
7.94%
3.89
051500
4999
0
3,837,370.90
494,634.29
12.89%
0
052404
9013
26
4,257,887.53
62,197.07
1.46%
0.38
052404
9016
0
3,274,306.76
3,224,153.00
98.47%
0
052404
9017
0
3,769,400.74
3,479,133.08
92.30%
0
052404
9018
8
3,617,709.01
3,148,542.07
87.03%
6.96
052404
9019
0
18,480,065.52
567,130.78
3.07%
0
052404
9020
0
1,273,485.13
948,914.81
74.51%
0
052404
9021
0
2,373,118.75
2,373,118.75
100.00%
0
052404
9022
0
6,787,462.99
6,787,462.99
100.00%
0
052404
9023
0
608,275.65
608,275.65
100.00%
0
052404
9024
0
6,825,842.60
2,197,674.99
32.20%
0
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-25
-------
ecology and environment, inc.
DRAFT - PUBLIC REVIEW COPY
B. Description of the Use of U.S. Census Bureau Data
Table B-14 Census Block Data Within 1 Mile of OG Real Estate
Percentage of
Prorated
Census
Census
2000 Census
Area of
Area of Block
Block Within
2000 Census
Tract
Block
Population
Census Block
Within 1 Mile
1 Mile
Population
052404
9998
0
20,268.44
20,268.44
100.00%
0
052404
9999
0
6,542,409.04
3,830,268.99
58.55%
0
Total: 1,296
Total: 616
02:001515.HR03.08.03-B1362
Appendix_B. doc-4/23/2004
B-26
------- |